these people aren't communists, they're brainwashed automatons of the bourgeois status quo, and have been triggered by the language installed within them, as gramsci described.

if marx were alive, he'd be explaining how the bourgeois parliament - with the help of the conservative press - has brilliantly constructed a plan to divide workers by discussing the empty irrelevance of a motion on "islamophobia", without even defining what it even means, and that these idiots are falling all over themselves over it to fight each other in a pointless intra-class struggle. he'd further explain that workers needs to put aside these petty differences and unite against their common enemy, which is the bourgeoisie, in seizing the means of production.

while a less dramatic observer may be correct to point out that marx would essentially be constructing a conspiracy theory, and that the parliament is truly not so brilliant, marx would nonetheless be correct in his basic observation: this is divide and conquer, and these people are idiots, all around.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/far-right-groups-opponents-clash-at-montreal-protest-against-federal-islamophobia-motion-1.4010179

i tried to do this during the last election, but i'd actually like to see the ndp pick up on this point - and if they won't, i guess the conservatives doing so would at least introduce it into the discourse.

forget about scarves. you'll never get anywhere in canada by demanding that the state introduce a fashion police - all you're ever going to get is a combination of ridicule and scorn. and, i'll be the first person to point out that the premise of a state-sanctioned fashion police is truly idiotic.

but, there are legitimate integration concerns that need to be addressed and that the liberals are going to be unwilling to address, through a combination of pressure from below, a fear of being seen as anti-immigrant and just flat out denial.

so, instead of focusing on what muslims wear, why don't you focus on actual concerns in the community that need to be addressed, such as:

1) female circumcision. i've seen reports. this is a thing that is actually happening in canada, and needs to be stopped.
2) honour killings. this is something that also happens and needs special attention to prevent.
3) arranged marriages. this is not something that we should turn a blind eye to, either. the autonomy of the individual forbids this as tyrannical. liberals should be particularly aghast at the premise of one's parents determining who they marry.
4) domestic abuse. this is a broader, wider problem that extends beyond the immigrant community.
5) acceptance of non-standard sexualities. this is again a broader problem, but it is primarily an issue in communities that lack education, and turn to religion to fill a void.

it's the old cliche: not all conservatives are uneducated, but most uneducated people are conservatives. and, while it may be fitting for the conservatives to go after their own, i'd really hope that it's actually the left that stands up and puts together the necessary task forces and integration programs.

this is presented as though i'm confused when i buy soy milk instead of cow's milk, rather than making a conscious decision to avoid cow's milk for various health reasons.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/03/03/fake-milk-dairy-industry-calling-for-a-crackdown-on-almond-soy-and-rice-milks.html

i did a bunch of research into this a few years ago, as i was writing an essay on the indian act for a course in indigenous law.

there are two groups indigenous to the island of newfoundland: the inuit and the beothuk. the beothuk were indeed eliminated from the island by a process of genocide that is largely unrecognized, so any claims that the island was free of indigenous groups is based on the premise that this genocide was "successful". and, you will not find any trace of the beothuk, no matter how hard you look. inuit groups remain, but they are transient over the pack ice. the mik'maq are indigenous to the atlantic mainland; any mik'maq claiming status in newfoundland have migrated there since contact, and making such a claim for indigenous status in an area migrated to post-contact essentially doesn't make sense under the judicial precedent, which requires groups to demonstrate a connection to the land that precedes contact, whenever it was (and this area, being the closest to western europe, had the earliest contact....).

but, all you need to do is look at the pictures to come to the obvious truth: these people are europeans, and that is blatantly obvious.

in fact, much testing has been done on this point. the harsh, difficult truth is that most of the indigenous groups in the eastern coast have r1* in the y-dna in proportions approaching or exceeding 50%, and there are even a few groups that are over 80% r1* in the y-dna. what this indicates is that not just many but most of these indigenous groups are actually of primarily european patrilineal ancestry, and that their indigenous component is strictly matrilineal. and, this is in fact a very common consequence of colonialism: the colonizing group takes the women from the colonized group, either through consent or more often by force, and then prioritizes the interests of it's own offspring over those of the purely indigenous pairings, which eventually asserts the colonizing dna as dominant, even when the indigenous culture prevails.

this creates a real problem for the state, which is now in the awkward position of handing out special rights to what are essentially european groups. they rarely speak the language, and the truth is that the only connection they have to their matrilineal ancestry is in the preservation of survivalist tactics. that is, the only remnants of the indigenous culture that have survived are those that were necessary for the colonizers to adopt in order to adapt.

that said, it really demonstrates that culture is a social construct and not a biological one. we don't pass down culture through genes, we teach it in social relationships. these people may not be genetically indigenous, but if they are carrying on the indigenous culture then who is to tell them they are not?

in terms of tangible realities, i'd argue that we should have a universal drug benefit to begin with, and that the truth is that few of these people are going to end up paying taxes, anyways. but, the reality on the ground is trickier than the article is letting on: the reality is that the overwhelming majority of status indians are totally white.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/04/families-divided-after-ottawa-tells-thousands-theyre-not-indigenous.html