[BartSimpson]

Got that for you, Brock.

[EyeBrock]

You are a fine chap, for a Yank!

[sandorski]

Lemmy Lemmy:

sandorski sandorski:

Xenophobia is what is a danger to Democracy. Sorry, but you Fail.

Your fortune-cookie simplicities are the failure here. It offends me when people toss the word “xenophobia” about without understanding what the word means. The most common definition of xenophobia is “hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or fear of their politics, religion or culture”. Hatred or fear. It's neither hatred nor fear to limit foreigners' practises when they conflict with our definitions of freedom and justice. There are limits to multiculturalism that have nothing to do with hatred or fear. It’s quite the opposite in fact. Multiculturalism doesn’t equate to a free-for-all of behaviours which fly in direct conflict with both our Constitution and the principles of fundamental justice in a free society.

The Chinese, for example, are a well-established immigrant group in Canada which has largely remained segregated from white society by choice. Is anyone yelling for limits on Chinese immigration? Why not? Because the Chinese have maintained their cultures within the framework of a Just, Multicultural Canada. They have not attempted to subvert our legal principles nor violate our social tolerances. The same is true, by and large, of Indian Hindus who’ve come to Canada and, for the most part, participated in Canadian society while maintaining those aspects of their cultural and social values that don’t conflict with Canada’s.

That is very different from the approach that Muslims have taken in Europe. It would be foolish to ignore the problems created by Muslim immigration on British society. It’s not at all xenophobic to want to avoid repeating those mistakes in Canada. In Canada we have a proud tradition in leading the world on social issues. The protection of women’s rights, minority rights and the promotion of justice are values that Canada is known for globally. Unfortunately, many of the doctrines of Islam fly in the face of Canadian tradition. Muslims in foreign countries should know this when they’re considering Canada as a destination. Being a just and multicultural society should never mean that we should accept and protect ALL cultural practises in the name of multiculturalism. That was never our model. And twits that want shout hateful names like “xenophobe” at those us that recognize multiculturalism has limits need get their heads out of their asses. It’s a slippery slope to the wild, wild west when anything goes.

Sorry, but Fail.

[Lemmy]

Don't apologize. No rebuttal at all?

[EyeBrock]

sandorski sandorski:

Lemmy Lemmy:

sandorski sandorski:

Xenophobia is what is a danger to Democracy. Sorry, but you Fail.

Your fortune-cookie simplicities are the failure here. It offends me when people toss the word “xenophobia” about without understanding what the word means. The most common definition of xenophobia is “hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or fear of their politics, religion or culture”. Hatred or fear. It's neither hatred nor fear to limit foreigners' practises when they conflict with our definitions of freedom and justice. There are limits to multiculturalism that have nothing to do with hatred or fear. It’s quite the opposite in fact. Multiculturalism doesn’t equate to a free-for-all of behaviours which fly in direct conflict with both our Constitution and the principles of fundamental justice in a free society.

The Chinese, for example, are a well-established immigrant group in Canada which has largely remained segregated from white society by choice. Is anyone yelling for limits on Chinese immigration? Why not? Because the Chinese have maintained their cultures within the framework of a Just, Multicultural Canada. They have not attempted to subvert our legal principles nor violate our social tolerances. The same is true, by and large, of Indian Hindus who’ve come to Canada and, for the most part, participated in Canadian society while maintaining those aspects of their cultural and social values that don’t conflict with Canada’s.

That is very different from the approach that Muslims have taken in Europe. It would be foolish to ignore the problems created by Muslim immigration on British society. It’s not at all xenophobic to want to avoid repeating those mistakes in Canada. In Canada we have a proud tradition in leading the world on social issues. The protection of women’s rights, minority rights and the promotion of justice are values that Canada is known for globally. Unfortunately, many of the doctrines of Islam fly in the face of Canadian tradition. Muslims in foreign countries should know this when they’re considering Canada as a destination. Being a just and multicultural society should never mean that we should accept and protect ALL cultural practises in the name of multiculturalism. That was never our model. And twits that want shout hateful names like “xenophobe” at those us that recognize multiculturalism has limits need get their heads out of their asses. It’s a slippery slope to the wild, wild west when anything goes.

Sorry, but Fail.

Very sad.

[Khar]

It's not a fail at all. What that post stated falls in line with the stated objectives of Canadian policy in that direction. In fact, Lemmy's post describes perfectly the listed aims of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, specifically:

c) Promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation;

e) Ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

g) Promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

In other words, Canadian society is supposed to be dedicated to the paradigm of multiculturalism, but from the very beginnings of this drive there existed a very real difference between recognizing, supporting and expanding understanding of cultures within Canada, and allowing them to bypass such essential human rights as suffrage.

The freedom of religion and freedom of expression within Canada extend only so far as they do not impinge upon the freedoms and rights of other Canadian citizens. Canadians have, over the years, attempted to show that we are not only a multicultural society, but a tolerant, supportive one. Portions of cultures which demonstrate intolerance to other groups within Canada are not acceptable, whether they be women, homosexuals, or ethnic groups which are the target of this intolerance.

The laws of this country take precedence over the traditions or laws of any one group, as these laws were made by a government dedicated to the support of people and the basic rights to protection they need from the government -- not to accede these basic rights, such as defense from honour killings or hate crimes -- in the face of a disagreement with a specific culture. No group is more equal than another. No group should be allowed to understand less.

[sandorski]

Khar Khar:

It's not a fail at all. What that post stated falls in line with the stated objectives of Canadian policy in that direction. In fact, Lemmy's post describes perfectly the listed aims of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, specifically:

c) Promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation;

e) Ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

g) Promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

In other words, Canadian society is supposed to be dedicated to the paradigm of multiculturalism, but from the very beginnings of this drive there existed a very real difference between recognizing, supporting and expanding understanding of cultures within Canada, and allowing them to bypass such essential human rights as suffrage.

The freedom of religion and freedom of expression within Canada extend only so far as they do not impinge upon the freedoms and rights of other Canadian citizens. Canadians have, over the years, attempted to show that we are not only a multicultural society, but a tolerant, supportive one. Portions of cultures which demonstrate intolerance to other groups within Canada are not acceptable, whether they be women, homosexuals, or ethnic groups which are the target of this intolerance.

The laws of this country take precedence over the traditions or laws of any one group, as these laws were made by a government dedicated to the support of people and the basic rights to protection they need from the government -- not to accede these basic rights, such as defense from honour killings or hate crimes -- in the face of a disagreement with a specific culture. No group is more equal than another. No group should be allowed to understand less.

Nah, you just proved my point. Nowhere are the exceptions for some impinging on others. It's not just Immigrants who withhold their Children from certain Classes, it's not just Immigrants who get exceptions on Religious grounds.

[Khar]

On the contrary, sandorski -- you ignored key points of my post for me to have proved what you are saying for that point (as the rest is aimed at other posts you have contributed in this thread). The fact is, any Canadian has a culture which must be accepted until they cross into the rights of any other Canadian.

It's these immigrants who are strictly avoiding point g, promoting the creativity and understanding that arise from interaction and communities of different origins. Removing someone from a class where they would interact in such a manner is directly contradictory to the entire ideal of multiculturalism in Canada. It's not acceptable for Canadians who make use of these programs without reason, and it's the very same for people who are immigrants to Canada.

It's why there is outrage when sex ed come up time and time again from many groups in Canada. Problems do exist with things already in Canada, but that does not mean that anyone in Canada should just get a free card because catholics did it first. That you would even think that there is validity behind the ideal that just because someone else does it too that it's acceptable is a bit disheartening for me, since you are the average decent Canadian and I don't really consider that acceptable, personally.

What was stated by Lemmy and Eyebrock is that it's not acceptable for Canadians to do that, and it's not acceptable for immigrant Canadians to do it. As Eyebrock states, "All our laws should apply to everybody in Canada, Muslims, Sikhs and Aboriginals/Natives included." "Pray away but follow our laws." That's the same for Canadians as it is for immigrants, which has already been stated repeatedly in this thread. What your point is has already been discussed in this thread -- you replied to both of those comments, and I am now responding to the resulting "culture vs laws" comment you posted. A failure to recognize that not only has remarks been broached in response but that you've also avoided commenting on them other than restating the same thing three pages later is, no offense, a bit of a fail.

In Canada, multiculturalism is not based on the idea of maintaining these cultures alone, but having them interact, within Canadian law. No one group should have any special treatment in any way when it comes to this when possible, and in this case there is no reason for them to do so. As I said in my last post as well, no one should be considered "more equal." At it's very base, that is what the folks you have called a xenophobe have said in this thread, the same folks who commonly speak out on domestic Canadians attempting to achieve special rights above and beyond what their fellow Canadians are allowed.

It also ignores the fact that this follows in line with a post Eyebrock posted, where he quite rightly indicated that there is a growing trend in Canada which follows what is happening here -- demands for segregation, special permissions for some groups over others, and even the base ignoring of rights of women, all of which go against Canadian law and the act I stated previously. This falls into the same line of refusing to interact with other Canadians on a basis which is not acceptable under the paradigm of Canadian multiculturalism. You responded to that, and Lemmy responded to you. It's a direct train of thought which cannot be ignored, and a point of which I am directly responding to.

[sandorski]

Read up until
"promoting the creativity and understanding that arise from interaction and communities of different origins. Removing someone from a class where they would interact in such a manner is directly contradictory to the entire ideal of multiculturalism in Canada. "

Then chose not to keep reading the BS. Srsly, you've reached the point of Total Ridiculousness and are trying to hide it in a pile of words.

Fail.

[ShepherdsDog]

Irrelevant

[2Cdo]

Trying to get sandorski to listen to anything other than the voices in his head is an exercise in futility. He is just too damned ignorant to understand anything more complex than primal instincts.

[2Cdo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Don't apologize. No rebuttal at all?

That is all he has. He really didn't understand anything in your post!

[Mustang1]

I think that it should be also noted that historically, multiculturalism was intended as a means of combating biculturalism and emphasizing the non-territorial dimensions of the Canadian identity. It was in many respects a Pan-Canadianism view - which, it seems, currently to represent the opposite.

[Unsound]

I have a question about message board etiquette. Is it inappropriate to neg-rep someone for a post they made in a discussion you haven't really been involved with? Cause this...

sandorski sandorski:

Read up until
"promoting the creativity and understanding that arise from interaction and communities of different origins. Removing someone from a class where they would interact in such a manner is directly contradictory to the entire ideal of multiculturalism in Canada. "

Then chose not to keep reading the BS. Srsly, you've reached the point of Total Ridiculousness and are trying to hide it in a pile of words.

Fail.

is actually quite offensive to me. Khar may make long or even overly-long posts, but they are rarely, if ever, "bs". Certainly not this time. If you're unable to engage in debate that's any more meaningfull than a variation of the old grade school "uh huh"/"nuh uh" paradigm, perhaps you shouldn't bother trying.

I think it's pretty obvious that most of the board is not on your side here. While I'm aware that the popularity of a position has little bearing on the correctness of that position, it is telling that even those who might agree with you have been mostly silent. I suspect out of a reluctance to be associated with the "fail"ure that is your debating.

[sandorski]

Unsound Unsound:

I have a question about message board etiquette. Is it inappropriate to neg-rep someone for a post they made in a discussion you haven't really been involved with? Cause this...

sandorski sandorski:

Read up until
"promoting the creativity and understanding that arise from interaction and communities of different origins. Removing someone from a class where they would interact in such a manner is directly contradictory to the entire ideal of multiculturalism in Canada. "

Then chose not to keep reading the BS. Srsly, you've reached the point of Total Ridiculousness and are trying to hide it in a pile of words.

Fail.

is actually quite offensive to me. Khar may make long or even overly-long posts, but they are rarely, if ever, "bs". Certainly not this time. If you're unable to engage in debate that's any more meaningfull than a variation of the old grade school "uh huh"/"nuh uh" paradigm, perhaps you shouldn't bother trying.

I think it's pretty obvious that most of the board is not on your side here. While I'm aware that the popularity of a position has little bearing on the correctness of that position, it is telling that even those who might agree with you have been mostly silent. I suspect out of a reluctance to be associated with the "fail"ure that is your debating.

Sorry, but BS is BS. I'm not going to waste my time on it. Khar clearly was reaching for a Reason to support the allegation of the Thread and his idea that some Immigrants pulling their children from Music Classes was indeed that evidence is total and utter Fail.

So I'm practically alone here, big deal. Doesn't mean anything really.