# The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2016)

It upsets me to read things like this and comments that we as Canadians have no culture.  It really makes me wonder how flimsy the thought processes of the people making those comments are.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Trudeau says Canada has no ‘core identity’
> BY CANDICE MALCOLM
> FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 09:23 PM EDT | UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 09:33 PM EDT
> 
> ...




LINK.


----------



## Jed (16 Sep 2016)

This premise is so in error, it is laughable.

Our rich history and the many great people of of nation are placed in a poor light and shown an immense lack of respect when statement s like this are floated by foolish individuals. How a sitting Prime Minister can buy into this type of claptrap is beyond me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Sep 2016)

I'll tell you how the PM is buying into that claptrap: That's his old man's view on the world and Canada in particular.

Trudeau senior did not believe in nationalism of any kind, only personnel intellectual constructs and personnel views of the world. He did not recognize national symbols, national feelings or national cultures. He was also one who did the most, while in office, to erase then existing national symbols (and in particular in trying to remove any and all reference to the Crown of Canada).

I much prefer this guy's views:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-on-canadian-values-1.3764922


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2016)

Since seems to be an appetite in these parts to discuss Canadian values, let's check the original NYT story to see if there was anything that the _Toronto Sun_ piece didn't have room to include ...


> ... Trudeau’s most radical argument is that Canada is becoming a new kind of state, defined not by its European history but by the multiplicity of its identities from all over the world. His embrace of a pan-cultural heritage makes him an avatar of his father’s vision. ‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’ he claimed. *‘‘There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice.* Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.’’ ...


Pretty hippy-dippy, sandal-wearing, anti-British/monarchist subversive stuff there, eh?  I sure can see how the _Sun_ sees the PM as _"embarrassed, even ashamed of our Western culture and values."  _Nobody likes the media taking things out of context -- unless we _like_ it when the media takes things out of context, right? 

To further add to the debate, here's an FB post I shared this week, sharing here, too, to further feed the discussion:


> Found a certificate my dad received in 1959 from the IODE when he became a Canadian citizen. Here's what they listed as "the ancient liberties of the British Peoples":
> - Freedom of Speech
> - Freedom of Assembly
> - Free Exercise of Religion
> ...





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I much prefer this guy's views:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-on-canadian-values-1.3764922


Good one -- here's a list from that video:


> -- "military values"
> -- "love of the land"
> -- "expanded notions of tolerance"
> -- the Leafs & Kraft Dinner
> ...


Feel free to mesh/mix into an agreed-to list -- or feel free to continue bashing away based on one line from a NYT article taken out of context.


----------



## Jed (16 Sep 2016)

Good stuff milnews.ca

Can't see how one makes the leap from Respect for Law and Order to  Wpns are unnecessary, however.


Taken from your posted values list:

- Respect for Law and Order ("Weapons are unnecessary. Our Courts provide for the righting of wrongs.")


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Taken from your posted values list:
> 
> - Respect for Law and Order ("Weapons are unnecessary. Our Courts provide for the righting of wrongs.")


It maaaaaaaaaaay be that in those days, some foreigners were thought to be keen on settling things "out of court" because in the "old country" who trusts the courts/government?  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Sep 2016)

I suspect the "old country" in mind here is the American "Wild" West.

The last "gunslinger" duels in the US West were fought around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. That is only about 60 years removed from when that document was issued. And since today many Europeans still arrive in North America thinking they will see "indians" in full plumage, and the West still wild, imagine how things would have been in 1959  ;D.


----------



## mariomike (16 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It upsets me to read things like this and comments that we as Canadians have no culture.



No culture? Like they say, we are multi-cultural!  

Anyone old enough to remember, King of Kensington?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrP8mjsmy8U



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The last "gunslinger" duels in the US West were fought around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.



That's when the automobile was invented. Cars don't kill, people do!


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Sep 2016)

Canada is a country of immigration, and Canada's culture really is ever shifting and changing.  That isn't a bad thing in the slightest.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canada is a country of immigration, and Canada's culture really is ever shifting and changing.  That isn't a bad thing in the slightest.



It's a bad thing if the culture shifts towards one that segregates women and pushes for Sharia law.


----------



## MARS (16 Sep 2016)

A bit of a rant from Desmond Cole at the Toronto Star, but here is his recent article nonetheless, shared IAW the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/09/15/suspicion-of-immigrants-is-a-canadian-value-cole.html




> *Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole*
> 
> Conservative MP and party leadership contender Kellie Leitch doesn’t really want a conversation on Canadian values. The callous Leitch, who has been insisting lately that we consider a values test for prospective immigrants, simply wants to boost her brand by playing to racist and xenophobic fears of some Conservative party supporters. Modern conservative groups keep questioning immigrants’ values because they know their liberal political opponents, who are prone to the same prejudiced scapegoating, will struggle to condemn them.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's a bad thing if the culture shifts towards one that segregates women and pushes for Sharia law.



As a whole, that isn't happening.  Even with the Muslim population at 8% in Toronto that isn't happening.  The mosque that Trudeau visited is only segregated during prayer time, as is Muslim tradition.  As long as they aren't breaking any laws, this tradition is protected by our Constitution, as is gender disparity in the Catholic church.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2016)

> "Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole"


Or biased until proven racist?


----------



## Jed (17 Sep 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> A bit of a rant from Desmond Cole at the Toronto Star, but here is his recent article nonetheless, shared IAW the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/09/15/suspicion-of-immigrants-is-a-canadian-value-cole.html



 :grouphug: Kumbya my love kumbaya ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I'll tell you how the PM is buying into that claptrap: That's his old man's view on the world and Canada in particular.
> 
> Trudeau senior did not believe in nationalism of any kind, only personnel intellectual constructs and personnel views of the world. He did not recognize national symbols, national feelings or national cultures. He was also one who did the most, while in office, to erase then existing national symbols (and in particular in trying to remove any and all reference to the Crown of Canada).
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As a whole, that isn't happening.  Even with the Muslim population at 8% in Toronto that isn't happening.  The mosque that Trudeau visited is only segregated during prayer time, as is Muslim tradition.  As long as they aren't breaking any laws, this tradition is protected by our Constitution, as is gender disparity in the Catholic church.





> Alberta appeal court rules judges can overturn ‘unfair’ church edicts after man shunned by Jehovah’s Witnesses



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canada is a country of immigration, and Canada's culture really is ever shifting and changing.  That isn't a bad thing in the slightest.



Yes and No.  Cultures naturally evolve over time.  We have created a culture in Canada, that some fail to acknowledge, which we in doing so also want to protect it from such changes as this:



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's a bad thing if the culture shifts towards one that segregates women and pushes for Sharia law.



Unfortunately, in creating our "culture of understanding, tolerance and equality" we have naively fallen into a trap thinking that all the world's cultures would be just as accepting.  We have written a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with which some less than ethical and less than moral elements have been able to use as a "tool" to bring their less than desirable traits to some form of 'legality'/acceptance in our society.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> A bit of a rant from Desmond Cole at the Toronto Star, but here is his recent article nonetheless, shared IAW the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/09/15/suspicion-of-immigrants-is-a-canadian-value-cole.html



Interesting that he seems to equate our Mounties history in the West to the US Army's history in the West, in the building of our two nations.  Two vastly different histories and two vastly different methods of dealing with the natives.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As a whole, that isn't happening.  Even with the Muslim population at 8% in Toronto that isn't happening.  The mosque that Trudeau visited is only segregated during prayer time, as is Muslim tradition.  As long as they aren't breaking any laws, this tradition is protected by our Constitution, as is gender disparity in the Catholic church.




I find it's the optics of it.  It's basically supporting segregation in the defense that it's a religious thing. Lets face it  like Islam is hardly renown for women's rights, there's larger ramifications.
The Prime Minister wouldn't go smile and rub shoulders at an event where first Nations or Black Canadians are shoved in a back room as a part of some tradition, because this is religious doesn't make it acceptable. We need to emphasis separation of state and church, not overlook it.  

I would go so far as to suggest putting up cameras in churches and mosques to avoid what's going on in the video I posted above.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2016)

[quote author=George Wallace]
We have written a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with which some less than ethical and less than moral elements have been able to use as a "tool" to bring their less than desirable traits to some form of 'legality'/acceptance in our society. 
[/quote]
Basically having our ROEs used against us.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I find it's the optics of it.  It's basically supporting segregation in the defense that it's a religious thing. Lets face it  like Islam is hardly renown for women's rights, there's larger ramifications.
> The Prime Minister wouldn't go smile and rub shoulders at an event where first Nations or Black Canadians are shoved in a back room as a part of some tradition, because this is religious doesn't make it acceptable. We need to emphasis separation of state and church, not overlook it.
> 
> I would go so far as to suggest putting up cameras in churches and mosques to avoid what's going on in the video I posted above.



First off, I completely concede that Islam these days is hardly famous for espousing womens rights and I'll even go farther and say 'some' cultural spiritual leaders who do not respect the religion are making it worse.

But, the majority of our ladies, want to be segregated during prayer. A lot of them like to wear burkas and niqabs and the majority enjoy the Hijab. My wife and I were discussing a video she watched about how our women are more likely to be harrassed then Muslim men and I hold that to be true... this mentality just feeds those fears our women have.

An anecdotal story about my wife and I. We are both white reverts and we were wearing more traditional Islamic clothing one day at costco... and while I went to grab something a lady came up and started grilling my wife over wearing the hijab... sadly for the lady, my wife is no coward, so it ended on a good tone... but if a language barrier existed it could have gone very badly, because of how this lady started out.

So do we force an opinion on to people who are doing something other then what we agree with, just because we disagree with it? Now if the ladies are being oppressed, ill be the first one to speak out... but if they are happy who are we to say otherwise? My wife personally dislikes praying in front of any men... it is like i am some hoodlum when she prays... apparently she 'feels' my eyes lol... so now i highly suspect my wife would never go to the mosque if she was being forced to pray in the same room as men... and my wife doesnt even wear hijab all the time.

So now is Canadian culture how we dress, what God we pray to and by which name or is Canadian culture something bigger then that?

Reading this thread, I believe Canadian culture is something bigger then these small things. We are the people who are polite, who say sorry, we are the great north. So yes, some things we have done may allow fools to corrupt canadian values, but I wouldn't worry about religious women... at least in my opinion, because I find the religious ladies are much better then the religious men 

Abdullah

Ps I had a Pakistani guy who hates the west make the arguement that Canada has no culture once to me. So it just occurred to me that hate groups could take this rhetoric that Canada has no culture and make us seem weak and effeminate.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting that he seems to equate our Mounties history in the West to the US Army's history in the West, in the building of our two nations.  Two vastly different histories and two vastly different methods of dealing with the natives.



Not at all the same.  My great grandfather was one of the original 300 and was on the great march west in 1873.  They had good relations with the many tribes and in fact were sent to stop Americans coming up and selling rot gut whiskey to our natives (among other things).  The settlement of the west was for the most part peaceful and aside from such things as the Riel Rebellion a great success.  My  great grandfather went on to become the first white honoured with a headdress, native name and status as an honorary chief of the Peigan Band at Brocket.


----------



## mariomike (17 Sep 2016)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> We are the people who are polite, who say sorry, we are the great north.



There are sometimes exceptions.




			
				AbdullahD said:
			
		

> We are both white reverts and we were wearing more traditional Islamic clothing one day at costco...



I think folks at GTA Costco are likely to be more concerned with parking than wardrobe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvuFvak7NgI


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2016)

Good points Abdullah, thanks for shining a light on the other side. 

If Muslim women want to wear Burkas and be segregated in a mosque that's their business though when you say the majority of your* women _want_ to wear it and be segregated I can't help but imagine a number of them do so out of fear- the same way abused women inconceivably stay with their abusers. 

Issues for me arise when Muslim men (and women) take that segregation mindset they're so comfortable inside a mosque (PM approved) and bring it out to public. Women being verbally and physically assaulted because of how they dress (of course that's a two way street with Muslim women assaulted too).
Furthermore that mindset transcends to classrooms, gyms, pools, clubs etc.. as we've discussed in other threads.

You say the majority of Muslim women enjoy the Burka etc.. because they're more likely to be harassed by Muslim men and (I'm paraphrasing) this some how helps? Perhaps wearing it and being segregated simply feeds into atmosphere of harassment.  If I had a female subordinate who was being harassed by her peers I wouldn't tell her to cover up and eat/socialize away from the men to fix the problem.

*I'm sure it's not the case with you but this could be viewed in the context that women are property considering the Quran's views on women, yes?


----------



## AbdullahD (17 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good points Abdullah, thanks for shining a light on the other side.
> 
> If Muslim women want to wear Burkas and be segregated in a mosque that's their business though when you say the majority of your* women _want_ to wear it and be segregated I can't help but imagine a number of them do so out of fear- the same way abused women inconceivably stay with their abusers.
> 
> ...



Valid points and in some cases you are 100% right. But I am here to argue it is the minority that this is right for.

Maybe I messed up with my thoughts, if you got women wear the burka, hijab, niqab to please their men or avoid harassment. Now I am not saying sometimes that they do, but the Majority do it because they wish to please god. Modesty is a respected and honored characteristic in Islam, so some ladies feel that wearing burkas and niqabs show or make them feel more modest... and thus closer to god.

I am having a hard time trying to figure out how to communicate how or why women like to pray separate from men... maybe I will do it in reverse? Lets say I am praying and a hot women starts praying in front of me it is hard not to check her out... so being segregated takes that temptation and desire out... hmm, that sounds wrong.. also makes me sound like a pig lol

Anywho I will leave off that line for now.

We dont wish our women to be segregated to avoid being harrassed and neither do they wish to be. A very great many of us Muslim guys, have daughters, sisters and all of us have mothers, we are generally fairly well adjusted folk and lets just put it this way... if my daughter  or wife comes and tells me she wants to pray apart from the men, because they are being harrassed... their will be a fight and the pigs harrassing the women wont like it, but up to this point in my travels I have not heard this used as the arguement for separated prayer rooms. Albeit my opinion is that it is not obligatory to be seperated and I can quote scholars and instances all the way back to the prophet to support my point of view.

I'll ask my wife, likely I have it all wrong anyways, I really dont know how ladies think.. at all. If she has anything enlightening to add, ill throw it into one of the other Islam threads so we dont completely hijack this one lol

Sorry I could not properly explain, probably be easier if I was a lady 

Abdullah


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

Abdullah - 

There is a sense of possessiveness that comes across in your posts that is at odds with egalitarian sensibilities.  Jarnhamar demonstrated one instance. In your response you offered "We dont wish *our women* to be ...."

I am fairly certain that many non-muslim women would be disconcerted were "we" (non-muslim males) to describe them as "our" women.

I am sure that this just a distraction of tone.  But it does tend to undermine your own positions.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Abdullah -
> 
> There is a sense of possessiveness that comes across in your posts that is at odds with egalitarian sensibilities.  Jarnhamar demonstrated one instance. In your response you offered "We dont wish *our women* to be ...."
> 
> ...



I used it to illustrate Muslim women, Muslims are taught that we are on big family with Jews and Christians as our cousins, religiously speaking.

I am not an orator, or a theologian, or politician.. or any such thing. I am just me, so I do make many mistakes and heck I have even been known to be wrong on occasion. The views I bring up here are just that my own, when talking about Islam I try to be unbiased.

Now I cant say I feel possessive of Muslim women, maybe protective... but thanks for bringing it up.

Ps I went back and re read the post. I can see where you are coming from completely, but since we are not debating every little thing... at least to my knowledge I think I will leave it as is, because it was my wife and I do the thinking and I feel it does not imply misogyny on my part.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

As I said,  it is a matter of tone.  And easy to be misunderstood.

Sorry for the intrusion on this one.  I enjoy reading your posts.  They're very helpful in supplying insight into your faith.

Regards.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts



And things may be changing.  I'm not sure that would survive all the way to the SCOC though.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes and No.  Cultures naturally evolve over time.  We have created a culture in Canada, that some fail to acknowledge, which we in doing so also want to protect it from such changes as this:



The culture that Canada has created is only temporary, as you admit in your post.  There has always been a fear that the 'other' would destroy this country.  It's never happened yet.  

Canada is a reflection of the ever changing dynamic of its people.



> Unfortunately, in creating our "culture of understanding, tolerance and equality" we have naively fallen into a trap thinking that all the world's cultures would be just as accepting.  We have written a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with which some less than ethical and less than moral elements have been able to use as a "tool" to bring their less than desirable traits to some form of 'legality'/acceptance in our society.



Us upholding our own laws and principles doesn't make us naive.  It makes us principled.  That people in other places wouldn't do the same for us, is irrelevant.  No matter what changes may occur in our culture over time, these principles will guide us.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2016)

[quote author=AbdullahD]

maybe I will do it in reverse? Lets say I am praying and a hot women starts praying in front of me it is hard not to check her out... so being segregated takes that temptation and desire out... hmm, that sounds wrong.. also makes me sound like a pig lol[/quote]

A bit ya.
Sounds like your suggesting women need to dress a certain way and pray elsewhere in order to accommodate men.

Like Chris mentions, you're a really polite and articulate poster but a sense of possessiveness still comes across through your posts. (but you spoke to it, no worries)


[quote author=AbdullahD]Now I am not saying sometimes that they do, but the Majority do it because they wish to please god. [/quote]

[quote author=AbdullahD]I really dont know how ladies think[/quote]

How can you speak on behalf of the majority of Muslim women but admit to not know how they really think?  


While I'm sure some women chose to wear said garments I think you're overestimating the number that do it willingly sans fear of retribution and abuse. I kind of feel like it's a convenient justification for men to make on behalf of women. In Afghanistan for example  it wasn't the women who decided to start wearing Burkas en mass, it was decided for them by the Taliban. 




> Sorry I could not properly explain, probably be easier if I was a lady


You're in luck if you join, the CF will pay for that


----------



## mariomike (17 Sep 2016)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I really dont know how ladies think.. at all.



When you figure that out, please let me know!


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Canada is a reflection of the ever changing dynamic of its people.



Those words, spoken by a certain individual, really revolt me.  Sorry.  That you 'quote' him, is disagreeable to me.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Us upholding our own laws and principles doesn't make us naive.  It makes us principled.  That people in other places wouldn't do the same for us, is irrelevant.  No matter what changes may occur in our culture over time, these principles will guide us.



You seem to have missed the point.  It is relevant and it is happening here now.  Whether you agree with Ezra Levant or not, he is but one example of what has happened in the past two decades, all through the manipulation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to attack him.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You seem to have missed the point.  It is relevant and it is happening here now.  Whether you agree with Ezra Levant or not, he is but one example of what has happened in the past two decades, all through the manipulation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to attack him.



I have no love in my heart for provincial human rights commissions.  Those issues should be handled in the courts.

As for Ezra Levant - there are always two sides to that story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting that he seems to equate our Mounties history in the West to the US Army's history in the West, in the building of our two nations.  Two vastly different histories and two vastly different methods of dealing with the natives.


That tells you HIS read of Canada's history, indeed.


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're in luck if you join, the CF will pay for that



Funny - that's the first thing that I thought.

Waiting until after joining likely simplifies the recruiting and BMQ/BMOQ processes as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

Jmt:

You are correct when you say that culture is changing.  But culture changes for a variety of reasons.  Some are pulls.  Some are pushes.  Some are high speed.  Some are low speed.  Some develop "naturally".  Some are induced.  

The problem, in my mind is with the induced changes.  The problem that I have is that some of the people doing the inducing are doing it because they wish to destroy that which is in place.  In their mind there might be perfectly good reasons for destroying the status quo.  I might even be persuaded that their reasons are valid.  From that point of departure comes the question of whether or not I agree that the change needs to happen or do I just accept the change because it really isn't that much of an issue to me and my life.

But the problem that the people that promote the change need to understand is that they cannot be surprised when people disagree with them and actively oppose them.

In the current dialogue too many of the people promoting changes seem to fail to accept that people that do not share their views are not evil.  They are not even misguided or ignorant.  They just simply disagree.

And in a democracy there are dispute mechanisms in place to resolve those disagreements.

The next problem that comes is acceptance.

You can't keep telling people that they are wrong, misguided, ignorant, uneducated, vile and not expect a response.  Even the most civil of individuals must eventually be expected to push back eventually.

Civil.  Civility.  A concept that has gone out of favour.  It became unfashionable to be civil in the 1960s.  To be polite and mask your true feelings so as not to provoke a fight was seen as hupocrisy.

For the record, from the OED:



> civility
> NOUN
> 
> 1[MASS NOUN] Formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech.
> ...



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/civility

Civility used to be part of our culture.   I miss it.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Funny - that's the first thing that I thought.
> 
> Waiting until after joining likely simplifies the recruiting and BMQ/BMOQ processes as well.



So I am a transgender, Muslim, convert, who wishes to join the army so I can come out and get a sex change? And to top it off i am slightly misogynistic... oh dear... i need help lol

Do I have the right of it? I am confused lol


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> So I am a transgender, Muslim, convert, who wishes to join the army so I can come out and get a sex change? And to top it off i am slightly misogynistic... oh dear... i need help lol
> 
> Do I have the right of it? I am confused lol



On the confusion front: Join the club.


----------



## mariomike (17 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Civility used to be part of our culture.   I miss it.



Are you hoping to find it on the internet?

( Present company excepted, of course.   )


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2016)

Canada has at least two cultures.

And that is at the heart of its problems.

One is that of Britain, a culture dominated by the likes of Locke and Burke, individualism and liberalism.

The other is that of France, a culture with a well developed antipathy towards both individualism and liberalism.  A culture steeped in centralization and the group.  A culture heavily influenced by the Catholic Church which considered the greatest sins of the Masons to be their latitudinarianism, their toleration.

I came across this article in le Figaro yesterday.   It is an interview of a French political scientist by a left leaning French newspaper and the question is:  The French - have they a problem with liberalism?

I found the article very interesting because it comes at some of the points we discuss here very directly but from an opposite, but reasoned view.

Somethings stood out for me:

First was the definition of liberalism - splitting it into social, economic and political liberalisms

Next was the fear of individualism - called radical individualism.

And the notion that while France didn't want to be seen as being illiberal, after all it's motto includes the word Liberty, it believes that good things come in small doses and must be carefully administered - so as to preserve Equality and maintain the Brotherhood.

Finally there is the point that whereas in Britain, from the late 1700s, protestants learned to accommodate Catholics and Jews - that toleration thing, the French response was more along the lines of "If not Catholic then nothing".

Apparently the French don't do Latitudinarianism - (There's one for Mary Poppins).

They, and a lot of other folks apparently, are much more comfortable with dogma - with settled truths.  Embracing chaos is problematic for them as a society.

And by the way, I don't have a problem defining a "French culture" for the purposes of this discussion any more than the article below clearly presents their view of an "Anglo-Saxon culture".

Canada, observed by both Lord Durham and Kipling and Hugh MacLennan, among many others, embodies both.



> Les Français ont-ils un problème avec le libéralisme ?
> Par Alexis Feertchak  Publié le 16/09/2016 à 18:50
> 
> *FIGAROVOX/GRAND ENTRETIEN - Alors que de nouvelles manifestations ont eu lieu contre la loi Travail, l'historienne des idées Françoise Mélonio a accordé au FigaroVox un entretien fleuve pour éclairer le rapport ambigu des Français avec le libéralisme.*
> ...



I kept it in French knowing a number folks on this site have much better French than I do and I don't trust my French to do a just translation.

The original article is here:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2016/09/16/31001-20160916ARTFIG00307-les-francais-ont-ils-un-probleme-avec-le-liberalisme.php


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2016)

The rest of the article.



> *Il y a quelques années, la loi française anti-Burka déclenchait un tollé dans les pays anglo-saxons, ce qui est arrivé derechef avec les arrêtés anti-burkini cet été. Le modèle républicain à la française vient-il se heurter au libéralisme politique?*
> 
> La question est compliquée par la menace terroriste, et le disgracieux burkini n'est pas, je crois, l'objet le plus adéquat pour s'interroger sur la place du religieux dans nos démocraties libérales.
> Le très long et conflictuel travail de la séparation explique la vigilance des Français à l'égard de toute affirmation publique d'une religion qui menacerait l'espace commun de coexistence.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2016)

A bit more zeroing in on Canadian values anyone can agree with ...


> ... The charter does, however, contain a few truly universal Canadian values; things that most citizens can and do agree upon, no matter where they dwell on the political spectrum.
> 
> *One citizen, one vote*, for example. Or the *equality of men and women*. Or *equal benefit of the law*, regardless of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2016)

Sorry milnews - but it never seems to take very long before I am at odds with Neil MacDonald - especially when he is mangling words and concepts like democracy.

He is at one with the illiberal social liberals described in the french article I posted.  For him, democracy must be managed and he knows exactly who the managers should be.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> He is at one with the illiberal social liberals described in the french article I posted.  For him, democracy must be managed and he knows exactly who the managers should be.


That's clear in the earlier part of his piece, for _sure_.  I thought it would add grist to the mill including what he thinks are Charter rights/values anyone can buy into.

Still, if even Oldgateboatdriver can buy into much of Rex Murphy's list, even if it points out something positive about Trudeau Sr., I figured _anything_ was possible  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2016)

One of Mr. MacDonald's points of debate is his disdain for "democracy", as I would describe government of, for and by the people.  He derides this as "majoritarianism".  Other folks these days denigrate it as populism.

What Mr. MacDonald refers to as "democracy", or rule by the Supreme Court, I would describe as oligarchy or nonarchy (look it up).

This issue is at the heart of the Brexit debate and the difference between Continental Democracy and British Democracy.

The continental system fears majoritarianism.  The British system is built on majoritarianism.

Thus in Canada the Supreme Court and the 1982 Constitution are supreme over parliament, following continental notions of managed democracy.

In Britain the Supreme Court, and all other institutions are subordinate to parliament and its individual members.



> Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Further, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court, like some other courts in the United Kingdom, may make a declaration of incompatibility, indicating that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights.[4] Such a declaration can apply to primary or secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration, and neither Parliament nor the government is required to agree with any such declaration. However, if they do accept a declaration, ministers can exercise powers under section 10 of the act to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility, or ask Parliament to amend the legislation.[5]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

This too, is a matter of customs, culture and values.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2016)

Canada may have a majority culture (EN) and strong minority culture (FR) rather than a single majority culture, but it does have "cultures".  If no such cultures existed, so many people would not be so busy so much of the time trying to grind those cultures down.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Sep 2016)

From my reading the dour and conservative Scots, much through the HBC still plays heavily on the English Canadian mindset. I am not sure the French Canadians ever got over the shock of being abandoned by their King and then being cutoff and watching France convulse on it's revolution.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2016)

Colin - the commonalities for the French, and the Irish and the Cape Breton Scots - were the Ultramontanist Catholic church.  The Figaro article points explicitly to the role that the Church has had in France in establishing a mindset that treasures equality and security over freedom and opportunity.

I suggest that if you want to see the battle between cultures played out then you could check on the Church's attitudes towards the Masons and their influence on education.  Freedom of Conscience and expression were not prized by the Church.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2016)

Values seems to a popular discussion point these days.

This from an article in the New Statesman via a reference in the Spectator.

The New Statesman leans left.



> Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity
> 
> It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian.
> BY
> ...





> “Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”



This line in particular resonated with me - especially in view of the comments in le Figaro.  In France Christianity was synonymous with the Church (Gallican or Ultramontanist).  This would have been Voltaire's frame - and the frame for all the continent.

It would not have been the frame for the founders of the New Statesmen, the victorian Christian Socialists of Manchester, the Masons of Britain or people like Lord Shaftesbury and Francis Hutchinson.

I think that is where much has been lost.

Amongst the many voices of the continent the system of kings supported by the church was the enemy and socialism was the answer.

In Britain Rome and its supporters were seen as the enemy and a local, dare I say, national socialism, and monarchs that worked with their subjects were the order of the day.

God, nor the church, were vilified.  They were central to the society.  Even the socialists - and perhaps especially the British socialists.

Pace Tommy C. Douglas - father of Canadian health care - Scottish Baptist Preacher and Social Democrat.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2016)

http://www.mastermason.com/franklinlodge/mpkipling.html



> The Mother-Lodge
> 
> There was Rundle, Station Master,
> An' Beazeley of the Rail,
> ...


----------

