Toxic Multiculturalism

[Malthus]

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.

The problem is simple: setting up different classes of person different sets of "rights" created by virtue of the accident of their birth is contrary to generally accepted notions of freedom and equality of citizenship.

Canada has vestiges of this for histioric reasons encoded deep within its legal DNA as it were, which is proving increasingly problematic as time goes on. The worst offender in this category is not the situation of Quebec, but that of the First Nations, where an entirely seperate and distinct category of paternalism and entitlements having to do with native status has, for reasons entirely understandable and perhaps even laudable, helped to preserve a system of almost third-world poverty and deprivation within Canada.

To be clear, that was not the intent, and it is not of course the cause, but it seems to have helped institutionalize this as the status quo. 

The flipside of "collective rights" is of course removing individual rights from disfavoured persons, something that this admittedly annoying woman appears to have triggered.

[Siege]

She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

The thing is, if you're going to formalize those rights for your group, you'd better be prepared to formalize an equal set of rights for other groups in your citizenry, or else your constitution is a joke.  As that would make things unnecessarily long and complex, you're better off avoiding the slippery slope of legislating group values entirely.  Look at the insanity that occurs when Republicans try in our country.

And you're not helping your case by threatening suspension of the Charter of Rights.  All it does is affirm the notion that you're only okay with the laws when they further your own particular cause, and that at any other time they can be discarded.  I hope I don't have to point out the obvious parallel to what happened to the French aristocracy in the mid-eighteenth century for that type of mentality... .

The problem is the separatist movement doesn't recognize the fluidity that any thriving given culture has.  If you're truly that worried about watering down the culture, include things that celebrate the French culture, not things that denigrate the "outsiders."  If you want another American example of a group that's avoided becoming irrelevant, consider what holiday we Americans are celebrating on Wednesday.  Without exaggerating, just bringing up St. Patrick as an excuse for getting shitfaced and throwing poorly drawn leprechauns around has done wonders for protecting the cultural identity of not only Irish-Americans, but Americans of Irish descent as well...

[DontSayBanana]

She can go back to Egypt if she wants to live in a muslim society.

Works both ways.  If you can't deal with integration, you can get your ass back to Israel, douchebag.

[Martinus]

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?

Uhum. It is called the Western legal tradition.

[The Minsky Moment]

In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

[Martinus]

In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

I think they have also been an important factor in the Ottoman Empire.

[Viking]

In Maoist regimes, OTOH, collective rights have a well-grounded lineage.

What do those rights matter without the right not to get shot on the whim of a party cadre?

[Barrister]

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?

Uhum. It is called the Western legal tradition.

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

[Grallon]

...

The flipside of "collective rights" is of course removing individual rights from disfavoured persons, something that this admittedly annoying woman appears to have triggered.

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.





G.

[garbon]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

:sigh:

[BuddhaRhubarb]

You'd think there might be some sort of middle ground that could be reached on these kinds of issues. But that's not how things are done on the internets.

[crazy canuck]

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. 

Which is exactly what enshrining aboriginal title and treaty rights in the Charter has done.

[Malthus]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

I dunno, we survived all those homosexuals clamoring for marriage just fine. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

The other day they released a report that shows that the descendants of "visible minority" immigrants will be a majority in (English) Canada in the reasonably near future. Indeed, they already are in Toronto. So far, no great tensions.

[crazy canuck]

If people want to argue about Quebec's situation, they are free to do so - and as stated I will abstain from participating in the repetition; it is the link between Grallon's stance and what people percieve Quebec's situation is that I disagree with.

I should have made this point earlier.  I appreciate when you take the time to set out your views.  As you and I have discussed before, it is not often that I get to hear your viewpoint in our media and I find always find it informative and often enlightening.

So, as painful as it is for you to repeat yourself, I do hope you continue to do so.