Is it time to throw out multiculturalism

[Argus]

a form of guaranteed assimilation dedicated to Canadian national values.

Exactly what are "Canadian national values"?

I think it's disingenuous to even ask. Canada is founded on the basic enlightened policies of bedrock western liberalism which elevate the value of the individual and his or her freedom and equality, as well as basic justice and compromise. Canada's culture is one of tolerance for differing opinions and beliefs, and respect for those who wish to express them. There is none of that in Islam, and, in fact, the core values of bedrock liberalism are diametrically opposed to Islam, and vice versa.

[jdobbin]

How old are you?

There is a difference between a Canada which has a lot of British and French immgirants, and a Canada which has a lot of Muslim immigrants.

Old enough to remember the Pearson government.

British and French immigrants in a few places in the west were often matched by several other European nationalities. And back then, they were about as different as night and day with many people having few language or labour skills. Religious differences were

Toronto became more diversified decades after the west did. The adjustment period is always difficult especially with large numbers of people coming. In the west, those numbers on a proportional level are far greater than what Toronto is experiencing now.

[Michael Hardner]

But the more Muslims you bring into Canada, the greater the odds become. If only 1% of Muslims believes terrorism against the evil infidels is justified, that's still 10,000 Muslims living in Canada who believe terrorism is justified. If you have that many people living here who believe terrorism is justified (and frankly, I think the percentage is much higher) then the odds of some of them eventually setting off bombs and such is fairly high.

And the odds don't get any better when there are two million Muslims in Canada. Or three. Or four.

Playing the odds, as you describe here, has a lot of problems.

For one, it punishes good people for some bad ones among them. For another, it robs Canada of good immigrants.

For another, we don't apply that logic to other countries, other races or other religions. For example, the incarceration rate for American blacks is higher than for whites. Using the principle applied above, we'd be better off selecting US immigrants based on race.

[August1991]

In the west, those numbers on a proportional level far greater than what Toronto is experiencing now.

That's a good point Dobbin that people often forget. Immigration to Western Canada around 1900 was far greater than immigration now. (BTW, there was virtually no French immigration.)

OTOH, these immigrants crossed the ocean once and that was it. There was no question of returning home or having any contact save the odd letter. They had to "assimilate" into what became the culture of Western Canada. (This is a fascinating movie.)

There is no comparison to immigration today.

We should be taking in far fewer immigrants, and the ones we do take in should be primarily from cultures which have value systems as similar to ours as possible so they adapt more easily to Canada, and yes, that means European countries first, and Muslims dead last.

In practical terms, I don't know how we would do that and in moral terms, I don't know if we would want to.

The Charter forbids discrimination on religious grounds and any effort to exclude Muslims would be an invitation for them to go underground and declare themselves otherwise.

We could conceivably insist more on "adaptability" as a criteria for selecting immigrants but I don't know how we would implement that.

At present, it is the school system which bears the brunt of assimilating immigrant children into Canadian society. We could follow the French format and insist that all children follow a dress code, for example, but education is a provincial responsibility. Some have denominational schools and private schools are common.

Heritage Canada hands out grants for multicultural activities and I'd be quite happy if it got out of that business entirely. But if the city of Toronto decides to subsidize a Caribana parade, who is going to stop them and why?

So, I simply don't see how the federal government could force assimilation or reject so-called multiculturalism.

[M.Dancer]

A melting pot, where all would be Canadians first, and then pay homage to their ancestral past.

I don't know that this isn't already what happens by the third generation anyway.

A study in Sweden found that over 90% of third generation Turkish "Swedes" went "Home" to Turkey to find a proper wife, so they could raise their children as proper Turks.

Wow...a number that large should have a link...i think

[M.Dancer]

a form of guaranteed assimilation dedicated to Canadian national values.

Exactly what are "Canadian national values"?

I think it's disingenuous to even ask. Canada is founded on the basic enlightened policies of bedrock western liberalism which elevate the value of the individual and his or her freedom and equality, as well as basic justice and compromise. Canada's culture is one of tolerance for differing opinions and beliefs, and respect for those who wish to express them. There is none of that in Islam, and, in fact, the core values of bedrock liberalism are diametrically opposed to Islam, and vice versa.

What a conundrum.....so in effect, to deny multiculturalism and to shut the door on new Canadians is to deny our "Canadian Values" of individualism by treating muslims as a group, to deny their equality by treating them differently than white europeans and to turn our backs on tolerance by being intolerance towards muslims........

[Michael Hardner]

A study in Sweden found that over 90% of third generation Turkish "Swedes" went "Home" to Turkey to find a proper wife, so they could raise their children as proper Turks.

Wow...a number that large should have a link...i think

FYI, I already discredited that number in another thread.

The original quote was something like '90% of Turkish immigrants went home to find a wife, including some third generation immigrants'. Then a columnist mangled it to say that 90% of THIRD generation immigrants went home.

That's another example of internet non-intelligence, and the telephone game on www.

[Leafless]

I simply don't see how the federal government could force assimilation or reject so-called multiculturalism.

The Charter can be amended and has been twice since 1982.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pd.../overview_e.cfm

[Charles Anthony]

The Charter can be amended and has been twice since 1982.

What amendment would you suggest?? Please provide a new sample Charter text.

Also, please provide how it would be implemented in practicality. Keep in mind:

Section 1 of the Charter says that governments may limit Charter rights so long as those limits are ones that a free and democratic society would accept as reasonable.

from the Charter quote

[newbie]

OTOH, these immigrants crossed the ocean once and that was it. There was no question of returning home or having any contact save the odd letter. They had to "assimilate" into what became the culture of Western Canada.

Yeah, you're right on August. My Norwegian grandparents had no choice but to learn the language as best they could and put their past behind them and merge totally into society. What a difference 100 years make.

[M.Dancer]

OTOH, these immigrants crossed the ocean once and that was it. There was no question of returning home or having any contact save the odd letter. They had to "assimilate" into what became the culture of Western Canada.

Yeah, you're right on August. My Norwegian grandparents had no choice but to learn the language as best they could and put their past behind them and merge totally into society. What a difference 100 years make.

But I bet your bestapapa's herring still provokes mouth watering memories.....

[Leafless]

The Charter can be amended and has been twice since 1982.

What amendment would you suggest?? Please provide a new sample Charter text.

Also, please provide how it would be implemented in practicality. Keep in mind:

Section 1 of the Charter says that governments may limit Charter rights so long as those limits are ones that a free and democratic society would accept as reasonable.

from the Charter quote

Before giving you an example of of suggested Charter amendments does it not say under the heading:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

1. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS prescribed by law as can be JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society."

"Reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be justified in a free and democratic society" I think or would appear to allow government to amend the constitution unilaterally as it is government that should have the power to define 'what is reasonable'.

Society can demand Charter changes but if the government views this as 'unreasonable' would be initially denied or it would have to be put out to referendum.

For instance the Charter was ratified by the premiers but rights that have been expanded since the original Charter was drawn up have never been contested by government or society. Also, we now have the Islamic terrorist problem.

Who is to decide if the expansion of rights has not been abused by governments using the Charter to acquire expansion of rights for groups such as the rights pertaining to the administration and implementation of federal 'official bilingualism'?

Who is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms federal watchdog??

[Charles Anthony]

"Reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be justified in a free and democratic society" I think or would appear to allow government to amend the constitution unilaterally as it is government that should have the power to define 'what is reasonable'.

Granted. Governments can change laws.

Now, please suggest a possible amendment that would work.

[Leafless]

"Reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be justified in a free and democratic society" I think or would appear to allow government to amend the constitution unilaterally as it is government that should have the power to define 'what is reasonable'.

Granted. Governments can change laws.

Now, please suggest a possible amendment that would work.

The procedure for amending the Constitution is very complex.

Not only that but amendment relating to multiculturalism in my view is next to impossible without totally rewriting the entire constitution as different sections affect the same issue.

Rather than that I would suggest a return to human rights being handled by the federal and provincial government with the entire charter being scrapped as it is unworkable and discriminates.

It appears there is no safety mechanism concerning the application of rights and freedoms, therefore it has become a dangerous document concerning the distribution of power and like previously mentioned discriminates.

[Renegade]

Canada is founded on the basic enlightened policies of bedrock western liberalism which elevate the value of the individual and his or her freedom and equality, as well as basic justice and compromise. Canada's culture is one of tolerance for differing opinions and beliefs, and respect for those who wish to express them.

So you agree that Canada's culture is one of tolerance for different opinions and beliefs? Does that tolerance include tolerance of individuals who choose to maintain their ethnic and religious heritiage, even if it is not "white"? Isn't that the essence of multiculturalism?

[Argus]

Canada is founded on the basic enlightened policies of bedrock western liberalism which elevate the value of the individual and his or her freedom and equality, as well as basic justice and compromise. Canada's culture is one of tolerance for differing opinions and beliefs, and respect for those who wish to express them.

So you agree that Canada's culture is one of tolerance for different opinions and beliefs? Does that tolerance include tolerance of individuals who choose to maintain their ethnic and religious heritiage, even if it is not "white"? Isn't that the essence of multiculturalism?

Of course it does.

But I'm talking about how we should choose immigrants. And in that choosing we should avoid choosing those who will not only disrespect our tolerance and values, but oppose them.. Tolerance does not mean tolerating those who despise us to the extent we invite them to come here and live among us.

[Argus]

But the more Muslims you bring into Canada, the greater the odds become. If only 1% of Muslims believes terrorism against the evil infidels is justified, that's still 10,000 Muslims living in Canada who believe terrorism is justified. If you have that many people living here who believe terrorism is justified (and frankly, I think the percentage is much higher) then the odds of some of them eventually setting off bombs and such is fairly high.

And the odds don't get any better when there are two million Muslims in Canada. Or three. Or four.

Playing the odds, as you describe here, has a lot of problems.

For one, it punishes good people for some bad ones among them. For another, it robs Canada of good immigrants.

I don't care if it punishes the good abroad. The purpose of our immigration system should be to select those immigrants who are best for Canada - and nothing more. If we presently take in 230k immigrants and we reduce that to say, 75k immigrants, I bet we can skim off only the very best immigrants - those most likely to fit in here both economically and socially.

For another, we don't apply that logic to other countries, other races or other religions.

We should. We should not, for example, be bringing in any more Jamaicans

For example, the incarceration rate for American blacks is higher than for whites. Using the principle applied above, we'd be better off selecting US immigrants based on race.

That's not quite the same. The crime problem in the US is racial but based on economics. To put it bluntly, rich blacks don't usually join street gangs. I'm assuming that any immigrants we get from the US would be reasonably well-off, so the same standards don't really apply.

But we're talking about support for terrorism, and that crosses all racial, ethnic and economic boundaries through the Muslim world. Millionaires, the middle class, and the poor are all likely to support extreme religious believes.

[Argus]

We should be taking in far fewer immigrants, and the ones we do take in should be primarily from cultures which have value systems as similar to ours as possible so they adapt more easily to Canada, and yes, that means European countries first, and Muslims dead last.

In practical terms, I don't know how we would do that and in moral terms, I don't know if we would want to.

The Charter forbids discrimination on religious grounds and any effort to exclude Muslims would be an invitation for them to go underground and declare themselves otherwise.

We should set our immigration goals based on what immigrants are best for Canada, and base that on the success rate of immigrants already in Canada. This is pretty typical of how people select everything from where to buy their fruit to whose movies to watch and what shirts to where. You try something, and it works, and you like it, and you get more of the same. You buy it, and it fails, you don't buy from that company again. Companies also keep track of how well recruits from various universities do, and tend to put little effort into recruiting from universities whose students fare less well than others. It is coldly logical, and there is no reason for anyone to bring in things like morality or the charter. We have no need to be "fair" to foreigners abroad in our selection criteria for immigrants.

At present, it is the school system which bears the brunt of assimilating immigrant children into Canadian society.

Funny you should mention that. I had a conversation with an angry father yesterday evening. His fourteen year old daughter had just entered high school - and he hadn't checked it out first. He'd just let her go to the one in the district. Big mistake. There was big trouble the first day. She was White, you see. The school had a population of about 90% non-white, about 50% Somalian, in fact, and she was harrassed pretty badly - the largely Muslim boys there having little respect for white girls. She stayed there one day, and is now in a Catholic school elsewhere.

So how do you assimilate when you make up 50% of the school body, and most of the rest is made up of other immigrant children, mostly co-religionists?

[Argus]

A study in Sweden found that over 90% of third generation Turkish "Swedes" went "Home" to Turkey to find a proper wife, so they could raise their children as proper Turks.

Wow...a number that large should have a link...i think

FYI, I already discredited that number in another thread.

The original quote was something like '90% of Turkish immigrants went home to find a wife, including some third generation immigrants'. Then a columnist mangled it to say that 90% of THIRD generation immigrants went home.

That's another example of internet non-intelligence, and the telephone game on www.

I'm afraid I don't understand. The quote you produced was the following:

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

This is a slight variation of the above, but not entirely dissimilar. I don't see it as discrediting the quote at all, but rather, reinforcing the point. Which is that it's awfully hard to say people are going to assimilate in the next generation when the children of immigrants are going back "home" to get a proper wife or husband, and thus continue to raise the next generation in the foreign culture in which they themselves were raised.

[Renegade]

But I'm talking about how we should choose immigrants. And in that choosing we should avoid choosing those who will not only disrespect our tolerance and values, but oppose them.. Tolerance does not mean tolerating those who despise us to the extent we invite them to come here and live among us.

I agree with you. Multiculturalism and selective immigration are two separate issues. I agree that we out to be selective with those we invite to immigrate to Canada. The immigrants need to be selected on the basis of furthering the interests of Canada and their ability to adapt to the society as we have it today.

However, once here, they have the freedom to choose the way they live their lives in the same manner that native-born Canadians are free to choose.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm afraid I don't understand. The quote you produced was the following:

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

This is a slight variation of the above, but not entirely dissimilar. I don't see it as discrediting the quote at all, but rather, reinforcing the point. Which is that it's awfully hard to say people are going to assimilate in the next generation when the children of immigrants are going back "home" to get a proper wife or husband, and thus continue to raise the next generation in the foreign culture in which they themselves were raised.

You can't say that 95% of third generation Turks import a wife. That hasn't been established and it's an entirely different meaning and implication... If 1 in 1000 of the third generation goes to Turkey for a wife, then the first statement holds, but the second does not.

The shock value of the mangled statement was that the third generation isn't at all assimilated...

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...rce_login=false

The Globe editorial today says that Muslim immigrants in Canada and the U.S. are better paid and better educated that the average Canadian and U.S. citizen. They are also less vulnerable to radicals that our European counterparts.

There are always exceptions, of course, but there are less disenfranchised Muslim citizens in North America.

[August1991]

We should set our immigration goals based on what immigrants are best for Canada, and base that on the success rate of immigrants already in Canada. This is pretty typical of how people select everything from where to buy their fruit to whose movies to watch and what shirts to where.

I agree. Our current immigration system in theory attempts this - points and all - but fails miserably. Incidentally, even our refugee selection system supposedly includes a component for adaptability. All is for nought.

To paraphrase, Canada's immigration selection system amounts to: any foreigner who can physically get here, or any foreigner who can get someone already here to shout loud enough.

Our immigration system dates from a world of boats and propellor planes, adjusted since by naive bureaucrats enthralled with jet planes. All things considered, we'd be better off with the American lottery system.

[jbg]

Wow...a number that large should have a link...i think

Try googling "Malmo", "Islam" and either "violence", "rape" or "police".

[kimmy]

Canadians are enthusiastic about the concept of multiculturalism because they take it to mean the idea that people will wear colorful robes and funny hats, and play unusual musical instruments and do entertaining little jigs at special events. Canadians are enthusiastic about multiculturalism because they take it to mean that they can buy a tasty shawarma or an authentic mu-gu-gai-pan right in their own home town.

Canadians are enthusiastic about multiculturalism because they haven't considered that the notion of culture encompasses far more than just hats and robes and food and music. Canadians assume that funny hats, exotic music, and tasty cuisine aside, other cultures are fundamentally like their own. Canadians are happy to welcome exotic cuisine into our land (because let's face it, anything is better than British cooking) but let's not pretend that we support other cultures in whole. Let's not even pretend that we hold all cultures to be equal or equally welcome in Canada. They're not. If you don't agree, why don't you grab your Yellow Pages and see if you can find a doctor who'll perform female circumcision.

That's a key point: our tolerance for other cultures and their beliefs and practices is not without limits. You can't get your daughter's external genitalia amputated in Canada, no matter how dear the practice might be to the folks back home. That's a graphic and extreme example, but unarguable. Canada has similar cultural biases against other practices like female infanticide, widows being cremated along with their husbands, honor killings, Sharia's notions about the worth of female testimony, and undoubtably many other beliefs and practices. We can, and do, limit aspects of other cultures that aren't compatible with our own.

What is the difference between our "multicultural" society and the United States "melting pot"? If we take multiculturalism to mean funny hats, funky robes, and tasty food, then the difference is negligible, isn't it? One can certainly find shawarma or mu-gu-gai-pan in the United States as easily in Canada; there are funny hats and funky robes aplenty in the US as in Canada.

Multiculturalism in Canada, right now, is fine because we still have the courage to say no on things that matter. Multiculturalism in Canada stops being ok at the point when we stop having the courage to say no to the aspects of other cultures that are incompatible with our own beliefs. And despite the ridicule aimed at Leafless earlier in the thread, we do still have some "Canadian National Values". The fact that Ontario said no to Sharia tribunals, the fact that the College of Physicians won't let you have your daughter's clit lopped off, the fact that murdering an adulterous spouse or daughter is still considered murder in this country, that's proof of our values. We can say yes to funny hats and exotic food, as long as we still have the courage to say no on issues that matter.

-k