This is very unlikely, and nowhere near the amount of real immigration Canada receives, but continue…
It is possible but also unlikely as many east African countries themselves have anti-FGM laws, but lack any necessary infrastructure to enforce them or teach the population basic human health care. One only needs to look at the Literacy/ AIDS or even basic malnourishment rate in some of these populations and wonder how much worrying they set aside for harmful cultural practices. Not to say that FGM is trivial, but this is only one of MANY problems east African governments face daily. Canada is slightly better off.
Well… yes, FGM is still wrong. I follow you so far…
The second choice is just silly. If an action is wrong it is wrong.
Wrong (or unlawful) actions or simply not an aspect of Canadian multiculturalism. If you break the law, you break the law. Don’t you understand? Canada encourages people to practice their own culture within Canadian law. In fact, it is their RIGHT as CANADIANS to practice their own culture in Canada as long as it is within Canadian law. I really don’t know how to make this any more clearer.
If, you have one culture that practices FGM, and another one that doesn’t allow such an injustice, I consider the first culture to be worst, because of the stated human rights violation.
If, you remove the human rights violation aspect from the first culture, then I no longer consider one culture to be better then the other, to do so would be a naked example of BIGOTRY.
Now, I say again, if Canada encourages people to practice their own culture within Canadian law. What is the problem? I also suggest that if you have a problem with what Canada is doing (helping immigrants teach their children about their culture) maybe YOU should be the one to move out. This goes to Sam Stone or any other Canadian who doesn’t like what our government is doing. I say, tough.
I can see how this makes to someone who’s not really thinking that hard.
It strikes me as very unfair. If you want to admit a “reasonably small number of Muslims”, why not do the same for Jews or Rastafarians? Or Christians? All of these groups have extremists with interests that oppose American values. Until recently, fanatical Christians were a major source of terrorism in the US. Would you have favored limiting the immigration of Christians during that time?
If people are doing things that are against the law, we have a system designed to deal with this. But we have no system for dealing with behavior that goes against American culture, I’m assuming because it would–at least in part–require breaking what the country supposedly embraces: Freedom of Speech. We also are supposed lovers of “freedom of religion”, and I don’t think we need to be conflating religious activity with “our” culture. That’s more dangerous than anything a terrorist could do.
It may be a part of our collective heritage to put up Christmas trees and go on Easter egg hunts, but a sizeable minority of Americans do not and historically have not embraced these things.
It may be a part of our collective heritage to date and marry whoever we want to (except for gay folk, of course), but there have always been Americans who had gone the more traditional route of arranged marriages.
So while I’m in agreement with you that preservation of our law is important, I don’t agree that we need to be worried about people not respecting “our” culture. Our culture is a lot of things. As long as someone’s culture is not affecting a community’s standard of living, I don’t think government should be dictating people’s customs and lifestyles.
I’m wondering why you want the standard of assimilation to be greater for Muslims than for everyone else. The belief that we should be treated as individuals is at the foundation of our country’s “ideology”. By bucking it in the name of security, we would not be doing justice to either our values or our culture. And you’d only be giving terrorists a good reason to call us hypocrites.
I hope you take to heart of what I am about to say, because I find your views on immigration to be very scary and very backward. I would like to think that Canada, as a nation, has grown and learned a lot from some of it’s own dark chapters on immigration. Gone are the days of the Head Tax, and other such pro-white/pro-anglo laws. In fact, I had hoped that this Institutional racism is in the past to stay, but the fact that you are suggesting to me that we bring back some of these measures (or similar ones) shows to me how little we have come as a society.
There are have been many references in this thread to Sharia being introduced in Ontario. Not gonna happen (nor will it any longer for any religion-based alternative to the Law in fickle Ontario).
Well, I’m saying two things. One is that human rights isn’t an ethnocentric value. The other is that enforcing them doesn’t limit someone’s right to preserve their culture to such a degree that you are essentially asking them to change their basic values.
I don’t think the first is something anyone can argue about.
Whether or not asking someone from a culture that doesn’t respect human rights to conform to the law takes away the essence of their culture is probably a matter of opinion. Human rights is something that has to be applied evenhandedly to work. You can’t resolve the conflict between protecting someone’s right to chop off someone’s hand with someone else’s right to not have a hand chopped off. It has to be one or the other.
I guess what it boils down to is that to believe in multiculturalism, you do have to believe that some of your values are universal and that inhumane practices are not an integral part of any culture. I realize not everyone shares my view of it. My view of the world is that humanity is evolving towards recognizing fundamental human rights. If you don’t believe that, then you have to believe that some cultures are just intrinsically better than others. And how can I believe that when I know good people from all over the world?
Anyone who wants to become a Canadian citizen has to pass the test that shows they understand the rights and responsibilies of citizenship. You can’t segregate and make up your own laws because it would violate others rights to live and work where they want.
I think any group should be admitted in “reasonably small” numbers, probably tied to their proportion of the existing population. The alternative is “unreasonably large” numbers. I was only using Muslims as an example.
The only successful recent terrorist attacks within America’s borders have been Oklahoma City and 9/11, unless I’m forgetting something. The 9/11 attackers I need not address. McVeigh et al. acted because they hated the federal government. Some fanatical Christians have bombed abortion clinics and killed doctors who performed abortions, but the issue was not religion, it was abortion. Has there been some other terrorist act committed against the United States in the name of the Christian religion?
First, the law is a part of culture. Second, the law only says what you can’t do, not what you can or should do. I wouldn’t want a law that says you can’t speak a foreign language in a public school, but if I were a teacher, I would strongly encourage kids to speak English, and if my kid was in a class where the teacher taught immigrant kids exclusively in their native language, I’d complain.
Neither do I, which is why in an earlier post I remarked that Manda JO was talking about lifestyle, not culture. Nobody is going to tell Mexicans they can’t eat tacos.
I didn’t say the standard should be greater, only that the same standard we unconsciously apply to native-born Americans should be applied consciously to immigrants. If I ask a tenth-generation New Englander what he thinks of Osama bin Laden, I expect to hear a reaction of disdain and disgust. If I ask a guy who immigrated from Yemen last week, I also expect a reaction of disdain and disgust. The difference is, you don’t have to ask the New Englander because you know what he’s going to say. With the Yemeni, you’re a naive fool not to wonder. But as it is, Americans are just too polite to ask.
I’m not Canadian, so far be it from me to tell you how to run your country. Anything I said about Canada in previous posts, read as mere suggestion or speculation.
In the United States, race relations have been the biggest single problem since the country was founded. Trying to make our treatment of black people square with “all men are created equal” has been an impossible task thus far, and we still continue to struggle with it. I would merely suggest that we need to get our own house in order before we start importing additional racial strife. Our immigration policy continues to change the racial balance in America, but we haven’t even learned to live with the existing balance, if you can call it that. In other words, I don’t think immigration policy should be race-neutral - it should seek to maintain the current proportions. I know full well such views are anathema to most people.
The trouble is that human rights are universally applicable but not universally accepted. As far as inhumane practices not being an integral part of any culture, what about the suttee, or beating women who choose not to wear the burqa? People who want to keep their faith in human nature tend to argue these things away as aberrations or historical anomalies, but there they are.
So is slavery an integral part of your culture? Is denying the woman a right to vote? Or are they aberrations and historical anomalies when it comes to you, but not anyone else?
Slavery ended in 1865 and women have had the right to vote since 1920. It is true that suttee died out in the early 20th century. On the other hand, bareheaded women are still beaten by officially sanctioned patrols in Saudi Arabia, and slavery is widespread and condoned by the government in Sudan.
My understading is that “multiculturalism” refers to people who go to a country voluntarily, usually for economic reasons (but in the States, also refers to African-American culture). The factions in Iraq being one country resulted more from happenstance of history and British rule. Immigrants in the States may want to go to markets that sell food products from their native country, but almost always want to participate in mainstream culture in one way or another, and certainly don’t assert that the Constitution should be different in order to accomodate their political aims. When they don’t participate, it’s usually because they can’t master the language well enough, so they have difficulty understanding it.
In any case, the children of virtually all immigrants to the U.S. despartely want to assimilate, and do, more or less, notwithstanding economic exclusion. They go to school, where not speaking English (even where there are bilingual programs) is stigmatized. The peer pressure is heavy. I think the worries about “muliculturalism” undermining U.S. culture is kind of a red herring. The economic system alone prevents this. It’s just that we have a high volume of first generation immigrants. Some descendents identify with their origin more than others, but it doesn’t really affect things that much.
Imagine if you moved to another country–wouldn’t you like a place where you could see an occasional movie in English, or get some pizza from time to time? That doesn’t mean you don’t learn the language and learn the ways of the natives. But have you ever seen the Simpsons in Spanish? It’s more or less pointless.
I don’t even think that Canada is that different from the U.S., though I’ve been there only twice. I don’t understand why Quebec is seen as a “problem.” They have to learn English, and the people in BC have to learn French, and they all seem to particpate politically in a civilized manner. Don’t most U.S. highschools require a second language anyway? I know some kids of Latin American immigrants in the U.S. take Spanish to fulfill that requirement, but they still struggle with the writing.
Besides, OP is not clear on what exactly “multiculturalism” is. Some kind of policy in education? A general attitude in society? Even without immigrants, the U.S. would be “multicultural.” The South has a very distinct culture, and N.Y. and CA are very different in cultural ways. The melting pot concept applies only to a certain degree.
In the end, bring on the Thai, Armenian, Vietnamese, Indian, Korean, etc. restaurants. I don’t care what language they speak or how they “assimilate”–it beats Denny’s.
