When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”.
French philosopher, Pascal Bruckner;
Today we combine two concepts of liberty: one has its origins in the 18th century, founded on emancipation from tradition and authority. The other, originating in anti-imperialist anthropology, is based on the equal dignity of cultures which could not be evaluated merely on the basis of our criteria. Relativism demands that we see our values simply as the beliefs of the particular tribe we call the West. Multiculturalism is the result of this process. Born in Canada in 1971, it’s principle aim is to assure the peaceful cohabitation of populations of different ethnic or racial origins on the same territory. In multiculturalism, every human group has a singularity and legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist, conditioning its interaction with others. The criteria of just and unjust, criminal and barbarian, disappear before the absolute criterion of respect for difference. There is no longer any eternal truth: the belief in this stems from naïve ethnocentrism.
Anyone with a mind to contend timidly that liberty is indivisible, that the life of a human being has the same value everywhere, that amputating a thief’s hand or stoning an adulteress is intolerable everywhere, is duly arraigned in the name of the necessary equality of cultures. As a result, we can turn a blind eye to how others live and suffer once they’ve been parked in the ghetto of their particularity. Enthusing about their inviolable differentness alleviates us from having to worry about their condition. However it is one thing to recognise the convictions and rites of fellow citizens of different origins, and another to give one’s blessing to hostile insular communities that throw up ramparts between themselves and the rest of society. How can we bless this difference if it excludes humanity instead of welcoming it? This is the paradox of multiculturalism: it accords the same treatment to all communities, but not to the people who form them, denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. Instead: recognition of the group, oppression of the individual. The past is valued over the wills of those who wish to leave custom and the family behind and – for example – love in the manner they see fit.
A long, and not uncomplicated piece. Because of its importance, that’s the last post here for the next few hours.
And after you’ve read and digested it, I have a question for the relativists who believe in the “equal dignity” of all human societies, who would argue that the culture of the Cree was the equal of ancient Greece, that tribal societies of the southern hemisphere still living with leprosy, slave traders and cannibalism are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss.
If we who live in “privilaged” western liberal democracies have no moral authority to pass judgement upon the human experiments of others and pronounce them inferior to our own – then on what basis do you defend recognition of the “refugee” seeking safe harbour on our shores?
“Instead: recognition of the group, oppression of the individual. ”
= Communism.
No wonder a multi-culti world is so screwed up
Ya best have your thinking cap on for this one lads and lasses.
Brilliant find Kate!
Multi-culturalism is simply the Government Interference in Societal Development. Prior to PET I enjoyed a multi-cultural background, developing, I think, normally; embracing the cultural components that are our family background but still being Canadian. Now with the political and cultural correctness that has developed over the past 35 years we seem to be more screwed up in that we have forgotten what it is like to be Canadian first.
Here is another link on the subject: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2001/september/default.htm
Kate: I think I got this one from a previous post on the subject from SDA.
Those who are curious about the Auguste Comte reference would enjoy reading the late Cardinal Henri de Lubac, SJ’s book:
The Drama of Atheist Humanism.
Mark Steyn has read it.
Once upon a time in the 1970’s I was an Anthropology major.
During my studies it became abundantly clear to me that some cultures are more -functional- than others. Meaning that since “culture” is a device (as in machine, software,algorithm what have you)that human beings use to get by in the natural world, you can measure different cultures against each other based on how well people get by.
It also became clear that people who mentioned this fact got SMEARED in the Ivory Tower. E.O. Wilson came out with his massive tome Sociobiology in my second year, and I remember reading about campus Lefties pouring paint on the guy at conferences. His sin was to weigh in on the Nature side of the Nature/Nurture debate.
Therefore I became a house painter rather than an Anthropologist. Saved my life I’m sure.
At any rate, Relativism is propounded chiefly by people who don’t like measuring things. Artsies and English majors, in other words. Anyone willing to do even basic arithmetic (like 9 is larger than 6) can compare the infant mortality rate of two groups and immediately know which one has a better grip on reality.
As for people who put group ahead of individual, this is fine in theory but it never seems to work out when I want to borrow their car for some group purpose, like a beer run. “Hey, that’s MY car damnit!”
Always worth repeating in this context:
A delegation of Hindu locals approached Sir Charles Napier, commander of British forces in India circa 1830, complaining about prohibition of Suttee by British authorities. This was the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
Great point about the refugees.
Wow .. a thoughtful and reasoned post by Kate@SDA.
But, it won’t last.
Count on it.
Many thanks for the excellent post. It says it all, perfectly. Multiculturalism rejects reason, facts, evidence and instead, traps people within an empty emotionalism that disables our ability to evaluate.
Is treating malaria by incantations or by killing mosquitoes equal?
Is treating AIDS with a vaccine or by dances equal?
Is a population of about 1,000, which can live by hunting and gathering the same as one of a million, which must devise strategies to ‘make’ nature produce more food?
The cultural relativism of the 1960s and on, which is entrenched in our terrible Charter disables us from developing a cohesive Canadian society. Instead, everyone is treated as non-existent unless in a group; all groups are equal – and the gov’t simply hands out money to each group to silence them. Criticizing cultural behaviour and thought – is forbidden.
Thanks for the excellent article.
Hey Easily Impressed, with the exception of lefty trolls people are mostly thoughtful and reasoned here. Kate particularly.
That’s why your lot hate us so bad. You can’t compete.
Great read!
I printed this off for the guys at the office; 9 pages makes for a good morning constitutional.
Brings to mind the old saw- “You can pick your friends, but you can’t pick your relativists.”
Interesting article. I m shocked to see a Frenchman being treated with a semblence of dignity on this board. I guess its because he agrees with you.
“that the life of a human being has the same value everywhere”
Really??? Hmmm, some of the people on this board would argue otherwise. Simply put, there does seem to be a hierarchy in term of value of life that goes along these lines:
American > Israeli > European / Canadian > Rest of World.
Its a tongue in cheek comment, no doubt, but think about it for you will see a measure of truth in it.
“then on what basis do you defend recognition of the “refugee” seeking safe harbour on our shores?’
A brilliant question, becuase while it seems logically sound, it mixes up Political actions with prevailing cultural (for lack of a better word) norms.
It is one thing to persecute someone on the basis of cultural norms (religious or whatever). It is another thing to persecute someone on the basis of cultural norms albeit with motives that are driven by politics. Refugees come from countries across the spectrum – from the wildly secular likes of China to the wildly religious likes of Iran.
These refugees do not have religion in common, but they do have persecution in common. Is Communism reflective of Chinese culture? I m not so sure I would buy that line of thinking since Taiwan is a Chinese state too and while it has suffered under US supported authoritarian regimes in the past, it seems to be doing quite well under democracy. Ditto North and South Korea. Which one is reflective of Korean values, seeing as Korea was but a single nation as recently as six decades ago.
It is fair to say that political institutions are not reflective of the nature of the religion of the state. Pat Robertson’s good friend Charles Taylor is a case in point. Robertson of the 700 Club often voiced his support for the Christian Taylor. Taylor ruled like an absolute king in his country. He had little if no regard for the sanctity of life and his policies wreaked havoc in neighboring Sierra Leone, where militias supported by him took brutality to a whole new level. Would someone fleeing Liberia and Charles Taylor be accepted as a Refugee? Yes, I think so.
For political regimes are driven by imperatives of power, not culture. In democracy, by mere virtue of democracy, they are, to a limited extent, representative of prevailing trends. In authoritarian regimes, they arent. Refugees, it seems to me, are more likely to come from authoritarian regimes than from democratic regimes, though it is clear that even democratic regimes (on paper, anyway) with rulers who have authoritarian tendencies (Turkey) can produce refugees.
Refugees usually have one thing in common – politically motivated persecution. The justification for this persecution can be found on any number of grounds, from ideology to religion. But it is important to distinguish between ideological persecution, and political persecution justified on ideological grounds. It is one thing to persecute a man for what he believes, quite another to persecute a man so that one can strengthen ones own grip on power.
I contend that the political systems of countries are rarely, if ever, indicative of the prevailing norms in those nations because when those nations do eventually adopt democracy, they seem to adhere to some “democratic” norms that are similar in every part of the world. Democracies seem to serve up the same rights and liberties everywhere suggesting that the prevailing culture is as representative of it as it is of the previous refugee producing regime. After all, wasnt North America a refuge for persecuted peoples whose homelands, when they adopted democracy, were generally similar to the democracy in the new world?
A refugee, I would argue, is geneally a product of the prevailing political system present in its country and not neccessarily an indicator of the cultural norms of the country – because if that were the case, then the refugee would probably have been extinguished a long time earlier, given as there is a greeat degree of continuity in culture/tradition. Political systems, I contend, are not indicative of the culture of a nation because it is clear that nations that share culture and history can go on different paths.
A bit incoherent, I know, but I am operating under time constraints. If you would be so kind as to point out where I am unclear, I should be happy to clarify it when the opportunity arises.
Very thought provoking article…frankly I find it difficult to articulate what it means to be a Canadian…we have lost our identity. How can we have a national identify given relativistic multiculturalism?
Go back to the 70’s and you will remember that Canadians accepted the idea of us being a Bilingual, Bicultural country. The next day we found that we were a bilingual and multi-cultural country.
When the multiculturalism bill was passed it stated that all cultures were equal and that one shall not dominate. Quebec was exempted from this bill. The next step was to decimate the English Canadian culture so many Canadian institutions were dismantled. There was never any discussion in Parliament about these provisions.
The reason given for this bill was that it would offset the dominance of the Quebec culture. It was also suppose to be a safety valve by helping to “ease” the acceptance of Canada by the new immigrants. That explains why the Quebec Minister said that Ontario had no culture several years ago. So, whom do you believe?
The Liberals labelled anyone who asked questions about the bill a bigot – mostly by those MP from Quebec. All debate was shut down. Seems that he bill couldn’t stand up to scrutiny. Just like the Global warming debate today. The scaling back of the military was also happening at the same time. Since the military was part of Canadian history it had to be hidden and the myth about us being peacekeepers was started.
I also remember that those who questioned the bill identified the problems of ghettoising of Canada and the loss of things that bind this country together. Are we not talking about those things today? This is just another Trudeau failure.
The next thing we should be seriously talking about is bilingualism and the damage it had done to the Public Service, the quality of MP’s and the creation of an elite who share the running of this country using this provision as their membership due.
Great point on the basis for refugee status.
Of course the counter argument is if someone shows up at your doorstep in a snowstorm are you morally superior or have a right to pronounce…as opposed to someone who seeks out your house no matter the weather becasue the food is great, the walls solid and the fire warm.
In other words is it the difference between a refugee from a war zone and an econmic refugee?
Dont know the answer but it raises intereting questis….look forward to the comments
Right after “Interesting”
A very good demolition of multiculturalism. I summed it up this way on my blog:
“Or if I can put that another way; how can the oppressed of the world escape their oppression if we celebrate it here when they arrive? Or to be even more specific; how can Muslim women escape the strictures of Shar’ah law and second class status as women if we celebrate Muslim customs in Canada?
”
Ack! I’ll be back with more, but I’m writing to deadline. Couldn’t this have waited a couple of days, Kate? 🙂
I’d point out that there is a difference between cultural relativism and moral relativism. And I’m still an Anthropology major. I get people who know what they’re doing to paint my house.
I once ventured a critique of multiculturalism in a grad class. I wasn’t sure how to phrase it, because I’m not coming from the same place as most here. But it turned out that all of us, probably BECAUSE of our training, had difficulties with the essentializing of culture that official multiculturalism entails. I’ve blogged about this sort of thing before.
I look forward to digesting the article, and I’ll be back, but a little late, alas.
Bruckner starts correctly by identifying the “two concepts of liberty” as the root of the multicultural problem. However, he lays the entire blame at the feet of relativism and none at “emancipation from tradition and authority”. While relativism is indeed a pernicious weed, folly bound up in illogic, he is oblivious to the possibility that the latter could be the soil that nurtured these tares of deceit. On the contrary, he lauds the innate “superiority of the French model” while implying that multiculturalism is wholly of Anglo-Saxon origin. While he’s largely right that multiculturalism’s realization as a political force was Canadian, it is a philosophy that draws it life from the Continent, particularly France, not the Isle.
Another acolyte worshipping at the alter of the enlightenment. What was the enlightenment? Only the abandonment of faith by reason to exalt the self. Secularism is NOT the answer.
*
“… on what basis do you defend recognition of the “refugee”
seeking safe harbour on our shores?
Or, the obverse of the coin… if you came to Canada and it
didn’t provide you with a higher social and economic standard
of living… wouldn’t you be an idiot to stay here?
*
Muticult was never the official constitutional social policy of this nation….origionally it was the “two solitudes” and linguistic and civil initiatives to reconsile both as founding cultures.
Multicult crept into political rhetoric ionly after the Liberals discovered the policy of tapping votes from open immigration and allowing the apartheid ghettoization of immigrant cultures to form specuial interest patronage groups each clamouring for “entitelment handouts for their “community”…only then did :muklticult become the “official” social policy of the leb-left media.
There is nothing in our constitutional documents that declares this nation to be “multicultural” in the context that concept is used in left politics today. Canada has 2 founding cultures and 2 official languages.
Multicult is a machination of the left that wants to polarize society into “groups” and which has had an observed balkanizing effect on Canadian society. The concept of encouraging multiple cultures within a culture is a threat to a unified national character…melting pot ideals where there are a multitude of immigrant ethnicities sharing a common national ideal is a cohesive policy….Multicult is a provably devisive social policy….just ask Britain or France.
David Thompson has an excellent article on the same.
(davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/02/blunting_the_se.html)
An excerpt:
Which, once again, brings us to Madeleine Bunting, an associate editor of the Guardian and the paper’s chief commentator on all things Islamic. In another piece denouncing the infidel attachment to Enlightenment ideas, Bunting explained the strange trajectory of her opposition: “I began bumping into the subject with Muslim intellectuals who were acutely aware of how this legacy was being used (implicitly or explicitly) against Islam.” Ah, yes, there we go. It’s quite clear from Bunting’s earlier columns that anything that might be used (implicitly or explicitly) to reveal shortcomings in Islamic theology is a very bad thing indeed. Unlike, say, Catholicism or Scientology, Islam must forever remain beyond reproach or challenge, for reasons which are deep and mysterious, and never made entirely clear.
Bunting informs us: “We are profoundly irrational and… rationality is a social construction.” She then asks, apparently with genuine puzzlement: “Why do people think an understanding of rationality which is over 200 years old is useful now?” Well, regarding profound irrationality, one can only wish Ms Bunting would speak for herself, or possibly for those Guardian readers who ingest her writing without objection or amusement. Why, one might ask, does Bunting think a reactionary and literalist theology which is considerably older than the Enlightenment is still particularly valid or “useful” now? Given Bunting’s article appeared the same week in which Abdul Rahman faced public execution in Afghanistan for the ‘heresy’ of abandoning Islam in favour of Christianity, this is not just an academic question.
“Why do people think an understanding of rationality which is over 200 years old is useful now?”
Well, there’s the rub.
It seems to me that the battles over multiculturalism/moral equivalency, climate change, etc, are simply that – battles.
The larger war the left is waging is against intelligence and reason. Their weapon is feelings.
In a recent CBC poll, it was found that 53% of Muslims support sharia in Canada.
Multiculturalism gives them the right to work towards this (often arrogantly), even though sharia is fundamentally against Canadian culture and law. In the absence of multiculturalism, this would be called sedition and summarily rejected, hopefully, along with the traitors who supported it.
Multiculturalism must be defeated. Without question, barbarian cultures, customs and laws must not be given any traction, or tolerance, let alone equality.
Maybe refugee status should only be granted to those who have fought for our values and gotten themselves into a dangerous pickle. Let’s say they were activists for democracy, the equality of women and the separation of church and state. Then in that noble cause they have ended up putting themselves and their families at untenable risk. Then they are refugees that we admire.
But if we’re just going to bring people into Hotel Canada who are really culturally part of the failed regime they’ve left , then they aren’t refugees at all , they’re just opportunists.
Immigrants are not the same as refugee status. Immigrant should be about our needs and our ability to attract the kind of immigrants that we need.
Yes Tenebris, don’t forget this is a gallic intellectual writing so there is always a sneer at les carres anglo-saxon and of course l’hexagon gallois is better.
Hi Dawg! Nice comment. At the time I figured if I was going to get paint on me anyway, at least I should be paid for it.
For my money, moral relativism is just the more pernicious form of which cultural relativism is the general case. Some beliefs further human functionality, some don’t.
The Germ Theory of Disease is considerably more effective at combating smallpox than African witchcraft, to name one example. Cultural relativists would have us treat these two things as being equally “valid” because they are both social constructions.
Moral relativists like to snipe at Christian missionaries for their imperialist campaigns against the perfectly valid beliefs of tribal witchcraft. I don’t often see them complain about those same missionaries being a major force in eradicating smallpox for purely religious reasons.
Posted the following at CS yesterday and thought I should copy it here to add to the discussion.
Politics, does indeed make strange bedfellows. Liberals have been playing this game for decades. Identify with as many minorities as possible to gain and retain power. The problem is that in advocating the rights of many minorities you begin to loose sight of the rights of Canadians. When that happens, what then? Preach Canadian values, what are Canadian values, you ask? Well we’re not American! That is the stink-hole we find ourselves in after years of Liberals making strange bedfellows. We are more like Americans than any other country in the world but the Liberals have succeeded in diluting this commonality by producing the party of minorities. Unlike America we do not call ourselves Canadians we are Ethnic-Canadians. Our attempt over the last forty or so years to welcome other nationalities has watered down our heritage to the point that we are a mere shadow of the nation that emerged from WW II. For this we can thank the Liberals, they have successfully divided and conquered.
It does boil down to whether you have the will to defend your person, your family, your society.
If you have no will to do this you are unprincipled and weak. It’s only a matter of time before you succumb to chaos and devastation.
I choose to fight!
Fiumara – that’s a really great outline of the dev’t of Canada – which moved out of its original decentralized federation of equal provinces, into a centralism dominated by Ontario-Quebec. And then, with Trudeau, into that adversarial binary structure that defined Canada according only to language, ie, Quebec and the ROC. And the ROC was ghettoized and weakened as you say, within multiculturalism – which is section 27 of that Charter.
And thank you for pointing out the severe repercussions of our official bilingualism and the harm it has done to the Canadian people and their governing structure. Bilingualism is a fiction not a fact – and to insist that Canadians live within a fiction has resulted, as you say, in setting up Canada as ruled by a ‘tribal elite’, a closed set – and has greatly harmed our civil service, military, and research structure.
Bunting? She says that ‘we are ‘profoundly irrational’. Indeed, that means that she is profoundly irrational and can be ignored.
Multiculturalism is nonsense – it is the arrogance of promoting ignorance as equivalent to knowledge. Indeed, multiculturalism claims that there is no such thing as knowledge – that is the essence of multiculturalism.
Therefore, the germ theory of disease is equivalent to the evil eye theory of disease. The result, of course, by this rejection of reason, logic and empirical evidence is a hapless, dependent society.
Gomer, thanks for the book reference. I ordered a copy.
Wow! The thread is troll free…..so far.
diversity is racism.
everyone of the pro diversity types likes affirmative action hiring quotas etc etc.
Death to the system.
Multiculturalism is a thousand apartheits.
Its not troll free I saw duffis dawg comment.
DrWright
Diversity isn’t racism. I really don’t think race exists.
But in a commercial setting, I would want my focus groups to be diversified. That is, I want both men and women and different age groups at the table. I want people from different cultures, from different parts of the world at the table. Their buying patterns differ and as a business person I want to understand that.
So diversity is fine, because it makes commercial sense. Plus in a social setting, I’ll tolerate anyone who tolerates me. But diversity is different than multi-culti which is a political plot, enforced by its weapon of political correctness.
Multi-culti is a derivative of Marxism, based on the theory that everyone and everything is equal and that life isn’t about being accountable for our choices.
The problem with multiculturalism is that the new immigrants believe to be Canadian second and homeland first. I moved to Canada quiet some time ago and I am CANADIAN with a European background. I assimilated. My language of correspondence is English. My children were brought up as CANADIANS. I had to wait 5 years before becoming a Canadian. Now you can become one upon a whim!
Nomdenet, the proponents of multiculturalism deliberately confuse race and culture to shut down dissent. It has to be stated explicitly that to be opposed to multicultural “societies” is not the same as being opposed to multiracial societies.
If someone shows at your door during the snowstorm asking for shelter because their home’s roof caved in due to poor design, you can let them in until the snowstorm is over. If they want to stay, you have a right to decide, whether it is safe and beneficial for you to have them staying. But if they later decide that the host’s wife must wrap her head in rugs and both must worship a new god, you are free to kick them out. That’s just how I’d managed my household.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/may01/opium.htm
In a thread about French intellectuals, it would be scandalous of me not to mention the great 20th century French political philosopher Raymond Aron.
A great man.
Mr. Phantom says “Anyone willing to do even basic arithmetic (like 9 is larger than 6) can compare the infant mortality rate of two groups and immediately know which one has a better grip on reality.”
But if one were to point out that “American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.”, would one be exercising their moral duty to pass judgement upon the human experiments of others, or would one be excoriated as a leftist, America-hating, moonbat troll?
Who exactly is saying that “the culture of the Cree was the equal of ancient Greece, that tribal societies of the southern hemisphere still living with leprosy, slave traders and cannibalism are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss.”
or “the germ theory of disease is equivalent to the evil eye theory of disease”
On the other hand, I’ve heard many say creation theory is the equivalent of evolution theory.
What we have here is your typical straw man. The critique is of a multiculturalism that doesn’t exist.
I believe it was Brigitte Gabriel who at one time commented that multiculturalism is “tolerating the intolerance” , which pretty much sums up how it works in the West.
Radical Islamists immigrate to the West and immediately hide behind the shield of multiculturalism in order to promote hatred and intolerance of infidels , and when anyone offends them they immediately run to a human rights organization , or riot to silence any opposition , meanwhile continuing to spew hatred.
Multiculturalism is just a fancy name for collectivism.
And collectivism is:
” the doctrine that the social collective – called society, the people, the state, etc, – has rights, needs, or moral authority above and apart from the individuals who comprise it. We hear this idea continually championed in such familiar platitudes as ‘the needs of the people take precedence over the rights of the individual, ‘production for the people, not profits’, and ‘the common good’.
Collectivism often sounds humane because it stresses the importance of human needs. In reality, it is little more than a rationalization for sacrificing you and me to the desires of others.” – Jarret Wollstein, Causes of Agression.
And just look at the people who support this type of thinking.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, Jun 28 2004
Sourpuss:
So according to YOUR form of logic, since the US is ranked #36 in infant mortality rates, does that make anyone ranked higher than 36 a worse country? Does that make anyone ranked lower than 36 a better country?
Which country would you prefer to live in?
Canada / Slovenia
Singapore / Cuba
Canada’s has a worse ranking than Slovenia. Cuba has a worse ranking than Singapore (which is ranked #1)
w3.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
sourdust – the critique of multiculturalism is valid. Why should we have to fight against the introduction of Sharia law in our courts? Why should the issue even arise?
It does arise, because of our institution of multiculturalism which says that beliefs and behaviour are cultural constructs, are equal to each other as such constructs and that one cannot supercede the other.
The fact is, Sharia law is a social construct that is operative within a tribal political system, which is itself only functional within a peasant agricultural economy – and entirely dysfunctional in a modern industrial non-tribal or civic society.
Multiculturalism defines people, not as individuals, but as members of a general group, which group is expected to retain its beliefs and behaviour ‘as if’ they were essential Forms. It inhibits people from developing new modes of belief and behaviour more suited to a different economy and society.
Our academics and opinion pundits are indeed claiming that cultures are equal in the sense that they actually cannot be comparatively evaluated – check out any postmodern sociological or anthropological tract. Therefore, the belief in the germ theory is considered equivalent to the belief in magic causality.
Your example of creationism vs evolutionism has nothing to do with multiculturalism.
The distinction is that the refugee has deemed it worthwhile to pursue his/her life under a set of rules different from his/her previous life. In passing judgement upon those who wish not for it, we ought to recognize the individual’s right to pursue his/her own happiness under his/her society’s set of rules. Unless the latter is pursued at another human’s expense. So it is right to judge social customs such as stoning, lashing and sati, act upon them and treat their victims as minorities within minorities. But the question is, how far can you as outsiders influence the eradication of such social evils without trespassing upon a communities’ basic rights to freedom of religion and expression? Not very far.
Change has to come from within; or else it will not last.
IF your concerned about the way society is going you only have to look in the mirror to see why!
Canada has abandoned every value that our forefathers held. some people call this progress!! Which is laughable.
Canada is no longer great!! We could not even defend ourselves against anyone, unable to even fight our way out of this wet paper bag!
The Stems from we have no coherent culture, no fabric to unite us like we once had, no common values!!
What people need to realize is that change is not always forward. In fact I would say alot of the changes that have come about in the last half century are changes back to the times of Sodom and that age. And just because no one living today has seen this first hand its called progress. What an insult to western civilizations ancestors who “progressed” our society out of those behaviors!! What is very old has become THE NEW; eventhough they are just old (previously disregarded –with good reason)bad idea’s.
And all these lefties that think they’re being revolutionary.
When one looks at history they might just notice one thing: That Judao-christian led cultures rose to the top in everyway over other cultures worldwide so much so that they were able to have their own Imperialist’s age. How is that for a measure of the greatness of a culture? I think it’s a pretty darn good one. (There’s a reason western civilizations had colonies in africa, asia, america and not the other way around)
The CULTURE of Western civilization is superior to all other known cultures. It’s been so perverted over the last 50 years it is no longer recognizeable. (and people question why the west is no longer for certain the “TOP DOG”)
In Fact we will either go “forward” as the lefties would have it, back to the very beginning, (possibly with kyoto even living in caves)
Or we will take a step “backward” to pre-1960 values, Those values served well (in their time), why? because they were quality values!!
I recently had a chat with some Christian Heritage Party (CHP) members. I had the misconception that they were a bunch of right wing crazies too far off on the right wing for all but the most devoted conservatives.
NOT ANYMORE!! And no they are not interested in setting up a Christian Theocracy!!
I urge people to look them up and make up their own minds about the sanity of CHP.
their web site is at the link
http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html
Fixing the multi-cult problem is pretty much what they stand for!
abhishek – so, if a society decides that all its citizens who are Jews, gypsies etc, must be exterminated in gas chambers, then, you think the world should stand by and watch – because that society can claim that it is their basic right of freedom of religion and expression?
If a society decides that all its black Muslims must be eradicated by arab Muslims (Somalia-Darfur), then, the world must stand by and watch, because it is their basic right of freedom of religion and expression?
If a religious group decides that it must burn down a school of young girls, because their beliefs reject women as equals – then, the world must stand by and watch?
You are promoting cultural relativism; you reject the basic commonality of ‘being human’ – a fact that declares that we are all one species, and all have the same basic rights of freedom. That means that the world cannot stand by and see those rights eroded under the guise of ‘religious or cultural beliefs’.
Abhishek
“without trespassing upon a communities’ basic rights”
This is just exactly wrong, Communities don’t have rights, individuals do. Otherwise society falls apart into sectarianism with different communities having different rights. And as the article argues, how can we allow a section of a community be denied rights by that community when we consider those rights universal.
ET You’ve grasped the point of article.
The fundamental point is that relativism, cultural and moral, denies the basic principal that all humans are fundamentally the same.
Hmm… just glancing quickly, but I can see that this warrants my attention.
It’s a topic that’s enthralled me quite a bit. I find multiculturalism to be illogical, irrational, inegalitarian, hypocritical and imposing.
I plan to delve into this post more deeply later…
Multiculturalism, at first glance, may seem interesting and “good”, but the way the liberal-left has implemented this policy has actually been divisive, imposing differences whilst ignoring/devaluing commonalities, and, amongst other things, even dangerous (look at the phobia of the liberal-left wrt preventing terrorism and its relationship to the dogma of “multiculturalism”)
I’d suggest that “multiculturalism” is more about creating dependent, loyal ethnic voting blocs for the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, they’ll scream bloody murder at this suggestion, but we’ve seen the evidence in the way they have treated minority communities- as tokens, as captive supporters… and we see minorities leaving the Liberals in droves as they come to realize that the Liberals really don’t care about them and are just using them, with “multiculturalism” the sugarcoating of the whole clever scheme to win seats…
Shame on the Liberals!
“”…..the proponents of multiculturalism deliberately confuse race and culture to shut down dissent. It has to be stated explicitly that to be opposed to multicultural “societies” is not the same as being opposed to multiracial societies.””
Wimpy Can…..you are so right! This is only one of the disingenuous tactics of the socialist types who cannot tolerate open challenges to their doctrine!
Phantom as well : “” At any rate, Relativism is propounded chiefly by people who don’t like measuring things.””
They are weak they are full of crap and they know it deep down even if they can’t or won’t admit it.
This is where the need to equivocate and rationalize in terms of relative merit originates. It allows the weakling to justify his own shortcomings as well as have an excuse for doing whatever the heck they want to. It’s the thinking and behavior of children! A self serving fabrication of morality that props up the flawed and incomplete individual. When any of the props are moved the whole flimsy thing is in danger of collapse. So the relativistic liberal lives in a very shaky house!
Is NAZI culture protected.
Is Soviet kulture equal to Canada’s.
Questioning minds need answers.