A few excerpts from another, er, killer post from Publius:
A Canadian Value
A Pequiste punctures a Canadian illusion:A group of Sikhs was turned away from the Quebec legislature for carrying ceremonial daggers in an incident Tuesday that served as a flashpoint in the province’s emotional debate about multiculturalism.
[…]
Louise Beaudoin, the PQ’s designated critic for secularism, noted that the province’s politicians have never subscribed to the charter vision — in fact, many here view it as a threat to Quebec’s culture. Quebec is the only province that has never supported the Constitution.
“Multiculturalism is not a Quebec value,” Beaudoin told reporters.
“It may be a Canadian one — but it’s not a Quebec one.Some conservatives might be impressed by Louise Beaudoin’s militant rejection of multiculturalism. They should not be. Mme Beaudoin is not rejecting the cultural relativism offered by the multiculturalists. Instead, as a Quebec nationalist, she is asserting the superiority of her tribal culture over others.
The PQ is a party dedicated to the independence of Quebec on the basis of ethnic nationalism. While expressed, and practiced, in a far more civilized form than that seen in the Balkans, or the Middle East, it has as much intellectual validity as the primitive tribalism of those regions. An independent Quebec would be no freer, no strong, no safer and no richer a place than a Quebec within the Canadian union. There is no reason for it but ordinary chauvinism.
Superficially, Quebec nationalism may seem little different from the patriotism of the Rest of Canada…
Under the rubric of multiculturalism this friction is not seen as inevitable and understandable. Instead it is viewed as a product of deep seated bigotry. To the multiculturalist all cultures – and therefore all cultural values – are seen as equally valid. To object to one set of values is not ignorance, or a difference of opinion, but racism. The accusation of racism is tool, used quite often, to silence those making even the most innocuous comments about other cultures…
The Left has drawn the cultural battle lines to their advantage. Too many conservatives (and a few libertarians) have accepted its terms. We cannot fall for the trap. The Left has decreed that to oppose multiculturalism is bigotry. The instinctive reaction of some will be: “Fine, I’m a bigot. Make the most of it.”
Finding non-western cultures strange is not bigotry, it is human…
I generally agree with much of the article, but I still find Louise Beaudoin’s defence of her “tribe’s” culture and values more attractive than the weak vacillating of most of the political elite in the ROC. Unfortunately, if you look beyond her words, you can see that Quebec society is as much mired in multiculti political correctness as the ROC.
The thing that seems to be regarded as not important, move along, nothing to see here is that the Kirpan is a Dagger. Regardless of whether it is ever intended to be used for any purpose other than as a spiritual reminder and a spiritual tool to cut the wearer free from various “sins”, it can and has been used for combat.
The guards that refused entry to armed people were correctly doing their jobs, nothing more and nothing less. All of the leaping and gesturing about cultural insensitivity is fuel to a non-existent fire. The men were armed and told to surrender their weapons or they could not enter. Full stop.
Yeah a kirpan is not a crucifix.
I am offended because the goons not only refuse pocket-knives but seize such and don’t return at Ontario Court houses. I have carried a jack-knive since I could walk….And yet they don’t X-ray my cane(which is a riot stick’s little brother).
Actually, Mark Steyn makes a similar point, and it’s something I’ve been thinking of a long time. I am not a racial supremacist, but I AM a CULTURAL supremacist. All cultures are not equal. Some cultures are superior to others. In some cultures, lying is expected (it’s not encouraged, but it’s expected). Western culture is definitely superior in almost all respects to Arab or Muslim culture. Oriental cultures (Chinese, Japanese, etc all the ee’s) have some excellent points as well: hard work ethic and respect for family, including extended family. I really don’t care about the colour of your skin or your accent. I DO care about your values, which come from your culture and your religion.
Wait, so according to that blog we should state our differences with other cultures (be ‘frank’) and that isn’t bigoted. Okay, with ya so far. Then, when the quebecers state their differences with the Sikhs they are bigots guilty of cultural chauvinism. Is it all, ahem, relative?
Point: the daggers are ceremonial. So take them off.
I have a ceremonial bazooka I like to carry around, yannow… Just sayin’…
Catholics have first communions, it’s symbolic thus can I strut through Parliment in a wee white dress and hat demanding everyone bless me?
I don’t except multiculturalism, nor do most Canadians we weren’t given a choice the left shoved that demented damaging policy down our throats with ramrods alst the whilst screaming you don’t have a Culture Canada. I won’t accept inferior cultural norms no matter how hysterical the left become.
No, slaw, you don’t get it.
First, it is necessary to evaluate beliefs and behaviour. Multiculturalism rejects that. Why is it necessary? Because to claim that all modes of belief and behaviour are equal is a conclusion without evidence. You have to first examine the beliefs and behaviour and then, evaluate whether or not they are functional in a modern civic society.
Is a belief that witches and evil spirits cause disease more functional than a belief in germs?
What about a belief that women are worth half of men?
What about a belief that no-one should question or dissent from The Rulers?
So, multiculturalism is empty because it rejects your actually finding about about the beliefs and behaviour of others – and then, evaluating them. Multiculuralism says: you simply have to accept all beliefs and behaviour.
Quebec? The problem with Quebec is that it has evaluated its beliefs and behaviour, determined that it is superior to all others, including that of the Rest of Canada – and yet, still insists that the ROC pay for its well-being.
That’s the problem. It’s rather like the Lord of the Manor, assured of his own superiority, who expects his peasants to pay their rents and tithes. We, the ROC are the peasants – and are not allowed to dissent or dispute Quebec’s insistence that we pay for their lifestyle.
I see this as Quebec saying no to Sikhs so they can say no to Muslims with credibility.
Multiculturalism can work if Muslims are not included. I think all non Muslim cultures would agree on that. Not liking multiculturalism is a blanket weasel way of actually saying you feel “Islam and its Muslims are nothing but trouble” No need of peaceable immigrants to be included with the trouble makers.
The weapon argument is a non sequiter. French Catholicism was traditionally defended by the sword and its warrior monks (Templars and other orders) were never to appear in public without cross or sword. That is a Catholic legacy equinelence to Sikh Dagger carrying.
No, I think that cultural “tribalism” is alive and thriving in the ranks of Quebec’s Francophone nationalism.
Well we now know she doesn’t buy into the whole multi-culti thingy.
Maybe she’ll tell us why she thinks Quebec needs its $25 billion annual lip lock on the Canadian public teat.
Is it just me or is this post arguing with itself? First, Mark starts off by saying we “should not be” impressed by the fact that Mme Beaudoin “is asserting the superiority of her tribal culture over others.”
Then, he makes the point that cultures should not all be considered equal.
Yes, I get the point about Quebec not being any better off as an independent state and that lanugage (only) is a poor reason for nationalism…but so what? All successful nations have been based on the common idea that “Our team (and culture) is the best.” Whether or not it is true (or if it is based on a piss-poor rationale) is secondary to the fact that you can’t have national pride without starting off with the “we’re the greatest” attitude.
The “reasonable accomodation” issue is a big deal in Quebec. And it has nothing to do with English/French relations (at least at this point and time). Much like the rest of Canada, people talk about how far the society should bend for people from other lands and where the line should be drawn so that a point is reached where the native-born citizens say, “Enough. You must adapt to our culture and not the other way around.”
The question of newcomers to Quebec from the ROC or even the US, for that matter, don’t enter this particular conversation.
Mme Beaudoin’s political party, in this case, is not relevant and Mark should not try to use it against her. True, Quebec’s nationalist movement – which is historically based on English/French tensions give some cover here inasmuch as talking about cultural “superiority” is not as taboo Quebec as it is in English North America.
But, I promise you, this issue is really about people from non-western cultures coming in and trying to say, “I expect you all to accomodate my old-world customs and traditions.”
Whoops. Sorry. Mea culpa. I realize that it is a linked post. Please replace “Mark” with “Publius” (assuming they’re not one in the same). Will read better next time.
Occam – As an army officer I carried a sword on ceremonial occasions all the time, but when we went into the mess, we left our swords in the cloak room. When we were on church parade (I wonder if they still do that?) we left our swords at the door. In our culture, some people carry swords, but they don’t carry them everywhere. I would bet the the Governor Generals aide does not carry his sword into the legislature during the speech from the throne.
“No, I think that cultural “tribalism” is alive and thriving in the ranks of Quebec’s Francophone nationalism.”
Good for them, just because everyone else in the western world is happy to commit tribal suicide (In Britain, the indigenous people are now a minority in the two biggest cities), doesn’t oblige the Quebecois to do the same thing.
Nov. 11, 2009, a Marine officer attended our local Remembrance Day service in full dress uniform. When he went into the Legion afterwards, permission to wear the ceremonial sword was requested from all members in attendance and granted.
No Sikh turbans allowed, of course.
From my second-hand understanding of Sikhism, the whole thing about carrying the Kirpan is a man may not allow himself to be unarmed. Because the Muslims might come, and if you’re a Sikh you’re expected to -fight- for your religion.
The kirpan used to be a big freakin’ dagger, about like a Scots dirk, and was considered the minimum a man could have on him and still be considered “armed”. These days, thanks to the pressure of years and years of stupidity both at home in India and abroad,the “official” kirpan has morphed into a pocket knife-sized pretend dagger. A dull one. No edge to it. A pencil is more dangerous.
Sikhs are now being instructed to hand this non-weapon over anyway, removing even the fig leaf of pretend capacity for defending the faith. Which is insanity. It is equally insane when I, White Dude, am required to hand over -my- pocket knife.
The requirement that you must completely disarm yourself down to your pocket lint before you can enter a government building should be raising a lot more alarm than it is among the general public. If Sikhs can assist in raising that alarm by virtue of raising hell over the kirpan, so much the better.
However, if Sikhs expect to get a Special Deal by virtue of multi-culti policy, where they get to carry their pretend knife but I have to surrender my nail clippers, that as they say is different.
Finally, IMHO Louise Beaudoin is a real, live, actual racist and the PQ is a nest of Fascists. Their continued existence offends me, and they should be forcibly disbanded as traitors to the Crown. If Quebec wants to separate and become a pur lain dystopian nightmare I have no objection… as long as there as big f-ing fence to keep the sonsab1tches off our side.
Should be something to offend everyone in that comment. ~:D
Wait a minute Occam!!! There are a few arguments that are flying around here. The only one that I have a dog in is the “Being armed in Parliament”. If you may not be armed, without special permission, you may not be armed. Period. Full Stop.
True Pat. But is there a legitimate purpose in classifying nail clippers, kirpans and Swiss Army knives as “being armed”?
I think not. Its not security, its security -theater-.
fred@5:35
your point would carry more weight if there weren’t so many French speaking muslims from Algeria, Tunisia, etc, living in Quebec. La Belle Province sold out to anyone who could parley-voo.
However, if Sikhs expect to get a Special Deal by virtue of multi-culti policy, where they get to carry their pretend knife but I have to surrender my nail clippers, that as they say is different.
Sikhs expect to be treated special if the motorcycle helmet/turban issue is any indication.
They don’t care about our freedom of choice as long as they get theirs.
Quebec’s behaviour in all of this is no surprise. It will support something as long as they can get something out of it. That’s selfishness, as is refusing to acclimatise or assimilate, just the Sikhs who don’t understand that the rules apply to EVERYONE.
Multiculturalism has served to elevate some over others. That’s not equality; that’s exclusion.
Classic police training: If your weapon is not in your hand and the knife wielding assailant rushes from 20′ you are going to get wounded or killed.
Look up Kirpans on the internet. Many, many of the very nice ones are flat out fighting knives, ceremonial or otherwise. It is my understanding that nail clippers and pocket knives are not being confiscated.
To compare a dagger to nail clippers is not only over the top, it’s under the bottom as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a thing against Sikhs. Armed where you’re not allowed to be armed is pretty clear and, like it or not, they are armed. Just because many people have never used a knife to cut up a moose, bear, pig or cow, they have no idea of just what can be accomplished with one sweep of a knife.
Phantom @ 7:06;
Well said.
Best regards,
White dude with a pocket knife.
Pat, whoever gave you the understanding that nail clippers and pocker knives weren’t being confiscated was wrong, wrong, wrong. In Winnipeg, anyway. That’s what I get for accidentally leaving the stuff in my shaving kit.
I don’t care if the Sikhs want to bring their ceremonial knife into the legislature of Quebec, I wouldn’t want to go in there unarmed either.
The criminal code doesn’t address the issue of carrying a knife in a public place, a coffee shop, or a shopping mall or church, either by perceived sharpness or length. I think they should be mandatory in government buildings, in that it is public property and there is a danger of coming into contact with government people. If the government authorities are worried about that, perhaps they should address that part of the constitution where it discusses our right to “good government”.
Non-metalic(Zytel) spring assisted knife.
http://tinyurl.com/5w5c2ea
1. “An independent Quebec would be no freer, no strong, no safer and no richer a place than a Quebec within the Canadian union.”
I think the argument can be made that exactly the opposite could be the case. Just as a junkie who kicks the habit can be a more productive and accountable citizen, Quebec could be a much better place if it learns to live outside of the canadian umbrella.
2. There is indeed – as The phantom argues – a racist, fascist element to québécois nationalism and many of the PQ/BQ leadership may indeed have such tendencies but this is hardly unique to the québécois. Most if not all tribes/nationalist groups have such elements.
3. Multiculturalists are certainly the most fascistic – almost by definition they are.
4. There needs to be a free market In cultures as there is in economics. The forces of creative destruction will result in the demise and absorption of some and the improvement o those that remain. Multiculturalism is the socialism of culture and needs to be resisted – it weakens us all when we tax and spend to preserve failed or failing cultures – we do those who are of those cultures no favors by ghettoizing them in this way. (nb: fascism = socialism)
Posted by: terry at January 24, 2011 8:05 PM
What were you doing with a shaving kit in the parliament buildings? Or are we assuming that airline protocols are in place for the seat of government?
Gord, I think you might want to think about your first point again. Consider that Quebec is a small island of French in a sea of North American English. The usual response of such minority cultures is to increase the repressive measures to keep out undesirable language and culture. There is a cultural siege mentality in Quebec, and independence would not change that. It would only give it free expression entirely unrestrained by the rest of Canada.
Its just that Quebec being the head Canadian parasite, now sees that position in jeopardy. That is why we are seeing this attitude. Before when they breed they could have a broader view, content they where the darlings of Ontario, the master of the Canadian hinterlands of Canada. If they can keep on top of the other brown people, the new favorites the Muslims, will be done with as well. Its their reasoning I figure.
Of course its to late but they don’t see it. You don’t have kids, you die out. With no voice of youth you perish at the hands of others of a different cultures children.
The French fact in Canada, is as vapor on a window vanishing.
JMO
Why should I care what the reason is for doing the right thing?
Like a lot of other commenters on this thread, I’ve carried at least one knife on me since I was a child. I view it as a tool which I use multiple times daily and, if I have immediate need of a weapon, the steel toed boots I wear during the winter are a lot more deadly than my previously airline legal 3 63/64″ folding pocket knife.
The right to go about everywhere armed should be everyones right, not just limited to Sikh’s. Ideally we’d have concealed pistol carry in Canada, but until that time comes, knives will serve as an inferior substitute.
“Finding non-western cultures strange is not bigotry, it is human”
Another extreme example, you know what I find strange? Cutting off the clitoris.
Stoning rape victims.
Yeah, that’s strange all right.
By the way, is it any coincidence that the largest Islamic ghetto in the USA is in Detroit?
http://itmakessenseblog.com/tag/muslim-ghettos-of-detroit/
Cgh: Que could turn into Haiti north, or a north American japan. My point is either is possible.
“I would have become a French Canadien by choice if I had not been born one by birth” – Pierre Trudeau.
Multiculti this, multiculti that. The Sikh dress was accepted by the British empire sometime around
1850, and Sikhs and Sikh dress have been a part of our culture ever
since – our military culture at any rate.
It isn’t multiculturalism as far as I am concerned, it is our culture (except for the pooftahs and pacifists),
just as the bearskin hats of the Guards are part of our culture.
i’m EXTREMELY halitotic…..and exceedingly boring…so i don’t need a knife, sap…or bear spray..
i am as the basilisk…
if i ever get any guff from these alms seeking younkers down at the sub shop nowadays i just exhale on them and launch into one of my anecdotes of der guten alten zeit…
John, the acceptance and integration of other cultures is part of the definition of multiculturalism. Having Scottish army regiments and an entire province composed of French-descended Canadian is a type of multiculturalism that few people have an issue with. The problem is that the word “multiculturalism” has different meaning to different people. The type of multiculturalism that most of us object to is the one which assumes that special allowances must be made for different groups, or for individuals within those groups. As a nation, we’ve been doing that since before we were first founded, so I don’t see it coming to an end any time soon. The question at this point isn’t WHETHER we’re going to make special allowances for certain groups, but where we draw the line. Perhaps in a few centuries we’ll be able to have a society where hundreds of distinct cultures can mix without the government providing them with special favors – until then, we’ll just be re-drawing the lines.
Aren’t the Sikhs also asserting – or trying to – the superiority of their tribal culture over others?
It’s an excellent article. If conservatives had a brain, they’d seek common cause with the Sikh here in a bid to increase personal freedom. Instead, they want to make anti-multiculturalism hay with Quebecois politicians and empower government in the process.
(a little OT)
@ Occam at January 24, 2011 5:19 PM
You wrote that French Catholicism was traditionally defended by the sword and its warrior monks and they were never to appear in public without cross or a sword.
And that is not true.
Templars, Sovereign Military Order of Malta/Hospitallers, Order of the Holy Sepulchre, and other orders were formed to defend Holy Land against Muslim armies. Their purpose was not to defend French Catholicism but to defend Holy Land. Only after the fall of Kingdom of Jerusalem, Templars moved to France.
I also wonder how could Templars “defend French Catholicism” in Poland, where they had their own branch?
Templar warriors carried their swords because all warriors did carry swords at that time. It was the time of war. But not all Templars were warriors – some had other duties – therefore not all Templars carried swords.
.
“No Sikh turbans allowed, of course.”
Posted by: gellen at January 24, 2011 6:50 PM
Bad analogy. The Legion’s ‘No Hats’ rule is applied on a branch by branch basis; some allow it, some don’t. In almost all cases it doesn’t apply to the ladies.
It’s based on the ‘leave your rank at the door’ protocol, not religion. The take off your turban bit raised a shitstorm at a Lower Mainland Legion a few years back, when a much decorated sikh Colonel (Cdn. Forces?) was refused entry.
The overwhelming sentiment was that the branch executive were morons.
we offer them a room in our home and within a short while our home becomes a hotel and we become rather unsatisfactory footlings…bellhops and hotel dicks…
libertariansaresmarter at 12:57 AM makes an interesting point. The lefty brand of “normative multiculturalism” is repugnant to the core principle “one law for all” on which Canada and other western liberal democracies were founded and mostly still hold universally dear.
So there could be some utility in challenging the multi-culties by demanding that we all be allowed to carry knives, or beat our women, or engage in whatever activity that we are being asked to tolerate in the name of diversity.
As to the references to the Kirpan wielding Sikh storming the House;
How many people in Canada have been attacked with a Kirpan? I dont know for sure, but would say something close to zero; or a statistically insignificant amount anyway. How many people in Canada have been attacked with pocket knives? I would imagine quite a few. It is the cultural significance of the Kirpan itself that draws attention to something that would otherwise mostly escape notice. I doubt we would read in the papers a story of a white housewife from Alberta being turned away from the House of Commons for insisting on carrying a pocket knife in her purse. It could be argued that a pencil or even a rolled up magazine could be used as a weapon and be barred from the house, but we don’t bar them for obvious reasons. Owing to the ceremonial significance of myriad items associated with the House of Commons, it would not be altogether unreasonable to acquiesce to a Sikh that wishes to adorn himself with his full ceremonial garb when visiting. The Kirpan issue, or at least the refusal to countenance it, is in my opinion a largely xenophobic one, as it seems virtually all those that complain have never had any reason to fear a Sikh dressed in traditional vestments. Again, I may be wrong, but I can’t recall a single instance in Canada of a Kirpan being used as a weapon. I would argue that it isn’t the Kirpan that is feared, but rather the Sikh wearing it. Most Sikhs I know would quite willingly relinquish their Kirpan if there were an objection to it being worn, but I can’t say I would fault a Sikh that refuses to remove it as it posses no more threat to anyone than carrying a concealed Hamster.
Frances asks: “Aren’t the Sikhs also asserting – or trying to – the superiority of their tribal culture over others?”
No. They are asserting their right to walk around without having to give up the stuff they believe in for no good reason. Sikhs don’t proselytize, they just insist they be free to follow their code. Its a code that seem silly to us, but then Scots ceremonial dress, which includes the dirk and the skean dhu, seems silly to some people.
Its a bloody affront to tell the piper he has to DISARM down to his fingernails before he can be trusted into his own Parliament, and its an affront to a Sikh as well. Its an affront to my Mum for that matter, to have some officious @sshole going through her purse to confiscate her frickin’ nail file. Because a nail file wielded by an 80 year old woman is a fearsome thing indeed.
Don’t think of it as the Quebec legislature turning somebody away because they won’t surrender a dangerous weapon. Think of it as turning somebody away because they won’t surrender their crucifix on a silver chain. The ceremonial kirpan is exactly as sharp and pointy as a crucifix, and performs roughly the same function.
My finger is more dangerous. Lets not even go into the steel toed boots.
Are we going to make preachers give up the little crucifix on their lapel because it has a little kinda pointed pin on the back? Yeah, seeing as how some mental giant has already done that with Remembrance Day poppies at the airport.
How far do we want to go cooperating with these fascists my friends? I’d say we’ve already gone -much- too far now, and the sleigh ride is just getting started. In the States TSA is getting set to roll out airport security for trains, transit buses, football games and the mall. You think the Liberals wouldn’t love to do that here?
Go Sikhs! The enemy of my enemy might be my friend or not, but I’m going to cheer like hell from the sidelines when he’s on the field.
I keep telling the guards that my Ka-Bar is ceremonial, but those racist bastards keep making me leave it behind.
Alex
But, in contrast to Sikhs, you do proselytize.