Multiculturalism and "right and wrong"

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK.

It's time we approached this thing from a simple perspective.

Before getting into the nuances of "tolerance" etc. let's establish some rules of the game.

Can everyone on here agree on a couple of things?

1. Different cultures have different characteristics. - after all - if they didn't, then there is no such thing as "multiculturalism" - right?

2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics.

3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society.

Is this a fair starting point?

[M.Dancer]

OK.

Is this a fair starting point?

Very reasonable.

[guyser]

Very reasonable.

What he said ^

[JerrySeinfeld]

OK - so based upon this premise - think about people and "racism" or "prejudice" as it were.

Is it possible that prejudice is all around us all the time - left wingers, right wingers...etc. Grouping people together and maknig generalizations about them.

I hear left wing zealots making durogatory remarks about Americans all the time. Or men. Or white people.

What about "positive" prejudice"? Don't we hear and accept that all the time?

Is it OK to say "the chinese are generally excellent immigrants: peaceful educated, industrious" ?

I would venture that most people, left wing and right wing, would listen to that statement and not only allow for it, but agree with it.

So when it comes to prejudice, we do seem to allow it (and even encourage it) on both sides of the political spectrum. (Of course, we all know lefties have cornered the market on calling people names and painting people with broad brushes like like "bigot" etc. which is kind of ironic when you think about it).

How does this pertain to multiculturalism?

Well, if we can be honest about positive aspects of a particular culture, why can't we be honest about the negative ones? We do it about ourselves all the time. In Canada we constantly see marches and protests criticizing this or that government policy of societal condition.

Now stay with me here, my question is this:

If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time?

Are we so obsessed with race and culture that we can't be honest with eachother about our faults?

[sharkman]

I want to be sure I follow, are you referring to cultures being given a free pass as it were for their intolernt ideas, such as treatment of women? If so, I'm not sure they are interested in examining such traits, but those on the left tend to say they should be allowed to live according to their cultures here in Canada. If I'm missing something, please explain.

[Michael Hardner]

Jerry,

This is your most interesting post ever, I think.

How does this pertain to multiculturalism?

Well, if we can be honest about positive aspects of a particular culture, why can't we be honest about the negative ones? We do it about ourselves all the time. In Canada we constantly see marches and protests criticizing this or that government policy of societal condition.

Now stay with me here, my question is this:

If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time?

Are we so obsessed with race and culture that we can't be honest with eachother about our faults?

I'm going to address the strictly 'PC' aspect to multiculturalism, and leave aside hate speech and that whole kettle of racist fish.

How well do you have to know somebody to be able to tell them "you're fat" ? Would you tell a stranger ? No. It's just rude. People generally don't say negative things about groups of people, except maybe comedians trying to get a cheap laugh.

Furthermore, many of the GOOD/BAD aspects you discuss above are subjective. One man's "cheap" is another man's "frugal" and so forth.

What do you think ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry,

This is your most interesting post ever, I think.

I'm going to address the strictly 'PC' aspect to multiculturalism, and leave aside hate speech and that whole kettle of racist fish.

How well do you have to know somebody to be able to tell them "you're fat" ? Would you tell a stranger ? No. It's just rude. People generally don't say negative things about groups of people, except maybe comedians trying to get a cheap laugh.

Furthermore, many of the GOOD/BAD aspects you discuss above are subjective. One man's "cheap" is another man's "frugal" and so forth.

What do you think ?

I think that's what's called "moral relativism" isn't it? Nobody has to be ashamed / called out for anything anymore. Is that good? You tell me. I personally think there has to be some kind of "definition" of our common beliefs or values as a society.

Isn't that, after all, the definition of a "society"? That's mine, anyway. Otherwise, isn't Canada (or some other multicutural country) just a hotel? A void waiting to be filled by a more confident, well-defined group?

But you've gotten to the crux of where I was going with this:

1. Do we, as a country, or any other country, define ourselves by a set of common values or beliefs and behaviors which we will try to uphold and defend?

or

2. Do we shift with the demographic winds? Do we simply define ourselves by the beliefs of our "tenants" of the day in this hotel?

[guyser]

But you've gotten to the crux of where I was going with this:

1. Do we, as a country, or any other country, define ourselves by a set of common values or beliefs and behaviors which we will try to uphold and defend?

Yes.

But our values and those we cherish are not constructs that cannot be changed. Culture is fluid and is dependant on "most" people upholding them. See churches. At last glance ( now some years ago) 14-17% of CDNS went to church vs almost 50% of americans. The point being that although we had a christian nation to start with (well sort of) we certainly dont have one now , and we are a better country than we used to be. We hold hockey to be part of our culture and all peoples of Canada participate, be it white black religious or not, immigrant or not, they all seem to catch the bug.

Some will or have , tried to ask if the treatment of women , or mistreatment as it were, is allowed by new comers to Canada. No no and no again. We allow for cultural idiosyncrasies , but only so far as it pertains to Canadian Law. No one now or ever has campaigned on nor advocated anything of the kind. This applies to all cultures, come here and practice your culture but only insofar as it respects the laws of the land. Dont and you will be in jail in no time.

or

2. Do we shift with the demographic winds? Do we simply define ourselves by the beliefs of our "tenants" of the day in this hotel?

Can a shift be stopped? If it is pervasive, be it cultural or not, things change , and we shift w the demo's. I suppose it is majority rule in that case.

[Michael Hardner]

As has been said, the closest thing we have to values is the constitution.

I think that's what's called "moral relativism" isn't it? Nobody has to be ashamed / called out for anything anymore. Is that good? You tell me. I personally think there has to be some kind of "definition" of our common beliefs or values as a society.

Addressing the example I gave, there are two sides to every coin.

[M.Dancer]

Is it OK to say "the chinese are generally excellent immigrants: peaceful educated, industrious" ?

Yes because it is true. If it were false it would be wrong.

[Melanie_]

Jerry, I generally agree with what you are saying, but I think the only common morals and values we can expect of all Canadians are the ones mandated by law. Laws have to be impartial, based on the common good. Often the things I hear people complaining about regarding immigrants are things I wouldn't want to see defined by law - how they dress, what language they use in their own homes or day to day life, what religion they choose to follow, what family structure they are comfortable with (large extended families vs. nuclear families). If anything in their culture or background contravenes Canadian law there may be a reason to reexamine the law and determine if it is impartial or not, but the bottom line has to be that if the new custom is not for the common good the law won't be changed.

I teach child development, and one of the most common discussions I have with my students involves setting boundaries for children. You need to have firm parameters, but what they do within the confines of those parameters is up to them. Its like having your lane of traffic - you can drive as close as you want to the edge of your lane, but you can't cross it. I think the same analogy can apply to immigrants, and Canadians in general - the law defines our boundaries, but what we do within the parameters of the law is totally up to us.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Can a shift be stopped? If it is pervasive, be it cultural or not, things change , and we shift w the demo's. I suppose it is majority rule in that case.

OK I will answer this question with a question for both you and M. Hardner:

I think most people would agree that gradual shifts do take place when it comes to "societal morailty" otherwise gay marriage would not be legal as it is now.

But here is a question for the "shift is inevitable" crowd (and you knew I was going here eventually):

If, down the road, there are enough new people to "morally shift us" in that direction, is it OK for Canada to one day be under Sharia law?

I know it's the extreme example - but the extreme is always the "test" if you will, of the thesis.

[Michael Hardner]

It is an extreme example, and the constitution is there to protect against extreme examples.

Of course, if a major change in social values happens across the board, then there would be enough of a push to change the constitution. But what can you do about that ? The constitution is there to protect the minority, but the majority could demand any number of amendments, as far as I understand.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is an extreme example, and the constitution is there to protect against extreme examples.

Of course, if a major change in social values happens across the board, then there would be enough of a push to change the constitution. But what can you do about that ? The constitution is there to protect the minority, but the majority could demand any number of amendments, as far as I understand.

OK. So this brings me to the example of Europe.

As far as I understand there are a couple of things relating to this topic ongoing in Europe right now.

I believe it was a Swedish cabinet minister who was quoted as saying "I think we should have Sharia Law - because if we're nice to Muslims when we're the majority, hopefully they will be nice to us when THEY are in the majority."

I don't really want to debate how bad things arein Europe right now. What I will bring up is not whether Europe is going toward Sharia Law, but the fact that it's actually UP FOR DEBATE in some places.

My question is this: as a society is there a "tipping point" (to use Al Gore terminology) where one day we wake up from our sleepy, lazy existence where "everything is OK" and "everyone is the same" and realize we're surrounded by people who arn't quite as tolerant as we thought or hoped or imagined them to be?

I go back to the first post:

1. Different cultures have different characteristics.

2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics.

3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society.

[guyser]

But here is a question for the "shift is inevitable" crowd (and you knew I was going here eventually):

If, down the road, there are enough new people to "morally shift us" in that direction, is it OK for Canada to one day be under Sharia law?

I know it's the extreme example - but the extreme is always the "test" if you will, of the thesis.

While extreme I have no problem with it.

So, my answer would be yes it would be ok for Canada to observe sharia law . It may not be, in fact it isnt what i want, but the steps to get there would be legal and as such it would become the law of the land. The caveat is that there would have to be so many baby steps taking years to implement that I honestly doubt there is anyone young enough on this board that would see that day.

I imagine 30 years ago that some pondered gay marriage and many rolled their eyes, and worse. While not on the same plane, the point is not lost.

[Wild Bill]

My question is this: as a society is there a "tipping point" (to use Al Gore terminology) where one day we wake up from our sleepy, lazy existence where "everything is OK" and "everyone is the same" and realize we're surrounded by people who arn't quite as tolerant as we thought or hoped or imagined them to be?

I go back to the first post:

1. Different cultures have different characteristics.

2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics.

3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society.

Well, we could make up all sorts of analogies with this one!

Suppose we owned a condominium development. We had a culture in our development that we were proud but one day a group within us stated that our condo culture was too homogenous and we should open it up with preference given to new arrivals from specific different cultures, who once they were set up in our development should not be expected to adapt to our existing culture but rather would be encouraged to maintain their own.

This policy eventually reaches its inevitable conclusion. A new culture becomes the majority within the development. The incumbent culture feels uncomfortable as there are many aspects of the new culture (Sharria Law?) that are in conflict. Still, the new culture has become the majority.

What to do?

Well, first off, if you truly believe that this is a negative result then admit that you made a mistake! Things didn't work out the way you wanted or expected!

Once you've admitted your mistake then now you have to decide what you're going to do about it! If you're lucky you will actually find some support amongst the "immigrants". The higher degree of personal freedom in your incumbent culture will always be attractive to many folks.

Whatever, you'll have to decide if you want to fight for your cultural existence or go quietly into the night. There is no right or wrong to the decision. Whoever wins will decide if the result was positive or not. Culture is a subjective thing, not an absolute to the universe.

If you no longer have the will or resources to fight then perhaps the kindest thing to do is to LET your culture die! You really don't deserve to win, at that point.

Either way, you'll have given yourself some hard choices.

[Argus]

While extreme I have no problem with it.

So, my answer would be yes it would be ok for Canada to observe sharia law . It may not be, in fact it isnt what i want, but the steps to get there would be legal and as such it would become the law of the land. The caveat is that there would have to be so many baby steps taking years to implement that I honestly doubt there is anyone young enough on this board that would see that day.

I imagine 30 years ago that some pondered gay marriage and many rolled their eyes, and worse. While not on the same plane, the point is not lost.

I think the real question would be that if we believe such a shift is possible, and are extremely unhappy at the thought of such a shift - as it would be a retrogade one insofar as human rights is concerned, should we not take what steps we can now to minimize the likelihood of that happening? It certainly makes no sense to keep making those "baby steps" towards a goal almost none of us as a society today want to reach.

You don't have to go back 30 years to see people dismissing the idea of gay marriage. You only have to go back about 10, to when the Liberals amended the marriage act and, despite dismissing the faintest possibility of gay marriage, agreed to put in the preamble that the definition of marriage involved a man and a woman. The Liberals had no problem with that definition at the time. Today they regard that belief as tantamount to membership in the Heritage Front. So your belief that we'd all be dead by the time anything like this happened is, I believe, wrong.

Besides, do we even want to be moving in that direction? To put it more bluntly, do you lefties want to see a shift away from womens and gay rights caused by a growing population (and it's influence on the politicians) of a culture which respects neither?

Multiculturalism is all very well and good as a theory, but as was remarked upon recently, while Tony Blair espoused it wholeheartedly when he came to office he and most of the rest of the Labour Party establishment have now rejected it and are calling upon immigrants to fit in more.

There are actually areas of the UK where, in effect, non-Muslims do not go, and are not wanted. Multiculturalism in the UK has established seperate communities with little in common and no liking for one another.

[Michael Hardner]

Besides, do we even want to be moving in that direction? To put it more bluntly, do you lefties want to see a shift away from womens and gay rights caused by a growing population (and it's influence on the politicians) of a culture which respects neither?

Multiculturalism is all very well and good as a theory, but as was remarked upon recently, while Tony Blair espoused it wholeheartedly when he came to office he and most of the rest of the Labour Party establishment have now rejected it and are calling upon immigrants to fit in more.

As was already explored in a thread - what difference has this made to policy in Canada thus far ? Very little if any.

It's arguing about angels on the head of a pin...

[guyser]

I think the real question would be that if we believe such a shift is possible, and are extremely unhappy at the thought of such a shift - as it would be a retrogade one insofar as human rights is concerned, should we not take what steps we can now to minimize the likelihood of that happening? It certainly makes no sense to keep making those "baby steps" towards a goal almost none of us as a society today want to reach.

How could we minimize the risk of this occuring? The baby steps I made reference to are not ones planned to bring about the changes but that they are changes that get us there. I was not clear in my original post.

Meaning...huge increase in Muslims and those wanting Sharia instituted (no critical mass forseen in the next 50 years) then the elected officials being predominately in agreement and so on. I certianly dod not mean to say there is or will be a plan to get there using 12345 baby steps.

And lets not forget as many who come here find out, the next generations tend to assimilate and adopt western values and freedoms thereby diminishing the numbers needed to change things drastically. Call it a depletion of the "I agree w Sharia" pool. I can look at Italians in the same vein. While still proudly Italian heritage, the customs and traditions they brought have changed, thankfully not the making of proscuitto , but the customs of who and where one fits in sure has.

You don't have to go back 30 years to see people dismissing the idea of gay marriage. You only have to go back about 10, to when the Liberals amended the marriage act and, despite dismissing the faintest possibility of gay marriage, agreed to put in the preamble that the definition of marriage involved a man and a woman. The Liberals had no problem with that definition at the time. Today they regard that belief as tantamount to membership in the Heritage Front. So your belief that we'd all be dead by the time anything like this happened is, I believe, wrong.

All true as I know it. But that gets to the gist of what I am saying. Critical mass , in a mind set no less, was observed and the result was inclusion of gay marriage as a legal entity.

Besides, do we even want to be moving in that direction? To put it more bluntly, do you lefties want to see a shift away from womens and gay rights caused by a growing population (and it's influence on the politicians) of a culture which respects neither?

This is were we part. While gay marriage came about relatively quickly, it did so because in no way was anyone harmed or oppressed by it. It did and does no harm to our society (keng excluded) in any way .

A movement to Sharia does impose the possibility of harm and a restriction of rights to many people in this country. Thus even those that are not immediately affected would fight against it.Thats the difference that I see.

[JerrySeinfeld]

While extreme I have no problem with it.

So, my answer would be yes it would be ok for Canada to observe sharia law . It may not be, in fact it isnt what i want, but the steps to get there would be legal and as such it would become the law of the land. The caveat is that there would have to be so many baby steps taking years to implement that I honestly doubt there is anyone young enough on this board that would see that day.

I imagine 30 years ago that some pondered gay marriage and many rolled their eyes, and worse. While not on the same plane, the point is not lost.

I personally have would have a problem with it. "Creeping Sharia" is it were, is an interesting phenomenon, because from where I sit, the tolerance revolution of the past 30 years has made it all but impossible to criticize or point out faults in anyone that isn't white or male without being chastized for racism.

Two interesting present day examples:

Quadraplegics are "disadvatanged" and "minority". But I think we would all agree that it's ludicrous to cut Sam Sullivan (Mayor of Vancouver and quadraplegic) any slack on policy because of his condition. Fom where I sit the same should apply to Islam in a democracy. Just because (although not all Muslims are) you're brown shouldn't insulate you from the wrath of public discourse.

Which leads me to exhibit 'b' - not a theoretical example of "morailty shift", but a real life present day one:

Earlier on this thread someone mentioned that the "rule of law" or the "consititution" should be the framework by which all "shifts in morality" are bound.

However, an example that is ocurring as we speak relates to this. Mark Steyn (right wing columnist) and MacLean's magazine have been hauled out on the carpet before three separate human rights tribunals by the Canadian Islamic Congress for an excerpt from Steyn's book printed in Macleans which the CIC finds "offensive".

My question is threefold on this issue:

1. Where is it written in our consitution or charter of rights that anynoe has the right not-to-be-offended.

2. Isn't this kind of charge / "court" case (ie. tribunal) a direct violation of freedom of speech - a constitutional right?

and, bringing it all back to topic:

3. Isn't this, then, an example of our societal morals / values "shifting" right befor our eyes? and if so - does anyone else out there have a problem with this, or, as stated by others on this post, is this just plain "ok - because we're shifting with the natural tides of demography"?

Edited January 9, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[guyser]

I personally have would have a problem with it. "Creeping Sharia" is it were, is an interesting phenomenon, because from where I sit, the tolerance revolution of the past 30 years has made it all but impossible to criticize or point out faults in anyone that isn't white or male without being chastized for racism.

Likely you wont be around should that shift occur.

Everyone is open to criticism. The problem lies in generalizations that abound. Plenty of that here on MLW.

Two interesting present day examples:

Quadraplegics are "disadvatanged" and "minority". But I think we would all agree that it's ludicrous to cut Sam Sullivan (Mayor of Vancouver and quadraplegic) any slack on policy because of his condition. Fom where I sit the same should apply to Islam in a democracy. Just because (although not all Muslims are) you're brown shouldn't insulate you from the wrath of public discourse.

Jerry, you are comparing Sam Brown , a quadraplegic Mayor , with a religion?

At the end of the day should Sam commit a crime, he will be arrested. At the end of the next day a Muslim commits a crime, he will be Sam's cellmate.

Which leads me to exhibit 'b' - not a theoretical example of "morailty shift", but a real life present day one:

Earlier on this thread someone mentioned that the "rule of law" or the "consititution" should be the framework by which all "shifts in morality" are bound.

My question is threefold on this issue:

1. Where is it written in our consitution or charter of rights that anynoe has the right not-to-be-offended.

2. Isn't this kind of charge / "court" case (ie. tribunal) a direct violation of freedom of speech - a constitutional right?

and, bringing it all back to topic:

3. Isn't this, then, an example of our societal morals / values "shifting" right befor our eyes? and if so - does anyone else out there have a problem with this, or, as stated by others on this post, is this just plain "ok - because we're shifting with the natural tides of demography"?

1) it isnt.

2) not if it in fact goes against Hate speech legislation.

3)there has not been a verdict yet. Once that is done then perhaps we can see any shift insofar as to what the public impression is.

[Renegade]

1. Different cultures have different characteristics. - after all - if they didn't, then there is no such thing as "multiculturalism" - right?

Agreed.Sort of. While there are generalizations which can be made about a culture, there are many individuals who claim to be part of that culture, and individual characteristics vary greatly even within that culture. What applies in general cannot be assumed to apply in specfic instances.

2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics.

No, because as M Hardner has pointed out "good" and "bad" are subjective attributes.

3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society.

No. Because unless that "bad" behaviour is infringing on someone's rights society should not be encouraging or discouraging people's behaviour.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Renegade

[JerrySeinfeld]

Likely you wont be around should that shift occur.

An interesting point, BUT, is that a reason not to discuss it? If so, then we should probably drop the whole environmentalism thing too, no?

Everyone is open to criticism. The problem lies in generalizations that abound. Plenty of that here on MLW.

Jerry, you are comparing Sam Brown , a quadraplegic Mayor , with a religion?

What I'm saying is that Sam Sullivan would probably consider it an insult if someone cut him slack on policy due to his physical condition. To give him his due respect, he should be debated fairly - on policy, not based upon who he is or what he is. Same goes for Islam. Paying someone the respect of being honest with them about their faults or your opinion of them goes along with being considering "equal". If we criticize American's, it's because we all know and believe they can take it. Should every other group be afforded the same level of respect? Or should we dole out the pity of silence to the brown people?

2) not if it in fact goes against Hate speech legislation.

Indeed, which is why these courts should have no jurisdiction at all. Hate speech legislatino is under the criminal code - and if the Canadian Islamic Congress was serious in their charges, that's where the complaint should be lodged. The Human Rights "Court" doesn't have the same processes: ie. innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt etc. Their "test" is whether someone is "offended" which doesn't allow much for the "defendant" to argue. Just look at the record: no one has ever been found "not guilty" in it's entire history.

3)there has not been a verdict yet. Once that is done then perhaps we can see any shift insofar as to what the public impression is.

The verdict really isn't the point here. Shouldn't we be concerned in a free country that such a court is even allowed to rule on Freedom of Speech? This is something that should be handled in criminal or civil court - ie. the "law of the land" - in my opinion.

[Oleg Bach]

An interesting point, BUT, is that a reason not to discuss it? If so, then we should probably drop the whole environmentalism thing too, no?

What I'm saying is that Sam Sullivan would probably consider it an insult if someone cut him slack on policy due to his physical condition. To give him his due respect, he should be debated fairly - on policy, not based upon who he is or what he is. Same goes for Islam. Paying someone the respect of being honest with them about their faults or your opinion of them goes along with being considering "equal". If we criticize American's, it's because we all know and believe they can take it. Should every other group be afforded the same level of respect? Or should we dole out the pity of silence to the brown people?

Indeed, which is why these courts should have no jurisdiction at all. Hate speech legislatino is under the criminal code - and if the Canadian Islamic Congress was serious in their charges, that's where the complaint should be lodged. The Human Rights "Court" doesn't have the same processes: ie. innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt etc. Their "test" is whether someone is "offended" which doesn't allow much for the "defendant" to argue. Just look at the record: no one has ever been found "not guilty" in it's entire history.

The verdict really isn't the point here. Shouldn't we be concerned in a free country that such a court is even allowed to rule on Freedom of Speech? This is something that should be handled in criminal or civil court - ie. the "law of the land" - in my opinion.

Mult-cultureism - is wrong and it was a huge mistake to even coin the term and then to incorporate it as an institution, supposedly one we are now base on. The whole idea was just pandering and being NICE - when America had it's comparable wave of immigration the law makers and politicals did not gather together and create some term to please all and by doing so pleased none - You arrived in America - you were now American - and you had a new culture - your former culture was yours but it was not to be shared or force on others. What do you expect from a nation like our that forced the populace to study another cultures language - french. The American way of blending was by not blending culture - they were honest - where as we pretend to respect other cultures but really don't we actually have a policy of force assimulation - multi-culturalism is a fraud. Very cleaver is the deception. We tell the immigrants they are free to be themselves - this freedom is not real. In some cultures you can beat the wife - in our culture the wife beats the man half to death with the help of a lawyer and a super support system of abuse towards males.

Come to think of it - maybe we are all one happy family.

[socred]

Multiculturalism is all very well and good as a theory

,

Why is it good as a theory?

Do you think people can remain united if they do not share a common culture?