You’re right, you can never get those KKK guys to remove their hood in class.
But you’d support them if they wanted to keep them on, right?
And why is that? What would stop you from declaring that their pre-deluvian beliefs about women are abhorrent? That their culture is nigh-barbaric in this area. What’s with this PC nonsense?
I dunno; do you have a cute butt?
It would probably play out like this: NSFW: http://www.myvideo.de/
watch/4293877/Heap_of_Trouble
Because a culture that put people on the moon is apparently equivalent to one that allows women to burn to death in a building because they don’t have a head covering available to them to be allowed to evacuate it (look up related Saudi article on google).
Yes.
Huh… I thought we were talking about events in CANADA, which has neither put men on the moon nor burns people to death as quasi-state policy.
There were several Canadian contributions to the Apollo missions. I would make a wild guess that Canada contributed a lot more than Saudi Arabia, but that will change now that an astronaut’s full face mask is banned in Uzi’s Canada.
And when a niqab has the same basic function as an astronaut’s helmet, then you’ll have a point. But if a person was wearing a full face mask space helmet when they are talking to me for no apparent reason other than to protect themselves from my gender, then I’ll complain about that too, okay?
As an aside, did someone notice that the BBQ Pit is now ‘The Snuggly Kitten Forum’? Ah, it is April 1 in NA. That was yesterday here in Poland and went unnoticed.
Okay, the article is A Very British Coup: Canadianism, Quebec, and Ethnicity in the Flag Debate, 1964-1965 by C.P. Champion. To summarise some of the points it makes:
[ul]
[li]the Liberal supporters of Pearson who designed and pushed through the new Maple Leaf flag were for the most part from small-town Ontario, were very influenced by British traditions and thought they understood French-speakers and ethnic minorities, but often didn’t really;[/li][li]the new flag was pushed through very strong opposition in the English-speaking provinces;[/li][li]Quebec francophones, while they had expressed support for a new flag, were largely indifferent and many nationalists in fact preferred a two-flag approach, with the Fleurdelisé for Quebec and some Canadian flag, possibly the Red Ensign, for Canada as a whole;[/li][li]ethnic minorities were largely not consulted, but many of their members actually expressed loudly their support for the Red Ensign.[/li][/ul]
I fail to see how making it clear that religion is a purely private affair is paternalistic or claiming a right of tutelage over Muslim women. And why only Muslim women? I’m curious to know what this Orwin fellow thinks of the public manifestations of Catholic faith that are also currently under fire in Quebec. Would he find relegating them to the private sphere also paternalistic?
It seems to me that if we collectively decide that the society we live in shall be secular, then minority groups must accept this. And even then, we’re still agreeing to accommodate members of minority religious or cultural groups as much as possible. I don’t see what else we can do.
Don’t worry, you’re not putting my feet to the fire. Not by making a few short and sparse posts in your own thread where you insinuate that I’m like an Apartheid-era Afrikaner. That’s not even making a spark. I do have a question, though. Do you have opinions of your own or are you just going with what Canadians believe or what you think they do? Because if you really do believe that the Quebec government is in the wrong here, that 85% of Canadians disagree with you shouldn’t make any difference.
What is “the other side”, and who are “[we] guys”?
Now, what I think about all this (although I believe I’ve already basically said it). It may be true that the symbolism of wearing a niqab comes from a philosophy that’s at odds with modern Western thought. I tend to agree with this, and I understand why, for example, feminists find women wearing niqabs alarming. Now I don’t see this as a reason to ban this kind of dress: someone wearing a niqab doesn’t really force anything on me even though I may think it’s stupid or offensive. It really is just a personal decision on the part of the person wearing it, and the government shouldn’t be in the business of banning harmful and stupid personal choices. (Though perhaps we could tax niqabs, the way we tax tobacco and alcohol and think about doing with trans fats?) Maybe I would change my mind if there was a large population of conservative Muslims around me, but we’re not there yet.
This said, when there is a situation where a person must identify themselves by showing their face, or where seeing their lips is necessary, I don’t think we have an obligation to go out of our way to accommodate niqab-wearers. We can do it when it’s not too much of a hassle, which is what we call reasonable accommodation and is actually more or less codified so people know what to expect. But we have to decide where the limit is. And this is a reasonable debate in which good, honest people may disagree on where to place this limit.
Just colour commentary short of facts.
For example, suggesting the flag is red to maintain some sense of Britishness. Can you imagine how Montreal Canadiens fans would feel with a blue maple leaf flag ?
And did you know that it was a Quebec sovereigntist who came up with the final design of the Canadian flag? Yup, it was Jacques Saint-Cyr.
You inferred that, but I merely meant to point out how a people can be blinded by their sense of being hard done by the British leading to their oppression of others.
My opinion hasn’t changed. The futility of attempting to influence you is quite apparent to me however. I still maintain that the recent actions of the Quebec government are petty, completely unnecessary, and xenophobic.
You mean this?
That’s basically Caouette’s opinion, plus Pearson’s own admission. And it’s not even the main point of the article; I’d advise you to look at the author’s review of the media coverage of the flag debate. This would give you an idea of what the people really thought at the time.
Plus, “short on facts”? You may not agree with what he says, but you can’t deny that he’s done his research and he’s gotten the facts.
You mean like this? Apparently they did not like it much. (Okay, it’s not exactly a blue maple leaf, but you get the point.)
Apparently this is the name of the person who designed the maple leaf on the flag, not that I know much about him. He started supporting sovereignty later in his life? I can’t find almost anything about the guy on the Web other than the fact he worked on the flag.
And that’s what you believe, based on your total ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity regarding what people in Quebec really think. I have no problem with you not caring enough about what we say to even take a few minutes to listen to it, what I have a problem with is you coming to berate us using as ammunition your misrepresented ideas about us. Not that it really surprises me, though.
Of course you cannot influence me, not having done your homework and not understanding anything about what you’re talking about. But there is room for a very good honest debate on the subject of multiculturalism in modern Western societies, on reasonable accommodations for cultural/religious requirements, on the place of Islam in Western societies, etc. On any of these subjects, my or anyone else’s opinions could be changed.
That is my stance also, but I’ve yet to hear any reasoning in favour of the niqab that doesn’t rely on some rather faulty justifications, by my non-muslim standards.
I think what Orwin is doing is illustrating the divide between Quebec and the ROC on this issue.
I cannot speak for Quebec, but I’ve certainly spent a lot of time in both Ontario and Alberta, as you know. In both places, but in Ontario especially, there is a huge respect for multiculturalism–in fact, you might summarize it as “the more obviously multicultural we are, the better people we are.” We’re not quite at that point yet in Alberta, but we’re getting there. At any rate, in both places, it is clear that traditional and/or religious expressions are perfectly acceptable in all spheres, and accommodations must be made where warranted: a Sikh police officer can wear a turban on duty, and a university with a high proportion of Jewish students can close on Jewish holidays, for example. The lack of English on signs in Chinese, Indian, Russian, and Greek neighbourhoods is expected and welcomed.
This is in great contrast to the American “melting pot” approach, where immigrants (or at least their offspring) are expected to become Americans first, putting allegiance to the United States ahead of any allegiance to the home country. But this does not apply to immigrants to the ROC. In fact, it might be argued that immigrants to the ROC are not expected to be Canadian–they are expected to remain whatever they were, even though they live in Canada. Look at the remarks of some of the folks from the ROC in this thread–they are defending what they see as the Canadian mosaic.
Now, let’s examine what Quebec is essentially saying: that immigrants are expected to become Quebecers first; much like American immigrants are expected to put the US first. And in Quebec, we show our faces in the public sphere. Traditional and/or religious requirements to cover one’s face must be set aside in certain contexts if you are to be a Quebecer. We don’t care what you do in your home or place of worship, but if you are to be a Quebecer–and we expect you to, if you want to live here–you’ll set aside certain cultural things.
Does this sound like an American “melting pot” approach, at odds with the Canadian mosaic? Because this is how Quebec’s approach is portrayed in the English media, and Orwin’s op-ed is demonstrative of this ROC attitude. Rules and laws that take away the right of an immigrant to express his or her culture move us backward, not forward. Remember what I said above and look at the corollary: “the less obviously multicultural we are, the worse people we are.” I’d suggest that here is the root of the ROC’s objection–it is so used to this idea that “different” equals “better,” that it fears Quebec’s objections to any immigrant being obviously different means we are all becoming worse. But Quebec doesn’t see things that way: “different” equals “not interested in being a Quebecer,” and this is unacceptable to Quebec. In other words, the two sides define “different” in this context, well, differently.
I’m not preferring one point of view over the other (hmmm … by not supporting either view, I wonder if I’m setting myself up to be met by a lynch mob the next time I step off the plane in both Toronto and Montreal), but I have been noticing a fundamental disconnect between Quebec and the ROC on this issue, and it always seems to trace back to how each regards multiculturalism. Quebec says, it’s great as long as it’s in accord with Quebec’s traditional values and culture; the ROC says, it’s great even if it’s not in accord with Canada’s traditional values and culture. There are limits in the ROC, of course, but those limits do not extend as far as Quebec seems to want to take them. At any rate, I’d suggest that this is where all the controversy is coming from.
If they are not expected to become Canadians, then what the hell are they doing here? If they want to remain whatever they were before they came here, then why come at all?
It is expected that people come to Canada and bring the good things that are part of their culture with them. It should not be expected that we cater to the bad things. Who determines what the good and bad things are? Well, those of us already here, of course. Sucks to be them, I guess, but they have had every opportunity to change the countries they come from for the better rather than coming here and changing ours for the worse.
Spoons, your post reminded me of something which, once again, I read on the Angry French Guy blog. (Sorry for always plugging it in these debates, but despite the high number of trolls there they always manage to generate great debates.) And I’ll repost it here almost in its entirety as it’s quite relevant and I don’t think the author, Acajack, minds.
A bit of background about him, if it helps understand his viewpoint: he’s a former minority francophone, born I believe in Ontario, educated mostly in English, who’s lived in many places across Canada and is now in Quebec, specifically Gatineau. He used to be a Liberal in the Trudeau-Chrétien vein, and would have agreed entirely with the “Ontarian” view of Canadian identity you describe, but at some point had a change of mind and adopted some Quebec nationalist views, while remaining a federalist. From here on March 8, 2010:
This, of course, is his experience and others’ may differ. But it does largely match my impressions as well. Yes, it is true that being accepted as part of Quebec society is not automatic. It does require some work on the part of the person wanting to be accepted as more than a foreigner. But once this work is done, the person becomes truly “one of us”. Does the immigrant who’s automatically accepted as Canadian by Ontarians ever really become a true Canadian?
I remember speaking with matt_mcl who told me that the Dutch won’t ever let a foreigner speak Dutch with them, they’ll immediately switch to English and expect the foreigner to speak English. It seems quite nice and accommodating on their part, but my question was, how can an immigrant ever really become Dutch? Maybe they act differently with actual immigrants (Quebecers certainly don’t expect the same fluency in French from tourists than from actual residents of Quebec), but I do notice that the Netherlands currently have a problem integrating their (especially Muslim) immigrants and that far-right parties are making inroads.
Similarly, I don’t believe Canadian multiculturalism is quite as admirable as its proponents would claim. (I’m not saying you’re one of them, Spoons; you’re just reporting the common belief, in Ontario at least.) I think it’s more like apathy. They accept anyone as Canadian because that’s how it is, and that’s what makes Canada great, but without really thinking about what it means. And this rejoins what we discussed earlier in the thread about Quebec having a tradition of holding divisive debates in the public sphere, while in the rest of Canada these things are not discussed openly (although the Albertans’ reaction indicates that this may be changing). And I’ll say that if Canadians were truly multiculturalists instead of just enjoying how the claim of multiculturalism reflects on their open-mindedness, or just liking to see some ethnic colour, they wouldn’t find the existence of Quebec, a whole province in their country which largely speaks a different language and has somewhat different customs, to be so mystifying.
The turbans in the RCMP is an often-mentioned example. Indeed they are permitted. But the question is, how is it seen by Canadians? This same Acajack poster was living outside Quebec at the time, and saw a lot of opposition, much of it expressing itself as racism against the Sikhs.
And what I think is that by in large, these issues make the top news in Quebec while they aren’t much mediatised* elsewhere in Canada. Perhaps both groups wouldn’t be all that far from each other if they give their honest thoughts on multiculturalism, but the way the subject is treated in the media and discussed by pundits and political elites is different. We can see that Uzi, for one, doesn’t agree with the traditional Ontarian-like multiculturalism. He definitely isn’t the only one.
- Mediatised or mediatized? I’m never sure which spelling is Canadian, which one is American and which one is British. Is there a list somewhere I can consult?
That’s a very good question. Torontonians especially seem quite proud of the diversity of their city, and point to such places as Kensington Market, Little India, Little Italy, Greektown, and all the Chinatowns as examples of how wonderful multiculturalism can be. But I wonder–if an ethnic group were to gain a foothold in Rosedale or Forest Hill, would they change their tune? It’s one thing to have a quaint ethnic part of town where the signs aren’t in English; it’s quite another to step out your own front door and never hear a word of it. There can be a great deal of NIMBY-ism in the Toronto establishment; and whether or not it ever accepts others as Canadian, is a good question indeed.
I wonder also if local media and politics has anything to do with it. The Toronto Star, the newspaper with the largest local circulation, seems to casually toss around the R-word even when what’s at issue is somebody’s nationality, not race; and local politicians through Toronto’s history, such as Olivia Chow and John Sewell, built their careers effectively silencing anybody who dared speak against the behaviour of an ethnic group.
I think they’ve been shocked a few times at what it does mean. It sounds great to think multiculturalism means a variety of foods and colorful ethnic festivals, but I recall a number of times when folks in the ROC have been shocked at what the immigrants themselves believe multiculturalism to be. No cites, but just memories here:
– Sikhs want to wear their turbans in the Royal Canadian Legion, where head coverings are not allowed for men.
– Jewish shops that close on Saturdays but are open on Sundays are fined. Since changed, but the source of a huge debate in Ontario years ago.
– Ontario seriously considers allowing Islam’s Sharia law in family law arbitration matters. In the end, it doesn’t; but the subsequent debate probably would never have happened in Quebec or the US because the whole issue wouldn’t be even considered in the first place.
– A Jamaican immigrant, Albert Johnson, is shot and killed in his own home by a Toronto police officer for threatening the officer with a gun. The Jamaican community is in an uproar–didn’t they know that defending one’s home by any means possible is part of Jamaican culture?
On this last event particularly, but applicable to all, the line between “racism” and “multiculturalism” is quite thin. A debate over which is which seems pointless for fear of being branded a racist (justifiably or not) by the media and politicians; if one wants to avoid accusations of racism, one simply lets the immigrants do what they want. But given the points you’ve put forth in your last two posts, I think we may be on to something.
I’ll throw out another point for consideration that most Canadians don’t seem to know: a province can make its own laws as regards immigration into the province. From the Constitution, section 95 (edited to remove material irrelevant to this discussion):
Now, of course, section 6 of the Charter allows mobility between the provinces. But it is clear that constitutionally, immigration can be controlled by the province, if it wishes. To the best of my knowledge, Quebec is the only province that exercises its rights to make laws about immigration under section 95. Which raises the question: Is this new law that Charest is proposing one of these constitutionally-valid laws, or is it ultra vires Quebec’s power, or somehow repugnant to an act of Parliament? Finding out might put an interesting spin on the debate.
Somewhat applicable to the above, I just noticed the Toronto thread currently active over in IMHO. Seems the OP is heading to Toronto for a conference, and wonders what he should see in his spare time. Look at what Cerowyn suggests in post 2:
Emphasis added. This is, of course, the view of one Torontonian; and not a large enough sample to be statistically significant. But interestingly, on my visits to Montreal, natives have advised me to see Mount Royal, a Canadiens game, or an Alouettes game; or to ride on the Metro, or to visit the Olympic stadium or similar sites of historic and cultural significance. They have never advised me to visit Montreal’s Chinatown. But Chinatown, and other ethnic neighbourhoods, are often at the top of the list of Toronto things to see, as recommended by Torontonians.