No, I'm not being sarcastic. I am greatly in favour of the positive attitude that Canada has for multiculturalism. We welcome people from different parts of the world, take their ideas and perspectives, examine those unique ways of viewing the world and make the best ones a part of our own heterogeneous way of life.
In Canada I can get food prepared in the style of almost any nation on Earth. I can get it from a restaurant or buy the raw ingredients and make it at home. I can go to a park and watch as the Ultimate players come off the field because it's time for Cricket. I can go to a ball and see a guy in a kilt dancing with a woman in a sari. I, an atheist, have gone to lunch and sat at a single table with a Sikh, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist and three different kinds of Christian.
I like that aspect of my country. It's a source of pride that we have managed to make a peaceful society out of people with cultural backgrounds that would have them at war.
But we also draw a line. I can't properly describe the gap between the pride in peace that I feel most of the time and the disgust and rage I feel when I read about people who come here so tied to their cultural underpinnings that they carry their history of violent intolerance with them.
I'm not talking about the local supporters of international issues staging demonstrations. I'm talking about these awful things they call "honour killings".
I can, even from my left wing viewpoint, with absolute confidence and no hedging, tell these people that their culture is wrong. I have viewed their decisions to murder their daughters, and very occasionally their sons, for what they see as dishonourable actions, and I have concluded that I don't want that in my country. My multicultural mosaic will do fine without that contribution.
In summary, and quite simply, your multicultural fist must stop swinging at someone else's face. I don't care what your culture and your religion say. If it leads to you killing your children for disobedience, tough luck. Disown them if you want, abandon them to be wards of the state (for which you will be fined), but you're not allowed to kill them.
There, I said it.
A significant portion of your culture is so stupid and dangerous that I'm willing to pass judgment on the entirety of it. Dump it at customs or don't bother coming in.
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Death of Multiculturalism
I don't read the Toronto Sun very often, but this particular piece on the death of multiculturalism caught my eye. It's a little bit creepy, a little bit of a declaration of holy war, and also a good chunk of simply wrong.
I was a bit confused at first by how the writer felt that the attacks of September 11 could bring an end to halal delicatessens, freedom of religion, Caribana, Oktoberfest, multi-lingual Canadians and people who wear different hats.
It took me a while to understand why. The author is so ensconced in his own strawman definition of multiculturalism that he didn't bother telling the rest of us what it really means until further down the article:
Is that what multiculturalism means? I had no idea.
I thought it meant that we accept people from other cultures with different ideas and different traditions. I thought it meant permitting people to practice their various traditions. I thought it meant absorbing what we like in to our own way of life without discrimination based on appearances.
Indeed, we should be and we are practical and rational about this. We took a long time to consider whether a Sikh should get to wear his headgear as opposed to the standard uniform of a police officer.
But if you come from a place where it's permissible to kill your daughter because she got pregnant out of wedlock or married the wrong guy then you're going to find yourself in jail. No deference to "multiculturalism" is going to save you. It doesn't work for Christians and it doesn't work for Muslims or anyone else.
No one who believes in "multiculturalism" thinks it means running jets in to buildings to kill people. Nor do I see any justification for thinking that allowing people to bring their beliefs and traditions with them was even a proximate cause of 9/11. The root cause of 9/11 was the American government breeding religious fanatics in Afghanistan and then forgetting to keep track of them and meanwhile taking actions that enraged their fanaticism.
I do not write this to justify 9/11, but to explain why it happened. And it had nothing to do with multiculturalism.
If it did, why did 9/11 happen in the United States and not in Canada, which has policies much more amenable to multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism doesn't mean letting people come to your country to do whatever they want.
It means not being afraid of people who are different. It means not forcing people to conform simply because you're afraid.
I was a bit confused at first by how the writer felt that the attacks of September 11 could bring an end to halal delicatessens, freedom of religion, Caribana, Oktoberfest, multi-lingual Canadians and people who wear different hats.
It took me a while to understand why. The author is so ensconced in his own strawman definition of multiculturalism that he didn't bother telling the rest of us what it really means until further down the article:
The idea that all cultures are equal in merit and deserving respect ...
Is that what multiculturalism means? I had no idea.
I thought it meant that we accept people from other cultures with different ideas and different traditions. I thought it meant permitting people to practice their various traditions. I thought it meant absorbing what we like in to our own way of life without discrimination based on appearances.
Indeed, we should be and we are practical and rational about this. We took a long time to consider whether a Sikh should get to wear his headgear as opposed to the standard uniform of a police officer.
But if you come from a place where it's permissible to kill your daughter because she got pregnant out of wedlock or married the wrong guy then you're going to find yourself in jail. No deference to "multiculturalism" is going to save you. It doesn't work for Christians and it doesn't work for Muslims or anyone else.
No one who believes in "multiculturalism" thinks it means running jets in to buildings to kill people. Nor do I see any justification for thinking that allowing people to bring their beliefs and traditions with them was even a proximate cause of 9/11. The root cause of 9/11 was the American government breeding religious fanatics in Afghanistan and then forgetting to keep track of them and meanwhile taking actions that enraged their fanaticism.
I do not write this to justify 9/11, but to explain why it happened. And it had nothing to do with multiculturalism.
If it did, why did 9/11 happen in the United States and not in Canada, which has policies much more amenable to multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism doesn't mean letting people come to your country to do whatever they want.
It means not being afraid of people who are different. It means not forcing people to conform simply because you're afraid.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Multiculturalism in Quebec
Ever since Herouxville came out with their Guide to Immigrants, people started to realize that Quebecers weren't handling their immigrants very well. There's been a problem with immigration in Quebec ever since the British decided that they could stamp out the French by making their language illegal.
So the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was given the task of figuring out what reasonable accommodations should be made.
The conclusion was pretty simple. Public buildings should not showcase religious symbols. Public servants should not wear religious items. People, meanwhile, such as students, should be permitted to wear the religious items of their choice.
They walk a pretty fine line though, as far as accommodation is concerned. According to the article, one can not expect that separate swimming classes would be held for boys and girls simply because a religion forbids boys and girls to be in bathing suits within sight of each other.
It's a pretty decent report, though I obviously haven't read the whole thing. They are working to keep church and state separate - a good idea known to anyone who has read history. When church and state collude, we get the corruption of both for the sake of power. The dogmatic views of religion do not get along with the concepts of freedom and democracy.
My only problem comes down to this. Does this forbid Christians from wearing their crosses while on duty - say as police officers or at city hall? If the Christians who make up the largest chunk of religious people in this country are being told that they should forsake their religious symbols while serving their country (in whatever capacity) what are we going to do about the Sikhs who are allowed to wear turbans while on duty with the RCMP?
How is that fair?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of a nation that leaves religion as a personal matter. People must be allowed to believe whatever they want about gods, pre-marital sex, pork, shellfish, beef, voodoo, the I Ching and hookers. The government should protect your right to believe but not enforce any one belief (or non-belief) over any other. That's a free society.
I just think it's stupid to make the majority abide by this rule while letting a minority get away with breaking it. Even the appearance of unfairness is enough to make an idea like this fail, never mind an actual concrete example of unfairness.
So the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was given the task of figuring out what reasonable accommodations should be made.
The conclusion was pretty simple. Public buildings should not showcase religious symbols. Public servants should not wear religious items. People, meanwhile, such as students, should be permitted to wear the religious items of their choice.
They walk a pretty fine line though, as far as accommodation is concerned. According to the article, one can not expect that separate swimming classes would be held for boys and girls simply because a religion forbids boys and girls to be in bathing suits within sight of each other.
It's a pretty decent report, though I obviously haven't read the whole thing. They are working to keep church and state separate - a good idea known to anyone who has read history. When church and state collude, we get the corruption of both for the sake of power. The dogmatic views of religion do not get along with the concepts of freedom and democracy.
My only problem comes down to this. Does this forbid Christians from wearing their crosses while on duty - say as police officers or at city hall? If the Christians who make up the largest chunk of religious people in this country are being told that they should forsake their religious symbols while serving their country (in whatever capacity) what are we going to do about the Sikhs who are allowed to wear turbans while on duty with the RCMP?
How is that fair?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of a nation that leaves religion as a personal matter. People must be allowed to believe whatever they want about gods, pre-marital sex, pork, shellfish, beef, voodoo, the I Ching and hookers. The government should protect your right to believe but not enforce any one belief (or non-belief) over any other. That's a free society.
I just think it's stupid to make the majority abide by this rule while letting a minority get away with breaking it. Even the appearance of unfairness is enough to make an idea like this fail, never mind an actual concrete example of unfairness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)