Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged

[Infantryman2b]

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]

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]

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

Obelix: "I crave Wild Boars..."  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

This is part of The Immigrant Answer –The Globe's series on the future of immigration in Canada. Read the original story here.

If you were in London 110 years ago to watch the coronation of King Edward VII, it would have looked a lot like the scene of this month’s royal jubilee, with one notable exception: In 1902, the route of the royal coach, visited by millions of people, had been transformed into a giant advertisement for immigration to Canada.

The largest public-sector ad campaign in the country’s history had led Ottawa to erect giant sheaves of wheat over The Strand in London, to establish recruitment bureaus from Reykjavik to Moscow promising “homes for millions.”

Prime minister Wilfrid Laurier made no secret of its purpose: to increase Canada’s population tenfold as soon as possible, and thereby turn the country from a sparsely populated colony into a major, independent nation with its own culture, its own economy and its own institutions, capable of influencing and bettering the world, rather than simply being buffeted in the world’s tides.

“We are a nation of six million people already; we expect soon to be 25, yes, 40 millions,” Mr. Laurier declared. “There are men in this audience who, before they die, if they live to old age, will see this country with at least 60 millions of people.”

It was the largest immigration wave we’ve experienced, three times the rate of today’s influx, and arguably the most important human event in Canada’s history, ending its colonial culture. But it was a failure: It only doubled Canada’s population in the short term, and helped cause it to increase just fivefold in the next century.

Today we need to recognize the fact that, despite what Laurier did a century ago, Canada remains a victim of underpopulation. We do not have enough people, given our dispersed geography, to form the cultural, educational and political institutions, the consumer markets, the technological, administrative and political talent pool, the infrastructure-building tax base, the creative and artistic mass necessary to have a leading role in the world.

Because our immigration rates have remained modest and our birth rate is low, our population will grow only slightly – to perhaps 50 million by mid-century. By that point, the world’s population will almost have stopped growing and it will be difficult to attract large numbers of immigrants. At current rates, Canada will have lost its chance to be a fully formed nation.

It is time to act. Canada should build its population to a size – at least 100 million – that will allow it to determine its own future, maintain its standard of living against the coming challenges and have a large enough body of talent and revenue to solve its largest problems. All it takes is a sustained and determined increase in immigration, to at least 400,000 permanent immigrants per year.

This will not be free: Immigration requires support and assistance. But it will become much more expensive in the future, when shrinking world populations make immigrants scarce, and Canada’s crisis of underpopulation becomes expensive.

The case for 100 million

The moment when the United States stopped being dependent on the ideas, imports and expressions of other countries was exactly when it passed the 100-million mark, shortly before 1920. It was at this point that the U.S. developed the world’s first conservation program, the first progressive taxation system and the first great national infrastructure program. It was this population level that turned America into the capital of the modern world.

Whenever Canada’s ideal population is studied, the 100-million figure comes up. In 1968, a group of scholars, policy advocates and business leaders formed the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Foundation, which argued that a population of at least 100 million was needed to have a sustainable and independent economy. In 1975, a study by Canada’s Department of Manpower found that economies of scale leading to “significant benefits to Canadian industry” would occur only after the population had reached 100 million. And more recently, in 2010, the journal Global Brief argued in detail that Canada needs that much population for geostrategic, defence and diplomatic reasons. This population level would give Canada “new domestic structures coupled with growing international impact and prestige,” the journal argued, that would turn it into “a serious force to be reckoned with.”

What would a Canada of 100 million feel like? Much like today’s Canada, but more comfortable, better-served and better defended against ecological and human threats.

If just the narrow strip of land upon which most Canadians live were to develop the population density of the Netherlands or England, then the overall population would be more than 400 million. A quarter of that density would give Canada’s southern strip the population density of Spain or Romania, two big countries noted for their huge, unspoiled tracts of nature. The remaining 90 per cent of Canada would remain largely untouched – modern immigration takes place in already urbanized areas.

It would turn our major cities into places of intense and world-leading culture – and it would greatly improve their quality of life, as they’d finally have a critical mass of ratepayers large enough to support top-quality public transit, parks, museums, universities and property developments. It would put an end to the low population density that plagues large sections of Toronto and Calgary. It would turn the less-large cities, including Edmonton, Regina and Ottawa, into truly important centres.

Canada’s environment would probably be far better protected: Densely populated places like California and France tend to do better at conservation than empty zones like the Asian steppe, which produced such ecological catastrophes as the Aral Sea disaster unobserved. The threats of global warming – notably ocean-level rises – will require large-scale infrastructure projects that must rely on a large tax base. And it’s no coincidence that the most progressive climate-change policies are found in the countries with the most dense populations.

The price of underpopulation

Canadians cannot build the institutions of nationhood and the tools of global participation using the skills, markets and tax revenues of somewhere between 21 and 24 million English speakers and eight million francophones scattered more or less sparsely over a area of land encompassing five time zones, several geographic and cultural regions, a dozen political jurisdictions and the second largest land mass on Earth. Underpopulation has been part of the dialogue in Quebec for decades, but English-speaking Canadians too often fail to recognize the banana peel that keeps tripping up their nation’s ambitions.

The challenge is not simply economic. The greatest price of underpopulation is loneliness: We are often unable to talk intelligently to each other, not to mention the world, because we just don’t have enough people to support the institutions of dialogue and culture – whether they’re universities, magazines, movie industries, think tanks or publishing houses. Unlike the tightly packed countries of Europe, Canada has multiple, dispersed audiences with different regional cultures – and therefore needs a larger base population, especially in its cities.

Anyone who has tried to do culture, scholarship, public thought, entertainment or political thinking on the national level will recognize the brick wall of underpopulation. There isn’t a large enough audience, or market, to support such institutions at a minimal level of quality or scope. That’s why all of Canada’s major publishing houses are branches of foreign firms. It’s the reason why our TV and movies are either foreign- or government-funded and regulated. It’s the reason why such important institutions as McClelland and Stewart and Saturday Night magazine failed, even after repeated government bailouts and tax protection. Just not enough audience. It’s the reason why our only English-language national newsmagazine, Maclean’s, manages to survive (and then just barely) only through as much as $3-million a year in federal grants and laws preventing U.S. titles from publishing north of the border. In online media, where such protections don’t work, the isolation is more dire.

Our institutions of public thought are badly constrained. Canada could never have small magazines, such as The New Republic (54,000 subscribers) or the Weekly Standard (81,000) or Britain’s Prospect (40,000), because once you divide those numbers by 12 (the population difference between English Canada and the U.S.), you don’t have enough subscription revenue to support even a single staff member. And even those magazines rely on volunteers and low freelance rates; a world-class weekly like The New Yorker or the Times Literary Supplement would be inconceivable. We’re stuck reading theirs. It’s the reason we have only one think tank with more than 100 people on staff, while the United States and Britain have scores of them.

Much of the influence of larger countries flows from their institutes and think tanks. Volumes of vital research and political development spring from such places as the Urban institute (450 full-time thinkers), the Brookings Institution (250), the Hoover Institution (320), or the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (220). Canada has only one institute with more than 100 staff – the Conference Board of Canada. The next largest is the right-wing Fraser Institute, with 64 staff, followed by the C.D. Howe Institute, with only 21 – and then a whole bunch with a handful of people stuffed into a single office. Too many of our institutions are too small to matter – and so is our talent pool.

Even if you don’t care about culture, politics and thought, you’ll pay the price. The economic and fiscal cost of underpopulation was measured last September by Ottawa’s Parliamentary Budget Officer. It makes for grim reading.

At current rates of immigration and population growth, the average age of Canadians will soar. Canada’s old-age dependency ratio – that is, the proportion of the population dependent on government pension and health-care spending (i.e., those over 65) will more than double from 20 per cent today to 45 per cent of the population in the 2080s.

This will cause GDP growth to plummet, from 2.6 per cent annually to 1.8 and below. Government debt will increase by 3 per cent annually, and Ottawa will either have to raise taxes or cut its spending by a dramatic amount, which estimates show would be comparable to the emergency cutbacks of the mid-1990s. A decent social safety net, world-class foreign-policy and military spending, infrastructure, universities and ecological programs will become unaffordable – unless we can expand Canada’s population base sharply in the next few decades.

How to build a bigger Canada

The difference between a stagnant population and a robust one is less than you may think. By increasing Canada’s population growth rate of 0.8 per cent per year (based on 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants annually) by 50 per cent, we would have 75 million people in 50 years and 100 million by the end of the century.

To do this, we would have to attract between 400,000 and 450,000 immigrants per year, or about half the rate (as a percentage of the population) of the Laurier years. Canada’s low birth rates (averaging 1.6 children per family) will pull that number down, but that would be counterbalanced by the youth and higher first-generation birth rates of the new immigrants.

It wouldn’t last forever – immigrants always merge with their host country’s family size within a couple of generations, and the surge of youth and productivity will be temporary. But it would hold us through the 21st century, during which the entire world’s population will stop growing, level out, and start falling. Canada should use this moment – now – to start boosting its base population so we are on a world-class footing before the world reaches “peak people” and immigrants become increasingly difficult to attract.

In some ways, that competition has already begun. Australia’s government, influenced by the “Big Australia” movement, which calls for a doubling of population, has made entry much easier for its immigrants.

We need a “Big Canada” movement and – given our economic needs, our labour shortages and the continuing pains of underpopulation – this is the time to launch it.

Doug Saunders is a Globe and Mail correspondent based in London and the author of Arrival City: The Final Migration and Our Next World, winner of the 2010 Donner Prize for writing on public policy.

 

[pbi]

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]

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

The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism:

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants create a parallel society within the Netherlands ..

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:

“The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.”

With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens.

It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands ..
The new integration policy will place more demands onimmigrants.

For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.”

The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner;
“It is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.” (How bloody true).

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.
More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013.

Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized – maybe too late – that creating a nation of tribes will kill the nation itself.

The future of Australia , the United States , UK and Canada may well be read here.

NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest “CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE.”

Countries such as Holland , Canada , the UK and Australia have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?

If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple; “STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!” “Or go back to where you were!”

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.

At some point, the number of published books and articles and conferences about multiculturalism exceeded all reasonable limits, and many people, myself included, started believing it to be yet another fad or obsession.

In recent years, however, we have witnessed two phenomena, which prove that multiculturalism - as long as it's moderate - is better than what we are seeing now. The first is that multiculturalism has been replaced by a largely uncritical acceptance of all cultural phenomena, no matter where they come from or their political, social, spiritual, or religious context. In other words, Scandinavian novels, Iranian movies, Indian music, and Oriental medicine are all equally good. "Equally good" means also that we have no rating scale tied to our (European) culture, but everything that is good is good, even if we do not know why.

The second threat multiculturalism has faced is the monoculturalism bound up with the intellectually clumsy - but nonetheless increasingly popular - nationalist ideas. To some extent, multiculturalism was a reaction to it. But not only nationalism is opposed to multiculturalism. Whether in analyses of immigrant communities in various European countries or in the statements - even official ones - of political leaders in Islamic countries, we have seen more and more hostility towards other cultures or civilisations.

Multiculturalism's great virtue - underappreciated during its heyday - was the awareness that, as its very name suggested, there existed many different cultures

Multiculturalism's great virtue - underappreciated during its heyday - was the awareness that, as its very name suggested, there existed many different cultures. However, those who believed that they were not only different but also equal, that is, equally valuable, went clearly too far. I am not trying to extol the virtues of Eurocentrism here, but even when we accept the existence of many cultures, our own should be the one to which we feel closest.

Clashing values

The point is that each culture represents and promotes specific values, however there are also those to which we western people cannot consent. For example, the treatment of women in some Islamic countries or the culinary habits and consumption of certain animals in some Far Eastern countries.

We may reasonably think, that multiculturalism was a much better idea than the present postmulticulturalism, that is, [...] choosing not to differentiate between cultures at all. Sometimes this stems from an incomprehensible fascination with the works of other cultures without knowing the context of their making, which inevitably leads to misunderstanding.

Interestingly, postmulticulturalism is becoming more and more widespread in precisely the societies that have experienced some very difficult, and often still unsolved, issues with cultural diversity. In the first place, this means immigrants who, although hard-working and much-needed, have no intention of participating in the culture or even politics of their country of residence. This creates an obvious problem, not only because they are entitled to the same benefits (education, healthcare and so on) as everyone else, but also because no one knows how to integrate them with the rest of society, how to subject them to the same laws that apply to others. The phenomenon is most acutely observable in the Netherlands, but it is also present in Germany and France. Of course, there exist various means of soft coercion (such as requiring immigrants to study the history of their new homeland), but in the liberal western world they are hardly popular, not to mention the fact that there are serious doubts as to their effectiveness.

After all, in the immigrants' countries of origin - and we are speaking primarily about Muslims - anti-Western attitudes are openly promoted. Why should these people suddenly become Western? But can we afford their million-strong presence? No one dares giving clear-cut answers to such questions in Europe, and those few who do are immediately and often rightly dismissed as radicals, condemned, sometimes even accused of racism or fascism.

Addressing discomfort

Truth is, the proud words about strong European roots are usually as proud as they are empty

But if cultural differences are a fact and can turn into outright hostility, does multiculturalism, or any tolerance other than silence, make sense? Should we treat potential enemies as fellow citizens, if not as brothers? The best solution, then, would be to return to our roots, our myths, our symbols, our not necessarily European, but national, traditions. But then it turns out quickly that there isn't much left to return to. Even if there appear works of culture from previously little-known parts of Europe, such as Scandinavian crime novels, the return to tradition turns out to mean investigating the Swedes' collaboration with Nazi Germany. Truth is, the proud words about strong European roots are usually as proud as they are empty.

Day-to-day psychological observation shows that we are much more likely to reach consensus with others when we know well enough who we are, when we feel comfortably enough with ourselves. The phenomenon of postmulticulturalism is a result of the fact that we in Europe don't feel comfortably with ourselves and we don't know how to address the discomfort.

None of the available methods seem to work here: neither regarding the rest of the world as pagans or heathens, nor enthusing about them as wonders of nature or an entertainment for the ladies, nor the imperialistic "white man's burden". Multiculturalism was the last reasonable - if sometimes exaggerated - attempt to do something about the discomfort. Today things are much worse: either we decide that the others do not exist, which is untrue, or that we shouldn't let them in (neither in body nor in spirit), which can only lead to disaster.

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]

I enjoyed reading those articles thank you.

 

[pbi]

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]

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.

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]

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]

>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]

...

*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]

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.

*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]

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]

>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]

>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]

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.