Britain and Multi-culturalism

[betsy]

"Labour loses faith in multi-culturalism

(Filed: 18/10/2006)

At his press briefing yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear his Government's approach to cultural diversity had changed. He may have couched his position in careful language, but the conclusion was inescapable: integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position.

He was, in effect, affirming that the contentious views expressed over recent weeks by Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly and John Reid were not maverick individual opinions, but part of a larger, concerted revision of the Cabinet's stand. Mr Blair, unsurprisingly, wanted to avoid the appearance of an outright volte-face: at one point, he suggested that there should be "a balance between integration and multi-culturalism". This would be a logical impossibility, since the policy of multi-culturalism, as it has been understood and practised, is antithetical to integration.

Ministers are now clearly ready to embrace the argument that they have attacked for many years as insensitive, even bigoted: if Britain is to succeed in absorbing diverse peoples, ethnic minorities must accept the mores of their adopted country. Private religious observance should always be respected, but its practices cannot be permitted to contravene either civil law or the social rules that make community life workable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...l1801.xml"

And sometime today on the hourly news from the CBC, snip from Blair's speech mentioned of tolerance is what made Britain Britain...and people coming into our country will be required to assimilate to our way of life. The news mentioned also of the Muslim community being outraged.

The message above is not verbatim but that's the gist of it. I cannot find any link on the web.

Coming from England....this is something of monumental significance.

If Blair's speech today is a reflection of British policy, this speech is as important to the direction of Europe as a free society as Reagan's stand against oppression under the Soviet regime was 25 years ago.

This is an acknowledgment that European, and indeed the western wolrd's freedom is in jeopardy as much as it was under the threat of Nazism.

[ozzyGrl]

ur right. that is quite significant./

[jbg]

Too bad it's by a soon-to-be ex-PM and too bad it's Britain, not Canada.

[Charles Anthony]

The link provided goes nowhere. Here is the proper one: Labour loses faith in multi-culturalism

To be honest, when I hear this:

integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position.

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia.

No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant.

This is an acknowledgment that European, and indeed the western wolrd's freedom is in jeopardy as much as it was under the threat of Nazism.

I have never been to Britain. However, I wonder if the sentiments that bred Nazism have ever left Europe.

[betsy]

Too bad it's by a soon-to-be ex-PM and too bad it's Britain, not Canada.

We'll have to wait and see how things go in Britain. Blair may be stepping down but by the looks of it, this is a Labour Party stance.

If this policy is embraced by the public, it might inspire other governments from other western countries.

[betsy]

To be honest, when I hear this:

integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position.

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia.

No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant.

Canadians have not had a direct experience with terrorist attacks. We're still in that stage where we feel sort of detached....that "those awful things only happen to others, but not to me," kind of mindframe.

We feel smugly secured...and lulled by the knowledge that we are well-loved all over the world, that we are "neutral" and that our country is akin to a sanctuary. We think that no one would want to "mess up in his/her own backyard."

And maybe we are right. Maybe we are immuned and protected from atrocious attacks because we are the "sanctuary."

This however, may have really pushed Britain to make this move:

"Piggybacking On Terror In Britain

By DANIEL PIPES

August 29, 2006

Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Blair.

It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer" One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit.

In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda.

Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity."Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous and foolish."

Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front.

In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain.A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further.

Why these ultimata and why at this time?

According to the Daily Mail, the leader of the August 14 Muslim delegation, Syed Aziz Pasha, explained his group's logic: "If you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." More ominously, Mr. Pasha threatened the government leaders. "We are willing to cooperate, but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems. Then we will understand their problems," he said.

The press reacted furiously to these demands.

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee condemned the open letter as "perilously close to suggesting the government had it coming."The Daily Mirror's Sue Carroll portrayed Mr. Pasha's position as "perilously close to blackmail."

This was not the first such attempt by "moderate" British Muslim leaders at political jujitsu, to translate Islamist violence into political clout. The same happened, if less aggressively, in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, when British Muslim leaders piggybacked on the death of 52 innocents to demand that British forces leave Iraq.

That pressure did succeed, and in two major ways. First, the Home Office subsequently issued a report produced by "moderate" Muslims, "Preventing Extremism Together," that formally accepted this appeasing approach. As Dean Godson of Policy Exchange summarizes the document, Islamist terror "provided a wonderful, unexpected opportunity for these moderates to demand more power and money from the State."

Second, 72% of British subjects now accept the Islamist view that Mr. Blair's "backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan" has made Britain more of a target for terrorists, while a negligible 1% say the policies have improved the country's safety, according to a recent poll. The public solidly backs the Islamists, not the prime minister.

I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain — where the July 7 terrorism inspired more self-recrimination than it did fury against jihad — suggests that violence can also strengthen lawful Islamism.

And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe — whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa — is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny."

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers).

http://www.nysun.com/article/38748?page_no=2

That has nothing to do with tolerance imho. Nor can we really compare ourselves with Britain....for the conditions for comparison had not been met. If we have the similar conditions, experiences, incidents and political developments happening before AND behind the scenes....and we still unanimously embrace multi-culturalism and scoff at assimilation as something bigoted and xenophobic, then that's when I will agree with you whole-heartedly that indeed, Canada is the beacon for tolerance to multiculturalism.

[Leafless]

Blair clearly spells it out relating to immigrants and multiculturalism.

When you come to Britain you must intigrate or you are not welcome.

Way to go TONY, this as been long overdue!

Hope other countries will catch on also.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/ne...-name_page.html

[Drea]

You will wear jeans and a white t-shirt.

And you will believe in Jeeesuuus!

If you move to North America you should only wear Levis and white t-shirts from Marks Work Warehouse. That way you will look like you belong here. All people, girls, boys, men, women should only wear this uniform. It's the American way to assimilate.

You will assimilate -- you will become a borg.

IMO religion should be kept extremely private. No one should be able to tell what you believe by looking at you. No crosses, no kirpans, no star of davids, no burkas, no flowy white pants on men.

Religion division will be the downfall of our society. The only way to stop it is to ban religion in the public sphere completely.

[Remiel]

You know, in Malaysia, they have national holidays for for than one religion. I see no reason why that in particular should seem like a scary idea here in Canada. If they wanted to declare one Muslim, one Jewish, one Hindu and one Buddhist holy day a national holiday here in Canada, I'd say, " If you think you can pass it, go for it. " They can forget most kinds of law though...

On that though, there was an article in the Whig Standard today, and probably other papers, detailing that divorce rates in Iran are actually comparable to here. Interesting read.

[sharkman]

You will wear jeans and a white t-shirt.

And you will believe in Jeeesuuus!

If you move to North America you should only wear Levis and white t-shirts from Marks Work Warehouse. That way you will look like you belong here. All people, girls, boys, men, women should only wear this uniform. It's the American way to assimilate.

You will assimilate -- you will become a borg.

IMO religion should be kept extremely private. No one should be able to tell what you believe by looking at you. No crosses, no kirpans, no star of davids, no burkas, no flowy white pants on men.

Religion division will be the downfall of our society. The only way to stop it is to ban religion in the public sphere completely.

Wow, Drea, this is the third post I've read of yours in the last several minutes, and to be honest, you sound a little bitter about something. Ranting on this forum may help you vent but it's a lttle painful for the rest of us.

Anyway, I don't see Canada following Blair's lead. We already have two tier laws. Everybody has to wear bicycle helmuts, but those with 'religious headgear' are exempt. If you want to be An RCMP officer, you have to wear the uniform, unless that pesky headgear issue raises it's head, then you don't have to wear the RCMP headgear.

Personally, I hope the trend in Britian grows. If you want to move to another country, you need to observe that country's norms, not force your norms on everybody else. Places like Saudi Arabia are way out in front on this with foreign women having to observe Muslim norms. The PC police don't seem to mind that, they only freak out if an immigrant in Canada has to hear a Christmas carol or something.

[Wilber]

The link provided goes nowhere. Here is the proper one: Labour loses faith in multi-culturalism

To be honest, when I hear this:

integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position.

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia.

No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant.

This is an acknowledgment that European, and indeed the western wolrd's freedom is in jeopardy as much as it was under the threat of Nazism.

I have never been to Britain. However, I wonder if the sentiments that bred Nazism have ever left Europe.

Perhaps you should go there and see for yourself before you condem them. Perhaps if 52 people were blown up on the Montreal Metro and you were uncovering other plots to kill innocent people you might think a little differently. Canada is a good place but it is also a work in progress and has a moral superiority complex that may get it into big trouble in the future. I have been to Britain many times and I would not say Canada is ahead of them. We may well be behind them when it comes to the consequences of carrying tolerance too far.

London is one of the most cosmopolitan and safest cities in the world. The London Mosque is in Regents Park, an upscale part of town. Paul McCartney has a house nearby as is the US Ambassadors residence. It has large ethnic communities from all over the world and the great majority live together very well. Right now there is only one segment that is a threat to the country's security and the safety of all its citizens, whatever their origin.

[betsy]

You will wear jeans and a white t-shirt.

And you will believe in Jeeesuuus!

If you move to North America you should only wear Levis and white t-shirts from Marks Work Warehouse. That way you will look like you belong here. All people, girls, boys, men, women should only wear this uniform. It's the American way to assimilate.

You will assimilate -- you will become a borg.

IMO religion should be kept extremely private. No one should be able to tell what you believe by looking at you. No crosses, no kirpans, no star of davids, no burkas, no flowy white pants on men.

Religion division will be the downfall of our society. The only way to stop it is to ban religion in the public sphere completely.

I don't think you understand what we are trying to discuss here since you are missing the whole point, Drea.

Religion has very little to do with this discussion.

To simplify it, this is like someone who does not want to live in her home anymore, but instead had asked if she can live in your own home with your family. And being very generous that you are, you not only opened your house to this individual...but had also undertaken to see to her well-being, and made sure she feels welcome and a part of your family.

After a while, she starts doing things in your house that goes against the rules and the values of your home. She curses, and do drugs in front of your children...and when you questioned her about it, her reply was that that's how it was where she grew up, and sees nothing wrong with that. She challenged you by saying she's got her own right to practice what she think is okay...and that it is you who is being unfair and intolerant.

Then she starts showing your children how to go against your own rules and values.

Wouldn't you tell her to either shape up and embrace the rules of your house or ship out? But of course you can't say that to her...because you signed a document adopting her formally. Whether you like it or not, she's yours now.

Anyway, you learned from that mistake. So here comes another person who wants to join your family. What's the logical thing to do? Explain the rules right away...and make it conditional that he will adhere to the values of your home. Isn't that only practical????

[Drea]

Like I said

Go to Marks

Pick up yer white T and jeans.

Assimilate already!

Today, I'm off work so I will wear my jeans and T as a signal to the rest of the country that yes, I am assimilated.

[Drea]

Wow, Drea, this is the third post I've read of yours in the last several minutes, and to be honest, you sound a little bitter about something. Ranting on this forum may help you vent but it's a lttle painful for the rest of us.

why not cite the posts?

Anyway, I don't see Canada following Blair's lead. We already have two tier laws. Everybody has to wear bicycle helmuts, but those with 'religious headgear' are exempt. If you want to be An RCMP officer, you have to wear the uniform, unless that pesky headgear issue raises it's head, then you don't have to wear the RCMP headgear.

I know, only white men over 6 feet tall should be police officers.

Personally, I hope the trend in Britian grows. If you want to move to another country, you need to observe that country's norms, not force your norms on everybody else. Places like Saudi Arabia are way out in front on this with foreign women having to observe Muslim norms. The PC police don't seem to mind that, they only freak out if an immigrant in Canada has to hear a Christmas carol or something.

You've read all my posts.... did you read another poster who said there are (gasp!) Xmas carols being played on CBC radio?

I don't want Canada to be like Saudi Arabia, do you?

I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike and don't plan to start.

[Drea]

You will wear jeans and a white t-shirt.

And you will believe in Jeeesuuus!

If you move to North America you should only wear Levis and white t-shirts from Marks Work Warehouse. That way you will look like you belong here. All people, girls, boys, men, women should only wear this uniform. It's the American way to assimilate.

You will assimilate -- you will become a borg.

IMO religion should be kept extremely private. No one should be able to tell what you believe by looking at you. No crosses, no kirpans, no star of davids, no burkas, no flowy white pants on men.

Religion division will be the downfall of our society. The only way to stop it is to ban religion in the public sphere completely.

I don't think you understand what we are trying to discuss here since you are missing the whole point, Drea.

Religion has very little to do with this discussion.

To simplify it, this is like someone who does not want to live in her home anymore, but instead had asked if she can live in your own home with your family. And being very generous that you are, you not only opened your house to this individual...but had also undertaken to see to her well-being, and made sure she feels welcome and a part of your family.

After a while, she starts doing things in your house that goes against the rules and the values of your home. She curses, and do drugs in front of your children...and when you questioned her about it, her reply was that that's how it was where she grew up, and sees nothing wrong with that. She challenged you by saying she's got her own right to practice what she think is okay...and that it is you who is being unfair and intolerant.

Then she starts showing your children how to go against your own rules and values.

Wouldn't you tell her to either shape up and embrace the rules of your house or ship out? But of course you can't say that to her...because you signed a document adopting her formally. Whether you like it or not, she's yours now.

Anyway, you learned from that mistake. So here comes another person who wants to join your family. What's the logical thing to do? Explain the rules right away...and make it conditional that he will adhere to the values of your home. Isn't that only practical????

Betsy, you and I live in the same "house" yet our values are completely opposite. How can this be? Because it's not really a "house", it's a country with a mulitude of differing "values".

From the get go, Canadian "values" have been constantly changing. The first immigrants changed the values of the first nations. Now the next wave of immigrants is changing it again (ie the acceptance of turbans). We take a bit from all immigrants and make it our own. We are a "stew" of different people. In a stew a carrot is still a carrot but it picks up the flavour of the beef.

[betsy]

You've read all my posts.... did you read another poster who said there are (gasp!) Xmas carols being played on CBC radio?

I don't want Canada to be like Saudi Arabia, do you?

I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike and don't plan to start.

What's wrong with Christmas carols? CBC plays music from ramadan or Hanukah....they play music from native cultures to Pakistan to whatever! And for the longest time they seemed to have an aversion to saying the name of Jesus Christ...which is what Christmas is all about!

Taxpayers pay for the CBC. I don't have any beef hearing muslim or jewish or native or kabuna-buna music from booogawee-gawee islands. Just don't exclude mine, is all! Be fair.

Besides music ain't what will turn Canada into Saudi Arabia.

It's climate change, that's what will! Bwaha-ha-ha!

[Drea]

Did I say I don't like Christmas Carols?

Gramma got run over by a reindeer is one of my favorites.

As is the one about the red shoes for mamma when she goes to meet Jesus. Even though I don't believe, its a heartwrenching song!

[betsy]

Betsy, you and I live in the same "house" yet our values are completely opposite. How can this be? Because it's not really a "house", it's a country with a mulitude of differing "values".

Like a house, the first ones who had built it had established the rules that naturally reflect their values.

And so far, this western democratic house is doing great....otherwise, others from floundering societies would not leave their own place. It's just plain and simple.

It is not practical to try to please and accomodate everyone...especially when you're talking of multiple cultures. Some cultures are deadly opposed of one another!

And it is a threat to every other citizens if one culture is driven by a religious belief they're the only ones who have the right to exist on this planet! That all non-believers should either convert to their belief...or die!

I know you don't want to be a Christian. That's okay. We won't crucify you for that.

But do you want to be a Muslim?

From the get go, Canadian "values" have been constantly changing. The first immigrants changed the values of the first nations. Now the next wave of immigrants is changing it again (ie the acceptance of turbans). We take a bit from all immigrants and make it our own. We are a "stew" of different people. In a stew a carrot is still a carrot but it picks up the flavour of the beef.

In a stew, you overcook it and the carrot and the beef disintegrate. You are left with one pot of what looks like....gravy. I done it. Believe me. And it wasn't a pretty sight....not even palatable.

[sharkman]

I know, only white men over 6 feet tall should be police officers.

You've read all my posts.... did you read another poster who said there are (gasp!) Xmas carols being played on CBC radio?

I don't want Canada to be like Saudi Arabia, do you?

I don't wear a helmet when I ride my bike and don't plan to start.

Nobody said cops should only be white. Please don't put words in other peoples' mouths. Obviously you read selectively, I was saying that to be an RCMP officer you should have to wear the whole uniform. You can be any sex or colour you like.

And I haven't read all of your posts. Skip up to see what I actually said.

Your strawman arguments are rather transparent. My point about the Saudis was the pc people don't seem to care about the treatment of women over there(feel free to insert yourself in this category) but get their knickers in a bunch if immigrants are exposed to our culture. Quite hypcritical.

And I'm sure most on this board are not interested in what you are wearing. Those who are should not be encouraged.

[Charles Anthony]

Perhaps you should go there and see for yourself before you condem them.

Perhaps I should but why should I trust them? Their prime minister sounds xenophobic.

Perhaps I should go take photographs of Iranian jails before I condemn Iran. I have never been to Iran.

Perhaps if 52 people were blown up on the Montreal Metro and you were uncovering other plots to kill innocent people you might think a little differently.

Maybe I will start profiling people along racial lines.

Right now there is only one segment that is a threat to the country's security and the safety of all its citizens, whatever their origin.

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, will you?

[Remiel]

I mean, take a look at the news. Pickton has killed more people than most suicide bombers. So, I imagine we should start persecuting pig farmers because obviously they are going to be a threat to the very existence of our society.

[Argus]

To be honest, when I hear this:

integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position.

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia.

No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant.

Apparently, you know nothing about multiculturalism as invented by the British. Yes, the Brits revelled in multiculturalism and political correctness. They were far worse than the most zealous PCers of Canada. You can go to jail in Britain if you use a racist epithet against someone on the street. Anyone who questioned the equality of all cultures was subject to punishment. The government trumpeted the love and joy of universal brotherhood and multiculturalism everywhere. Schools taught it, ad campaigns put the word out through every possible means.

So what happened? Numbers. It was easy to cry about how multicullturalism was a wonderful thing until the numbers became too large. Then the insularity of these ethnic groups became impossible to ignore. And with numbers, the sense of impowerment came over those communities, or at least certain segments of them, and began to alienate the majority. There are areas of the UK where Muslims in the street seriously want to prevent anyone else from living there. Forty percent of British Muslims told a poll they wanted Sharia law in the UK. And then, of course, homegrown terrorism put a big, fat bang on the head of the nail that killed multiculturalism. Some of the members of those ethnic communities don't even consider themselves British, so insular are they.

Canada is better than them? Only in that we don't have the numbers - yet. When the numbers of Muslims rise, and with it the incidents, antogonism towards multiculturalism will rise in tandem. It is already pretty obvious just below the surface. You don't see it as much because the media is still thrilled with the idea of multiculturalism and universal brotherhood, and will go out of their way to portray anything that opposes that unfavourably. As for the politicians, phhtt, the tories are afraid of their own shadow on anything related to ethnics and race, the Liberals are counting on ethnic votes to get them into power, and the NDP are brain-dead.

This is an acknowledgment that European, and indeed the western wolrd's freedom is in jeopardy as much as it was under the threat of Nazism.

I have never been to Britain. However, I wonder if the sentiments that bred Nazism have ever left Europe.

Shallow and silly. What kind of sentiments are you talking about? And why would you imagine they were not here in Canada and everywhere else in the world?

[Argus]

Betsy, you and I live in the same "house" yet our values are completely opposite. How can this be? Because it's not really a "house", it's a country with a mulitude of differing "values".

From the get go, Canadian "values" have been constantly changing. The first immigrants changed the values of the first nations. Now the next wave of immigrants is changing it again (ie the acceptance of turbans). We take a bit from all immigrants and make it our own. We are a "stew" of different people. In a stew a carrot is still a carrot but it picks up the flavour of the beef.

How much do you want our culture to "take" from the growing Muslim population? Female circumcision, perhaps? Banning women from driving? Beating them when they show their hair outside their burkhas? Executing homosexuals? Do tell us.

[Drea]

Betsy, you and I live in the same "house" yet our values are completely opposite. How can this be? Because it's not really a "house", it's a country with a mulitude of differing "values".

From the get go, Canadian "values" have been constantly changing. The first immigrants changed the values of the first nations. Now the next wave of immigrants is changing it again (ie the acceptance of turbans). We take a bit from all immigrants and make it our own. We are a "stew" of different people. In a stew a carrot is still a carrot but it picks up the flavour of the beef.

How much do you want our culture to "take" from the growing Muslim population? Female circumcision, perhaps? Banning women from driving? Beating them when they show their hair outside their burkhas? Executing homosexuals? Do tell us.

Hmmm... let's see. How many of us are followers of Confushious (sp) or Buddah? After all the Chinese have been here quite some time so their relgious beliefs should've overtaken any others by now, no? Have you seen those older chinese women? They wear funny flat shoes and even the adults wear cute little backpacks with "Hello Kitty" on 'em! How not-to-assimilate, eh.

Not all muslims practice fgm. Not all muslim women wear burkas. Not all muslim women are banned from driving. I see them driving all the time -- or used to, when I lived where there were some (in a bigger city).

Have you ever eaten Chinese food? Indian food? Greek food? If you eat anything other that boiled mashed potatoes, you're being sucked into (gasp) a different culture! Accck!

[Drea]

And it is a threat to every other citizens if one culture is driven by a religious belief they're the only ones who have the right to exist on this planet! That all non-believers should either convert to their belief...or die!

I know you don't want to be a Christian. That's okay. We won't crucify you for that.

But do you want to be a Muslim?

I don't want to be a Christian. I don't want to be a muslim. There is no "yer one or the other". I can be human without having religious dogma rule my life.

Contrary to the current scare tactics -- no one is ever going to force another Canadian citizen into a religion. On the contrary - the more influence us secular folks have on society, the better of society will be.

Also a muslim women coming to Canada:

- can get help if some idiot is trying to cut off her clit.

- can drive if she wants to.

- can toss the burka if she wants to.

- report her husband if he beats her.

So, yes I think it's a good thing that these people come here. I bet there's a huge sigh of relief as soon as they disembark.

I'd like to save (bring to Canada) all the women of the world from religious oppression (of all sorts), but alas! I am only one person.