Setting aside rules based on bloodlines, Judge Phelan said that criteria related to geographical or cultural location, or membership in an indigenous community organization, are more civilized ways to define aboriginality than “blood purity.” His ruling cites Nazi Germany and South Africa’s apartheid regime as “two examples of why Canadian law does not emphasize this blood/racial purity concept.”
From the Federal Court’s judgment on the qualification of Métis and “non-status” Indians as “Indians” under the 1867 Constitution Act.
— The Globe and Mail, January 8
In the U.K.:
For the first time in history, white British citizens now constitute the minority in London, as a population census published this December reveals. The Financial Times (December 28) accuses Britain’s elites of ignoring the phenomenon of white people leaving the capital.
“Does white flight always have to be the other side of the coin of large-scale immigration? It is a remarkably understudied phenomenon. This is perhaps because it is based on a notion of group identities and affinities that most liberal academics do not feel or understand and tend to stigmatize as ‘racist,’ at least when expressed by white people….
“Some of the blame for this must lie with a modern political mind – of both left- and right-wingers – that has failed to understand some quite normal human feelings about rapid change and the unfamiliar. It has failed, too, to think more carefully about how to make it easier for different kinds of people to live alongside each other sharing common spaces in mutual trust.”