Of the four most progressive countries in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) TWO have now officially abandoned “American” multiculturalism. Are you surprised that the Dutch and Danes are no longer in favor of the dream society of American liberals? No more affirmative actions for colored people. No more special subsidies for Muslim immigrants. Everybody will have the same rights and obligations. Doesn’t it sound a bit fascist? Can we allow the majority to determine the direction of our societies? Isn’t that just pure populism?
This news is not available in the Swedish media. Wonder why…
I must have missed a memo somewhere along the way. How is ‘multiculturalism’ a product of American liberals? And how is multiculturalism a means of having ‘two separate cultures’ instead of one culture that respects all within a larger framework.
Hell, we tried that ‘separate’ thing here in the US in the south a while back. It didn’t hold up to prevailing constitutional beliefs and was struck down.
In short, your argument, sir or madam, is a farce.
Multiculturalism very much encourages separation of cultures within a host country. As a Canadian, I grew up having it beaten into my head that Canada was a ‘cultural mosaic’, where immigrants were encouraged to maintain their own cultures and values, whereas the inferior Americans were a ‘melting pot’ where people who immigrated were expected to put American values and cultural norms ahead of those of their old country.
Thus in Canada you can be charged with a ‘hate crime’ for criticizing another culture, and there is a movement to allow parallel sharia law courts, and RCMP officers from the Sikh community can wear turbans instead of traditional RCMP headgear. In school here, great emphasis is placed on ‘diversity’ and on respecting other cultures equally and tolerating the existence of those cultures within the country.
This works okay in Canada, because Canada is geographically isolated from most countries immigrants come from, and most immigrants here have a certain amount of education and the wherewithal to get here in the first place. We tend to get the best people from other countries.
It isn’t working so well in Europe, where many of those countries are picking up the unemployed and uneducated people from other countries, then allowing them to exist within their borders as cultural outsiders so they remain unemployable and where they then become militant and demand that their own cultural norms be accommodated, even if they conflict with the cultural norms of the host country. This is creating a lot of tension - especially in the Netherlands where their ‘live and let live’ attitude has resulted in a large population of immigrants who are quite intolerant and opposed to the very values that allowed them to emigrate there in the first place.
I always thought multiculturalism was nuts when carried out to the extreme of setting up exemptions to a country’s laws or tolerating cultural expression that conflicts with the norms of the country. If my country values the rights of women, then I don’t give a damn if some immigrants believe women should be subjugated. If you come to my country, you accept my rules. If you don’t like it, go home. I have no problem with you maintaining your own culture so long as it doesn’t conflict with the values of my country, but I expect you to be a Canadian first and respect Canadian law and Canadian cultural institutions.
I’m curious why people felt it was ok for Christians and Jews to settle disputes outside the court system but not Muslims? What on earth might cause them to make that distinction? From the CBC:
(The bolding above is mine.)
So, if I understand correctly, participation in this was voluntary on the part of both parties AND it was fine with everyone as long as Catholics and Jews did it but suddenly it was a problem when Muslims wanted to do the same.
Again, I wonder why that might be? Darned if I have a clue. scratching head in puzzlement
There was a reasonable objection to Sharia arbitration, expressed by (among other people) one of my Muslim Canadian friends. It could/should apply to the Jewish arbitration, and conceivably the Catholic arbitration as well. Roughly: if Sharia arbitration is permitted, then there will be massive social pressures on some women to accede to it. Hence, their participation will be non-voluntary, potentially creating a legal avenue for discrimination against women. Hence, it is best to simply not permit Shariah arbitration at all.
Really, accepting immigrants from other cultures is always going to raise some tensions between pluralism and basic rights. Four points, though: 1. This tension exists even without immigrants (for example with the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the FLDS in Canada); 2. This tension often reduces itself over subsequent generations (as with many Muslim Canadians); 3. This tension is a perfectly worthwhile cost to pay for getting the best and brightest of other countries as new citizens; and 4. There’s a big gap between serious issues of rights (like the Sharia arbitration question) and purely symbolic stuff (like letting Sikh Mounties keep their turbans), although some issues fall in between (like wearing kirpans in schools).
No, there wasn’t. There was a one-off issue to allow Muslims access to a religious arbitration system that paralleled the Jewish and Catholic systems that already existed, with regard to some matters of civil law. As a result, the Jewish and Catholic systems were eliminated, and the issue hasn’t come back. It was not “a movement to bring Sharia law to Canada”: Sharia law as a whole was not proposed, and it was in Ontario, not Canada wide, and it effectively eliminated all religious paths. Your presentation is disingenuously general.
It will, on the other hand, be fairly easy to discredit you. You said that the Netherlands has abandoned multiculturalism. Yet the articles that you link to only say that one politician has done so and has proposed a law to that effect. That’s a lot different from what you’re claiming.
In addition, Jonathan Chance asked you in post #4 why you’re claiming that this constitutes a rejection of “American multiculturalism” and “the dream of American liberals”, when nothing in any of these articles has anything do with the United States are American liberals. I note that you did not answer his question. I’m curious about exactly the same thing and I hope that you’ll provide an answer.
American liberals also introduced the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which contrasted the Immigration Act of 1924 in one respect: Immigration should be allowed from all over the world in vast numbers and make the US a truly multicultural society(Hooray!). A few years later they lobbied in the UN for a legislative that would be very fateful for Sweden. The hordes of the third world that always have a reason to flee should be granted asylum in Sweden, the world’s leading welfare state.