[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

This discussion reminds me of my time in Vancouver.  I kept hearing the phrase "multi-culturalism" in the news and in debates.  That's new to me.  I told my parents, that's just euphemism on whether they consider us immigrants a net gain for the Canadian GDP, or want to kick us out, right? 

I was very surprised that Canadians spent so much time worrying about us.

As always you have a particularly odd view of the world.

[Malthus]

Then you should also be very upset he has a Sikh in his Cabinet.  They also have segregated temples.

All of them?

I think so, yes.  Men sit on one side and women on the other.

Of course there may be some breakaway splinters that don't cover their heads in temple, don't segregate etc.  but that would be the exception.

Heh, interesting. I did not know that before now.

Looking around, there is apparently no hard and fast explanation as to *why* Sikhs do that. Here's an interesting post on that question (ironically enough, sparked by a question posed by Jews - presumably not *Orthodox* Jews though  ):

http://sikhswim.com/2008/02/10/separate-but-equal-in-the-gurdwara/

So today about 30 people from a local Jewish congregation visited the gurdwara I attend. They were one of the best groups I've seen in a long time–lots of detailed questions and insights. One question threw me for a bit of a loop, though.

So you just told me that Sikhism is about 100% gender equality, and I get that, but why do men and women sit separately in the Gurdwara?

So a novice and dismissive answer to this question is, "yeah, it's separate but equal," but this ignores the fact that the phrase separate but equal carries a lot of weight in the mind of anyone that's read about the American Civil Rights movement. In fact, someone in the visiting crowd offered this answer with a chuckle before I even started my response, indicating to me they knew the loaded history of the term. So I didn't go there.

Instead, I answered with a story I've heard that explains the historic origin of the situation: When Guru Nanak was addressing the Sikhs, men would crowd right up to the front, leaving the women to settle for the back of the congregation. Sensing the inherent inequality, Guru Ji said, "Ok, guys, you get this half of the audience, and ladies, you get this half, so everyone has equal access to me." Now I don't know how true this story is, but a wise Gursikh told it to me and it does make logical sense.

Another answer I've heard but didn't give this time is that it's merely a protocol issue. If you start sitting girls next to guys, their minds begin to stray from the kirtan. By keeping genders separate we mitigate the issue. This response is hokey at best, so I didn't even give it as a secondary explanation. Also of note, Gurdwaras in India are apparently so crowded there are no "sides" to the gurdwara.

My question to you is–do you like my story? Does it have any historical backing or did someone make it up? How would you answer this question?

[Monoriu]

This discussion reminds me of my time in Vancouver.  I kept hearing the phrase "multi-culturalism" in the news and in debates.  That's new to me.  I told my parents, that's just euphemism on whether they consider us immigrants a net gain for the Canadian GDP, or want to kick us out, right? 

I was very surprised that Canadians spent so much time worrying about us.

As always you have a particularly odd view of the world.

Multi-culturalism at work 

[Valmy]

Sounds like it is just a tradition where you sit on one side or the other which is not even used in those crowded places in India.

I sure hope it is not the 'men cannot focus with their sexy relatives and neighbors sitting around them'. Geez if anything sitting across the aisle would give them a better view than if they were right next to them. 'My Cousin looks especially hot today'

[Malthus]

This discussion reminds me of my time in Vancouver.  I kept hearing the phrase "multi-culturalism" in the news and in debates.  That's new to me.  I told my parents, that's just euphemism on whether they consider us immigrants a net gain for the Canadian GDP, or want to kick us out, right? 

I was very surprised that Canadians spent so much time worrying about us.

As always you have a particularly odd view of the world.

Multi-culturalism at work 

Mono, you are a culture of one. 

[Malthus]

Sounds like it is just a tradition where you sit on one side or the other which is not even used in those crowded places in India.

I sure hope it is not the 'men cannot focus with their sexy relatives and neighbors sitting around them'. Geez if anything sitting across the aisle would give them a better view than if they were right next to them. 'My Cousin looks especially hot today'

Looking at the hot cousins was the best part of attending services! 

Anyway, the Sikh fellow didn't like that explanation either ("This response is hokey at best"). 

[Monoriu]

Mono, you are a culture of one. 

I have never denied this 

[crazy canuck]

Sounds like it is just a tradition where you sit on one side or the other which is not even used in those crowded places in India.

I sure hope it is not the 'men cannot focus with their sexy relatives and neighbors sitting around them'. Geez if anything sitting across the aisle would give them a better view than if they were right next to them. 'My Cousin looks especially hot today'

Looking at the hot cousins was the best part of attending services! 

Anyway, the Sikh fellow didn't like that explanation either ("This response is hokey at best").

I don't know the origin of the practice but I doubt equality is the reason.   Whenever we have gone for weddings and other events Mrs. CC always comments on how little room there is on the women's side sitting with all the children and how noisy it is.  By contrast on the men's side there is lots of room and the boys look forward to the day they reach the age when they get to sit with the men.

[viper37]

Presumably there is absolutely no reason for Trudeau to visit a mosque knowing that its leader has terrorist connections?  I just can't see how he can benefit from that.

The answer is that he likely doesn't have any, or if he does, they are very tangential; and in any event, it is unlikely that Trudeau knew about it in advance. This is a smear by association.

you mean as a Prime Minister of Canada, with all the resources at his disposal he still has no clue whom he's going to meet in advance?  Wow.  And people voted for that moron??

[crazy canuck]

Presumably there is absolutely no reason for Trudeau to visit a mosque knowing that its leader has terrorist connections?  I just can't see how he can benefit from that.

The answer is that he likely doesn't have any, or if he does, they are very tangential; and in any event, it is unlikely that Trudeau knew about it in advance. This is a smear by association.

you mean as a Prime Minister of Canada, with all the resources at his disposal he still has no clue whom he's going to meet in advance?  Wow.  And people voted for that moron??

Wow, you want the government of Canada to expend its resources to try to reduce the chances people will jump to illogical conclusions?  I can think of much better uses for my tax dollars 

[Malthus]

Sounds like it is just a tradition where you sit on one side or the other which is not even used in those crowded places in India.

I sure hope it is not the 'men cannot focus with their sexy relatives and neighbors sitting around them'. Geez if anything sitting across the aisle would give them a better view than if they were right next to them. 'My Cousin looks especially hot today'

Looking at the hot cousins was the best part of attending services! 

Anyway, the Sikh fellow didn't like that explanation either ("This response is hokey at best").

I don't know the origin of the practice but I doubt equality is the reason.   Whenever we have gone for weddings and other events Mrs. CC always comments on how little room there is on the women's side sitting with all the children and how noisy it is.  By contrast on the men's side there is lots of room and the boys look forward to the day they reach the age when they get to sit with the men.

Yeah, I'd give that Sikh fellow's story an "A" for effort.  Certainly *sounds* great, perfectly tailored to modern sensibilities, but I have my doubts it is objectively true.

[Valmy]

Yeah it seems like not having to sit by your kids would make it more likely you would stare lustily at your relatives and neighbors not less

[viper37]

Well, at least that's consistent.
Myself, I would not condemn Trudeau for visiting an Orthodox Temple, however much I dislike many aspects of Orthodoxy.

I would not condemn Harper, or Bernier, or Ambrose, or Mulcair for doing it.  I would not like it, but I would not call them hypocrite for doing this.

But when you insist on calling you a feminist, on naming 50% of your cabinet as women and then bring them to a place where they have to take a seperate entrance, put on a veil and not speak a word, yes, you are an hypocrite.

Sigh. Yes, exactly.
This group purports to be "about" studying Islam (a reasonable thing for an Imam to do).

Sure.  And the Skinheads seeks to improve the poor whites conditions.

It was founded by an unpleasant person with lots of nasty ideas about the ME. But you have not proved (or attempted to prove) that the group he founded is "about" ME terrorism.

Promoting Palestinian terrorism, no doubt.  Promoting terrorism against the Egyptian government, certainly.  Promoting terrorism to seek the advancement of a religious governement on many countries, sort of on the fence on this one.

To illustrate the difference: "Mr. X founded the International Society of Accountants. Mr. X is also a notorious anti-Francophone. Therefore, Mrs. Y, who lists membership in the International Society of Accountants, must also be a notorious anti-Francophone. Politician Z, who visited Mrs. Y, is clearly a supporter of Francophone-hatred - else politician Z would have chosen a better accountant to visit."

See, I did not join the Reform Party.  Many of their leaders/spokespeople, including Harper at one time, were clearly anti-Francophone.  Even the senior PQ leaders would not have gone this far against the Anglophones of Quebec.  Yet, I shared many ideas with the Reform Party at the time. 
Same for the Canadian Alliance.  I skipped two Federal elections, not voting, instead of voting for a party whom I disliked its leaders.  Never gave money to them.
It wasn't until the new Conservative Party of Canada was reformed, under new principles, abandonned its silly religious ideas, despite the religious influence on many members (nobody's perfect ) and adopted official bilinguism and seeked to promote it, as well as recognizing Quebec as a nation that I started giving them money.

I have principles, and I try to adhere to them in my personal life.

Now, I'll throw you a bone: it is true that nasty Islamicists have a habit of spreading their hateful philosophy about by 'piggybacking' on apparently neutral charitable and studious organizations, and maybe this is an example of that. But it is ignorant to assume as much without any evidence, and it is dumb to smear by association a politician for merely visiting such a person.

It goes to pattern, your honor.  It ain't the first time the Liberals have done such a thing under their new leadership.

[viper37]

Ah, I misread the question.  I thought it was about something else.
Yes, I would call him an hypocrite if he were to visit any religious insitution that promotes segregation.

Then you should also be very upset he has a Sikh in his Cabinet.  They also have segregated temples.

I am upset the Sikh puts his religion before his duties.  It's enough that we have judges like that, now I can't trust my defence minister.

What he does in his personal life is of no concern to me.  He is not the Prime Minister who insisted on giving a lesson to everyone about equality of genders.

[viper37]

This discussion reminds me of my time in Vancouver.  I kept hearing the phrase "multi-culturalism" in the news and in debates.  That's new to me.  I told my parents, that's just euphemism on whether they consider us immigrants a net gain for the Canadian GDP, or want to kick us out, right? 

Not really. 
There are two things a true Canadians fear:
1) Being mistaken for an American
2) Seeing Quebec of the French language progress from the threshold of death.

Multi-culturalism offers a convenient way to solve both problems at once.  By claiming you accept every culture as equal, you can easily discard any demands by one of the founding nation (according to John A. McDonald, a Conservative, sworn ennemy of the Liberals) to have their rights respected since the rights of a fundamentalist muslim must be equally important.
By claiming you are a multi-cultural nation, with respect to all cultures, you differentiate yourself, theoritically, from the American melting pot where each culture is assimilated into the greater american culture.

surprised that Canadians spent so much time worrying about us. 

When was the last time in history a horde of Asians started migrating to western countries?  Ghenghis Khan?  Attila the Hun?  Of course they worry!