Canada`s Orwellian Multiculturalists Writing Stephen Leacock, Charlotte Whitton Out Of History



that Canada can claim to have invented all modern political diseases. A
recent column in the Canadian
National Post
What happens when the heroes of the past meet the standards of today?,
May 14, 2011] by

Kathryn Blaze Carlson

illustrates the


implications of the
that Canada pioneered under

Pierre Trudeau.

The Canadian
ruling class appears to have launched a hate campaign
against Canada`s past literary star

Stephen Leacock

(1869-1944), at one point the best-known humorist in the
English-speaking world.


and other spokespersons for approved victims wish to
remove Leacock`s name from all kinds of honor rolls
because, Carlson reports, this Canadian icon
reprehensible things about

Indians) and
“opposed equal rights for women.”
Daniel Francis, a
popular Canadian historian cited by Carlson, has
condemned Leacock as a
who should be read out of today`s
multicultural world community.[
Canada`s Funnyman, By Daniel Francis,
, Issue
76] Leacock supposedly held
views that were expressed in his letters and diaries.
(Leacock was a political economist as well as a
humorist, and it`s his academic writing that is getting
him into trouble—see his

The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice

But Canadian
sensitizers have bigger fish to fry, according to
Carlson. There is the unresolved problem of Charlotte
Whitton (1896-1975), who was the first female mayor of
Ottawa and the person for whom the municipal hall was
named in 1973. Although long held to be a paragon of PC,
whom the Canadian B`nai B`rith proclaimed its Woman of
the Year in 1964, Ms. Whitton, unbeknownst to many of
her admirers, allegedly seethed with bigotry. She
engaged in
“casual innocent anti-Semitism”
, according to
someone Carlson describes as a
“prominent Jewish
. And, to make matters even worse,
Carlson reports that Whitton was
an anti-Semite who campaigned against Jewish immigration
during the Second World War.

The last
accusation contains an obvious misstatement since there
was little if any immigration into Canada from Europe
during World War II. Whitton`s accuser may mean that, as
we learn from Wikipedia, [
6, 2011
Whitton opposed Jewish immigration before War and in
1938 spoke out, at least once, against settling refugees
from the Nazis in Canada.

Although an
embattled man-eating feminist and

apparently a lesbian
Whitton was also an Anglophile, who feared that her own
culture would be overwhelmed by admitting into Canada
more Jews, Ukrainians, and other non-English ethnic
groups. She later angrily protested the


of Canada`s

traditional national flag,

which contained the Union Jack, with the


ensign—a decision that

condemned as a sign of the

of Canada`s British identity. [
The Controversial Legacy of Charlotte Whitton,
by Sammy Hudes, Jewish World, August 20, 2010]

Carlson, who
writes for Canada`s leading neoconservative newspaper,
one that

regularly and proudly



races for what she takes to be the middle ground.
Despite Leacock`s reactionary comments, Carlson
explains, not all of his attitudes were
To his credit, she writes, “one
of his closest friends was Métis
[someone of mixed
Amerindian-Caucasian background],
and he

paid for his  niece

to get a master`s degree”

Carlson also
pronounces that
“the heroes of years gone by…

no longer clear heroes by today`s standards”
. It may therefore be necessary to arrive at a workable agreement about
who, in our sensitive age, should be accepted as morally
worthy of commemoration. Toward this end, Carlson quotes
former president of the American Historical Association


the need to differentiate between
“someone who
actively campaigns against Jewish immigration”
those who
casual anti-Semitic views characteristic of a

WASP culture
at the time

Like Carlson,
Appleby is willing to indulge up to a point
“casual” WASP
bigots, but not those who are against Jews (or
presumably other groups) immigrating into Canada.

Nonetheless, like
Appleby, Carlson seem distressed that now dead Canadians 
failed to meet our contemporary niceness
standards—for example, a

nineteenth-century Canadian civil servant

who belonged to an organization that was

“anti-French and anti-Catholic”
One can almost hear Carlson sigh that such people were not really
“nice”. To
which I would respond

“Blessed are the
despisers for they are the ones who adore wisely”

Allow me to raise
some tactless questions!

Are all minorities
or non-WASPs to be held to the same multicultural
standards as those that apply to what I presume are the
co-ethnics of Carlson and Appleby?

Certainly blacks,
Latinos, Amerindians, Jews and other minorities are
allowed to rage in their diaries, letters and even
public pronouncements against

“WASP culture”

without suffering any untoward consequences. Feminists
are praised and receive prestigious academic
appointments for dumping on (white) males and for

comparing marital sex to rape.

It can even be
argued that the
“WASP culture”
that Appleby plainly deplores was far
more restrained about venting malice than our
multicultural paradise. Truly obscene bigots with
murderous feelings, like the


whom our


and our antiracist president

would never have gone anywhere when WASP patricians were
in charge.

It is precisely
the society that Appleby and Carlson detest that reduced
negative feelings to social snobbery—that is, to
sentiments one expressed about one`s social inferiors in
letters, diaries, and choices of clubs. Now loudmouth
racists and man-haters are rewarded for declaiming
against a less “sensitive” past.

Equally relevant
is another tactless question: why does Whitton, or
anyone of her background, have to be pro-immigration in
order to be honored after her death as a decent person?

I pose this
question as one some of whose family members settled, as

Jewish refugees
in Canada in the 1930s. I also speak as someone who
believes that those refugees Whitton hoped to turn away
contributed significantly to the society that provided
them refuge. I believe Whitton made the wrong judgment
in the case of my relatives—but her error does not mean
that she was wrong in principle. 

Appleby, Carlson
and others of their ilk wish to suggest that anyone who
opposes immigration is the sort of bigot who would
gladly send all Jews to their deaths. 

But there is no
reason to assume any of this. Nor should we feel obliged
to hate Whitton because she wished to see

non-French Canada

remain culturally English. Does the


and anti-Whitton, but passionately Zionist, Canadian
Jewish Congress reject

Premier Netanyahu

because he insists that Arabs, and indeed everyone else,

Israel as a “Jewish state”
? By what right, as opposed to a double standard, should one blame


Canadians in the 1930s or 1950s for insisting on the
same right for themselves? Why were they morally
reprehensible for wanting to maintain their ethnic
predominance in an area they had settled and imprinted
with their way of life?

Moreover, Whitton
attained honor during her lifetime as an outspoken
feminist, who was not above insulting the male sex, from
all accounts,


This helped in her ascent toward sainthood on the
fashionable Left. Yet when she was later exposed for
what she never disguised, that is, as a defender of
WASPdom, her reputation began to plummet. Clearly not
all insults are equally useful.

Whitton should
have reserved her nastiness for males and homophobes.
That way she would not now run afoul of the

Thought Police

who today tyrannize over the society that replaced the
one that she, along with the rest of her kind, have

Paul Gottfried
(email him)
is Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown
College, PA. He is the author of

After Liberalism

Multiculturalism and the
Politics of Guilt


The Strange Death of