# Anything wrong with Multiculturalism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533 "2005-09-07T16:08:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/41 "2005-09-08T22:43:25Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > You’re forgetting intermarriage. Is Tiger Woods seen as Thai first and American second? (My father probably had a grandfather born in China who migrated to Australia, but he never thought of himself as Chinese in any way, partly because he only worked it out later in life after researching family history). Yeah, there is a lot of intermarriage, and I was talking only about instances where intermarriage isn’t applicable. But that covers the majority of cases for people of any obviously different “race” (accept maybe in Hawaii) for at least the first few generations. Tiger Woods is seen as a (Black) American first and someone of Thai ancestry second. Most Americans can’t see past the African features to see the obvious Asian features that he has. Plus, he does self-identify as a Black American, all his talk about being CaBalAsian notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/42 "2005-09-08T22:55:59Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Nice attempt at misdirection. **Larry** and I have already admitted that America isn’t perfect, but you and **emacknight** seem to be trying your best to avoid condemning the killers of rape victims. I’m sure they appreciate your politeness and sensitivity. I think modern Islamic states are really f\*cked up. It’s not because of Islam, but because they are Theocracies. Americans look really strange/inferior to foreigners. Europeans are horrified by capital punishment, asians by our disregard of elders, arabs by our lack of hospitality, and antarticans by our casual attire. If you ranked countries by superiority of their culture America would be in the top 20, but I doubt it would make the top 5 (especially right now). As to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/43 "2005-09-08T23:08:44Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > As to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels. Hmm. I prefer Mexican tacos to Spanish tacos… And why is it that we need the French? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/44 "2005-09-08T23:13:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Hmm. I prefer Mexican tacos to Spanish tacos… > > And why is it that we need the French? 🙂 Fries 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/45 "2005-09-08T23:17:39Z")
[quote=DanBlatherAs to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels.[/quote] Well, this is my problem with multiculturalism: it’s either obvious or absurd. Of course we want Thai food and Spanish music. And of course it’s interesting and important to learn about other cultures. Is any one, any conservative, suggesting otherwise? But when you enter the realm of “no culture can pass any judgements on the practices of another culture” you’ve crossed into a mad and dangerous area. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/46 "2005-09-09T00:12:24Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I think modern Islamic states are really f\*cked up. It’s not because of Islam, but because they are Theocracies. Americans look really strange/inferior to foreigners. Europeans are horrified by capital punishment, asians by our disregard of elders, arabs by our lack of hospitality, and antarticans by our casual attire. > > If you ranked countries by superiority of their culture America would be in the top 20, but I doubt it would make the top 5 (especially right now). > > As to the OP, if you live in America learn English. But, please keep your culture as well. America without Chinese, French, Italian, African, Spanish, German, Jewish, etc. influences would be pretty drab; no pizza, blues/jazz, tacos, hot dogs, General Tso’s chicken, or bagels. That’s more reasonable. Anyone who’s read my threads knows I view myself as an aggressively bourgeois white male American fighting a tide of brainless cosmopolitanism, but I likes me some Thai food. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/47 "2005-09-09T00:40:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > One problem with the melting pot theory is that it doesn’t work as well with groups that are recognizably different. It’s pretty easy for a guy from Europe to come to the US, shed his old world customs, and fit right in. But what about someone from China? His grandchildren, born in this country and largely unfamiliar with Chinese culture, will often be seen as Chinese first and Americans second. It really didn’t work for some of us, did it? My family, for example, has no trace of the language of the place we came from and instead picked up the one spoken here. Same with the religion, the laws, the cultural celebrations, the customs, social structures, etc. They’ve been gone for generations. And yet, I know that I’m often not seen as “really American” first. Eventually, down the line, but not “first.” The melting pot in many ways seems like a fable, and at times a particularly nasty one. Multiculturalism doesn’t have the same baggage. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/48 "2005-09-09T01:58:34Z")
After all, multiculturalism has worked so well in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/49 "2005-09-09T04:35:29Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Fries 😉 The Belgians actually invented them. ---
**Author:** ![reckful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@reckful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reckful)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/50 "2005-09-09T17:41:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Likewise, a culture that supports foot-binding or genital mutilation of young women is inferior to one that doesn’t. A culture that treats women as chattel, in which religious leaders advise men to beat their wives if they are not obedient, is inferior to one that doesn’t. A culture that has a crime called ‘apostasy’ is inferior to one that doesn’t… More true words were never spoken. Side note: If you really do care for such things I suggest you take the next step and perhaps you should join Amnesty International? They really can use more help. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean we should go around the world changing other people’s cultures I’m sorry, but YES! Human Rights are for HUMANS. We should strive to change these customs around the world. This is what Amnesty International does. > [@](#): > > but certainly if someone wants to move to Canada or the U.S. we should have the right to say, "Fine, but understand - your women will have equal rights. If you beat them, you’ll go to jail. If you mutilate your children, you will go to jail. If another citizen tells you that Allah is a big weenie, you are not allowed to beat him or kill him. Canada (and the US) DOES have these rights. Not only for those who move here, but also for those who travel to here, travel throught here, or even commit these acts anywhere else and THEN travel here (citizen or not). > [@](#): > > This country practices equal rights, separation of church and state, and we have child protection laws. Has anyone doubted this? What does this has to do with Multiculturism? > [@](#): > > Oh, and English and French are our official languages. You are expected to learn one of them, and all communications with the government will be in one of these languages. If you have children of school age, they will have to learn English and/or French. Again, I ask: Has anyone doubted this? What does this has to do with Multiculturism? > [@](#): > > We will not accomodate you with schools in Farsi, Swahili, Chinese, or any other language. Ummm… wrong. Canada DOES provide funding to Canadians who want schooling in “Farsi, Swahili, Chinese, or any other language.” THIS is Multiculturism, and THIS is a Multicultural Country. If you don’t like it, get used to it, or move out. > [@](#): > > We expect all Canadians to be able to communicate with each other in one of our official languages. No, we don’t. > [@](#): > > If you think this is wrong, don’t move to our country." Too late, I think you are the one that should move. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/51 "2005-09-09T19:36:48Z")
> [@reckful](#): > > . > “This country practices equal rights, separation of church and state, and we have child protection laws.” > > Has anyone doubted this? What does this has to do with Multiculturism? Why do you ask ( "what does this have to do with Muliticulturism)?—this is the heart of the issue! Some people DO doubt this. When radically different cultures mix, somebody has to give up his values–either the hosts, or the new immigrant. If the immigrant’s culture is based on sharia law, which is totally incompatible with any western country that practices equal rights, separation of church and state, etc. --then there’s big trouble brewing. Right now, Canada seems willing to let muslim couples bypass Canadian divorce law and use Sharia, if both parties prefer to. But what about, say, a financial dispute between 2 Muslim businessmen? That would seem to be okay, too, if both parties prefer a Sharia court. So what happens when there is a 3rd businessman involved, who is not Muslim? Do you go by majority rule–2 out of 3 want to use Sharia law, so a Canadian atheist has to submit to an imam instead of a judge?. And what if the 3rd businessman is a woman:----does she have to dress in a black hijab or burka to enter the mosque and submit to a legal system that doesnt recognize her basic rights? “Muticulturism” is fine–as long as it is restricted to sharing music and cuisine. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/52 "2005-09-10T04:17:42Z")
> [@bornslippy](#): > > New Zealand is truly the best country in the world… and you know what? it is so good because it is multicultural. but its because its an its an integrated society to the fullest extant. its such a small population that no market could develop without the immigrants to buy the products. and these immigrants bring there own styles customs and produce. integrated immigrant communities not sublimed or “converted” ethnic minoritiesl give us such a varied and rewarding community. The only qualification to be a fuly accepted new zealander is actually to be there in country! Long live multiculturalism! I am half-Samoan and nearly half Maori, with smatterings of old-English in their somewhere or other. New Zealand has always been a bi-cultural society, but over recent years has made a move towards multiculturism. The rights of the Tangata Whenua (People of the land) are enshrined in law by our founding document, [**The Treaty of Waitangi**](http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/?PHPSESSID=d4090c477d1a3748a5ea87833443a54b) . Hon Justice Eddie Durie, former New Zealand High Court Judge helps define multiculturalism in New Zealand as: > [@](#): > > Multiculturalism has two aspects in New Zealand. One aspect concerns the toleration of cultural difference. The other concerns the celebration of cultural difference. The latter overlaps with bicultural policy development and can lead to competition for government support but more often I should think, the two policies are mutually supportive. However, the law is concerned only with the first aspect, the toleration of cultural difference. In New Zealand, this is normally in the context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. > > However, for the more complete and effective management of diversity I suggest it is more helpful to fall back on the tried and trusty rule of law. I have suggested that it is fundamentally about the relationship that exists between the state and its subjects. The only problem is that the subjects of Dicey’s state were one people. The state of the global age is more likely to have to deal with peoples. > > Accordingly, where Dicey spoke of individual liberties or civil rights, we have now to talk as well, of group rights. I suggest that the predominant issue now, for world and national peace and good order, is the appropriate accommodation of different interest groups within the life of the state. [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:O7h-kbRGUxEJ:www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/SpeechPaper/627fe255-b1cb-41b5-a9cb-5aaca33df5c2/ALTA%20conference%20-%20July%202005%20-%20Durie.pdf+new+zealand+bill+of+rights+multiculturalism&hl=en](http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:O7h-kbRGUxEJ:www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/SpeechPaper/627fe255-b1cb-41b5-a9cb-5aaca33df5c2/ALTA%2520conference%2520-%2520July%25202005%2520-%2520Durie.pdf+new+zealand+bill+of+rights+multiculturalism&hl=en) Durie also points out: > [@](#): > > Australia and New Zealand are also hosts to unique cultural groupings from the Pacific Islands. It is likely that the culture of some of these groups will survive onlyon our soil, especially with global warming. Their culture is like an endangered species although unfortunately, multiculturalism is not always appreciated in the same way as biological diversity. …Multiculturalism, in New Zealand at least, is more than just sharing cuisine and music, its about embracing and welcoming the differences between cultures. There has been no attempt to incorporate Sharia law or any other legal systems-in fact a recent court decision it was ruled that the Burka couldn’t be worn in court. But that didn’t stop our female Prime Minister from turning up at a Mosque last week, wearing the correct head dress and using the correct entrance. I’m pushed for time at the moment, but if anyone has any questions about multiculturism and how it applies in NZ, either myself or one of the Kiwi dopers will jump in with some answers…with the elections on at the moment multiculturism is a big issue, I’m sure they would have plenty to add… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![reckful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@reckful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reckful)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/53 "2005-09-10T05:48:43Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > Why do you ask ( "what does this have to do with Muliticulturism)?—this is the heart of the issue! Some people DO doubt this. Why would they doubt it? Canada does practice equal rights, separation of church and state, and we do have child protection laws. Can you show me otherwise? > [@](#): > > When radically different cultures mix, somebody has to give up his values–either the hosts, or the new immigrant. There is no such thing as Canadian values, Canadians believe whatever-the-hell they want to believe and do whatever-the-hell they want to do within law, regardless of weather they are an immigrant, native-born, or even foreign visitor. > [@](#): > > If the immigrant’s culture is based on sharia law, which is totally incompatible with any western country that practices equal rights, separation of church and state, etc. --then there’s big trouble brewing. Let me see if I understand your position: If… An Immigrant’s culture is based on Sharia law… And… Sharia law is totally incompatible with any western country that practices equal rights… Then… Big trouble is brewing. Well… I have to ask for some clarification, because your statement doesn’t seem too damning, your estimate of “big trouble” is… what exactly? What is this “big trouble”? Every time the government releases a budget enough “Big trouble” brews that could break the country apart. > [@](#): > > Right now, Canada seems willing to let muslim couples bypass Canadian divorce law and use Sharia, if both parties prefer to. No, Ontario is thinking of letting it’s citizens opt for Islamic Arbitration to settle civil disputes. The rules of such arbitration have yet to be set, but it is already stated that (like any other outside arbitration) they cannot break existing Canadian law. > [@](#): > > But what about, say, a financial dispute between 2 Muslim businessmen? That would seem to be okay, too, if both parties prefer a Sharia court. Again the exact laws have not been worked out yet, but if 2 NON-Muslim businessmen wanted their dispute settled by Islamic Arbitration, I believe they could have it done. > [@](#): > > If there are So what happens when there is a 3rd businessman involved, who is not Muslim? Do you go by majority rule–2 out of 3 want to use Sharia law, I believe that for outside Arbitration to work it would require consent from all parties. > [@](#): > > so a Canadian atheist has to submit to an imam instead of a judge? Not if s/he doesn’t want to. > [@](#): > > And what if the 3rd businessman is a woman:----does she have to dress in a black hijab or burka to enter the mosque and submit to a legal system that doesnt recognize her basic rights? Again, not if s/he doesn’t want to. I don’t like talking about Ontario Law because I am not a Lawyer or an expert in Ontario Law. Also personally, if I had a civil dispute I would not want it settled by Islamic arbitration, but this law is no for me or forced upon anyone. As far as I know: 1. Nothing is final, everything is in the discussion stage. 2. Ontario already allows religious-based arbitrations. Catholics, Jews, and even Ismaili Muslims have set up arbitration panels under this law. [cite](http://216.109.124.98/search/cache?p=www.oacas.org%2FWhatsnew%2Fnewsstories%2F04%2Fdec%2F22sharia.pdf&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&meta=vc%3D&u=www.oacas.org/Whatsnew/newsstories/04/dec/22sharia.pdf&d=U17mGcp5LWfh&icp=1&.intl=ca) 3. Ontario’s form of Islamic arbitration will be VERY different then the Saudi Arabian working civil Shariah laws, and it will respect women’s rights or not exist. [cite](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050907.ONTSHARIA07/TPStory) ,[cite](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050906/ca_pr_on_na/ont_shariah_law_1) . Some Offcial documents on the issue: [Summary of the 150-page report written by Ontario’s former attorney general Marion Boyd which started this all](http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/executivesummary.pdf) [the ontario arbitration act](http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91a17_e.htm) > [@](#): > > “Muticulturism” is fine–as long as it is restricted to sharing music and cuisine. Official Multiculturalism is being redefined everyday. But the way I define Multiculturalism is the acceptance of diversity. Make of that what you will, but this is not be restricted to just music or cuisine. If you do not like what Canada has done, tough. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/54 "2005-09-10T13:46:08Z")
> [@reckful](#): > > There is no such thing as Canadian values Yes, there is such a thing.The entire body of law as enacted by Canadian voters defines Canadian values–and these values are totally different than Sharia law. > [@](#): > > Ontario is thinking of letting it’s citizens opt for Islamic Arbitration to settle civil disputes. it is stated that (like any other outside arbitration) they cannot break existing Canadian law. Thanks for explaining that–I had understood that Ontario was thinking of allowing sharia _courts_, not sharia arbitration. But I do see a potential danger here of the slippery slope–big trouble could be brewing. > [@](#): > > the way I define Multiculturalism is the acceptance of diversity. Make of that what you will, but this is not be restricted to just music or cuisine. Diversity in music or cuisine is great, but it works because we all agree that each culture is equal. Arabic food is just as good as western food. But Arabic law is _not_ as good as western law. > [@](#): > > what is this “big trouble” A country thrives when its music and cuisine are mutilcultural. A country is in big trouble, --and can die from civil war-- if its legal system is mutilcultural. As long as there are iron-clad guarrantees that Sharia arbitration cannot break existing Canadian law, then the system should work. But then, it isnt really “muticultural”, is it?–the Muslims will have agreed that their system of sharia will be inferior to existing Canadian law, and must be changed to match Canadian society.And that is what all immigrants should agree to when adopting a new country I have a similar anwer to **banquet bear** - > [@](#): > > …Multiculturalism, in New Zealand at least, is more than just sharing cuisine and music, its about embracing and welcoming the differences between cultures. … a recent court decision ruled that the Burka couldn’t be worn in court. But that didn’t stop our female Prime Minister from turning up at a Mosque last week, wearing the correct head dress and using the correct entrance. Again, I say–sharing is great–but please note the limits: your prime minister “welcomes” different cultures–but isn’t willing to share their dress code. She respects them by wearing proper head dress when visiting a mosque (just like tourists to the Vatican remove their hats). But in matters of official public policy, like using the court system, she demands that they remove their Burkas. This isn’t muticultural equality–it is saying, "let’s be polite , but dont you dare try to force your culture onto us. Wear what you want in your private life and in your mosques, but in a public courtroom, you have to change to match our culture. ---
**Author:** ![reckful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@reckful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reckful)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/55 "2005-09-10T18:03:31Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > Yes, there is such a thing.The entire body of law as enacted by Canadian voters defines Canadian values–and these values are totally different than Sharia law. I say again, there is no such standerd thing as “Canadian values”, There is only Canadian law. If someone in Canada breaks such law they can be punished, otherwise they are free to hold any ‘values’, they want. > [@](#): > > Thanks for explaining that–I had understood that Ontario was thinking of allowing sharia _courts_, not sharia arbitration. But I do see a potential danger here of the slippery slope–big trouble could be brewing. Again I ask: What slope? This has been done before under Ontario law, already with Jews and Catholics. If there is a slope it didn’t start with Muslims. What’s the ‘Big trouble’ you are talking about? > [@](#): > > Diversity in music or cuisine is great, but it works because we all agree that each culture is equal. Arabic food is just as good as western food. But Arabic law is _not_ as good as western law. If that law takes place within the framework of western law then _YES_ it IS just as good. At least as good as any other outside arbitration. > [@](#): > > A country thrives when its music and cuisine are mutilcultural. A country is in big trouble, --and can die from civil war-- if its legal system is mutilcultural. Maybe you need to tell Sudan this? Because, it is only with a multicultural legal system that they now have [peace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War) FROM civil war. Or maybe you don’t know the fact that Canada has always had a multicultural legal system. We have ‘Sentencing Circles’ for native affairs, and in fact Quebec is being governed by a completely different set of civil law, Napoleonic law while the rest of Canada being governed by British Common law. > [@](#): > > As long as there are iron-clad guarrantees that Sharia arbitration cannot break existing Canadian law, then the system should work. But then, it isnt really “muticultural”, is it?–the Muslims will have agreed that their system of sharia will be inferior to existing Canadian law, and must be changed to match Canadian society.And that is what all immigrants should agree to when adopting a new country Arbitration (weather Jewish, Christian, or Islamic) is not meant to be superior or inferior to Canadian civil law, just a different (and more accepting) choice for those willing to choose it. Marion Boyd defines arbitration as: > [@](#): > > a dispute resolution method in which people participate only by choice. The court system is the only mandatory dispute resolution process in which people can be compelled to participate without their agreement. The Review heard that arbitrated decisions may be more acceptable to the parties, and more reflective of some elements of the parties’ shared values. Religious arbitration can allow the people in dispute to select a shared set of values and rules that may be different than Ontario law. Use of the Arbitration Act by minority communities is a way of engaging with the broader community by formalizing a method of decision-making which currently occurs in an informal manner. Your view that this will result in civil war seems over-the-top as it hasn’t already broken out with anyone else yet. In fact arbitration has the added bonus of making the law more reflective of the values of those who desire to follow them. Thus easing tension with the justice system. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/56 "2005-09-10T20:43:55Z")
> [@reckful](#): > > I say again, there is no such standerd thing as “Canadian values”, There is only Canadian law. If someone in Canada breaks such law they can be punished, otherwise they are free to hold any ‘values’, they want. Your definition of “values” evidently excludes the law. Under that definition, people anywhere can hold whatever “values” they please, whether they live in Canada or North Korea. So let’s drop the “values” jargon and talk about right and wrong. It’s wrong to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals. Fortunately, Canadian law prohibits this. Now, it is unlikely but conceivable that 50 million East Africans could immigrate to Canada next year. If they did so, and had their way with the laws, it might well become legal to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals (maybe those of someone you know) in Canada. But it would still be wrong. In deciding whether a law is just, do you, **reckful** , look strictly at right and wrong, or do you think a wrong action should be legal if someone else thinks it’s OK and might be offended if you tried to stop them from doing it? That is the aspect of multiculturalism that most people cannot stomach. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/57 "2005-09-10T23:21:41Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > I have a similar anwer to **banquet bear** - > > Again, I say–sharing is great–but please note the limits: your prime minister “welcomes” different cultures–but isn’t willing to share their dress code. She respects them by wearing proper head dress when visiting a mosque (just like tourists to the Vatican remove their hats). But in matters of official public policy, like using the court system, she demands that they remove their Burkas. > This isn’t muticultural equality–it is saying, "let’s be polite , but dont you dare try to force your culture onto us. Wear what you want in your private life and in your mosques, but in a public courtroom, you have to change to match our culture. …can I suggest that you are working from a too narrow definition of multiculturism? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/58 "2005-09-11T01:15:29Z")
Who met with me yesterday in a very small town in the middle of nowhere? Two families of franco-canadiens who did not speak English (a house sale). A family of Italians, most of whom did not speak English (an estate dispute). A family of Poles, who barely spoke any English (drafting a will and powers of attorney). An east Indian family that spoke extremely heavily accented (often incomprehensible) English (corporate contract litigation). A status Canadian Indian who spoke a fair bit of English with a heavy Oji-Cree accent (insurance litigation). I wish I had a better ear and memory for languages, for I really enjoy meeting people from diffferent cultures. Multiculturalism is fantastic! Extremely challenging to communicate sometimes, but well worth the effort. [off topic]Oh, and on my drive to work yesterday (about once a month I take a break and hang out a shingle in a small community about six hours away in the middle of nowhere), I saw: A bald eagle being chased by a raven, A lynx (we watched each other for a couple of minutes), A very large, fully decorated christmas tree in a forest, Three dragons (mama, papa, and baby) in a lake, A beaver lodge with a “For Sale” sign on it, and An “Oli Good Spring” (Finnish). Life up here is good.[/off topic] ---
**Author:** ![pokey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ebca7d/32.png) [@pokey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pokey)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/59 "2005-09-11T05:59:33Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Your definition of “values” evidently excludes the law. Under that definition, people anywhere can hold whatever “values” they please, whether they live in Canada or North Korea. So let’s drop the “values” jargon and talk about right and wrong. It’s wrong to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals. Fortunately, Canadian law prohibits this. Now, it is unlikely but conceivable that 50 million East Africans could immigrate to Canada next year. If they did so, and had their way with the laws, it might well become legal to forcibly mutilate women’s genitals (maybe those of someone you know) in Canada. But it would still be wrong. > > In deciding whether a law is just, do you, **reckful** , look strictly at right and wrong, or do you think a wrong action should be legal if someone else thinks it’s OK and might be offended if you tried to stop them from doing it? That is the aspect of multiculturalism that most people cannot stomach. I’ve already tried to make this point in this thread, but I wasn’t very explicit about it. When someone is victimized in a culture, is she automatically an outsider to her culture? Females all over the world may have their human rights violated in practices that are culturally sanctioned. Yet they share the culture. They don’t necessarily believe those practices should be a part of their own culture. There are right and wrong people in every culture. So by saying that there are people victimized in other cultures, even if the violations are culturally specific, there is resistance to it within the culture and people who resist it are not outsiders to that culture just because they believe in human rights. Victims and people who support victims are present in every culture, so it’s not a contradiction to say that a Muslim in Canada can not practice any aspect of sharia if it violates an individual’s human rights, and they would never be permitted to do that. That’s not because of the the culture of Canada overriding Muslim traditions, it’s because Canada enforces human rights. If you see Chinese people who respect human rights instead of abandoning girl infants, are they no longer Chinese? Are they adopting Western values? No, they are perfectly valid participants in Chinese culture. Those values are not contrary to any culture. It’s as if you believe that if someone practices sharia without violating human rights, they are not really authentic Muslims since the culture can not value human rights since there are people in it who don’t. Or that if the majority of Muslims were not fundamentalists, a whole culture would cease to exist. It’s not necessary to define a culture by it’s worst defects. And it does show an ignorance of the reality of many people living in it. It dismisses every person within the culture who is working to improve conditions for the weak or disadvantaged by saying that they are not part of their own culture–they are outsiders. And there is an implication that they must be western-influenced to care about rights. As if people all over the world in every culture have not had their own ideas about their own individual rights. People choose to come to Canada because they value freedom. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t bother to come here. By coming here they are not necessarily rejecting their culture, and they did not aquire those values by coming here or being influenced by us. I have friends who came here from just about everywhere and all of them came here for better opportunities for their families and for their kids. I don’t see them adopting new values because they came to Canada, I see them loving Canada because in free country, they can express their values without fear of the government or the police or the military or extremists. The law is different from culture, but they reflect one another. Sometimes it takes revolutions and civil wars to make the law conform to the will of the people. In some places, people are not free to live according to their values because the government isn’t doing what the people want. Remember when the Taliban was taken out, people rejoiced. People didn’t enjoy being locked in their homes. And women are people, after all. They didn’t necessarily want to deck themselves out like Paris Hilton, but they were happy to be free. Most people value their own freedom, and that isn’t cultural. Some people ONLY value their own freedom, and nobody else’s, and that isn’t cultural either. So you can really only say one culture is better than another if you believe that the people all over the world who share your values are really just westerners who got dropped by the stork into the wrong place. My view of it is that within every culture there are people who share my values, and that cultures evolve and progress at different speeds. I think it’s very wrong to imagine that there are some cultures in which the majority happily give up their human rights because they just don’t know right from wrong. All cultures evolve over time. Sometimes it’s in the interest of those in power to preserve and encourage traditions that keep the majority from expressing values like fairness or freedom of choice. That doesn’t mean they aren’t there. So what it boils down to is, are human rights a western value? I don’t believe that. I’m lucky that I live in a country where human rights are protected, but I don’t think it’s because we value them more, I think it’s because we are at a time and place in our history where we have achieved that. And consistant with how I value people’s right to freely choose, I don’t say my culture is better than one where women choose a role that I wouldn’t choose. As long as they are free to choose it, I will respect their choice. There is nothing indiscriminate about why I respect cultures that are not my own. And it has nothing to do with food. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533/60 "2005-09-11T21:40:16Z")
It is true that within a culture, there can be a diversity of opinion on many issues (many, but not all, because if a culture were indifferent to every possible issue, it wouldn’t be a culture.) I know plenty of Muslims. I expect them to abstain from alcohol. I’m not surprised when they do abstain from alcohol. But I try not to assume that a particular individual will abstain from alcohol just because he’s a Muslim. Maybe the guy got out of Saudi Arabia because he really likes wine, who knows? As to whether such a person is a “true Muslim” or not, I will leave between him and Allah. As it is, the U.S. accepts hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year from cultures that are very different from American culture. **pokey** , you’re saying that we are wrong to assume, for instance, that an immigrant from a Muslim country would advocate cutting the hands off of thieves. However, many Muslims do believe this. Do you think we should admit such people as immigrants? If not, what’s the alternative? To subject every Muslim immigrant to a detailed, probing interview of his political beliefs before granting entry? Because that’s just not practical - the backlog would be so huge, nobody would ever get in. The best alternative, it seems to me, is to admit reasonably small numbers of Muslims, to prevent Muslim immigrants from becoming geographically, linguistically or socially segregated, to act strongly against any tendencies for these immigrants to apply native traditions that conflict with American law and culture, and to require eventual assimilation. That way, fanatics won’t be able to develop a following or exert influence. I also believe that there is justification for holding Muslim immigrants to a standard of “Americanism” that we don’t consciously apply to native-born Americans. The alternative is to shut the door completely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-wrong-with-multiculturalism/320533.md?page=4)