# Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2006)

A couple of posts in another thread have brought up some ideas for discussion.  The question could be asked as to where Canada is headed with its' Policies on Multi-culturalism and on Visible Minorities?  Are they one and the same or two distinctly different issues that are being confused with each other?  Is our idea of Multi-culturalism a better method than the US philosophy of "Melting Pot" towards integration into our Society?  Are we truly integrating new Immigrants and Refugees into our Canadian Society with our Policies, or are we in effect watering down what it is to be Canadian and creating instead a series of ethnic ghettos that have more Cultural, Linguistic and Political allegiances to a foreign country and destroying our 'Canadian' identity?  What does it truly mean to be a 'Canadian'........ is there a 'Canadian Culture'?



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Go said "Canada is not a multicultural country, only 14% of our population is a vis-min"
> 
> We love to sell ourselves on fairy tales like we are the most multicultured nation in the world but good point about 14% vis min
> 
> ...





			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Hold on a second...don't confuse "multi-cultural" with "visible minorities". The vismins are just a part of being multicultural. The groups you named are all parts of it, as are Russians, Poles, white Bosnian Muslims, Italians, Portuguese, etc. It doesn't really consider what colour your skin is: it means what cultural practices you follow.  In fact, you can easily argue that an increasing percentage of young vismin Canadians (much to the alarm of their elders...) are actually drifting away from their cultures. If everyone just lives a blahh grey "McCulture", then we really don't have multiculturalism no matter what colour Canadians are.
> 
> On the other hand, the 14% vismin figure is not necessarily a useful one either. IIRC, the black population of the US is about 12%. That seems, on the face of it, prettty small, right? Now, let's not pretend for one second that that 12% of US population has not had a HUGE effect on US life, history and culture. It isn't how many, but how influential, that matters IMHO.
> 
> ...



Perhaps we should start off with what is the difference in "Multi-cultural" Vs "Visible Minorities".  I would argue that the "Visible Minorities" are not necessarily that "Visible".  I have worked with many who have Native ancestry who one would never identify as being so, until they pull out a Treaty Card or make a statement to the effect that they are.  Looks and linguistic similarities are not enough to make one "Visible" at times.  I can use the example of the Mall and the Handicap Parking spots, and I am sure most of you have experienced this at one time or another, where a person will park a vehicle with Handicap Card or Plates in a Handicap Space at the Mall.  You watch as a person gets out and they walk into the Mall showing no visible signs of having a Handicap.  They may be able to function relatively normal and compensate for their Handicap, thus hiding the fact that they are.  Of course they may not be Handicapped at all, but how do we know?  You would have to confront them.  Cause a scene perhaps.  Perhaps the person has a bad heart, that would not be obvious to laymen like you and I.  So at times this distinction between "Multi-cultural" Vs "Visible Minorities" may be a whole lot of shades of gray.


----------



## xFusilier (16 Jan 2006)

The superiority of the "melting pot" versus the "cultural mosiac" is oft held as one of the unyeilding constants of Canadian social studies.  Almost every Canadian student has at some time had to sit through a junior high school social studies class and hear the teacher wax poetic about the inherent superiority of the "cultural mosaic".  Usually this is intended to be accepted as dogma by the students.

I would submit that the difference between the two is that the "melting pot" model of societal integration sees mainstream society as a monolithic mass that basically stays unchanging.  This would be reflected to a certain extend in the American facination with history and the founding of their nation.  Americans, tend to see their culutral values as a constant, and it is the obligation of those that wish to become productive members of society to adapt to new cultural norms.  The "cultural mosaic" model sees culture as a more fluid thing, that culture changes with the experiences of those individuals that consitutes it and invites individuals from outside of the mainstream to play a role in shaping it.  Is one better than the other, hardly, each has its own strengths and drawbacks.

Culture in and of itself cannot be discerned through simple observation, whilst ones status as a visible minority can.  While I agree with George that not all minorities are visible, the addition of the adjective visible means that to be a visible minority ones status as a member of the minority group must be readily observable.  This further points out one of the problems with defining "visible-minority" hand in hand with "multi-cultural", the assumption that someone who appears to be a member of the majority subscribes to the culture of the majority.  Shades of grey indeed.

Another problem with "multi-culturalism" versus "visible minorities" is the fact that while we accept as a key tennant of our political culture the equality of the human condition, that all persons regardless of colour, are of equal value, we also accept the fact that there are some elements of culture that have no value in our society.  The examples may seem absurd as they are intuitive, but they do point to the fact that we may make value judgements about different cultures where we are loath to do so in reference to the individuals who practice them.  Cultural practices such as pedophillia, cannabalism, female circumcision, are seen as repugnant by members of mainstream society.

This dichotomy is further illustrated by the fact that for years in Canada the term multiculturalism was used to define the range of cultural practices in Canada by European immigrants who could not be differentiated simply from the colour of thier skin.  Thus the argument that "visible minorities" and "multiculturalism" often show no correlation.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2006)

The whole concept of "visible" minorities implies that somehow "invisible minorities" are of less worth.  

"Culture" used to mean what kind of funky clothes you wore to your brother's wedding.  A kilt, sari, an ao-dai, a kirpan, a whatever.   Now it seems to refer to excuses for conducting criminal activities.

The term "culture" requires a definition here for any meaningful discourse to take place.


----------



## UberCree (16 Jan 2006)

The way I see it the term "visible minority" is a descriptor used for things such as affirmative action.
Multiculturalism is a practice or action.  It may involve inclusion of visible minorities, or it may not.
The two are completely different.


----------



## midgetcop (16 Jan 2006)

I usually see the term "visible" minority when filling out job applications i.e. "do you consider yourself a visible minority?"

I should probably start checking off "Yes" because of my height.  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jan 2006)

I always check "other".  In the explain field I put: Hetero-Anglo-Caucasian-Male-Canadian.... :warstory:


----------



## ZipperHead (16 Jan 2006)

This is a very interesting subject. We were talking about it at work today, and it is interesting how people interpret it.

I am white, blonde haired (when I have hair), blue eyed male. One would say that I am a "normal" Canadian, one that is very much in the majority, according to all the surveys. I have a Cpl that works for me who is of East Indian descent, and obviously falls into the visible minority category. Who is "more" Canadian? My mother was born in Finland, and moved here in the '50's. My father was born in Canada, moved to Finland as a boy, moved back in the '50's, and the rest, as they say is history. So I am, arguably first (or second, if you want to get technical) generation Canadian. My good Cpl? I have never bothered to ask (though he did provide some insight on a few questions I had regarding the difference between Sikhs and Hindu's). I suppose I don't care, because he is just as Canadian as I am, even if his great-great-great-Grandparents came over in the 1800's, beating my family by a good 50-100 years. However, I KNOW there are people who don't consider him as Canadian as me, because we assume that if you are white, you are more Canadian.

I am quite annoyed by these "self identification" surveys that make their rounds, as are almost everybody else I know. We have to pigeon-hole everybody into convenient categories (white hetero male, lesbian Aboriginal female). It doesn't help with the hyphenation of Canadian (Irish-Canadian, French-Canadian, Indo-Canadian). I can honestly say that I have never (seriously) identified myself as Finno-Canadian as A) I was born in Canada, so I am Canadian (I should sell that line to a beer company....) and B) I would forever be trying to explain what the hell a Finno-Canadian is. 

I think a good part of the reason we are so apt to resort to naming people "majority" or "visible minority" is in good part to the "White Man's Guilt": that we feel we need to keep punishing ourselves for the sins of our forefathers. As mentioned, my family came to Canada circa 1950. Why should I be excluded from the "visible minority" or what I really think falls under "immigrant from other than Northern/Western Europe" group?? If I move to certain areas of Canada, I would be in the visible minority. Then what? Do I receive preferential treatment? Or do I always default (via the sins of our fathers) to being The Man. When the population of major urban areas (such as Toronto) has a visible minority population of greater than 50.1%, then what? How can a majority be a minority? Is "whitey" then the visible minority, and gets affirmative action in his/her favour? 

I think the worst thing out of all of this is the fact that most people who move to Canada just want to become Canadian. The powers that be, aided by a vocal minority from any chosen group, try to decide what is best for all of us, and just further drive a wedge between "us" and "them". 

Al


----------



## TCBF (16 Jan 2006)

"I am white, blonde haired (when I have hair), blue eyed male."

- 'Aryan Al'.  ;D

- "I would forever be trying to explain what the hell a Finno-Canadian is."

- Not to me.  I'm from Thunder Bay!

But, you make some good points.  Who got more support, my family coming off the boat from Ireland in 1820, or a Jamaican family who landed last week?

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (16 Jan 2006)

As posted in the thread that inpired this one...

What I'm saying is that the only reason we are able to smugly embrace the "multicultural" theory is that people who practice any other type of culture than the European ones (who I am deliberately lumping into a large group) are (or were) a tiny minority. Face it, after two generations here, alot of people have to think to come up with their ancestry, and they all act in roughly the same ways.

The cultural non-conformists are such a small minority that the effects of their respective cultures, both good and bad, are diluted in the population in which they reside. Where they choose to concentrate themselves into racially homogenous communities is when we notice. (Jamaican men shooting each other in Toronto and asian gangs in Vancouver and Edmonton) 

Thus, our being multicultural is just allowing cultural non-conformists to exist - which we have, because they are so small in numbers. Or were. Now that the problems associated with some of the cultures we previously allowed to ghettoize themselves and become inward - looking are starting to surface (extreme violence, misogyny, polygamy etc.) Statements like "communities in crisis" are being made - when it is not a community that is the problem. It is one ethnic group that was never encouraged to live in the manner that made this country what it was; instead choosing to perpetuate the behaviours that made their home nations less desireable to live in in the first place.

This is what I mean when I say that Canada is not a multicultural nation. It is a unicultural nation, with a few pockets of cultural non-conformists, who were quaint and supported, when vastly outnumbered, but are now becoming microcosms of their nations of origin.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> As posted in the thread that inpired this one...
> 
> What I'm saying is that the only reason we are able to smugly embrace the "multicultural" theory is that people who practice any other type of culture than the European ones (who I am deliberately lumping into a large group) are (or were) a tiny minority. Face it, after two generations here, alot of people have to think to come up with their ancestry, and they all act in roughly the same ways.
> 
> ...



You posted the word "culture" or variants therein at least a dozen times without giving a clue what your definition is.

How do you "practice "another" culture"?   Aren't they good enough at it they don't need practice?

But seriously - just what do you mean by that?  I know you can practice religion, but who practices culture, and what does it mean?

Does culture really mean religion?  I don't know, which is why I ask. I'm Ukrainian - well, my great granparents were, anyway, my parents and three of my granparents were born in Canada.  I don't paint eggs funny colours, eat cabbage rolls or speak anything but English, but I do eat a lot of garlic and keep my friends close and my enemies closer (hmm, maybe I'm really Sicilian).

So what is "culture"?


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Jan 2006)

I think the problems like Jamaican gangs, Asian gangs, East-European/Russian mobs, etc. have a tendency to be blown out of proportion (as a problem) relative to the respective group as a whole. Asian/Jamaican gangs etc. are not a representation of the norm for their respective groups. Yes, they're a problem, but such problems gauged against the entirety of effect achieved by multiculturalism are minimal to say the least. An analogy might clarify - capitalism isn't a bad idea simply because it can facilitate corporate abuses - yes, it's a problem in capitalist systems but there are measures that can be taken to minimize such abuses and the benefits gleaned are far greater than the sum of abuses created. It's the old "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" / "cut your nose off to spite your face" thing. 

The melting pot has its own advantages and disadvantages - France has a melting-pot approach to immigration and look where that got them. There will always be problems with any policy approach or paradigm, but problems are not equivalent with hopelessness or complete failure. It seems that every problem these days gets blown out of proportion into a world-changing, earth-shattering harbinger of a cultural, political, military, or economic apocalypse soon to come. I'm not sure if this is really a new thing, as there have always been doomsayers, or whether I'm just noticing it more.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2006)

France doesn't have problems because it has a melting-pot ideal; France has problems because not everything in the pot has melted.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> France doesn't have problems because it has a melting-pot ideal; France has problems because not everything in the pot has melted.



Heh.. good point, though I think the lack of melting may be a product of the mentality accompanying the ideology. I think a large part of the blame also has to be borne (obviously) by the newcomers themselves.


----------



## TCBF (17 Jan 2006)

"I think the problems like Jamaican gangs, Asian gangs, East-European/Russian mobs, etc. have a tendency to be blown out of proportion (as a problem) relative to the respective group as a whole. Asian/Jamaican gangs etc. are not a representation of the norm for their respective groups. Yes, they're a problem, but such problems gauged against the entirety of effect achieved by multiculturalism are minimal to say the least."

- Very good points.  The vast majority of the people from these groups just want to live, work, and raise their families in Canada.  The govmint should ensure they can do so without fear of the gangs/triads/ter groups that came over to tax/control their respective diasporas.  

Tom


----------



## Dare (17 Jan 2006)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> I would submit that the difference between the two is that the "melting pot" model of societal integration sees mainstream society as a monolithic mass that basically stays unchanging.  This would be reflected to a certain extend in the American facination with history and the founding of their nation.  Americans, tend to see their culutral values as a constant, and it is the obligation of those that wish to become productive members of society to adapt to new cultural norms.  The "cultural mosaic" model sees culture as a more fluid thing, that culture changes with the experiences of those individuals that consitutes it and invites individuals from outside of the mainstream to play a role in shaping it.  Is one better than the other, hardly, each has its own strengths and drawbacks.



What binds together a "cultural mosaic" if not a culturally constant set of values? It is not the "melting pot" (which is quite dynamic in many ways) that is dependent on a rigid unchanging monolithic mass. It requires centralized influence to keep the mosaic from tearing apart, just as the thread in a quilt. Given not all cultures are equal, or tolerant of eachother, it requires an especially firm and unyielding hand to keep that fabric together. I would say that the idea of a "melting pot" is simply the naturally evolution of a "cultural mosaic". The only question is, what will our culture melt into if we leave it under the control of the elites who dictate what our "Canadian culture" (the thread) is supposed to be. After this, what will it melt into once the cultural elitists can no longer dictate to the mosaics what binds them. Do we not wish to shape our destiny? Or do we leave it in the hands of others, abdicating our responsibilities?


----------



## UberCree (17 Jan 2006)

I detect some of you are fearful of multiculturalism.  Is it because you may be dethroned as the majority culture (you can roast me for making a HUGE generalization here) ???  If enough Asians immigrate to Canada to become mainstream will you then support multiculturalism or will you adopt mainstream Asian cultural practices ???  Culture is dynamic and changing.  In California and Texas hispanics will be the majority soon and will have the right to dictate mainstream culture... you could argue anyway.  This is just all rhetorical and are questions I ask myself daily.  
 ;D


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Culture is dynamic and changing.



True.  I think that our policies on multi-culturalism actually stifle that.  We are encouraging ethnic groups to maintain a lot of their culture, but not to 'share' and blend it with the rest of Canadians.  There is something, that in the past North Americans did to survive.  With the institution of Canada and the United States as countries, the sharing and blending of cultures have actually diminished with each succeeding generation, and now we see 'Cultural Ghettos' in our cities; the Little Italy's, Chinatowns, Jamaican Quarters, etc.  These can sometimes fester into areas of extreme hatred and violence, as we have seen with some Sheik communities in BC, Jamaican or Haitian communities in Montreal and Toronto, Muslim sects in some of the major metropolitan areas, etc.  No culture has a monopoly on this.  If they aren't encouraged to become part of 'Canada's dynamic and changing culture' we will be faced with continuing discord.


----------



## xFusilier (17 Jan 2006)

> What binds together a "cultural mosaic" if not a culturally constant set of values? It is not the "melting pot" (which is quite dynamic in many ways) that is dependent on a rigid unchanging monolithic mass. It requires centralized influence to keep the mosaic from tearing apart, just as the thread in a quilt. Given not all cultures are equal, or tolerant of eachother, it requires an especially firm and unyielding hand to keep that fabric together. I would say that the idea of a "melting pot" is simply the naturally evolution of a "cultural mosaic". The only question is, what will our culture melt into if we leave it under the control of the elites who dictate what our "Canadian culture" (the thread) is supposed to be. After this, what will it melt into once the cultural elitists can no longer dictate to the mosaics what binds them. Do we not wish to shape our destiny? Or do we leave it in the hands of others, abdicating our responsibilities?



What is Canadian culture?  The fact that it is very difficult to define "Canadian culture"  points to the fact that that there is nothing to melt into.  The mosiac is in and of itself consistently changing,  and I have yet to see an argument outside of "things just won't be like they used to", to illustrate why there is a requirement for a firm, unyielding hand to guide it.  The melting pot invariably means that various cultural contributions are diluted by the mass that already exists therin.  I don't understand your rail against "elites" however, in one sentence you argue for the need of a firm unyielding hand to guide it, but in another you rail against elitism, and abdicating out responsibilities, which is it?

There are arguments to the funding of culture (as independant from the Arts) in that the fundemental importance of culture to the human condition (everone exhibits it), leads one to question the valdity of those practices if the only justification for engaging in it is a big fat government cheque.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Culture is dynamic and changing.  In California and Texas hispanics will be the majority soon and will have the right to dictate mainstream culture... you could argue anyway.



Define "culture".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2006)

I think we're less a melting pot, and more like a lava lamp


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Jan 2006)

Definitions of culture:



> - *a particular society at a particular time and place*; "early Mayan civilization"
> 
> - *the tastes in art and manners that are favored by a social group *
> 
> ...



I put that there to placate Michael (and highlighted the points that are applicable, unless we are talking about yogurt), as either he was too lazy to post it, or probably he was trying to press a point: are we saying "culture" when we really mean something else, perhaps something sinister. Sort of like when we say something is "urban" it means black (as in urban music). 

Let's ponder this to see what we come up with, or are we all trying to catch smoke?

Al


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jan 2006)

Allan, I raise the issue to bring up the point that Canada DOESN'T HAVE A CULTURE.  We've been unable to define it for ourselves, and perhaps that is the biggest problem we have in assimilating those from "other cultures."  Without an understanding across the board on what is culture and what is not, we have no hope of sorting things out.

Wearing turbans in the Legion.  Is that culture?  Religion?  Ethnicity?  Special interest group?

Taking your hat off to pray on parade.  Culture?  An institution to be protected by laws regarding culture?  Outdated tradition?

Can culture be 'outdated' the way traditions can?

I suggest that an inability to agree on these kinds of questions are problematic.  We're talking about accepting "others" into "our culture" without really knowing what that culture is.  Moreover, we're saying that "their culture" is actually a part of "our culture".  Our culture being "multi-culturism."

I think by saying our culture is every culture, we've ensured we don't have one at all.


----------



## UberCree (17 Jan 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Define "culture".



Culture is what we transmit.  Our beliefs, values, practices, customs, norms, taboos, etc.  As an example, culture is being 'transmitted' here on these boards by how we interact with each other, by how we write, the posts we value and the posts that get deleted, etc.  No one can escape culture.  To say that we have no culture would be to say that we have no ... thoughts ... feelings ... intellect ... whatever.  Its all a part of culture.
I would agree with you that Canada at times has an identity crisis, but we do have a culture.  The fact that we question who we are at length is part of our culture.  A part I like.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Culture is what we transmit.  Our beliefs, values, practices, customs, norms, taboos, etc.  As an example, culture is being 'transmitted' here on these boards by how we interact with each other, by how we write, the posts we value and the posts that get deleted, etc.  No one can escape culture.  To say that we have no culture would be to say that we have no ... thoughts ... feelings ... intellect ... whatever.



I agree with your (conveniently deleted by me) last statement, but will focus on this.  We used to have thoughts...feelings...intellect...somewhat in common, mainly by dint of the fact the majority were white, anglo-saxon, protestants.  I'm not lobbying that was desirable, just the way things worked out.  Natives, Chinese immigrants (CPR slave labor), and others were very much marginalized and society was rather misogynist.  But it was a common culture.

A look at the political scene, for one example, shows a fragmenting of thought - convervative and liberal (small c and l) is so diverse that there is no unique Canadian culture easily identified.  Yes, it is something different to everybody, but our commonalities seem to be getting fewer and fewer.  Hockey Night in Canada and Tim Horton's appear to be the leading edge.

It's part of society's trend to everyone for himself, I think. We applaud individuals (very much like the Americans do), and think little of teamwork or the big picture.  Why is the Army in such dire straits?  Everyone is worried about health care - in the end, an individual priority.  they don't ask "what if we're attacked", they ask "what if I get sick."  Always I and never We.

Multiculturalism has encouraged that outlook, I think.  I want to wear a kirpan to school because its my right.  I want to grow my hair long and serve on the Fire Department, so change the standard.  I'm preserving my culture.  I want an extra day off at Christmas, so I'm working on Rememberance Day.

The I culture is winning out over the We culture.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I think the problems like Jamaican gangs, Asian gangs, East-European/Russian mobs, etc. have a tendency to be blown out of proportion (as a problem) relative to the respective group as a whole. Asian/Jamaican gangs etc. are not a representation of the norm for their respective groups. Yes, they're a problem, but such problems gauged against the entirety of effect achieved by multiculturalism are minimal to say the least."
> 
> - Very good points.  The vast majority of the people from these groups just want to live, work, and raise their families in Canada.  The govmint should ensure they can do so without fear of the gangs/triads/ter groups that came over to tax/control their respective diasporas.
> 
> Tom



Absolutely - deport them if possible.


----------



## Dare (17 Jan 2006)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> What is Canadian culture?  The fact that it is very difficult to define "Canadian culture"  points to the fact that that there is nothing to melt into.  The mosiac is in and of itself consistently changing,  and I have yet to see an argument outside of "things just won't be like they used to", to illustrate why there is a requirement for a firm, unyielding hand to guide it.  The melting pot invariably means that various cultural contributions are diluted by the mass that already exists therin.  I don't understand your rail against "elites" however, in one sentence you argue for the need of a firm unyielding hand to guide it, but in another you rail against elitism, and abdicating out responsibilities, which is it?


I agree that it is difficult to define "Canadian culture". I would say that a melting pot is not so much a "melting into" as it is a "melting together". A natural merging. I also do not believe that a melting pot invariably leads to dilution, as it is predicated on the notion that there is, or has ever been, an undiluted culture in the world. I view it as a summing of various values and traditions. Evolution, if you will. I was not arguing for an unyielding (elitist) hand to guide multiculturalism, I was trying to point out the logical needs that system. Neither are productive. I was pointing out that it is a requirement of multiculturalism, that there be a bond between cultures (especially warring and disagreeable ones), and thus a sort of managed transparent super culture. All cultures in this multicultural society must bend to the will of the super culture or be banned. I'm also hoping to make clear that multicultural does not mean omnicultural. The elitists can pick and choose amongst the sub cultures of whom will be allowed to be their legitimate representatives but ultimately, it will always be whoever controls the ideal of the thread that binds will be the one who defines what is "Canadian" or not. 


> There are arguments to the funding of culture (as independant from the Arts) in that the fundemental importance of culture to the human condition (everone exhibits it), leads one to question the valdity of those practices if the only justification for engaging in it is a big fat government cheque.


I do not believe that one can "fund culture", but rather pay to change culture.


----------



## Dare (17 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> I detect some of you are fearful of multiculturalism.  Is it because you may be dethroned as the majority culture (you can roast me for making a HUGE generalization here) ???  If enough Asians immigrate to Canada to become mainstream will you then support multiculturalism or will you adopt mainstream Asian cultural practices ???  Culture is dynamic and changing.  In California and Texas hispanics will be the majority soon and will have the right to dictate mainstream culture... you could argue anyway.  This is just all rhetorical and are questions I ask myself daily.
> ;D


I always find it interesting when one implies that new cultures will have the right to dictate their culture to Canada, yet the rest of us already living here have no right to promote and protect our culture (whatever it may be). Perhaps we fear the rise of cultures that do not respect law, justice, order and civil liberties? Perhaps we fear that what our predecessors fought tooth and nail for is being given away and traded for something of lesser quality? Or maybe to some it's as simple as not wishing the communication standard to be a more inefficient and complicated language. I'm sure that there are many reasons that some are *distainful* of multiculturalism..


----------



## UberCree (18 Jan 2006)

Dare said:
			
		

> I always find it interesting when one implies that new cultures will have the right to dictate their culture to Canada, yet the rest of us already living here have no right to promote and protect our culture (whatever it may be). Perhaps we fear the rise of cultures that do not respect law, justice, order and civil liberties? Perhaps we fear that what our predecessors fought tooth and nail for is being given away and traded for something of lesser quality? Or maybe to some it's as simple as not wishing the communication standard to be a more inefficient and complicated language. I'm sure that there are many reasons that some are *distainful* of multiculturalism..



In my opinion you just made a case FOR multiculturalism.  You lost me on your last two points, I wont even bother to try to interpret what you were implying, but on your first two points our combined ancestors fought for freedoms and protection from the 'state' to tell us whether or not we were 'lesser quality' or 'inefficient' human beings.  
I am not saying that Sharia law should have the right to exist in Canada or that people should be allowed to practise oppressive traditions.  However if someone wants to practice their beliefs and it doesn't harm others then why not?


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> In my opinion you just made a case FOR multiculturalism.  You lost me on your last two points, I wont even bother to try to interpret what you were implying, but on your first two points our combined ancestors fought for freedoms and protection from the 'state' to tell us whether or not we were 'lesser quality' or 'inefficient' human beings.
> I am not saying that Sharia law should have the right to exist in Canada or that people should be allowed to practise oppressive traditions.  However if someone wants to practice their beliefs and it doesn't harm others then why not?



Just going to play devils advocate here for a sec:

"Why not"?  Because by the time they DO start harming others, it's too late.  Look at the racial (Muslim) problems in France, Australia, and parts of  Europe.  Riots, rampaging, gang-rapes....these things didn't start overnight.  They're happening because the governments have progressively allowed them to get away with more and more, until eventually they got the idea that they could turn their adopted countries into the new Muslim paradise.  Why not stop it before it grows out of control?  Don't dictate what religions people can believe in...but "Strongly Encourage" them to integrate themselves into their new invironment.


----------



## midgetcop (18 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> "Why not"?  Because by the time they DO start harming others, it's too late.  Look at the racial (Muslim) problems in France, Australia, and parts of  Europe.  Riots, rampaging, gang-rapes....these things didn't start overnight.  They're happening because the governments have progressively allowed them to get away with more and more, until eventually they got the idea that they could turn their adopted countries into the new Muslim paradise.  Why not stop it before it grows out of control?  Don't dictate what religions people can believe in...but "Strongly Encourage" them to integrate themselves into their new invironment.



I'm not sure how allowing groups of new Canadians to practice their culture/religion automatically leads to crime. There are plenty of new Canadians who have been able to "integrate" into society and follow our laws, yet retain their religious identity. 

And a good move on Ontario's part: getting rid of Sharia's Law.


----------



## Dare (18 Jan 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> In my opinion you just made a case FOR multiculturalism.  You lost me on your last two points, I wont even bother to try to interpret what you were implying, but on your first two points our combined ancestors fought for freedoms and protection from the 'state' to tell us whether or not we were 'lesser quality' or 'inefficient' human beings.
> I am not saying that Sharia law should have the right to exist in Canada or that people should be allowed to practise oppressive traditions.  However if someone wants to practice their beliefs and it doesn't harm others then why not?


I figured you would morph culture into race. How easy for you to codify the world like that. I did not say "lesser quality" or "inefficient" human beings. Do not distort my words. If you do not believe the right for Sharia law to exist in Canada, I am sure it is at least in part due to your belief it is "lesser quality" or "inefficient". So please, don't try to interperate what you think I was implying, because you can not properly interperate what I was actually saying at all.


----------



## Greywolf (20 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Just going to play devils advocate here for a sec:
> 
> "Why not"?  Because by the time they DO start harming others, it's too late.  Look at the racial (Muslim) problems in France, Australia, and parts of  Europe.  Riots, rampaging, gang-rapes....these things didn't start overnight.  They're happening because the governments have progressively allowed them to get away with more and more, until eventually they got the idea that they could turn their adopted countries into the new Muslim paradise.  Why not stop it before it grows out of control?  Don't dictate what religions people can believe in...but "Strongly Encourage" them to integrate themselves into their *new environment*.



And what would this new environment be?  A Christian environment?   We cannot even define what a Canadian culture is because there aren't any traditions or customs that are unique Canadian.  There simply was not enough time for a Canadian culture to form because Canada hasn't been around for that long.  With more and more immigrants from various ethnic groups coming into Canada, it will be even more difficult for a "Canadian" culture to form because they will each bring their own traditions and customs with them.  When we tell people to integrate, we are just saying all the minority (as in groups that happen to be part of the less than 50% of the population) should follow whatever the majority believes in.  I do not see a problem when people follow their own ethnic or cultural traditions.  Why would it be a problem when Jews celebrate Hannukah or Muslims practice fasting at Ramadan...or Chinese celebrating Chinese New Year, or Hungarians participate in Easter Sprinkling?  None of these practices are harming people.  I think people should be happy they have the opportunity to observe and learn about these customs first hand without having to travel to several different countries.  

Often people come to have negative about certain groups or group practices because they are identified in the media.  How often do we hear about Asian gangs or Muslim radicals?  How come we hardly ever hear about Caucasian gangs or Christian extremists?  It is not the ethnic group or religious group that commits crimes.  Perhaps some criminals or murderers or suicide bombers happen to belong to certain ethnic or religious groups.  But That is not what make them criminals.  It is people who believe they are superior or self-righteous, people who cannot tolerate dissenting views that become dangerous...because they are the fanatics who will do anything to make others conform to one ideal!


----------



## Dare (21 Jan 2006)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> And what would this new environment be?  A Christian environment?   We cannot even define what a Canadian culture is because there aren't any traditions or customs that are unique Canadian.  There simply was not enough time for a Canadian culture to form because Canada hasn't been around for that long.  With more and more immigrants from various ethnic groups coming into Canada, it will be even more difficult for a "Canadian" culture to form because they will each bring their own traditions and customs with them.  When we tell people to integrate, we are just saying all the minority (as in groups that happen to be part of the less than 50% of the population) should follow whatever the majority believes in.  I do not see a problem when people follow their own ethnic or cultural traditions.  Why would it be a problem when Jews celebrate Hannukah or Muslims practice fasting at Ramadan...or Chinese celebrating Chinese New Year, or Hungarians participate in Easter Sprinkling?  None of these practices are harming people.  I think people should be happy they have the opportunity to observe and learn about these customs first hand without having to travel to several different countries.


Well, we will see when the street signs all have 18 languages on them, foreign laws begin to take root here, and such as so forth. I really don't think anyone cares a whole lot what day a person spends to celebrate the new year, or how many times a day someone prays to their god or even bubblewrap. When the cultural conflicts and poor practices of other nationalities are brought here, it should be a concern to everyone. Let's imagine this nation as a non-English speaking country. Where does that leave our English traditions and laws? Whose courts replace them? 


> Often people come to have negative about certain groups or group practices because they are identified in the media.  How often do we hear about Asian gangs or Muslim radicals?  How come we hardly ever hear about Caucasian gangs or Christian extremists?  It is not the ethnic group or religious group that commits crimes.


Asian is not just a race. It is also describing people of a region. When gangs come from this region and are spread throughout Asia, what would you call them? If you do not like what they are grouped as, you can always petition the media and ask them to consider a different phrasing. "Christian extremists"? Well, considering what bleeds leads in the media. Christian extremists would have to murder someone. That's why you'll likely only hear of them in abortion clinic bombings. Where religion is the prime motivator in their crimes. Caucasian gangs? Like the Hells Angels? We hear plenty of them. No, they're not indentified as a Caucasian gang because they've been singled out for even more scrutiny. What Asian gangs do you know of? There are plenty to go around. Yet, because they are merely identified as "Asian gangs" they do not get as much scrutiny, even though they are generally (oh no, a generalization!) more dangerous and violent than the locally bred yobs.


> Perhaps some criminals or murderers or suicide bombers happen to belong to certain ethnic or religious groups.  But That is not what make them criminals.


This one I'll need a little bit of explaining. How are criminals, murderers and suicide bombers not criminals? Or do you mean that the individuals do not encapsulate the broader ethnic group? 


> It is people who believe they are superior or self-righteous, people who cannot tolerate dissenting views that become dangerous...because they are the fanatics who will do anything to make others conform to one ideal!


Really? That's interesting. If we consider how most ideologies and cultures have their own superiority complex, by nature of their existence. Why would you pick a certain religion if you did not believe it to be the best? If you do not believe any religion to be the best, then clearly you believe that is the superior position to take. We all like better things and aspire to better ourselves (and in some cases, others as well). The very nature of multiculturalism is the creation of islands of people who refuse to adopt other peoples traditions and values because they believe theirs are superior. While it is those "caucasian/Christian extremists" that tolerate all of this, in Canada. So please, let's keep race out of this equation, because it's simply not important. Culture is seperate from race. It is the continual effort of those currently in power to keep them intertwined so that anyone who is opposed to importing all cultures can be branded as a racist. Which is simply not true. 

I don't want Asian gangs here anymore than I want the Hells Angels or whatever Nazi party. I do want to be able to communicate with people in my country in the official languages, does that make me a racist? I do want *tolerance* to be a major infuence by not importing INtolerance. I do want to preserve law, order and our English customs of justice by not importing people who refuse to preserve this. I don't care what type of nachos or music people bring. I do care that their values (as adjusted by whatever political or religious affiliation) are not toxic to the well-being of the nation. I also do not believe we should slam the doors shut on people who truely believe the causes of our country and feel kinship to the people who reside in it. Does that make me a racist?


----------



## Guest (28 Apr 2006)

> While it is those "caucasian/Christian extremists" that tolerate all of this, in Canada. So please, let's keep race out of this equation, because it's simply not important.


I am assuming the above was said with sarcasm.

I will have to differ with you on that because extremists do not tolerate minorities; but they do sympathize with terrorist groups like the KKK (Yes I consider them terrorists). It is because an overhwhelming majority of Canadians who are liberal, peaceloving, dont give a ***t about religion, color of skin, or ethnic background and as a result Canada is what it is today: a forward looking icon and torch-bearer of democratic values that people of all nations can look upto. It's no thanks to people of extremist views, but rather thanks to visionaries of the past who by no means were religious fanatics.

IMHO an overwhelming majority of people who immigrate to Canada from other countries do not like to be hyphenated Canadians, and would rather be mainstream as any other Canadian who cannot be described with a hyphenation. I agree that naming gangs as representative of a particular culture is abhorrent and smacks of passive intolerance. As was mentioned earlier, good examples of these ignorant remarks can be seen when generalizing a small proportion of a particular community as "Asian-gangs" or "Hispanic gangs"...or Indo-Canadian gangs....so on and so forth to make it look as if the whole group of people from that origin are somehow responsible for the actions of the criminals, or in some rare cases that they share the criminals' views.

A question was raised about what the criminals should be called if not by the name from which countries or regions the thugs originated from. I am suggesting that they be called by what their gangs are called. Surely every gang has a name. If we call the KKK by their gang name -thats what they are: a gang; not an organization or a group; not a white christain fundamentalist group because thats the gist of my argument- it implies that all people who are percieved as belonging to the "white christian" category share the twisted views of KKK, which is just not the case; even though I would like to add a few more adjectives like murderers and thugs when describing an gang like the KKK) why should we not call other criminals by their names? but rather it gives a false sense of superiority to people who like to demean other cultures by focusing on anomalies like these gangs and criminals, which every culture has a small proportion of

peace to all


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> IMHO an overwhelming majority of people who immigrate to Canada from other countries do not like to be hyphenated Canadians, and would rather be mainstream as any other Canadian who cannot be described with a hyphenation. I agree that naming gangs as representative of a particular culture is abhorrent and smacks of passive intolerance. As was mentioned earlier, good examples of these ignorant remarks can be seen when generalizing a small proportion of a particular community as "Asian-gangs" or "Hispanic gangs"...or Indo-Canadian gangs....so on and so forth to make it look as if the whole group of people from that origin are somehow responsible for the actions of the criminals, or in some rare cases that they share the criminals' views.



Then perhaps it's time those cultures and communities pull their heads out of their asses and start policing their own. They know they exist, where they are, who's involved, but refuse to help the police break them up. As well, it is the gangs themselves that identify along these lines, who are we to argue. If they reflect negatively on the culture, see my first point. 

Once again, the touchy feely lieberalism is creeping in. I did not create the situation, nor am I responsible for their plight. I will bend over backwards for those that genuinely require, want and seek out effective solutions. What I won't be is blamed, for the situations of those that refuse to help themselves first.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Apr 2006)

Just my two cents, but I think we have to be very careful of two things:
1)  The culture immigrants bring with them - sorry, I'm not looking to add to our population groups that think smoking dope and stealing, or that Jews are descended from pigs and dogs, are acceptable beliefs.  More to the point, I think we as a society need to have a frank discussion about some of these things and at some point need to say "No, sorry we're not interested you....perhaps you can find another country that's interested in your point of view."
2)  How our system then integrates all immigrants.  I have specific concerns with the large sections of muslim communities who for all intents and purposes do not integrate at all.  Instead they stay completely separate maintaining their bigoted outlooks in privacy, but then are very active in utilising their votes to influence public policy (you'll notice how the Liberal Party foreign policy changed as the number of Muslims began exceeding the number of Jews in the late-80's).  More to the point, I believe that there should be one public school system (fixing it is a different matter) for all Canadian youth whether rich or poor or anything else.  I further believe that team-building exercises where the Jewish kid and Lebanese kid are paired along with a Serbian kid and a Croatian kid on a Science Fair project.  In short, that most bigoted beliefs can only exists in a vacuum of ignorance.  Force people who have those beliefs to work together and very quickly they realize they're not so different after all.  In short, if we're going to allow massive immigration, we need to be more deliberate in using our education system in order to socially-engineer the type of adults we want them to grow into.  That has to do with tolerance, but quite frankly has just as much to do with selflessness, hard work, personal responsibility, etc.


Matthew.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

I don't quite understand, is your proposed "social engineering" supposed to:

a.    change the immigrants you would allow into the country into "Canadians" in your preferred image?



> ...using our education system in order to socially-engineer the type of adults we want them to grow into ...



OR

b.   improve the understanding of Canadians for greater acceptance of diversity?



> That has to do with tolerance, but quite frankly has just as much to do with selflessness, hard work, personal responsibility, etc.



Who are you trying to educate?  What, exactly, are you trying to "socially enginer"?


----------



## orange.paint (30 Apr 2006)

What I always laugh at is my family.My wife 1 gen Canadian me 2nd generation.We are both white Anglo saxton.Her family from cardiff mine from Devon.Automatically we are accepted as "true" Canadians while Abdul who owns a carpet store in Ottawa who's family has been here for 6 generations is less accepted.We all bring our own distinct culture where ever we go.

Me and my wife celebrate "guy fox night" on November The 5th,although when you tell other Anglos in Ontario about it they look at you like you have 3 heads.What makes my holiday acceptable?(It involves large bonfires burning stuffed dummies)Now if there were a bunch of "coloured" immigrants on a beach burning fake people on a fire how would this resinate through-out our news net? 

I believe a lot of our problems is fear for what we do not know.Misunderstanding what we see due to sheer ignorance of others culture.Do I agree with racial gangs?No. But why do people fear large groups of people of certain descents hanging out in groups?We make our acquaintances with people of similar ethos and values,and most of the time it involves culture background as a commonality.

Cheers
my 2 cents worth


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Apr 2006)

To Micheal....

I guess I need to clarify....

Two Steps:
1)  Be more selective into who we allow into the country so that if their values run directly contrary to what we determine to be "Canadian values", then they need not apply.  

2)  Once individuals have made it through that first screening and are accepted as immigrants, ensure that the education system is used to remove whatever remaining intolerant attitudes may remain as part of the historical culture, so that the next generation comes arrives into adulthood with the same set of core beliefs as someone who is 5th or 6th generation Canadian.  

In addition to the focus on tolerance, I believe schools should go beyond teaching math, science, english, etc., and should teach basic values such as teamwork, selflessness, diligence, personal responsibility, etc.   



Matthew.


----------



## Hot Lips (30 Apr 2006)

Here, here Matthew...

HL


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> To Micheal....
> 
> I guess I need to clarify....
> 
> ...




1)  Could you outline exactly what you feel these "Canadian values" are, and how you would determine if an immigrant applicant posseses them, or has the personeal potential to adopt them?

2)  Are you not demonstrating an "intolerant attitude" in citing this preferred course of action?  How does such a contradiction fit the your perceived "Canadian values."

3) What then, do we do with 5th or 6th generation Canadians who may be failing to meet you "canadian values"?  Or are they allowed to be intolerant because they already happen to be here?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> 1)  Could you outline exactly what you feel these "Canadian values" are, and how you would determine if an immigrant applicant posseses them, or has the personeal potential to adopt them?
> 
> 2)  Are you not demonstrating an "intolerant attitude" in citing this preferred course of action?  How does such a contradiction fit the your perceived "Canadian values."
> 
> 3) What then, do we do with 5th or 6th generation Canadians who may be failing to meet you "canadian values"?  Or are they allowed to be intolerant because they already happen to be here?



Obviously, I've insulted your sensibilities, so here goes....

1a) Key Values:  Tolerance of other non-bigoted peoples, selflessness, personal responsibility, and a belief in the Rule of Law and Universal Human Rights.
1b) Screening:  You start by asking them in the interview process.  There are a million different questions you can ask directly and indirectly that determine their views on a wide variety of issues.  "Would be happy for a child or sibling marrying outside your religion?  Would you be happy for a child or sibling to marry outside your race?  Do you believe suicide bombings in Israel are justified?  Do you believe that the nation has a responsibility to pay you welfare if cannot find a job you like?  What are your beliefs about working overtime?  If you found out your friend hit someone while driving their car, would you turn them in?  If you found a wallet on the ground, do you believe you would be entitled to a reward for returning it? Etc."  And at the end, you force them to sign a declaration of loyalty to whatever principles you determine to be key.  They may hesitate.  They may lie.  However, they would at least then understand and accept the expectation and how it would affect not only them, but more importantly their children.

2.  Yes, I'm "intolerant" in that I don't want to invite a large number of selfish, racist or criminal pricks into the country.  I'm equally intolerant in that I don't believe people who are incarcerated should have the right to vote.  I'm additionally intolerant in that I believe that those individuals who bring harm to themselves or those around them by doing stupid or malicious things should be responsibile for the healthcare bills of those injured (drinking & driving accidents, bar fights, mountain climbers, etc.)  And finally I'm intolerant of people who are so Politically Correct, they'd be willing to flush down the toilet all the values that made Canada great (and wealthy and successful and a place other people want to immigrate to) in order to tolerate those individuals who have no interest in those values and instead come here for the free meal ticket all the while not integrating, maintaining a set of racist attitudes and at times blaming everyone around them for their problems, except themselves.  

3.  Once a person is here and is a citizen, you have a limited ability to "force" change.  That's why you need to be aggressive during the screening process.  That being said, I think the education system has to be set-up so that a parents bigoted attitudes are to the best of our ability eroded in the next generation.  To not attempt to influence positive change and develop positive qualities in our population is just plain lazy, short-sighted, and costs us all both directly and indirectly in our quality of life.

Let me know if you have any follow-up questions....



Matthew.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Apr 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Look at the racial (Muslim) problems in France, Australia, and parts of  Europe.  Riots, rampaging, gang-rapes....these things didn't start overnight.  They're happening because the governments have progressively allowed them to get away with more and more, until eventually they got the idea that they could turn their adopted countries into the new Muslim paradise.  Why not stop it before it grows out of control?  Don't dictate what religions people can believe in...but "Strongly Encourage" them to integrate themselves into their new invironment.



Firsly, I am a migrant myself, a minority here, but I look like the majority, ( I have blue eyes 6 ft, 95kg, a few tatts- haha) and we Canucks have alot in common with our mainstream Aussie cousins. I know what its like to leave ones homeland, leave family and friends, and start fresh. Its not easy, and its not for everyone.

Even though this bloke is now banned, he does speak of some validity. Entire suburbs, some the size of Regina have turned into violent ethnic ghettos, where you are intimidated by the colour of your skin, or women by the western clothes they wear.

Sydney is a big place, about 4.1 million people, its about 100km from Helensburg in the south, to Palm Beach in the north, and about 70km from Bondi to Emu Plains in the west.  Sydney has many places which are beautiful. No place is safe, but some are more safe than others. Places like The Rocks, Wattamolla, Circular Quay, Bondi, Coogee, Bronte, Cape Solander, Botany Bay, Sutherland Shire, etc are great places, so I am not saying teh city is rotten, but certain parts truly are. 30 yrs ago, they were not.

Sadly I am not making this up, and suburbs in Sydney like Lakemba, Wiley Park, Punchbowl are just a few, which sometimes are so out of control, the police even call them 'no go zones'. This is what happens when a minority establish a power base, and those parts of Sydney are now ruined, and unsafe. I have even driven thru in a military vehicle, I have had many threats while going thru, and it was so bad in post 9-11 that one needed a mininum of two vehicles with a co-driver. I did not feel like I has in Sydney, but more like Sader City.

Other areas too have changed, such as Cabramatta, (AKA Vietnamatta) which is now thew heroin capital of Australia where drugs are sold as open as selling lotto tickets. Right in front of CC tv and the police. Corruption right up the chain of local governement too. The man power is just not there to stop it, plus when you are dealing with a whole community which is rotten and corrupt, the problem is unsolvable.

Then last December on Cronulla, some middle eastern gangs came in, smashed two life guards, and the locals had enough, rallying a few days later, cornering a few middle eastern men. Later about 100 cars full of angry midle easternes came back, smashing cars, windows of shops, windows of houses full of terrified families,even burning some businesses, stabbing some elderly people,and innocent people getting the crap kicked out of them. Thats just their mentaility, and its widley accepted now thats just who they are. 

Its the under 25's not the older ones, but just where are these peolle getting their values. They are not only armed with knives, but with up to 1000 Glock pistols which they stole of the docks in the 90s (plus other illegal firearms - they caught a 14 yr old middle eastern boy with a loaded South African R4 'Galil full auto assault rifle- he was shouting 'Allah Ackbar, I want to kill all you pigs when taken away'. no rumour we heard it all on the news, adn it sent a chill up my spine. where does a 14 yr old get a rifle like this??). 

So the police are out gunned, and have even established divisions to counter the muslim and asian gangs here. The problem will never go away. At least now, the area of Cronulla Beach is semi normal, but its pretty much middle eastern free, as they know they have crossed the line, and locals have had a gutful. Sadly the innocent ones who want to go to the beach will not even come into the suburb. Its like a volcano, its just a matter of time til it heats up again.

I lived there for 4 yrs at Cronulla, and we seen this unrest coming for a long time. I am happy I am not there now. The property values have even dropped because of this, some over 100,000$, and thats outragous, but its Sydney, and anything is possible.

Personally, I think its very sad that there cannot be any assimilation overall. Muliculturalism has failed in Australia, and the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, as even said publically 'all we have created is a nation of tribes'. Its so bad, you can pick out an ethnicity by the choice of weapon uesd in a crime. And if you are correct 95/100, thats disgusting.

Sydney to me has almost become like Snake Plisken's New York, and to see the filth, damaged, unkempt areas full of young violent men with attitudes, of which were once thriving happy suburbs to raise kids in is quite disappointing.

This was one of the factors which led mwe into an interstate posting, and I will never EVER go back there to live, not even to visit.  I'll stick to Queensland, where it still is Australia.

At the end of the day, I'd like to see harmony with all who live here, but that just aint gonna happen. As for me, I accept people for who they are, and the values they possess regardless of race, religion and or creed. I don't care where you come from, but again obey the laws, repect us, respect the law, tow the line or go home. After all, Australia invited you here, you did not invite us.

So, although I am a citizen here, I was not born here, yet have the same right as if I was. To see whats going on down south disgusts me, but imagine who much more disgusted people are that are born here.

Now the federal government is closely going over its immigration policy, and yes the doors will be closed for some (permanantly). For others it will be more difficult, and a plan is being developed for a test for citizenship, raising the 2 yr period to 3 yrs to become a citizen, and passing a law that all migrants who do not speak english, learn and be tested before entry into Australia.

They should have done this 30 yrs ago, and maybe the problem would not be as bad as it is now. We have only ourselves to blame. The fear of offending and being PC, has turned on us, and we are now being bit, but many of those we welcomed here, and do nothing but force a sometimes foreign/violent culture upon us, expressing publically a dislike for western lifestyle, take advantage of the welfare system, and the dole.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Obviously, I've insulted your sensibilities, so here goes....
> 
> 1a) Key Values:  Tolerance of other non-bigoted peoples, selflessness, personal responsibility, and a belief in the Rule of Law and Universal Human Rights.
> 1b) Screening:  You start by asking them in the interview process.  There are a million different questions you can ask directly and indirectly that determine their views on a wide variety of issues.  "Would be happy for a child or sibling marrying outside your religion?  Would you be happy for a child or sibling to marry outside your race?  Do you believe suicide bombings in Israel are justified?  Do you believe that the nation has a responsibility to pay you welfare if cannot find a job you like?  What are your beliefs about working overtime?  If you found out your friend hit someone while driving their car, would you turn them in?  If you found a wallet on the ground, do you believe you would be entitled to a reward for returning it? Etc."  And at the end, you force them to sign a declaration of loyalty to whatever principles you determine to be key.  They may hesitate.  They may lie.  However, they would at least then understand and accept the expectation and how it would affect not only them, but more importantly their children.



And how does this differ from the intentions of the current immigration and citizenship system?
Of course, they could lie about their intentions, just like a multi-generational Canadian may choose not to follow Canadian values."
How is your system guaranteed to be better?
Who decides?
Do you, personally?
Or just those you would feel closely match your personal prejudices preferences for Canadians?
Will this apply to aspiring immigrants of every nation, or will you choose which nations it applies to?




			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 2.  Yes, I'm "intolerant" in that I don't want to invite a large number of selfish, racist or criminal pricks into the country.  I'm equally intolerant in that I don't believe people who are incarcerated should have the right to vote.  I'm additionally intolerant in that I believe that those individuals who bring harm to themselves or those around them by doing stupid or malicious things should be responsibile for the healthcare bills of those injured (drinking & driving accidents, bar fights, mountain climbers, etc.)  And finally I'm intolerant of people who are so Politically Correct, they'd be willing to flush down the toilet all the values that made Canada great (and wealthy and successful and a place other people want to immigrate to) in order to tolerate those individuals who have no interest in those values and instead come here for the free meal ticket all the while not integrating, maintaining a set of racist attitudes and at times blaming everyone around them for their problems, except themselves.



And what is you plan for cleaning up such undesirable charactistics in those who are already here, who never experienced the immigration and citizenship requirements?
Or are your controls for an improved society only to be inflicted on those from other cultures?




			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 3.  Once a person is here and is a citizen, you have a limited ability to "force" change.  That's why you need to be aggressive during the screening process.  That being said, I think the education system has to be set-up so that a parents bigoted attitudes are to the best of our ability eroded in the next generation.  To not attempt to influence positive change and develop positive qualities in our population is just plain lazy, short-sighted, and costs us all both directly and indirectly in our quality of life.



So perhaps your focus should be on the educational system, rather than trying to close the door on immigration.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So perhaps your focus should be on the educational system, rather than trying to close the door on immigration.



I don't think education will entirely suffice, we must be more selective on who we let into our country, and if that offends anyone, too bad. What needs to be addressed is the value of a migrant. Skilled labour, professional qualifications, etc, instead of opening the flood gates to the dregs of someone elses society. We have seen this all too often.

It is not sure, welcome, come and abuse the system, but what do you have to offer to us as a migrant and potential citizen? I also feel a 10 yr good behaviour bond should be brought in, so if you commit a crime of signifigance, say one which is an indicatable offence, and are found gulity by your 'peers',  you and your family are deported back to whence you came, and not allowed back. This may serve as deterrant, and at least it tells me that the person in question will not re-offend in his new country again.

My thoughts,

Wes


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Apr 2006)

Wes I don't diasagree, but CdnBlackshirt has yet to define a "better" system that what is in place and demonstrate that it would actually be workable without being intolerant in itself.  There's no sense of trying to market "Canadian values" when the proposed mechanism doesn't.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Apr 2006)

True mate.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And how does this differ from the intentions of the current immigration and citizenship system?
> Of course, they could lie about their intentions, just like a multi-generational Canadian may choose not to follow Canadian values."
> How is your system guaranteed to be better?
> Who decides?
> ...



I really think you should step back for a second and re-read what I've actually said, instead of what you seem to be inferring in your own mind.

At *NO* point have I said I'm for closing the door on immigration.

On the contrary, I actually believe in increasing immigration.  
i) I think it's good for the country to bring in people who are hungry to make a better life for themselves and their children 
ii) I think based on our demographics, we in particular need young people who are going to be employed while our baby boomers retire
iii)  The larger the supporting population, the lower the debt per person and therefore the easier it is to carry.  

Bottom Line:  I'm sick and tired of you trying in a back-handed way of painting me as a bigot.  This started as a policy debate and you've now managed to make it personal, so either step up and point to proof I'm some kind of racist (ignoring of course the multiple long-term relationships with women of every major ethnic group there is) or I'd like an apology.  Once that happens, I'll be more than happy to answer more "policy questions".  


Matthew.     

P.S.  In case you didn't read my sig line, and my screen name is the source of all of this hostility, 'Blackshirt' is a reference to NEBRASKA FOOTBALL!


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 May 2006)

Well then I apologize for offending you, your comments on "being more selective" and then applying "educational indoctrination" are certainly open to interpretation as personal intolerance.  You do seem focussed on changing who gets in and how they are received, your earlier comments also specifically mentioned racial backgrounds, and only now do you talk about age related demographics because you have realized the picture you have been presenting.


----------



## Centurian1985 (1 May 2006)

Wow! Some strong feelings being expressed.

I work in human resource management these days and this is a hot topic for us as well!  I would like to point out that Canada does have a culture, but that this culture is constantly evolving, and the actual defintions of what our culture is can be talked abou generally, but cannot be agreed upon as to what it is exactly due to the number of divergent opinions across the country in the academic and political communities. For those not in the know, here is why the government is keen on pushing the PC multi-cultural aspect.

1) makes us look good compared to other countries
2) its the right and moral thing to do
3) its an extension of the concepts presented in the 1982 constitution 
4) studies indicate that Canada will have a 'zero' death/birth ratio by around 2016, and researchers influential in the government say that the effects of this trend are already showing (the use the 'skills shortage' as their example).  the idea of con tinued high levels of immigration is intended to stave off having a small labour pool in the next ten years.   
5) having fewer workers for the same number of jobs puts the power over wages and perks back into the hands of the labour pool which would cause manufacturing and production costs to inflate to the point where Canada would not be able to sell its products for profit in other countries, or even in our own country.   
6) Canada already has a 6 million out of 30+ million population born in another country.  Add to this the number people of visible minority who were born in Canada, plus add to this number about 3 million Aboriginals (who in statistics are not the same as visible monorities).  Thats a pretty large percentage of the population that falls outside the 'culture' boundaries.  Add to this the studies (most from U of Toronto) that shows that people of foreign birth or visible minority background, or Aborginal background, are not represented in the high wage earner brackets nor among the higher positions in government and industry. the goal is for all immigrants, visible minorities and Aboriginal members will be represented equally across the entire spectrum of society.   
7) there are a large number of influential lobbyists and social psychology experts who believe that an unwillingness to tolerate beliefs from other 'non-caucasian Christian' cultures present in about 33% of our population will lead to increased social instability. showing an acceptance of their culture is intended to break  down barriers and convince other cultures to become more Canadian.   

Now hold your horses - I dont agree with all of these concepts.  Im just telling you what the motivation is behind the push.  Most of these ideas scare the hell out of me because i've never seen this concept work yet in any country in the history of mankind, which means we will either be a 'Great Achievement' or an 'Example For Others to Avoid'.

P.S. - For more on Canada's culture, a good book is 'When cultures collide' by Richard E. Lewis.  If anyones interested I can post the basis of a unique Western culure and add unique Canadian cultural aspects, but these do not apply to every single Canadian due to increasing cultural diversity. 

Cheers!


----------



## ArmyRick (1 May 2006)

Vis minority and multicural. 

I remember many caucasians in high school who were born in Europe in High school (Italians, Portugese, Yugoslavian, etc, etc). To some when you say multicultural, would they honestly look at these people and think of that word?

On a similar note, I know one guy from my youth who could trace his ancestory back to the underground rail road and was like 6th or 7th generation Canadian. As a black guy he was considered a visible minority yet how many of the PC world would look at him and wonder how long ago did he move here from Jamaica? Just a note when the term African Canadian was being bastardized he took real offence to it. Why? As he put it, he didn't refer to me as European Canadian.

Personally I have nothing agaisnt visible minorities and/or immigrants (My in-laws are immigrants) but I do expect that they adjust to Canadian lifestyle and not the other way around. 

As for refugees? Their is alot of rifraf you have to look out for. I do beleive there is an organization that beleives no one is an illegal allien (Illegal immagrant is an oxy moron) here in Canada. Well I strongly disagree. If certain people were trouble in their native land, they we really do not want them here. Same with free loaders.


----------



## Centurian1985 (1 May 2006)

Are you saying 'immagrant' on purpose?  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Now hold your horses - I dont agree with all of these concepts.



Which ones, and why not?



			
				Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Most of these ideas scare the hell out of me because i've never seen this concept work yet in any country in the history of mankind, which means we will either be a 'Great Achievement' or an 'Example For Others to Avoid'.



Examples?  Have you been around for the entire "history of mankind"?  In which countries have you seen these tried, and under what conditions did they fail? What country has tried them all to this extent?


----------



## CougarKing (1 May 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As for refugees? There is alot of rifraf you have to look out for. I do believe there is an organization that beleives no one is an illegal allien (Illegal immigrant is an oxymoron) here in Canada. Well I strongly disagree. If certain people were trouble in their native land, they we really do not want them here. Same with free loaders.


(Did a little editing)

What about Political Refugees? So what if they were persecuted in their homeland? Say for example they were a pro-democracy dissident in China who was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party?  What about refugees from wars of genocide such as those in Africa? What about Cubans escaping Castro's regime? As you saying they should just turn them away?

The US has something called "the refugee" status for people of whose home nations are wracked by severe, social conflicts that threatens their safety. Within one year of receiving that status/visa, they are eligible for a greencard, provided the situation in their home nation does not stabilize first, in which case they will be sent home. So essentially the US gives them a chance. I assume there is such a status too in Canada, considering all the Vietnamese boat people they took in in the the 1970s (60,000), thanks to then Secretary of State for External Affairs Flora MacDonald.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (2 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Well then I apologize for offending you, your comments on "being more selective" and then applying "educational indoctrination" are certainly open to interpretation as personal intolerance.  You do seem focussed on changing who gets in and how they are received, your earlier comments also specifically mentioned racial backgrounds, and only now do you talk about age related demographics because you have realized the picture you have been presenting.



First, I'm going to ask one more time to stop inferring that I have sinister motives behind what I am saying or not saying.  Specifically, in regards to the age-related demographics comment, again I think it's out-of-line.  It wasn't a reaction.  It was the justification.  I use inductive reasoning in everything I assess.  I gather the information without prejudice and then try to draw conclusions from that information.  I should add that once those conclusions are drawn, I consider them transitory.  I have no attachment to them.  If I come across information that is in contradiction to the origin paradigm, then I’m more than happy to change the paradigm to suit the new piece of information.  And when I can’t formulate a model that reconciles all the information available, I’m also quite capable of saying “You know what? I don’t know….” (Although I have to admit I hate being in that position which is why I spend so much time reading.)

Bottom Line:  Please stop assuming you know my hidden agenda, because I don't have one.  Any question you ask me, I'll answer, but out of respect I'd request you actually ask the question in terms of a policy debate as opposed to continue to paint me as a bigot which I am not....[read as "olive branch extended"....]

To start, I'm going to try to bridge the gap here by putting this into an analogous situation:
1)  If you were recruiting for the Army, would you screen for certain traits, eliminating others so you had the best BASE group of applicants to begin with who are the most likely to succeed and bring honour to the force?
2)  If you were designing a training program for the Army, would you start with a set of both skill and character trait objectives you wanted to develop from your previously-screen BASE recruits?

I would.  

As I do when I'm hiring employees....I hire character first.  I can teach someone just about any skill, but character and dedication is something that you either have, or you don't....and changing people to become more selfless, perfectionist, or anything else related is VERY, VERY tough and you'll fail far more often than you succeed.  Bottom Line:  Bad momentum takes far more effort to reverse than setting an object into motion that was previously not in motion at all.

Specifically, in regards to Canadian Immigration Policies I would propose the following specifics:
1)  Tracking immigrants over 10 years and gather statistics based on country of origin in regards to the demographic's successes/failures specifically as it relates to income and crime.
2)  Applying a weighting to that information to adjust future interview allocation quotas so that "on average" we improve the likelihood of selecting from countries of origin who have best demonstrated and ability to contribute positively to society....because that is my expectation.
3)  Applying that same weighting to the Individual Assessment (no more than 10% of overall grade) so that there is a higher barrier to clear from countries of origin identified through historical data as being below average than there is from countries of origin that are above average. 
4)  With the exception of the allocation of interviews and country of origin weighting maxxing out at 10%, the remaining 90% of the grade comes down to the individual interview.
5)  In the individual interview you address all the objective components such as education, fluency in english or french, but also do a personality test to determine character beliefs as they relate to objective versus subjective morality, racist tendencies, religious intolerance, etc.  (specifically going back to the questions related to "Would you be happy if your sibling or child married outside your race/religion?  Do you believe terrorist bombings in Israel are justified? Etc. Etc.  See previous list if you want more….).
6)  Once an immigrant passes whatever you set as your floor score, you very formally walk through "the list of expectations" WITH their family (and sponsors if they have them) to layout what that the nation will demand of them in order to receive permanent citizenship.  (Hard working, focus on education for you and your children, dedication towards improving either english or french and not rely on your mother tongue, active interaction with whatever ethnic groups are prevalent in their community of residence, ultimate loyalty to Canada and what's best for Canada above-and-beyond any previous allegiances, etc.)  Once that list has been read to them and they read it back, they then sign their name to it.  As previously mentioned, it is important to set the expectation.  Individuals who are coming to Canada with their allegiances elsewhere for the free meal ticket need to be dissuaded at the door.
7)  Once that is complete, an immigrant and their family go on a probationary period of 5-years.  During that time frame, new immigrants are expected to work, file their taxes on time, not be charged with any crimes (small misdemeanor like jaywalking obviously excluded).  I would further add a welfare exclusion rule to first generation immigrants - once again clearing up the expectations that Canada is a place where people can get a free ride, although it would obviously be available to any children born here.  Finally, I would add a Community Service minimum number of hours (measured in the 100’s) that had to be met working for either a secular charity or the local public school board in order to guarantee interaction with neighbours.
8 )  Once their 5-year probationary period is over, if they've acted as a decent citizen based on the expectations agreed to, then they're in.  The one thing I would do is hold the formal celebration every Canada Day as part of the existing municipal festivities in their home cities and ensure the surrounding community welcome "Our newest citizens" (a large majority of the subsidy for the community celebration/party being paid by the Department of Heritage and Culture).  In short, “becoming a Canadian” is an event worth celebrating both by those who EARN that right, and for the rest of our citizenry who every once in a while need to be reminded how lucky we are to live in this great country, and I can’t think of a better way than to celebrate such an event publicly and together.  

I'll kindly await your response....and hopefully a retraction of the previous inferences.


Matthew.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2006)

Other than creating a system which would turn immigration into a five-year trial (followed by another 5 year period of "statistical tracking"), and the likely bureaucracy that would require, the basic expectations you have described don't seem to vary much from what is done now.

For example, look over this Skilled Worker Assessment Questionnaire for Immigration Canada - https://www.immigration.ca/assess2.asp

You will also find that the act of being granted citizenship already is an event, to those receiving it and to those who choose to host such a ceremony - http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/ceremony-info.html
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/cerem-e.html

What do you feel would be the staff requirements and cost to manage a project of this proportion?


----------



## Centurian1985 (2 May 2006)

As I understood it, a lot of what you suggest is already on paper, but there is no *enforcement * of the rules. I.e. there are 250,000 plus immigrants and refugees every year, and although you could track them all there is not enough staff to ensure they are all 'obeying the rules'.  

Each area has what, 50 enforcement officers dedicated to customs and immigrtation? Thats less than 1,000 officers across the country to monitor the activities of not only the 250,000+ immigrants and refugees in that year, but also the 250,000 each previous year for the last 4 years.  Thats 1.25 million for 1,000 officers, meaning each officer has to handle 1,250 cases per year.  This also means that if that officer is away on vacation, is sick, on maternity leave, away on duty in another country, or in some form of training , that either (a) no one is monitoring those 1,250 cases, or (b) a second officer is working a double load monitoring 2,500 immigrants and refugees.  Not to mention the logistical drag-weight that occurs due to changing legislation, legal cases and appeals, and changes of address whenever an immigrant/refugee changes their living address or employment location.   

Ack!! What a night mare!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Other than creating a system which would turn immigration into a five-year trial (followed by another 5 year period of "statistical tracking"), and the likely bureaucracy that would require, the basic expectations you have described don't seem to vary much from what is done now.
> 
> For example, look over this Skilled Worker Assessment Questionnaire for Immigration Canada - https://www.immigration.ca/assess2.asp
> 
> ...



Let me get this straight....you infer some of the most nasty, dispicable things possible about me based on your having jumped to a false conclusion, I lay out a policy that demonstrates I'm not a racist in any sense of the word and that you've been 100% out-of-line this whole thread, and you don't even have the character to sack up and apologize?

I should add that the two links you provided in an attempt to deflate two tangible components of my proposal are also disingenuous.  

The "Skills Questionnaire" in no way addresses character, or values or appears to provide any weighting for country of origin (which were the two key components of the proposed structure)!

And the comparison of a ceremony in which other Canadians "can attend" versus formalizing welcoming new immigrants into Official Canada Day Celebrations.....oh yeah, those are exactly the same.   :

Bottom Line:  You're a truly classless schmuck....


Matthew.   

P.S.  For anyone else who wants to read some more hate-filled propaganda, here's another article from today's edition of "The Australian" which hits the same points I've been talking about (obvsiously a bunch of skinheads wrote this too):  

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19005710,00.html



> Open market on democratic ideals
> What's so wrong with encouraging immigrants to speak English and understand liberal values? asks Janet Albrechtsen
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2006)

I think what Matthew may be getting at is that our laws and the laws of the societies that produce many of our immigrants are significantly different.  The laws reflect profoundly different cultures.

If a prospective immigrant is found to have a clean record because they obeyed all the laws of their homeland does that make them a fit candidate for inclusion in Canadian society.  People obey the law for two reasons:  they fear the consequences;  they believe the law is correct.

If a person shows up religiously to attend the regular Wednesday stoning does that make her a suitable Canadian prospect?

From where I sit I don't think the answer is a values check.  Nobody can determine what's in the head - arguing motive is always a mugs game.  The right answer is always "to let the deed shaw", "facta non verba"...etc.  That is the purpose of the probationary period before citizenship is granted.  The big problem that we have is that those that screw up aren't kicked back to their "previous predicament".

On the other hand we could be doing more to show prospective immigrants what they are getting into.  A little more honesty perhaps.  Fewer images of smiling faces and the Rockies.  More information along the lines of the video that the Dutch make their candidates watch.

Inform the candidates that their daughters can dress immodestly, even take their tops off without getting arrested, and this does not constitute an affront to the families honour.  That the son can get drunk legally as long as he doesn't drive a car.  That they can eat what ever they choose, marry whomever they choose, or choose not to get married and, in the words of my Hoosier wiseman "there ain't nuthin he can do about it".  Honour killings are not allowed.  

This is not about thought crimes. This is about the poor blighters that come to this country knowing that the rules under which they will operate are not the same as the rules in which they operate at home.  If they can't live with Canada's rules then perhaps they better stay where they will be more comfortable.  If they can live with the rules then come ahead and be welcome.

Once they are in Canada, once they are Canadian citizens, then our rules apply.  Things that they take for granted "in the old country" can land them in jail in Canada.

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2006)

I think you should only be allowed Canadian citizenship if your previous nation allows you to renounce your former nationality.  No?  Then you are a 'gastarbeiter' - a guestworker, no more, no less.  As for the present 'dualies', their Cdn citizenship should not be recognized by Canada in their original homeland - by us.  You wan't Canadian citizenship so you can go back home and cause trouble then get us to protect you?  Forget it.  THEY can protect you - you went back, didn't you?  Oh, and good luck...

Tom


----------



## Hot Lips (4 May 2006)

I still believe...and it may be an outdated belief that - "When in Rome...do as the Romans do"


HL


----------



## 1feral1 (4 May 2006)

Too right HL!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## RDBZ (4 May 2006)

Ditto


----------



## Brat56 (12 May 2006)

Soon, we as born & bred Canadians will be a monority as we have already taken a backseat in some areas.
I have no problem with immigration to Canada. I do think that NEW regulations need to be imposed befor anyone can apply to come to Canada.

1.  Able to SPEAK, READ & WRITE English.( English as a second language...doesn't cut it with me) & DON'T stand under my Canadian Flag & speak in your language.        
2.  Any sort of criminal past in an individual...denied entry.
3.  ALL innoculations NEED to be in order. ( 1,800 Region of Waterloo Students 2weeks ago, suspended from school as the proper innoculations had not been applied...most were New Canadians WHO DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE NOTE THAT CAME HOME FROM SCHOOL because THEY COULD NOT READ ENGLISH).
 Im sure I have more tucked away...another day.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2006)

> DON'T stand under my Canadian Flag & speak in your language.



A bit extreme, mate lass.

Edit:  Apologies for the gender confusion - must remind self to check author's profile.  

PS, Thanks Old Medic.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 May 2006)

Brat56 said:
			
		

> Soon, we as born & bred Canadians will be a monority as we have already taken a backseat in some areas.
> I have no problem with immigration to Canada. I do think that NEW regulations need to be imposed befor anyone can apply to come to Canada.
> 
> 1.  Able to SPEAK, READ & WRITE English.




Or French.


----------



## Brat56 (12 May 2006)

Sorry about that...didn't mean to slight the French language.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2009)

I see we are starting to discus the problems in the UK, Canada, Australia, France, other nations of the EU, etc. who have adopted some sort of philosophy of Multiculturalism, as opposed the what the US of A advocates the "Melting Pot".  If we look at multiculturalism in Canada and the UK, we can see the creation of "Sovereign Communities, Districts, Provinces," etc. where there is no desire for creating any commonality.  The US on the other hand strives to have everyone become an American first.  Neither philosophy seems to have worked.  We see ghettos in all these nations, no matter which philosophy they say they follow.  We see "Hyphenated" Canadians, "Hyphenated" Americans, etc. under both philosophies.  Neither is truly successful, but which one is more likely to perpetuate a "Stable" nation?  I would submit that Multiculturalism is for the long run a very destabilizing condition.  

We are all proud of our family heritage, but State Sponsorship of Minority Heritages is beyond what this nation needs and creates more dissension than not.  Many "Cultural" events were very successful without State funding.  Now many have become Sponsorship scandals.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jul 2009)

If our American neighbours call it a melting pot, in Australia I would call it a cess pool, and an angry one at that.

OWDU


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2009)

Know what?  I don't give a flying frack if people want to retain their culture, as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land, or MY right to celebrate MY heritage.  Unfortunately, because my heritage is that of the nationality that just happened to dominate much of the planet for 500 years or so,  I'm afraid that's not allowed.  In fact I have to suppress my celebration of my heritage, because it may offend those of other descent, therefore making them more important than me.  That ain't HUMAN rights, that's (insert hyphenated special interest group here) rights.


----------



## Antoine (28 Jul 2009)

I fully agree with Mr Wallace, and I am glad that the distinction between multiculturalism and melting pot has been made, as both are often thought to be the same.

As stated in another thread, I am an immigrant from a strongly republican country with a bloody colonialism history,which I am not proud of, where integration of immigrant has been a failure, yes, I am talking about France. However, I still love France and I hope they will improve their situation, but I am happy leaving here, in Canada. Canadian gave me so many great opportunities that won't have been possible in France, so I owe a lot to Canada.

Thus, I am always uncomfortable to challenge the multiculturalism, as I understand, is part of the Canadian values that of course I respect and do my best to integrate to, furthermore, during my enrollment, I have signed the paper stating that I comply with the multiculturalism values of CF, so I'll do.

However, I think that multiculturalism is a generous concept, an ideal, but sad to say that it has been abused and misused.

My concern: Canada is a huge country, originally built by two countries that have fight against each other for centuries and then further built by immigration from all over the world. To add to the picture, our neighbour is a superpower having an extremely strong identity that is spreading all over the world.

So we sure need ourself a strong identity on which everyone agree, and work from there. I don't see how the multiculturalism can be the foundation of a strong and unified identity and country. I do not believe that you can build a country only on mercantile relationship which I think is the real reason behind the multiculturalism adoption by the politician. We need a common background on values that are beyond a common language, but I might be too conservative and being behind the present social revolution where humans can see beyond our differences.

P.S. I still wish sometime that France had won the war against British, centuries ago, then the present language would be French, making my life easier to write the present post and the former ones too


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2009)

Antoine said:
			
		

> P.S. I still wish sometime that France had won the war against British, centuries ago, then the present language would be French, making my life easier to write the present post and the former ones too



I wish my English was as good as yours. If I had my life to live over again, I would have learned to speak French.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jul 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wish my English was as good as yours. If I had my life to live over again, I would have learned to speak French.



Given what happened from 1939 to 1945, we're all bloody lucky we are not speaking German and Japanese.  ;D

OWDU


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jul 2009)

Hasn't some of the stuff discussed here already been covered in the thread below?  ???

"Multiculturalism vs. Visible Minorities" army.ca thread

Wouldn't it be better if these were merged into a "Criticism/Failures of Multiculturalism" thread since this subject has resurfaced?


----------



## Antoine (29 Jul 2009)

Thanks to have pointed out the older thread, I should have read it before posting mine as I found a lot of food for thought in the older post, worth having a look at.  :nod:


----------



## FastEddy (29 Jul 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wish my English was as good as yours. If I had my life to live over again, I would have learned to speak French.





What makes you think you would have any better luck with French. If you haven't mastered English, you certainly wouldn't French. 

As for Multiculturalism, its a Political selfserving ploy to gain Favour with Blocks of Ethnic Groups and eventually Votes and Power.(what ever Party who preaches it).

George has described it very deftly and DownUnder very accurately.


----------



## Shec (29 Jul 2009)

Ironically Multiculturism balkanizes this great land by encouraging ethno-centric distinctions rather than building the unity that is supposedly it's theoretical purpose for diversity breeds the perpetuation of historic stereotypes and contempt.  Too many hyphenated-Canadians and not enough just-a-Canadian Canadians.  I admit my hands are not squeaky clean in this regard and that exemplifies the point that I am trying to make.  

And the paradox is that there exists a government department to facilitate this shite.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jul 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> What makes you think you would have any better luck with French. If you haven't mastered English, you certainly wouldn't French.



I lack the university education to master either language. But, now that I have the time to study and travel, I have some material on loan from the library to help improve my French, which is very weak.


----------



## Antoine (29 Jul 2009)

Mariomike, you have a great attitude.

I hope I'll keep my mind open like you and still quick my a*** to learn more, as I become older I have tendency to close doors and being comfortable in my own ignorance.

Thanks to take time to learn French, as it is also a good way to understand an important part of Canada. In addition, you'll be able to enjoy French musics and literatures!


----------



## Smity199 (29 Jul 2009)

I'm a fifth generation Canadian, my anscetors settled these lands way back when so I consider myself as Canadian as one can get. Whats weird is that in my graduating class less than 30% of us were caucasian.. thie city where I lived (Coquitlam, subburb of Vancouver) has a majority population of people with asian desent, so technically I am or was a visible minority in my city but no in the country I suppose just thought I'd let you guys who havent experienced what its like in a city like vancouver know how things are these days. I deeply saddens me when I think about it, but I know theres nothing I can do about it


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2009)

Smity199 said:
			
		

> I'm a fifth generation Canadian, my anscetors settled these lands way back when so I consider myself as Canadian as one can get. Whats weird is that in my graduating class less than 30% of us were caucasian.. thie city where I lived (Coquitlam, subburb of Vancouver) has a majority population of people with asian desent, so technically I am or was a visible minority in my city but no in the country I suppose just thought I'd let you guys who havent experienced what its like in a city like vancouver know how things are these days. I deeply saddens me when I think about it, but I know theres nothing I can do about it




Many North American cities are quite similar. Richmond, in BC (pop: 175,000±), Markham in ON (pop: 260,000±) and Plano in TX (a suburb of Dallas) (pop: 225,000±) are all *majority* Asian. All also have education and income levels above the national average.

“Seniority” doesn’t make a good citizen any more than it made Fredrick the Great’s mules into good tacticians.*

We are a nation of immigrants. That’s a trite statement but it is, undeniably, true. We need to remain a nation of immigrants because demographics is destiny and the “established” Canadians – folks like you and me – do not reproduce at a rate that will produce enough productive workers to pay our old age pensions.

I’m sorry that being a “visible minority” in a Canadian community saddens you. It doesn’t bother me – neither you being a minority nor having more and more and more Asians in Canada.  


---------------
* See here, about the 5th paragraph


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jul 2009)

I also don't understand what "problem" is being suggested here. No-one seems to be against Oktoberfest, St Patrick's Day or Highland Games, or maybe that's just because they originated in European countries.  There has also yet to be any clear evidence presented that promotion of multi-culturalism as a national attribute has resulted in widespread funding of individual events. 

Canada has a broad demographic base, and the resulting evolution of the country is not destructive, expect perhaps in the minds of those who resist change.

Population by selected ethnic origins, by province and territory (2006 Census)


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2009)

This discussion seems very familer, and I finally found a relevant thread that speaks to these ideas:
"Respect our values or leave" (one of my posts here: http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/39343/post-343964/topicseen.html#msg343964)

I am a proponent of the "melting pot", using the tools of "Civic Nationalism" to forge a true collective identity. This is/was one of the key tools that powered the growth of the United States; between the end of the Civil War and @ 1920 the concept of Civic Nationalism was aggressively applied by business, community groups, churches etc. to ensure incoming people became culturally "American". The fact that the United States has a largely unitary culture with relatively minor regional differences (in the grand scheme of things; a person from Dixie has more in common with a New Yorker than a Serb and a Bosnian Serb from Republika Srpska).

Sadly civic nationalism and the unitary American culture is waning due to influences as varied as illegal and unassimilated Mexican migration, the growth of explicitly non national "progressive" ideology in academia, media, government and so on. The "culture wars" between the Red and Blue states is also a symptom of this.

So long as the political system can feed off the divide and conquer model, then cheats like multi culturalism or "class warfare" can be deployed by politicians as varied as Giles Duceppe and Barack Obama in order to gain and hold political power. This is the real reason ideas like class and multiculturalism grow and thrive, and it is difficult to see what sort of powerful countervailing force could be applied today.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2009)

Smity199 said:
			
		

> I'm a fifth generation Canadian, my anscetors settled these lands way back when so I consider myself as Canadian as one can get. Whats weird is that in my graduating class less than 30% of us were caucasian.. thie city where I lived (Coquitlam, subburb of Vancouver) has a majority population of people with asian desent, so technically I am or was a visible minority in my city but no in the country I suppose just thought I'd let you guys who havent experienced what its like in a city like vancouver know how things are these days. I deeply saddens me when I think about it, but I know theres nothing I can do about it



Interesting,

Where did your family hail from originally, before coming here?

dileas

tess


----------



## TCBF (30 Jul 2009)

- Immigration for 'economic' reasons is a tired and hackneyed argument.  We need to educate the Canadians we have and employ them to their abilities rather than let them stay at home, collect pogey and wail about how dying baby boomers can't keep the social programs going thus we need to siphon off productive citizens from the Third world.

- I say balls to that.  

- First, on ethical grounds: the Third World needs all of it's own greatest minds at home solving problems, not coming to Canada and writing books about it.

- Second, on economic grounds: I bet more than half of the richest contries on Earth have populations of less than 20,000,000.  We need efficient social programs, not socialist sacred cows.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Interesting,
> 
> Where did your family hail from originally, before coming here?
> 
> ...



Hey Smitty,

Just reposting, in case you missed my question.  

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jul 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - First, on ethical grounds: the Third World needs all of it's own greatest minds at home solving problems, not coming to Canada and writing books about it.



Ah, yes, the old "why don't you stay and fix your own countries" argument.  Another _tired and hackneyed_ way to indirectly say, "I don't want you in my country".  I'm sure the Irish would have appreciated that in the 1840s.


----------



## Jed (31 Jul 2009)

I do not think comparing the mass exodus of the Irish due largely to the potato famine to the immigration influx of the day is a valid observation. Today's reasons for people coming to Canada are quite different than those of 1840 - 1850.

I also support TCBF's points. 

What is good for our country is not opening the doors to allow people to do unwanted labour jobs or to fill vacancies in high end jobs that we  need experts to do. It is to improve our productivity as a nation either by educating our own or by having our own people role up their sleeves and do work that needs being done.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Irish would have appreciated that in the 1840s.


O'Leary, eh?  Sounds Irish

;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (31 Jul 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, the old "why don't you stay and fix your own countries" argument.  Another _tired and hackneyed_ way to indirectly say, "I don't want you in my country".  I'm sure the Irish would have appreciated that in the 1840s.



They were told that.That's why on the east coast they stayed in their own little towns,or went to Quebec.They were hated by the English.Take a book on Newfoundland history out and have a look.Hence why so many went to Quebec.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:s1ePlSzYFXEJ:www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%2520Issues/CCHA1985/Finnegan.pdf+irish+hated+in+canada&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca



Having said that,I am married to a immigrant. We have ******* mix breed children.My wife,her father,her MOTHER all served in the CANADIAN military.Her father just retired 20 odd years in,wife completed 6 years in the regular force,her mother did 5 years in the reserves.
....Don't yah just hate it when immigrants show up and TAKE Canadian jobs? 

If this hatred spills over into a Yugo style war me and my family have a huge problem...who the frack do we side up with??

edit to add:
This is a show I watched a while back.DNA testing of those who thought themselves 100% english.50 odd minutes but worth the watch.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=756_1243708223


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Immigration for 'economic' reasons is a tired and hackneyed argument.  We need to educate the Canadians we have and employ them to their abilities rather than let them stay at home, collect pogey and wail about how dying baby boomers can't keep the social programs going thus we need to siphon off productive citizens from the Third world.
> 
> - I say balls to that.
> 
> ...






			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, the old "why don't you stay and fix your own countries" argument.  Another _tired and hackneyed_ way to indirectly say, "I don't want you in my country".  I'm sure the Irish would have appreciated that in the 1840s.




I agree, in principle but only on a very broad level, with TCBF’s two contentions:

First: we fail to prepare enough native-born Canadians for the jobs that need doing. Those jobs are not manual labour or public services, they are in science, engineering, medicine, business, etc; and

Second: we do not help most third world nations when we entice away their most productive people. *But* some countries – China and India, for example – have a surplus, in some cases a _dangerous_ surplus, of well educated, sophisticated, ambitious young people. Enticing them to fill the jobs that need filling here can be and should be a “win/win” situation.

The long term solution to our first problem is a thoroughgoing “reform” in our societal norms that will, eventually, maybe around the year 2100, replace our existing “culture of entitlement” with one in which hard work, education and ambition produce rewards while lethargy and the “cult of me” produce failure.

There are a few countries in the world, Australia, Canada and the USA amongst them, that are _lightly_ populated. We can “accommodate” more people – millions, indeed tens of millions more – in the near and mid term and, provided we “select” people who are likely to be productive fairly quickly (that is the immigrants, themselves, will be productive, not just their children) and who are likely to “fit in” without too much difficulty.

Immigrants, if they are properly “selected and recruited” can help us improve our overall productivity and the “right” immigrants might help us to overcome our “culture of entitlement” and “cult of me.”


----------



## 40below (31 Jul 2009)

People complaining about the immigration system and how easy it is to get in should go on over to Immigration Canada's self-assessment for prospective skilled workers and see if you could get landed immigrant status yourself solely on what you have to offer the country:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp

Take away the advantages you already have by living here (family in Canada and arranged employment) and it's tough to get 67 points, unless you're under 30 with an advanced degree, and preferably with a spouse with similar qualifications. And a pass mark only puts your app in queue rather than the shredder – there's health screening, an evaluation of whether Canada needs your skills and a host of other factors.


----------



## TCBF (31 Jul 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, the old "why don't you stay and fix your own countries" argument.  Another _tired and hackneyed_ way to indirectly say, "I don't want you in my country".  I'm sure the Irish would have appreciated that in the 1840s.



 ;D

- Actually, I think some of my folks came over around the 1820s, and the other side around the 1860s.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an _essay_ by Daniel Stoffman that is related to my regular admonitions that *culture matters*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/an-ideology-not-a-fact/article1260351/


> An ideology, not a fact
> *Canada is multicultural and the U.S. has a melting pot, but assimilation rates are the same in both countries*
> 
> Daniel Stoffman
> ...




Stoffman’s most important point is that “we” – Canadians, generally, and our governments, too – *reject* multiculturalism. It is not part of our national “vision.” It (the multiculturalism policy, the legions of bureaucrats who administer it and the money that flows from it) is, and always was, nothing more nor less than a crass vote buying scheme that is pursued by the three major _national_ political parties. (The BQ is, inherently, anti-_multicult_ because it's _raison d’être_, a “Free” Franco Québec for the _“pure laine”_ is, essentially, racist in presuming that _“pure laine”_ are either “better” and deserve to be “on top” or “inferior” and need special protection to survive.)

Official Multiculturalism, it needs a big M, is a waste of time and money and an affront to our *real* cultural values.

There is a large, healthy - for the multicult "communities" and for Canada, at large -  and prospering _unofficial_ multicult “movement” in Canada. It is, almost exclusively, separate and even remote from the official, national, provincial and local programmes – all of which are 100% politically motivated and do little or nothing *for* minority communities. It is exemplified by Cindy Lee and the T&T chain – it is the sort of practical, necessary multicult that *serves* a community by meeting its most basic needs and, consequently and usually unintentionally, fosters a sense of “community.” Asian malls in Markham or Richmond become, _de facto_ more than just shopping centres.

Official Multiculturalism, as conceived by the Liberals and practiced, across the country, by Conservatives, Liberals and NDP_ers_ is BS, pure and simple, and the sooner it is put on the policy trash heap the better.


----------



## Smity199 (23 Aug 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hey Smitty,
> 
> Just reposting, in case you missed my question.
> 
> ...



Hey, sorry I've been kind of busy getting ready to leave in a few days here for St. Jean.

My ancestors originally came from Ireland on one side and northern England on the other.


----------



## tango22a (23 Aug 2009)

Me.....I'm just a pure laine CANADIAN....NOT a hyphenated one!!....and proud of it.


tango22a


----------



## mariomike (23 Aug 2009)

Smity199 said:
			
		

> Hey, sorry I've been kind of busy getting ready to leave in a few days here for St. Jean.



Good luck, Smity!


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2010)

Someone, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Fulford, ‘get it’ – albeit only in part, according to this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/12/robert-fulford-the-threatening-honesty-of-ayaan-hirsi-ali/


> Robert Fulford:
> *The threatening honesty of Ayaan Hirsi Ali*
> 
> By Robert Fulford  June 12, 2010
> ...



The reason they are only partially right is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali fails to separate the problems inherent in *Islam*, and there are some – just as there are in Christianity, with the many, many more and much more serious problems that lie within the Arab/Persian/West Asian *cultures* which coexist with and are tightly intermeshed into Islam.

The problem, the enemy is not Islam; Muslims are not our enemies just because they are Muslims. The enemy is *barbarism* and most Arab/Persian/West Asian *cultures* are if not wholly barbaric then, at least, only lightly and superficially _civilized_.

What’s _civilized_? Simple: religiously *reformed* and socio-politically *enlightened*. Most civilized societies are capitalistic – the process of _enlightenment_ makes capitalism more and more palatable. Civilized societies are not, necessarily, liberal or even democratic – some are but not all, and not the largest.

Where Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Fulford are right is in confronting the barbarians’ apologists here in the West. No one has a right or even a privilege to not be offended. It doesn’t matter is someone draws cartoons of the Prophet or calls the Pope a pedophile – some people will be offended but that is not a matter of *any* concern to anyone but them. All those who protest against slagging Islam or Christianity or who reflexively decry anti-Semitism are, _de facto_, trying to limit all individual liberties in order to protect the sensibilities of others; they are part of the problem.


----------



## BHC1 (12 Jun 2010)

I believe statements such as "most Arab/Persian/West Asian cultures are if not wholly barbaric" is part of the reason why there exist such a perceived divide between the West and Islam. When one uses words like "barbarian" to describe a particular culture, they unfairly ignore its winder contributions and even more direly stigmatize whole peoples. Such terminology easily plays into the image of bearded men hoarding their veiled female cousins into caves, while ignoring the massive contributions of Islamic culture in the sciences and arts and of Muslims in our own country.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2010)

BHC1:

Would you be more comfortable if I suggested that by and large the indigenous populations of the region in question appear to have a higher tolerance for activities that those living in the enlightened, liberal West would generally consider barbaric, if of course we were inclined to take a position on the matter at all?

(Gawd, I do miss "Yes, Prime Minister")


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jun 2010)

BHC1 said:
			
		

> .....while ignoring the massive contributions of Islamic culture in the sciences and arts and of Muslims in our own country.



In modern times, can you please provide some links of contribution to arts and sciences from this culture.

Here is somthing which is 'culturally' acceptable http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1653

Summing up, thank your lucky stars you live in Canada.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jun 2010)

BHC1

I am sure that most, if not all, on this site can agree that the Persians contributed significantly to the Sciences and Arts many centuries ago.  Since then, we have seen the rise of Islam undo many of the Persians contributions, and impose severe restrictions on the education and creativity of the peoples of the Region.  Grand contributions centuries ago, does not preclude the descent into barbarianism that seems to have befallen the Region under Islam.


----------



## BHC1 (14 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill:
I would agree, however I believe that there is a key difference between positive statements and making generalizations (which I would argue Mr. Wallace made). Though I believe both are necessary in the thought-process, the first can be challenged empirically while the later can be twisted into something much uglier, unfair marginalization and downright discrimination.

Overwatch Downunder
Yes, I am very thankful to be a Canadian. I am absolutely certain that many Muslims in both our great nation and throughout the Middle-East would find the words spewed by the person your blog follows horrid, just as I’m sure many in North America would shun the bigotry of the KKK or Christian Militias. 

George Wallace
You are correct to assume that when I made my original post I was thinking mostly about Middle Age to Enlightenment era Turkish, Mughal, and Persian contributions. If I were to post a link it would be the first thing that comes up on Google, and I don’t believe that it would further this discussion.

Some of the cultural practices associated with Islam are downright despicable and the fact that political reform has not come with the oil wealth of many countries in the Middle-East should be of concern. However, I would still argue that characterizing the practices, customs, and way of life of over a billion people as ‘barbaric’ an unfair assessment. 

I apologies if my post came off as trolling. I live in Vancouver and came on this website to find out information about the reserves. Came to find the political discussion on this board of interest.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Jun 2010)

BHC1 said:
			
		

> Overwatch Downunder
> Yes, I am very thankful to be a Canadian. I am absolutely certain that many Muslims in both our great nation and throughout the Middle-East would find the words spewed by the person your blog follows horrid, just as I’m sure many in North America would shun the bigotry of the KKK or Christian Militias.



There you go mentioning oil. What does oil have to do with it? The KSA as does Iran have nasty punishments such as public executions, and the chopping off of hands/feet etc? 


So you do not think sharia law is barbaric? Stoning women to death? Chopping off hands, feet and heads from simple crimes considered the west a fine?

I can't forget about the poor 5 year old muslim boy who had his forearm RAN OVER by a 4WD ( I am sure you can google that one  : ) for simple theft, or the recent hanging of a 7 yr old kid in Afghanistan for being a spy.

Sometimes 'horrid' is the truth. I don't like that anymore than you do, but thats the world we live in.

Don't forget the Ontario push for sharia law recently.

I am still waiting for any links into arts and culture in modern times, which you have failed to mention and provide. That 'google' line is lame.

Just where are your morals anyways?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2010)

BHC1 said:
			
		

> I believe statements such as "most Arab/Persian/West Asian cultures are if not wholly barbaric" is part of the reason why there exist such a perceived divide between the West and Islam. When one uses words like "barbarian" to describe a particular culture, they unfairly ignore its winder contributions and even more direly stigmatize whole peoples. Such terminology easily plays into the image of bearded men hoarding their veiled female cousins into caves, while ignoring the massive contributions of Islamic culture in the sciences and arts and of Muslims in our own country.




I understand your point, BHC1, but I'm afraid I cannot change my wording because:

First - while I recognize that my Thesaurus is older than many members here, the first antonym for _civilized_ (which I defined, perhaps overly simply, as being "religiously reformed and socio-politically enlightened") is barbaric; and

Second - you are providing an example of the argument put forward by the "barbarians' apologists," it's a modern variant of _'Don't let's be beastly to the Germans'_. 

I have long thumped the table to the effect that the _Global War on Terror_ is a silly idea and, worse, deflects our attention from the real 'clash' which is not between _civilization*s*_ but, rather, between civilization (there are more than one sort, as I said) and barbarism. There are also several sorts of barbarism but part of the _Islamic Crescent_ (the part in North Africa, the Middle East, and Persia/West Asia) provides one dangerous example.

The _clash_ between civilization and barbarism is not waged, solely, in far distant, dirty, dangerous places - it also takes place in Toronto, Sydney, London, Chicago and Vancouver. We are, broadly, _civilized_; it has been a long, long - thousand year long - struggle to get there, and we are not finished; it is a matter of *cultures*, not religions, but it is very hard to separate religion from some cultures.


----------



## BHC1 (14 Jun 2010)

In justifying the expansion of France’s colonial possession Jules Ferry stated on July 28th 1885 that “the superior races have a right because they have a duty: it is their duty to civilize the inferior races." The notion of civilization versus barbarism is as old if not older than colonialism. While it was a cute and maybe even noble idea, it was nothing more than a fable to justify the economic interests of would-be European colonizers. The idea of the barbarian must be ‘constructed’, bits and pieces of ‘truth’ are tangled together to create an image, one almost always antithetical to the West (looks like we have a get out of the cave free card). I concede that barbarism is running amuck in many places of the Middle-East, and I agree that Muslims must adopt more closely the ways of majority in Toronto, Sydney, London, Chicago and Vancouver.  However to characterize the whole culture as barbaric I find a near absurdity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2010)

Our word _barbarian_, like Tartar, comes from a pejorative description of the sound of foreign languages to an untrained ear: _"bar, bar"_ or _"tar, tar"_. We never 'understand' really _foreign_ cultures - even when we can speak the languages.

But we do 'understand' the elements of _civilization_ in the 21st century and we can, therefore, equally understand that which does not have those elements, which does not meet the 'standard' of 'civilized.' I would argue that, despite their accomplishments - which are many, the North Africans, Arabs, Persians and West Asians have failed to 'advance' their *cultures* much beyond where they were in, say, 1000 to 1200 CE. If we look back on Western European society _circa_ 1100 CE we do not find it 'civilized;' it is, in fact, by any fair measure, barbarian. But, even _circa_ 1000 CE there were _stirrings_ in Western Europe that led, with much struggle, to _civilization_, as we know it today. I'm guessing those same _stirrings_ were present in North Africa ... West Asia but, for some reason, the *cultures* of that large region did not allow them to flourish. Those North African ... West Asian societies were more _cultured_ and, generally, more technologically advanced than were Western European societies (although some historians suggest that most of those _advances_ were imported from father and father East: India and China) but, even then, "we" had the roots of a modern _civilization_ and they, it appears, to me, did not.

So I will stick with barbarian, thanks, but I take note of your views.


----------



## BHC1 (14 Jun 2010)

I must respectfully disagree, though I see that you obviously have some clear reasoning. An article I thought might be of interest, if it has already been posted I apolagize in advance.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.03-society-canada-multiculturism/


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2010)

I’m not alone, according to this column by a Muslim _ leader_ reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-shame-of-honour-crimes/article1612108/


> The shame of honour crimes
> *It’s time to stop the importation of this murderous custom*
> 
> Sheema Khan
> ...



My emphasis added.

I’m not sure about Sheema Khan’s (or any other) solutions, but I do agree, 100%, with her characterization of the acts, themselves: barbaric, and I agree with her attribution of that barbarism to “old country” cultural values.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2010)

Hmmm, it sounds like Ottawa may be considering a new "type" of crime, if the Minister of State for Status of Women was quoted properly here - highlights mine:


> *The minister for status of women says Ottawa is looking into amending the Criminal Code to include so-called honour crimes.
> 
> Rona Ambrose spoke today in Mississauga, Ont., condemning honour-based violence against women.*
> 
> ...



Hmmmm.... Do we need "honour" crime in the books (think a variation on "hate" crime), or do we just clamp down consistently and harshly on violations with laws already on the books?


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jul 2010)

A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.



It appears the Minister of Justice's press secretary, if quoted correctly in this CP story, agrees with you  ;D - highlights mine:


> The Conservative government dispatched one of its ministers Monday to the city where a 16-year-old girl was killed by her father and brother to condemn so-called honour killings, but it appears Rona Ambrose may have spoken out of turn.
> 
> The event was a statement from the minister for status of women, containing no program or funding announcement, and the news to emerge was that Ambrose said Ottawa is "looking at" amending the Criminal Code to include so-called honour crimes.
> 
> ...



Does that mean "hate" crimes will be on their way out too, then?  

Rona, Rona, Rona.... :tsktsk:


----------



## bdave (13 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.




Agreed. How would the sentence change, anyway?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2010)

The Minister, via the Canadian Press, clears up the "honour crime/Criminal Code of Canada" thing:  ain't happening:


> Canada's justice minister has moved to quash weeks of confusion by playing down the idea that Ottawa might amend the Criminal Code to include so-called "honour killings."
> 
> Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says Ottawa is making honour crimes a priority but there isn't any real need to change the Criminal Code to achieve such an objective.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Aug 2010)

Why do we need to waste time, effort and money to make "honour killings" a specific crime under the CCC? Killing a human being, regardless of the religious context is murder, cut and dry.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Aug 2010)

Hmmm,

The courts should be careful, as this may be a challenge that organized gangsters could use.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters (9 Aug 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hmmm,
> 
> The courts should be careful, as this may be a challenge that organized gangsters could use.....



Are you joking or do you see a viable defense tactic there?


----------



## CougarKing (28 Aug 2013)

Necroposting this back to life to bring Landry's comments into context: please note his comments in large font towards the middle of the article. While I think Marois and her PQ/OQLF mafia are n*tw*ts for instigating the whole "pastgate" scandal in Quebec a couple of months ago, in contrast, I agree with Landry's comments with regard to multiculturalism. As an immigrant who became a Canadian citizen a couple of years ago, I agree with what he has said about his emphasis on integration vs. multiculturalism and "when you change country, you change country".

Also please note similar recent threads titled "Strike Multiculturalism from Vocabulary" and "State Multiculturalism has failed says David Cameron".

link



> *English media 'pathetic' in coverage of Parti Quebecois minorities plan: ex-premier*
> 
> QUEBEC - The media of English Canada are to blame for pathetic, unfair coverage of the Parti Quebecois' controversial minorities plan, according to prominent Pequistes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2013)

More on culture; this time a brief report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Business Insider_:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9


> The Lewis Model Explains Every Culture In The World
> 
> GUS LUBIN
> 
> ...




Look at Canada, at the very middle of the triangle's base ~ wedged in there between Finland and Singapore, equidistant between the _Linear-active_ Germans and the _Reactive_ East Asians. Seems abour right, doesn't it?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on culture; this time a brief report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Business Insider_:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9
> 
> Look at Canada, at the very middle of the triangle's base ~ wedged in there between Finland and Singapore, equidistant between the _Linear-active_ Germans and the _Reactive_ East Asians. Seems abour right, doesn't it?



This is actually really interesting, it is even more funny because Americans often complain about Canadians being too polite and courteous, this seems to substantiate that claim


----------



## Journeyman (7 Sep 2013)

If Americans are "cool, factual, decisive planners," Syria gives credence to the tinfoil hat brigade's contention that Obama isn't really American.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If Americans are "cool, factual, decisive planners," Syria gives credence to the tinfoil hat brigade's contention that Obama isn't really American.
> 
> :Tin-Foil-Hat:




I think the Americans are _culturally_ all those good things; I think their political system is so badly screwed up that they cannot (will not?) elect leaders who are, in any meaningful way, like them.


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Sep 2013)

That chart makes me think of a Myers-Briggs personality dimensions on a society scale rather individual.


----------



## pbi (8 Sep 2013)

A dot chart "explains" every culture in the world? Really?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> A dot chart "explains" every culture in the world? Really?




The book on which it is based, When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures explains how he devised his "model." But it's not really about _culture_, per se, it is about current attitudes and mores in the upper middle class/business wold in each of 60+ countries.


----------



## pbi (8 Sep 2013)

Landry never ceases to shoot himself in the face, as loudly and publicly as possible. Remember his classic comment, on the night of the failed Referendum, that the Nationalist's loss was due to "money and the ethnic vote". IIRC, he seemed to be somewhat under the influence when he spoke.

Put some of the silly things that he says in perspective:



> Multiculturalism will lead to more and more problems, like in Great Britain. In Holland, in Germany, same thing. Angela Merkel came out against this doctrine a while ago. Immigrants themselves are the first victims of multiculturalism," he said.



First of all, trying to draw direct parallels or make predictions based on events in societies with different cultures, histories and pressures is going out on pretty shaky logical ground. Just because something happened a certain way in any one of those countries does not mean it will happen here, or in the US, or anywhere else.

Second, Landry might ask himself where the rights and status of francophone Canadians might be today if our national policies over the last 50 years had not encouraged the idea that there is not just one "master" culture, and that other cultures can co-exist peacefully and equally, given the reasonable compromises necessary in any civil society.

Third, I believe very strongly that this comment reveals the ugly, exclusivist and nativist face of Quebec nationalism. If we follow this reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, Quebec is really just a place for the pure of tongue and culture, isn't it? Dress, speak and live the way we want, or get out. It's sad but true that extreme nationalism, especially when based on a particular culture or ethnicity, often shares the bed with racism and "culturism".



> "In the U.S., you never see a police officer with a turban. There are things worth regulating and I hope it gets done (here).



Completely irrelevant cherry picking. The US continues to struggle with serious racial and cultural issues: they are scarcely in any position to tell Canada what do, or not, in this department. Canada already has areas of significant cultural differences from the US. I might remind Landry that in the US you will never see a state with bilingualism laws. And you will never, EVER, see a state with laws relegating English to a second status on signage.



> The rule is, when you change country, you change country. They can't expect to find everything here that they had in their country of origin. Integration is a powerful signal that they need to adjust to a new nation.




He is playing with fire here. If  Canada had consistently followed this logic, when New France "changed countries" after the Conquest, there would be no Quebec society as it exists today. As a majority anglophone nation, we would force all immigrants from _la Francophonie_ to speak English.

When Landry and people like him say "integration", they don't mean that people should make those reasonable compromises that allow us to live peacefully and productively together while still pursuing our faith and our heritage as Scots, Irish, Ukrainians, Poles, Portuguese, Canadiens, Kenyans, Libyans or Hondurans.  Obviously, we don't accept dangerous, oppressive, violent or criminal cultural practices (and many cultures have brought them at different times). But, IMHO, what Landry and his gang are saying is "you will be like us, or there is no place for you." 

How short their memories are.


----------



## myself.only (8 Sep 2013)

If you've ever just looked at the Middle East and in frustration at the never-ending cycle of Isreali-Palestinian violence wondered "why the heck can't they just co-exist?" then you're already looking at the problem with the Melting Pot approach.
Everyone wants it to be their pot and the other poor sod is the one who has to melt.


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2013)

myself.only said:
			
		

> If you've ever just looked at the Middle East and in frustration at the never-ending cycle of Isreali-Palestinian violence wondered "why the heck can't they just coexist?" then you're already looking at the problem with the Melting Pot approach.
> Everyone wants it to be their pot and the other poor sod is the one who has to melt.



Mostly true, and the more shrill, entrenched and "besieged" the nationalist group is, the more they want everyone else to melt completely. This completely ignores the argument that there are very few cultures of any significance today that are not themselves the product of mixing and adaptation. Take the "Anglo-Saxon" culture: the English have successfully absorbed Roman, Norse and Norman cultures, all of whom, by the way, arrived as "hostile outsiders". Cultures are constantly blending, mixing and adapting.

That said, I still believe that there is nothing wrong with requiring immigrants to conform to reasonable requirements so that we can all live together in a productive and generally peaceful way. Although I'm not a huge fan of this Tory government, they did make an effort in that direction with their guide book to immigrants on what is and is not accepted in Canada, and what reasonable adaptations they should be expected to make.

f you want people to truly be loyal to something, they must first genuinely feel a sense of belonging. You can't beat or threaten a "sense of belonging" into people. It comes naturally and gradually if people feel that they are accepted. If people are pilloried, or marginalized for being different, how does that sense of belonging develop? This, to me, is one of the basic problems underlying the Marois government's approach, which is to me little more than a thinly veiled appeal to the nastier aspects of Quebec nationalism.


----------



## myself.only (9 Sep 2013)

pbi I was going to quote and comment on the finer points of your post but really I'd be endorsing line for line, so..

:goodpost:


----------



## GR66 (9 Sep 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Landry never ceases to shoot himself in the face, as loudly and publicly as possible. Remember his classic comment, on the night of the failed Referendum, that the Nationalist's loss was due to "money and the ethnic vote". IIRC, he seemed to be somewhat under the influence when he spoke.



That comment was made by Jacques Parizeau, then Premier of Quebec not Landry.


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> That comment was made by Jacques Parizeau, then Premier of Quebec not Landry.



Doh! Right you are. I stand corrected!


----------



## Crow_Master (30 Sep 2013)

I think the near-victory in the 1995 Referendum in Québec was a great blow to the idea that multiple cultures can co-exist.


----------



## Crow_Master (30 Sep 2013)

Good luck forming a Canadian identity and culture when Anglophones only make 57% of the population (the rest are immigrants, Natives, and Francophones) and when you have a country 10 times more populated than you on your southern borders.


----------



## Infantryman2b (7 Oct 2013)

What most Canadians dont see is how elementry school look now in cities like Toronto where I live.  In 20-40 years this country will have an ethnic minority majority. Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous, but when these people start to influence our everday traditions and values such as Christmas, the lines been crossed. A country is a country because of culture. Without culture, it creates division and division creates, problems. In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous.



I see what you did there


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.


In some cases it appears we _do_ need foreign workers to work in coffee shops in gold mining towns or pick fruits and vegetables we eat.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2013)

One neat thing about cultures; they evolve.


----------



## Infantryman2b (7 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I see what you did there


, cultures evolve but when people come from there lands and try to force us to accommodate them at the expense of our own traditions and values theres something wrong. If you dont like our country please be my guest and get out.  :2c:


----------



## myself.only (7 Oct 2013)

I cannot fathom people who insist that the country they immigrate to transform into this mythical version of the place that exists only in their mind (and perhaps some party's policy documents)... the [whatever] Republic of Canada. 
I'm totally respectful of people that say: oh, you celebrate X.. no thanks, leave me out.
But it's ridiculous when they say: oh, you celebrate X... well, that's gotta stop.

After all, isn't the underlying concept of multiculturalism that multiple cultures co-exist?  It isn't supposed to give license to legally compel aculturalism.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2013)

myself.only said:
			
		

> I'm totally respectful of people that say: oh, you celebrate X.. no thanks, leave me out.
> But it's ridiculous when they say: oh, you celebrate X... well, that's gotta stop.



As am I for the most part. But there are _some_ cultural imports best left on the boat; barbaric mutilation of females or use of domestic violence (even to the point of homicide) to "control" members of the family, or selective abortion are three which come to mind right away. Attempting to force your views on others isn't just confined to nativists either; how about trying to get the school board to get girls having their period sit at the back of the class, or denying a paying passenger transport because they have a service dog?



> After all, isn't the underlying concept of multiculturalism that multiple cultures co-exist?  It isn't supposed to give license to legally compel aculturalism.



Well, actually no. Multiculturalism is an offshoot of a philosophy known as "relativism", and specifically removes the ability to make judgments of the values of one thing over another. It is also fatally flawed when not everyone practices it; both nativist and immigrants can be cultural chauvinists. What is dangerous about relativism is followers are effectively disarmed against the arguments and actions of chauvinists.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, actually no. Multiculturalism is an offshoot of a philosophy known as "relativism", and specifically removes the ability to make judgments of the values of one thing over another. It is also fatally flawed when not everyone practices it; both nativist and immigrants can be cultural chauvinists. What is dangerous about relativism is followers are effectively disarmed against the arguments and actions of chauvinists.


Relativism cannot stand any _serious_ logical challenge.


----------



## Emilio (7 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> What most Canadians dont see is how elementry school look now in cities like Toronto where I live.  In 20-40 years this country will have an ethnic minority majority. Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous, *but when these people start to influence our everday traditions and values such as Christmas, the lines been crossed.* A country is a country because of culture. Without culture, it creates division and division creates, problems. In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.



Can you give an example of this? preferably a link. 

For me coming from a mostly immigrant community, I have seen first hand how much the children of immigrants, and immigrants themselves are willing to assimilate. They strongly and proudly represent the things we deem to be  as"Canadian". And though our culture's might sometimes clash, the (majority) of immigrants whole heartily accept Canadian values. 

Since in the end it was Canadian values which inspired most immigrants to come to Canada. So today you can call these people including *myself * as the "foreign resident populous" but we the "foreign resident populous" don't see ourselves as forgeigners, we see ourselves as Canadian before anything else.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> Can you give an example of this? preferably a link.
> 
> For me coming from a mostly immigrant community, I have seen first hand how much the children of immigrants, and immigrants themselves are willing to assimilate. They strongly and proudly represent the things we deem to be  as"Canadian". And though our culture's might sometimes clash, the (majority) of immigrants whole heartily accept Canadian values.
> 
> Since in the end it was Canadian values which inspired most immigrants to come to Canada. So today you can call these people including *myself * as the "foreign resident populous" but we the "foreign resident populous" don't see ourselves as forgeigners, we see ourselves as Canadian before anything else.



And it is those people who make Canada such a wonderful place to live in. That is what built the country, and that is what will sustain it in the future. 

The ones who insist on transposing their homeland/biases here with them are a minority, but unfortunately they create the stigma that affects so many others.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> What most Canadians dont see is how elementry school look now in cities like Toronto where I live.  In 20-40 years this country will have an ethnic minority majority. Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous, but when these people start to influence our everday traditions and values such as Christmas, the lines been crossed. A country is a country because of culture. Without culture, it creates division and division creates, problems. In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.



But really, so what if it does look different in 40 years? What did it look like in 1963?

And please, spare me the rhetoric that the immigrant waves of the 1960's were "good immigrants": IMHO the Anglo majority didn't see it that way then. Just remember the attitudes towards Italians, Poles and Portuguese in those days. I married into an immigrant family of Portuguese who came here in the early 1960's. They settled initially in Kingston: the reception was unpleasant, to say the least. But, they lived through it, got on with life, and all became successful, hard working citizens. Most of them live better than I do.

Did they change Canada? Of course, but gradually. Remember that  the next time you relax in a nice sidewalk patio cafe with an alcoholic drink on a sunny Sunday afternoon, and not in some grubby bar room with separate "Ladies and Escorts" and "Beverage Room" entrances. 

Did Canada change them? Yes, for sure it did. At least it changed the ones I know, anyway. And, I think, it will change this current crop of immigrants, and the next. Our culture absorbs and changes: its pretty powerful (for better or for worse).



> In my opinion until we NEED foreigners to fill jobs, close to door.



IMHO If we do this, we will be at the mercy of  demographics. Without a steady flow of immigrants, we will have a shrinking, aging work force and a declining birth rate. These usually aren't very healthy for any country.





> these people start to influence our everday traditions and values such as Christmas,



I think we should be careful here. I doubt very much that most of the politically correct rubbish such as being "ashamed" of Christmas really came from the mass of new Canadians, most of whom understand implicitly that Canada has traditions. If you really asked most of them, it's probably a non-issue. Instead, I would look to the real villains: over-educated, under-employed Lefties who because they themselves don't like something, assume that all immigrants must be threatened and affronted by it, too. And, anyway, when I say "Merry Christmas" to a non-Christian, I don't mean "My God is better than your God so f***ck you and your stupid religion."

I just mean "Merry Christmas". 

I don't care if a Jew wishes me a happy Hannukkah, or a Hindu wishes me a nice Diwahli. Actually, I like t. It's all good. 

So here's my set of rules for multiculturalism, for citizens new and old:

-Cultures evolve and change. Grow up and roll with it.

-Welcome to Canada: obey the law, work hard, contribute, enjoy life.

-Don't bring your homeland issues here. Yes, I know the Irish, Armenians, Doukhobors, Serbs and Croats did it. Never mind that. Just don't do it, OK?.

-Build whatever mosque, temple, church, etc you want. (Respecting zoning laws, of course...this IS Canada...);

-Enjoy your religion and I'll enjoy mine. Don't force it on anybody: we're not overly fond of God-botherers here, no matter which God they're yelling about;

-Wear whatever you want to. But if somebody in your family chooses not to wear something you want them to, don't break the law; and

-take responsibility. Don't blame "the government" or "racism" or "immigrants" for your own problems.


----------



## myself.only (8 Oct 2013)

:goodpost:

But, just for my own clarity, should I be greeting passersby with...


			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Merry My God is better than your God so f***ck you and your stupid religion!


or


			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Happy My God is better than your God so f***ck you and your stupid religion!


----------



## paffomaybe (8 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b]  "Theres nothing Wong with having a foreign resident populous." [/quote]

[quote author=recceguy said:
			
		

> I see what you did there



So did I.  That comment was absolutely White On.  :facepalm:

Problems arise when artificial divisions develop based on the superficial.  You can grow up speaking the language, work hard, pay your taxes, play hard, shoot straight - hey, even enroll to give back a bit to the country that raised you (and we know how much *that's* worth when the sh** hits the fan throughout history:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot, among other nefarious examples).  

And yet?  You're still considered Wong.  Simply because you're not White.  These "divisions" you're on about - whose fault is it, really - the perceived or the perceiver?  "Unfortunately they create the stigma that affects so many others."   It's not unfortunate - it's willful and erroneous association based on confirmation bias.  The more we check ourselves, the fewer these divisions.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2013)

myself.only said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> But, just for my own clarity, should I be greeting passersby with...or



In today's climate one wants to avoid saying anything that might offend anyone's sensibilities.

So just say "f***ck you!"


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> Can you give an example of this? preferably a link.


- _"Winnipeg school drops Christmas concert for African drumming, cancels Halloween celebration"_
- _"Muslim families in Winnipeg want children excused from certain classes"_ (music and co-ed phys ed, to be specific)

All this said, others way smarter than me have pointed out these sorts of things are because of culture, not religion - this from the the second story linked above:


> .... a local Muslim leader says there is no reason for young kids to be held out of music or phys-ed classes based on religious and cultural grounds.
> 
> “Who is advising them? My first concern would be who are these new immigrants talking to?” said Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services. “This is the first time I am hearing this; I’m not very happy about it.”
> 
> ...



I'm with those who say ALL societies change over time, in part because of the folks making up the society.  Crazy, wild-eyed optimist that I might be, I think change'll continue to come to Canada without sharia law, widespread ethnic cleansing or blanket, broad-brush exclusion of immigrants.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> So just say "f***ck you!"


To everybody we hate equally, regardless of skin colour, creed, etc., right?   ;D


----------



## Emilio (8 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> - _"Winnipeg school drops Christmas concert for African drumming, cancels Halloween celebration"_
> - _"Muslim families in Winnipeg want children excused from certain classes"_ (music and co-ed phys ed, to be specific)
> 
> All this said, others way smarter than me have pointed out these sorts of things are because of culture, not religion - this from the the second story linked above:
> ...



Thank you for those links, but the second case you presented is not representative of most Muslims......Just thought I should say that.

*"To everybody we hate equally, regardless of skin colour, creed, etc., right?"*

Absolutely  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> Thank you for those links, but the second case you presented is not representative of most Muslims......Just thought I should say that.


I'd go even further and guess that _both_ cases are probably not representative of Muslims _in general_.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2013)

People can also join a culture voluntarily: we all did when we joined up.

I recall a very weird night years ago drinking with British squaddies; a gentleman of the black persuasion suddenly announced that the best thing that happened to the UK had been Margaret Thatcher. When asked to elaborate, he explained she had "Cleaned up the spooks and wogs".

In the company he was in, it made perfect sense; everyone present was "green".


----------



## Infantryman2b (9 Oct 2013)

I really dont understand how so many Canadians dont care about perserving the original identity and culture of this country. A simple bus ride, walk through of an elementry school in a city like Toronto or Vancouver shows that we didnt open the door to immigrants, we opened the flood gates, Anglo-European Canada is dying. Fast. There must be a line.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I really dont understand how so many Canadians dont care about perserving the *original identity and culture* of this country ....


Is that why Aboriginal comedians complain about knowing all about illegal immigrants?  ;D


----------



## Infantryman2b (9 Oct 2013)

The cold hearted truth is aboriginals never created Canada. They were tribes and a collection of small nations. We conquered them and created this country.


----------



## Lightguns (9 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In some cases it appears we _do_ need foreign workers to work in coffee shops in gold mining towns or pick fruits and vegetables we eat.



Concur, my recent move to the back country of NB was very illuminating.  When going into base, I drive by houses of generational welfare which sit next to field of crops owned by a commercial farm and being picked by Jamaican farm hands living here on work visas.  That does not make sense.  

I grew up before EI was an accepted way of life in Eastern Canada.  Folks planted in the spring, fished or worked tourism in the summer, picked crops in the fall and cut pulp all winter.  There was food on the table and EI was something shameful taken by the lazy.  The big difference back then was a county system of government, so if you took welfare you were taking from your neighbours.  Now it is a faceless provincial government that everyone feels they can rip off.  

We need migrants just to keep what little industry we have left going.  There is even migrants working the NB trucking industry as driver now because local firms cannot get anyone to drive a truck.


----------



## pbi (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I really dont understand how so many Canadians dont care about perserving the original identity and culture of this country. A simple bus ride, walk through of an elementry school in a city like Toronto or Vancouver shows that we didnt open the door to immigrants, we opened the flood gates, Anglo-European Canada is dying. Fast. There must be a line.



So......what exactly was the "original identity and culture of this country?".  Franco-Canadien? Protestant English? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? When?

What groups would we "send home" because they don't "belong?": the Chinese labourers who built half the CPR? The Catholic Irish who dug the Rideau Canal?  Those nasty non-English speaking Orthodox Ukrainians who settled the Prairies?  The Nisei Japanese farmers in BC? The Jews? Where does this imaginary "original identity and culture" line begin? And, who gets to decide that?

Decades ago, there were Canadians who got upset when we gave up using the Union Jack to get our own distinct national flag, the same one that most of us have proudly worn on our shoulders for many years, because it was change to what they saw  as  the "original identity and culture of Canada", which was essentially "little Britain".

The basis of loyalty, IMHO, is a sense of belonging. If you want people to feel like they really belong to something, make them feel welcome, explain the rules, and let them get on with life as long as they're not breaking the law. That's all most immigrants want. A strong, secure culture is not afraid to adapt and adopt. Paranoid, insecure cultures feel threatened by anything different and are constantly trying to turn back the clock.


----------



## Emilio (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I really *dont* understand how so many Canadians *dont* care about *perserving* the original identity and culture of this country. A simple bus ride, walk through of an *elementry* school in a city like Toronto or Vancouver shows that we *didnt* open the door to immigrants, we opened the flood gates, Anglo-European Canada is dying. Fast. There must be a line.



Maybe you should take your views over to Stormfront? 

And please watch your grammar.


----------



## Infantryman2b (9 Oct 2013)

:facepalm:


----------



## pbi (9 Oct 2013)

But, seriously, emoticons aside, do you really think we can turn back the clock? Isn't it better to figure out how to make people feel like they really have a stake in this country? That way, gradually and in little bits, they will adapt. My ball park guess is that three generations usually does it, if people are given a reasonable chance.

I've spoken about Remembrance Day at one of those public schools you're talking about, where over half the faces weren't white. Those kids were just as attentive and respectful as any kids I have encountered anywhere.


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> The cold hearted truth is aboriginals never created Canada. They were tribes and a collection of small nations. We conquered them and created this country.



Actually that isn't cold hearted truth, it's ignorant uninformed opinion.  read a few history books before spewing crap like that.

I blame bad tv for this....


----------



## Infantryman2b (9 Oct 2013)

Pbi, I dont care that your not white, I care when people don't assimilate. In the past all the non-traditional immigrants never complained about having to live our lifestyle, and keeping theres inside there homes. They never voiced to have foreign customs brought into our societies. The ones who come here and contribute are more then welcome, but the lazy, welfare, and ignorant ones have no place here. There need to remain a balance, to ensure the traditions Canada, since the 1800's, have upheld. Also to mention when OUR government gives them advantages over its own citizens, for the fact they'll work cheaper and save them money is appalling.

Crantor, please explain the correct answer.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2013)

Well one "tradition" of Canada is that *we* go looking for large numbers of immigrants from time to time. The colony of New France needed warm bodies, and the various English colonies needed to bring even more people to counter the French, then later after the conquest and American Revolution, took in the Loyalsits and added more people to keep the Americans at bay.

Canada brought boatloads of Chinese labour to build the CPR in the 1800's, and it was considered a very good idea to bring over vast numbers of Ukrainian farmers to settle the west and farm. Bringing hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the post WWII era to make up lost manpower from the war seemed like a good idea, and similar thoughts are behind bringing in immigrants today (especially considering there will be a "population bust" starting in the mid 2020's).

True, it wasn't all smooth sailing, and many of the people enticed to Canada may have felt they got a raw deal. The various governments who oversaw the floods of immigrants also made errors in how they handled the new Canadians, and may have initially overestimated the value of the first wave (but probably underestimated the value of their children and children's children).


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> Pbi, I dont care that your not white, I care when people don't assimilate. In the past all the non-traditional immigrants never complained about having to live our lifestyle, and keeping theres inside there homes. They never voiced to have foreign customs brought into our societies. The ones who come here and contribute are more then welcome, but the lazy, welfare, and ignorant ones have no place here. There need to remain a balance, to ensure the traditions Canada, since the 1800's, have upheld. Also to mention when OUR government gives them advantages over its own citizens, for the fact they'll work cheaper and save them money is appalling.
> 
> Crantor, please explain the correct answer.




Let's start with the whole tribe thing.  Google the Mohawk Confedracy or even the huron.  these were somewhat more than just "tribes".  They had immense territory and traded all over North America.  Also, you can't dismiss the contribution natives made to the war of 1812.  One of the defining moments in our nation's history.  We also never had a war on conquest against natives in this country.  If you don't think native history and influence does not have a part in they Canadian fabric then you have a very narrow view of what Canada is.  Or what formed it for that matter.


----------



## Infantryman2b (9 Oct 2013)

I didnt say anything on there contribution? Also The war of 1812 was just Upper and Lower Canada involved, in the end we conquered all of the land of Canada from them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> .... do you really think we can turn back the clock? Isn't it better to figure out how to make people feel like they really have a stake in this country? That way, gradually and in little bits, they will adapt ....


 :goodpost:


			
				Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I didnt say anything on there contribution?


Really?


			
				Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> The cold hearted truth is *aboriginals never created Canada*.





			
				Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> Also The war of 1812 was just Upper and Lower Canada involved, in the end we conquered all of the land of Canada from them.


I'll leave this one for better historians than I to answer, but try Googling "war of 1812 Aboriginal" and when you hit the space bar after typing in Aboriginal, see what word comes up first as an option.  


			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I blame bad American tv for this....


FTFY - methinks that's where the "conquered nation" concept of Aboriginal relations tends to come from.


			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> .... read a few history books before spewing crap like that ....


Good advice, this.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (9 Oct 2013)

> I care when people don't assimilate



Both my parents are immigrants, and thanks to them, and a culture which accepted me and allowed me to "assimilate", I am in no way different than my friends who are 12th+ generation Canadians. Even if I was, that's what makes this country great. It was built by immigrants. You can't force a people to assimilate, you will do nothing but harbour resentment if that is your agenda.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I didnt say anything on there contribution? Also The war of 1812 was just Upper and Lower Canada involved, in the end we conquered all of the land of Canada from them.



With the exception of 1, maybe 2 posters here, "we" didn't do anything in that war. "We" didn't conquer anything.

Someones race or cultures contribution 200 years ago is all well and good but not as important as what they (we) do today. The great thing about Canada is that it's a reflection of all the different races under humanity.


----------



## Remius (10 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> I didnt say anything on there contribution? Also The war of 1812 was just Upper and Lower Canada involved, in the end we conquered all of the land of Canada from them.



No, you just stated that they had nothing to do with creating Canada...many thing swent into the creation and formation of Canada, and it's much more that white anglo old guys with snuff boxes and cigars with tales from the Crimean War.  And all that.

Again you need to read up way more on that particular event.  Pierre Berton wrote a few about it.  I would recommend his books as a good starting point.  It was more than just Upper and Lower Canada (some maritime provinces were also involved in case you didn't know).  Natives were are allies in that conflict.  In fact it is proposed that without them we might not of actually been able to fend off American agression.  Google Tecumseh and read about how much effect he had on the conflict and by default the forging of our nation.

Please detail this war of conquest against the Natives in Canada.  That never happened.  Contemporaries of that time may have imposed their will, negociated and made treaties with the occasional policing action but their was never a conquest.  The only people to ever be "conquered" on Canadian soil would be the _Canadiens _ in 1759.  And even this conquered people would still contribute to the fabric of what is our nation.

You have a very narrow and anglo-centric view of our country.  Travel it a bit more.  It can be eye opening.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> With the exception of 1, maybe 2 posters here, "we" didn't do anything in that war. "


I know this site has a couple of more senior gentlemen, but to suggest that they're 200 years old..... gutsy move    >


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I know this site has a couple of more senior gentlemen, but to suggest that they're 200 years old..... gutsy move    >



Well....maybe they got the dates of their wars mixed up....been to the legion lately..?......


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> ....been to the legion lately..?......


Nope.  Not my people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I know this site has a couple of more senior gentlemen, but to suggest that they're 200 years old..... gutsy move    >




Well, young fellow, you got part of it right, anyway; we are _gentlemen_ ... we take the weight on our elbows.


----------



## Infantryman2b (10 Oct 2013)

Okay maybe im wrong with some points but I still stand by alot of what I said. For the future I think numbers coming in need to dwindle, and culture cant be altered for the feelings of immigrants.


----------



## Lightguns (10 Oct 2013)

I think the issue revolves around activism more than anything else.  Immigrants of today are well supported in terms of organizations and government assistance.  They are often seen as unfortunates from the third world that we are "elevating".  They and their supporters have more time and income to be activists for the immigrant cause.  This causes issues for Canadians who cannot understand why the poor buggers are not happy they are here, living in the lower strata of our society....ruddy ungrateful too...what ...what.  

Immigrants of 60 and 100 years ago came from Europe and often those countries that we had just defeated in the recent past world or colonial war.  They worked hard, kept their mouths shut and got ahead because there was no support from NGOs or government and starving sucks.  I am sure they had complaints about the system and their treatment therein but they did not have time to work the issue out.  They became Canadian because they had too.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2013)

Infantryman2b said:
			
		

> .... I think numbers coming in need to dwindle ....


And one solution to that will be getting more Canadians to work in mining town coffee shops and pick fruit/vegetables.



			
				Emilio said:
			
		

> Maybe you should take your views over to Stormfront?


Just spotted this - let's stick to attacking/defending ideas, not folks, please.



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> I think the issue revolves around activism more than anything else.  Immigrants of today are well supported in terms of organizations and government assistance.  They are often seen as unfortunates from the third world that we are "elevating".  They and their supporters have more time and income to be activists for the immigrant cause.  This causes issues for Canadians who cannot understand why the poor buggers are not happy they are here, living in the lower strata of our society....ruddy ungrateful too...what ...what.
> 
> Immigrants of 60 and 100 years ago came from Europe and often those countries that we had just defeated in the recent past world or colonial war.  They worked hard, kept their mouths shut and got ahead because there was no support from NGOs or government and starving sucks.  I am sure they had complaints about the system and their treatment therein but they did not have time to work the issue out.  They became Canadian because they had too.


Interesting description of both ends of the "how do we cope?" spectrum - I think in Canada, in spite of the friction, we can sort it out to come up with a solution somewhere in the middle.


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And one solution to that will be getting more Canadians to work in mining town coffee shops and pick fruit/vegetables.



And IMHO therein lies the big difference. The much-maligned immigrants everybody seems to be so afraid of will take those jobs. (ie: my Portuguese family when they first came to Canada). They will clean toilets, park cars, pick apples and tobacco and dig ditches. Yes, they will live three families to a house. But, you know what happens to most of them?

Their kids go to school, and learn, and adapt. And before you know it, they're living out in the suburbs in three-car garage houses. Don't believe me? I'll offer several examples of very successful immigrant groups (non-white and often non-Christian):

-Chinese;
-Indian;
Japanese;
-Korean; 
and Philipino.

In fact, far from disrupting and destroying Canada, they have increasingly become a major part of the Conservative Party voting base. Tory: not Liberal. Read _"The Big Shift" _to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Now, while these groups arrived in Canada, and started at the bottom, and climbed up, who was sitting on the porch whining about the _"damned immigrants taking our jobs_", until it was time to get off their asses and go pick up their welfare cheques? And guess who's still there doing that, and will be doing that when the next batch of immigrants arrive?

Are there immigrants who don't pull their weight, or don't assimilate after two generations? Yes, there are. Are there immigrant criminals who should be deported immediately? Probably. But, IMHO, these always have been and always will be a minority.

Nobody can claim to have "built this country" because we aren't done yet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Nobody can claim to have "built this country" because we aren't done yet.


Good point - maybe "helped Canada become what it is" may be better because it doesn't suggest an end state.


			
				pbi said:
			
		

> .... while these groups arrived in Canada, and started at the bottom, and climbed up, who was sitting on the porch whining about the _"damned immigrants taking our jobs_" ....


Not just here, either.  In Italy, I heard a lot of folks complaining about all those Eastern Europeans working as personal assistants to frail elderly living at home, but in an Italian city a bit smaller than North Bay, I heard of approximately zero Italians doing this kind of work.


----------



## Emilio (10 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I think the issue revolves around activism more than anything else.  Immigrants of today are well supported in terms of organizations and government assistance.  They are often seen as unfortunates from the third world that we are "elevating".  They and their supporters have more time and income to be activists for the immigrant cause.  This causes issues for Canadians who cannot understand why the poor buggers are not happy they are here, living in the lower strata of our society....ruddy ungrateful too...what ...what.
> 
> Immigrants of 60 and 100 years ago came from Europe and often those countries that we had just defeated in the recent past world or colonial war.  They worked hard, kept their mouths shut and got ahead because there was no support from NGOs or government and starving sucks.  I am sure they had complaints about the system and their treatment therein but they did not have time to work the issue out.  They became Canadian because they had too.



The NGOs you speak of were created because Non-European settlers were treated differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax_%28Canada%29

European settlers did have problems, but at least they weren't targeted because of their skin color.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just spotted this - let's stick to attacking/defending ideas, not folks, please.



My apologies, but let's leave our ethnicity out of this as well.



> I really dont understand how so many Canadians dont care about perserving the original identity and culture of this country. A simple bus ride, walk through of an elementry school in a city like Toronto or Vancouver shows that we didnt open the door to immigrants, we opened the flood gates, *Anglo-European Canada* is dying. Fast. There must be a line.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> The NGOs you speak of were created because Non-European settlers were treated differently.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident
> 
> ...


Just their nationality or religion ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-Canadian_internment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
In spite of these and other ball drops, as others have said, all these groups (and others) have found ways to be successful in a Canada we recognize while not losing or forgetting their heritage.  I'm confident the overwhelming majority of Canada's newest Canadians will continue to do the same.



			
				Emilio said:
			
		

> My apologies, but let's leave our ethnicity out of this as well.


No worries - I'm thinking folks here are doing a good enough job pointing out weaknesses in his argument.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> My apologies, but let's leave our ethnicity out of this as well.


Yep, a discussion of multiculturalism or 'melting-pot' without reference to anything that differentiates us..... must be sponsored by the Heritage Ministry


----------



## Infantryman2b (10 Oct 2013)

Time will tell who's right and wrong IMO. When the balance tips, all it takes is a few to make a big difference. One that we wont be able to counter.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Oct 2013)

In summary, and in the infamous words of _Vitalstatistix_ (From Asterix the Gaul series, if anyone wonders):

"You know me Asterix, I have nothing against foreigners, but these foreigners are not from around here"


----------



## CougarKing (10 Oct 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> (From Asterix the Gaul series, if anyone wonders):



Obelix: "I crave Wild Boars..."   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I know this site has a couple of more senior gentlemen, but to suggest that they're 200 years old..... gutsy move    >



I always wondered how it could be 2013 and we still have "dinosaurs" in the CF- then I realized dinosaurs lay eggs  ;D


Infantryman2B, you might change your opinion and views once you put the uniform- it has a way of changing your priorities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2013)

I suppose this report, from the _Toronto Sun_ belongs here.

The crux of the matter is that " Quebec's college of physicians is threatening to fine any members who issue virginity certificates." The report notes that, in some cultures ~ it is *not* a religious issue, as far as I know ~ require that a woman be a virgin when she enters the marriage and some families want a doctor's certificate to prove that.

This is part of a bigger and quite important issue: the notion that people can be _property_. It is a wrong notion and it is one which must not be tolerated in our _uber-tolerant_ Canadian _mosaic_ because it excuses, even tolerates slavery.

If you can see countries in which slavery is _tolerated_ then you are, simultaneously, seeing a country with a *retarded* culture which must not be allowed to propagate in the 21st century. The Romans made human sacrifice a _cause_ and they used its existence (or even rumours of its existence) as an excuse to conquer and punish societies in which it was found (or even just reported). They were a wee bit hypocritical because, while they used their own abhorrence of human sacrifice as a mark of their own _civilization_ (and, consequentially, the _savagery_ of their enemies), they enjoyed e.g. gladitorial combat which amounted to much the same thing. But it's not a bad _example_ for us: eradicating slavery is a worthwhile _cause_ for the West, and we ought never, under any circumstances, _tolerate_ any culture that tolerates slavery.

If you think someone can force a woman to remain virginal so that she can be married off then you regard her as your property and your cultural values are unacceptable in Canada ... at least they are in the Canada that I want for my grand-children.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Did they change Canada? Of course, but gradually. Remember that  the next time you relax in a nice sidewalk patio cafe with an alcoholic drink on a sunny Sunday afternoon, and not in some grubby bar room with separate "Ladies and Escorts" and "Beverage Room" entrances.



Seems funny to remember now, but until 2000 the Junction area of Toronto voted itself completely dry. No bars at all. Restaurants could not serve beer or wine with meals. I remember going to Vesuvio's and having a glass of Coke with a spaghetti dinner. 



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> And, anyway, when I say "Merry Christmas" to a non-Christian, I don't mean "My God is better than your God so f***ck you and your stupid religion."
> 
> I just mean "Merry Christmas".



My wife is Jewish. She likes when people wish her, "Merry Christmas".


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2013)

Although many of the arguments properly belong in the"Making Canada Relevant again-Economic Superthread", the opening (and many of the arguments) reflect on the idea of Canada as a nation built from immigration:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-would-a-canada-of-100-million-feel-like-more-comfortable-better-served-better-defended/article4186906/?page=all



> *What would a Canada of 100 million feel like? More comfortable, better served, better defended*
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> LONDON — The Globe and Mail
> Published Thursday, May. 17 2012, 11:32 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2013)

I don't want Infantryman (and others) to think that I completely disregard his concern about lack of adaptation by some immigrant groups. Anybody among us can think of examples where immigrant groups, or sub-sets of groups, seem to almost obstinately refuse to adapt. In a few of these groups, violent criminal subgroups have flourished (but, historically in most cases, faded away over time) 

But, I suggest, we might want to avoid a rush to panic judgement, and instead ask a few questions about such groups:

-how many people are we actually talking about, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total ethnic community in Canada? Because 1,000 people in a community of 100,000 from "X" land are of concern, does not mean we need to censure or sanction the whole group;

-what does "not adapt" actually mean? After all, nobody on these pages is worrying about the Hutterites or Old Order Mennonites, are they? ;

-how harmful are the activties of the group in question? Are they breaking the law? If so, they must face the consequences like anybody else, on a case-by-case basis. Are they seriously disrupting the community? No need to tolerate that, either, as long as we apply the same standard of "disrupt" as we do to anybody else; and

-how long has this particular group been in Canada? First generation folks from any culture are usually not very amenable to adaptation. Second generation tend to be moreso, and third generation is usually a big worry to the first generation because they have "assimilated".

In the end, as Thucydides' article post above points out, we got to where we are on the backs of people who came from somewhere else, and we will continue to do so. IMHO it's a question of whether we have the art and the wit to bring new immigrants along to the point where they feel like they truly belong in Canada. Bullying. badgering and marginalizing are not, IMHO, the tools.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2013)

There have been some recent developments in Europe may be indicators of what is yet to come to North America.  The Netherlands has in the past year abandoned its long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants create a parallel society within the Netherlands.  It is only one of several countries to make this move, or contemplate making that move.  

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
LINK


> The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism And Muslim Mass-Immigration
> 
> The Conservative Papers
> Written on January 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm by alpineski
> ...



Related posts to the problems in the Netherlands:

1.Multiculturalism in Europe Failing, Now Holland
2.MORE THAN HALF OF MOROCCAN MALE MUSLIM YOUTHS IN THE NETHERLANDS HAVE AN ARREST RECORD…….
3.Geert Wilders Most Likely Next Prime Minister of the Netherlands
4.European Concerns Over Muslim Immigration Go Mainstream
5.Geert Wilders: The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide

A Polish philosopher, Marcin Wawrzyńczak, believes that the inability of cultures to properly integrate and embrace multiculturalism has influenced a new era of postmulticulturalism.   Below are his comments:

LINK


> The era of multiculturalism collapsed when Europeans ceased to understand each other. Now we have entered a period of postmulticulturalism, where society blindly accepts that all cultures are equally good, according to a Polish philosopher.
> 
> From the 1970s onwards, multiculturalism was not only a fact in countries such as the United States, but also the standard. You had to support it, and this had the appeal of promoting diversity. One also had to respect multiculturalism because it was an expression of the varied "identities" of different social groups - primarily ethnic and tribal - but also cultural, sexual, or generational.
> 
> ...



To some extent, multiculturalism is a failure.  I believe that the assessment made by Marcin Wawrzyńczak is fairly much bang on.  We will be seeing changes to our rules on our freedoms in our society, to protect our culture from being destroyed, as witnessed in Europe today.  Will these be a complete backlash at our rules and beliefs of having a multicultural society?  Not at all.  It will only mean that we will be less lenient towards permitting foreign cultural customs or practices that are totally against our beliefs and laws.  As E.R.C. has pointed out many times, it is the "barbaric" practices that we will no longer tolerate being brought into our society, and any attempts by other cultures to bring them into our culture.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2013)

I enjoyed reading those articles thank you.


----------



## pbi (12 Dec 2013)

> As E.R.C. has pointed out many times, it is the "barbaric" practices that we will no longer tolerate being brought into our society, and any attempts by other cultures to bring them into our culture.



Actually, IMHO these are probably the things we least need to worry about, since my guess is that they are practiced by relatively small segments of groups that are already in a minority.

What worries me far more is the possibility of fundamental changes in our society that might be brought about by alien cultural influences. I am treading on to thin ice here, and I will probably be called on it. Be that as it may.

I am a bit torn over this issue, having an intimate understanding (through marriage) of just how difficult it can be to be a successful immigrant in Canada. At the same time, I've seen enough of the world to realize that we should not automatically accept all other cultures, lock, stock and barrel without reasonable question. Some of them are quite dysfunctional and possibly toxic.

For all of its failings, and its occasional bouts of intolerance, our society is generally a pretty good one. We enjoy rights and privileges that many people in the world will never have, and we expect to hear a very good explanation of the _bona fides_ of any policy that arbitrarily discriminates. We assume that women, minorities, gays and people who don't vote like we do, or go to the same church we do, can still be whatever they want to be and lead useful, productive lives. We still (for the most part) view bribery and corruption as wrong, not as an SOP. We struggle with what free speech means (it still means different things to different people...), but we enjoy much more freedom of expression that most people in this world.

Those things, to me, form some of the values that make our culture liveable, and worth defending. What I fear is that in the long run, if we can't do a better job of instilling these virtues and upholding them as things to aspire to, then "baggage" values, those that are brought with the new arrivals, may gradually assert themselves, particularly as various groups become more and more politically and financially influential, and political parties cater to their votes.

I know that maybe I sound a lot like any flaky Right-wing soap box shouter: these sorts of things I'm saying are those that have historically been used against Jews, for example. But I can't shake a feeling of uneasiness, even though I will probably be dead long before it happens.

What I take from this is that, first of all, let's not panic about Europe's misadventures with ethnic and racial issues: there is probably nothing new there. It is not an automatic template for Canada.

Second, let's not encourage those who really would take us down the path of New Dawn, Jobbik, and all these other scary gangs. Overreaction may be even worse than underreaction. And, if you want to guarantee that people hate you and are disloyal to you, treat them like enemies and that will work well.

Finally, though, we need to figure out how (other than relying on cultural osmosis) we can ensure that while we remain a welcoming and reasonably tolerant place for new arrivals, and we understand the growing pains of adapting to a new and different homeland, we require people to play  by our rules and to preserve the underlying values of our society.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Actually, IMHO these are probably the things we least need to worry about, since my guess is that they are practiced by relatively small segments of groups that are already in a minority.
> 
> What worries me far more is the possibility of fundamental changes in our society that might be brought about by alien cultural influences. I am treading on to thin ice here, and I will probably be called on it. Be that as it may.
> 
> ...




That's it exactly. There is a _Canadian_ culture with norms and values ~ that culture is constantly changing, adapting to the needs of Canadians ... but it adapts to the needs of all Canadians not just this or that or the other minority. The corollary is that if our culture can adapt then so can the cultures of new Canadians and they may have to revise their expectations and, indeed, their own personal values in order to "play by our rules."

Religion is not, in my opinion, a problem: individual _interpretations_ of religions can be problematical and we should not, must not, I think, simply roll over when someone, including Canadian First nations, says  "my religion" or "my oral history" says "this, that or the other." _This, that or the other_ can be and, often, should be challenged by courts and administrative tribunals. There are _mainstream_, generally accepted, _interpretations_ of the teachings of religions, great and small, and we should _tolerate_ them, the Charter says that, but that doesn't mean that we, our courts and tribunals, have to accept _extremist_ or _minority_ views.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Dec 2013)

We should always bear in mind, when talking about the Charter, that it is a Charter of rights and freedoms.

Rights and freedoms are not the same thing.

A freedom is something a person enjoys for herself or himself. A right is something a person can oppose to someone else and through the force of law, exact compliance with.

In Canada we have freedom of religion, that is the capacity for any individual to hold, for himself or herself, whatever belief he or she may. We do not have a right to religion, that is no one can actually impose on anyone else, through the sanction of the law, the obligation to abide by any of the diktats of their religion or anyone else's religion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2013)

>I am treading on to thin ice here, and I will probably be called on it. Be that as it may.

I, on the other hand, am as usual quite prepared to crash straight through it and wrestle, if necessary, with pigs in the bottom mud.

I long ago lost patience with multicultis (I grew up).  In short, my message to immigrants is simple: you are welcome as my equals as human beings, provided you bring none of your native country/culture sh!t-baggage with you.  Canada is what it is - and presumably, attractive therefore to immigrants - because of the customs and practices and laws it currently has.  Canada needs continuous refinement (stemming from mixes of ideas which are not the exclusive province of any single ideology or faction), but not revolution.  Sharia, for example*, is incompatible with Canada.  If you want to practice sharia, stay in whatever dysfunctional place you think you want to leave.  Do not export the dysfunction to Canada.  If you come here to make trouble, thinking that somehow you can magically weld Canadian prosperity and liberty to "old-country" practices and customs, I do not value your life and presence at all and would happily see you extinguished or expelled to make room for someone who does want to be Canadian.

*not the only example, for those few readers who happen to be overly sensitive hand-wringing self-flagellating apologetic servile self-abasing lickspittle craven wieners.


----------



## pbi (12 Dec 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *not the only example, for those few readers who happen to be overly sensitive hand-wringing self-flagellating apologetic servile self-abasing lickspittle craven wieners.



Aha! I knew it! You reveal your own innate weakness by showing you care about what these craven wieners may think!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Dec 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> In short, my message to immigrants is simple: you are welcome as my equals as human beings, provided you bring none of your native country/culture sh!t-baggage with you.



Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Without immigrants bringing some of their culture, we wouldn't have Italian food, Chicken Vindaloo or sushi. I don't know if I could live without those.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> *not the only example, for those few readers who happen to be overly sensitive hand-wringing self-flagellating apologetic servile self-abasing lickspittle craven wieners.



Did you study public speaking with Ron James by any chance?


----------



## Danjanou (12 Dec 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Without immigrants bringing some of their culture, we wouldn't have Italian food, Chicken Vindaloo or sushi. I don't know if I could live without those.



Not to mention the sometimes wondrous fusion of these cultures  http://www.hungarythai.com/  8)

I think Brad was referring to only the negative cultural baggage and I agree with him. Our society has benefited from infusions of various cultures in many ways not just gastronomic


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Dec 2013)

>we wouldn't have Italian food, Chicken Vindaloo or sushi

Those are not sh!t-baggage; those are estimable and laudable examples of most excellent cuisine.  Some British cooking, on the other hand...


----------



## dimsum (12 Dec 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >we wouldn't have Italian food, Chicken Vindaloo or sushi
> 
> Those are not sh!t-baggage; those are estimable and laudable examples of most excellent cuisine.  Some British cooking, on the other hand...



Are you trying to say beef boiled until grey is a bad thing?  

Having travelled and lived in various places around the world now, I'm still of the opinion that Toronto and Vancouver (in that order) have some of the best Chinese food; surpassing Hong Kong in many respects.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2013)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say beef boiled until grey is a bad thing?
> 
> Having travelled and lived in various places around the world now, I'm still of the opinion that Toronto and Vancouver (in that order) have some of the best Chinese food; surpassing Hong Kong in many respects.




My current rule of thumb is that you have to walk for 15 minutes after leaving an MTR station to find good great food in HK. On my most recent trips I have stayed in Kennedy Town (West end of the Island) because there is no MTR service (there is next year, I think) so there are still plenty of really, really good places to eat. But even in super hotels like the _Penninsula_, with their celebrity chefs and prices beyond the reach of mere mortals, the food has been adulterated to suit foreigners' palates. I was a guest for a dinner in one of the super hotels (the _Shangri-la_) a couple or three years ago and we had a really good meal in one of their restaurants, but it was by a chef who was trying to bring *real* Cantonese cooking back into fashion. The _hype_ told us that he used only traditional ingredients and he cooked using only traditional methods, eschewing the seasonings and techniques loved by foreigners.

I agree that there are some GREAT Chinese restaurants in Vancouver, especially in Richmond.

By the way, Dimsum, given where you are, now, try to get to Penang, the "pearl of of the orient," it has some of the best food in Asia the whole damned world.


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My current rule of thumb is that you have to walk for 15 minutes after leaving an MTR station to find good great food in HK. On my most recent trips I have stayed in Kennedy Town (West end of the Island) because there is no MTR service (there is next year, I think) so there are still plenty of really, really good places to eat. But even in super hotels like the _Penninsula_, with their celebrity chefs and prices beyond the reach of mere mortals, the food has been adulterated to suit foreigners' palates. I was a guest for a dinner in one of the super hotels (the _Shangri-la_) a couple or three years ago and we had a really good meal in one of their restaurants, but it was by a chef who was trying to bring *real* Cantonese cooking back into fashion. The _hype_ told us that he used only traditional ingredients and he cooked using only traditional methods, eschewing the seasonings and techniques loved by foreigners.
> 
> I agree that there are some GREAT Chinese restaurants in Vancouver, especially in Richmond.
> 
> By the way, Dimsum, given where you are, now, try to get to Penang, the "pearl of of the orient," it has some of the best food in Asia the whole damned world.



I went to Penang in April, and I agree on the amazing food and, more importantly, it's ludicrously-low prices.  I may go back once more (I have relatives in KL and there) before returning to Canada.

Since Toronto is slightly closer to where you are than Vancouver, I can give you some recommendations for good spots in the Richmond Hill/Markham area.  And only one of them is owned my family friends 

*Edited to add*  Damn you ERC for making me miss real Cantonese/Chaozhou food.  The stuff in Brisbane (mostly Taiwanese-influenced) just doesn't cut the mustard and is ridiculously expensive to boot.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Feb 2014)

An apt comment, made on youtube in response to the controversial Coca Cola 2014 superbowl "multiculturalism" ad that hits right on the mark on the subject of this thread:



> "If every other ethic group behaved like the Chinese in this regard then multiculturalism could work. But they don't, because when a culture is driven by religion it often includes a strong element of moral judgement about others. And when that religion also happens to be socially confrontational and politically supremacist in nature well that's when multiculturalism can tend to break down."
> 
> ―Pat Condell. "Celebrating Diversity" aka the truth about multiculturalism.



The underlined sections apply to the subjects of the threads Islam and Society and They Walk Among Us superthreads.


----------



## pbi (6 Feb 2014)

> "If every other ethic group behaved like the Chinese in this regard then multiculturalism could work. But they don't, because when a culture is driven by religion it often includes a strong element of moral judgement about others. And when that religion also happens to be socially confrontational and politically supremacist in nature well that's when multiculturalism can tend to break down."



Two points:

1) IMHO the Chinese, from their humble origins in this country as people who were prevented by law from bringing their families to Canada, and could not even be buried next to Christians, they have become one of our most successful immigrant groups, by any measure. One even became the Governor General. Like most immigrants, they have done very little whining and an awful lot of working.

2) I suspect this comment is likely directed at Muslims, but I have exactly the same feelings about the frightening, apocalyptic right-wing Christian  screamers and haters who seem to be over -represented in the Republican Party and to a lesser degree in the constituencies of the CPC. The overt introduction of religion into politics is, IMHO, a recipe for a very "un-civil" society.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Feb 2014)

An interesting commentary that goes with the major overhaul of Canadian citizenship laws announced today.

George Jonas of the National Post also hits right on the mark of the failure of multiculturalism:  



> *George Jonas: Multiculturalism encourages a new type of immigrant who shares our wealth but not our values*
> 
> National Post
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2014)

To put it in more concrete terms most people should be able to understand: there are cultural and social reasons Canada is free and prosperous.  Change the culture; change the freedom and prosperity.  And improvement is not guaranteed.


----------



## pbi (9 Feb 2014)

I still think there is a need for balance here. That balance is between the ability to preserve one's own cultural heritage, which every immigrant group including those from Great Britain have consistently done, and being a functional, productive, law-abiding part of a civil sociery which respects differences, circumscribed by the rule of law and underpinned by a broadly accepted idea of how society works.

I would not want to think that we would ever give any credit to that gang of pitchfork-wavers who shriek endlessly about the "goddamned immigrants" and rush from one immigrant conspiracy plot to the next. These people exist, and they have their icons and their mouthpieces. I see no place for that kind of stupid thinking. Most immigrants came here to work, and as far as I can see most contribute and get on with life.

On the other hand, there has to be a way to preserve the things that have, so far, made Canada a pretty good place to live for most people. We generally accept that people should be able to advance on their own merits and not be held back by personal traits and characteristics such as sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, social status, religion, etc. I'd be the first to admit that this has been distorted here and there over the years (bilingualism in Federal personnel policies might be one), but it's generally been true.

We have to be able to say, firmly but fairly, "we don't do that here", whether "that" is keeping girls out of school or the workplace,  wife-beating, bringing your old-country feuds with you, or using your place of worship to preach violence, discrimination and disorder. And, somehow, we need to be able to say it while respecting the right of free speech, no matter how much we don't like that free speech.

As I noted somewhere else, we have a right to freedom of expression; we don't have a right not to be offended.

Unfortunately, we have some precedents in Canada that may trip us up. In Ontario, for example, we have a very popular Catholic education system funded by a portion of the public purse. Although it is much more inclusdive now (my kids went to it), it was originally founded on religious lines.  In Manitoba, we have groups of people (Hutterites and a few Mennonites) who live in semi-closed or closed  communities, dress differently (especially women) and run their own elementary schools. 

If newer groups of immigrants want to do these things, how can we say they shouldn't? And does it matter? So, what is the litmus test of "acceptable behaviour" versus peoples' rights to live their lives and be left alone?


----------



## Jed (9 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I still think there is a need for balance here. That balance is between the ability to preserve one's own cultural heritage, which every immigrant group including those from Great Britain have consistently done, and being a functional, productive, law-abiding part of a civil sociery which respects differences, circumscribed by the rule of law and underpinned by a broadly accepted idea of how society works.
> 
> I would not want to think that we would ever give any credit to that gang of pitchfork-wavers who shriek endlessly about the "goddamned immigrants" and rush from one immigrant conspiracy plot to the next. These people exist, and they have their icons and their mouthpieces. I see no place for that kind of stupid thinking. Most immigrants came here to work, and as far as I can see most contribute and get on with life.
> 
> ...




I am in complete agreement with your expressed sentiments.  I am not overly concerned with the long established separate educational systems that co exist in the Hutterite communities, Quakers in the US, etc. These religious groups do not have extremists attached that incite violence and intolerance. They also do not impose or push their culture and way of life on their neighbours.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2014)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am in complete agreement with your expressed sentiments.  I am not overly concerned with the long established separate educational systems that co exist in the Hutterite communities, Quakers in the US, etc. These religious groups do not have extremists attached that incite violence and intolerance. They also do not impose or push their culture and way of life on their neighbours.



Not true.  They do have some sects that do push their culture and way of life on others.  Some sects even have a violent streak running through them as well.  If you ever get the chance, take a tour of some of the sites where guided tours are being done.  I went on one such tour as part of a Oktoberfest holiday to Kitchener/Waterloo.  We visited the area around St Jacobs, Ontario.  On the tour, it was explained by an Amish guide that there were a wide variety of different sects within their community.  Some were the traditional, no TV, no radio, no dancing, horse drawn buggies, etc.; some still wore the traditional clothing, but drove black Cadillac's and used Cellphones; while others would be unrecognizable on the street as being Amish.  For instance, he worked over twenty years as a TD Bank manager, and his family had all the everyday amenities you and I have.

I also wonder if you have never had your Sunday morning brunch interrupted by a knock on your door and found Jehovah Witness missionaries there?  

For the most part, Canadians have turned a blind eye, ignoring anything that does not affect their personal lives.  Until it does, they are content to remain ignorant of anything that may conflict with or threaten their social life styles


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> .... We have to be able to say, firmly but fairly, "we don't do that here", whether "that" is keeping girls out of school or the workplace,  wife-beating, bringing your old-country feuds with you, or using your place of worship to preach violence, discrimination and disorder. And, somehow, we need to be able to say it while respecting the right of free speech, no matter how much we don't like that free speech.
> 
> As I noted somewhere else, we have a right to freedom of expression; we don't have a right not to be offended ....


 :goodpost:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2014)

I've had the knock on the door from various sects and religions (including Green Party candidates, Mormons, Jehovah Witness' and even mainstream denominational churches), and I'm fine with that. They have the right to tell me about their religion/belief, and I have the right to politely say "no thank you". It works in reverse as well, I can knock on any door and offer to explain my religion/political platform/merits of this new vacuum cleaner, and you also have the right to say "no thank you".

This is not pushing your religion or beliefs on other people, it is advertising (hence the added example of a vacuum cleaner). What is NOT all right is to attempt to force a school to segregate boys from girls, or force girls to sit in the back of a classroom at certain times of the month (to use a particular example). If this sort of thing is very important to you, then you can set up or join a private school that adheres to these rules, and even tell me about that in case I might be interested in joining, but you cannot FORCE me to adhere to those rules or impose them on my children without my consent.


----------



## Jed (9 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I've had the knock on the door from various sects and religions (including Green Party candidates, Mormons, Jehovah Witness' and even mainstream denominational churches), and I'm fine with that. They have the right to tell me about their religion/belief, and I have the right to politely say "no thank you". It works in reverse as well, I can knock on any door and offer to explain my religion/political platform/merits of this new vacuum cleaner, and you also have the right to say "no thank you".
> 
> This is not pushing your religion or beliefs on other people, it is advertising (hence the added example of a vacuum cleaner). What is NOT all right is to attempt to force a school to segregate boys from girls, or force girls to sit in the back of a classroom at certain times of the month (to use a particular example). If this sort of thing is very important to you, then you can set up or join a private school that adheres to these rules, and even tell me about that in case I might be interested in joining, but you cannot FORCE me to adhere to those rules or impose them on my children without my consent.



Good Post. This is is the reply I would have made had I been more on the bit.


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I've had the knock on the door from various sects and religions (including Green Party candidates, Mormons, Jehovah Witness' and even mainstream denominational churches), and I'm fine with that. They have the right to tell me about their religion/belief, and I have the right to politely say "no thank you"...



And I am fine with this, too.  As much as I hate having these people interrupt my solitude (including those bloody phone calls at dinner time),  I accept that this is part of life. Miserable and irritating, but in the long run fairly harmless. And, as long as we can say "no thanks" and shut the door or hang up the phone, then we can probably manage it.

I'm more concerned with concrete actions and efforts that are in very clear violation either of the law, or of the way we generally see civil society working. I'm pretty sure that we are only talking about a small minority of immigrants who would ever act in these ways, but I'd like to see it stay that way.

Perhaps I'm worried about nothing: maybe the Great Osmosis will gradually suck them all in and they will become what they behold, just as seems to have happened with immigrants waves before them.


----------



## Hisoyaki (19 Feb 2014)

It goes without saying that the primary loyalty of the new migrants should be to Canada. 

The real issue is that the West as a whole suffers from a crisis in confidence in that it no longer believes in the inherent superiority of its system. Patriotism has become out of fashion amongst the MSM and academia.

 "Fortress Canada" is not the answer. At home, If we reduce it to a matter of "let's defend Christmas", the right is going to reduce its base to an ever shrinking Anglo-Saxon demographic. It risks political divisions along ethnic lines as it is currently seen in the United States. 

A different culture does not necessarily translate to disloyalty toward the state.
During the cold war, South East Asian and Latinos were at least originally hardcore Republican partisans due to  opposition to Communism. 

Instead of ceding to isolationist and populist pressure, we should consider why the message has not passed through. 

As a country, we shouldn't for example allow an overtly pro-Hezbollah rally to demonstrate in the streets, let alone ignorant politicians to partake in them. 

To reduce it to a cultural war would be an admission that we have already lost the far more important political and ideological fight.


----------



## dimsum (11 Mar 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/11/canadian-culture-survey/



> A majority of Canadians say the country needs government policies to protect Canadian culture from being subsumed by American and other foreign influences, although 24 per cent of people say there’s no such thing as a unique Canadian culture to begin with, according to a new Angus Reid Institute report published Wednesday.
> 
> The numbers underline the ongoing anxiety among Canadians about the country’s cultural identity — an anxiety that is itself a defining characteristic of life in Canada.



I would suspect that many of those 24% have never left the big cities to see the rest of the country.  We have more of a unique culture, however you define it (regional/provincial or otherwise) than most places, such as Australia.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Mar 2015)

We don't have a culture. Period. Especially if we need the government to protect it...


----------



## chrisf (11 Mar 2015)

I'd say they're correct.

There is no unified Canadian culture.

There's all sorts of regional culture (as a Newfoundlander, I assure you, we have a distinct culture), but no Canadian culture.

If there's one common Canadian cultural identity, it's trying to prove we're not American.


----------



## dimsum (11 Mar 2015)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'd say they're correct.
> 
> There is no unified Canadian culture.
> 
> ...



That's true, but aside from _possibly _ Japan, where the population is ethnically very homogenous, every country's "culture" is regional.  Even Americans end up talking about California v. New York v. Southern culture, but "baseball and apple pie" is pretty standard throughout the country.  

Canadian culture is heavily regional as I've said, but things like hockey and winter activities/sports are pretty much cross-Canada.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2015)

For whatever it is worth, our military culture is unique. It is based upon a volunteer regular force, and since the advent of NATO a volunteer force based on garrisoning the frontier against the barbarians. Couple that with a desire to excel and get things right that dated back to the Great War and a fairly horizontal social system. Most of us have served with other armed forces and I would challenge you to find one that gives better equality of opportunity.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (12 Mar 2015)

If there was no unified Canadian culture... you kind of have to wonder why every time Canadians are portrayed on foreign shows, movies etc they always show us the same way. Maybe to some Canadians, our culture is so much a part of how we go about aboot our everyday lives and how we comport ourselves that it has in fact become hard for us to see it on our own from an insiders perspective. Just food for thought.

Also, after a number of years working in the mines north of Fort McMurray, I will agree wholeheartedly with Sig Op's claim that Newfoundlanders have a very *very* distinct.. culture...  to put it politely


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Mar 2015)

I think it's kind of hard to have a unique and easily definable culture, when successive governments and government led institutions are simultaneously trying to vigourously (shove down your throat) promote "multi-culturalism".


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> *I would suspect that many of those 24% have never left the big cities to see the rest of the country.*


 :nod:  Even within regions, I can tell you people from northern Ontario see/do some things VERY differently from folks from southern Ontario.  I hear bits of Quebec can also be pretty "regional," too.


			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If there's one common Canadian cultural identity, it's trying to prove we're not American.


Double  :nod:


			
				uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> If there was no unified Canadian culture... you kind of have to wonder why every time Canadians are portrayed on foreign shows, movies etc they always show us the same way.












































And to some in the Netherlands ....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Mar 2015)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> If there was no unified Canadian culture... you kind of have to wonder why every time Canadians are portrayed on foreign shows, movies etc they always show us the same way. Maybe to some Canadians, our culture is so much a part of how we go about aboot our everyday lives and how we comport ourselves that it has in fact become hard for us to see it on our own from an insiders perspective. Just food for thought.
> 
> Also, after a number of years working in the mines north of Fort McMurray, I will agree wholeheartedly with Sig Op's claim that Newfoundlanders have a very *very* distinct.. culture...  to put it politely



Look at the underlined part: I am willing to bet that is the case for every nation in the world. When you are IN the culture, you can hardly see it and realize its existence. It is outsiders that can see it and describe it because they have a comparison base. For that reason it is difficult to define one's own culture and then proceed to take actions to "protect" it, especially since culture is a constantly evolving matter.

Same is true of large corporation. How many times have we heard of "corporate culture" of company  so and so, etc. In practice, if you ask the people inside an organization to tell you what their culture is, you get blank stares and insipid answers, yet outsiders regularly are able to tell you  "company XYZ has a great corporate culture and here is what they have: …" 

In my view, the only way to "protect" that culture is to support mechanisms that let us expose us all to one another's regional sub-culture and learn about each other plus expose us all to some pan-Canadian concepts (like Coach's corner  ). The rest follows suit. I personally can state that my service in the Naval reserve, which exposed me to Canadians from coast to coast  and let me spend long periods in both BC and the Maritimes has gone a long way in shaping the Canadian citizen I identify myself as today and at breaking down the provincial outlook I had as a youth.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Mar 2015)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> If there was no unified Canadian culture... you kind of have to wonder why every time Canadians are portrayed on foreign shows, movies etc they always show us the same way. Maybe to some Canadians, our culture is so much a part of how we go about aboot our everyday lives and how we comport ourselves that it has in fact become hard for us to see it on our own from an insiders perspective. Just food for thought.
> 
> Also, after a number of years working in the mines north of Fort McMurray, I will agree wholeheartedly with Sig Op's claim that Newfoundlanders have a very *very* distinct.. culture...  to put it politely



Every time I've seen a "Canadian" character portrayed on American television, they've spoken more like someone from Fargo or Duluth than someone from Edmonton or Edmundston.  Where they get that "oot and aboot" thing from is a mystery to me, I've never heard that in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Look at the underlined part: I am willing to bet that is the case for every nation in the world. When you are IN the culture, you can hardly see it and realize its existence. It is outsiders that can see it and describe it because they have a comparison base. For that reason it is difficult to define one's own culture and then proceed to take actions to "protect" it, especially since culture is a constantly evolving matter.
> ...



Fact that.

Coming to Canada with a Scottish accent provoked comment.  Not one Canadian recognized that they had an accent and were often quite upset at the thought.  I always found this particularly strange coming from a place where everybody took a perverse pleasure in not being understood because of our local accents and a similar pleasure in trying to identify someone in their first two syllables.

Canadians do have accents (multiple). Some are regional but there is also an urban-rural split that results in a Torontonian sounding different than a hoser from the Kawarthas but that hoser sounding very similar to a dirt farmer from Saskatchewan


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2015)

Torontonians are their own special breed.  They don't do anything like anyone else 8)


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2015)

I'd like to say nasty things about othe parts of The world but I'd have to say "I'm sorry" too much.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2015)

In one of Samuel Huntington's last books Who Are We, Huntington outlines the immense efforts that the Americans collectively took from @ the 1880's to @1920 to create and immerse immigrants into a distinctly "American" culture.

Governments, business and civic organizations (churches, service clubs etc.) worked tirelessly to create patriotic songs, celebrations, holidays, novels (Horatio Alger novels) and other cultural trappings (the American perchant for flying National Flags virtually everywhere seemingly dates to this time). At the same time, these groups also worked very hard to integrate these new Americans with schooling (english language training for adults, so they could become factory workers, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance each morning in primary schools etc.). Even the "American Creed" dates to near the end of this period:



> I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon these principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
> 
> I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.



So American culture is just as "created" as many others, and the "Melting Pot" requires the hard work and attention of an entire "Kitchen staff" in order to assimilate the immigrant population and absorb gently them into the body politic.


----------



## cryco (12 Mar 2015)

Just watch Fugget about it, to see what Canadian culture is. Right?  (I find the show pretty funny)


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Mar 2015)

The US version of culture, the melting pot, is far superior to our multiculturalism.  Melting pots accept and adopt the more desirable traits of its contributors and rejects the rest, whereas a multiculture system promotes individual enclaves.  The melting pot creates Americans, Trudeau created hyphens.


----------



## mariomike (12 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would suspect that many of those 24% have never left the big cities to see the rest of the country.



You may be right. One third of Canada's population live within a 100-mile radius of Toronto. I suspect many vacation up north in summer and down south in winter, rather than east or west.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> You may be right. One third of Canada's population live within a 100-mile radius of Toronto. I suspect many vacation up north in summer and down south in winter, rather than east or west.



Not even the Maple Leafs can drive them to want to see the rest of the country.


----------



## mariomike (12 Mar 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Not even the Maple Leafs can drive them to want to see the rest of the country.



 ;D

And then there's this:

( Mayor ) Tory wants a second Toronto NHL team
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/26/tory-wants-a-second-toronto-nhl-team


----------



## dimsum (12 Mar 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> You may be right. One third of Canada's population live within a 100-mile radius of Toronto. I suspect many vacation up north in summer and down south in winter, rather than east or west.



Getting off-topic, but it has been explained to me that North American regional culture is split north-south rather than east-west.  ie. Someone from Vancouver will have more in common with someone from Seattle and San Francisco than someone from Halifax.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Getting off-topic, but it has been explained to me that North American regional culture is split north-south rather than east-west.  ie. Someone from Vancouver will have more in common with someone from Seattle and San Francisco than someone from Halifax.



That may be true to a certain extent, at least until the Mason-Dixon lines is reached in the East and somewhere around the 35th parallel west of the Mississippi, at least east of the Colorado River..


----------



## mariomike (12 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Getting off-topic, but it has been explained to me that North American regional culture is split north-south rather than east-west.  ie. Someone from Vancouver will have more in common with someone from Seattle and San Francisco than someone from Halifax.



They explained it basically the same way to us during training. That one-half of the population of the United States is within a one-day drive of Toronto.


----------



## Robert0288 (12 Mar 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> And then there's this:
> 
> ...



On the bright side, now Toronto can say they will never be last place in the league.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Mar 2015)

Canada is somewhat large geographically.  It has several unique cultures.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2015)

Several books work to explain cultural geography in North America.

Some older ones are The Nine Nations of North America

Warpaths

and more recently An Empire Wilderness{/color]

You may have your own (and I'm interested to see other works on this topic).


----------



## Pieman (15 Mar 2015)

I got to work closely with some American troops overseas. I recall they started graphing the number of times I said 'Eh?' in a conversations. Other than that there was little difference between us. We worked really well together, no issues. I found them nothing like the American stereotypes I heard growing up. I now work with American civilians and find the same thing. 

I've also worked with Europeans, and their cultural differences are more blatant (not just language issues) and you have to be mindful of it. It can get ugly fast...especially with Germans, ha. 

I've come to really dislike the way Canadians will point out how they are different from Americans as a way of identifying themselves. Little of it is actually true, and I've come to find it an embarrassing way to portray ourselves. When Americans ask me what Canadians are like I just tell them there is very little difference. Except Canada seems to think it can do everything their big brother USA can do, despite our much smaller population. I'm finding it's one of our major short comings as a country.


----------



## chrisf (15 Mar 2015)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I got to work closely with some American troops overseas. I recall they started graphing the number of times I said 'Eh?' in a conversations. Other than that there was little difference between us. We worked really well together, no issues. I found them nothing like the American stereotypes I heard growing up. I now work with American civilians and find the same thing.



I'm not sure what you'd call an American "stereotype" but if you ever find yourself in the southern United States, I assure you, the locals will do their best to meet or exceed all of your expectations of 'murica.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Mar 2015)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I got to work closely with some American troops overseas. I recall they started graphing the number of times I said 'Eh?' in a conversations. Other than that there was little difference between us. We worked really well together, no issues. I found them nothing like the American stereotypes I heard growing up. I now work with American civilians and find the same thing.
> 
> I've also worked with Europeans, and their cultural differences are more blatant (not just language issues) and you have to be mindful of it. It can get ugly fast...especially with Germans, ha.
> 
> I've come to really dislike the way Canadians will point out how they are different from Americans as a way of identifying themselves. Little of it is actually true, and I've come to find it an embarrassing way to portray ourselves. When Americans ask me what Canadians are like I just tell them there is very little difference. Except Canada seems to think it can do everything their big brother USA can do, despite our much smaller population. I'm finding it's one of our major short comings as a country.



I fully agree with you.  

At the PDC we had a Brit FP organization and a Yank signals det.  The yanks had a great work ethic and seemed to mesh with us perfectly and I would love to work with them again.  

The Brits I found to be very lazy and had a over inflated sense of entitlement.  I used to purposely call a Brit staff sgt corporal because he was such a douche bag and it drove him crazy.  It got so bad our cooks shut down their flying kitchen and told them to eat ration packs. 

I would say not allot separates us from Yanks.  They say ya'll as much as we eh lol


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Mar 2015)

Interesting, HT:

I heard long ago that within NATO, the Americans considered the Canadians as "Brits with a good work-ethics", while the Brits considered Canadians as "Americans with a sense of humour".

There must be some truth to that …


----------



## Pieman (15 Mar 2015)

> I'm not sure what you'd call an American "stereotype" but if you ever find yourself in the southern United States, I assure you, the locals will do their best to meet or exceed all of your expectations of 'murica.



Ha! I will have to check that part of the country out when I get the chance. Most southern I've been is Houston and found the oil and cowboy culture alive and well. Actually the only shocking thing I saw there was a blatant separation of class via race. Mexicans served us food. African Americans were doing all the other jobs no one really wants. It's a generalization, but in general it seems to be the case.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Mar 2015)

Pieman said:
			
		

> Ha! I will have to check that part of the country out when I get the chance. Most southern I've been is Houston and found the oil and cowboy culture alive and well. Actually the only shocking thing I saw there was a blatant separation of class via race. Mexicans served us food. African Americans were doing all the other jobs no one really wants. It's a generalization, but in general it seems to be the case.



I think he meant the south-eastern U.S. (Georgia,  Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, etc). A comment which I've heard before.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Mar 2015)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I got to work closely with some American troops overseas. I recall they started graphing the number of times I said 'Eh?' in a conversations. Other than that there was little difference between us. We worked really well together, no issues. I found them nothing like the American stereotypes I heard growing up. I now work with American civilians and find the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chrisf (19 Mar 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I think he meant the south-eastern U.S. (Georgia,  Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, etc). A comment which I've heard before.



Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama.

Pretty much everyone was exactly as you'd imagine based on general stereotypes.

Very friendly folks, with very few branches in the family tree.

Oh, and the god damn dip, we were still finding spit bottles for months afterwards, that was pretty gross.

Texans have, in my experiences far at least, been a bunch of arseholes. Very loud hot headed people. Ive met a few I've liked, but not a fan of most. Haven't actually made it to the state yet though.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's true, but aside from _possibly _ Japan, where the population is ethnically very homogenous, every country's "culture" is regional.



Korea is actually more ethnically and linguistically homogenous than Japan, with the exception of the Chinatown area in Seoul.  

In Japan there are actually even linguistic differences between those who live in the Southern home islands to those who live in Honshu etc.

For example, there is a distinct Osaka/Kansai region dialect/accent which people from other regions will find hard to understand.

That's why if one watches a Japanese talk show or game how, there are usually subtitles in Japanese to help people from other regions understand the accents of whoever's speaking. 

---------------------

Japan is not even fully homogenous ethnically; the Okinawans were considered a tributary state of China for centuries before Japan annexed them; the Ainu of the island of Hokkaido are also ethnically different from the other Japanese.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Mar 2015)

And in other news...

This is from the guy who made the "fist pump of death" that essentially ended Premier Marois' campaign last year.

With luck, Peledeau will be the "gift that keeps on giving" that will drive Quebecers away from the seperatism cause once and for all.

CBC



> *Pierre Karl Péladeau says immigration hurts Quebec sovereignty*
> 
> Parti Québécois leadership candidate Pierre Karl Péladeau says he believes immigration is seriously compromising the province’s ability to achieve sovereignty.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2015)

Nothing like having an openly National Socialist party running for office.

We have been lucky in that they have never found a charismatic leader capable of mesmerizing the population, and of course their socialist policies have left the largest and potentially richest of all Canada's provinces a perrenial "have not" grasping for handouts from wealthier Ontario (back in the day) and Alberta.

Now I just want to root for the guy so the "Big Shift" can accelerate further and speed up the political evolution of Canada.


----------



## cryco (19 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> We have been lucky in that they have never found a charismatic leader capable of mesmerizing the population, and of course their socialist policies have left the largest and potentially richest of all Canada's provinces a perrenial "have not" grasping for handouts from wealthier Ontario (back in the day) and Alberta.



Lucien Bouchard was quite charismatic. I think he is the one I was most afraid of.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Mar 2015)

Found this in today's Telegraph.

A wise man that frequents these boards keeps harping on about how "Culture Matters"

Britain is a small place ......







The melting pot never happened.  At least not outside the cities (London in particular)

1400 years after the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the tribes are intact - regardless of Vikings, Normans and Dutchmen sitting on thrones.

Meanwhile the Celts are not a single group, not even the Scots or the Welsh are unitary cultures.  And Devon, Glorious Devon, is a breed apart.

Telegraph Link


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2015)

Yes, I sort of glossed over Bouchard (although I never saw him as being very charismatic myself), perhaps the real key is the negative impact of the National Socialist project comes from the "socialist" side of the equation. Generally lower living standards and lack of opportunity tends to dillute the appeal, especially when the alternative is not only tantilizingly close, but very accessable as well (there is no "Montreal Wall" to physically stop energetic people from leaving).

At any rate, Quebec seems to have settled on Democratic Socialism for the time being, and even 308.com does not see a resurgence of the National Socialists in the near term.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Found this in today's Telegraph.



Yes, I saw that yesterday on BBC. Interesting how specific the DNA has remained. As you say, not the melting pot we presumed.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, I sort of glossed over Bouchard (although I never saw him as being very charismatic myself), perhaps the real key is the negative impact of the National Socialist project comes from the "socialist" side of the equation. Generally lower living standards and lack of opportunity tends to dillute the appeal, especially when the alternative is not only tantilizingly close, but very accessable as well (there is no "Montreal Wall" to physically stop energetic people from leaving).
> 
> At any rate, Quebec seems to have settled on Democratic Socialism for the time being, and even 308.com does not see a resurgence of the National Socialists in the near term.



The danger of Bouchard is that he was smart and new what was required to achieve independance.  He knew that the economy needed fixing and that all teh pieces needed to be in placve and he knew how to communicate that.  his problem was teh party hard core "pure-laine" who always used their hearts and emotions rather than their brains and essentialy drove him out becaus ehe was taking too long and didn't see eye to eye with their idea of what it takes to becoem sovereign.

When Peladeau states that immigration is a treat to independance he's wrong.  it's likely the key to winning.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> When Peladeau states that immigration is a treat to independance he's wrong.  it's likely the key to winning.


The immigration "specter" may appeal to the PQ's base, I think more immigrants does mean more "stay in Canada" votes.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The danger of Bouchard is that he was smart and new what was required to achieve independance.  He knew that the economy needed fixing and that all teh pieces needed to be in placve and he knew how to communicate that.  his problem was teh party hard core "pure-laine" who always used their hearts and emotions rather than their brains and essentialy drove him out becaus ehe was taking too long and didn't see eye to eye with their idea of what it takes to becoem sovereign.
> 
> When Peladeau states that immigration is a treat to independance he's wrong.  it's likely the key to winning.



Bouchard did indeed understand that improving Quebec's economic viability was the cornerstone to Independence, unless everyone in Quebec was going to be condemned to living in some sort of Northern Bangladesh (heck, they are already in Northern Greek territory). As you said, many people in the movement were disconnected from reality and wanted a sovereign Quebec NOW!; stamping their feet like petulant children.

Immigration is a deadly threat to the Quebec Independence movement rather than a help. The immigrants do not share the cultural or social values of the "pur-laine", and of course a National Socialist movement is based on the idea that the State exists to divide the economic output and bring the lion's share to the favoured ethnic-national group. Haitians and other immigrant groups are most assuredly not "pur-laine", and would quickly resent being given the scraps from the table. In practical terms, this means either diluting the aims of the "movement" to appease the immigrants, risking having the immigrants organize against you (and given demographics, they could simply out vote the "native" Quebecois in many places), or watching another fleet of moving trucks head west, draining even more real and potential wealth from the province.

At any rate, Quebec could elect virtually any non Federalist party today and it simply would not make a real difference; a national government can be formed without any party having a majority in Quebec. The only true threat they can make is to default on their debt, which wold cause huge financial stress in the rest of Canada (possibly triggering a domino effect in Ontario and perhaps some of the weaker Maritime provinces), and the end result will probably be a forcible dismemberment of Quebec, as various parts like the Eastern Townships, Ungava and Montreal jump ship for Canada.


----------



## Remius (19 Mar 2015)

My thought on the immigration issue is that Quebec Nationalists and seperatists have always been xenophobic (and borderline racist) and less than inclusive (teh values charter for example).  If they harnessed a more inclusive society and became more inclusive than the rest of the country and offered a much more pro-immigration, pro diversity etc etc, they would likely gain more support from those groups and showing them how much better they could be in an independant Quebec.  The real threat is indeed immigration but only because of how they treat those immigrants not immigration itself. 

Thankfully this goes against what traditional seperatists want, which is a linguistically and, to an extent, culturally homogenised country.


----------



## GUS021 (19 Mar 2015)

Hi guys,

First post and I didn't think I would reply to this kind of thread on this site.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> When Peladeau states that immigration is a treat to independance he's wrong.


I think he is right. And from what I heard this morning on the radio, other separatists think so too. Also, Péladeau is not the first one to say it; remember Parizeau at the night of the defeat of the last referendum.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> My thought on the immigration issue is that Quebec Nationalists and seperatists have always been xenophobic (and borderline racist) and less than inclusive (the values charter for example).


You are absolutely right. What's funny is that Drainville, which is also running to become the head of the PQ (he is the one who made the famous charter and who defended it vigorously) replied that someone that arrived in 1650 is as much a Quebecer than an immigrant who just arrived at P-E-T airport. Ya right!

The first referendum had been on identity, the second on economy but they always been driven (and this from the beginning of the movement) by one thing, resentment. And this works less and less. The real debate is only about language issue. And I find it a bit absurd especially when they say (like Duceppe this morning) that french could disappears if Québec don't separate from the rest of Canada; referring that french is not going well in the other provinces. Well, its not going so good in Québec either when you hear people speaking in Québec.

Sorry if this is a bit mixed up.

Just to finish on a separatist way of thinking. The filmmaker Pierre Falardeau one day said: "I have no problem with immigrants as long as they think like me".


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2015)

This is more to Kirkhill's point, but it also supports the idea that the Pur Laine are racist and xenophobic. When you look at maps of where the "Yes" votes were clustered by riding, you will see the majority of pro separation ridings follow the outlines of "New France"; basically a strip along the St Lawrence river.


----------



## GUS021 (20 Mar 2015)

And with all the different polls posted, regarding the charter of values, a very similar map would have been drawn but with more darker blue. It was a very sneaky strategy from the PQ to win a majority. 

But nothing to worry, Péladeau apologized for what he said. Apparently, it was not reflecting his thought. What he is really thinking must be much more frightening.  :clubinhand:


----------



## Lightguns (20 Mar 2015)

I actually think it depends on the level of control a PQ government puts on new Quebecers.  The Liberal government will take anyone regardless of the language they speak.  PQ governments work harder to take French speakers first.  The middle ranks of separatists are starting to fill with Haitians, French(from France) and other French colonial nationalities.  Independence is still possible if they manage who gets to come to Quebec.  

The big issue is the Islamic French colonials, they tend to put their religion first as the PQ are starting to realize.  They have been little help in creating a Nationalist Quebec ID and the PQ have realized that they are becoming a liability.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2015)

Part 1 of 2

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a thoughtful overview of the situation in Quebec:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-drove-seven-young-quebeckers-into-the-arms-of-the-islamic-state/article23569474/


> What drove seven young Quebeckers into the arms of the Islamic State?
> 
> LES PERREAUX AND VERITY STEVENSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2015)

Part 2 of 2



> When Djemila Benhabib heard about the Montreal students heading off to jihad, she immediately recognized the story. She lived next to it.
> 
> Ms. Benhabib grew up in Algeria and was in her late teens when she first noticed neighbourhood boys disappearing. They were off to join Islamist fighters in the Algerian civil war. In 1994, she fled the country with her family and became an influential anti-fundamentalist writer.
> 
> ...




I don't know enough about Islam to comment on beyond saying that I _understand_ (have read/heard) that it offers what is, indeed, a "complete" way of life: social, ethical, political even economic issues are addressed in the Quran and some (many?) Muslims _believe_ that they, and everyone else, must _submit_ to (what they _believe_ to be) God's will as expressed in the Quran and associated texts.

That stands in sharp contrast to a few centuries of Western/European socio-cultural and political _traditions_ ... expressed most formally in the French doctrine of _laïcité_.

Two things stood, in that regard, in the article:

     The recruitment of the Montreal seven comes on the heels of a series of events that have thrust Islamist terror to the top of Quebec consciousness. The attacks in the fall in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu shocked all Canadians,
     but the January assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo hit Quebec particularly hard. Many francophone Quebeckers, especially in the province’s intellectual and media circles, have deep connections to France.
     
          _*And*_

     In the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was relieved of managing many of Quebec’s institutions, particularly in health and education. Muslim veils provoke memories of religious repression for many Quebec women who fought
     the church to control their reproductive lives and get out of the house.

     “Quebeckers are very proud of this universal, humanist heritage,” Ms. Benhabib said. “They won’t accept from other religions what they rejected from their own.”

     When France banned veils from public schools in 1994 and other ostentatious religious symbols in 2004, some Quebec intellectuals and politicians who had always chafed at Canadian multiculturalism saw a model in French laïcité,
     although few have proposed going as far as France.

     “The worry that exists in Quebec is not unique to Quebec, it has driven all of Europe,” Ms. Benhabib said. “The separation of church and state is fundamental. What we see with Islamists is they do not live their religion in the respect of others.
     They do not accept the social and democratic pact at the centre of our society. It’s an assault on our values. Quebeckers don’t want it, they don’t accept it. Canada is waking up to it.”

I think Quebec has a unique problem ~ it cannot reconcile its own version of _laïcité_ (which is much more "developed" than anything in English North America) with its desire to have more and more French speaking immigrants who, most often, must be Muslims from North Africa.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was relieved of managing many of Quebec’s institutions, particularly in health and education. Muslim veils provoke memories of religious repression for many Quebec women who fought the church to control their reproductive lives and get out of the house.


And today we're seeing the fruit of their efforts.  Abortion has not only destroyed those innocent lives torn out of the wombs of their mothers (where they ought to be most safe, but instead are in most danger of a violent, senseless death), but it is destroying their "vaunted" Quebecois culture.  The population of Quebec can only be sustained by immigration.  And thanks to the former French Empire in Africa, many of those immigrants (french speaking, of course), are Muslim.  In the end, it is only through killing the old ("euthanasia") and hyper taxing the young that Quebec can afford to even manage itself.  Unless things change, Quebec will implode upon itself in a generation or two

Vive le Quebec libre indeed...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2015)

To the issue of laicete:

My problem with that concept was that it did not promote the great English value of "toleration" or "latitudinarianism" as the Catholic Church called the concept it found intolerable.  

England, moreso than Scotland, embraced the notion of "live and let live" in matters of religion just as they embraced laisser faire economics.

Laicete is the social version of Colbert's economics.  It does not say religion is a matter of conscience and separate from public life. It says religion  has no place in public life,  It is dirigiste in its formulation.

It is not different from the Communist demand that the religion of the state be Atheism, where Atheism as a belief replaced the belief in God.   Thou must not believe in God.

Equally it is no different to Ataturk's "Thou shall not wear the veil" or the Ayatollah's "Thou must wear the veil".

Having said all of that I believe there are justifiable limits that the state can and should impose, for example, if a woman chooses to wear a veil then, in our society, she must accept that from time to time she will be required to demonstrate that she is who she says she is and lift the veil.

People demonstrating their group identity is not something I have an issue with.  I am surrounded by Hutterites.  All of the Hutterites are identifiable by their distinctive clothing.  The women are dressed extremely modestly with their hair covered at all times.  Even some Mennonite and Mormon women still follow the older dress codes and keep their hair up and covered in either a kerchief or a net. Protestant women wear hats to church in a perverse nod to the same modesty rules (Look at me - My hair is covered).

I do not find the wearing of the hijab, niqab or burka philosophically problematic - although I admit that I am more comfortable conversing with women who show their face while wearing the hijab. A niqab wearing bank teller or police officer might give me pause.

For me the watchword has to be toleration - not to the point of license - but toleration none the less.


----------



## TCBF (23 Mar 2015)

- Regarding the recruitment of the Montreal Seven, their alienation is the same alienation expressed violently by Gamil Gharbi a.k.a. Marc Lepine, Kimveer Gill, and other ethnics trapped between two cultures and lacking a robust enough personality inventory to thrive. Formerly, they shot up schools, now they shoot up the centre block, run over people in parking lots, or  take the AKM vacation package to Syria.

- A country that loses (or gives away) control of its borders, loses control of its future. Quebec has lost control of its borders, and it isn't even a country yet.

- Ironically, if Quebec began actively seeking "Pure Wool" immigrants from France, launching an 'Escape Your Future Civil War' campaign, it might work.


----------



## pbi (27 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...Having said all of that I believe there are justifiable limits that the state can and should impose, for example, if a woman chooses to wear a veil then, in our society, she must accept that from time to time she will be required to demonstrate that she is who she says she is and lift the veil.
> 
> People demonstrating their group identity is not something I have an issue with.  I am surrounded by Hutterites.  All of the Hutterites are identifiable by their distinctive clothing.  The women are dressed extremely modestly with their hair covered at all times.  Even some Mennonite and Mormon women still follow the older dress codes and keep their hair up and covered in either a kerchief or a net. Protestant women wear hats to church in a perverse nod to the same modesty rules (Look at me - My hair is covered).
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

This is pretty much how I see it: if it doesn't really hurt anybody, get over it. Just because you don't "like" something, or it "offends" you, isn't really enough. You don't have a right not to be offended. If such a right were actually to exist, almost any expression of anything, by anybody, anywhere could be proscribed because it offended somebody, or some entity with the legal status of a "person".  Stupidity out of control.

Somewhere in the middle here, of course, lies the belief that otherwise law-abiding people should not be made to feel threatened or plausibly intimidated: forced to reasonably believe that their safety or that of their families might really be in danger, or caused unreasonable fear and suffering, or to credibly believe that their fundamental rights will be taken away. In here dwell the sanctions and restrictions on speech and action that most civil societies do impose, and probably should. However, there is a big jump of reasoning from "I don't like seeing that" to the above criteria.

On the other hand, requiring a person's face to be exposed in court, or for an official ID photo, or when acting as a public official, are all quite reasonable demands in a civil society. These are not mere cultural or religious expectations, such as wearing a headdress in a particular place (or not wearing one, or whatever..). They are bona fide legal or administrative requirements to help a civil society function properly.

We should in no way be ashamed of such requirements, or shrink from applying them, as long as they are applied equally and fairly across the board.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 May 2015)

What I never read in this debate: anything about the necessity of reading facial expressions as an integral part of communication.


----------

