Multiculturalism, Trudeau, Quebec & Landry

[capricorn]

And I read a few quotes from Dion's anniversary (of Bill 101) remarks. Rank treason, from the alleged Captain Canada.

This is what Dion said about Bill 101.

"The separatists' Bill 101 is a brilliant piece of legislation."

http://www.languagefairness.com/Quotes.php

[jbg]

This is what Dion said about Bill 101.

"The separatists' Bill 101 is a brilliant piece of legislation."

http://www.languagefairness.com/Quotes.php

Frankly, Dion should be challenged to a rematch at a place right near the Fairmont Chateau Frontenac. Oh, gee, it's called the Plains of Abraham.

[Peter F]

the Plains of Abraham worked out just fine for English Canada. I thought it was all settled there.

You thought wrong, obviously. The only thing the Plains of Abraham decided was France being unable to continue the struggle to hold

Canada.

What else would you think it resolved?

[jbg]

You thought wrong, obviously. The only thing the Plains of Abraham decided was France being unable to continue the struggle to hold

Canada.

What else would you think it resolved?

That French is a second-position language and culture, and that Canada is fundamentally an English-speaking country.

[Peter F]

That French is a second-position language and culture, and that Canada is fundamentally an English-speaking country.

What is a 'second-position language and culture'?

[jbg]

What is a 'second-position language and culture'?

One that is an important, high-visibility minority. But if Canadian is your first language you understood exactly what I meant.

[Peter F]

One that is an important, high-visibility minority. But if Canadian is your first language you understood exactly what I meant.

Actually English is my first language. But thanks for the psuedo-explanation.

[jbg]

Actually English is my first language. But thanks for the psuedo-explanation.

English or Canadian, the concept is obviously beyond your understanding, even though it's perfectly obvious what I mean.

[Peter F]

History didn't end for Canada in 1759, JBG.

[jbg]

History didn't end for Canada in 1759, JBG.

I'm well aware of that. But it's not a good thing when controversies perpetuate themselves for what's now 248 years. Sometimes certainty is more important than striking a perfect balance.

[Leafless]

History didn't end for Canada in 1759, JBG.

It should have and its to bad for the British and Canada that they did not take the necessary steps to prevent this arrogant group with no culture or no history from pursuing the perpetual continuation of this battle that continues to-day.

[jbg]

I'm well aware of that. But it's not a good thing when controversies perpetuate themselves for what's now 248 years. Sometimes certainty is more important than striking a perfect balance.

It should have and its to bad for the British and Canada that they did not take the necessary steps to prevent this arrogant group with no culture or no history from pursuing the perpetual continuation of this battle that continues to-day.

Are we saying basically the same thing?

[guyser]

Are we saying basically the same thing?

Only if rational = irrational...........

[Peter F]

Are we saying basically the same thing?

Yes.I believe so...wait. Maybe not.

Leafless says Britain shudda done it; You say you thought it was done.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Peter F

[August1991]

Here is my opinion on this:

Multiculturalism = junk

Trudeau = idiot, traitor

Landry = traitor

Bill 101 = junk

Go back and read the cites in the OP of this thread. You may be surprised to learn that you agree with both Trudeau, and Landry.

[jbg]

I would say that the policy of multiculturalism, in practice, has governments encouraging people to cling to old ways, to rejoice and take pride in their existing culture and value system, and actively discourages them from abandoning it and embracing the culture of their new homeland. It involves grants and moneys for ethnic festivals and cultural centres, for ethnic language training, and for tailoring government programs to minority ethnic cultures.

I think this is a fair definition of multiculturalism, and experience since 1971 has shown that it doesn't work. The "Royal Report" and Trudeau's explanation of it is surprisingly incoherent, perhaps for the reason that if anyone really understood it they'd be utterly horrified.

[Michael Hardner]

Great thread, Auguste.

'Official Multiculturalism' is, according to some posters, just a pose or a way for Canada to look pretty. This may well be true. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can't think of any good examples of legislation that are significantly affected by official multiculturalism.

Sure, we have some festivals that are funded but I don't think that such things amount to much at all.

I also don't agree with jbg that it "experience shows that it doesn't work". The claims made along these lines have been debated for pages and pages on here. All I can glean from those who are against multiculturalism is that they want Canadian white culture to be preserved as if Canada were a museum of the 1950s.

* Does anybody have any examples of significant policy decisions that were/are affected by multiculturalism ?

[Leafless]

* Does anybody have any examples of significant policy decisions that were/are affected by multiculturalism ?

Oh, absolutely none at all, that is if your happy with Canada being a dysfunctional totalitarian state ruled by dictators as in a 'banana republic'.

What significant policy decisions could you possibly be talking about that were not forcefully federally unilaterally imposed?

Sounds like your happy with the level of democracy that exist in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Please give examples, evidence, quantify your fears.

Without objective information, no one will be convinced of your dark and numerous panics.

[socred]

It seems to me that "multiculturalism" is a socialist tool designed to destroy western Christian culture and replace it with socialist culture based on dialectical materialism. Communists are notorious for their "cultural revolutions", and socialism is merely an evolutionary form of communism. The first step is destroying a culture is to claim that there exists "multi" cultures within a community. This only creates division, and the strategy is divide and conquer.

I have no problem with people from other cultures coming to Canada, but I have a problem when they don't respect the established culture that has built this country and made it great. If the culture in the Middle East or Africa or Asia is so great, why are people fleeing those countries as refugees to seek refuge in our country?

[capricorn]

I have no problem with people from other cultures coming to Canada, but I have a problem when they don't respect the established culture that has built this country and made it great. If the culture in the Middle East or Africa or Asia is so great, why are people fleeing those countries as refugees to seek refuge in our country?

You may be interested in the following article which speaks to your thoughts.

Shakir then blasted immigrant parents for expecting their kids to be oblivious to the realities of their adopted homeland.

"If you want your children to be a Pakistani, to be an Egyptian, to be a Syrian, to be a Turk, to be a Sudanese, a Somali, then you should've stayed in Pakistan or Egypt or Sudan or Somalia," Shakir said, to applause.

Shakir said it wasn't the childrens' choice to immigrate, but the parents. "Parents, your children didn't ask to come here, to Canada or America or Britain. They didn't ask to come here. You chose to come here... there are consequences that come with that choice," Shakir said.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/12...745533-sun.html

This Shakir dude has it all figured out. He and those like him need to be heard.

[socred]

You may be interested in the following article which speaks to your thoughts.

Shakir then blasted immigrant parents for expecting their kids to be oblivious to the realities of their adopted homeland.

"If you want your children to be a Pakistani, to be an Egyptian, to be a Syrian, to be a Turk, to be a Sudanese, a Somali, then you should've stayed in Pakistan or Egypt or Sudan or Somalia," Shakir said, to applause.

Shakir said it wasn't the childrens' choice to immigrate, but the parents. "Parents, your children didn't ask to come here, to Canada or America or Britain. They didn't ask to come here. You chose to come here... there are consequences that come with that choice," Shakir said.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/12...745533-sun.html

This Shakir dude has it all figured out. He and those like him need to be heard.

Thank you, that was an interesting article with which I agree.

[jbg]

I also don't agree with jbg that it "experience shows that it doesn't work". The claims made along these lines have been debated for pages and pages on here. All I can glean from those who are against multiculturalism is that they want Canadian white culture to be preserved as if Canada were a museum of the 1950s.

And what have Somalis, Pakistanis and Sikhs contributed to Canada?

In the US the answer is "plenty" since we don't have much of a welfare safety net, and the ones that come have, if anything, more initiative than the ones who stay home. I suspect that the ones winding up in Europe and Canada come to take rather than to give. Else why is Jane-Finch such a lovely area?

[guyser]

And what have Somalis, Pakistanis and Sikhs contributed to Canada?

By what measurement does one judge? What are they supposed to contribute. You know as well as I do that there are infinitely more lazy domestic born slobs who dont do much in both of our countries.

They pay their taxes, some of them open businesses, some work factory jobs , some are on welfare, some got to University or other higher education like lawyers , some are other type white collar workers.

The same goes for immigrants.

In the US the answer is "plenty" since we don't have much of a welfare safety net, and the ones that come have, if anything, more initiative than the ones who stay home. I suspect that the ones winding up in Europe and Canada come to take rather than to give. Else why is Jane-Finch such a lovely area?

I think you would be wrong. They will take advantage of social programmes no doubt, be it here or in the USA, but to say they come here "to take" and the ones you get are superior , well I just dont buy it.

Jane Finch? Dont believe what you read here. Besides, have you ever been in Jane Finch corridor?

[capricorn]

They pay their taxes, some of them open businesses, some work factory jobs , some are on welfare, some got to University or other higher education like lawyers , some are other type white collar workers.

I agree guyser. We have a hodge-podge but to categorize them as native born Canadians or new Canadians does not reflect reality. The challenge is to give everyone the opportunity to succeed without resorting to the option of relying on the state for their livelihood.

Jane Finch? Dont believe what you read here. Besides, have you ever been in Jane Finch corridor?

I've never been to that neighborhood so I cannot and will not judge. In my city Ottawa we have areas where lower incomes seem to gravitate but I don't see them as welfare neighborhoods just as areas which are cheaper to reside in.