[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Overall hatred of anything religious, no matter who = not prejudiced.

Telling minorities their only purpose should be to assimilate, and acting as if this was true = prejudiced.

Well actually both strike me is prejudiced. It's just that in the first, you aren't prejudiced against a specific religious group (as in this case, members of the Sikh faith) but all religious individuals.

Heh fair enough.

[crazy canuck]

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

I think that it is just in terms of degree. I don't think it is a problematic to say that there is a lot of assimilation that occurs in America, but that hardly makes, even among the assimilated, us all the same.

I suppose it depends on what one means by assimilation.  The Grallons of the world have a fairly extreme version.  I dislike the term for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the terrible historical baggage it carries in this country regarding residential schools and the attempt to turn natives into proper British subjects.

[garbon]

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

I think that it is just in terms of degree. I don't think it is a problematic to say that there is a lot of assimilation that occurs in America, but that hardly makes, even among the assimilated, us all the same.

Or that the "assimilation" necessarily all goes one way ...

True that.

[garbon]

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

I think that it is just in terms of degree. I don't think it is a problematic to say that there is a lot of assimilation that occurs in America, but that hardly makes, even among the assimilated, us all the same.

I suppose it depends on what one means by assimilation.  The Grallons of the world have a fairly extreme version.  I dislike the term for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the terrible historical baggage it carries in this country regarding residential schools and the attempt to turn natives into proper British subjects.

That's totally fair. I'll agree that it isn't a term that I particularly like, nor one that I would generally use.

[Admiral Yi]

If it is a piece of "equipment", there is only one allowable function it can have - and that is protection.

In short, under either paragraph, it is allowed.

Except that the purpose of Sikh headgear is not solely protection. 

If the sequence holds, this is the part when you say headgear is clothing, not equipment.  Then I do my bit about the contradiction.  Ad infinitum.

Seems pretty clear that they wanted to catch both "equipment" and "clothing". That is, after all, what they say, the plain meaning of the language they used. 

Sure, that's more or less what I said.

In summary, while the 'it has another purpose and so isn't allowed' position may appear, at first glance, to make sense, on actually thinking it through and reading the whole rule, it doesn't.

This is better than "it's obvious," but not by much. 

[Valmy]

I suppose it depends on what one means by assimilation.  The Grallons of the world have a fairly extreme version.  I dislike the term for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the terrible historical baggage it carries in this country regarding residential schools and the attempt to turn natives into proper British subjects.

Well if you have a better term let me hear it.

To my mind it is just the process in which immigrants become members of the community of their new home and typically takes place in the course of a few generations.  Typically, if the immigration group is large enough, it also impacts the host country as well.  That point where if the immigrant group were to move back to the original country it would be a weird and foreign place in alot of ways. 

[Valmy]

That's totally fair. I'll agree that it isn't a term that I particularly like, nor one that I would generally use.

Is that totally fair?  Was the word actually used at the time 'assimilating' the Native Americans?  I usually heard things like 'civilizing' but not 'assimilating'.  And if that is not the term we are supposed to use pray tell what is the proper one?

[garbon]

I suppose it depends on what one means by assimilation.  The Grallons of the world have a fairly extreme version.  I dislike the term for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the terrible historical baggage it carries in this country regarding residential schools and the attempt to turn natives into proper British subjects.

Well if you have a better term let me hear it.

To my mind it is just the process in which immigrants become members of the community of their new home and typically takes place in the course of a few generations.  Typically, if the immigration group is large enough, it also impacts the host country as well.  That point where if the immigrant group were to move back to the original country it would be a weird and foreign place in alot of ways. 

Actually I think acculturation might work nicely. I think that more strongly plays up the play in which immigrants are affected and also the host culture is affected.

[Valmy]

Actually I think acculturation might work nicely. I think that more strongly plays up the play in which immigrants are affected and also the host culture is affected.

Fair enough I will try to use that word from now on.

[garbon]

Also that was supposed to be "plays up the way".

[Grallon]

To my mind, the Quebec attitude *is* a roadblock, as (ironically enough) people from Quebec never cease to demonstrate - adding symbolic "humiliations" against a person's self-identity is the most certain way to get them to cling to it.

*shrug* By and large your state religion is rejected here.  As a matter of fact that link Viper posted above is an article by an immigrant woman, journalist, who *also* rejects multiculturalism, at least the variety practiced in Canada.  In recent years a variant of it, called 'interculturalism', has gained some adherents but that too is seen with distrust.  But be that as it may - we'll never see eye to eye on this so it's pointless to discuss it further.



G.

[Neil]

Yes, multiculturalism is bad.  But so is being a dick for the sake of being a dick.  And the second is what the francophones are guilty of.  YOU LOST THE WAR.  Just learn English.

[Malthus]

Except that the purpose of Sikh headgear is not solely protection. 

If the sequence holds, this is the part when you say headgear is clothing, not equipment.  Then I do my bit about the contradiction.  Ad infinitum.

Equipment is something that has a function - as in "this is my rock-climbing equipment".

The term "purpose", in the context of "equipment", must refer to a purpose that is of functional use, in this case, in the game of soccer. What the rule says is that the only such functional purpose your equipment can have is protection. 

It is true that the rule doesn't include the words "functional purpose", but then, it doesn't really have to - because it only covers "equipment", which is presumed to have some sort of functional purpose, right?

Another way of rephasing the rule would be to say 'to the extent the shit you are wearing in addition to the required shit has a function in the game of soccer, the only function it may have is protection". They didn't put itb that way presumably because they are more interested in athletics than in rules-lawyering, and because in context, it means that anyway.

That seemed pretty clear to me, but I guess it isn't to you.

[crazy canuck]

To my mind it is just the process in which immigrants become members of the community of their new home

We call that immigration dont we?

[viper37]

Good one