Immigration has a social side as well as an economic one. The social side is all too evident with the runaway violence driven mainly by Jamaican immigrants in Toronto, or the all too-frequent violence between Asian and other ethnic gangs right here in Calgary.
It is hard to see what part of this is even susceptible to reasonable dispute, let alone evidence of racism. Immigration clearly does have a social side, as well as an economic one. While economics argues strongly for higher immigration levels, we need to make sure that the society can assimilate the quantity of immigration without such damage to its own fabric that the reason that Canada is an attractive place is lost.
Dozens of gang shootings, including the death of a young woman shopping on Yonge Street at Christmas, could reasonably be characterized as "runaway violence", particularly given Canada's long, and smug, comparison of its own rates of violent crime with those of the Great Republic.
And the fact is that the shooting spree was the work of Jamaica immigrants. That doesn't mean that all Jamaican immigrants should be tarred with some brush. It does not require some Rushton-style theory of genetic propensities to violence. But it does suggest that there are cultural patterns, originating in countries of origin, that continue here. No one with either common sense or specialized knowledge has ever denied such a thing, but if you want to study it further, it would be worth reading Thomas Sowell's Ethnic America or Amy Chua's World on Fire.
Jamaicans have contributed enormously to Toronto. Caribana is a lot more fun than the Orange Day Parade was. But, unfortunately, the Canadian elite is in a pre-Moynihan state of unwillingness to talk about cultural pathologies in particular ethnic groups. Of course, this doesn't do our aboriginal or Jamaican people any good, but it allows smug bourgeois whites to feel even smugger.
If Canada lost the services of Gwyn Morgan for that reason, I am willing to understand Harper's anger.
Update:An astute reader has noticed that I stillhaven't addressed the merits of Gwyn Morgan's failure to be ratified, but only addressed whether he should be penalized for this particular speech. True enough, and not likely to be remedied. After all, who really cares who the Appointments Commissioner for the Federal government is?