Imagine my profound shock. For the first time, perhaps ever, I found myself in agreement with a comment made by David Suzuki.
On July 1st 2013 the environmentalist pundit made a statement to the French weekly L’Express in regards to Canadian immigration. In his words,
“Oh, I think Canada is full too! Although it’s the second largest country in the world, our useful area has been reduced. Our immigration policy is disgusting: We plunder southern countries by depriving them of future leaders, and we want to increase our population to support economic growth. It’s crazy!” (See Here)
Suzuki stated with no uncertainty that Canada had reached its capacity and did not require any further population increase.
Bravo Mr. Suzuki. Someone finally stated the truth, that Canada, contrary to popular leftist opinion, is not “underpopulated” or boundlessly capable of absorbing the populace of the 3rd world. Although he couched his comment in the rhetoric of a ‘Southern Country Brain Drain’ his observation was entirely correct. Canada does need to seriously reconsider its careless stance regarding immigration.
It was much to my surprise and chagrin then, that I observed the near hysterical response to his comment by the liberal media. His words were perceived as ‘intolerance’ and labelled ‘mundane’, they were branded ‘offside’ and ‘xenophobic’. Even the Conservative Immigration Minister Jason Kenney called Suzuki’s comments “toxic and irresponsible”. Kenney also tweeted “What would happen to a prominent Conservative if he said [the] same thing?” (Check the National Post for an example of some of the astonishing comments made.)
Kenney had a point when it came to Conservatives being limited in their ability to make such comments. He obviously had to feign indignation himself to ensure he was not excoriated right along with Suzuki. Yet it became clear once again that the boundaries of political correctness in regards to free speech had been exceeded. The Left and Right unanimously agreed that Suzuki was clearly a man driven by fear and therefore was most certainly an ‘altru-ecoplanetary neo-xenophobe’. (This was actually a label actually invented for Suzuki by Calgary Herald writer Marco Navarro-Genie.
It is interesting to note that Suzuki, for years the darling of the CBC and a deity among environmental activist circles worldwide had suddenly fallen into disfavour with the left. Imagine Suzuki’s extreme chagrin at realizing that his status as a professional environmental agitator did not exempt him from the criticism of the Liberal Gedacht Polizei. It is clear that he must have thought himself immune to such attacks, having virtually always been an extreme advocate against racial stereotyping and, as seen in an early debate, the concept of race itself.
On February 8th 1989, a young David Suzuki engaged in a debate with geneticist Philippe Rushton concerning the topic of profiling racial traits (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA0XLxG2o2E to watch the debate in entirety.)
Rushton simply argues that racial groups exhibit commonalities in ability and aptitude and therefore can be compared, categorized and even ranked hierarchically against each other. Suzuki, on this occasion, instead of debating Rushton, flies into a violent foaming monologue regarding the ‘fallacy’ of ‘race’. He proceeds to shout politically correct truisms containing little fact and attempts the turn the debate into a political discussion and an attack on Rushton’s character. Suzuki basically implies that Rushton must certainly be a racist and even goes so far as to suggest he be fired from the faculty of the university. He rants on about human genetic relativism, claiming that everyone is the same, that scientific rigor is irrelevant, and that stereotyping racial groups must be avoided at all cost. It becomes clear that Suzuki’s entire rebuttal to Rushton’s research is one long Ad Hominem error, virtually devoid of scientific fact and almost all emotional rambling.
If we ever needed any proof that Suzuki is violently opposed to “neo-xenophobic” bias, this early public debate serves as a shining example. And yet Suzuki himself cannot escape the scrutiny and deprecation of the very people he appeals to on a regular basis with his environmental doom saying. The leftist media, at the slightest suggestion that Canada is incapable of supporting ever more immigrants, was suddenly all over Suzuki like an animal. To imply that Canada is finite in its benevolent tolerance threatens our reputation as a ‘pluralist multicultural haven’ and thereby amounts to sacrilege in the eyes of the Bolshevik media.
So thank you David Suzuki for saying so succinctly what a great many Canadians are thinking. Thank you for calling a spade a spade, for Canada is at risk of joining the ranks of other overpopulated (ghettoized) 1st world countries. But thank you most of all, Dr. Suzuki, for reminding us that free speech in Canada, even for those endowed with the approval of the champions of liberal rhetoric, is almost always confined to the constraints and narrow limitations of political correctness.