Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 23 August 2012 07:37

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp350.net/z6gqCz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid An Easter Proverb: Those Who Demand Contrition From Canada Probably Owe Contrition To Canada ((Justice Dennis Murphy’s 1910-11 Royal Commission Investigation Of Chinese Immigration Frauds) Posted on April 4, 2007 PRESS RELEASEAn Easter Proverb: Those Who Demand Contrition From Canada Probably Owe Contrition To Canada (Justice Dennis Murphy's 1910-11 Royal Commission Investigation Of Chinese Frauds) A Conservative MP who has been researching the Komagata Maru incident has recently stated that Canada's federal government will commemorate the Komagata Maru incident, but probably not issue a formal apology. Time will tell what actually gets done, but the news that an apology will not be made indicates a bit of progress in thinking about “apologies”. An earlier decision to apologize to the Chinese for the Head Tax on Chinese labourers was an obvious mistake and a misinterpretation of the events of that time. An examination clearly demonstrates that the Head Tax not only tried to discourage Chinese labourers from coming but, in the case of those who did come, was intended to be an economic equalizer. Like a tariff applied to remove the price advantage of cheap foreign products, the Head Tax tried to neutralize the economic advantage that Chinese labourers, who worked at substantially lower wages, had over host population labourers. The Chinese Head Tax issue was as basic and clear as that. A Royal Commission investigation, done by Justice Dennis Murphy in 1910-1911 of Alleged Chinese Frauds and Opium Smuggling On The Pacific Coast, looks at Chinese efforts to evade the Head Tax from 1904 to 1910. These schemes and the undetermined number of Chinese who entered Canada illegally through these schemes raise the question: Who should be apologizing to whom? The findings of Justice Dennis Murphy are particularly relevant today because the incidents show that Canada was victimized. In fact, multiple examples of Chinese fraud were committed. If anyone should be demanding contrition for past wrongs, it should be Canada, not the Chinese. The same thing can be said of East Indian demands for a Komagata Maru apology. The findings of Justice Murphy are not some erudite chapter in Canadian history. On the contrary, they are extremely relevant because the incidents of 100 years ago are constantly being used today by some ethnic groups to resist the lowering of current high immigration levels. The following are six fraudulent methods which Chinese used to enter Canada in the years 1904-10. Beside each are some of Justice Murphy's findings: (1) STOWING AWAY ON SHIPS: After the Head Tax was raised to $500 at the beginning of 1904, legal Chinese labourer immigration declined precipitously. However, illegal Chinese labourer immigration increased. Justice Murphy could not say the increase was exponential, but he came close to saying that. He pointed to the case in August, 1910 of the ship called the Kumeric, in which 53 stowaways were apprehended. One of the stowaways who had been caught in an earlier March, 1910 attempt, confessed that in that March endeavour, 20 stowaways had landed successfully in Vancouver. Justice Murphy concluded: "it is clear that the number of stowaways who have entered Canada in the past is only limited to the number who attempted that route….” (P.25) In other words, the number was probably very large. Chinese labourer stowaways used the three major passenger shipping lines (C.P.R. Lines, the Blue Funnel Lines and the Bank Line) and tramp steamers to get to Canada. Most of these ships had Chinese crews. In fact, the crews on the Blue Funnel and Bank Lines were almost all Chinese. Justice Murphy concluded that stowing away was “an organized scheme” and that crew members, particularly on the Blue Funnel and Bank Lines, were involved. (P.22) It is probable that they profitted by aiding the stowaways in (1) getting aboard the ships, (2) obtaining provisions for the trip across the Pacific and (3) getting safely off the ships. The Chinese took great advantage of the inadequate security at West Coast Canadian ports. For example, in Vancouver, only one government watchman was employed to guard a ship. A Secret Service man who investigated found that most of these men were of poor character. They were frequently intoxicated on their 12 hour night shifts (6PM to 6AM) or took long meal breaks and left the gangplank completely unguarded. At Union Bay on Vancouver Island, where the large Blue Funnel and Bank Lines ships, as well as small tramp steamers, refuelled with coal, stowaways could leave the ships with virtual impunity. No government watchman was present. In Vancouver, no harbour patrol existed. Ships could arrive, report their arrival a day later, and, in the meantime, unload a cargo of stowaways.It was more difficult to get away with this in Victoria because ships “touched” (docked?) at an outer wharf which was shut off (from the harbour) by high gates. (P.24) At the port of Nanaimo, no watchman are employed (P.24) and entry was easy. (2) FRAUDS BY CHINESE CREWS: Crew members (ranging from 80 to 120 on each of the large ships) who wished to enter Canada could change places with Chinese on shore who wished to return to China permanently at no cost. Justice Murphy concluded that this exchanging of places could have been done very easily and that the man employed as the government's interpreter, the corrupt and “entirely untrustworthy” Yip On, would have been involved. He estimates that the number of people who exchanged places would not have been great. (3) FRAUDS BY CHINESE CREWS: Members of Chinese crews went ashore, changed their attire, then went to Canadian government officials and pretended that they were residents of Canada. They asked for re-entry permits which would allow them to visit China and return within a year, as provided by the Immigration Act. Having obtained the permits, they changed their attire once more and re-boarded their ship. Once back in China, they sold the permits to people who wanted to go to Canada and who resembled the vendors sufficiently to pass the loose identification methods used in Vancouver. Justice Murphy concluded that the number of Chinese entering Canada illegally in this way was probably few. (4) IMPERSONATION: Chinese labourers already in Canada, who had accumulated savings adequate for a permanent return to China, and who saw an opportunity to make extra money, obtained a re-entry permit to visit China. They had no intention of coming back to Canada, and sold the permit to a labourer who wanted to come to Canada. Justice Murphy estimated that there was probably extensive abuse of this “Re-Entry” permit system. The permits did not have photographs on them. Identifying the”re-entrants consisted of matching a set of physical characteristics, recorded at the time of the labourer's first entry into Canada, with the characteristics of the labourer holding the re-entry certificate. This was a haphazard system. In the case of ships coming to Vancouver, Yip On, the Chinese interpreter, went to Victoria with a white officer, met the ship and boarded it. On the way back to Vancouver, Yip On had the opportunity to talk, in a language his white companion did not understand, to the re-entering labourers and to make “arrangements” with them so that they could enter Canada successfully. He had the job of calling out the physical characteristics of the re-entrant and could easily omit characteristics which did not apply. As Justice Murphy notes, Yip On was “often seen in the Government office at night copying from the books, particularly just before Oriental boats were scheduled to arrive” in Vancouver. (P.26) (5) FRAUDS BY ENTRY AS MERCHANTS' EXEMPT WIVES, SONS AND DAUGHTERS: Immigration law allowed a merchant to bring in his wife, sons and daughters free of head tax. The Chinese did not bring in many women—a probable indication of what they saw as their temporary status in Canada—, but they did bring in many so-called “sons”. There were two problems with the immigration law. One was that the word “merchant” was not defined in the Act. Many Chinese labourers registered themselves as merchants for the express purpose of bringing in “sons”. Many of these “merchants” were mere employees or had nothing to do with the business. In 1910, there were 528 Chinese firms with 2561 members registered in B.C. The number of exempt “sons” brought into B.C. increased from 16 in 1904 to 462 in 1910—an indication of word spreading about this way of evading the Head Tax. The total of “exempts” in B.C. alone in 1910 was 497. In the period, 1904 to 1910, a total of 1503 exempted “sons” entered Canada. The other problem with “exempts”, particularly exempted “sons”, was that the Chinese frequently “adopted” sons, but did not reveal to immigration authorities that the “sons” were adopted. A number of motives could have been involved, one of them probably to profit financially from bringing in someone else's children. The federal government tried to prevent cheating by interviewing the “sons” and “father” separately to detect discrepancies in stories, but the interpreter Yip On was involved in the story-translations. In Justice Murphy's view, Yip On undoubtedly tried to disguise the cheating—in return for a fee from the people involved. The Chinese documentation that was provided about birth dates and parents was regarded as very unreliable. (6) FRAUDS BY ENTRY AS MERCHANTS: Chinese merchants could enter Canada exempt from the Head Tax. Around 400 did so from 1904 to 1910. The problem, in Justice Murphy's words, was that “Chinese could…enter Canada as merchants without being at all merchants in the sense intended by Parliament”. (P.30) All they had to do was put some money into a business in China to familiarize themselves with the business. They did not have to bring a minimum amount of money to invest in Canada and they did not have to engage in business in Canada. The interpreter Yip On and the former interpreter (Yip On's brother Charley Yip Yen, who had returned to China) were deeply involved in schemes to bring into Canada some of these so-called merchants. Chinese “Passport” documentation, attesting that the people holding the passports were merchants, could be obtained for a fee that was a fraction of the $500 Head Tax and, thus, of great interest to Chinese labourers. The document used ambiguous Chinese language for the word “merchant” and was issued by the Viceroy of the “merchant's” province. A photograph was provided, but it could easily be replaced with another. A lengthy investigation revealed that this passport scheme was fraudulent. It resulted in Yip On's suspension from his position on September 16, 1910 and deportation of the “Passport Men Merchants” he was responsible for bringing in. It later resulted in his disappearance from Canada—probably because he feared criminal prosecution for what he had done. The great irony in Justice Murphy's investigation is that Yip On was replaced as Interpreter in Vancouver by Poon Shung Lung, a late (and, therefore, suspicious) registrant among 20 “merchant” partners in a Toronto business. It was common knowledge that these businesses were really owned and operated by one or two people. In this case, the other 18 partners were probably using the business solely for immigration purposes. Strangely enough, one of these partners was Yip On, the disgraced Vancouver interpreter. Poon Shung Lung alleged that the Toronto business ended in May or June, 1910, but the Toronto police stated that the business was still operating at the address in question and although supposedly a grocery, was dealing chiefly in opium. Adding to the irony, Poon Shung Lung went to China and brought back as “exempts” a wife and two sons “on the strength of his being a merchant”. (P.46) Justice Murphy suspected that these “sons” were not really Poon's and had been brought to Canada fraudulently. The total number of Chinese who defrauded Canada cannot be accurately determined, but it was probably well into the thousands, a significant percentage of the total number of Chinese in Canada at the time. Justice Murphy made a number of recommendations. The most important was that an agreement be negotiated with the Government of China to restrict Chinese immigration to Canada to a limited number per year. This agreement would have been similar to the agreement Canada negotiated with Japan. He also recommended that watchman security be significantly tightened to prevent the landing of stowaways, particularly at the refueling terminal of Union Bay which Justice Murphy described as “practically a free port for the entrance of Chinese and for smuggling opium into Canada”. (P.49) He stated that the “Exempt” classifications for Merchants and for Merchants' families, particularly sons, were being abused. The Merchants' category had to be strictly controlled and the Merchants' Sons' category should be either abolished or that the sons' age should be lowered to 12. He also recommended that because the Chinese were virtually “An Empire Within An Empire” on Canada's west coast, that the position of Chinese Interpreter would be better served by a white person who had lived in China (P.53) (and, it is assumed, knew the relevant Chinese dialects). Penalties for disobeying immigration laws had to be more severe, and power should be taken to deport anyone who had entered Canada by fraud. The Komagata Maru incident, which occurred three years after Justice Murphy's report and which is being made much of today, was a deliberate attempt to challenge the Canadian laws which had been enacted to stop the Chinese and Japanese frauds and the frauds' consequences in prior years. It is preposterous to look at it as an incident separate from (1) the Chinese frauds that Justice Murphy uncovered and (2) the chaos that Mackenzie King discovered in his 1907 report about Oriental (particularly Japanese) immigration. So once again, when Canada's federal government hears demands for apologies (which are veiled demands for continued high immigration and a host of economic, cultural and environmental consequences), it should ask the following questions: Who should be apologizing to whom? Whose interests should the government of Canada be serving: those of the majority host population or those of “Empires within the Canadian Empire” (that is self-interested ethnic groups)? END OF PRESS RELEASE As the source of information for this press release, Immigration Watch Canada used the “REPORT BY JUSTICE MURPHY, ROYAL COMMISSIONER APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED CHINESE FRAUDS AND OPIUM SMUGGLING ON THE PACIFIC COAST—-1910-11″. Sadly, the Canadian Government gave into the brazen demands of certain Chinese organizations and offered an apology that was utterly undeserved and paid the shakedown money to a commnity that had, in the past, and in the present repeatedly been among the most glaring fraudsters scamming the Canadian immigration system. A statement from the Prime Minister's office, June 22, 2006, anounced : " Prime Minister Harper offers full apology for the Chinese Head Tax Prime Minister Stephen Harper today offered a full apology to Chinese Canadians for the Head Tax and expressed his deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants from 1923 until 1947. "For over six decades, these malicious measures, aimed solely at the Chinese, were implemented with deliberation by the Canadian state," said the Prime Minister. "This was a grave injustice, and one we are morally obligated to acknowledge." The Prime Minister stated that the Government of Canada will make symbolic ex-gratia payments to those who were required to pay the Head Tax and to the spouses of Head Tax payers who have since passed away. It will also establish a fund for community projects aimed at acknowledging the impact of past wartime measures and immigration restrictions on ethno-cultural communities. ... The Head Tax was legal at the time, as acknowledged by Canadian Courts. ... The Government also announced its intention to offer symbolic individual payments of $20,000 to living Chinese Head Tax payers and living spouses of deceased payers. The Government will also be establishing a $24-million community historical recognition program to provide grant and contribution funding for community projects linked to wartime measures and immigration restrictions and a $10-million national historical recognition program to fund federal initiatives, developed in partnership with other stakeholders." _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp350.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgbsqgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 23 August 2012 04:53

*Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid * An Easter Proverb: Those Who Demand Contrition From Canada Probably Owe Contrition To Canada ((Justice Dennis Murphy’s 1910-11 Royal Commission Investigation Of Chinese Immigration Frauds) Posted on April 4, 2007 *PRESS RELEASE* An Easter Proverb: Those Who Demand Contrition From Canada Probably Owe Contrition To Canada (Justice Dennis Murphy's 1910-11 Royal Commission Investigation Of Chinese Frauds) A Conservative MP who has been researching the *Komagata Maru* incident has recently stated that Canada's federal government will commemorate the *Komagata Maru* incident, but probably not issue a formal apology. Time will tell what actually gets done, but the news that an apology will not be made indicates a bit of progress in thinking about “apologies”. An earlier decision to apologize to the Chinese for the Head Tax on Chinese labourers was an obvious mistake and a misinterpretation of the events of that time. An examination clearly demonstrates that the Head Tax not only tried to discourage Chinese labourers from coming but, in the case of those who did come, was intended to be an economic equalizer. Like a tariff applied to remove the price advantage of cheap foreign products, the Head Tax tried to neutralize the economic advantage that Chinese labourers, who worked at substantially lower wages, had over host population labourers. The Chinese Head Tax issue was as basic and clear as that. A Royal Commission investigation, done by Justice Dennis Murphy in 1910-1911 of *Alleged Chinese Frauds and Opium Smuggling On The Pacific Coast*, looks at Chinese efforts to evade the Head Tax from 1904 to 1910. These schemes and the undetermined number of Chinese who entered Canada illegally through these schemes raise the question: Who should be apologizing to whom? The findings of Justice Dennis Murphy are particularly relevant today because the incidents show that Canada was victimized. In fact, multiple examples of Chinese fraud were committed. *If anyone should be demanding contrition for past wrongs, it should be Canada, not the Chinese. The same thing can be said of East Indian demands for a Komagata Maru apology. * The findings of Justice Murphy are not some erudite chapter in Canadian history. On the contrary, they are extremely relevant because the incidents of 100 years ago are constantly being used today by some ethnic groups to resist the lowering of current high immigration levels. The following are six fraudulent methods which Chinese used to enter Canada in the years 1904-10. Beside each are some of Justice Murphy's findings: (1) *STOWING AWAY ON SHIPS*: After the Head Tax was raised to $500 at the beginning of 1904, legal Chinese labourer immigration declined precipitously. However, illegal Chinese labourer immigration increased. Justice Murphy could not say the increase was exponential, but he came close to saying that. He pointed to the case in August, 1910 of the ship called the *Kumeric*, in which 53 stowaways were apprehended. One of the stowaways who had been caught in an earlier March, 1910 attempt, confessed that in that March endeavour, 20 stowaways had landed successfully in Vancouver. Justice Murphy concluded: "it is clear that the number of stowaways who have entered Canada in the past is only limited to the number who attempted that route….” (P.25) In other words, the number was probably very large. Chinese labourer stowaways used the three major passenger shipping lines (C.P.R. Lines, the Blue Funnel Lines and the Bank Line) and tramp steamers to get to Canada. Most of these ships had Chinese crews. In fact, the crews on the Blue Funnel and Bank Lines were almost all Chinese. Justice Murphy concluded that stowing away was “an organized scheme” and that crew members, particularly on the Blue Funnel and Bank Lines, were involved. (P.22) It is probable that they profitted by aiding the stowaways in (1) getting aboard the ships, (2) obtaining provisions for the trip across the Pacific and (3) getting safely off the ships. The Chinese took great advantage of the inadequate security at West Coast Canadian ports. For example, in Vancouver, only one government watchman was employed to guard a ship. A Secret Service man who investigated found that most of these men were of poor character. They were frequently intoxicated on their 12 hour night shifts (6PM to 6AM) or took long meal breaks and left the gangplank completely unguarded. At Union Bay on Vancouver Island, where the large Blue Funnel and Bank Lines ships, as well as small tramp steamers, refuelled with coal, stowaways could leave the ships with virtual impunity. No government watchman was present. In Vancouver, no harbour patrol existed. Ships could arrive, report their arrival a day later, and, in the meantime, unload a cargo of stowaways.It was more difficult to get away with this in Victoria because ships “touched” (docked?) at an outer wharf which was shut off (from the harbour) by high gates. (P.24) At the port of Nanaimo, no watchman are employed (P.24) and entry was easy. (2) *FRAUDS BY CHINESE CREWS*: Crew members (ranging from 80 to 120 on each of the large ships) who wished to enter Canada could change places with Chinese on shore who wished to return to China permanently at no cost. Justice Murphy concluded that this exchanging of places could have been done very easily and that the man employed as the government's interpreter, the corrupt and “entirely untrustworthy” Yip On, would have been involved. He estimates that the number of people who exchanged places would not have been great. (3) *FRAUDS BY CHINESE CREWS*: Members of Chinese crews went ashore, changed their attire, then went to Canadian government officials and pretended that they were residents of Canada. They asked for re-entry permits which would allow them to visit China and return within a year, as provided by the Immigration Act. Having obtained the permits, they changed their attire once more and re-boarded their ship. Once back in China, they sold the permits to people who wanted to go to Canada and who resembled the vendors sufficiently to pass the loose identification methods used in Vancouver. Justice Murphy concluded that the number of Chinese entering Canada illegally in this way was probably few. (4) *IMPERSONATION*: Chinese labourers already in Canada, who had accumulated savings adequate for a permanent return to China, and who saw an opportunity to make extra money, obtained a re-entry permit to visit China. They had no intention of coming back to Canada, and sold the permit to a labourer who wanted to come to Canada. Justice Murphy estimated that there was probably extensive abuse of this “Re-Entry” permit system. The permits did not have photographs on them. Identifying the”re-entrants consisted of matching a set of physical characteristics, recorded at the time of the labourer's first entry into Canada, with the characteristics of the labourer holding the re-entry certificate. This was a haphazard system. [image: Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid-chinese-head-tax-1.jpg]<http://www.whitenewsnow.com/attachments/paul-fromms-cafe/515d1345691608-guilty-no-more-we-dont-owe-penny-head-tax-some-chinese-paid-chinese-head-tax-1.jpg> In the case of ships coming to Vancouver, Yip On, the Chinese interpreter, went to Victoria with a white officer, met the ship and boarded it. On the way back to Vancouver, Yip On had the opportunity to talk, in a language his white companion did not understand, to the re-entering labourers and to make “arrangements” with them so that they could enter Canada successfully. He had the job of calling out the physical characteristics of the re-entrant and could easily omit characteristics which did not apply. As Justice Murphy notes, Yip On was “often seen in the Government office at night copying from the books, particularly just before Oriental boats were scheduled to arrive” in Vancouver. (P.26) (5) *FRAUDS BY ENTRY AS MERCHANTS' EXEMPT WIVES, SONS AND DAUGHTERS:*Immigration law allowed a merchant to bring in his wife, sons and daughters free of head tax. The Chinese did not bring in many women—a probable indication of what they saw as their temporary status in Canada—, but they did bring in many so-called “sons”. There were two problems with the immigration law. One was that the word “merchant” was not defined in the Act. Many Chinese labourers registered themselves as merchants for the express purpose of bringing in “sons”. Many of these “merchants” were mere employees or had nothing to do with the business. In 1910, there were 528 Chinese firms with 2561 members registered in B.C. The number of exempt “sons” brought into B.C. increased from 16 in 1904 to 462 in 1910—an indication of word spreading about this way of evading the Head Tax. The total of “exempts” in B.C. alone in 1910 was 497. In the period, 1904 to 1910, a total of 1503 exempted “sons” entered Canada. The other problem with “exempts”, particularly exempted “sons”, was that the Chinese frequently “adopted” sons, but did not reveal to immigration authorities that the “sons” were adopted. A number of motives could have been involved, one of them probably to profit financially from bringing in someone else's children. The federal government tried to prevent cheating by interviewing the “sons” and “father” separately to detect discrepancies in stories, but the interpreter Yip On was involved in the story-translations. In Justice Murphy's view, Yip On undoubtedly tried to disguise the cheating—in return for a fee from the people involved. The Chinese documentation that was provided about birth dates and parents was regarded as very unreliable. [image: Guilty No More: We Don't Owe a Penny for the Head Tax Some Chinese Paid-chinese-head-tax-2.jpg]<http://www.whitenewsnow.com/attachments/paul-fromms-cafe/516d1345691660-guilty-no-more-we-dont-owe-penny-head-tax-some-chinese-paid-chinese-head-tax-2.jpg> (6) *FRAUDS BY ENTRY AS MERCHANTS*: Chinese merchants could enter Canada exempt from the Head Tax. Around 400 did so from 1904 to 1910. The problem, in Justice Murphy's words, was that “Chinese could…enter Canada as merchants without being at all merchants in the sense intended by Parliament”. (P.30) All they had to do was put some money into a business in China to familiarize themselves with the business. They did not have to bring a minimum amount of money to invest in Canada and they did not have to engage in business in Canada. The interpreter Yip On and the former interpreter (Yip On's brother Charley Yip Yen, who had returned to China) were deeply involved in schemes to bring into Canada some of these so-called merchants. Chinese “Passport” documentation, attesting that the people holding the passports were merchants, could be obtained for a fee that was a fraction of the $500 Head Tax and, thus, of great interest to Chinese labourers. The document used ambiguous Chinese language for the word “merchant” and was issued by the Viceroy of the “merchant's” province. A photograph was provided, but it could easily be replaced with another. A lengthy investigation revealed that this passport scheme was fraudulent. It resulted in Yip On's suspension from his position on September 16, 1910 and deportation of the “Passport Men Merchants” he was responsible for bringing in. It later resulted in his disappearance from Canada—probably because he feared criminal prosecution for what he had done. The great irony in Justice Murphy's investigation is that Yip On was replaced as Interpreter in Vancouver by Poon Shung Lung, a late (and, therefore, suspicious) registrant among 20 “merchant” partners in a Toronto business. It was common knowledge that these businesses were really owned and operated by one or two people. In this case, the other 18 partners were probably using the business solely for immigration purposes. Strangely enough, one of these partners was Yip On, the disgraced Vancouver interpreter. Poon Shung Lung alleged that the Toronto business ended in May or June, 1910, but the Toronto police stated that the business was still operating at the address in question and although supposedly a grocery, was dealing chiefly in opium. Adding to the irony, Poon Shung Lung went to China and brought back as “exempts” a wife and two sons “on the strength of his being a merchant”. (P.46) Justice Murphy suspected that these “sons” were not really Poon's and had been brought to Canada fraudulently. The total number of Chinese who defrauded Canada cannot be accurately determined, but it was probably well into the thousands, a significant percentage of the total number of Chinese in Canada at the time. *Justice Murphy made a number of recommendations. The most important was that an agreement be negotiated with the Government of China to restrict Chinese immigration to Canada to a limited number per year. This agreement would have been similar to the agreement Canada negotiated with Japan. He also recommended that watchman security be significantly tightened to prevent the landing of stowaways, particularly at the refueling terminal of Union Bay which Justice Murphy described as “practically a free port for the entrance of Chinese and for smuggling opium into Canada”. (P.49) * *He stated that the “Exempt” classifications for Merchants and for Merchants' families, particularly sons, were being abused. The Merchants' category had to be strictly controlled and the Merchants' Sons' category should be either abolished or that the sons' age should be lowered to 12. He also recommended that because the Chinese were virtually “An Empire Within An Empire” on Canada's west coast, that the position of Chinese Interpreter would be better served by a white person who had lived in China (P.53) (and, it is assumed, knew the relevant Chinese dialects). Penalties for disobeying immigration laws had to be more severe, and power should be taken to deport anyone who had entered Canada by fraud. * The *Komagata Maru* incident, which occurred three years after Justice Murphy's report and which is being made much of today, was a deliberate attempt to challenge the Canadian laws which had been enacted to stop the Chinese and Japanese frauds and the frauds' consequences in prior years. It is preposterous to look at it as an incident separate from (1) the Chinese frauds that Justice Murphy uncovered and (2) the chaos that Mackenzie King discovered in his 1907 report about Oriental (particularly Japanese) immigration. *So once again, when Canada's federal government hears demands for apologies (which are veiled demands for continued high immigration and a host of economic, cultural and environmental consequences), it should ask the following questions: Who should be apologizing to whom? Whose interests should the government of Canada be serving: those of the majority host population or those of “Empires within the Canadian Empire” (that is self-interested ethnic groups)? * END OF PRESS RELEASE *As the source of information for this press release, Immigration Watch Canada used the “REPORT BY JUSTICE MURPHY, ROYAL COMMISSIONER APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED CHINESE FRAUDS AND OPIUM SMUGGLING ON THE PACIFIC COAST—-1910-11*″. Sadly, the Canadian Government gave into the brazen demands of certain Chinese organizations and offered an apology that was utterly undeserved and paid the shakedown money to a commnity that had, in the past, and in the present repeatedly been among the most glaring fraudsters scamming the Canadian immigration system. A statement from the Prime Minister's office, June 22, 2006, anounced : *" Prime Minister Harper offers full apology for the Chinese Head Tax* Prime Minister Stephen Harper today offered a full apology to Chinese Canadians for the Head Tax and expressed his deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants from 1923 until 1947. "For over six decades, these malicious measures, aimed solely at the Chinese, were implemented with deliberation by the Canadian state," said the Prime Minister. "This was a grave injustice, and one we are morally obligated to acknowledge." The Prime Minister stated that the Government of Canada will make symbolic * ex-gratia* payments to those who were required to pay the Head Tax and to the spouses of Head Tax payers who have since passed away. It will also establish a fund for community projects aimed at acknowledging the impact of past wartime measures and immigration restrictions on ethno-cultural communities. ... *The Head Tax was legal at the time, as acknowledged by Canadian Courts*. ... The Government also announced its intention to offer symbolic individual payments of $20,000 to living Chinese Head Tax payers and living spouses of deceased payers. The Government will also be establishing a $24-million community historical recognition program to provide grant and contribution funding for community projects linked to wartime measures and immigration restrictions and a $10-million national historical recognition program to fund federal initiatives, developed in partnership with other stakeholders."

 

Ottawa Was Justified in Sending the Komagata Maru Back to India

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:38

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp255.net/zJI5jY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ottawa Was Justified in Sending the Komagata Maru Back to India (IMMIGRATION WATCH, Posted onJuly 31, 2012 ) OTTAWA WAS JUSTIFIED IN SENDING THE KOMAGATA MARU BACK TO INDIA This year is the 98th anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident in which several hundred East Indians who had arrived by ship in Vancouver were denied access to Canada. Although some Sikhs like to portray the KM incident as an incident in which they were victimized, the truth is much different. Here are two reasons why the federal gov’t was justified in sending the KM back to India. (1) BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE REST OF CANADA WERE FED UP WITH LOW WAGE LABOURERS WHO HAD CAUSED SO MUCH TURMOIL FROM THE 1880′s TO 1914 Low-wage labourers had precipitated an enormous amount of anger, resentment and worker-displacement in British Columbia for decades. The Sikhs on board the Komagata Maru (as well as the ones who had come a decade or so earlier) belonged to this group. The Chinese and Japanese labourers, who had arrived earlier, had earned in their countries one-twentieth and one tenth respectively of what Canadian workers earned. The East Indians were even cheaper labour. Most had worked in India at wages as low as one-fiftieth of Canadian wages. Canadian workers and Canada’s gov’t believed the East Indians’ low wage tolerance would cause the same worker-displacement problems that the Chinese and Japanese had caused. How did displacement occur? Chinese labour contractors set the precedent for cheap labourers in B.C. They underbid other contractors or arranged to hire out individual Chinese labourers they imported. To obtain contracts with employers, some of these Chinese contractors bid so low that they lost money on the contracts they signed. To compensate, these contractors required the Chinese labourers to buy food and supplies from them at prices which ensured that the contractors would re-gain the money they had lost on the labour part of their contracts. Some of these contractors became the wealthiest people in B.C.’s Chinatowns. Like modern snakeheads, Chinese labour contractors virtually owned their labourers. The labourers who came to B.C. could never have afforded to pay their fare from China to Canada and the Head Tax. The Chinese contractor bought steamship tickets and paid the Head Tax for labourers on the condition that the labourers would work for them. To make sure the contractors got repaid, the contractors arranged with employers to have Chinese labourers’ wages paid directly to the contractors every payday until the Chinese labourers had paid off their debts. In the early years of this system, it often took two years for the labourers to pay back what they owed. Many white labourers complained to both Royal Commissioners and to individual politicians that this arrangement meant that Chinese labourers were virtual slave labourers and unfair competitors. They said that these imported workers were displacing them from their jobs or keeping wages low. Many told of white workers who had had to leave the country because of cheap labour. Others complained that the practice of importing contract labourers had discouraged many real settler families (in contrast to single male temporary workers from Asia) from ever coming to Canada. Many modern historians have ignored these complaints and given their sympathy to the Chinese, Japanese and East Indians. The most dramatic example of potential displacement occurred in 1907. Canada’s Deputy Minister of Labour, Mackenzie King, uncovered a Japanese labour contractor’s plan to import up to 2000 Japanese labourers probably to displace a large part of the CPR workforce of 5000 in western Canada. Rumours about this plan (and another to displace five hundred coal miners at a Dunsmuir-owned mine on Vancouver Island) had circulated in the Vancouver area prior to the Sept. 7, 1907 Vancouver Riot. Contrary to what the politically correct like to preach today about the cause of the riot, these displacement contracts contributed significantly to that riot. Also contrary to what some Sikhs contend today, it was not Sikh devotion to the British Empire that resulted in Sikh interest in Canada. Instead, it was a decline in steamship ticket sales to the Chinese (especially after the $500 head tax in 1904) that caused the steamship companies to look to India for replacement passengers. This is a clear example of the connection between the KM incident and earlier cheap labourer incidents. Mackenzie King discovered this when he conducted a Royal Commission in 1907 to find out why about 12,000 Japanese, East Indians and Chinese had arrived in B.C. in the first 10 months of 1907. At this time, the population of Vancouver was about 60,000. Mackenzie King stated that such an influx caused “consternation” in the Vancouver population. The Royal Commissioners of the 1901 inquiry into Japanese and Chinese immigration to Canada summed up their concern (and probable Canadian concerns in 1907 and with the KM in 1914) in one major question: Does Canada need these cheap labourers? The answer was a resounding “NO !” (2) BRITISH COLUMBIA IN PARTICULAR HAD REACHED THE END OF ITS TOLERANCE OF WIDESPREAD IMMIGRATION FRAUD The Komagata Maru (KM) incident was preceded by the Panama Maru incident of late 1913. That incident helps to explain much of what happened in the Komagata Maru incident 7 months later. The Panama Maru had docked In Canada with 56 East Indians on October 17, 1913. Most of the passengers had not lived in Canada previously, but claimed that they had. They produced fraudulent money order receipts, time cards, etc. to substantiate their claims. Immigration authorities allowed 17 (those physically recognized to have been here before) to land, but they detained 39 of the 56. A Board of Inquiry looked into the case and ordered the 39 to be deported, but litigious East Indians in Canada determined to make the Panama Maru case a test case. Their lawyer, J. Edward Bird, appeared before Justice Dennis Murphy, but Murphy denied their claim. Bird then went to Chief Justice Gordon Hunter, notorious for appearing drunk in court and a clear embarrassment to the government. Hunter upheld their appeal on a technicality, so most of the 39 were released. The remaining 4, who had previously been ordered deported for medical reasons, escaped from detention and could not be found. The Panama Maru incident was a big embarrassment to the federal government. It showed British Columbia that immigration bungling continued and that much stronger measures had to be taken. Immigration authorities became determined, if possible, to avoid the courts and the threat of escape from detention. Gurdit Singh, the man who organized the KM voyage, had enjoyed litigation success in Singapore and was confident that he could repeat the success in Canada. In fact, despite the warnings of British officials, he boasted to authorities in Hong Kong (the port from which the KM departed for Canada) that he would challenge the Canadian government in court and that after he had succeeded, he would bring up to 25,000 labourers from India to Canada, particularly to B.C. This was not just an economic threat, but also a cultural one. (As a result of Canadian weakness in dealing with these threats today, both have been realized in parts of B.C.) Later in Japan, Singh boasted that 10,000 Indian troops (mostly Sikhs) would rebel if the KM were stopped from landing. Significantly, in May of 1914, Canada was in the midst of a recession, with very high unemployment. As Gurdit Singh would quickly discover, 1914 was not a wise time to launch a test case for Sikh labourers. In addition, both the Panama Maru and KM incidents had been preceded by extensive Chinese and Japanese fraud: A. The Chinese committed extensive fraud to avoid the Head Tax. Essentially, the Head Tax was like a tariff. It tried to discourage cheap Chinese labour from entering Canada. In cases where Chinese still wanted to come, the Head Tax tried to neutralize the wage advantage Chinese labourers had. However, in response to Ottawa’s generosity in giving re-entry certificates to Chinese labourers who wanted to return to China for a visit, many sold or loaned these certificates to Chinese in China who evaded the Head Tax when they came to Canada. Chinese fraud reached epidemic levels after the $500 Head Tax in 1904. In 1910-11, Justice Dennis Murphy conducted a Royal Commission into “Chinese Frauds” . He found many: Chinese had stowed away aboard ships coming to British Columbia; they claimed that they were businessmen (at that time exempt from the Head Tax); they pretended to be sons of businessmen (also exempt from the Head Tax); they impersonated others, etc. He also found that the Chinese interpreter, who was employed to interview incoming Chinese, was involved in the fraud and that he had abetted many to enter Canada illegally. For details see http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2007/04/04/an-easter-proverb-those-who-demand-contrition-from-canada-probably-owe-contrition-to-canada-justice-dennis-murphys-1910-11-royal-commission-investigation-of-chinese-immigration-frauds/ ( http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2007/04/04/an-easter-proverb-those-who-demand-contrition-from-canada-probably-owe-contrition-to-canada-justice-dennis-murphys-1910-11-royal-commission-investigation-of-chinese-immigration-frauds/ ) B. The Japanese also committed much fraud. In order for Japanese to receive naturalization papers which were required to obtain fishing boat licences. In the late 1890′s and early 1900′s, many Japanese had committed perjury when asked to declare how long they had spent in Canada. (A minimum number of years was required.) By 1900, this had resulted in Japanese fishermen owning 45% of all gill-net fishing licences. By committing fraud, they had become an economic force completely disproportionate to their numbers. Their willingness to accept low fish prices caused considerable anger and conflict with other fishermen. In contrast to chaotic China, Japan had firm control of emigration from Japan. (NOTE: Emigration from China and Japan was a Chinese and Japanese labourer issue. Other Chinese and Japanese were exempt.) In the early 1900′s, Canada was able to negotiate agreements in which Japan either forbade or severely limited Japanese labourers going to Canada. But, in 1907, a Japanese labour contractor company from Vancouver used its corrupt influence to convince the Japanese government to give passports to Japanese labourers to go to Canada. When this fraud (and other illegal Japanese immigration from Hawaii) was exposed, the Japanese government was so embarrassed that it was eager to make amends. It responded by agreeing to continuous passage legislation which required cheap labourers from Japan to start their trip to Canada from Japan, their home country, not Hawaii. This legislation was applied to India also. The Sikhs like to say they were singled out unjustly, but the truth is that continuous passage legislation was a clear attempt to curb cheap labour, reduce economic hardship for Canadian labourers, and to stop immigration fraud. All of this fraud, the displacement of Canadian workers and the apparent inability of the federal government to end it combined in the decision to refuse entry to most of the Komagata Maru passengers. As one Vancouver Sun columnist (Daphne Bramham) has put it, there was little difference between the Komagata Maru incident and the landing of several Chinese ships off the coast of Vancouver Island in 1999. Both were illegal landings and government officials were right to stop them. It is absurd now for Canada to be apologizing to the Sikhs—just as it would be for Canada to apologize to China 100 years from now for sending back most of the Chinese aboard the ships that landed on Vancouver Island. If some Sikhs want to play the apology game, let’s remind them of all the refugee and immigration fraud some of them have recently committed (so well demonstrated by the Laibar Singh case). Let’s also remember the turmoil some of them have caused in Canada’s labour market as a result of immigration, in our refugee system as a result of the notorious Singh Decision, and in our legal system with the Air India bombing. The major purpose of the demands of some Sikhs for a Komagata Maru apology is to make Canadians feel that Canada is guilty of a crime. According to these Sikhs, the only way Canada can compensate is to maintain or increase current senselessly-high immigration levels. The truth is that many Canadians think that if someone should be apologizing, these people should be the ones to apologize to Canada. And the best way they can do that is to stop making demands that Canada cater to them. The more sensible Sikhs should help them and Canada to achieve this goal. Tou may wish to order two booklets published by C-FAR Books on this matter: __ The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Incident Re-visited by Robert Jarvis. In depth study of Sikh conspiracy to sneak illegals into Canada and the brave Canadians who led the successful resistance, including under cover agent William Hopkinson. $6.00 postpaid __ H.H. Stevens: Canadian Immigration Reformer, Reconstructionist and Canada Firster by Robert Jarvis. A young Conservative MP from Vancouver at the time of the Komagata Maru incident, Stevens helped organize resistance to the illegals. He later succeeded in pushing for legislation to severely restrict Asiatic immigration which was swamping the tiny population of British Columbia, He enjoyed a long political career and died in the 1970s "an Asiatic exclusionist to the last." $7.00 postpaid. __ The Workingman's Revolt and the Vancouver Rally of 1907 by Robert Jarvis. More suppressed and forgotten history. A coalition of labour leaders, conservatives and clergy held a huge rally of 20,000 people -- a third of the population of the city - to protest the flood of cheap Asian labour. The origins of the protest and its aftermath. $6.00 postpaid You can order these booklets by mail and pay by cheque, VISA or money order: C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3. CANADA. You may also order by e-mail and send us your VISA number and expiry date. _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp255.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgbswgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider