Toxic Multiculturalism

[Admiral Yi]

No offense veep, but it sounds like you just made that up.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

yesterday a study was realeased here in support of a ban on islamic headdresses in schools (and state-institutions) on the principle that people wearing these things, and demanding to be allowed to wear them, are in breach of what the author calles the principle of "pacification through secularisation".
Which is basically the same as "keep your fairytales indoors or otherwise inconspicuous if you want us to tolerate them". Other religions have ceased their ostentations displays of faith to the betterment of society, its up to muslims to to do the same.
It's a shame the paper is only available in Dutch though

This logic is completely backwards. If Dutch people get so incensed at the sight of a hajib they want to beat up the wearer, that's a problem of the Dutch people, not the Moslems

the author warns for people using this argument... the term he uses to describe them can be translated as 'ignorant about the issue at hand' iirc.
Basically it's still the problem of the moslims (in this case) as they're the ones that are upsetting the achieved balance by refusing to adapt to it. No-one is against muslims doing their worshippy things, as long as they do it quietly and without too much ostentatious - even exhibitionistic- behaviour. This is because the balance of the society in which they live frowns on such behaviour and considers it disruptive (and rightly so).
We're talkinga bout Belgium btw, but the situation can probably be used for a few other places too. Not sure if to what extent Quebec can be compared but it seems there's signficant overlap:  a form of social peace bought with the fast secularisation of public society.

http://www.standaard.be/extra/pdf/vermeersch.pdf
this is the link to the study. It's 32 pages, run it though some translator and hope it's good enough to read.

[Admiral Yi]

Disruptive how?  If some raghead starts wailing on a microphone at 5 in the morning that disrupts the hell out of my sleep.  If some raghead stabs a filmmaker or bombs a cartoonist that disrupts the fuck out of their lives and my sense of security.  But how does some chick wearing a veil disrupt anything?

[DontSayBanana]

There's always the problems of law enforcement with this kind of headgear.  If a new citizen really wants to "integrate," then they're agreeing to abide by the laws and law enforcement of their new country.  You can't enforce laws if you can't identify the citizens; blocking faces is just a no-no on so many levels.  Witnesses can't give descriptions other than height, build, and eye color.  Photo identification is useless.

On the other hand, it's counter-productive to them as victims of domestic abuse, as well.  Hubby broke her jaw with a right hook?  Can't see it.  Crushed nose?  Can't see it.  You might be able to spot a black eye, but only if she doesn't have some talent with concealer.

Personally, I'm straddling the line.  They should be allowed to wear it as far as it makes them feel more comfortable, but they should be prepared to remove the headgear at any time, when asked by anyone in a position of authority.  This includes administrators enforcing dress codes, law enforcement officials asking for a clear look at the person they're interviewing.

[DGuller]

No offense veep, but it sounds like you just made that up.

My argument would be along the same lines.  Having women walking around in body socks would put pressure on other women of the same culture in the same vicinity to do likewise, giving the controlling men the cover to demand the same thing.  That would serve to lock the women into their own culture that deprives them of equality instead of allowing them to assimilate.  Banning those head socks would make the dynamic go the other way, the laws would give cover to women to not wear them, without becoming an honor killing victim.

[DGuller]

But how does some chick wearing a veil disrupt anything?

It's offensive to people valuing gender equality.

[Grallon]

Now if canadians want to wallow in multiculturalism like pigs in their shit - good for them. 

Apparently they do since they have ceased trying to crack down on those pesky francophones in Quebec.

You seem to have bought the fantasy that Canada is a unitary country and quebecers are a minority within it.  You should disabuse yourself of that notion.  Canada is a multi-national federation where  Quebec is the homeland of one of the founding nations.  We predate Canada.  In fact we *were* Canada before there were any anglos here.

Anyhow the toxicity of multiculturalism refers to the insidious nature of the 'canadian brand' of it - which was specifically designed and articulated to negate Quebec's collective identity and the nationalism that proceeds from it.  You however can be excused for being ignorant of the history and context.  You can refer to this article published by the federal Library of Parliement: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/936-e.htm.

I suggest you consider what follows carefully:

Quebeckers have expressed uneasiness about, or even resistance to, federal multiculturalism policy since its inception.  This uneasiness is largely explained in terms of their perception of it as another intrusion by federal authorities into their state's internal affairs.  Many are inclined to view multiculturalism as a ploy to downgrade the distinct society status of Quebeckers to the level of an ethnic minority culture under the domination of English-speaking Canada.  Multiculturalism is thus seen as an attempt to dilute the French fact in Canada, weakening francophone status and threatening the dual partnership of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.  For many Quebeckers, the idea of reducing the rights of French-speaking Canadians to the same level as those of other ethno-racial minorities in the name of multicultural equality is inconsistent with the special compact between the two founding peoples of Canada.

This has become more and more aggressive since the 1995 referendum about Quebec's independance.  The editorial piece I quoted earlier serves to illustrate the attitude prevalent among too many of our neighboors.  Anything designed to protect Quebec's heritage is labelled as 'tribalism' or 'racism' or 'crypto-fascism'.  And it cofirms what I've long held to be true: canadians' identity hinges on the denial of our collective existance;  quebecers cannot be a people since they're only a minority among others...  You see the circular logic don't you?




G.

[Jaron]

What if it is the woman's choice to live that way? Many seem to be under the impression these woman need rescuing, but when given a glimpse of "freedom" many choose to honor their traditions and values instead.


It is no different than a western woman who forgoes the workplace to be a happy housewife and stay at home mom. It equally defeats the progress of women in the 20th century: equality to men and ability to break the glass ceiling and head up in the workplace. We respect it though because it is their choice. That is the critical part of things, not this nonsense the rest of you keep bringing up.

[Grallon]

We're talking about Belgium btw, but the situation can probably be used for a few other places too. Not sure if to what extent Quebec can be compared but it seems there's signficant overlap:  a form of social peace bought with the fast secularisation of public society.

Precisely.  Quebecers turned their back on the Catholic Church in the 1960s - after centuries of meddling from Church authorities into the affairs of private citizens.  Here, this niqab business raises the ghosts of those days - when State and Church were locked into an incestuous relationship - and when women were subordinated to men by tradition.  And when the canadian doctrine of multiculturalism insists that resisting such intrusions is wrong, then it becomes intolerable.  For me anyway. 



G.

[Sophie Scholl]

So once again, it's Quebecois people demanding everyone bow down to their will?  You basically admitted it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with stroking your egos and demanding everyone respect your people while giving no respect in return.  Silly.

[The Minsky Moment]

You seem to have bought the fantasy that Canada is a unitary country and quebecers are a minority within it.  You should disabuse yourself of that notion.  Canada is a multi-national federation where  Quebec is the homeland of one of the founding nations. 

Right. It is a multicultural country.

Anyhow the toxicity of multiculturalism refers to the insidious nature of the 'canadian brand' of it - which was specifically designed and articulated to negate Quebec's collective identity and the nationalism that proceeds from it.   . . .

Quebeckers have expressed uneasiness about, or even resistance to, federal multiculturalism policy since its inception.  This uneasiness is largely explained in terms of their perception of it as another intrusion by federal authorities into their state's internal affairs.  Many are inclined to view multiculturalism as a ploy to downgrade the distinct society status of Quebeckers to the level of an ethnic minority culture under the domination of English-speaking Canada.  Multiculturalism is thus seen as an attempt to dilute the French fact in Canada, weakening francophone status and threatening the dual partnership of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.  For many Quebeckers, the idea of reducing the rights of French-speaking Canadians to the same level as those of other ethno-racial minorities in the name of multicultural equality is inconsistent with the special compact between the two founding peoples of Canada.

That is very clear, and something of which I was not ignortant of: namely that some francophone Quebeckers like multiculturalism when it redounds their benefit and enhances their cultural power and authority; they don't like it when it gives any recognition, respect to other communities or cultures in Canada. 

It is not that surprising to see portions of a particular community in a polity desiring a privileged position and the subordination of others.  What I still haven't seen is any plausible philosophical or moral justification for such a stance.

[Grallon]

So once again, it's Quebecois people demanding everyone bow down to their will?  You basically admitted it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with stroking your egos and demanding everyone respect your people while giving no respect in return.  Silly.

What are you taklking about?!


How would you react to guests in your house starting to demand that *you* change *your* hoursehold's habits to accomodate theirs?  I suspect you'd tell them to stuff it or get out!  Unfortunately here we're still too polite to show them the door... 





G.

[Admiral Yi]

Like Jaron said DGuller; where is your evidence for the claim that hijab wearers are all yearning to be freed from the tyranny of the tent?  I have heard interviews with women who have made the decision to ditch the veil and emancipate themselves.  I have heard interviews with women who wear the veil and claim it is an expression of their own beliefs.  I have not heard a single interview with a woman who said she would love to take it off if only the law would give her the excuse.

[dps]

However, if you let the women wear the complete veil out there, that culture of domestic oppression will keep on growing.  A muslim woman going outside the doors of her house with the veil is shutting herself of the new society.  And everything she lives seems normal, and her daughter(s) are raised the same way.

Without the veil, there is a whole new world.  She talks to other people, she sees other women, her daughter(s) grow up in that kind of world and they became less tolerant of controlling freak, at least, no more than normal occidental women.  Of course, there's always the possibility of honor crimes as we have seem twice in the past 2 years.  But, I think it's better if the veil is out when in public places.

It seems to me that if Muslim women seeing other women not wearing veils is a good thing, then it makes little sense to throw a veil-wearing Muslim woman out of college, where she is definately going to see other women not wearing veils.  And of course, by denying her a college education, you make it harder for her to have a career outside the home, making it easier for her male relatives to control her behaviour.

[The Brain]

I don't see a strong argument for banning niqab outside of areas where not allowing masked people is important for security or other reasons. Obviously such areas are very common.