[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

As noted above, the one article you posted, is not only now dated because of more recent SCC decisions which leave no ambiguity about the unique rights First Nations now enjoy, but you are mischaracterizing the concern.  The concern has been about the attempts at assimilation.  Not a concern about other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society.

From where are you getting the notion I'm saying Native Canadians are concerned about "other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society"?

[crazy canuck]

Ok, I see again where you go wrong.   You have conflated a concern about assimilation with the sorts of concerns Bernier talks about when he addressed multiculturalism.  Surely you see the difference and how SCC decisions since the article you cited gives First Nations the unique protections I addressed in my post above?

Huh? I'm answering a specific question - whether Native Canadians have concerns about multiculturalism.

I severely doubt additional legal protections address those concerns - all they do, is shield the rights at issue from change. Multiculturalism, as an ideology, remains contradictory to different groups having legally different group rights.

Malthus, context matters.  Look again at the context in which your own article mentions concerns about multiculturalism. It is entirely related to the concern about assimilation.

Can you explain your legal rational for why you doubt the constitutional protections recognized expressly by the SCC address those concerns and in particular how an "ideology" over rides a constitutional protection?  I mean, I suppose in a world gone mad where the rule of law no longer matters that would be a concern.  But in that world, First Nations, along with the rest of us, would have more pressing concerns.

[crazy canuck]

As noted above, the one article you posted, is not only now dated because of more recent SCC decisions which leave no ambiguity about the unique rights First Nations now enjoy, but you are mischaracterizing the concern.  The concern has been about the attempts at assimilation.  Not a concern about other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society.

From where are you getting the notion I'm saying Native Canadians are concerned about "other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society"?

Your own posts.

[Malthus]

As noted above, the one article you posted, is not only now dated because of more recent SCC decisions which leave no ambiguity about the unique rights First Nations now enjoy, but you are mischaracterizing the concern.  The concern has been about the attempts at assimilation.  Not a concern about other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society.

From where are you getting the notion I'm saying Native Canadians are concerned about "other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society"?

Your own posts.

However, I said nothing of the sort.

[crazy canuck]

As noted above, the one article you posted, is not only now dated because of more recent SCC decisions which leave no ambiguity about the unique rights First Nations now enjoy, but you are mischaracterizing the concern.  The concern has been about the attempts at assimilation.  Not a concern about other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society.

From where are you getting the notion I'm saying Native Canadians are concerned about "other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society"?

Your own posts.

However, I said nothing of the sort.

When you said that "If every group has officially the same rights, that implies stripping the existing rights away from the founding peoples" I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not literally mean that other cultural groups could actually be given the same rights as First Nations.  I went with the most reasonable alternative interpretation of what you said.

If you meant that comment literally, then that is simply nonsense.

[Malthus]

Ok, I see again where you go wrong.   You have conflated a concern about assimilation with the sorts of concerns Bernier talks about when he addressed multiculturalism.  Surely you see the difference and how SCC decisions since the article you cited gives First Nations the unique protections I addressed in my post above?

Huh? I'm answering a specific question - whether Native Canadians have concerns about multiculturalism.

I severely doubt additional legal protections address those concerns - all they do, is shield the rights at issue from change. Multiculturalism, as an ideology, remains contradictory to different groups having legally different group rights.

Malthus, context matters.  Look again at the context in which your own article mentions concerns about multiculturalism. It is entirely related to the concern about assimilation.

Can you explain your legal rational for why you doubt the constitutional protections recognized expressly by the SCC address those concerns and in particular how an "ideology" over rides a constitutional protection?  I mean, I suppose in a world gone mad where the rule of law no longer matters that would be a concern.  But in that world, First Nations, along with the rest of us, would have more pressing concerns.

The "context" is Jacob asking me, specifically, whether Native Canadians really had concerns about multiculturalism.

See the part I chose to quote, which very specifically mentions assimilation as a concern!

Now, an argument can be made that, in the face of Supreme Court judgments, Native Canadians do not face any realistic fear from multiculturalism as an ideology, because it has been neutered when it comes to them.

The legal neutering of multiculturalism merely means that, as far as Native Canadians are concerned, the "founding peoples" ideology has won as against the "multiculturalism" ideology ... for now. The two remain contradictory. 

[Malthus]

As noted above, the one article you posted, is not only now dated because of more recent SCC decisions which leave no ambiguity about the unique rights First Nations now enjoy, but you are mischaracterizing the concern.  The concern has been about the attempts at assimilation.  Not a concern about other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society.

From where are you getting the notion I'm saying Native Canadians are concerned about "other cultures also being part of the mosaic of Canadian society"?

Your own posts.

However, I said nothing of the sort.

When you said that "If every group has officially the same rights, that implies stripping the existing rights away from the founding peoples" I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not literally mean that other cultural groups could actually be given the same rights as First Nations.  I went with the most reasonable alternative interpretation of what you said.

If you meant that comment literally, then that is simply nonsense.

I did not "literally mean that other cultural groups could actually be given the same rights as First Nations". 

I meant what the article I posted said - to quote:

Multiculturalism and its promise of "tolerance" (within western institutions) and formal equality insufficiently recognize the sui generis or inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples which existed before colonization and continue still.

Formal equality = no recognition that some groups have "sui generis or inherent rights" (of the sort that have now been given legal support by the Supreme Court, as you have mentioned). How can all groups be treated as "equal" if some have more rights?

Nonetheless, none of this has, I think you can see, any relationship whatsoever to Native Canadians being concerned about other groups joining Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Right so I was correct to interpret your meaning the way I did. The alternative is to interpret it in a manner inconsistent with recent SCC decisions.

So what is left of your argument?

[Valmy]

Ok wouldn't 'unique protections' be privileging a culture in a way that is not consistent with the ideas of multiculturalism?

[Jacob]

The "context" is Jacob asking me, specifically, whether Native Canadians really had concerns about multiculturalism.

My take is actually pretty similar to CC's.

To me you came across as saying First Nations' concerns about multiculturalism aligned with Bernier's concerns about multiculturalism - that is, a loss of cultural coherence due to a lessening of dominance by the traditional founding nations.

However, from what I've now read it seems that the First Nations' cultures never had any cultural dominance in modern Canada - in fact Bernier's political fellow travelers are usually pretty swift to put the boot in when it comes First Nations' cultural significance and rights. So as I understand it, First Nation's concerns are that they are no more keen to be dominated, marginalized, and assimilated in the name of multiculturalism than they were in the name of English and French dominance cultural narratives.

In other words, I think it's a misrepresentation of First Nations' concerns about multiculturalism to enlist them to defend the defense of Anglo-Canadian or Franco-Canadian cultural dominance - and that is how you came across to me.

From what I've seen of the average politically engaged First Nation individual attitudes towards multiculturalism it's much more "you're all immigrants on Native land" rather than "multiculturalism is bad for a coherent Canadian identity and should be dialed back" (which is what Bernier seems to be selling).

[Jacob]

Ok wouldn't 'unique protections' be privileging a culture in a way that is not consistent with the ideas of multiculturalism?

No, not really. Multiculturalism does not have to mean "everybody's different, so we treat everybody the same," even if that provides a great hypothetical to refute on the internet.

Canadian multiculturalism exists in reality, and has to take reality into account. That reality includes the incredibly shitty treatment of First Nations - some of whom never ceded their lands by treaty or otherwise - and the recognition of that injustice.

At its core, multiculturalism is about finding ways to let people from different cultural backgrounds live together without enforcing cultural conformity on them using government power (as long as basic liberal human rights are not violated). That does no mean we have to abrogate the rights of Canadian First Nations to do so.

[crazy canuck]

Ok wouldn't 'unique protections' be privileging a culture in a way that is not consistent with the ideas of multiculturalism?

No.  It is more inconsistent with the American concept of a melting pot.

[crazy canuck]

The legal neutering of multiculturalism merely means that, as far as Native Canadians are concerned, the "founding peoples" ideology has won as against the "multiculturalism" ideology ... for now. The two remain contradictory.

No, the core problem with your analysis is the notion that First Nations view themselves as a founding nation of Canada.  That is your ideology, not theirs.  They view themselves as equal to, not founders of, Canada and its Parliament.

[Valmy]

No, not really. Multiculturalism does not have to mean "everybody's different, so we treat everybody the same," even if that provides a great hypothetical to refute on the internet.

Canadian multiculturalism exists in reality, and has to take reality into account. That reality includes the incredibly shitty treatment of First Nations - some of whom never ceded their lands by treaty or otherwise - and the recognition of that injustice.

At its core, multiculturalism is about finding ways to let people from different cultural backgrounds live together with enforcing cultural conformity on them using government power (as long as basic liberal human rights are not violated). That does no mean we have to abrogate the rights of Canadian First Nations to do so.

Wait with enforcing cultural conformity? I presume you mean allowing cultures to exist within Canada so long as they are not too oppressive towards the members inside the community in someway. Like some sort of violent coercion of cultural conformity.

In any case as a liberal type dude I am all about letting people do whatever they want, just I generally think individuals are what have rights. Communities have none. But expressions of individual rights ultimately create a culturally distinct community if the people inside want.

So multiculturalism is just...doing what Canada is doing now? Are there any steps needed to fulfill a promise of multi-culturalism? Is it a positive objective or a negative restriction on the use of government power?

[Valmy]

I mean would it involve setting up Vietnamese language schools and teaching subjects slanted from a Vietnamese cultural perspective, for example, as part of the public school system? Or perhaps these already exist and I am just behind the curve