Toxic Multiculturalism

[Razgovory]

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.

You mean like providing francophone services in anglophone areas?

[Grallon]

Right. It is a multicultural country.

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

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.

Can you honestly put on the same footing a people of 7+ million with a long standing history of occupying this land with 'communities' of a few thousands or a few 10s of thousands?!

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.

There you go again with the unitary equation.  Think of the European Union if it will help you conceptualize what Canada really is.  Outside of Quebec I'd say that most canadians see themselves as most americans do: different from region to region but all citizens of one nation.  Quebecers however see themselves as radically different.  It's very clear for us that we live in one country and our neighboors live in another - even though we're all sharing the same area - again much like french or germans or italians are all europeans; but remain themselves within their own borders.

As for the moral justification of the stance in this particular case (and all others such) I've explained it in my previous post: this society has reached a social equilibrium between modernity and tradition.  Anything that upsets this balance need to be circumscribed.





G.

[MadImmortalMan]

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

Gotta be more than that, since the other provinces have the same legal standing as Quebec, right?

[DGuller]

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

Canada is one weird country.

[Sophie Scholl]

Your people lost the war before my country even existed Grallon.  It's time for you all to move on.  Also, see Raz and Minsky's points.

[dps]

Right. It is a multicultural country.

How many times must I say this!?  Canada is not *one* country - it's a federation containing at leat 2 countries (Quebec and the ROC) - 3 if you count the Nunavut.

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.

Can you honestly put on the same footing a people of 7+ million with a long standing history of occupying this land with 'communities' of a few thousands or a few 10s of thousands?!

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group? 

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.

There you go again with the unitary equation.  Think of the European Union if it will help you conceptualize what Canada really is.  Outside of Quebec I'd say that most canadians see themselves as most americans do: different from region to region but all citizens of one nation.  Quebecers however see themselves as radically different.  It's very clear for us that we live in one country and our neighboors live in another - even though we're all sharing the same area - again much like french or germans or italians are all europeans; but remain themselves within their own borders.

As for the moral justification of the stance in this particular case (and all others such) I've explained it in my previous post: this society has reached a social equilibrium between modernity and tradition.  Anything that upsets this balance need to be circumscribed.[/quote]

A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

[Grallon]

Gotta be more than that, since the other provinces have the same legal standing as Quebec, right?

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



G.

[Grallon]

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group?

Civil rights are accorded to individuals, not collectives... 

A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

A) Segregationists?!? 

B) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.




G.

[Razgovory]

So if the majority feels they don't like Gays they should just be able to toss them out?  Gays aren't exactly "fitting in".  In fact they have long campaigned that the majority accept them.

I get the feeling you haven't thought this through yet.

[Barrister]

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...

[Razgovory]

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...

Java and the Heliopause?

[The Brain]

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...

Java and the Heliopause?

[dps]

So the civil rights that should be accorded to members of a group depend on how many people are in that group?

Civil rights are accorded to individuals, not collectives... 

Kind of my point

A)  I'm sure segregationists in the US south in the 50s and 60s would have agreed with you.

B)  No modern society is static, so the balance is always being upset.

A) Segregationists?!? 

Do you not know the meaning of the term? 

B) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.

Lord the iront. 

And so much for majority rule with respect for minority rights.




G.
[/quote]

[PRC]

B) The balance should alway be determined by the majority - individuals have to fit in a society - not the other way around!  And there can only be one society - not a collection of ... colonies from sub standard cultures.

Quebec... bend your knee.

[The Brain]

Bend your birches.