British Leader Admits Multiculturalism Has Failed Badly

[Moonlight Graham]

Quebecers for the most part don`t consider themselves `Canadian`. So no, she is not `Canadian`.

Can you prove thus? The 1995 referendum says you're wrong.

[CANADIEN]

Quebecers for the most part don`t consider themselves `Canadian`. So no, she is not `Canadian`.

Quebec is part of Canada, therefore she is a Canadian. As for ms. Dion, there was a time when Bloc MPs would claim she was not Québécoise enough, following some pro-unity comments she had made in 1992. Granted, she is now more American than anything else.

[Smallc]

She is not Canadian, she is from Quebec.

Anything intelligent to add. How you feel about Quebec is irrelevant. Quebec is part of Canada, and that isn't about to change.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Smallc

[CANADIEN]

Can you prove thus? The 1995 referendum says you're wrong.

The only way the PQ/BQ almost won the referendum in 1995 was through a cquestion so unclear some people thought they were actually voting for a mandate to reform Canadian federalism. If there were another referendum today, their only remote chance of winning would be if enough people feel asleep on their way to the polling booth.

[Guest American Woman]

Quebec is part of Canada, therefore she is a Canadian. As for ms. Dion, there was a time when Bloc MPs would claim she was not Québécoise enough, following some pro-unity comments she had made in 1992. Granted, she is now more American than anything else.

I'm really curious. In what ways has she changed so that she's "now more American than anything else?"

[GostHacked]

Anything intelligent to add. How you feel about Quebec is irrelevant. Quebec is part of Canada, and that isn't about to change.

Not really, jokes don`t need to be intelligent. Just like Celine!!

[CANADIEN]

I'm really curious. In what ways has she changed so that she's "now more American than anything else?"

Good question... Lives mostly in the US, raises children as Americans, can often be counted to do her patriotic part with other American artists... Not that I have a problem with doing her doing it, it is her choice.

[dre]

I'm really curious. In what ways has she changed so that she's "now more American than anything else?"

I cant quite put my finger on it... she just doesnt look the same any more!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGkB5GPgzDpRScg0x7nKvDgbH_wB5W7g10m4ESOVim7dd8lYGN&t=1

[bush_cheney2004]

Good question... Lives mostly in the US, raises children as Americans, can often be counted to do her patriotic part with other American artists... Not that I have a problem with doing her doing it, it is her choice.

Many Canadians, famous or not, have done so. Is William Shatner, also from Quebec, similarly derided by the "true Canadians"? This discussion is ironic given this thread's title. To old guys like me, Montreal will always be more Canadian than Toronto!

Edited February 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Wild Bill]

Many Canadians, famous or not, have done so. Is William Shatner, also from Quebec, similarly derided by the "true Canadians"? This discussion is ironic given this thread's title. To old guys like me, Montreal will always be more Canadian than Toronto!

There's a BIG difference between Bill Shatner and Celine! Most of us LIKE Bill Shatner!

Celine garners her support from folks that like their music cheesy, as in sappy Disney movies for kids and old refugees from ABBA concerts.

[guyser]

I'm really curious. In what ways has she changed so that she's "now more American than anything else?"

Oh thats easy ...........

-she likes grits

-she doesnt shave her underarms****

-She speaks American now

-She goes "noodlin' " in Mississippi on weekends with Rene.

-She now calls him "Ren-eee"...even when he is in the "foy-yeer"

-She went to WalMart in her pj's

-She refers to us as America's Hat.

-She knows what a yooper is.

(****if not true then I need to find "finer" women)

[jbg]

They left hellholes. They have no right to demand that we do things the way they do in their hellholes. And if that means we can run cartoons they don't like, that should be fine with them.

I agree,however,it's not hard to see how that could expand into a form of virulent xenophobia...

It's one thing to be vigilant,it's another to allow our darker fears to take over and become insular.History is dotted with that and it never ends up in a good place...

That amounts to legislating people's attitudes, something usually associated with government-happy leftists right ?

Can we make it illegal for you to not be fine with, say, taxation levels ?

My point is that, to my mind, the primary reason for immigration are or should be personal safety, i.e. asylym, or for the immigrant to make a better life both for himself and his family, and contribute his skills to the host country. Presumably, he or she is leaving for a reason, and that reason is that their originating country for some reason is either not to there liking, it's unsafe, or there's utterly no opportunity.

In other words, the immigrant has made a decision to leave one life and way of life for another. The host country has no obligation, and no reason, to allow the immigrants to turn the host country into a replica of the very disagreeable countries they've left.

I have no problem with immigrants or immigration. They should come as Canadians or Americans.

Immigrants should be Canadians or Americans. Well... Canadians and Americans have the right to let it be known when they feel offended, including the right to seek an end to the perceived offence, provided of course that they do it in a legal manner. In other words, Canadians and Americans have the right not to be fine with wha they find offensive. Since you want immigrants to be Canadians or Americans, surely you want them to have this right as much other Canadians and Americans have it, right?

Picking up from my responses to Jack Weber and Michael Hardener, presumably the immigrants know their coming to a country with considerable personal freedom. A person who was an imam, for example, in Pakistan would have no legal authority here to compel the kind of obedience he got back home. A husband/father would have no legal right to compel their wivew or daughters to behave in accordance with Sharia law on the pain of death or serious injury. There is no question that to this extent immigration by itself forces a major upheaval in social mores. Tribal or religious customs from the home country have or should have no force here.

As far as offense, my point is that if a newspaper wants to run a cartoon of Jesus in an uncomplimentary position they can. If they want to run a picture of Mohamed with his head fashioned into a bomb they can. The immigrants should not be able to have the law bent based on the offensiveness of a news article or cartoon.

[scribblet]

Britain isn't the only country to admit to the failure of multicult., last fall the German leader made the same statement about Multicultruralism. Denmark, Sweden and Holland are also questioning the policy and practice of multiculturalism, so there seems to be much evidence that more countries are beginning to see the downside.

On the bright side, I don't think Russia, China and Japan are about to embrace it any time soon.

[Black Dog]

My point is that, to my mind, the primary reason for immigration are or should be personal safety, i.e. asylym, or for the immigrant to make a better life both for himself and his family, and contribute his skills to the host country. Presumably, he or she is leaving for a reason, and that reason is that their originating country for some reason is either not to there liking, it's unsafe, or there's utterly no opportunity.

In other words, the immigrant has made a decision to leave one life and way of life for another. The host country has no obligation, and no reason, to allow the immigrants to turn the host country into a replica of the very disagreeable countries they've left.

The ultimate straw man. Examples, please.

Picking up from my responses to Jack Weber and Michael Hardener, presumably the immigrants know their coming to a country with considerable personal freedom. A person who was an imam, for example, in Pakistan would have no legal authority here to compel the kind of obedience he got back home. A husband/father would have no legal right to compel their wivew or daughters to behave in accordance with Sharia law on the pain of death or serious injury. There is no question that to this extent immigration by itself forces a major upheaval in social mores. Tribal or religious customs from the home country have or should have no force here.

Tribal or religious customs are fine and should be left alone insofar as they follow the law of the land.

As far as offense, my point is that if a newspaper wants to run a cartoon of Jesus in an uncomplimentary position they can. If they want to run a picture of Mohamed with his head fashioned into a bomb they can. The immigrants should not be able to have the law bent based on the offensiveness of a news article or cartoon.

And they haven't. As usual, you are talking out of your ass.

Britain isn't the only country to admit to the failure of multicult., last fall the German leader made the same statement about Multicultruralism. Denmark, Sweden and Holland are also questioning the policy and practice of multiculturalism, so there seems to be much evidence that more countries are beginning to see the downside.

On the bright side, I don't think Russia, China and Japan are about to embrace it any time soon.

And of course I'm sure you can articulate all the similarities and differences between multicultural policies in England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Canada? I mean, you're d not some yahoo who doesn't understand that the word "multiculturalism" can cover a lot of different (even contradictory) policies and beliefs, right?

[GostHacked]

Britain isn't the only country to admit to the failure of multicult., last fall the German leader made the same statement about Multicultruralism. Denmark, Sweden and Holland are also questioning the policy and practice of multiculturalism, so there seems to be much evidence that more countries are beginning to see the downside.

On the bright side, I don't think Russia, China and Japan are about to embrace it any time soon.

And yet immigration is happening in large numbers. While many of us already in the country cannot find work, let alone decent paying work. It does not work, because their values for the most part do not match that of the country where they want to live.

And our governments let it happen. It's on purpose. Multiculturalism is our governments failure and keeps being a failure.

[scribblet]

And yet immigration is happening in large numbers. While many of us already in the country cannot find work, let alone decent paying work. It does not work, because their values for the most part do not match that of the country where they want to live.

And our governments let it happen. It's on purpose. Multiculturalism is our governments failure and keeps being a failure.

Official multicult. is a failure, it doesn't make sense to pay people to be different, or end up in different communities not integrating into the host culture or country. It ends up being tribal with each culture having their own hearth choosing to live apart from one another. One doesn't have to lose all their ethnicity or cultural makeup, although if you choose to leave your country there has to be a conscious decision to leave it behind.

What we need to do is require immigrants to take a course on human rights and tolerance, rights which include women, homosexuals and people of other faiths. We should ask them if believe in democracy and equality of all before the law and do they intend to uphold our laws. Cameron is right when he says we need lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years, and the U.K. especially can relate to that.

[jbg]

Picking up from my responses to Jack Weber and Michael Hardener, presumably the immigrants know their coming to a country with considerable personal freedom. A person who was an imam, for example, in Pakistan would have no legal authority here to compel the kind of obedience he got back home. A husband/father would have no legal right to compel their wivew or daughters to behave in accordance with Sharia law on the pain of death or serious injury. There is no question that to this extent immigration by itself forces a major upheaval in social mores. Tribal or religious customs from the home country have or should have no force here.

Tribal or religious customs are fine and should be left alone insofar as they follow the law of the land.

Honor killings?

As far as offense, my point is that if a newspaper wants to run a cartoon of Jesus in an uncomplimentary position they can. If they want to run a picture of Mohamed with his head fashioned into a bomb they can. The immigrants should not be able to have the law bent based on the offensiveness of a news article or cartoon.

And they haven't. As usual, you are talking out of your ass.

Cartoon jihad?

I mean, you're d not some yahoo who doesn't understand that the word "multiculturalism" can cover a lot of different (even contradictory) policies and beliefs, right?

Yes, I use a yahoo.ca e-mail address and to that extent I'm a Yahoo. Edited February 8, 2011 by jbg

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 06 February 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:
I'm really curious. In what ways has she changed so that she's "now more American than anything else?"

Good question... Lives mostly in the US, raises children as Americans, can often be counted to do her patriotic part with other American artists... Not that I have a problem with doing her doing it, it is her choice.

I wasn't aware of that. She has always come across to me as connected to her French Canadian roots. Has she become an American citizen?

Oh thats easy ...........

-she likes grits
-she doesnt shave her underarms****
-She speaks American now
-She goes "noodlin' " in Mississippi on weekends with Rene.
-She now calls him "Ren-eee"...even when he is in the "foy-yeer"
-She went to WalMart in her pj's
-She refers to us as America's Hat.
-She knows what a yooper is.





(****if not true then I need to find "finer" women)

Hey now. American women shave their armpits. I think you're confusing us with the French. But if she knows what a - is, that's all that matters. She's gotta be alright.

Seriously, though. I've never understood the animosity Canadians feel towards her. Edited November 6, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Hey now. American women shave their armpits. I think you're confusing us with the French. But if she knows what a yooper is, that's all that matters. She's gotta be alright.

Seriously, though. I've never understood the animosity Canadians feel towards her.

Not too sure why either, call it the Barbra Streisand syndrome, Talented, great set of pipes, irritating as hell,richer than most.They hated her for years too .

But she did bag Jimmy Brolin...probably to get to his son

Course they all hate her, unless she is standing on their doorstep

[Black Dog]

Honor killings?

Last I checked, these were still classified as murder under the Criminal Code.

Cartoon jihad?

And what law was changed as a result of that?

Are you really a lawyer who, like, argues in court and stuff? Because when I see the calibre of argument you bring to this board, and then imagine you in court, I just picture this guy.

[GostHacked]

Official multicult. is a failure, it doesn't make sense to pay people to be different, or end up in different communities not integrating into the host culture or country. It ends up being tribal with each culture having their own hearth choosing to live apart from one another. One doesn't have to lose all their ethnicity or cultural makeup, although if you choose to leave your country there has to be a conscious decision to leave it behind.

What we need to do is require immigrants to take a course on human rights and tolerance, rights which include women, homosexuals and people of other faiths. We should ask them if believe in democracy and equality of all before the law and do they intend to uphold our laws. Cameron is right when he says we need lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years, and the U.K. especially can relate to that.

Getting them to learn the language first is key as well, this way they can at least do some communicating.

[GostHacked]

Seriously, though. I've never understood the animosity Canadians feel towards her.

She is the essence of over the top unneeded extravagance. Also, personally I can't stand her singing.

[jbg]

Are you really a lawyer who, like, argues in court and stuff? Because when I see the calibre of argument you bring to this board, and then imagine you in court, I just picture this guy.

This is not a courtroom.

There are people that I've communicated with off the boards enough that I've sent copies of judicial decisions in which I've prevailed. Trust me, I often do, and the arguments can get a bit, let's say, innovative and creative. I would say my scorecard in written decisions is about 20 or so wins, about three (3) mixed decisions, and two losses. Granted, those are skewed in my favor since I'll usually decide to advise my client to settle if I see them getting clobbered.

I use board posting for recreation primarily, and do not hold myself to the standards I achieve and demand in written briefs or oral argument.

Addressing the substance of your post, the threat of exposure to HRC's to defend anti-Mohamed cartoons is a serious one, as is the risk, in the case of honor killings, that such crimes will be investigated in a lackadaisical manner to avoid the political complications that go with prosecutions. Also, there's the obvious problem of obtaining cooperative witnesses when those people can expect communal retribution for cooperating with authorities.

And the latter issue is a problem far beyond Muslims. In the U.S. for a long time retribution against "snitches" made the prosecution of drug dealers in various minority communities a serious problem.

[Black Dog]

This is not a courtroom.

There are people that I've communicated with off the boards enough that I've sent copies of judicial decisions in which I've prevailed. Trust me, I often do, and the arguments can get a bit, let's say, innovative and creative. I would say my scorecard in written decisions is about 20 or so wins, about three (3) mixed decisions, and two losses. Granted, those are skewed in my favor since I'll usually decide to advise my client to settle if I see them getting clobbered.

I use board posting for recreation primarily, and do not hold myself to the standards I achieve and demand in written briefs or oral argument.

You should at least hold yourself to the basic standards of logical argument:

1. Make a claim.

2. Provide supporting evidence.

You're great at #1, but complete rubbish at #2.

Addressing the substance of your post, the threat of exposure to HRC's to defend anti-Mohamed cartoons is a serious one, as is the risk, in the case of honor killings, that such crimes will be investigated in a lackadaisical manner to avoid the political complications that go with prosecutions. Also, there's the obvious problem of obtaining cooperative witnesses when those people can expect communal retribution for cooperating with authorities.

Even if we accept these claims to be true (more on that in a moment), that's not what you initially claimed. Again, your claims were:

Tribal or religious customs from the home country have or should have no force here.

and

The immigrants should not be able to have the law bent based on the offensiveness of a news article or cartoon.

The implication is pretty clear: there is either an active movement afoot to alter the legislative framework in favour of "tribal or religious customs" and standards or the very real threat of such a movement. Your examples simply don't support that.

Surely you are aware that Ezra Levant won his fight to publish the Mohammad cartoons, while Mark Steyn also walked away from claims made against him? So there's an established precedent against the very thing you claim is a "serious threat". You're swimming against the tide on that one.

As for honor killings: can you provide specific examples of cases where an apparent honor killing went unpunished as a result of political concerns? Because given the number of high profile cases we've seen, it doesn't seem like something anyone is attempting to sweep under the rug.

[ironstone]

I believe a certain referendum did prove you wrong.

Not exactly a landslide victory as I recall.Face it,Quebecer's are,at best,fair weather Canadians.They only seem to be concerned with how much they can extract from English Canada.

Oh and while we're on the topic of multiculturalism,we all know how strongly(and rightly)Quebecers feel about that.