Toxic Multiculturalism

[Martinus]

grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

[Martinus]

Anyway, a gay Quebecois ranting against multiculturalism and saying the minority must conform to the minority wishes or be tossed out is not something you see every day.

Is grallon more stupid or evil? Discuss.

[Martinus]

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.

When you have Raz smacking you around like this, it's not a good sign.

[Martinus]

Anyway, my main problem with allowing people their special religious dress in violation of a dress code applicable to everyone is simple: it creates a situation of a religious exceptionalism. Essentially, it means a person of a given religion has more rights or special rights people of different religions (or no religions) don't have.

The result is that the state (or whatever the authority in a given situation is) ends up as an arbiter of which motives e.g. to deviate from the dress code are "worthy" and which aren't - which I find to be a disturbing situation. For example, if we allow burkhas, we should also allow crossdressing or transgendered students to come in opposite sex clothes, or we should allow people in rasta dreadlocks etc. Which in the end makes any dress code meaningless.

So the bottom line is this: either you have a dress code that is enforced without exceptions or you have no dress code and everybody wears whatever they want. I don't see any sensible middle ground solution that wouldn't mean some people are treated better than others.

[Jaron]

Are dreadlocks banned somewhere?

[Syt]

Are dreadlocks banned somewhere?

No. 

[Oexmelin]

grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

[Grallon]

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

Martinus is merely demonstrating his usual ignorance.  However I'm afraid you're right about the rest.  Between the ideological blinders some here wear and the posturing of the others this topic always get derailed.  But you have to admit it's extraordinarily annoying to have foreigners presume to tell us who and what we are.



G.

[Martinus]

 

[Martinus]

grallon, the point is Canada is organized the way it is (with large autonomy given to Quebec) exactly because it embraced multiculturalism. It's not like country government or constitution cannot be changed, or that Quebec's autonomy is a god-given right - it only exists because the sovereign (which is the federal government) allows it.

If you rally against multiculturalism, then you must also accept that the current organization of Canada is dysfunctional, and instead it should be replaced with an English protestant monoculture ruled centrally from Ottawa.

This is a very peculiar reading of Canadian history (Canada embraced multiculturalism in 1763 ? in 1774? in 1791? in 1840?). Constitutional changes are at an impasse since at least 20 years, and under its current guise has not been ratified by Quebec.

As for the rest, we've had this discussion many times already and I don't see what will be different this time... the snickering, claims of "irony" and retreats to moral highgrounds will be the same and will prevent any meaningful discussion in favor of making political points.

The thing is, to an external observer, the Muslim insistence on wearing burkhas is equally quaint, ridiculous and silly as the Quebecois insistence on speaking French in the middle of what is essentially an English-speaker-populated landmass, stretching from the northern border of Mexico to the northern shores of America.

I don't care how many reasons you could come up with to illustrate why your case is exceptional - just as I don't care how many reasons any learned Muslim could come up with why women should be wearing burkhas. Ultimately, this is up to some cultural stuff that is pretty meaningless to anyone outside of the culture. Your explanation in this context is pointless (it is no doubt culturally significant for you, but in the overall court of logic and reason, it has no substance whatsoever) - it doesn't give your arguments or position any more validity than that of a Muslim woman wearing a burkha.

Ultimately, if you want to have any rational policy, build on some sense, rather than an arbitrary fiat, you have to ask if a given custom (e.g. speaking French, wearing burkhas) (1) harms "innocent bystanders", and (2) is excessively harmful to people participating in it. The latter is a tricky case though, because from an absolutely objective perspective, a Canadian speaking English as a first language is much more "sellable" in a labour market, both in Canada and internationally, than a Canadian speaking French as a first language; not to mention administrative etc. costs of running a bilingual state are pretty high; so this 'self-harm' must be rather high for it to disqualify the policy. By that standard, allowing a woman to wear a burkha to school does not seem to be more harmful than allowing a Quebecois parent to decide that his or her child should learn a rather local, useless language as their first language, instead of using English like the civilized rest of the country.

[Duque de Bragança]

What about yarmulkes?  Oh, wait, you Euros already solved your problem with those people.

Québec is in Europe now ?   

In France, which has the biggest jewish community in Europe, yarmulkes or kippot do not prevent identification so they are not going to be banned anytime soon for adults (or for everyone in Elsass-Mosel )

[Grallon]

...snip...

Take the red pill Marty, do!  Or you'll end up as delusional as Raz who keep insisting on taking the blue one.




G.

[Razgovory]

Still haven't answered why Francophone services should be provided in Anglophone areas.

[Queequeg]

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.

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to expect that from someone who openly pines for genocide.  That's about as probable from Grallon as an objective discussion of Byzantine History is from me.

[Fate]

Still haven't answered why Francophone services should be provided in Anglophone areas.

They should not. French should be forced to assimilate into the first world culture of English speaking Canadians.