• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged

Status
Not open for further replies.
BHC1 said:
.....while ignoring the massive contributions of Islamic culture in the sciences and arts and of Muslims in our own country.

In modern times, can you please provide some links of contribution to arts and sciences from this culture.

Here is somthing which is 'culturally' acceptable http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1653

Summing up, thank your lucky stars you live in Canada.

Regards,

OWDU
 
BHC1

I am sure that most, if not all, on this site can agree that the Persians contributed significantly to the Sciences and Arts many centuries ago.  Since then, we have seen the rise of Islam undo many of the Persians contributions, and impose severe restrictions on the education and creativity of the peoples of the Region.  Grand contributions centuries ago, does not preclude the descent into barbarianism that seems to have befallen the Region under Islam.
 
Kirkhill:
I would agree, however I believe that there is a key difference between positive statements and making generalizations (which I would argue Mr. Wallace made). Though I believe both are necessary in the thought-process, the first can be challenged empirically while the later can be twisted into something much uglier, unfair marginalization and downright discrimination.

Overwatch Downunder
Yes, I am very thankful to be a Canadian. I am absolutely certain that many Muslims in both our great nation and throughout the Middle-East would find the words spewed by the person your blog follows horrid, just as I’m sure many in North America would shun the bigotry of the KKK or Christian Militias.

George Wallace
You are correct to assume that when I made my original post I was thinking mostly about Middle Age to Enlightenment era Turkish, Mughal, and Persian contributions. If I were to post a link it would be the first thing that comes up on Google, and I don’t believe that it would further this discussion.

Some of the cultural practices associated with Islam are downright despicable and the fact that political reform has not come with the oil wealth of many countries in the Middle-East should be of concern. However, I would still argue that characterizing the practices, customs, and way of life of over a billion people as ‘barbaric’ an unfair assessment.

I apologies if my post came off as trolling. I live in Vancouver and came on this website to find out information about the reserves. Came to find the political discussion on this board of interest.
 
BHC1 said:
Overwatch Downunder
Yes, I am very thankful to be a Canadian. I am absolutely certain that many Muslims in both our great nation and throughout the Middle-East would find the words spewed by the person your blog follows horrid, just as I’m sure many in North America would shun the bigotry of the KKK or Christian Militias.

There you go mentioning oil. What does oil have to do with it? The KSA as does Iran have nasty punishments such as public executions, and the chopping off of hands/feet etc?


So you do not think sharia law is barbaric? Stoning women to death? Chopping off hands, feet and heads from simple crimes considered the west a fine?

I can't forget about the poor 5 year old muslim boy who had his forearm RAN OVER by a 4WD ( I am sure you can google that one  ::) ) for simple theft, or the recent hanging of a 7 yr old kid in Afghanistan for being a spy.

Sometimes 'horrid' is the truth. I don't like that anymore than you do, but thats the world we live in.

Don't forget the Ontario push for sharia law recently.

I am still waiting for any links into arts and culture in modern times, which you have failed to mention and provide. That 'google' line is lame.

Just where are your morals anyways?
 
BHC1 said:
I believe statements such as "most Arab/Persian/West Asian cultures are if not wholly barbaric" is part of the reason why there exist such a perceived divide between the West and Islam. When one uses words like "barbarian" to describe a particular culture, they unfairly ignore its winder contributions and even more direly stigmatize whole peoples. Such terminology easily plays into the image of bearded men hoarding their veiled female cousins into caves, while ignoring the massive contributions of Islamic culture in the sciences and arts and of Muslims in our own country.


I understand your point, BHC1, but I'm afraid I cannot change my wording because:

First - while I recognize that my Thesaurus is older than many members here, the first antonym for civilized (which I defined, perhaps overly simply, as being "religiously reformed and socio-politically enlightened") is barbaric; and

Second - you are providing an example of the argument put forward by the "barbarians' apologists," it's a modern variant of 'Don't let's be beastly to the Germans'.

I have long thumped the table to the effect that the Global War on Terror is a silly idea and, worse, deflects our attention from the real 'clash' which is not between civilizations but, rather, between civilization (there are more than one sort, as I said) and barbarism. There are also several sorts of barbarism but part of the Islamic Crescent (the part in North Africa, the Middle East, and Persia/West Asia) provides one dangerous example.

The clash between civilization and barbarism is not waged, solely, in far distant, dirty, dangerous places - it also takes place in Toronto, Sydney, London, Chicago and Vancouver. We are, broadly, civilized; it has been a long, long - thousand year long - struggle to get there, and we are not finished; it is a matter of cultures, not religions, but it is very hard to separate religion from some cultures.
 
In justifying the expansion of France’s colonial possession Jules Ferry stated on July 28th 1885 that “the superior races have a right because they have a duty: it is their duty to civilize the inferior races." The notion of civilization versus barbarism is as old if not older than colonialism. While it was a cute and maybe even noble idea, it was nothing more than a fable to justify the economic interests of would-be European colonizers. The idea of the barbarian must be ‘constructed’, bits and pieces of ‘truth’ are tangled together to create an image, one almost always antithetical to the West (looks like we have a get out of the cave free card). I concede that barbarism is running amuck in many places of the Middle-East, and I agree that Muslims must adopt more closely the ways of majority in Toronto, Sydney, London, Chicago and Vancouver.  However to characterize the whole culture as barbaric I find a near absurdity.
 
Our word barbarian, like Tartar, comes from a pejorative description of the sound of foreign languages to an untrained ear: "bar, bar" or "tar, tar". We never 'understand' really foreign cultures - even when we can speak the languages.

But we do 'understand' the elements of civilization in the 21st century and we can, therefore, equally understand that which does not have those elements, which does not meet the 'standard' of 'civilized.' I would argue that, despite their accomplishments - which are many, the North Africans, Arabs, Persians and West Asians have failed to 'advance' their cultures much beyond where they were in, say, 1000 to 1200 CE. If we look back on Western European society circa 1100 CE we do not find it 'civilized;' it is, in fact, by any fair measure, barbarian. But, even circa 1000 CE there were stirrings in Western Europe that led, with much struggle, to civilization, as we know it today. I'm guessing those same stirrings were present in North Africa ... West Asia but, for some reason, the cultures of that large region did not allow them to flourish. Those North African ... West Asian societies were more cultured and, generally, more technologically advanced than were Western European societies (although some historians suggest that most of those advances were imported from father and father East: India and China) but, even then, "we" had the roots of a modern civilization and they, it appears, to me, did not.

So I will stick with barbarian, thanks, but I take note of your views.
 
I must respectfully disagree, though I see that you obviously have some clear reasoning. An article I thought might be of interest, if it has already been posted I apolagize in advance.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.03-society-canada-multiculturism/
 
I’m not alone, according to this column by a Muslim leader reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-shame-of-honour-crimes/article1612108/
The shame of honour crimes
It’s time to stop the importation of this murderous custom

Sheema Khan

Between 2001 and 2004, Haideh Moghissi, Saeed Rahnema and Mark J. Goodman of York University conducted an extensive study of about 2,000 immigrants to Canada from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Jordan.

Not surprisingly, immigrants experienced a clash of cultures, including tension between individual rights and community loyalty. Another key area was gender equality: Immigrants believed women had more independence and rights in Canada than in their country of origin. Female immigrants believed this to be a good thing; the men weren’t so sure. Unsurprisingly, gender equity was found to be a primary source of tension between spouses. The study did not probe the cultural schizophrenia experienced by immigrant youths, or how families retained cohesiveness in the face of these tensions. This analysis is essential, given the recent murders of young women by family members for pursuing individual choices contrary to tradition.

Between 2006 and 2009, at least three women have been killed in Ontario for breaching family “honour.” Recently, a Montreal-area Afghan-Canadian woman was charged with attempted murder of her 19-year-old daughter, apparently after she came home late. While these unproven allegations are shocking, more so are the roles alleged to have been played by victims’ brothers.

In 2006, Khatera Sadiqi, 20, and fiancé Feroz Mangal, 23 were shot to death in Ottawa by Ms. Sadiqi’s brother. Ms. Sadiqi’s father did not approve of her fiancé; brother Hasibullah sought to “restore” the Afghan family’s honour by killing her. He received a 25-year prison sentence.

In 2007, 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez’s brother and father murdered her in their Mississauga home for allegedly “shaming” the Pakistani family with her preference for Western norms. Family members told police that retribution was the price to pay for violating cultural and religious boundaries. Each man received a life prison sentence.

In one other case that has yet to go to trial, so none of the allegations are proven, Zainab Shafia, 19, her sisters Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, and their father’s first wife, Rona Amir Mohammad, 50, were found dead in a car submerged in the Rideau Canal. The parents and brother of the girls were charged with first-degree murder. Police hinted they believe “honour” was the motive.

Misogyny over gender equality, tribalism over individuality, control over freedom. One would think that the younger generation would shed old customs in favour of new ones. But according to University of Toronto professor Shahrzad Mojab (who served as an expert witness on honour killing at Hasibullah Sadiqi’s trial), members of diaspora communities tend to cling to their traditions tenaciously in order to preserve a distinct identity. In cultures where control of women represents male control over the family, an individualistic female “tarnishes” a male’s reputation and “shames” the family in the eyes of the community. Honour is “purified” by killing the source of shame.

Combined with the York University study, this analysis makes it seem that Canada’s spate of honour crimes may continue. Cultural tensions, male domination and instant social messaging are ingredients for disaster. Indiscretions can be instantly broadcast to the world, leaving young women vulnerable to retribution.

We must act quickly before more blood is shed. These barbaric acts should be clearly designated as honour crimes, making it clear that such customs are unwelcome and will be severely punished. There should be wide publication of the long prison sentences recently meted out.

Community leaders must unequivocally condemn imported misogynous practices and attitudes. They should deal with the root causes of gender-based violence head on, rather than blaming the media for image problems. It’s time for a critical examination of violence rooted in religious and cultural tradition.

A comprehensive effort must be made to reach vulnerable families in communities that value family “honour” above all else. This must include social programs directed to violence-prone males, such as the Cease Fire program in Chicago, which has successfully reversed gang violence. Its basic elements could be adopted to help prevent gender-based violence. The program uses a public health approach to address at-risk communities and individuals by using street-level outreach, public education, community organizations, faith leaders and the police to change community norms.

Women are dead as a result of breaching family honour. Who knows how many live under the threat of violence? It’s time to take off the gloves of political correctness and stop the importation of this murderous custom.

My emphasis added.

I’m not sure about Sheema Khan’s (or any other) solutions, but I do agree, 100%, with her characterization of the acts, themselves: barbaric, and I agree with her attribution of that barbarism to “old country” cultural values.
 
Hmmm, it sounds like Ottawa may be considering a new "type" of crime, if the Minister of State for Status of Women was quoted properly here - highlights mine:
The minister for status of women says Ottawa is looking into amending the Criminal Code to include so-called honour crimes.

Rona Ambrose spoke today in Mississauga, Ont., condemning honour-based violence against women.


The city west of Toronto was home to 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, who was killed by her father and brother after repeated conflict with her family over her desire for some independence.

According to facts entered in court, the two Parvez men believed they could keep the family's pride intact by killing Aqsa, rather than letting her have a part-time job and go to the movies with friends.

Ambrose says the federal government is calling on community groups to develop on-the-ground projects to help prevent so-called honour killings.

There was no funding commitment but the minister encouraged women's and community-based groups to submit project proposals.

When asked if the Criminal Code would be amended to include honour killing, Ambrose said the government is looking into it.

"I'll say that it's something that we're looking at," she said. "Nothing more than that at this time."

Hmmmm.... Do we need "honour" crime in the books (think a variation on "hate" crime), or do we just clamp down consistently and harshly on violations with laws already on the books?
 
A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.
 
Technoviking said:
A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.

It appears the Minister of Justice's press secretary, if quoted correctly in this CP story, agrees with you  ;D - highlights mine:
The Conservative government dispatched one of its ministers Monday to the city where a 16-year-old girl was killed by her father and brother to condemn so-called honour killings, but it appears Rona Ambrose may have spoken out of turn.

The event was a statement from the minister for status of women, containing no program or funding announcement, and the news to emerge was that Ambrose said Ottawa is "looking at" amending the Criminal Code to include so-called honour crimes.

She was asked if the government was considering such changes, and she replied that it was under consideration.

"I'll say that it's something that we're looking at," she said. "Nothing more than that at this time."

However, when contacted for more details about possible changes, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said in fact, that is not the case.

"There are currently no plans to do that," said Pamela Stephens.

"While we're always interested in new input into ways to improve the Criminal Code, currently honour killing suggests a certain motive or conduct. But regardless of the motive the law as it exists in Canada is clear that intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive." ....

Does that mean "hate" crimes will be on their way out too, then?  ;)

Rona, Rona, Rona.... :tsktsk:
 
Technoviking said:
A crime is a crime is a crime.  I'm not a big fan of so-called "hate" crimes.  It implies that in spite of the pontification of equality, we actually treat some of our society differently based on the things we're supposed not to treat them differently.


Agreed. How would the sentence change, anyway?
 
The Minister, via the Canadian Press, clears up the "honour crime/Criminal Code of Canada" thing:  ain't happening:
Canada's justice minister has moved to quash weeks of confusion by playing down the idea that Ottawa might amend the Criminal Code to include so-called "honour killings."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says Ottawa is making honour crimes a priority but there isn't any real need to change the Criminal Code to achieve such an objective.

(....)

Nicholson told The Canadian Press that some sort of plan would be devised but downplayed the possibility that code amendments were the preferred option.

"It's not necessarily any changes to the Criminal Code," Nicholson told The Canadian Press in an interview this week.

"Specifically with respect to murder, there are (already) very strong provisions." ....
 
Why do we need to waste time, effort and money to make "honour killings" a specific crime under the CCC? Killing a human being, regardless of the religious context is murder, cut and dry.
 
Hmmm,

The courts should be careful, as this may be a challenge that organized gangsters could use.....

dileas

tess
 
the 48th regulator said:
Hmmm,

The courts should be careful, as this may be a challenge that organized gangsters could use.....

Are you joking or do you see a viable defense tactic there?
 
Necroposting this back to life to bring Landry's comments into context: please note his comments in large font towards the middle of the article. While I think Marois and her PQ/OQLF mafia are n*tw*ts for instigating the whole "pastgate" scandal in Quebec a couple of months ago, in contrast, I agree with Landry's comments with regard to multiculturalism. As an immigrant who became a Canadian citizen a couple of years ago, I agree with what he has said about his emphasis on integration vs. multiculturalism and "when you change country, you change country".

Also please note similar recent threads titled "Strike Multiculturalism from Vocabulary" and "State Multiculturalism has failed says David Cameron".

link

English media 'pathetic' in coverage of Parti Quebecois minorities plan: ex-premier

QUEBEC - The media of English Canada are to blame for pathetic, unfair coverage of the Parti Quebecois' controversial minorities plan, according to prominent Pequistes.

A former premier called the coverage pitiful. And a current cabinet minister took to Twitter to condemn it Tuesday.

The complaints about the Anglo fourth estate came amid a furor over an impending plan by the PQ government to restrict public employees' right to wear religious clothing.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, ex-premier Bernard Landry said he can't accept some of the complaints directed at the Quebecois.

"I take pity on some of Canada's English newspapers," Landry said.

"It's infuriating but it's so pathetic to go and say that Quebec is xenophobic and racist — when from the start of our national adventure we intermingled with Amerindians. The majority of us have Amerindian roots, one-quarter of us have Irish roots, we have had six premiers of Irish origin. What are these people talking about? Why are they so misinformed in the rest of Canada?...

"Do they think our culture minister was born on Ile d'Orleans? It's (Cameroonian native) Maka Kotto. We (the PQ) elected the first black person in the Quebec national assembly. The Bloc Quebecois elected the first Latino to the Parliament of Canada. They should open their eyes."

Landry made a prediction: that the rest of Canada will one day "deeply regret" having embraced the doctrine of multiculturalism.


He says it leads to a lack of integration that harms social cohesion and, pointing to Europe, he says that ultimately risks feeding right-wing extremist politics over time.

"Multiculturalism will lead to more and more problems, like in Great Britain. In Holland, in Germany, same thing. Angela Merkel came out against this doctrine a while ago. Immigrants themselves are the first victims of multiculturalism," he said.

"In the U.S., you never see a police officer with a turban. There are things worth regulating and I hope it gets done (here).


"The rule is, when you change country, you change country. They can't expect to find everything here that they had in their country of origin. Integration is a powerful signal that they need to adjust to a new nation.

"And the majority of them do it wonderfully."


In fact, following Landry's remarks, people shared images and anecdotes on social media of U.S. law-enforcement officers wearing turbans.

There's also some research that suggests Canada's approach to integrating immigrants has worked comparably well.

The most recent international Migrant Integration Policy Index placed Canada at No. 3, behind Sweden and Portugal, by using 148 criteria to measure successful integration.

The PQ says it will put forward its Charter of Quebec Values within several weeks, and seek to get it through the legislature.

Critics have called the plan unconstitutional, or worse.

A leaked version of the proposal says the government would bar public employees from wearing religious clothing — such as turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes.


The plan may have enough support to be adopted in the legislature. The opposition Coalition Avenir Quebec says it would support parts of the plan, although it would apply the rules to far fewer public-sector workers.

The idea has majority public support in Quebec, according to polls, but it's far from clear that such support would translate into more votes for the PQ.

Landry, 76, was briefly premier after he replaced the retiring Lucien Bouchard in 2001. He lost the 2003 provincial election.

A Jesuit-trained former lawyer, economist, civil servant, university professor and cabinet minister, Landry was best known in politics for a sharp tongue that once compared the Canadian flag to "bits of red rag."

He wasn't the only Pequiste to take a swipe at the Anglo-Canadian media on Tuesday.


The province's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Alexandre Cloutier, who is also the minister of "sovereigntist governance," used Twitter to take a swipe at pieces in the Calgary Herald and National Post.

"Being called a xenophobe by the Calgary Herald," he said, in remarks he repeated about the other newspaper. "Once again, a lack of perspective and understanding from the ROC."

It's not only Anglo pundits blasting the idea, though.

Although the editorial-writers in French have been less unanimous than their Anglo counterparts on the subject, numerous columns have denounced the PQ plan — a minority in the Journal de Montreal, but especially in Montreal La Presse.

One Tuesday in La Presse, by the newspaper's chief editorial writer, called it an extreme measure that smacks of intolerance. He compared it to Maurice Duplessis' persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in a piece titled, "The Tyranny of the Majority."

Another in the same newspaper called it a manufactured crisis by the PQ, and urged respect for minority rights.

A column in the same newspaper last week compared the PQ approach to McCarthyism and, using the crude eight-letter English term for bovine droppings, pointed out the government's inconsistency in preaching state secularism while keeping the crucifix in the legislature.

A pair of representatives from minority organizations interviewed Tuesday expressed concern about the direction Quebec politics was headed.

David Ouellette, spokesman for the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said things got tense a few years ago thanks in part to sensationalistic media coverage within Quebec
.

That news coverage created political pressure, amid which the then-Charest Liberal government created a commission to explore minority accommodations.

"Certain media milked it with very tempestuous and virulent declarations during the commission's hearings, which created a climate of uncertainty for minorities in Quebec," said Ouellette, who was interviewed before Landry's comments were publicly reported and who declined later to react to them.

"Why is the government reviving this debate and unleashing dangerous passions?"

Mukhbir Singh, a spokesman for the World Sikh organization of Canada, says community members in Montreal are genuinely concerned about the PQ proposal and the direction the province is headed in. Especially because it comes on the heels of the short-lived Quebec turban ban in soccer.

"I think we're seeing a progression here that's worrying everyone," the organization's vice-president for Quebec and Atlantic Canada said in an interview.

Some federal politicians have also weighed in to blast the plan, including Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

-With files from Peter Rakobowchuk
 
More on culture; this time a brief report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9
Business_Insider.jpg

The Lewis Model Explains Every Culture In The World

GUS LUBIN

SEP. 6, 2013

A world traveler who speaks ten languages, British linguist Richard Lewis decided he was qualified to plot the world's cultures on a chart.

He did so while acknowledging the dangers of stereotypes.

"Determining national characteristics is treading a minefield of inaccurate assessment and surprising exception," Lewis wrote. "There is, however, such a thing as a national norm."

Many people think he nailed it, as his book "When Cultures Collide," now in its third edition, has sold more than one million copies since it was first published in 1996 and was called "an authoritative roadmap to navigating the world's economy," by the Wall Street Journal.

Lewis plots countries in relation to three categories:

    Linear-actives — those who plan, schedule, organize, pursue action chains, do one thing at a time. Germans and Swiss are in this group.

    Multi-actives — those lively, loquacious peoples who do many things at once, planning their priorities not according to a time schedule, but according to the relative thrill or importance that each appointment brings
    with it. Italians, Latin Americans and Arabs are members of this group.

    Reactives — those cultures that prioritize courtesy and respect, listening quietly and calmly to their interlocutors and reacting carefully to the other side's proposals. Chinese, Japanese and Finns are in this group.

He says that this categorization of national norms does not change significantly over time:

    The behavior of people of different cultures is not something willy-nilly. There exist clear trends, sequences and traditions. Reactions of Americans, Europeans, and Asians alike can be forecasted, usually justified and
    in the majority of cases managed. Even in countries where political and economic change is currently rapid or sweeping (Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, Korea, Malaysia, etc.) deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs will
    resist a sudden transformation of values when pressured by reformists, governments or multinational conglomerates.

Here's the chart that explains the world:

the_lewis_model_712.jpg


Some more details on the categories:

lewis2.jpg


The point of all of this analysis is to understand how to interact with people from different cultures, a subject in which Richard Lewis Communications provides coaching and consultation.

"By focusing on the cultural roots of national behavior, both in society and business, we can foresee and calculate with a surprising degree of accuracy how others will react to our plans for them, and we can make certain assumptions as to how they will approach us," Lewis writes.


Look at Canada, at the very middle of the triangle's base ~ wedged in there between Finland and Singapore, equidistant between the Linear-active Germans and the Reactive East Asians. Seems abour right, doesn't it?

 
E.R. Campbell said:
More on culture; this time a brief report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9

Look at Canada, at the very middle of the triangle's base ~ wedged in there between Finland and Singapore, equidistant between the Linear-active Germans and the Reactive East Asians. Seems abour right, doesn't it?

This is actually really interesting, it is even more funny because Americans often complain about Canadians being too polite and courteous, this seems to substantiate that claim :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top