CBC BIASED– AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN
(1) The National : Golden Dawn Eyes Canada (Report on Golden Dawn, a Greek Political Party Which Advocates Expulsion of Greece’s Illegal Immigrants), Nov. 12, 2012
The stated purpose of this segment on CBC’s main TV news programme is to make Canadians aware that a quasi-Nazi party has formed in Greece, that it is persecuting illegal immigrants in Greece, and that it has a branch in Canada. The CBC’s real purpose is to denounce as quasi-Nazis all those who advocate controls on immigration to Greece, Canada or any other country.
At the beginning, the Host Peter Mansbridge does mentions the dire economic condition that Greece has faced for several years. But the reporter fails to connect the economic effects of asylum seekers to the suffering that the Greek population is suffering because of the asylym seekers. Anyone with any common sense can see that the last thing that Greece needs is to be compelled to take care of asylum seeker-economic migrants. In Greece (as in Canada and most western countries), the number of these migrants is not small.
According to Migration Information Source (MIS) at the University of Athens, Greece is the Gateway used by hundreds of thousands of migrants from Albania, Romania and the Middle East. Along with this, Greece has had to implement “Dublin II Regulation (2003/343/CE)” which requires Greece to process tens of thousands of asylum applications because Greece was the first EU country these asylum seekers had entered. As a result, MIS states, “This has turned Greece into the ‘storehouse’ of illegal immigration to Europe.” Over 1 million non-citizens live in Greece, about 10% of its population. In this CBC broadcast, as in many others about immigrants in Greece, the CBC reporter said nothing about the pressure these immigrants have added to Greece’s already-stressed economy and nothing about whether Greeks were justified in being angry about these illegal immigrants.
This kind of reporting is systemic in the CBC. Almost every week, our CBC reports incidents which it twists into so-called seething examples of racial conflict. Its real purpose is to perpetuate the notion that underneath the surface, Canada is a hotbed of white racial discrimination against visible minorities. Ultimately, the CBC wants to silence any real discussion of the immigration issue and to perpetuate high immigration to Canada. Our CBC’s idea of defending Canada, Greece or any other country from unnecessary and often illegal immigration is to lie down and grovel at the feet of the illegals.
Even a cursory examination of CBC radio logs and video will reveal thousands of examples of blatant CBC promotion of immigration. It is no exaggeration to say that our publicly-funded CBC has betrayed Canada’s interests and that it is a quisling organization.
When reporting on immigration issues, it would make sense (and be fair) if the CBC pointed out the serious consequences of allowing unlimited numbers of people into Canada.
But the CBC almost never says anything critical of Canada’s immigration lobby because the CBC itself is a shameless major figure in that lobby. The broadcast about Greece’s Golden Dawn is a prime example of CBC’s flagrant bias.
The last comments Mansbridge made in his introduction are the following : “But in their despair and anger, some Greeks are blaming foreigners for their problems, giving rise to racist violence and a neo-nazi political party.”
As the words in the last part of that sentence indicate, The National’s segment on The Golden Dawn was a name-calling broadcast. The reporter’s words only added to the name-calling. Furthermore, it was the typical kind of broadcast which the CBC does whenever it has to deal with the immigration issue.
Here are some logical questions that Mansbridge and the reporter should have asked to get to the legitimacy of The Golden Dawn’s statements :
(1) How many asylum seekers are in Greece? The Golden Dawn representative from Montreal said there were 3 million asylum seekers in Greece. Why didn’t the reporter try to clarify this point? Whatever the number, its impact on Greece must be very large.
(2) Is Greece any different from other European countries in the number of asylum seekers it receives? Greece has been asked to bear a very large percentage of the EU’s asylum seekers. This burden is on top of the other economic burden Greece has to carry. To express its indignation, should EU countries and others, who have had to put up with fake asylum seekers, be threatening to withdraw from the current UN Convention on Refugees and should they be pressuring the UN to re-examine that Convention? Why did neither Mansbridge nor the reporter point this out?
(3) What assistance does the EU require Greece to provide to the asylum seekers?—At the very least, a million asylum seekers are going to put significant pressure on Greek physical infrastructure such as transportation, water supplies, housing, etc., but what about the pressure placed on Greek hospitals, schools, etc. ? Is there a point at which this pressure becomes unbearable? Why did neither Mansbridge nor the reporter ask these questions and present this information ?
(4) What about cultural pressure on Greece? When does an inflow of illegals or legals overwhelm Greeks?— In other words, when does Greece cease to be Greece? Ask Mainland China a similar question. They have had plenty of experience in Tibet and their western province of Xinjiang with using their Han population to overwhelm another. Why didn’t Mansbridge or the reporter ask questions about Greece being culturally overwhelmed?
(5) How many of the asylum seekers are working in Greece or looking for work?— In many cases when asylum seekers enter a country, they engage in a worker black market. What effect has this had on the employment prospects of unemployed Greeks who are also looking for work? The sheer numbers indicate that it has to have had a significant impact. Why did neither Mansbridge nor the reporter try to ascertain the impact?
(6) Since the majority of the asylum seekers are probably young, working-age males, they differ from the Greek population which consists of a significant number of non-working age children and older, non-working-able Greeks. In other words, the asylum-seekers probably comprise a much higher percentage of the work force in Greece than their 10% + numbers might indicate. In fact, instead of being 10% of the work-force, it is probably two or three times that percentage. Why didn’t Mansbridge or the reporter ask these questions and point out the significance of this number.?
In general, Mansbridge (or whoever wrote his script) and the reporter who did this story should have asked whether Greeks were justified in not only being very angry about the asylum seekers in Greece, but also very much justified in doing whatever they could to get them to leave. Instead, what Mansbridge or the script writer did was robotically play the usual race card and amateurishly show video clips of things such as the following : nazi salutes, Golden Dawn members attacking vendors in a street market, a black man complaining about being badly treated and a picture of an Egyptian man who had been allegedly beaten.
(2) The Sunday Edition : Interview with Jim Wallis, Chaplain to President Obama, Nov. 11, 2012
In this post-2012 U.S. election analysis, Wallis makes two major points :
(1) Chaplain Jim Wallis states that the demographic time bomb has finally exploded in the U.S. and that whites are becoming a minority. He says this as if it were an inevitability and a great achievement. However, most U.S. born citizens would probably say “What is inevitable about an immigration policy which is not a constitutional rule and which could be reversed?” and “What is good about becoming a minority in one’s own country?” To most Americans, this “achievement” has happened because the U.S. gov’t has permitted unnecessary legal immigration (between 1 and 2 million per year) in spite of persistent high unemployment. It has also occurred because the U.S. gov’t has not enforced its illegal immigration laws. Why did Host Michael Enright not ask Chaplain Jim Wallis questions about these two key points.
(2) Wallis applies the words of Jesus to the U.S. immigration issue: ”Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me ” The big question is this : Whose “least” (poorest people) is the U.S. or any country responsible for : Its own or those from all the world? Wallis implies that the U.S should care for both. Considering the state of the U.S. economy, even patient Jesus (with his experience with the Roman invaders) would have challenged Wallis on that, but the Host said nothing.
Wallis knows that most of the non-U.S.-born poor are Mexicans, many of whom arrived illegally, have forced American-born poor to compete with them for jobs and have thus degraded the lives of American-born poor. But, unrepentant, Wallis boasts that the actions of groups like his have paved the way for what he calls “immigration reform”. This is a disguised way of saying “immigration amnesty” which, if enacted, could give citizenship to between 12 and 20 million illegals in the U.S.!!!. CBC Host Enright and guest Wallis should know that previous “amnesties” have resulted in even more illegal immigration soon after they were declared. In other words, amnesties have made the problem worse. Why did CBC Host Michael Enright not challenge Wallis? It appears that Enright’s bias prevents him from doing his job properly.
(3) The Current : Interview with “John”, a failed Sri Lankan asylum-claimant, his employer, his lawyer and an Amnesty International spokesman, Nov. 13, 2012
Most CBC programmes that deal with the immigration issue deliberately weight their content so that CBC ideology dominates.The Host claims that her colleagues contacted Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, but that both declined interviews. This may be the case, but listeners to CBC know that it is standard CBC practice to interview primarily those whose views are similar to those of CBC ideologues. The ratio is at least 1 to 0, but often 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. In this case, it was 4 to 0.
“John”, the rejected refugee-claimant, was one of about 500 refugee claimants who arrived on Canada’s west coast on the ship called the Sun Sea in August, 2010. He claimed that he had lived in Sri Lanka, but that he and 1500 others had been rounded up and tortured by Sri Lankan gov’t forces. He had escaped to Thailand where he paid $26,000 to board the Sun Sea and then left for Canada. Because the purpose of UN refugee policy is to protect people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, the Host should have stated that India was only 22 km away. It is home to several hundred thousand Tamils who are free from torture. Why did she not ask “John” why he had not gone there? She should know that, in contrast, Thailand is many hundreds of km away and Canada is many thousands.
The obvious answer to that question is that the CBC Host would have had to conclude that “John’s” real objective was to improve his economic lot, not his political one. His plan was to cover up his real motive with a story of torture. Unfortunately for “John”, UN refugee laws do not apply to economic migrants. If the Host had probed more, she would probably have discovered that “John” had been told by previous fake refugee claimant relatives in Canada that he could get away with lying to Canadian authorities, particularly those whose ideology matched that of the CBC.
The Host should be aware that as a result of Canada’s weak refugee system, there are now over 300,000 people of Sri Lankan descent in Canada. This figure is shocking, to say the least. Many traveled back to Sri Lanka while their refugee claims were in progress—a clear contradiction of their stories of torture, as well as ample grounds for deportation from Canada !!! Yet, they are still here. It is hard to believe that the Host was unaware of this. Not asking about it demonstrates her CBC bias.
“John’s” employer was interviewed next. He is a small-business builder and spoke about how pleased he was with the many skills that “John” had. He also stated that he had offered to help “John” appeal to Ottawa because he did not want to be a part of a country that treated people harshly!!! Furthermore. according to him, that was not the kind of country his Irish grandmother had migrated to in the 1920′s !!! It would have been more relevant if the Host had found out how much the employer was paying “John”. If indeed he was paying him a low wage, was that the real reason he was trying to keep “John” in Canada? This interview ended with what the live media is notorious for : trying to catch those they interview on the verge of tears. On cue from the Host, the employer provided this finishing touch.
In the third interview, John’s lawyer explained that the arbiter of “John’s” case had accepted the first parts of “John’s” story but that the arbiter had found that “John” would not face a risk if deported because he was not connected with the rebel LTTE. The lawyer also said that the decisions made by asylum claim arbiters often were inconsistent. For example, a claimant whose case was similar to “John’s”, was approved. Also, the lawyer stated that Parliament had recently passed legislation which eliminated the final risk assessment of asylum claimants. The lawyer ended by saying he could ask the CBSA to delay his client’s deportation and then ask the federal court to look at his client’s case.
It would have been helpful if the Host had pointed out that the reason for eliminating the final risk assessment was to reduce the amount of sabotage that lawyers in the immigration lobby had caused to Canada’s immigration system—as well as to limit the costs of the appeals. She should have been aware of this and asked a question about it rather than accepting what the lawyer told her.
In the last interview, Keith Best, of Amnesty International (AI) in the UK, noted that AI had done a number of clinical studies of Tamils. Medical-legal examinations were performed by unbiased doctors who followed the Istanbul Protocol (on Torture). A number of the Tamils who were examined had returned voluntarily to Sri Lanka, but had been apprehended by police and some had been branded. Using these studies, a UK judge had recently decreed that cases of Tamil asylum seekers should be examined on a case-by-case basis because of the high probability of torture. In the meantime, deportations of Tamils should stop.
As an indication of their bias, the Host and her producers did not point out to Keith Best the large amount of fraud that Tamil refugee claimants had committed in Canada. Instead, they seized upon Keith Best’s story to suggest that Canada should follow the UK example and also halt deportations of Tamils from Canada.
Here are links to the three CBC interviews and to the University of Athens report :