"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.

I agree with Abhishek. Change has to come from within, not without. It will not last, otherwise.

Jared,

" Canada has abandoned every value that our forefathers held. some people call this progress!! Which is laughable."

This is the same great Canada whose forefathers were agianst immigration by any people who were not white, or indeed, from certain parts of the Christian world. The same forefathers who enjoyed propagating the myth of the true north. The forefathers who introduced the European style anti-Americanism that so many detest on this board. The forefathers who believed they combined British bearing with American hardiness - The British were too wimpy, the Americans too uncultured? The list continues. Granatstein, I believe, wrote an interesting book on the impact of multiculturalism on myths of Canada that are aimed at glorifying the British connection.

" 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!"

When was Canada great? Certainly not prior to the Second World War, when the country was akin to what we now know as third world countries. Perhaps after World War 2? Diefenbaker and Mulroney periods I m assuming.

We could hardly defend ourselves prior ot the outbreak of World War 2. Remember Roosevelets speech at Queens promising that America would defend Canada? And even world war 2 saw Canada succeed not on the basis of tactics or technology, but on the sheer bravery of ordinary Canadians who took up arms. Marc Milners book on the Royal Canadian Navy clears up many a myth.

"The Stems from we have no coherent culture, no fabric to unite us like we once had, no common values!!'

We never did. Since the advent of Canada there has been a Quebec.

Its worth noting that the progress of Judeo Christian civilizations came precisely because a firm line was drawn between religion and politics.

The Judeo Christain civilization is not all at the top. The former Soviet Union is also a contribution of Judeo Christian civilization. Imperialism didnt come about because other civilizations realised the superiority of the Judeo Christians - in fact some Empires were far more refined and sophisticated and, indeed richer. Imperialism boils down to an efficiency in making money that outstripped others, and, more crucially, the ability to create technology that could be used to subjugate and kill others. Imperialsim came from the barrell of the gun. No one bowed down noting the inherent superiority of the civiliztion. They lost in battle. Judeo Christians were better at creating killing machines. Good for you.

"The CULTURE of Western civilization is superior to all other known cultures."

Yes. Thats why the Taj Mahal was built in Versailles. Taj Mahal is after all, an indicator of culture. Cultures are too subjective to be objective. How do you decide which culture is better? On the basis of what you recognise and identify with? Culture includes a lot more than political systems and religious tranditions.

"Or we will take a step "backward" to pre-1960 values,"

Yes, when the color fo your skin actually did make a difference. What are pre1960s values? Can you give me a list. And please, be liberal. Include everything, no matter how wrong it may now seem.

At least you admit you re a political activist.

ET

"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?'

I will grant that there are stages when intervention are neccessary. When a state actively tries to kill those it is charged with protecting, it is time to intervene.

However, tinkering with minor religious practices such as sati, which incidentally isnt an exclusively Hindu practice - it was practiced in most of the Ancient world - I believe Dido of Carthage also immolated herself in such a way. The British banned Sati, a wonderful move, but it rears its ugly head every now and then and it is hard to guage whether a woman is doing it of her own free will, or under the influence of drugs/threats.

Banning it means shutting down any debate about it since no one can argue in its favor. Hence it continues, albeit exceptionally rarely, because Hindus have not had a chance to wipe it out. An open debate might have allowed for that, since I think its apparent that Hindus dont in fact feel supportive of the idea of jumping on to a pyre when their husband dies. However, arbitrarily banning it merely strengthens the religious and traditionalists hand, because they then argue that while Hindus support them, a secular government does. Hindus dont in fact support them and when that becomes clear, they will have no basis. Instead it continues as it does. Of course sati is extremely rare - in fact if one were to look at the stats, I think one would find that a similar percentage of women commit suicide after their husbands death as do commit sati. The latter is more spectacular.

There is a difference between intervening in a genoicide and strengthening hardline religious folks hands by intervening in small religous practices, thereby giving those practices symbolic importance, and extenuating the life of a practice that might otherwise have fallen victim to the most powerful weapon of all - argument.

Kate says..."are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss."

O RLY?

"In a surprising twist, Israel has entered Canada's list of top-10 source countries for refugees"

www.thestar.com/News/article/175544

Fabulous piece

Abhishek;

I must say I agree entirely with your

" Change has to come from within; or else it will not last."

That is unless I'm taking you out of context. Assuming the "outsiders" in your last sentence refers to westerners, I think your

" 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. "

is a fine illustration of the actual damage western Multi-Culturalism can help to perpetuate. By that I'm refering to the habit of American Multi-Culturalists of confering "extra" or "special" status to a minority in an effort to be accomidating. The result being that Muslim immigrants to western countries who wish to retain a devout religious tradition have zero encouragment, and little or no cogent or salient assistance, to intigrate succesfully with the culture of their new location.

I think Mr. Bruckner is correct in his assesment of Ayaan's ideas. I just bought "The Caged Virgin" and "Infidel" lastnight and I'm halfway through the former title just now. When Garton Ash critiques her as "simplistic" I cannot disagree more !! Although she may appear that way to some, I attribute that perception to her extraordinary ability to communicate so well, her ability to make a complicated discussion "plain even to the meanest understanding" ... yes I can be very thick-headed hehe.

Anyone who hasen't yet seen video of Ayaan addressing the AEI on her latest book may find a link at hotair.com, I strongly recommend watching it.

hotair.com/archives/2007/02/17/video-ayaan-hirsi-ali-at-aei/

Bob: Did you actually read the article? The crux of the article is the likelihood that the immigration system is being abused by "economic migrants".

For example, from the article:

"The real story here isn't about Israel but the exploitation of Canada's refugee system," Fogel said.

"A lot of people have used that opportunity to get out of the Soviet Union for economic opportunities elsewhere and they're in transit in Israel to come to places like Canada,"

Other than a few unfortunate orphans, who are unable to have knowledge of their biological parents, the confusion lies between roots and nation. Race has very little to do with it, but rather heritage is the determining factor. I am British by birth, even though one side of my family comes from India. Everyone or their family is from somewhere which are ones' roots. The nation of Canada welcomes people from all different roots as long as they truly believe themselves to be Canadian. Canada can never be a nation until we ask ourselves to be proud to be Canadian and accept the founding societal norms.

ah Kate.

Kate Kate Kate.

you've outdone yourself on this one.

love that punch line 'one what basis ...'

dig dig dig, post post post !!!!

An Egyptian court has sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president

Now there’s a guy who should be considered for refugee status and Peter Mansbridge should make a big deal out of it on the CBC.

Read the whole thing

tinyurl.com/38c854

Bruckner got it right in many respects, but on one basic issue he got is dead wrong.

He says that "In multiculturalism, every human group has a singularity and a legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist..."

What he should have said was 'In multiculturalism every human group EXCEPT people of white european descent has a singularity and a legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist...'

Multiculturalists seem to view that group as the root of all evil.

The ultimate purpose of 'multiculturalism', is to turn anglo-saxons into a minority group! (Ever met any white anglo-saxon 'refugees'?)

Jeremiah exemplifies the thinking that brought us multiculturalism. Ha Ha, he is full of white man's guilt. Oh, those mean empires! As if there were no empires other than European, you know, like..oh, well, emmm ... let me think...Chinese? Aztec? Arab? Persian? Egyptian? Need I go on ?

Jeremiah, I am not ashamed of Western civilization at all. I pee in your general direction.

"The problem with multiculturalism is that the new immigrants believe to be Canadian second and homeland first.---etc"

I know Cal and your not Cal, but I don't disagree with what you have written.

Well, you're talking specifically about Canada.

We haven't had to wrestle with the "two solitudes," but fallout from multiculturalism is pretty much the same down here.

I think one of the reasons that arguments for it fall on deaf ears is that we've all actually had to live with it for a while.

Once you have had to live with the turkey on the porch next door for a couple of decades, all the arguments that are used to persuade you that multiculturalism has great value begin to fall on deaf ears.

It is a lot harder to be persuasive through intellectualiztion when you have been forced to be nose-to-nose with the damned thing.

I think multiculturalism is sort of like Marxism, in that it is an idea that was once very persuasive, but has had its day as practical experience has see nothing but trouble for everyone involved.

At least conservatives have tasted it and rejected it. I now see multiculturalism as just one more idea that diminshes the power of Americans and Canadians to have decision making over their own lives.

No one will ever be able to be very convincing about it again.

... 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.....

...what about the Canadian community ? What of our traditions ?

From teh article:

"accompanied ... by the saccarine cajolery of the rich who explain to the poor that money doesn't guarantee happiness."

I just loved this phrase. I've used it myself before to pooh-pooh the champaign socialists.

Trudeau adopted multiculturalism as a concept that would make quebecers happy in Canada.
Multiculturalism is a political concept rather than a entity, a being, a thing because multicult means nullility, there is no culture, whatever you want is culture says multiculture.
Sheeplike canadians should stop following political correct and think what is in the best interest of Canada. We don't need more people. World scientists say our world has to reduce the number of people. Canadians think by flooding people in we are helping the world. We are only taking our country down.
Vancouver, one of the nicer cities in the world to live in is rapidly entering the point of Too damn many people, we khaven't even got water mains or la sewage system to service them. not enough hospitals, policemen, jails, schools or universities. Only lunatics like the pres of one of the banks recently quoted, saying we have to compete for talent by immigration, and then we bring in people illiterate in their own land to help us compete in a technical world.
There is one answer. Stop all immigration escept to people who can speak english or french, have money or a profession. Let all others reform their own country.
The usual excuse is "We all came from immigrants". So. Did not every nation or country in the western hemisphere come from immigrants? Why aren't they taking immigrants? Why is Canad the biggest immigrant taker in the world per capita? Because the politicians have found it is expedient. Vancouver is now 30% chinese. When is enough? Now we are busy immigrating muslims who outbreed us, Smart..
"Immigrants built this country" So. Do we abandon policies best for our country just because of some event in the past.
Nobody says "Stop immigration" and "Stop the policy of multiculturalism" That is what all the braying asses should be saying, but in sheeplike canada, not a peep.

Multiculturalism in Canada--most certainly a most calculated and cynical tactic of the Liberal Party--has been used to discredit and neutralize both the British and Christian roots of this country. And, on what grounds have the majority of immigrants come here? On the basis of the (Judeo-)Christian understanding of the inestimable value of each individual and Magna Carta, the very foundation of our democracy. (British, not post- Enlightenment French concepts, right?)

So, this week, though the Opening Exercises at my school--which has a Board book of significant days--have emphasized Black History Month and Chinese New Year, there was no mention at all of Ash Wednesday or Lent. I have no problem with Black History Month or Chinese New Year, per se. But, as a Canadian whose British, Christian forbears--here in the 1700s--had a great deal to do with the democritization and prosperity of this country, I do have a very serious problem with the demonization and discrediting of this culture. (Check out your local school's propagand . . . whoops, I mean history texts.)

So, I wrote a script for Ash Wednesday and Lent. It was read over the PA, but administration has made no acknowledgment of my concerns on this issue.

Welcome to Canada: forget "land of the beaver". How about land of the brow-beaten?

sourdust--

That infant mortality thing is getting old. I've posted this before, but let me try again.

America's infant mortality rate is higher because they count babies who are born at 23 and 24 weeks gestation who then die as infant mortality. Other countries count them as miscarriages. They don't even try to save them. So you're comparing apples to oranges. Many countries use the cut-off of even 28 weeks for a baby to be counted as an "infant", thus deflating their infant mortality figures. America actually counts the true number of babies who are born alive and then die, no matter what the gestational age. Thus they seem to have super high infant mortality, when in actual fact they have a higher survival rate of very premature babies than any country in the world.

Witness the 21-week-old baby who was born in the States and is set to go home soon. In most countries, they don't even try to save until 25 or 26 weeks.

It's similar to America's crime rates--they count them really well and more crimes are reported to American police than other police forces. In Europe the number of property crimes and muggings that are actually reported is very low. They know the police won't do anything. So America's rates seem colossal compared to other countries, but it's only because they do a more accurate job of counting, even the things that make them look bad.

I want to take up on the person that asked would we not shelter someone who came to our door in a snow storm?Maybe not.Maybe that person just picked a snow storm to make a house invasion like he would in the culture that he was from.We would think,in our culture,that he was a person in need but in his culture snow storm house invasions were the norm,in fact,applauded.

Multiculturalism is one of the most successful strategy that the left unleashed upon us. Face it, in their own backyards the left had run out of voters. Adding newly minted victim agenda voters has kept them afloat. The flood of most often inappropriate immigrants are offered welfare benefits, schooled on grievance attitudes and promised that assimilation won't be an irritant to them.

The next best strategy of the left has been the draconian pc codes. Anyone raising an objection is a racist.

It's brilliant and it has worked well for them so far.

Mr. ET says: ''Your example of creationism vs evolutionism has nothing to do with multiculturalism.''
Nor does your "the germ theory of disease is equivalent to the evil eye theory of disease". That's the point. No one in favor of multiculturalism subscribes to germ theory/evil eye theory equivalency. Nor do they "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."
But it is interesting to note that many who agree with your opinion of multiculturalism DO subscribe to an evil eye equivalent:Creationism.

Kate, your closing comment is excellent.

I remember the question asked many years ago, why do we accept refugees from Turkey, a NATO ally. Something is wrong here.

Wimpy Canadian

You can pee in whichever direction you want, but I suggest peeing in the direction of the wind.

Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization. It is certainly the dominant current civilization. Though some argue that the Chinese and Indians are catching up.

And yes, all civilizations are imperialist. However some civilizations have conquered under the shadow of guns while other havent. The Buddhist and Hindu civilizations emanating out of India influenced much of Asia, as far away as China and Japan, without an Indian army ever appearing either of those areas. As the Chinese ambassador to the US, Hu Shih, famously said: "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border".

This Judeo Christian civilization that is propogated is mythical insofar as it tends to ignore the whole picture, focusing instead of a few benefits. If western civilization produced democracy, it also produced fascism. If it produced capitalism, it also produced communism.

There is no white mans guilt involved. Objective analyses often tell a very different tale to the attempt to glorify a certain civilization by ignoring its less savoury aspects.

and Cal, Cal isnt Cal2 either. but I do like his statements.

Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization.

The ultimate vacuous comment of the history challenged multi-culti moral equivalency left.

I rest my case.

penny,

As much as you want to believe that Western Civilization started with enlightenment, it didnt. Hitler and the Nazis are as much a product of Western Civilization as Jefferson and democracy.

Those who do not know any history should not call others history challenged. History has many a strange tale to tell. In the age of Osama, who would give any credence to Monsieur Aubrey de La Motraye, a Huguenot traveller escaping religious persecution in Christian France when he noted that :" there is no country on earth where the exercise of all religions is more free and less subject to being troubled, than in Turkey". He was talking about the Islamic Ottoman regime and its treatment of Jews at a time when Christian kingdoms were routinely prosecuting and expelling jews.

Yes, history is a strange thing indeed. Especially when it is based on real facts, not the fiction you dream up on your porch.

The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around, and became a glorious one after enlightenment. There was a whole phase inbetween that some refer to as the Dark Ages. That was western civilization too.

Frankly, I think it is a simple distraction to try to figure out whether multiculturalism supports or condemns Western civilization. Irrelevant. Irrelevant, irrelevant.

We have all had multiculturalism shoved down our collective throats just like the gun registry, Kyoto, and all of the rest.

We have been forced to suffer the burdens of multiculturalism now for decades, and it really doesn't matter how it may fit into the concourse of Western civilization.

We don't like it. We've learned to distrust it. We suffered from its unintended consequences. And we've been forced to eat it whether we like it or not.

It is not an intellectual matter. We don't care whether it can be used for the artful construction of arguments and ideas.

We have had to live with it, and we have learned that it is not good for us, and we reject it. Arguments on its behalf no longer matter, as they fly in the face of our actual long-term experience.

Anything can be argued, but nobody has to care.

jeremiah, you aren't making any sense. The comment about the Dark Ages also being a "product" of Western Civilization is just bizarre.

Sociologists analyse the negtive barriers in a society to state the case to try and break them down and move on to something better. Now thats progress and modernity.

But when sociologist turn political to move forward against traditions that actually keep a culture together, such as multiculti activism has done, society doesn't benefit at all.

Pascal Bruckner is skewering the intolerance of intolerance. It isn't progressive to blindly accept or demolish a culture to accomodate another, its political. It's crude identity politics trumped up in something called progress.

...that is "tolerance of intolerance." My bad!

Kate: If we who live in "privileged" 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?

Jeremiah has already covered much of what I want to say on this point, so I'll only add a few words more.

What we as Canadians judge as superior when recognizing the 'refugee' is our society's willingness to tolerate what the ruling elite of the refugee's homeland will not. Only by equating a nation's (current) ruling elite with a people's culture does your argument hold weight.

But of course this is not so--cultural tradition transcends political ideology. Here at home, the ruling Conservatives are no more the embodiment of a definitive 'Canadian culture' (insofar as such a thing exists) any more than the Liberals were when they were in power a scant few years ago. And if by chance a coup were to take place tonight, such that by morning, Parliament was overthrown, our political leaders were killed, a military dictatorship was installed, and we all were forced to seek safe harbour on the shores of France, how much would you be willing to concede: merely that a democratic republic state (even a Gallic one) is superior to a military dictatorial one? or that French culture is essentially superior to Canadian?

But this is getting off point. Let's put aside the refugee issue, which is at best incidental to the question of multiculturalism. It is true enough that multiculturalism is founded on a paradox, but that needn't discredit it -- so too is, say, Western liberalism (i.e., democratic capitalism). To be sure, it is not without its tensions and its potential for doing great harm. Celebrating differences without also celebrating similarities can lead to segregation, or worse. And yet, this needn't be a foregone conclusion -- an inevitable march towards 'legal apartheid,' to use Buckner's inflammatory prose. Multiculturalism, properly conceived, does not subjugate the individual to the group -- it is, at once, both an acknowledgement of the differences between ethno-cultural groups and the transcendence of those differences as individuals.

Last, Bruckner's argument presumes to equate tolerance with equivalence. Again, not so. While multiculturalism has, in its implementation, been occasionally taken to absurd accommodational extremes, Canada is on the whole nowhere near that point. Democratic governance, universal human rights, and the rule of law (Bruckner fails to mention that Ontario rejected sharia courts) remain bedrock. We respect (sometimes even celebrate) a plurality of free cultural expression, but only insofar as those cultural expressions are compatible with the fundamental principles of our democratic society. We can avoid the trap of post-modern moral relativism; we are still able to distinguish. Thus, for instance, we can encourage Muslim Canadians to practice their religion even as we reject -- by our dominant cultural norms and by the rule of law -- oppression of and violence against women. We abide the former where it does not involve the latter; where it does, we have rightly expressed outrage.

jrb,

I suspect my lack of coherence has more to do with taking some of the things I m saying out of context. I am not commenting on multiculturalism. I am however commenting on a statement made earlier that makes some baseless claims about the greatness of western civilization.

Western civilization, like all civilizations, has to be seen as a sum of its parts. And in the 4500 year old history of Western civilization, with each era connected in a number of ways, Western civilization did not come into existence with enlightenment. It came into existence with the Greeks and Romans. The eras that follow have invariably had an impact on what has followed. Such is the lesson of the human experience. To eradicate those phases that you dislike is to do a grave injustice. Every era is a part of western civilization. You cant pick and choose.

The Dark Ages are a product of western civilization in that it is the result of various events that took place within western civilization that ultimately culminated in the so-called Dark Ages. Communismt, Facism - these are all products of Western Civiliztion.

I keep getting the feeling that a couple of our commentors here may be posting to this blog from the planet Mars. They don't seem to have any "real world knowledge" of ... well, anything.

There is no other logical explanation for someone who argues so casually that Western civilization is "no better, no worse" than any other, than that perhaps they don't actually live here. On planet Earth, I mean.

To put it more simply - who to believe? Jeremiah? Or my own lyin' eyes?

My favourite ethical conundrum for multicultural relativists is female circumcision (which is actually genital mutilation). So many have impaled themselves on this one. As feminists they cannot help be revulsed by this, however their multicultural ethic says "it's okay", "I'm not to judge". In other words, their hooped.
Sometimes they have said "It's okay in their culture, in their country, but not ours". Sorry, that doesn't compute, it is not logical. You have to follow through on your logic. Which means whatever is okay "over there" must also be okay over here.
Inevitably, you must see the bankruptcy of this ethic. There must be an ultimate morality that transcends culture.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just all get along? Welcome to Utopia, my friends.

Multiculturalism is dead -- so pronounced by the leader of British Labour Party, Tony Blair. Yes, a "leftie" said that!

He, and others in his party, went even further: they denounced political correctness as a disease (something I have been saying for years).

To all those who still cling to the fantasy of multiculturalism, I suggest you read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", Bruce Bawer's "While Europe Slept" and, of course, Stewart Bell's "Cold Terror" (note that Bell has a new edition out with new material, including stuff on the Toronto terrorists).

Every child in school should be required to read these books and books like them.

"The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around..." - Jeremiah

Yes, what with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. And all those glorious bathhouses and Roman orgies. The lefty's ideal society right there.

"The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around..." - Jeremiah

Yes, what with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. And all those glorious bathhouses and Roman orgies. The lefty's ideal society right there.

"The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around..." - Jeremiah

Yes, what with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. And all those glorious bathhouses and Roman orgies. The lefty's ideal society right there.

There's a world of difference in making judgements about other cultures and thinking your superior to everyone else on the planet.

Personaly I prefer the enlightened west to any other culture. However people living in those other cultures have rights just like we do. They don't become subhumans by virtue of coming from a different country.

And the hard right doesn't really represent the enlightened west. It's a reactionary force within it that distrusts and fears the rest of the world (the rest of the west especialy).

Jose, you're missing the the point here. You are quite correct that people in other cultures have rights: by virtue of being human, not by virtue of their "community culture".

But this confusion is widespread in the left, which is why feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?

And also the hard right - me :-) is not reactionary. That is just so last century "progressive" leftists' drivel. It is the left today that is reactionary, wishing to maintain the status quo and re-apply nostrums that have been proven to have failed by bitter human experiments costing the lives of hundreds of millions. It is the right which has new ideas.

Jose, you're missing the the point here. You are quite correct that people in other cultures have rights: by virtue of being human, not by virtue of their "community culture".

But this confusion is widespread in the left, which is why feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?

And also the hard right - me :-) is not reactionary. That is just so last century "progressive" leftists' drivel. It is the left today that is reactionary, wishing to maintain the status quo and re-apply nostrums that have been proven to have failed by bitter human experiments costing the lives of hundreds of millions. It is the right which has new ideas.

A, you said:

"cultural tradition transcends political ideology"

What blathering foolishness. Do you listen to the words coming out of your head?

It should read "liberty and humanity transcends cultural tradition"

Jeremiah

"Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization."

Herein lies the relativist trap. So, it's just the same to live under an islamic or Aztec theocracy as to live in a Western liberal democracy? Or perhaps a mesopotamian city-state, code of Hamurabi and all? Chinese serf anyone?

Also, I suggest you google "Greek influence on Bhuddism"

"The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around, and became a glorious one after enlightenment. There was a whole phase inbetween that some refer to as the Dark Ages. That was western civilization too."

The point is not to whitewash our past, but to recognize that it is the foundation upon which our values are built.

A, you said: "cultural tradition transcends political ideology"...It should read "liberty and humanity transcends cultural tradition"

Perhaps you and I have a different notion of what 'cultural tradition'' and 'political ideology' mean in this context. By the latter, I was referring to the (oppressive, likely authoritarian) political system from which Kate's hypothetic refugee is fleeing, and by the former, I was referring to that refugee's 'set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society" to which Canadians are apparently supposed to feel superior to.

I never even implied that liberty and humanity are subordinate to cultural tradition. In fact, I explicitly stated that multiculturalism requires that the opposite be true. However, I wouldn't equate 'liberty and humanity' with 'political ideology.'

A OK that's clear.

BUT

the "set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society" may very well be the cause of the oppression, war and poverty causing them to seek refuge in Canada. Does it then make sense to encourage them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge?

Multiculteralism is the radical idea of wacky liberals who are out of thier minds SQUAWK SQUAWK

Kate, your closing comment on deciding who is a refugee says it all. But will the do-gooder/basket-weaving crowd get it ??

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Jose said: "There's a world of difference in making judgements about other cultures and thinking your superior to everyone else on the planet."

Jose, dude. Go read the article again, and then read my post waaaaay up at the top. Western culture IS superior to everything else on the planet. You can even -measure- the extent to which it is superior using anything from infant mortality to longevity to energy use per person.

Denying this is like saying sh1t rolls up hill. Polygamy SUCKS as a child rearing strategy compared to the standard Western family unit. Witchcraft sucks compared to the scientific method.

Humans are measurably the same within certain sloppy tolerances. What differentiates populations is mostly their shared culture. Culture is what gives us "traction" on the natural world. We get lots of grip where other guys just spin their wheels and don't go anywhere.

when the individual is not free then the collective is not free, multiculturalism as it exists would seem to restrict individual freedom.

...the "set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society" may very well be the cause of the oppression, war and poverty causing them to seek refuge in Canada. Does it then make sense to encourage them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge?

Well, one might argue that if refugees are escaping culturally-rooted forms of persecution in their homeland (though, as Jeremiah noted earlier, it's more often political masquerading as cultural), then they're clearly not interested in importing with them those same aspects of their culture that have caused their own persecution. This would be something akin to a North Korean political dissident defecting to Canada but bringing with him a framed portrait of the Great Leader to hang in his living room.

Of course, this line of argument is limited, as it leaves aside the question of immigrants (versus refugees). On this broader question, I can only say that debate is ongoing. I will say this, though: it's a strawman argument to claim that multiculturalists are moral relativists, as Bruckner would have it. Multiculturalism doesn't imply that we accept all aspects of all cultures equally and without judgment. So, it's not so much a choice of either "encouraging them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge." It's not so black-or-white, all-or-none; one doesn't (and cannot realistically be expected to) simply trade in one cultural set for another. Multiculturalism encourages more subtlety than that, though structures (e.g., formally, Charter rights and freedoms, the rule of law; informally, social values and norms of justice, equality, non-oppression, non-violence, etc.) that mediate cultural expression.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Incidentally, your critique is precisely the same as that of Susan Okin's, a renowned feminist political theorist, who wrote an important essay a few years back entitled 'Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?' I recommend it if you haven't read it already (retrievable via google). Another good reason to avoid blanket generalizations like "feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?"

"I keep getting the feeling that a couple of our commentors here may be posting to this blog from the planet Mars. They don't seem to have any "real world knowledge" of ... well, anything."

The benefit of posting from the planet Mars, us that commentators such as myself can see all of planet Earth, the whole picture, so to speak. I admittedly dont go around shooting small dead animals, or, uh, painting cars, but I have travelled a fair bit of the world.

"There is no other logical explanation for someone who argues so casually that Western civilization is "no better, no worse" than any other, than that perhaps they don't actually live here."

Well Kate, I m glad to know that Western Civilization started the day you were born. If one were to factor in the holocaust and other such events, it would indeed be hard to claim that western civilization is the best. After all fascism and communism have claimed millions of human lives in the past century alone.

If one were to pick out the best civilization in the span of the last, perhaps four decades, then there is absolutely no doubt that Western Civilization RIGHT NOW, is the greatest of them all.

But then, Civilizations have one thing in common - once they rise to the top, they cant imagine that they will ever go back down. They are, perhaps like Kate, trapped in a bubble that refuses to acknowledge the reality of where they came from, and the reality of eventual decline. Western civilization is on top in our lifetime. But it has produced its share of evils. Like I said, if it created Western Liberal Democracy, it also created communism. This is the same civilization that values individual lives and liberties so much that it has engaged in two of the most brutal wars in human history.

Yes I m sitting on Mars. And I can see a whole lot more of planet Earth than one sitting in a town in Canada.

"To put it more simply - who to believe? Jeremiah? Or my own lyin' eyes?"

Your own eyes are only as old as you. I hope.

Erich,

Again, a cursory reading of history can do that. While it is true that Rome persecuted Christian, it was also Rome's adoption of Christianity that turned Christianity into a western religion. Theres a whole long complex history there.

Wimpy,

"Herein lies the relativist trap. So, it's just the same to live under an islamic or Aztec theocracy as to live in a Western liberal democracy? Or perhaps a mesopotamian city-state, code of Hamurabi and all? Chinese serf anyone?"

Ah but you make the fatal mistake of assuming that all civilizations can be compared in a small time frame. Let me put it this way. When the Mesopotamian city states were in existence, Europeans were, well, Barbarians. You know living in trees and all that. The Mesopotamians had a whole city state while Western Europe had nothing that compared even slightly. Carthage was one of the greatest cities in the world. Poof. Gone.

Now to deny that the Mesopotamian civilization was one of the greater civilizations of its time is, well, betraying a lack of understanding of history. I would certainly have preferred to live under Hammurabis code of Law IN 2000 BC, than I would in France or Germany or England of 2000BC.

And as I noted, or rather Monsieur Aubrey de la Motraye, a famous huguenot traveller , persecuted in Christian France, noted the Islamic Ottaman Empire was a lot more tolerant and liberal than, well most of Christian Europe. There was a time when the Christian pope banned books about, amongst other things, democracy. At that time, I think it would have been more advantageous to live in the Islamic civilization where those books - Aristotle, Plato and all, were available.

And, well, I guess it would be far more beneficial living in modern day Scandinavia than in 1000 AD. But I dont think that is your point.

Your question isnt really a trap. Its a badly worded question. We live in the golden age of western civilization, yes.

In fact, there is an error on your part.Western Liberal Democracy, while no doubt a product of Western Civilization, did not exist for the duration of Western Civilization either. Making that equation skeweres your argument.

As for the influence of Greece on Buddhism, well it goes two ways. Read Will Durants works on the influence of Buddhism on Christianity. I m no fan of Durant, but some people on this board claim to be quite familiar with his works. Well heres something to chew. Ashoka "sent Buddhist missionaries to all parts of India and Ceylon, even to Syria, Egypt and Greece, where, perhaps, they helped prepare for the ethics of Christ."

The human experience is long and complex. Equating western civilization with western democracy is a bit, well, fallacious.

" there is no country on earth where the exercise of all religions is more free and less subject to being troubled, than in (Ottoman) Turkey".

Ever heard of the Janissaries?

Jeremiah, you constantly amaze me at how willing you are to display your buffoonery.

In this case you would take the observation of one man over historical record. And then have the gall to claim historical knowledge greater than the commentor you were attempting to discredit.

"Those who do not know any history should not call others history challenged."

Ah huh. You should stick to your intellectual weight class and go visit, I don't know, rabble?

It's incredibly sad that as daily stories of cultural incompatibility with exploded kindergarten children footnotes scream from the headlines everywhere, the defenders of this disease called multiculturalism argue for "more please".

In City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concluded a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: “The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.[p.126]

I would pity these morons if it was not just political boosterism for their side.

In another boost for multiculturalism in Canada, a bunch of Muslims in Toronto were busted this week for planing multiple truck bombs and an attack on Parliament.

The news today was the Crown dropping charges against one 16 year old who seems to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is the backdrop against which Mr. Dion is playing silly games with the legislation that caught these dirt bags.

A wrote quite a while ago, "[In Canada} Democratic governance, universal human rights, and the rule of law (Bruckner fails to mention that Ontario rejected sharia courts) remain bedrock."

Who is this person kidding?

The "democratic" Liberals have sold this country to the highest--often crooked--bidders. Thank God, at least for now, the Conservatives have cut off the taxpayer payola to these crooks--government players and bidders, some at the highest levels.

"Universal human rights"? A obviously doesn't know that the Charter only applies to members of favoured groups, not all Canadians.

"The rule of law": Right. How about Caledonia? How about the Liberal-heavy judiciary, law reform commissions, etc? Just today the Supreme Court, in one of its (Charter, I believe) rulings, has stayed the charges against one of the Toronto 17 Muslim terrorist suspects. (Perhaps there are reasonable grounds: it's just that the "rule of law" in this country has sold its political self out so often, I've got my doubts.)

A also refers to "the ruling Conservatives"? For a leftie, doesn't that put-down sound suitably pompous and undemocratic? (Alas, IMO, the Conservatives are a MINORITY government. "Wouldn't it be [really] nice" if they actually did rule?)

I agree with Kate: this person may as well be from Mars, he or she has so puny a handle on what's really going on in this country. (My guess is that this person is a regular reader of the Star or other such rag and CBCPravda or other such ideological broadcaster.)

Broaden your horizons, A. (Jeremiah too. Your self-important and inaccurate musings on Western Civilization are pathetic.)

Phantom:

"In another boost for multiculturalism in Canada, a bunch of Muslims in Toronto were busted this week for planing multiple truck bombs and an attack on Parliament."

Do you have a link to that story? I'd appreciate it, because I am collecting material to expose the lie that multiculturalism has become.

Sorry Werner, I heard that one on the radio. Try Google.

Werner: Don't panic.

The Phantom misheard the CBC report. No new home-grown terrorist cell was "busted this week." It's the same group of 18 from the GTA that was arrested last summer. The charges against the youngest member were stayed yesterday.

"Jeremiah too. Your self-important and inaccurate musings on Western Civilization are pathetic."

Only insofar as you cant respond in kind. Broaden your own horizons, outlook.

jeremiah - Yes, in many ways, Western Civilization has done what most others have. However, it's a fallacy to then say that Western Civilization is on a par with every other one. It most definitely is NOT. It started
long ago, way before the Enlightenment--when, I believe, some of the poisonous seeds of its present day decline were sown. And, BTW, the Dark Ages had everything to do with the sacking of Rome and the West by non-Christian barbarians. (Not to mention the moral decadence of Roman society--sort of like the West today, in many ways.) And the preservation of Western culture and its restoration had everything to do with Christian monasteries.

Check out immigration patterns over the last century or so, jeremiah. You'll notice something interesting: people have been moving, in monolithic numbers, AWAY from non-Western cultures TO the DEMOCRACIES of the West, all of which are based on the Judeo-Christian understanding of the worth of the individual and the rule of law, and all of which were once explicitly Christian countries.

Signs of our decline include, IMO, both the secularization of the West, which has largely removed its ethical foundation--by foolishly cutting off the branch on which it sits--and muliticulturalism, which aggrandizes non-Western cultures and their observance at the expense of our own. (Psst . . . I'm not supposed to say this, but some new-comer groups even directly threaten our existence as free societies. And, having sold our backbone for limp-wristed equality, we stand by and even cheer about our tolerance while it undermines the very foundation of our freedoms. This reminds me of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." We need to smarten up!)

See my earlier post about keeping school kids deliberately ignorant of Canada's Judeo-Christian past--and even present! (Are you one of those kids?) The short script I wrote about Lent for my school actually painted Christians as pretty decent, caring people, an idea one would never get from the despicable propaganda in almost every Canadian history book, where "the noble sav . . ." whoops, "enlightened aboriginal" reigns supreme. (I'm not blaming the aboriginals for this distortion. But it IS a distortion.) There's virtually no mention of inter-tribal warring or despoiling the environment--no technology to avoid that--before moving on to the next encampment, or mentioning--as ET does regularly--that consensus as a way to order society can only work in small, tribal communities. As the Europeans had moved well beyond that mode of life--technological innovation, I'm afraid, jeremiah--their political arrangements were, necessarily, much more complex. jeremiah, would you prefer to live as a hunter gatherer these days or do you perhaps prefer the Judeo-Christian European legacy? (Silly me: what a question! You obviously wouldn't prefer one or the other as you must, by your own logic, think both legacies are equal. Forget the question.)

Another quibble with your logic: we both agree that Western Civilization isn't perfect. There have been aberrations. Like you say, Nazism and communism are two. That's the end of our agreement and where your faulty logic once again rears its unfortunate head. How long did these scourges last in the West, jeremiah? In the course of history, they were mere blips and the West itself both rejected and destroyed them. That you try to equate these stunted branches--all families have them--with the living trunk is deceptive, as are most of your musings on this topic.

A particularly pertinent piece by Martin Luther on the Turk Muslims and Islam in general. Another nail in Jeremiah's intellectual casket. (Excerpts from the gates of vienna - gatesofvienna.blogspot.com)

We hear a lot these days about the necessity for becoming more educated about Islam, as if a fuller acquaintance with the Islamic faith would make the Legions of the Prophet seem less threatening and dangerous.

We can see from these excerpts that the opposite is the case. Martin Luther was very well-educated in the scripture of the Mohammedans, and it only served to confirm to him that their religion was in fact demonic, a worldly manifestation of pure evil.

We would do well to heed his words.

Martin Luther:

In the second place, the Turk’s Koran, or creed, teaches him to destroy not only the Christian faith, but also the whole temporal government. His Mohammed, as has been said, commands that ruling is to be done by the sword, and in his Koran the sword is the commonest and noblest work.

Thus the Turk is, in truth, nothing but a murderer or highwayman, as his deeds show before men’s eyes. St. Augustine calls other kingdoms, too, great robbery; Psalm 76:4 also calls them “fastnesses of robbers,” because it is but seldom that an empire has come up except by robbery, force, and wrong; or at the very least, it is often seized and possessed by wicked people without any justice, so that the Scriptures, in Genesis 10:9, call the first prince upon earth, Nimrod, a mighty hunter. But never has any kingdom come up and become so mighty by murder and robbery as that of the Turk; and he murders and robs every day, for it is commanded in their law, as a good and divine work, that they shall rob and murder, devour and destroy more and more those that are round about them; and they do this, and think that they are doing God service. Their government, therefore, is not a regular rulership, like others, for the maintenance of peace, the protection of the good, and the punishment of the wicked, but a rod of anger and a punishment of God upon the unbelieving world, as has been said. The work of murdering and robbing pleases the flesh in any case, because it enables men to gain high place and subject everyone’s life and goods to themselves; how much more must the flesh be pleased when this is a commandment, as though God would have it so and it pleased Him well! Therefore among the Turks, too, they are held the best who are diligent to increase the Turkish kingdom and who are constantly murdering and robbing round about them.

[…]

All fanatics, as a rule, when the spirit of lies has taken possession of them and led them away from the true faith, have been unable to stop there, but have followed the lie with murder and taken up the sword, as a sign that they were children of the father of all lies and murder…

Just so Mohammed treats the Gospel; he declares that it is indeed true, but has long since served its purpose; also that it is too hard to keep, especially on the points where Christ says that one is to leave all for His sake, love God with the whole heart, and the like.

Therefore God has had to give another new law, one that is not so hard and that the world can keep, and this law is the Koran. But if anyone asks why he does no miracles to confirm this new law, he says that that is unnecessary and of no use, for people had many miracles before, when Moses’ law and the Gospel arose, and did not believe. Therefore his Koran did not need to be confirmed by wasted miracles, but by the sword, which is more effective than miracles. Thus it has been, and still is the case among the Turks, that everything is done with the sword, instead of with miracles.

Interesting post, irwin daisy. Thanks.

And before that there was, "Only insofar as you cant [sic] respond in kind."

That was jeremiah's little challenge to me, "oulook" (sic again), to which I have responded.

Well, jeremiah . . . ?

lookout,

History, when viewed through the lenses of eyeglasses produced in the west, is distorted comprehensively. Civilizations do not have a worth of their own - they are too entangled to have a worth of their own. Western civilization, like just about every other civilization, has benefitted much from interacting with non-western civilization. A civilization's greatness can be gauged only relative to another civilization.

Now if we take a snapshot of history starting in the 18th century, then yes, western civilization is incomparable. After all, at the height of Rome, everyone else was, to put it mildly, non-Roman, regardless of their location or beliefs. I might be mistaken, but it seems that you subscribe to this view too. "We are greater than every civilization NOW, therefore we must have been greater than them throughout history". That simply is not the case. Like I said earlier, Mesopotamia in 2000 BC would have been a far better place to live than the barbarian hinterlands of North Europe. That doesnt mean that I would rather live in Mesopotamia than Canada now. It does mean that relative to Western Civilziation, Mesopotamia was great, and they probably looked down on everyone else in the same manner as some of the people here do. Civilizations have risen and fallen across the globe, and each has provided their own input into what western civilization is. After all, the Romans, for all their prowess, werent able to grasp the significance of zero, which eventually came to the west from India by way of Arabia. And that is but one of the reasons I am wary of declaring a civilization greater than the rest, because while Western civilization is undoubtedly greatest NOW, there are many who believed that Rome would never stop being Great. Civilizations are too entangled. There are too many good and bad things that have been imported, and an equal number exported. To judge western civilization by what it is today, is to engage in fiction, not fact. When the western civilization unravels into smaller civilizations, as has often been the case in history, western civilization will not be remembered as the greatest civilization, but as one of the greatest civilizations. Like the Romans before them. And the Greeks. And the Egyptians.

"And, BTW, the Dark Ages had everything to do with the sacking of Rome and the West by non-Christian barbarians."

A broad and inaccurate claim. I m sure the barbarians would love to take responsibility for the period referred to as the Dark Ages, but the role of Christians in it is a bit overwhelming. I wouldnt say "everything".

"Not to mention the moral decadence of Roman society--sort of like the West today, in many ways."

Hmm. Where have I heard that before? "We were great once, but then our leaders became morally decadent - we will be fine if we revert to the old ways." Oh wait. Osama.

"Check out immigration patterns over the last century or so, jeremiah"

"I'm not supposed to say this, but some new-comer groups even directly threaten our existence as free societies."

Well, after saying that they come here FOR Democracy, you say that they pose the biggest threat to it. Perhaps they arent coming here for democracy. Perhaps they are coming here for money. After all western civilizations greatness is built on its military