[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Thanks to the Harper administration's record-high intake of immigrants over the last seven years -- largely from Asia and the Middle East -- Anglo-Canada's big cities are ghettoizing with exponential speed. There are sprawling neighborhoods in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere where very little English (or French) is spoken -- even among native-born children and teens -- where shops and restaurants make little subtlety about only desiring a certain kind of clientele, where the biggest celebrations of the year involve commemorating the deeds of politicians and preachers on the other side of the world, and where the only news worth following unfolds hundreds of miles away.

I have to call 'bullshit' on this claim.

I'll admit he didn't list Edmonton, but it's undergoing the same level of immigration from Asia and the Middle East as other large anglo-Canadian cities.

There are no ghettoes forming however.

There's one or two exceptions.  We do have a rapidly forming Somali neighborhood.  This is because it is one of the shittiest parts of the city, and it's one of the few areas that a bunch of poor somali refugees can afford to live.  There are also parts of the city with high urban aboriginal  populations.  Again it's the same reason - these are the poorest parts of town.

Beyond that, though... Those large numbers of Iranians, of Indians, of Chinese that are moving here?  They all want to live in the same "nice" neighborhoods as everyone else does.  So our individual neighborhoods are very integrated.  There are no ghettoes.

Do the Canadian-born kids speak their mother language?  Sure they do.  They need to to be able to talk to their grandparents.  But they also speak perfect, unaccented English everywhere else.

Are there bars and restaurants which serve a specific clientele, usually with news and food from home?  Sure.  And as an anglo-Canadian I'm glad for it.  I don't always want to eat pyrogies.  They certainly never, ever deny us white folks from shopping there, and in my experience usually go out of their way to help you find what you're looking for.

[Malthus]

Thanks to the Harper administration's record-high intake of immigrants over the last seven years -- largely from Asia and the Middle East -- Anglo-Canada's big cities are ghettoizing with exponential speed. There are sprawling neighborhoods in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere where very little English (or French) is spoken -- even among native-born children and teens -- where shops and restaurants make little subtlety about only desiring a certain kind of clientele, where the biggest celebrations of the year involve commemorating the deeds of politicians and preachers on the other side of the world, and where the only news worth following unfolds hundreds of miles away.

I have to call 'bullshit' on this claim.

I'll admit he didn't list Edmonton, but it's undergoing the same level of immigration from Asia and the Middle East as other large anglo-Canadian cities.

There are no ghettoes forming however.

There's one or two exceptions.  We do have a rapidly forming Somali neighborhood.  This is because it is one of the shittiest parts of the city, and it's one of the few areas that a bunch of poor somali refugees can afford to live.  There are also parts of the city with high urban aboriginal  populations.  Again it's the same reason - these are the poorest parts of town.

Beyond that, though... Those large numbers of Iranians, of Indians, of Chinese that are moving here?  They all want to live in the same "nice" neighborhoods as everyone else does.  So our individual neighborhoods are very integrated.  There are no ghettoes.

Do the Canadian-born kids speak their mother language?  Sure they do.  They need to to be able to talk to their grandparents.  But they also speak perfect, unaccented English everywhere else.

Are there bars and restaurants which serve a specific clientele, usually with news and food from home?  Sure.  And as an anglo-Canadian I'm glad for it.  I don't always want to eat pyrogies.  They certainly never, ever deny us white folks from shopping there, and in my experience usually go out of their way to help you find what you're looking for.

You are just an elite in denial of what Canada is actually like. Yes, you are! [/grallon] 

[Barrister]

The thing is however is that centuries of experience have told us that if you do want people to "fit in", the best way to do it is by respecting and tolerating their differences.

Jews (to pick the most obvious example) were hounded and discriminated against for centuries - and did a wonderful job of hanging on to their culture and religion.  Various radical religious communities like Max's mennonites survived through discrimination.  But in the last 50 years they're struggling - because the discrimination has vanished.

If you actually want the nice Egyptian lady wearing a Hijab (which doesn't cover the face) to assimilate?  Surely it isn't by taking away her job as a day care worker, forcing her instead to rely even more on the arab community and have her interact even less with the wider society. 

There's also an element of reverse psychology.  Tell someone "turban, no turban, doesn't matter to us" and I bet many people will chose not to wear one.  But tell someone "you absolutely can not wear a turban!" and they're going to insist on their right to do so.

[Malthus]

The thing is however is that centuries of experience have told us that if you do want people to "fit in", the best way to do it is by respecting and tolerating their differences.

Jews (to pick the most obvious example) were hounded and discriminated against for centuries - and did a wonderful job of hanging on to their culture and religion.  Various radical religious communities like Max's mennonites survived through discrimination.  But in the last 50 years they're struggling - because the discrimination has vanished.

If you actually want the nice Egyptian lady wearing a Hijab (which doesn't cover the face) to assimilate?  Surely it isn't by taking away her job as a day care worker, forcing her instead to rely even more on the arab community and have her interact even less with the wider society. 

There's also an element of reverse psychology.  Tell someone "turban, no turban, doesn't matter to us" and I bet many people will chose not to wear one.  But tell someone "you absolutely can not wear a turban!" and they're going to insist on their right to do so.

Yup.

The truth of that simply adds a level of irony to the debate.

[crazy canuck]

Deal!

Did you know that all laws from 1982 to 1987 all new Quebec laws invoked the clause? Just learned that.

She already said she wont in an interview in which she also said she thought the Quebec Charter was consistent with The Charter.  She was wrong about the latter so it wouldn't surprise me if she was being less than honest about the former.

[garbon]

I realized that I need to hurry up and take my trip up to Quebec so I can still legally wear my Raineesha X costume.

[Jacob]

[Grey Fox]

No Leafs allowed! I like that one.

[crazy canuck]

I read an interview of the minister responsible for defending this Charter.   He seemed to be suggesting that a tipping point was when an exemption was given by a private amusement park to their no outside food rule because the people obtaining the exemption could not eat the food available in the park for religious reasons.

Is this really the sort of thing that has Quebecer's knickers in a knot?   And if so, what is so horrible about this example?

[Grey Fox]

Yes. Because it's an exemption being asked based on religious ground. You get a different experience because of your religion. It's going to twist our panties everytime.

In the end Six flags didn't go thru with it, they didn't need the controversy.

I'll quote this again :

[...]an equally important co-purpose is the traditionally French idea of laïcité, an untranslatable concept, which, as Colby Cosh notes in Maclean's, is fairly exotic unto itself. While Anglo-American liberalism has come to champion a philosophy that places a postmodern ideal of non-judgmental, universalist moral equivalency at its core, in which all nations, cultures, religions, identities, lifestyles, and belief systems are equally respectable, French leftists, both in Canada and real France, still cling to the more old fashioned idea of objective right-and-wrongs. Religion, for instance, is objectively wrong to most French leftists; it's oppressive and superstitious and sexist and homophobic and all the rest.

[crazy canuck]

Yes. Because it's an exemption being asked based on religious ground. You get a different experience because of your religion. It's going to twist our panties everytime.

That is what I feared.  Complete and total intolerance of the other.  For years I thought Grallon was just the lunatic fringe of the separatist movement.  Now it seems the lunatics are running the asylum in Quebec.

[Barrister]

Yes. Because it's an exemption being asked based on religious ground. You get a different experience because of your religion. It's going to twist our panties everytime.

In the end Six flags didn't go thru with it, they didn't need the controversy.

I'll quote this again :

[...]an equally important co-purpose is the traditionally French idea of laïcité, an untranslatable concept, which, as Colby Cosh notes in Maclean's, is fairly exotic unto itself. While Anglo-American liberalism has come to champion a philosophy that places a postmodern ideal of non-judgmental, universalist moral equivalency at its core, in which all nations, cultures, religions, identities, lifestyles, and belief systems are equally respectable, French leftists, both in Canada and real France, still cling to the more old fashioned idea of objective right-and-wrongs. Religion, for instance, is objectively wrong to most French leftists; it's oppressive and superstitious and sexist and homophobic and all the rest.

Except there's a middle ground.  You don't have to believe that all beliefs and faiths are equally valid.  I know I don't.

However, we do have a system of religious tolerance.  It says "your religion is silly, but frankly it doesn't make much difference if you want to wear a silly hat because of your silly religion".  And even the French realized in the revolution that whether they liked it or not, it was a good idea to tolerate religion on some levels.

[Jacob]

I guess grallon must feel pleased and even vindicated - it seems the Overton window in Quebec has shifted in his direction.

It does undermine Viper's narrative of the evil Anglo media trying to demonize the French with blatant exaggerations when both he and Grey Fox defend this bigotry.

[Grey Fox]

I don't defend it, I'm trying to make you guys understand it.

Yes. Because it's an exemption being asked based on religious ground. You get a different experience because of your religion. It's going to twist our panties everytime.

In the end Six flags didn't go thru with it, they didn't need the controversy.

I'll quote this again :

[...]an equally important co-purpose is the traditionally French idea of laïcité, an untranslatable concept, which, as Colby Cosh notes in Maclean's, is fairly exotic unto itself. While Anglo-American liberalism has come to champion a philosophy that places a postmodern ideal of non-judgmental, universalist moral equivalency at its core, in which all nations, cultures, religions, identities, lifestyles, and belief systems are equally respectable, French leftists, both in Canada and real France, still cling to the more old fashioned idea of objective right-and-wrongs. Religion, for instance, is objectively wrong to most French leftists; it's oppressive and superstitious and sexist and homophobic and all the rest.

Except there's a middle ground.  You don't have to believe that all beliefs and faiths are equally valid.  I know I don't.

However, we do have a system of religious tolerance.  It says "your religion is silly, but frankly it doesn't make much difference if you want to wear a silly hat because of your silly religion".  And even the French realized in the revolution that whether they liked it or not, it was a good idea to tolerate religion on some levels.

You cannot expect this of Boomers that were part of the Quiet Revolution. Water is wet, Boomers are intolerant towards everyones religions.

[crazy canuck]

You cannot expect this of Boomers that were part of the Quiet Revolution. Water is wet, Boomers are intolerant towards everyones religions.

The thing I dont understand GF is why all this interance is boiling to the surface now.  I wonder if the PQ has looked at the demographic trends and have realized they need to start fundamentally changing Quebec society to remain relevant.