Toxic Multiculturalism

[Viking]

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.

If at first you don't succeed?

[Oexmelin]

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.

Just as, I assume, people speaking Polish next to a Russian giant (then or in, say, the late 19th c.), people speaking Italian in a globalized world or businessmen insisting on the respect of human rights in China.

Issues of identity or even of values, I would argue, should not and indeed, are not reducible to economic cost-benefit analysis.

As for what constitutes the court of logic and reason, you will forgive me I hope if I don't rely too much on your authority  for definition.

[Eddie Teach]

Are dreadlocks banned somewhere?

Boot camp?

[Admiral Yi]

Young dude I met in Jamaica said cutting his dreads was a condition of employment at a hotel there.

[dps]

Young dude I met in Jamaica said cutting his dreads was a condition of employment at a hotel there.

A condition imposed by the state, or by the hotel?

[Sophie Scholl]

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

Québec is in Europe now ?   

I was responding to a Euro poster/article about Europe.  Thanks for trying to help with my geography though.

[ulmont]

Are dreadlocks banned somewhere?

It's been done in the US (ultimately unsuccessfully) and the UK (successfully).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=5845
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/01/education.schools

[Admiral Yi]

A condition imposed by the state, or by the hotel?

Door number 2.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Well I don't about the Muslim 'insistence' on wearing burkhas.  I live in probably the most Arab area of London and spend a lot of time in areas with a large South Asian Muslim community.  I've never seen a woman in a burqa.

Edit:  Hell, I've been to Morocco (which, admittedly, isn't terribly Middle-Eastern/South Asian) for a month in a few cities and I never saw a burqa.

[The Brain]

I live in probably the most Arab area of London and spend a lot of time in areas with a large South Asian Muslim community.

[grumbler] South African Muslim community? [/grumbler]

I never forget and I never forgive.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

You can say it all you want and you will be equally wrong each time.  Canada is one country; what you mean to say is that it contains more than one *nation*

I don't know whether this is a linguistic issue or just a failure to understand.

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?!

I can.  It is this concept called equality under the law.

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. 

Putting aside the improper usage of "country" for "nation" I don't see the relevance here.  Being very much a minority in the North American continent (and within Canada itself) one would think that Quebecers would be particularly sensitive to the practice of singling out people based on their identity for prejudicial treatment. 

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.

Societies don't reach equlibria because time has a very bad habit of not standing still. 
And *people* are not objects to be circumscribed.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

When I see claims like:

If the bitch wants to integrate she can start by taking off her 'slave collar'.   

adopting a snickering pose and claiming "irony" is a grossly understated approach.
In such a situation, there is no need to "retreat" to the moral highground; the ethical topography as it lies is clear enough.

I understand why Quebeckers expect and demand cultural understanding and sensitivity from others; it should not be too much the ask that those who make such demands abide by that principle themselves.

[Grallon]

I can.  It is this concept called equality under the law.

I see you insist on condusing individual rights with collective rights.  Not much left to discuss then. 

Societies don't reach equlibria because time has a very bad habit of not standing still. 
And *people* are not objects to be circumscribed.

People's rights can and are circumscribed all the time.  As you said above, it's called 'equality under the law'.  In this case, the law states that no one shall appear masked in a classroom.

As for social concensus, the majority here is in agreement that while individuals are free to practice whatever religion they choose - they are not free to impose those superstition on others.





G.

[Oexmelin]

adopting a snickering pose and claiming "irony" is a grossly understated approach.
In such a situation, there is no need to "retreat" to the moral highground; the ethical topography as it lies is clear enough.

I understand why Quebeckers expect and demand cultural understanding and sensitivity from others; it should not be too much the ask that those who make such demands abide by that principle themselves.

My point is mostly that there is enough (or should be enough) in Grallon's ideas to supply the matter of his refutation, without bringing in Quebec's peculiar political situation (let's call it nation-without-a-state) - or indeed, a sweeping reading of what Quebec is or is about. I disagree with Grallon on most topics, and that makes neither I nor he self-hating quebeckers. 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.

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

My point is mostly that there is enough (or should be enough) in Grallon's ideas to supply the matter of his refutation, without bringing in Quebec's peculiar political situation (let's call it nation-without-a-state) - or indeed, a sweeping reading of what Quebec is or is about.

My reaction is the same as when I see Irish-Americans or American Jews railing against immigration.  The fact the a historic victim of a certain form of oppression becomes a cheerleader of it once they are on top may not affect the underlying equities, but it does stick harder in the craw.

is 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.

That point does seem to come out in many cultural discussions . . .