Trudeau’s Values Are Not My Values

When multiculturalism embraces evil.

This week, upon the death of longtime Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was mourning “a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.” It seems to me that a dictator who jails dissidents and gays according to his own whim rather than abiding by a liberal democratic “rule of law’ based on justice, human rights and fairness that apply to everyone, leaves something to be desired when he “served his people.”

“While a controversial figure,” continued Trudeau, “both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante.’ ”    

It seems to me that a brutal dictator who disallowed individual rights for his people is more than “controversial”;  I would call him “evil.”

Digging himself deeper into his hole of moral relativism, Trudeau continued, “I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.”

The prime minister ended his statement by calling Castro a “remarkable leader.” I think Justin Trudeau is also a “remarkable leader,” but remarkable for his debased set of values, which this essay shall try to elucidate. A leader ought to be studied for his values as well as how well he implements the policy promises that got him or her elected. In Canada, at least up until Justin’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, embraced the value of “multiculturalism” we long defined ourselves by the notion of “Peace, Order and Good Government” based on traditional Judeo-Christian values of justice, human rights, individual rights and responsibilities.

In November of last year, Canada’s new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a speech in London England, setting out his view of Canada’s values.  It was not well covered by our media, but to me it was a very radical statement:

“Compassion, acceptance, and trust; diversity and inclusion—these are the things that have made Canada strong and free,” he noted, and continued: “We have a responsibility—to ourselves and to the world—to show that inclusive diversity is a strength, and a force that can vanquish intolerance, radicalism and hate.”

Trudeau, then, emphasizes something he calls “inclusive diversity.”  His father was responsible for the concept of multiculturalism finding its way into Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which determines how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 “officially recognized” a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism.

The section reads,


“27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”

Then in 1988, the Mulroney Government completed the institution of “multicultural” values by enacting The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, with two fundamental principles:

  • All citizens are equal and have the freedom to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.
  • Multiculturalism promotes the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in all aspects of Canadian society.

What happens when “cultural heritage” conflicts with the other Canadian values of peace and order?

Ezra Levant, writing in the _Toronto Sun, _pointed out that Justin Trudeau criticized the new citizenship guide for new immigrants, called Discover Canada. One passage in that guide book said, “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.”

Note carefully Trudeau’s response to what should be morally obvious:  “There needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality” by the Canadian government.  Honour killings shouldn’t be called “barbaric,” he said. Amazing.

His brother Alexandre is a filmmaker who made a film called The New Great Game, about Iran’s “courageous” decision to defy America and Israel. “Sacha” made it in co-operation with Press TV, the state-run propaganda agency of Iran.   

Racism is one thing; exterminationist racism is another thing.  In the world today, proponents of exterminationist racism still exist and still aim to destroy another 6 million Jews, now living in the homeland of the indigenous Jews, Israel.  Iran is the leader of the movement to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jews. Iranian-sponsored terrorist and political groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even the Palestinian Authority, share the wish to destroy the Jews of Israel. That they cannot do so is the work of Israel in building a strong military and high-tech weapons, and not any great support of Israel by the very European nations that handed over their Jews willingly to the Nazis. Also, university students who seem to look under every stone to try to find evidence of racism against blacks or Muslims do not seem to bother about exterminationist racism.

Previous Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a moral stand on Canadian foreign policy, which resulted in his strong support for Israel.  Back in 2003, Mr. Harper said Canada’s conservatives needed to “rediscover” the traditional conservatism of political philosopher Edmund Burke, which valued “social order,” custom and religious traditions.    

Trudeau recently visited the site of the infamous Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz, where he signed the memorial book in this way:   Tolerance is never sufficient. Humanity must learn to love our differences.

Tolerance is never sufficient.  Humanity must learn to love our differences.

Today we bear witness to humanity’s capacity for deliberate cruelty and evil.   May we ever remember this painful truth about ourselves, and may it strengthen our commitment to never allow such darkness to prevail.

However, Trudeau’s stated goal of “inclusive diversity” does not know how to deal with “humanity’s capacity for deliberate cruelty and evil.” Trudeau’s compassion, trust and inclusive diversity are no equal to deliberate cruelty and evil, nor is it a force that can “vanquish intolerance, radicalism and hate.”  I do not “love” our differences, especially those differences which are immoral, such as propensity for violence against minorities, rape, and illiberal legal systems based on religious intolerance.

I cannot accept that diversity, respect for all communities, whether good or evil, is a moral policy. It is a component of moral and cultural relativism – the belief that there is no good and evil and that all truth and morality is relative, and no cultures are better than any other cultures, so we should include them all, and respect them equally and import them into our country and interpret our laws to accord respect for any and all evil communities that wish to join our country.

Justin Trudeau’s celebrated father did not see fit to help stop Hitler and the Nazi atrocities – he opposed conscription and did not serve with the army during the Second World War.   In his _Memoirs_ (1993), the elder Trudeau wrote: “So there was a war? Tough … if you were a French Canadian in Montreal in the early 1940s, you did not automatically believe that this was a just war … we tended to think of this war as a settling of scores among the superpowers.”

This moral confusion of the father was surely passed down to the son, who advocates for loving differences without any moral judgment on those differences.   For if a cultural heritage is anti-Semitic, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-child, how do we celebrate cultural diversity in the aftermath of Auschwitz? Evil exists. The lesson of Auschwitz is that we must eradicate evil and recognize that some nations become evil and we should not want their people in our communities enhancing and sharing their cultural heritage and asserting “group rights” over the individual rights that should be the bedrock of our civilization.

Trudeau was instrumental in bringing into Canada some 30,000 Syrian immigrants without adopting criteria for entry based on whether these immigrants were oppressors of non-Muslims or otherwise undesirable.  But our Prime Minister can’t seem to understand the contradiction in his policy of enhancing all cultures when not all cultures are good or liberal.  Moreover, he is keen to admit into the country some cultures despite their cultural celebration of the murder of Jews, gays, Yazidis, Christians together with a culture of rape towards women who do not follow their dictates.

Once you make unconditional diversity your goal, you can easily descend further down the ethical hole you are digging. In a recent press conference, Trudeau told the media that Canada, having been tolerant enough to admit many Muslim immigrants, including some 25,000 Syrians between November 2015 and February 2016 and another 10,00 in the rest of 2016, should now go “beyond tolerance.”  “Beyond tolerance” sounds like “submission” and that really scares me;  or perhaps he means active steps to test our tolerance by importing only the “intolerant.” I don’t like that either.

Trudeau, who never finished university, seems rather uneducated in the matter of ideology.   Should we welcome evil ideologies as part of our inclusive diversity? Do we still believe that some things are good and some are evil? Do we think that a nice Canadian welcome, together with conduct and words not just tolerant, but _beyond_ tolerant, will turn intolerant jihadists into tolerant Canadians? What about their children who may not feel at home in either culture?

The problems we are facing are legion. Recently, a report was issued on the extremist literature found in Canadian mosques.  In _The Lovers of Death?  Islamist Extremism in our Mosques, Schools and Libraries, _a former RCMP security analyst and an Egyptian-born expert on Muslim extremism concluded: “It is not the presence of extremist literature in the mosque libraries that is worrisome,” the new report contends. “The problem is that there was nothing but extremist literature in the mosque libraries.”

If our Prime Minister thinks the solution to jihadist pro-Sharia law extremism and terrorism is to be more and more “inclusive” and “beyond tolerant,” we may have a problem.

For the definitive liberal critique of multiculturalism, see Salim Mansur’s _Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism.  _For the definitive study of reclaiming Western values from relativists like Trudeau see Diane Weber Bederman’s Back to the Ethic: Reclaiming Western Values.

After Auschwitz – where my father was slave labor and his parents and then 8-year-old sister were murdered in the gas chambers – multiculturalism and moral relativism are obscene. Moral values in domestic and international matters must reflect our traditional Judeo-Christian ethics of the Bible.  “Inclusive diversity” and “beyond tolerant” are weak substitutes.  Marco Rubio in hearing what Trudeau said about Castro’s passing, stated that it was “shameful and embarrassing.” According to my values, I agree with Marco. But how long will I, a pro-Israel Jew whose values come from our Bible, continue to be able to live in Justin Trudeau’s multicultural, inclusive of diversity and beyond tolerant Canada?