Muslims and a liberal society

[August1991]

On various threads, this question has arisen in a variety of ways.

Some argue that moderate Muslims far outweigh the radicals and moderate Muslims accept western liberal society as well as anyone else. Others have the perception that many Muslims do not accept western liberal society.

Some argue that multiculturalism is simply a way for Muslims to remain anti-liberal while benefitting from living in a liberal society. We are creating a potential fifth column within our walls. Others, pointing to the supposedly failed experience of France, argue that multiculturalism is the best way to assimilate Muslims .

Like in Europe, Canada's Muslim community has grown quickly in the past few years and is destined to grow more quickly in the future.

Will they assimilate and accept liberal values or will they continue to go to traditional mosques and insist that women wear hijab and defer to men in public? I don't think anyone on this forum wants to live under the Caliphate or in an Islamic Republic. Yet many Muslims in Canada are pious.

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

Mark Steyn

Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.

Link

In the US, assimilation once meant integration and had a positive connotation. In Quebec, assimilation referred to French-Canadians becoming English and had a negative connotation. Assimilation now seems to have a confused meaning - it suggests a bland rounding of edges and is vaguely racist to some.

Whatever its meaning, I have generally thought that within three generations, most immigrants have assimilated into western, liberal (English Canadian) society. In Quebec, the experience has been somewhat different but even here, there are many Ryans and O'Neills who can't speak English.

Riots in France, the history of the Khadrs, demonstrations about cartoons, requests for Sharia law and the recent arrests in Toronto and the UK suggest that Muslim assimilation is different.

Western liberal society is very attractive to the individual. It offers the freedom to choose. Yet I wonder whether it is that attractive to young Muslim men. In a traditional Islamic society, men benefit both in private and in public from being members of the male brotherhood. Such membership is lost in the west where women are also free to choose.

This is speculation on my part. How will the children and grandchildren of currently pious Muslims in Canada behave in the future? Will we be able to speak of a post-Muslim generation as we now speak of post-Christian societies?

[Michael Hardner]

A few points:

My experience in meeting and fraternizing with young Muslim men in France gave me the feeling that they would assimilate in the same way the other groups have.

Several posters have pointed at multiculturalism as a culprit (with regards to the failure to assimilate), while simultaneously using France as an example. Since France doesn't practice multiculturalism, this is inconsistent.

Whatever its meaning, I have generally thought that within three generations, most immigrants have assimilated into western, liberal (English Canadian) society. In Quebec, the experience has been somewhat different but even here, there are many Ryans and O'Neills who can't speak English.

Riots in France, the history of the Khadrs, demonstrations about cartoons, requests for Sharia law and the recent arrests in Toronto and the UK suggest that Muslim assimilation is different.

Considering that assimilation happens over generations, and that Muslim immigration has only recently started to see an impact on our society, it seems to me that many critics are too impatient in looking for change to happen. Three generations is a reasonable amount of time to expect change.

[Charles Anthony]

My experience in meeting and fraternizing with young Muslim men in France gave me the feeling that they would assimilate in the same way the other groups have.

My experience with young Muslims in Canada suggests the same thing too.

Several posters have pointed at multiculturalism as a culprit (with regards to the failure to assimilate), while simultaneously using France as an example. Since France doesn't practice multiculturalism, this is inconsistent.

I have heard from others similar observations. I have never been to France but my sister was born in Paris and my parents left in the 1960's because of overt institutionalized racism. A common insidious impediment that immigrants face comes in the form of post-secondary education: they do not get letters of recommendations the way French students do. I have come across immigrants from France who were there in the 1990's and they say that it was the same. The child of an immigrant in France does not have the same chances at moving up the way he does in Canada.

it seems to me that many critics are too impatient in looking for change to happen. Three generations is a reasonable amount of time to expect change.

I agree.

In a traditional Islamic society, men benefit both in private and in public from being members of the male brotherhood. Such membership is lost in the west where women are also free to choose.

Maybe therein lies the feature that will keep young Muslim men under control (or help them integrate and balance religious devotion?): the freedom of young Muslim women.

[Leafless]

Several posters have pointed at multiculturalism as a culprit (with regards to the failure to assimilate), while simultaneously using France as an example. Since France doesn't practice multiculturalism, this is inconsistent.

Considering that assimilation happens over generations, and that Muslim immigration has only recently started to see an impact on our society, it seems to me that many critics are too impatient in looking for change to happen. Three generations is a reasonable amount of time to expect change.

France doesn't practice multiculturalism?

Your telling us there is no other culture in France than French?

France automatically is multicultural if it harbours cultures other than it's own nationality.

Why would any foreign nationality move to a country if they don't plan to assimilate immediately?

What's this thirty year bit in order to assimilate?

You know as well as I do Muslims can't assimilate and won't because there religion will not allow them to it's a monotheistic religion with it's own political system.

I really don't know why any country would want problematic Muslims knowing this.

[Black Dog]

France automatically is multicultural if it harbours cultures other than it's own nationality.

That's not what multicultural means. When people talk about multicultralism, they are usuallt referring to a specific policy. I can think of very few countries that would not be considered multicultural by your definition.

Why would any foreign nationality move to a country if they don't plan to assimilate immediately?

What do you mean by assimilate?

What's this thirty year bit in order to assimilate?

They said three generations, not thirty years.

You know as well as I do Muslims can't assimilate and won't because there religion will not allow them to it's a monotheistic religion with it's own political system.

What kind of Muslim are you talking about? Sunni? Shiite? Sufi?

[Leafless]

France automatically is multicultural if it harbours cultures other than it's own nationality.

That's not what multicultural means. When people talk about multiculturalism, they are usually referring to a specific policy. I can think of very few countries that would not be considered multicultural by your definition.

Why would any foreign nationality move to a country if they don't plan to assimilate immediately?

What do you mean by assimilate?

What's this thirty year bit in order to assimilate?

They said three generations, not thirty years.

You know as well as I do Muslims can't assimilate and won't because there religion will not allow them to it's a monotheistic religion with it's own political system.

What kind of Muslim are you talking about? Sunni? Shiite? Sufi?

1)- The original quote was "France doesn't practise multiculturalism" which is not specific and can or could be interpreted pertaining to the definition of multiculturalism.

That is not my definition either of a multicultural POLICY.

2)- Just because Canada has a multicultural policy which basically is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's Human Rights Act which we have had for many years doesn't mean the Canadian government doesn't want immigrants not to assimilate.

In fact they do. It's called 'structural assimilation' and encourage immigrant groups to participate in the larger society, learn the 'official languages ' of the land and enter the labour force.

3) I said thirty years (a generation) as that is the average time children are ready to take the place of their parents usually reckoned at 30 years. So three generations would be a total of 90 years which is a hell of a long time.

4) The kind of Muslim Iam talking about is the Sunni which represents 85% of all world Muslims.

Speaking of multiculturalism in Canada it started as bilingualism -biculturalism to accommodate Quebec but was dropped due to complaints and changed to bilingualism-multiculturalism.

To-day Quebec (naturally) has there own multicultural policy called 'interculturalism' which I don't really understand why they are permitted to do this.

In Europe several European union countries implemented monoculturalism a policy I can see Canada posibly adopting this policy also.

[Drea]

In Europe several European union countries implemented monoculturalism a policy I can see Canada posibly adopting this policy also.

Iran is a fine example of your precious "monoculturalism". (so was Nazi Germany)

Don't see too many cultures being flaunted there - gee I wonder why?

I prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

[August1991]

France doesn't practice multiculturalism?

Your telling us there is no other culture in France than French?

France automatically is multicultural if it harbours cultures other than it's own nationality.

Let me be specific. The French government requires that all girls attending state schools remove any shawl or headdress from their hair. In Canada, provincial governments cannot impose restrictions of this sort.

France intends that all citizens be identifiably French. Canada accepts or encourages diversity among Canadian citizens. Canada follows a multicultural policy whereas France does not.

[Leafless]

In Europe several European union countries implemented monoculturalism a policy I can see Canada posibly adopting this policy also.

Iran is a fine example of your precious "monoculturalism". (so was Nazi Germany)

Don't see too many cultures being flaunted there - gee I wonder why?

I prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

I to prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome but where minority cultures cannot abuse the system to disregard structural assimilation as in Canada and exist in their own sense as with an 'interculturalism' policy.

So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways. So in fact you are living in a country with sub-standard conditions according to your preference "where you prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

[Charles Anthony]

So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways. So in fact you are living in a country with sub-standard conditions according to your preference "where you prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

I feel that if you do not like it, then shut up and separate from Quebec.

[Leafless]

So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways. So in fact you are living in a country with sub-standard conditions according to your preference "where you prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

I feel that if you do not like it, then shut up and separate from Quebec.

How can you separate form Quebec a province within the country of Canada or do you think they are something more than that?

If you feel Quebec's interculturalism policy while the ROC adheres to a multicultural policy is not a subject for debate then advise the moderator...don't tell me your problems or is it is against Quebec's French language Charter not to discuss the affairs of Quebec??? ---which wouldn't surprise me either.

[Charles Anthony]

How can you separate form Quebec a province within the country of Canada or do you think they are something more than that?

That is two questions and both answers are simple.

Answer1: The rest of Canada can separate from Quebec in the same way as Quebec can separate from Canada.

Answer2: No.

If you feel Quebec's interculturalism policy while the ROC adheres to a multicultural policy is not a subject for debate then advise the moderator...

I think it is a subject for debate and my solution is separation instead of bickering. I think more and more Rest-Of-Canadians should start asking Quebec to separate instead of just bickering.

don't tell me your problems

You asked a question. I quote:

So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways.

And I answered.

What I hear from the rest of Canada is constant nagging against Quebec but when Quebeckers talk about secession there is continued nagging. That is useless bickering.

I do not think that Quebec deserves more or less nor do I think they are better or worse than the rest of Canada. I just think they are different and have the right to conduct their affairs in their own preferred way. I think each province should learn from their example too.

[Leafless]

How can you separate form Quebec a province within the country of Canada or do you think they are something more than that?

That is two questions and both answers are simple.

Answer1: The rest of Canada can separate from Quebec in the same way as Quebec can separate from Canada.

Answer2: No.

If you feel Quebec's interculturalism policy while the ROC adheres to a multicultural policy is not a subject for debate then advise the moderator...

I think it is a subject for debate and my solution is separation instead of bickering. I think more and more Rest-Of-Canadians should start asking Quebec to separate instead of just bickering.

don't tell me your problems

You asked a question. I quote:

So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways.

And I answered.

What I hear from the rest of Canada is constant nagging against Quebec but when Quebeckers talk about secession there is continued nagging. That is useless bickering.

I do not think that Quebec deserves more or less nor do I think they are better or worse than the rest of Canada. I just think they are different and have the right to conduct their affairs in their own preferred way. I think each province should learn from their example too.

1)- All the ROC can do is vote in a national referendum to see to see if they wish to retain Quebec within confederation any longer.

2)-Let you dictate your ways with no dialogue is advocating Nazism.

3)- You are again confirming your authoritarian view again like Nazism or the Hesbollah.

4)-You do think think Quebec deserves more as demonstrated concerning your reply in this post and your preceding post.

[Charles Anthony]

Why repeat the previous post in its entirety with the QUOTE feature?

[Leafless]

Why repeat the previous post in its entirety with the QUOTE feature?

In this case no space would be saved if I addressed each entry separately which in any event could be confusing.

Why can't you reply to the post in it's entirety utilizing your own intelligence rather than picking apart a pile of sentences with multiple quotes?

[Black Dog]

3) I said thirty years (a generation) as that is the average time children are ready to take the place of their parents usually reckoned at 30 years. So three generations would be a total of 90 years which is a hell of a long time.

Not really. My grandparents were immigrants who came over early in the 20th Century. Both my parents spoke some of the old languages, and followed some of the old customs. Me, I have no real connection to my immigrant roots. So three generations to cut the old ties seems reasonable to me.

[Rue]

Multi-culturalism in its simplest sense is the act of a society trying to accommodate more then one set of cutlural values. Whether it is done by a state promulgated policy or simply by individuals on an individual or collective but non state sanctioned basis gets off on sub-categories of types of multi-culturalism.

France would argue that even though it does not want Muslim women a wearing the traditional clothing, that they are still multi-cultural. The U.S. would too although the federal government has openly come out against Spanish being used in schools or having the anthem sung in Spanish.

Quebec at the peek of its movement to promulgate laws clearly designed to discriminate against and turn English as a language into a second inferior class of communication and despite its clear and blatant attempts to give state preference to franco-phones over anglo-phones always referred to itself as multi-cultural and even when the corpulent Jaques Parizeau blamed Jews in Quebec for the seperatist loss in the referendum he continued to refer to himself as a multi-culturalist. So did Charles DeGaulles in between referring to Algerians as Pieds-Noirs and scum and referring to the English and Americans as inferior in culture.

The point is multi-culturalism is all about nuances and degrees of how much a state or an individual is willing to tolerate with groups or individuals from other cultures other then the main-stream one.

I think a classic example of a multi-cultural society is the gay culture. By definition people who are gay identify with each other and their prevalent culture as being gay, and yet they could be men, women, transgendered and from every religion, shade of skin colour, ethnic group, etc.

Is Canada multi-cultural? Yes and no. I think it most certainly is say within its gay communities or large cities-but in its more rural areas-well not necessarily.

Also aboriginals would argue Canada is not genuinely multi-cultural as long as it seperates aboriginals from mainstream culture.

So I guess it all depends in who you ask and whether that person feels they are part of mainstream society or feel alienated from it. That will govern their perspective on whether they feel the society they live in is multi-cultural. Using the gay example, gay people could argue if they are not allowed to marry, this is an example of mainstream society not being multi-cultural.

Me, I am a typical Canadian. I loath being hyphenated and yet I am quite used to Canadians being everything and anything imaginable. The only cultural I out and out reject is the culture of terror and/or violence and of course any culture that condones portraying or using children as sex objects.

[Leafless]

Me, I am a typical Canadian. I loath being hyphenated and yet I am quite used to Canadians being everything and anything imaginable. The only cultural I out and out reject is the culture of terror and/or violence and of course any culture that condones portraying or using children as sex objects.

You say you hate being a hyphenated Canadian but yet support multiculturalism and it's list of sub-catergories.

How can this be possible since as well as making you a 'hyphenated Canadian' it is destructive to national unity and Canadian nationalism thus removing the crieteria concerning a common Canadian identity.

I personally do not support multiculturalism and I think most native Canadians realize the list of growing serious problems associated with our type of multiculturalism will eventually result in a fractured dysfunctional country.

[Argus]

My experience in meeting and fraternizing with young Muslim men in France gave me the feeling that they would assimilate in the same way the other groups have.

My experience with young Muslims in Canada suggests the same thing too.

This relies on the children being more Canadian than the parents, right? But what happens if the parents send their sons and daughters "home" to get a proper wife/husband? Then the cycle begins anew, yes? And if they keep doing that? Is a child born in Canada to parents who speak no English, who grows up watching arabic language television on the satellite, who goes to special muslim schools - really a Canadian except in the technical/legal sense?

What seems to have surprised Denmark is that many of the people arriving in need of relief also wanted to bring their own culture. They did not want to be Danish in the way the Danes did. Even today it is estimated that, instead of assimilating, 95 per cent of third generation Turkish/Danish males import their spouses from Turkey.

Assimilation?

“It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls.

Frontpage

Of course, we in Canada would no more study how many ethnics are going "home" for a "proper wife" than we would keep track of what violence or crimes they commit.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course, we in Canada would no more study how many ethnics are going "home" for a "proper wife" than we would keep track of what violence or crimes they commit.

Nor did the writer of that quote provide any kind of study to back it up. That number sounds preposterous to me.

I found what seems to be a source for the quote:

In fact, rather than marrying locally, most Turks, 95 percent in Rockwool’s reckoning, still import a Turkish wife even in the third generation.

Note the slight change in meaning there.

[Charles Anthony]

Of course, we in Canada would no more study how many ethnics are going "home" for a "proper wife" than we would keep track of what violence or crimes they commit.

Actually, that statement is comparing two things that are far too different.

Marrying is a private affair.

Violence and crimes are not.

Studying out-of-country marriage could remain in the realm of academia while keeping track crime could stay in the hands of law enforcement.