Jump to content

Canadian Charter, Multicultural Heritage & Tony Blair


Recommended Posts

Our Charter states:

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Charter

Tony Blair recently gave a speech on multiculturalism in which he questioned how far British society should insist on integration. In a key paragraph, Blair said:

"The right to be in a multicultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white," he said

"When it comes to our essential values, the belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage — then that is where we come together, it is what gives us what we hold in common; it is what givesright to call ourselves British," said Mr Blair.

"At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom."

Telegraph
"We like our diversity. But how do we react when that "difference" leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that our very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us; abused, indeed, in order to harm us."

This is how a UK Conservative spokesman responded:

"Many of the problems in relation to the issues he addresses are at least in part the consequence of a philosophy of divisive multiculturalism and political correctness that has been actively promoted by the Labour Party over many years at both national and local government levels."
BBC

We can debate the merits of multiculturalism but my point is a little deeper. Tony Blair can change his government's policy by simply giving a speech and then changing future decisions.

In Canada, we can't do it so easily. Multiculturalism is now part of our constitution. IOW, we're stuck with whatever lame vaguely worded social engineering ideas that were in vogue in federal Liberal Party circles in the early 1980s.

Harper could not really give a speech such as Blair just did because it would be contrary to Charter principles. Or maybe not.

Either section 27 means something and hence Canada is locked into being a multicultural state or else section 27 means nothing which begs the question of what else we can ignore in the Charter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August1991:

Before this thread goes down the wrong path, I believe your point is more about the legal systems in place in Canada (and the US too) ie. based upon a written constitution.

You're right that a Tony Blair can change things with one speech, but the downside is that there is less of a check on his power in such a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right that a Tony Blair can change things with one speech, but the downside is that there is less of a check on his power in such a system.
The ultimately is a debate between a Common Law system and a Civil Code system. There are implicits checks within the British system up to and including the sovereign who is the final protector against arbitrary rule.

The Charter amounts to a badly worded Civil Code addition to our system. I'm wondering out loud what that means and specifically, what does it mean to have "multicultural heritage" included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony gets it - while many others do not.

Borg

-----------------------------------------------

Adopt our values or stay away, says Blair

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor

Last Updated: 1:12am GMT 10/12/2006

Your view: what next for "multicultural" Britain?

Full text of Blair's multiculturalism speech

Audio: Andrew Pierce on why Blair isn't facing questions

Tony Blair formally declared Britain's multicultural experiment over yesterday as he told immigrants they had ''a duty" to integrate with the mainstream of society.

In a speech that overturned more than three decades of Labour support for the idea, he set out a series of requirements that were now expected from ethnic minority groups if they wished to call themselves British.

These included "equality of respect" - especially better treatment of women by Muslim men - allegiance to the rule of law and a command of English.

If outsiders wishing to settle in Britain were not prepared to conform to the virtues of tolerance then they should stay away. He added: "Conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.

"If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means."

Mr Blair's volte face - just eight years ago he championed multiculturalism - was the culmination of a long Labour retreat from the cause. In recent weeks, Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly, John Reid and Gordon Brown have all played their part in a concerted revision of the Cabinet's stand which began in earnest after the July 7 suicide bombings in London last year.

Mr Blair, speaking in Downing Street, said the diversity of cultures in Britain should still be celebrated but the tone of his speech was against the ideology that became known as multiculturalism.

"The right to be in a multicultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white," he said

The bombings had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief" and highlighted the divisions in society. While it was right that people should enjoy their own cultures, they should do so under a single set of overarching values.

"When it comes to our essential values, the belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage — then that is where we come together, it is what gives us what we hold in common; it is what givesright to call ourselves British," said Mr Blair.

"At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We like our diversity. But how do we react when that "difference" leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that our very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us; abused, indeed, in order to harm us."

BRAVO!!!!

Can we say... 'Arar'??

In Canada, we can't do it so easily. Multiculturalism is now part of our constitution. IOW, we're stuck with whatever lame vaguely worded social engineering ideas that were in vogue in federal Liberal Party circles in the early 1980s.

Yes. And I refure to let that ero of time 'shape me' or 'engineer me' or 'brainwash me'. He will not tell me how I will act towards others that are not from here or how I will view my country.

I have to say, what you quoted is almost a communist way of governing. Sounds like something out of Cuba or North Korea.

How dare he profess our national attitude to us. I can see that it's worked very well for the party. Many here have drunken the Liberal Kool-Aid and don't realize they have miss-managed our programs to the point that our own citizens are dying.

They don't understand that a opertunistic foreign national with a citizenship elsewhere is trying a third time to sue for money and Canadians are going to give him $37,000,000 of our tax dollars when organs can be purchased and Canadian lives can be saved.

They don't understand that citizenship isn't just this peice of paper that entitles you to social benefits of a country. It's much, much more than that.

The Liberal party and it's social engineering has created an almost 'self hating' generation of people who pay homage to outside things like the environment and Arar, but little to its own people who are dying in their own country.

Harper could not really give a speech such as Blair just did because it would be contrary to Charter principles. Or maybe not.

I guess it could, but it wouldn't be a good political move.

Beleive it or not, the Liberal party in Quebec if very hardcore. This one lady said that immigrants were welcome to come to Quebec and settle into their culture and if they weren't interested, then they can 'go back where they came from'.

Either section 27 means something and hence Canada is locked into being a multicultural state or else section 27 means nothing which begs the question of what else we can ignore in the Charter.

I think the charter of rights and freedoms should be abolished all together.

When you pay higher auto-insurance becaue of age, you are being discriminated against which is a violation of the charter of rights and feedoms.

There is no free country on earth. Canada is CERTAINLY NOT A FREE COUNTRY. On the contrary, it's very much a dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we say... 'Arar'??
Can we say... "Enough already!!!"???

State-enouraged multi-culturalism as an ideology is unnecessary but a different issue. Behind all of the superficialities, it is just a result of make-work programs for civil servants. We permit multi-cultural policy and the waste.

Harper could not really give a speech such as Blair just did because it would be contrary to Charter principles. Or maybe not.
Maybe not indeed.

As Prime Minister, I can stand up and say: "I believe in multi-culturalism and I believe it should be left to the free market!!! The free market is the best thing for enhancing Canada's cultural heritage! Multi-culturalism will never be hindered again by civil servants! Hurrah!!!" and then proceed to dismantle state-encouraged multi-culturalism policies.

It is a valid argument.

Either section 27 means something and hence Canada is locked into being a multicultural state or else section 27 means nothing which begs the question of what else we can ignore in the Charter.
The section 27 is too vague.

My argument of the free-market can be a skeleton key to allow us to ignore anything in the Charter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't multiculturism by definition more forced in a country like Britain though? English and Celtic people have dominated Britain for over a thousand years. They define it. In Canada, what defines us is that almost everyone here is an immigrant, or the descendant of an immigrant. There are primarily four ethnicities that belong to Britain, and they rule Britain. The only ethnicity that belongs to Canada is First Nations natives, and they struggle to get by, let alone rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Charter amounts to a badly worded Civil Code addition to our system. I'm wondering out loud what that means and specifically, what does it mean to have "multicultural heritage" included.

It means the federal government has the power to DICTATE and control all aspects that it considers important to promote multiculturalism.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Liberals (strong traditional Quebec support) used culture to help obliterate and destroy the majority English factor including its traditions and customs including Christianity for the benefit of Quebec and its culture.

Obviously the Liberals always assumed they would remain undefeated and always remain power to manipulate the cultural strings in favour of denoting Quebec and the French culture as the supreme and most important culture in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't multiculturism by definition more forced in a country like Britain though? English and Celtic people have dominated Britain for over a thousand years. They define it. In Canada, what defines us is that almost everyone here is an immigrant, or the descendant of an immigrant. There are primarily four ethnicities that belong to Britain, and they rule Britain. The only ethnicity that belongs to Canada is First Nations natives, and they struggle to get by, let alone rule.

Before "multicultualism" there were ancient Britons, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans and others who over time merged into the culture we call British. The same goes for France and the rest of Europe in one way or another. Wonder what they would have turned into if they had made it policy to keep different cultures as individual as possible. Wonder how North America would have developed. There would certainly be no French /English question, there would be no such thing as French and English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Leafless. However, it has occured to me that you use the power of your mouse and keyboard to try and destroy anything resembling meaningful, intelligent debate on this subject.

Remiel, your posts concerning your view of what you consider as intelligent debate mostly all have socialistic elements and anti American ramblings that disassociate your line of thought with others who might have a more functional, realistic view pertaining to a variety of issue's.

In other words grow up, if you want to participate in a meaningful way on a public board that incorporates 'free speech' and address the issue and not attack the writer.

If you don't like what I say, to bad as opinions don't only belong to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Liberals (strong traditional Quebec support) used culture to help obliterate and destroy the majority English factor including its traditions and customs including Christianity for the benefit of Quebec and its culture.
Canadians across the country voted for the Liberals several times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leafless, you insult the members of this community by trying to suggest that you attack issues instead of people. Every day I see another thread by you started as a blatantly obvious attack on a segment of the population of Canada. How the hell do you think the people of Quebec are trying to use the Liberals to " destroy Christianity " when by far and large the people of Quebec are ROMAN CATHOLIC, or in other words CHRISTIANS, MAJORITY CHRISTIANS, to use an example of your own repeated inane comments. If we were to go through all of our respective posts one by one, at the end the only conclusion that could be made by anyone would be that my posts and sentiments, however narrow, are still far more diverse than yours. Almost every single post you make is BLAME THE FRENCH, BLAME THE IMMIGRANTS, ENGLISH IS GOD, THEYRE DESTROYING OUR VALUES. You even admitted to twisting your own arguments, substituting " Western Values " for YOUR VALUES, which are not, by any means, " Western Values " . So, when you have what it takes to be more than a tired, one trick pony, maybe you'll be fit to criticize me, but until then, I suggest you take a better look at yourself before you try to attack others for their partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assimilation is a two way street. Cultures cannot assimilate without assuming many of the characteristics of both cultures, hopefully the best ones. The great majority of the worlds cultures came about exactly that way. Very few evolved in isolation. Most of these cultures would not exist or be very different if legislated multiculturalism had been enforced over the ages. Legislated multiculturalism as much as says, "we aren't going to do that anymore, we are going to take a snapshot of the worlds cultures and evolve them separately." Rather than calling it "multiculturalism", "cultural Balkanism" would be a better term. Legislated "multiculturalism" is not the natural way of things because it requires laws to exist and as a result is bound to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assimilation is a two way street. Cultures cannot assimilate without assuming many of the characteristics of both cultures, hopefully the best ones. The great majority of the worlds cultures came about exactly that way. Very few evolved in isolation. Most of these cultures would not exist or be very different if legislated multiculturalism had been enforced over the ages. Legislated multiculturalism as much as says, "we aren't going to do that anymore, we are going to take a snapshot of the worlds cultures and evolve them separately." Rather than calling it "multiculturalism", "cultural Balkanism" would be a better term. Legislated "multiculturalism" is not the natural way of things because it requires laws to exist and as a result is bound to fail.

There is also a common culture. For instance, South Asian culture includes Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and India. While they have different langauges, they all share a south asian culture which is arguably the strongest in the world.

There is a European culture which we are all familiar with.

Then there is the 'North American' culture which is based off working and democracy.

Then from there it keeps narrowing. Then religion gets involved. Then it falls apart.

We should strive for assimilation and the language of English/French. We should not bend to anyone when it comes to sacrificing our ways to old country ways. (ie: Shariah Law, ethnic holidays, not working, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our culture is not based on work or democracy, even if they form part of the underpinning.

When you say " ethnic holiday " do you mean actual cultural holidays, or do you include religious holidays? I doubt most people would support making national holidays of cultural celebrations, but adding a couple non-Christian holidays would be fine with me. Think of it in this context: If the government decides that there perhaps needs to be an extra holiday in a certain month, and in that month there is a prime religious holy day for one of the largest minority religions in Canada, wouldn't it make sense to make that day the holiday, satisfying the most needs of the most people possible? If you mean religious holiday, well, then I guess we're going to have to do without Christmas then. Not like it was that important, anyway. I mean, seeing on how the date has nothing to do with the actual birth of Jesus, and everything to do with the funny politiking of the Church. Not that I want to get rid of Christmas as a holiday mind you.

Hmmm... now there is a kind of interesting question: If Christmas were to cease as a national holiday, would it still be as big an occassion? Maybe that question deserves a thread of its own...

Err, also, in a short attempt to un-hijack this thread...

August, since we all know how difficult it is to change the constitution in this country, if they were able to add it to the constitution, doesn't that mean that all of the provinces that signed the changes must have agreed in principle to some extent to the worthwhileness of the sentiment that Canada was a multicultural country? In theory, I mean, didn't everyone *agree*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a common culture. For instance, South Asian culture includes Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and India. While they have different langauges, they all share a south asian culture which is arguably the strongest in the world.

There is a European culture which we are all familiar with.

Then there is the 'North American' culture which is based off working and democracy.

None of these evolved in isolation, they are a result of many cultures assimilating over centuries of migrations and conquests. They will evolve and spawn new cultures regardless of whatever politicians and special interests try to engineer through legislation. We criticize religious fundamentalists when they try to turn the clock back. The concept of multiculturalism tries to stop the clock. Equally as bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a common culture. For instance, South Asian culture includes Pakistan, Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, and India. While they have different langauges, they all share a south asian culture which is arguably the strongest in the world.

There is a European culture which we are all familiar with.

Then there is the 'North American' culture which is based off working and democracy.

None of these evolved in isolation, they are a result of many cultures assimilating over centuries of migrations and conquests. They will evolve and spawn new cultures regardless of whatever politicians and special interests try to engineer through legislation. We criticize religious fundamentalists when they try to turn the clock back. The concept of multiculturalism tries to stop the clock. Equally as bizarre.

I find that Trudeaus 'vision' of how Canadians should act and think has actually worked and has proved succsesful and a culture was born for anglo Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that Trudeaus 'vision' of how Canadians should act and think has actually worked and has proved succsesful and a culture was born for anglo Canadians.

Exactly, among many other cultures. So what is a Canadian culture? An immigrant arrives from Japan. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Italy. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Nicaragua. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian, etc., etc., etc., The obvious question is, what the hell is a Canadian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that Trudeaus 'vision' of how Canadians should act and think has actually worked and has proved succsesful and a culture was born for anglo Canadians.

Exactly, among many other cultures. So what is a Canadian culture? An immigrant arrives from Japan. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Italy. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Nicaragua. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian, etc., etc., etc., The obvious question is, what the hell is a Canadian?

We can tell them anything we want but the matter of fact is that people become Canadian anyway. One sure sign is that they don't normally rant about the Greeks or the Burmese but they rant about the lazy easterners, the self-centered Ontarians, the greedy Albertans and so on. Multiculturalism means diversity and variety. If everyone was the same, we would be a bunch of boring narrow-minded rednecks living near the north pole. But seriously, if you look at the stats, one generation and bang - all immigrants' children have the same profile as the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that Trudeaus 'vision' of how Canadians should act and think has actually worked and has proved succsesful and a culture was born for anglo Canadians.

Exactly, among many other cultures. So what is a Canadian culture? An immigrant arrives from Japan. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Italy. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian. An immigrant arrives from Nicaragua. We tell him he doesn't have to change anything to be a Canadian, etc., etc., etc., The obvious question is, what the hell is a Canadian?

We can tell them anything we want but the matter of fact is that people become Canadian anyway. One sure sign is that they don't normally rant about the Greeks or the Burmese but they rant about the lazy easterners, the self-centered Ontarians, the greedy Albertans and so on. Multiculturalism means diversity and variety. If everyone was the same, we would be a bunch of boring narrow-minded rednecks living near the north pole. But seriously, if you look at the stats, one generation and bang - all immigrants' children have the same profile as the rest of us.

Lol..

go try to get romantically involved with a Sikh girl and see what happens if we're all equal.

you will see a form of reverse racism that you never thought was possible in this country.

And yes, i've bee through it several times. They don't want a 'Canadian' in their family.

I'm sure there's got to be at least one person here who's experienced this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we accept your conclusion that we shouldn't be allowing those Sikhs into Canada if they don't " assimilate " then you are essentially creating a scenario where the " Canadian " and the Sikh never meet, and thus the result is the same.

Perhaps multiculturalism is a kind of loan - we loan you a part of our society, with the expectation that in time you or your descendants will adapt to our few core values. In the meantime, as long as you don't break the law, we'll allow you to believe and do what you will, essentially the same right everyone else in the country has.

Or maybe this would be one way to diagnose our problem: Multiculturalism in this country is sick; it is not the sickness. You seem to believe it is the sickness.

If one of our values is that neither race nor religion is should be a barrier to two people falling in love and becoming a family, how exactly do we measure who has really embraced that value short of forcing everyone to attempt to marry outside their race or religion?

How do you measure assimilation of multiculturalism? If Canadians value multiculturalism, as I think has been evidenced many times over the years, how do we measure which white, English speaking Canadians have really assimilated to our culture? I mean, if the majority values multiculturalism, and you aren't believe in it, mikedavid, then why haven't you assimilated? If you were an immigrant, should we be shipping you back to where you came from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...