Last week, news of a round-table agreement banning criticism of immigration in Cologne made headlines—not least because it caught the attention of Elon Musk. Seven parties, from the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU) to the SPD, Greens, and Left Party, had signed the so-called Fairness Agreement, pledging not to criticize asylum seekers or migrants during election campaigns. The agreement has existed since 2017, but now, ahead of the municipal elections on September 14th, it has finally cracked.
Canada’s immigration approach is becoming more exclusionary. It’s not the direction we should be heading
In 2023, Canada marked the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that explicitly banned nearly all Chinese immigrants for nearly a quarter century. Many see it as a black mark in Canadian history because it deliberately targeted and expelled the very Chinese labourers who had done the dangerous, back-breaking work of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, only to be cast aside once their labour was no longer needed.
The centenary was a moment of reflection. But since then, Canada has become more restrictive, not less. Rising immigration refusal rates, while not racially explicit, are carrying the pattern of exclusion forward.
About the “author” – Yvonne Su is an associate professor in the Department of Equity Studies at York University and a visiting scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
What’s not to like about multiculturalism? After all, isn’t diversity our strength? Don’t cultural influences from around the world add spice and flavor to the bland, Eurocentric West, which some people even say has no culture of its own? Take food, for example; as everyone always points out when this topic comes up, different cultures bring a smorgasbord of vibrant cuisines to the West! Also rape gangs, no-go zones, and machete attacks, but that’s a small price to pay for a corner kebab stand.
This week marks the first anniversary of the ferocious stabbing spree at a dance class in the Merseyside town of Southport, in which three little girls were murdered by teenager Axel Rudakubana. In the days that followed, riots rocked Southport and other towns across England, fuelled by false claims that the perpetrator was an illegal Muslim migrant. More than 1,500 arrests were made and hundreds were imprisoned.
It’s been almost a year since the Southport massacre. That sunny morning, etched forever in infamy, when Axel Rudakubana committed his barbaric, depraved murders of three young girls at a dance class in the Merseyside seaside town. It sparked the worst anti-migrant riots Britain has seen in modern times, fuelled by false claims Rudakubana was a Muslim, small-boats asylum seeker. But to anyone who had been paying attention, the seeds of that horrific unrest were sown long before that.
Islamism has thrived thanks to the cowardice and evasiveness of the UK’s liberal elites.
The claim that ‘no culture is better than another’ often tips over into an asymmetrical elevation of ‘the other’ and an abasement of the self. In Britain, advocates of hard multiculturalism tend to celebrate cultures belonging to migrants and their descendants, and to denigrate the culture of the historic, indigenous majority.
Many had warned that Britain would soon have ‘blasphemy laws by the back door’. And so it came to pass on Monday, when Hamit Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public-order offence for setting fire to the Koran. Yet while there has been justified outrage at the decision, there remains a failure to grasp the true meaning of this landmark verdict. It represents not merely the return of blasphemy law by the back door, but also the advancement of ‘hard multiculturalism’ through the front door.
Anti-Japanese Museum in Canada Draws Criticism from Lawmakers
On May 27, 2025, Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Masahisa Sato raised concerns in the House of Councillors Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee over a museum in Canada run by a Chinese-Canadian organization. It was not the first time he had done so. The museum, he said, conspicuously promotes anti-Japanese narratives through exhibits shown to large numbers of local high school students. He first raised the issue at an April 17 committee session.
According to those familiar with the matter, the museum in question opened in June 2024 in Toronto, Ontario. Called the Asia Pacific Peace Museum, it was reportedly spearheaded by a local Chinese-Canadian organization called Alpha Education. Its exhibits include references prominently reflecting China’s viewpoint on the Nanjing Incident and comfort women.
Fact: Japan was a brutal aggressor that committed war crimes on a massive scale in China.
Their treatment of allied prisoners of war while inhuman pales in comparison to the Rape of Nanking and other grotesqueries.
China went communist and the west needed allies post WW II so Japan’s atrocities were largely swept under the rug.
But why does Toronto have to have a Museum dedicated to this war?
Has it become fashionable that all ethnic groups rekindle their historic blood-feuds here in the Magic Kingdom of Multiculturalism and Diversity?
When Blackburn MP Adnan Hussain complains about an opponent believing ‘free speech means protecting the right to offend Muslims’, you feel an instinctive response gathering in your throat. You’re damn right it does. It means the right to burn the Qur’an, mock the Hadith and doodle cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed performing in a rainbow-flag hijab on RuPaul’s Drag Race. In a liberal society, people should be free to blaspheme against any and all religions, even pretendy ones like Anglicanism.
When it emerged as the guiding organisational principle of the British state, multiculturalism was sold, in the words of the hugely influential Parekh Report, as “perhaps the country’s biggest single national advantage”. The arrival of peoples from all over the world, bringing with them their unique perspectives, cuisines, religions, dresses, and cultures, would allow Britain to move on from “a narrow, English-dominated backward-looking definition of the nation” into something altogether more vibrant and exciting. Multiculturalism was to “widen a society’s range of options and increase its freedom of choice, for it brings different cultural traditions into a mutually beneficial dialogue and stimulates new ideas and experiences”. All those within society would thereby gain the opportunity to escape the narrow constraints of the culture they happened to be born into, instead becoming free to choose from the plethora of practices they would encounter every day, in doing so creating all sorts of dynamic new cultural mixes.
North African Muslims attacked Flemish supporters of Club Brugge with stones, clubs and knives, shouting "Allah Akbar" because they were white, European and Christian. There is a religious war in Europe that will not end well, but many have not yet understood this. pic.twitter.com/4PFHq2X6Y5
To show me just how bad gang crime has become in Sweden, all journalist Diamant Salihu has to do is forward a few mobile phone messages. At first glance, they look like spam, written in garish fonts and promising large sums of money, there to be earned. It’s only on closer examination that the purpose of the pistol and skull emojis becomes clear.
These are so-called “murder ads” – posted online by gang leaders, offering bounties to anyone willing to carry out the hits.
No other artists have dared capture the tragicomedy of the capital’s multiculturalism.
Art duo Gilbert and George object to the term ‘gentrification’ to describe the ongoing overhaul to the east London neighbourhood that has been their home for almost 60 years. ‘We think it’s classist and sexist, because you’d never say ladyfication. Or Jewification. Or blackification. Or Bangladeshification’, they once informed the Guardian, with their signature prankishness. ‘They’ve only got it in for white people. It’s punishing the honkies.’
The new bearded Syrian dictator had declared “diversity is our strength,” a phrase that came out of Western academic departments, and he had repeated it to European foreign ministers (including Italy’s Tajani, France’s Séjourné, and Germany’s Baerbock), to the UN secretary general, to the Hague prosecutor, to the BBC director, to the spin doctor, and to other gullible Westerners.
Like the “inclusive Taliban,” the jihadists had figured out how to sell themselves to us multicultural idiots.
And so it ended: thousands of innocent people butchered because they were Alawis, Christians and others.
There must be a moment when we understand the logic of multicultural madness. And this should be one of them.
“Nuremberg cancels children’s carnival,” the BILD reports.
Threats have forced the German city to cancel the Rose Monday children’s carnival parade. The reason: the terrorists named potential targets, including carnival parades. No carnival in Munich.
“Ramadan instead of carnival: the failure of the multicultural project,” writes Anna Diouf with the necessary irony.
