Respect our values or Leave

[zipperhead_cop]

Nobody is saying that anyone who comes to our country has to give up anything.  By all means, come in and have fun.  The point of this thread is that there are immigrants who come here and then DEMAND that things here be changed to suit their likes and dislikes, be it religious or otherwise.  The WASP "We" now are in a position where we have to try to fight to retain OUR culture, like Christmas and Easter.  That is what ranks many, including myself.  "We" have welcomed these people with open arms, and now they are complaining that we didn't hug them hard or long enough.

 

[raymao]

Ahhh... Christmas and Easter. Yeah, I was more than a little irked about that as well. Not a holiday tree! Got it. I know Boston found that funny with their annual delivery. One of these days, someone will have to write a book about things that 'are' Canadian without excluding other Canadians. Is it possible? Any good ones out there already?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Ahhh... Christmas and Easter. Yeah, I was more than a little irked about that as well. Not a holiday tree! Got it. I know Boston found that funny with their annual delivery. One of these days, someone will have to write a book about things that 'are' Canadian without excluding other Canadians. Is it possible? Any good ones out there already?

The only thing anyone seems to agree on is the "I AM CANADIAN" series of beer commercials.  Kind of sad, really.

 

[GuloGulo]

This is a wildly distorted view of history. The settlers of New France were determined to assimilate the native cultures through religious conversion and attaching their "political" and economic welfare to New France by taking sides in the various native conflicts and employing natives in the fur trade and the military. The British had many of the same motives, and in addition were determined to crush New France as well. The primary reason full assimilation did not take place after the Seven Year's War was the simple fact the British did not have the manpower to do so.

A bit more than one hundred years later, the Fathers of Confederation had to solve a tricky problem; join several disparate political units together and combine their strengths or risk assimilation by the growing United States. Given each colony was suspicious of the motives of the others, it is pretty miraculous that Canada even came into being.

The fundamental divide is do people share common values, beliefs, mythologies as citizens of a nation, or are they simply "tenants" occupying the same "state". Given the results of States where ethnic nationalism overtakes shared values (from relatively benign like former Czechoslovakia to violent disintegration like former Yugoslavia), I would say it would be in all of our best interests to concentrate on "civic nationalism", the instilling of a common set of values, beliefs and, yes, national myths which override and trump the old values which people bring over from the "old country".

Absolutely.  That is exactly how I see it as well.  The parallels between modern western societies and the downfall of the roman empire are shockingly similar.  Without "Roman civic duty" and likewise without a native homogeneous roman people, their fate was sealed.  They simply had no one to fight their wars, and because of that they were over run by inferiors from the north.  No doubt this will be the same for the west unless we start acknowledging the "polite fiction" that has been decaying western civilization at alarming levels over the past several decades.  Though it might not be a pleasant discourse, it is imperative.

Though people like to dress up certain things to fit their own agenda.  Like how some many self-hating liberalists argue: "Well Europeans 'immigrated' to Canada, therefore any and all third worlders should be allowed as well."  Which absolutely drives me bonkers, not just the shameless distortion, but also the seemingly inherent  lack of hearing anybody out on anything: totally obstinate while simultaneously being completely unaware of the facts.  Canadians were nativists for a very long time, including the time in which they developed it into becoming  what what it is today.  Even the melting pot rhetoric  [before the surrender to multiculturalism anyways] was also a completely inept proposition, as it was originally coined for the catholic immigrants into the US, whom at that time [75 years ago] were "problematic immigration!". How things change....  I can't get over the fact that this is typical in arguments of people from the "self-hating" righteous liberal school of thought.  Which seems to be completely apart from reality.  For example, I read a news story in which Paul Martin was asked to comment on the murder of the teenage girl in Toronto, to which he  responded by saying the "problem" is that they,  minorities, are forced into this kind of a lifestyle because of discrimination, alienation, disenfranchisement, etc.,  I almost couldn't believe it: him blaming the majority for the crime, but, then I remembered the thousands of cars that were firebombed and the French response, which was in large: "blame the racist majority"....[!] On the other hand there was a news story in which he was asked to comment regarding a vandal attack on a Jewish synagogue, which he declared: The nation is disgusted by this type of crime committed by a terrible thug assailant, and that he wholeheartedly "condemned it with every fiber of his being".  I guess we can assume the vandal wasn't "disenfranchised"???  That or he has more of an affinity to Jewish property than the lives of teenage girls.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Paul Martin was a two faced jag off and no one should give him one more second of attention.  Same goes for Chretien and Trudeau for that matter. 

 

[a_majoor]

Ok, I see your view. I also agree with your sense of civic nationalism, but I struggle to come to terms with what these values and beliefs we should share?

Civic nationalism is the proposition that everyone is equal at law, that the Sovereign individual may freely express his opinions in public venues (and other sovereign individuals may disagree), that you have the right to order your affairs and dispose of your property in ways which maximize its value to you without causing quantifiable harm to others, and the State exists to safeguard these rights.

Within this construct, you are free to carry out your affairs, Mohamed next door can conduct his, Indira across the street can conduct hers and so on. No one will specify if you should (or should not) have a Christmas tree, join the Freemasons, play rock'n'roll music, cruise the internet, have sex with a willing partner in your bedroom, vote for the Green party, buy your groceries at the corner store or the Big Box retailer....This construct explicitly excludes ideas like "hyphenated" Canadians or preferential treatment based on geography, religion or ethnicity. Sentencing criminals to "aboriginal healing circles" or excusing assault and battery when it is done by an NHL player would be out. Dalton McGuinty's decision to end religious based arbitration in favor of uniform implementation of the Laws of Ontario is one of the few times I agreed with anything he has done.

I know I can't impose 'my personal' values on everyone else in this country. What values and beliefs are you suggesting? Some people will agree. Some people won't. The people that don't agree with your beliefs and values may not be immigrants at all. No better example of trying to impose values and beliefs can be said than looking at your own family. Can you honestly say everyone in your family share the same beliefs and values? I'm sure your family is no different than mine on those regards. Some think the same, some don't. And I tell ya, I'm not sure if I want to be in a group that shares the exact same beliefs and values. We'd have nothing to debate. What fun would that be?

Civic nationalism does not remove areas where dissent or disagreement are possible, but simply says that we are all Canadians, and as Canadians we will submit to a uniform implementation of the laws to settle our disagreements. Right now, if I was to strike you from behind and break your neck, my sentence would be different from that if an aboriginal person or Todd Bertuzzi did it. You can easily think of many other instances of laws, programs and regulations which are not applied to all Canadians but to favour/disfavor certain groups. In the mean time you are quite free to carry on the debate here. I suggest you look up posts by Edward Campbell in this forum, he is quite eloquent in the description and defence of equality at law which is the basis of civic nationalism.

 

[raymao]

You are absolutely right that the law is not equal. We like to think that bias does not exist in the eyes of a judge or juror, but we know it can't completely disappear. The system is supposed to be procedurally fair, but that does not it mean it will be substantially fair, there is obviously a difference. But, you also have to agree that the largest inequity that will exist in law and public policy is that the social elite will attempt to influence the government to make sure those policies favour them. This does not always mean majority. This may mean the large corporate structures that feed our economy. If a significant for force can truly be seen in forging values and beliefs, it is this force that continues to influence government most.

It is sad to see a general degradation in values and beliefs all around. But this is a global phenomena. I don't think you can blame one group of people for it, but we definitely have the right to identify the values and beliefs we don't want to lose, and let others know how important these are to us.

 

[a_majoor]

You are absolutely right that the law is not equal. We like to think that bias does not exist in the eyes of a judge or juror, but we know it can't completely disappear. The system is supposed to be procedurally fair, but that does not it mean it will be substantially fair, there is obviously a difference. But, you also have to agree that the largest inequity that will exist in law and public policy is that the social elite will attempt to influence the government to make sure those policies favour them. This does not always mean majority. This may mean the large corporate structures that feed our economy. If a significant for force can truly be seen in forging values and beliefs, it is this force that continues to influence government most.

I see my point was slightly missed. It is true that laws are administered by failable humans, and there will be bias, that cannot be helped. What I was getting at was the systematic addition of bias by the State, with the creation of laws, programs and regulations which do not even pretend to be neutral. What sort of "Equality at Law" is being provided if you get differential treatment because you live in a particular geographic region, are of a different religious or ethnic background, sex, etc?

I would preffer the imperfect application of Law which applies to everyone regardless of circumstance to the perfect application of differential laws. Of course we have the imperfect application of differential laws, which is only a few steps short of arbitrary application of laws.

 

[big bad john]

I thought that this article in yesterdays Ottawa Citizen was interesting.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=455b97a8-6e5b-4720-bde4-2b5113fa4bc3&k=85594

Make immigrants take oath of loyalty
report: If newcomers breach Canada's values, they should be deported, ex-diplomat declares 
Article Tools
    Printer friendly
  E-mail
  Font: * * * *  Stewart Bell, The National Post
Published: Wednesday, March 01, 2006
TORONTO - The federal government should require new immigrants to take an oath of loyalty to Canada and its values -- and deport them if they breach it, a former diplomat says in a study of counter-terrorism policies released yesterday.

The Fraser Institute report, authored by former senior Foreign Affairs official Martin Collacott, also says the government must give special attention to working with the Muslim community since radical Islamic terrorists are currently the greatest danger to Canada's security.

While Canadians are committed to welcoming diverse immigrants from around the world, newcomers must understand that they are expected to accept core Canadian values, the report says.

"If they find such acceptance difficult, they should not come here in the first place," Mr. Collacott writes in Canada's Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform.

The paper proposes that those who apply to immigrate to Canada should be told "what is expected of them and that, if they fail to live up to our expectations, they will be removed from Canada."

In addition, before becoming citizens, immigrants should be required to take an oath "swearing that they are not only fully committed to Canadian values and will give their complete allegiance and loyalty to Canada, but that their actions in the future will reflect these commitments."

Those who behave in a manner that seriously conflicts with Canada's principles -- for example by supporting or engaging in terrorism -- should lose their citizenship, he argues.

But University of Toronto associate professor of law Audrey Macklin, an immigration and refugee law specialist, has doubts about the proposal, which she called "odd."

"To be judged according to your compliance with Canadian values and to strip somebody of citizenship on that basis is a kind of ironic move," she said.

"You are really in a sense acting outside law allegedly because people don't honour Canadian values. Well I think the rule of law is a Canadian value, so I think it would be a very odd thing to do."

The recommendation to the new Conservative government comes as Europe and North America are struggling over how to deal with anti-western, pro-terrorist extremist elements within their Muslim communities.

The government's failure to ensure immigrants are fully committed to living according to Canada's liberal democratic values explains why some put overseas causes ahead of Canadian interests, the paper says.

"Greater emphasis has been given in recent years to the rights of newcomers than to their obligations to Canada," Mr. Collacott writes.

"This has in all likelihood been a contributing factor in encouraging them to treat this country as a convenient and generous base from which to engage in or mount support for their favourite conflicts abroad."

Following last July's suicide bombings in London by British-born Muslims, the British government introduced measures to crack down on the incitement and glorification of terrorism.

Germany is also attempting to screen new immigrants for extremist views, while in Australia last week, Prime Minister John Howard said he was concerned that some parts of the Muslim community were "utterly antagonistic" to Australian society.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't we already have an oath of citizenship?

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The problem with fighting extremist organizations in Canada has everything to do with the political process in Canada.  Half of the groups that CSIS wants to put on the list of supporters of international terrorism cannot be so listed because their lobby groups have bought dozens of seats for the major political parties.  As long as ethnic special intrest groups are able to contribute heavily to political campains, and are courted by candidates seeking to lock up the ethnic vote in their ridings, then the organizations that fundraise and recruit for front line terror groups will continue to operate with impunity in Canada.  In a minority govt situation, it is hard to get a PM with the balls to listen to his law enforcement and intelligence briefings and blacklist the organizations that we all know are opperating in this country to support terrorism in their homelands.  Of course, when the Liberals had a towering majority, they never had the balls to risk offending any cultural or ethnic group by targeting the terrorists that sit so smugly in their midst.  Likewise, any crackdown on recent immigrants will result in headlines and rallies, and storms of phonecalls to those ethnic-dependant MP's, and a wobble in the oppinion polls that brings all Canadian politicians to their knees.  It doesn't matter what laws we have, our govt lacks the will to enforce any unpopular ones.

 

[GuloGulo]

I misread civic nationalism as being an effect rather than a means. My take is that this sense of civic duty, is, as it's being pursued now, delusive.  One problem is that people from different ethnic backgrounds, like it or not, tend to alienate one another, and because of this many people immigrate with "strings attached".  Expecting all  Immigrants to "smelt" into their new countries culture within a generation or two is absurd, I would say naive but I don't even think naivety has anything to do with it, since this was common knowledge and had been for years. One example that comes to mind is the creation of the 'pale of settlement' in Russia.  So there's the rub, and is why "multiculturalism" came into being.  Which is just as problematic.  It only depreciates those valuable citizens that feel strongly about their nation, and are willing to step up when need be.  Do you think anybody is going to want to die on a French beach for "multiculturalism"? which in some cases manifests as bullet ridden young girls. Furthermore, do you think the Men that did die in France did it so Canada could become what it has evolved into since Trudeau? From my perspective, the answer is no.  One hypothetical question to ask yourself would be: If there was an Invasion of Canada by some hypothetical hostile state [Be it Islamic, Jewish, Asian, etc.,] do you think the immigrant representatives of that state would overwhelmingly fight for Canada, or against Canada? I bet most, if asked, in some type poll would give you the answer you want to hear, but I believe the reality would be the opposite, since, I myself can empathize with that hypothetical.  Which is, by definition, a fifth column,  and it really makes me wonder wonder sometimes what true agenda these bureaucrats and politicians have when instating these policy changes, when in many instances they are offensive and are by no means representative of the Canadian people. [i.e., today the Supreme court passed, with overwhelming support, a law which made it legal for Sikh children in school to carry daggers, even though last night I saw an opinion poll where 95+ of the people asked said they were AGAINST such a law.]

Liberalists may be ashamed of their heritage, but I am not, and for that matter I don't think most people are, or at least wouldn't if it hasn't been for all the "peer pressure" I guess you could call it. Or at least the superficial appearance of consensus.  Which is why I think these policy's are ticking time bombs because I don't think they are in the best interests of  the majority, rather, in the best interests for the minorities that have made Canada "multicultural".

Like it or not, people identify with things more specific than  "mankind",  [i.e., religion, race, culture] and it seems to have a socially healthy society this idea would have to be acknowledged.  Civic nationalism it seems is completely in vain, no matter what the politicians say. Like the ones that put the blame of the Toronto gang killing on the shoulders of the "racist" majority and gun laws.  It seems people accept these kind of explanations all to easily.  Someone should ask why these "disenfranchised" lowly people didn't for example ...Join the Army!  You can't possibly get anymore enfranchised than that, can you?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

and it really makes me wonder wonder sometimes what true agenda these bureaucrats and politicians have when instating these policy changes, when in many instances they are offensive and are by no means representative of the Canadian people. [i.e., today the Supreme court passed, with overwhelming support, a law which made it legal for Sikh children in school to carry daggers, even though last night I saw an opinion poll where 95+ of the people asked said they were AGAINST such a law.]

Show up for six years minimum, make great business connecitions, collect a full tax free pension, get hired as a consultant to a company (that you gave under the table breaks to) for a six figure salary.  As much as it cuts my heart in half to say it, the only parties that field candadates that appear to give a crap about people are the ones on our political left. 
I'm not too ramped up about the kirpan issue.  That was a big deal in Toronto in 1983 or so and it seems like it has never been much of a problem. 
Just as a religious aside:

The scholar Jit Singh Uberoi has persuasively argued that the kirpan should be viewed as being constrained by thekara or steel bangle, and it follows, as he says, that the kirpan is "a sword ritually constrained and thus made into the mark of every citizen's honour, not only of the soldier's vocation."[1] A sword that is "ritually constrained" is a sword that is bound to do only the work of justice, to be drawn on behalf of the oppressed and the weak, to be offered only in defense. The sword can be employed only when all other avenues have been explored and exhausted, and indeed failure to do so at that time would be tantamount to complicity in acts of evil and oppression

But of course anything that can be used can be misused. 

 

[GO!!!]

In accordance with my cultural beliefs and upbrining, I demand to be permitted to wear a kilt, dirk and two handed claymore - to school work and anywhere else.

C'mon - I promise to put a small leather strap accross the hilt....

 

[zipperhead_cop]

In accordance with my cultural beliefs and upbrining, I demand to be permitted to wear a kilt, dirk and two handed claymore - to school work and anywhere else.

C'mon - I promise to put a small leather strap accross the hilt....

You forgot the real hair sporran, holding a wee dram of scotch... ;D

 

[GO!!!]

You forgot the real hair sporran, holding a wee dram of scotch... ;D

I use baby seal fur - very soft and supple, and cheap too, since the Europeans eschew it!

Now if only I could find some real ivory drones...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I know a guy...got some great deals on powdered bear spleens too. 
I for one will be sending my kids to school with a nice skean dhu in their socks, but for certain they will have a metallic foil "band" over the end that will say "Break only in cases of injustice".

 

[raymao]

Expecting all  Immigrants to "smelt" into their new countries culture within a generation or two is absurd, I would say naive but I don't even think naivety has anything to do with it, since this was common knowledge and had been for years.

You should rethink this comment and avoid absolute generalisms. Am I first or second generation being born in this country? Regardless, my mother being born in the Philippines and my father in Guyana South America... I have hardly any knowledge of their culture except for the fact that I grew up eating rice nearly every day instead of French fries or mashed potatoes with my roast beef, chicken or whatever else we ate for dinner. The only thing that makes me different from the majority of Canadians is my background. Nothing that I can control, change or even connect with. What would I fight for? My home, my family, my friends... this basically makes for the most important things about my country. It is the only thing that I am connected with. Would I fight alongside Filipinos or Guyanese? Not against my brethren. Not now. Not ever.

I asked the question in an earlier post, what values and beliefs do real Canadians have? I posted some of the ones I believe in, and I'm sure many of you share them. But... if real Canadians in the view of many of you require a lineage that links back to the U.K. or a European ethnicity with what some of you determine to be similar enough, then you exclude real Canadians like myself.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's not the lineage raymao.  It's the beliefs.

I grew up alongside many Brits that were not British and also have known Canadians, West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese and Malays that were.

I tend to believe that Britain left Canada a legacy of beliefs and institutions that have given it many of its current advantages.  As such they are worth retaining and defending.

Cheers.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I asked the question in an earlier post, what values and beliefs do real Canadians have? I posted some of the ones I believe in, and I'm sure many of you share them. But... if real Canadians in the view of many of you require a lineage that links back to the U.K. or a European ethnicity with what some of you determine to be similar enough, then you exclude real Canadians like myself.

      What values make a real Canadian?  Tolerance for the religion and culture and neighbor, and the corollary expectation that your own will be respected by them.  Expectation that all people will be treated the same regardless of race, creed, colour or orientation at their conduct and achievements warrent.  Lastly, the expectation that you will conduct yourself as a Canadian, rather than a foreigner living under a flag of convenience to better prosecute a war in a country you have abandoned.  One of my closest buddies in the Regiment was born a Filipino, and his father was an officer in the Philippine army, I remember he was sitting beside my own father, each of them prouder than you could believe as their sons together paraded at the end of Basic training as Canadian soldiers. 
      I remember getting into trouble in school when we had multicultural week, and they wanted us to talk about what culture we were, and I said Canadian.  The teachers seemed to think that this was not possible, that I had to have a hyphen of my own.  Was I German, Polish, Irish, English, French etc, actually most of my descent is Scottish, but I was born and raised Canadian, I was not raised to speak the Gaelic, I was not raised in the culture of the Scots, I speak English and a little French.  I play hockey, I curl, I hunt, I swim and canoe, I learned lacrosse from the Natives, and know more of their mythology than I do of the Celtic that is my supposed heritage.  Like the beer commercial says, I am Canadian (no hyphen required).