Toxic Multiculturalism

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Legally?  It's a centralized federation with limited soveraingty subdivisions called provinces (10 + 1 territory called Nunavut).  Sociaologically - there's the english part and the french part and the inuit part (although that one is fairly recent).

You're forgetting two places...

Far more than 2 actually.

Canada is a big MFin place with many distinct subultures. I like the idea that we are like the EU (in simple many nations with a big overarching cultural bent terms) in the same way that I like being part of a North American union. The US and Mexico to a lesser extent in Canada are important parts of each others existence.)

G. all peoples are conquered peoples. (pretty much.) Northa America is filled with people from all over the world who fled being conquered, (before during and after such conquests)

The francophone "we were here first" line is a strawman of the highest order... the First Nations people were here first, then some hairy frenchies, then the slightly more cleane up Anglos.

My home has had both anglo and franco roots from before PQ and points west was settled by France, or England. We see ourselves variously as either Anglo or Franco Canadian.

We are all living on conquered land (not that there really is anything wrong with that at this point in history, as I said. Wars and changing borders have always happened. Check out some old maps once in awhile.)

You are Canadian G. whether you like it or not, but first and rightly so, a proud Quebecois. Nothing wrong with that. Asking other people who just moved here to figure out and acclimate to our "culture" instantly is as inane as thinking that our cultures haven't changed and evolved or the centuries since they took root in Canada.

In a few generations, people will laugh and scratch their heads at all this petty nonsense (or the Earth will be a burnt out cinder, either way, Hijabs will be a moot point.

The only constant is change.

[crazy canuck]

This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

The future? I think that's here now, sadly.

[The Minsky Moment]

collective rights. 

[Fate]

This latter point is the one where the snickering and posturing is tiring - just like most Americans on the board react strongly - or would react strongly - if all discussion of cultural issues started with the seemingly self-evident truth that Americans are uncultured and anti-intellectual.

In the future there would be little reaction to such a statement.  A school board in Texas is doing its best to make sure that future students will not understand the insult.  Indeed in the future many may wear the badge of anti-intellectual with honour.

Oh please, don't spare us any hyperbole. 

[Barrister]

collective rights. 

You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

[Grallon]

You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?




G.

[Barrister]

You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Because, with all due respect, you are a remarkably poor spokesperson for the concept.  And they are somewhat in conflict with individual rights.

[Grallon]

Because, with all due respect, you are a remarkably poor spokesperson for the concept.  And they are somewhat in conflict with individual rights.

Kindly abstain from commenting on the legitimacy of the spokesperson counsel!  Just answer the fucking question will you!?




G.

[Barrister]

Kindly abstain from commenting on the legitimacy of the spokesperson counsel!  Just answer the fucking question will you!?

I did.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can "bleeding" all you want, but some notions of collective rights are enshrined in Canada's constitution.  I'm thinking of minority education rights and aboriginal and treaty rights.

Minority rights are presumably rights that pertain to *individuals* who happen to belong to the protected class, and can be vindicated as such.

Treaties are agreements between sovereigns, and even if we are talking about so-called "dependent" sovereignties, it muddles the issue to refer to one contracting party's obligations under a treaty as a "collective right" of another.  We wouldn't say that Canada has a "collective right" to duty free treatment of goods under NAFTA; we would say that the NAFTA treaty provides for such treatment, and the Canadian government has the power and authority to seek enforcement on behalf of its nationals under the treaty terms.

[The Minsky Moment]

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

Because it is ill-defined, incoherent, and easily adapted as a Trojan Horse for attacking the individual rights of others.  Such as the way it is being used here.

[DontSayBanana]

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

G.

Because, unlike the beliefs of Quebec's finest, collective rights do not equal collective obligation.  Should the group have the collective rights to maintain their French-derivative society and language?  Absolutely. 

Should the "rights" of the one group take ultimate precedence in a constantly-changing society?  No. 

Should the state responsible for the welfare of all of its citizens be co-opted to where it becomes little more than a tool of xenophobia?  Hell no.

[Admiral Yi]

Why is it this notion of collective rights seem so alien, even disturbing to some people?!  Is it that they come from a different legal tradition?

When I see the term I think of benefits that have been assigned to a group and left up to the group how they will be allocated internally.  Which might be allocated fairly or they might not.

[Grallon]

Because, unlike the beliefs of Quebec's finest, collective rights do not equal collective obligation.  Should the group have the collective rights to maintain their French-derivative society and language?  Absolutely. 

Well I suppose we can always legislate to formalize those rights - and thus avoid the confusion that makes Minsky so anxious. 

Parliements, or in this case the National Assembly, are still soveraigns.  And the federal constitution contains the derogatory clause that can be invoked to suspend the articles of the Charter of Rights.




G.