I think Sam Stone’s post above somewhat addresses Chance’s question.
For some reason, Samuel Huntington breaks out “Latin American” civilization for special treatment, even though “Western” civilization includes both Spain and Portugal (and the U.S. and Canada).
The conspiracy theory of “political correctness”/“cultural Marxism”/multiculturalism should not be debated in this thread. The topic is whether the Dutch decision to abandon Multiculturalism is the right one. One could argue that they have embarked on a very dangerous path that could eventually lead to the rise of a new Führer in their neighboring country of Germany. Especially if you bear in mind that in the future, the United States will not be able to be the world police, because of America’s own economic problems and internal divisions.
You what??
Ah well, if you insist, all right then I’ll become the next Führer.
But mind you, it might not be such a comfy ride as last time around.
One could argue that, but one would find other people slowly edging away from one, because it shows no understanding at all of modern Europe. If Germany ends up taking over the rest of Europe it’ll be because it has foreclosed on it (they’ve practically bought Greece as it is).
This is more or less what I came in to say. The situation is quite a bit more nuanced than the OP implies. The “anti-multiculturalism” terminology is more an attempt to distinguish the current christian/right coalition from the centrist/secular “purple” cabinets of the 1990s, but in reality, many of the more effective changes towards stricter immigration/integration policies were implemented during the purple years.
In my view it’s also intended to imply a stronger emphasis on “Christian values” by the Christian Democrats who are in a steady decline; there seems to be something of a strategy to cast their party in terms of defending “Church and village” from attack by both the secularists and the coalition supporting, vaguely pro-Christian, anti-Muslim PVV. IMO, this is not going to work for the Christian Democrats and the current cabinet might well turn out to be the last one with the CDA in it for a long time.
Has a Dutch government ever before relied on support from a xenophobic/racist party? Either you cooperate with them or you don’t. There can be no nuances in this.
It seems as though in this case they’re basically ending the promotion of multicultural principles, rather than, say, forcing everyone to wear clogs.
But still, it’s part of a worrying trend. The banning of minarets and burkhas has been defended with similar arguments, but those measures really do impact on civil liberties.
For the sharia law thing, note that in many countries it is already possible for two parties to agree to arbitration by a mutual party, and as long as the cases are just minor civil disputes, the decisions are legally binding. That’s how shows like judge judy can get made.
So sharia “courts” are already implicitly allowed in many countries, but some actually promote their use, as compared to real courts they’re a quick and cheap way of sorting out minor disputes.
This one will be long :o
In my saturated, perhaps narrow, 12 year immigrant to Canada view, I call this a very simplistic view. Also, I think, the label ‘multiculturalism’ was intended and encouraged by whoever promulgated it and kept it alive in a socio-cultural space of this country in last 30-40 years.
There are, I think, two factors that are of importance when discussing immigrants in Canada. And while I’d agree that “quality” of immigrants is important it is not deciding element.
First factor in Canadian approach is the formulation and practical application of its motto * paix, ordre et bon gouvernement* and application of its laws to EVERY SINGLE citizen (and not only for citizens but for future citizens - aka landed immigrants - and any other person that is physically here even if the process outcome is for the person to be deported). You simply don’t have that in ANY West European country as the entrenchment into land-is-nation-is-land ideology makes “natives” always more important than the rest, regardless and despite various degrees of “quality” of immigrants (e.g. in Germany just on the basis of your accent you get promptly looked down, ignored or worse; on the other hand I’ll never forget my 1st day in Canada in a
convenience store on College street in Toronto where older gentleman with brisk English accent takes his time to explain directions to Kensington market to an older, south Asian lady who couldn’t connect two words of English).
Second factor may sound American but is, ironically, of Dutch origin: “live and let live” where social requirements for normal functioning are set at the minimum including language (admittedly, Quebec is probably more like Europe in this sense) thus leaving the “cultural” space for people to be filled the way they please – weather it’s enjoying the “native” restaurant and discuss politics of the country they left behind or join in hockey game in progress). Live and let live is what then gives people option and nothing better in society than to choose your own form of social engagement. You can’t do that in Europe – for example, in Sweden they have a rule that you, as a refugee, MUST go to language school for 3 years because they think that none can do it sooner. But then you have, for example, my cousin who did it in a year and they let her apply for a job earlier contravening long standing rule – later on she proved them wrong by becoming 1st ever foreign born member of Swedish parliament. This example again confirms what I said about inability of Europe to distinguish that individuals in various groups coming to their country are all different thus confirming that any individual coming to Europe has to overcome quite a steep set of built-in racist policies to succeed.
Please also note that I’m not here to say that Canadian society is perfect in every way – it’s just simply superior to European – the city I live is, according to census, 46 percent foreign born yet social order is maintained, crime is lowest for the city this size, and there is not a single ghetto subdivision. This has nothing to do with Canada being isolated or vast or not attractive to “losers” – it all has to do with social norms that any reasonable person who comes here cannot ignore and embraces as his or her own as they are indeed natural.
Every time I hear some immigrant complaining about whatever all I tell them is to remember where they came from, remember their friends or relatives in Europe and resentment turns to quiet appreciation. In other words, they feel lucky. Otherwise, if you really cannot stand it here, in Canada, you can move to Moon or something…
That was a total and utter fiasco for McGuinty who then had to ban other 2 religions too. It was kinda funny to find out that other two religions had it going since 1991. but only when 3rd wanted it for itself then all went down crashing. Which is, overall, good thing.
Another great public outcry that as a Canadian one has to be proud of was when John Tory, on his run for Ontario PM, wanted to fund private religious schools with taxpayers money. Did that send him to a dustbin of history aka radio talk show host or what?
However there already is religious schooling on the public purse through the Catholic school board. Tory’s extension to other religions was a logical progression if you accept the existence of the Catholic boards.
Faith based arbitration is still available in Ontario however - Ministry of the Attorney General | ontario.ca
I can assure you we’re not shooting Arabs in the streets, so some semblance of civilization is still possible - racist/xenophobic support or no. I’m looking at the actual situation in the country that I live in, not making broad generalizations based on pure speculation.
As Wilders’ party is supposedly funded by some large American-Jewish organisations, I would think that the racist xenophobes would oppose the PVV.
My understanding is that existence of Catholic boards (or, Protestant) is a complicated fixture of a Canadian political landscape even enshrined into Constitution. On top of that funding is based on directly expressed preference for public or the other (the other being Protestant or Catholic). I think it is unwise and somewhat misplaced to argue that that is why other religions should receive same treatment. What I mean is that it may have been very important during BNA implementation when the country was taking shape but over time other things happened (Charter of Rights, overall improvement of democracy and civil society). Over time original issues lost its ferocity but it requires change in Constitution to actually change it so I presume that most people deal with it same as I do - it is what it is, there is no observable harm so try to make best of it. I personally prefer French Immersion school board 
I do also feel some pain for people who have to fund Public or Catholic SB and on top of that pay for their own religious private school but there’s less than 5% of them so really I don’t feel bad after all.
Good thing nobody gives a shit what confused 14-year-old Jesus-fellating virgins think about adult issues.
Did anyone else notice that one of the articles quoted by the OP says the government will no longer help minorities assimilate and the others say the government will no longer help them maintain their own culture?
Damn, thought this was the Pit. I retract this statement.
The U.S. government never did much of either for immigrants, that I recall. What did the Netherlands used to do?
Who knows? Apparently they were doing lots and nothing all at once.
Same, you should know full well that the headlines here are highly deceptive. What was being suggested was that private arbitrators be allowed to decide cases based on sharia law if the applicants agreed to do so - an idea that woould never, ever have been controversial had any other religious group done it (and some have.)
Why shouldn’t two private parties have the right to have a dispute arbitrated by the rules of their choice?
Nobody has EVER seriously suggested Canada have a parallel system of Sharia law.