Multiculturalism in Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I've never actually been to those places so I have no impression either way, but I'm wondering to what degree the situation is worse there vs. here in North America (including the US where the topics of harassment and victim blaming is currently making notable headlines).

Putting aside the Fox News rhetoric, are the banlieus with impoverished and "un-integrated" minority populations that are isolated from "western culture" that much more dangerous in terms of crime risk (mugging, theft, assault, harassment/attack for women etc.) than their American counterparts (which I'm more familiar with experience-wise) like the equivalent parts of Baltimore, Chicago etc.? And I suppose, would the latter would be considered "western society"?

They certainly feel different from American-style ghettos. They don't generally have large-scale abandonment and blight, and are more like the sketchier parts of a Canadian city like Toronto. Pretty much fully inhabited and occupied - just not very nice.

In terms of crime the rates are obviously much much lower than somewhere like the South Side of Chicago and Camden NJ.

Of course women may get harassed and victimized to a very serious degree in American ghettos, but the type of intimidation and violence women are subjected to in the banlieues can be of a different nature and motivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samira_Bellil

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, we also treat for free and even compensate guys who get pissed drunk and jump into the shallow end of pools and end up paraplegic.

Again, your analogy is flawed the same way as milomilo's: these signs never formally and explicitly say that Sikhs can dive freely, with the blessing of the Law.




"Doing something illegal, then getting treated for free for your injuries" is perfectly normal; that's not the point here.

The point here, how can we coherently make it LEGAL to do something that's currently deemed too dangerous to be legal. (For most citizens.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Again, your analogy is flawed the same way as milomilo's: these signs never formally and explicitly say that Sikhs can dive freely, with the blessing of the Law.




"Doing something illegal, then getting treated for free for your injuries" is perfectly normal; that's not the point here.

The point here, how can we coherently make it LEGAL to do something that's currently deemed too dangerous to be legal. (For most citizens.)

I get it.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's because your analogy is imperfect. The right analogy would be to have a few trails that look like they could be ski trails but which have a fence blocking their entrance, with a sign that says "The Government of Alberta has deemed this trail to be tantamount to suicide even for expert skiers; therefore, access is strictly forbidden to all".

And now we have the two possible versions of the sign, next to a guarded gate in the fence:

1) "The Government of Alberta has deemed this trail to be tantamount to suicide even for expert skiers; therefore, access is strictly forbidden to all, except Sikhs".

2) "The Government of Alberta has deemed this trail to be tantamount to suicide even for expert skiers; therefore, access is strictly forbidden to all, except skiers who sign this waiver".

I'm on board with this, the Sikhs should be exempt from rules prohibiting skiing on particularly dangerous trails.

Also exempt from snowboarding helmets of course that's a given.

[lio45]

Actually, here's a perfect way to illustrate my point:

Under my proposal, if someone who didn't sign the waiver decides to illegally hop on a motorbike and drive around, if they crash before they get caught and harshly ticketed, they'd get healthcare for free (and also, a ticket, and possibly other legal troubles, but no hospital bill).

Conversely, someone who did sign the waiver can drive around without being arrested. That's the difference. By relinquishing the privilege that is the reason why Big Brother forces us to wear helmets (which is that Big Brother's Wallet is who's paying for our head injuries), we gain the right to legally avoid to comply.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Again, your analogy is flawed the same way as milomilo's: these signs never formally and explicitly say that Sikhs can dive freely, with the blessing of the Law.




"Doing something illegal, then getting treated for free for your injuries" is perfectly normal; that's not the point here.

The point here, how can we coherently make it LEGAL to do something that's currently deemed too dangerous to be legal. (For most citizens.)

But how far does it go? You can smoke but you won't get treated for lung issues. You can drink but you won't get treated for liver issues. You can eat junk food but you don't get treated for heart issues. Basically the only people left with healthcare will be those who won't need it.

[Capsicum]

As a former Torontonian still residing stateside, I feel like Brampton Sikhs carrying daggers in Ontario is less foreign to me that that other foreign culture that carries weapons religiously -- yep, Americans' religious worship of the right to carry guns (sorry, had to go there, haha, cheap shot, I know).

But really do I find the idea that either way, weapons being carried as being some "inalienable" right worshiped in a culture, whether it came from deep historical, religious or political roots really foreign to me. I guess I'd think of myself as a pacifist though I've never been in a situation to test that belief (eg. I've the luxury of never having been drafted into a war, or forced to fight in self defense seriously outside of my middle school boyhood schoolyard fight days).

Weapons are meant to maim (if not kill), even if for self defense.

At least the crucifix, the cross, that is the religious symbol also a subject of great debate as "religious symbol" in Canada, celebrates the opposite as a symbol -- it represents sacrifice against violence (the crucifixion). Say what you want about Christianity as practiced actually (I myself am not really religious), but Jesus was the "Prince of Peace" so I admire the principle.

Do the meek inherit the Earth?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

But how far does it go? You can smoke but you won't get treated for lung issues. You can drink but you won't get treated for liver issues. You can eat junk food but you don't get treated for heart issues. Basically the only people left with healthcare will be those who won't need it.

No, you're not getting it.

The proper analogy would be if the Government banned alcohol to a certain class of citizens on the basis of liver issues having been deemed too great and costly a societal problem, while letting another class of citizens continue to buy and drink alcohol legally.

Banning alcohol to everyone would be logically defensible.

Banning alcohol to everyone except those who sign a "I'm financially responsible for my liver" waiver would also be logically defensible.

Letting all adult citizens drink alcohol would also be logically defensible.

I'm really not picky, nor demanding - any scenario where all citizens are treated the same would do... The three listed above are all acceptable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

As a former Torontonian still residing stateside, I feel like Brampton Sikhs carrying daggers in Ontario is less foreign to me that that other foreign culture that carries weapons religiously -- yep, Americans' religious worship of the right to carry guns (sorry, had to go there, haha, cheap shot, I know).

But really do I find the idea that either way, weapons being carried as being some "inalienable" right, whether it came from deep historical, religious or political roots really foreign to me. I guess I'd think of myself as a pacifist though I've never been in a situation to test that belief (eg. I've the luxury of never having been drafted into a war, or forced to fight in self defense seriously outside of my middle school boyhood schoolyard fight days).

Weapons are meant to maim (if not kill), even if for self defense.

At least the crucifix, the cross, that is the religious symbol also a subject of great debate as "religious symbol" in Canada, celebrates the opposite as a symbol -- it represents sacrifice against violence (the crucifixion). Say what you want about Christianity as practiced actually, but Jesus was the "Prince of Peace" so I admire the principle.

Do the meek inherit the Earth?

I don't believe there is anything in the Sikh religion that requires the kirpan to be a big-ass dangerous knife.

It can even be a small thingy the size of the cross that many Christians wear on a chain around their neck.

And can probably be made of plastic too.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samira_Bellil

Fugging hell, can you imagine an ethnic or religious community anywhere in North America as horrifically dysfunctional and dangerous as the Parisian banlieues? African-American neighbourhoods may be lethal due to guns and drugs, but women aren't straitjacketed or targeted in the same way.

It's a standard script, but it's true: Muslims in North America have integrated better than in Europe.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

No, you're not getting it.

The proper analogy would be if the Government banned alcohol to a certain class of citizens on the basis of liver issues having been deemed too great and costly a societal problem, while letting another class of citizens continue to buy and drink alcohol legally.

Banning alcohol to everyone would be logically defensible.

Banning alcohol to everyone except those who sign a "I'm financially responsible for my liver" waiver would also be logically defensible.

Letting all adult citizens drink alcohol would also be logically defensible.

I'm really not picky, nor demanding - any scenario where all citizens are treated the same would do... The three listed above are all acceptable.

Bad anology. During prohibition communion and sacramental was exempt (and sales skyrocketed).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't believe there is anything in the Sikh religion that requires the kirpan to be a big-ass dangerous knife.

It can even be a small thingy the size of the cross that many Christians wear on a chain around their neck.

And can probably be made of plastic too.

It is supposed to be iron or steel.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

it is supposed to be iron or steel.

ok.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Bad anology. During prohibition communion and sacramental was exempt (and sales skyrocketed).

That's a century ago! I can find you plenty of other things from past centuries that we don't do anymore (gratuitous pollution, slavery, executions, treating women as property, etc.)

The analogy is good. And in 2018, I wouldn't support a prohibition framework that would give a pass to a certain religion to use alcohol legally while banning alcohol for everyone else - wasn't that already crystal clear from my "these three scenarios would all be acceptable" post?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Fugging hell, can you imagine an ethnic or religious community anywhere in North America as horrifically dysfunctional and dangerous as the Parisian banlieues? African-American neighbourhoods may be lethal due to guns and drugs, but women aren't straitjacketed or targeted in the same way.

It's a standard script, but it's true: Muslims in North America have integrated better than in Europe.

What's freaky is the banlieues don't look anywhere near as scary as American urban ghettoes.

Where they differ IMO is that the American ghettoes are dysfunctional fucked up branch of broader American society, whereas the worst of the banlieues are more representative of a wholesale importation onto French soil of a particular way of life that exists elsewhere.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Fugging hell, can you imagine an ethnic or religious community anywhere in North America as horrifically dysfunctional and dangerous as the Parisian banlieues? African-American neighbourhoods may be lethal due to guns and drugs, but women aren't straitjacketed or targeted in the same way.

It's a standard script, but it's true: Muslims in North America have integrated better than in Europe.

Would the average Canadian woman tourist visiting Paris feel more scared of walking by a Paris banlieue off the beaten track, or feel more scared of walking in the Chicago neighbourhoods off the beaten track?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is supposed to be iron or steel.

Its size, afaik, is up to the individual, except when regulated. For those Sikhs who wear their kirpan under their clothing, I imagine they might tend to go smaller for practical reasons.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's freaky is the banlieues don't look anywhere near as scary as American urban ghettoes.

Where they differ IMO is that the American ghettoes are dysfunctional fucked up branch of broader American society, whereas the worst of the banlieues are more representative of a wholesale importation onto French soil of a particular way of life that exists elsewhere.

But don't both the banlieues and ghettoes reflect similar processes and parallels?

Both reflect the problems of an un-integrated minority population (either by history, force, politics, or some other socio-economic process) who are isolated from "mainstream" society and thus are silo-ed into their own internal societies that they have little escape from.

Both marginalized groups feel into a harmful way of life by being stuck there (eg. the poor in American ghettoes turned to gang violence, those in European ones turned to religious fundamentalism).

Both scare and freak out tourists who are warned to never walk there, and make headlines on Fox News and other places (eg. in mass media).

But in both cases the local communities suffer the most (eg. local kids and families growing up in gang-dominated ghettoes, local women that suffer under the patriarchal and dysfunctional local society) not the random tourist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But don't both the banlieues and ghettoes reflect similar processes and parallels?

Both reflect the problems of an un-integrated minority population (either by history, force, politics, or some other socio-economic process) who are isolated from "mainstream" society and thus are silo-ed into their own internal societies that they have little escape from.

Both marginalized groups feel into a harmful way of life by being stuck there (eg. the poor in American ghettoes turned to gang violence, those in European ones turned to religious fundamentalism).

Both scare and freak out tourists who are warned to never walk there, and make headlines on Fox News and other places (eg. in mass media).

But in both cases the local communities suffer the most (eg. local kids and families growing up in gang-dominated ghettoes, local women that suffer under the patriarchal and dysfunctional local society) not the random tourist.

Yeah, that's true.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's freaky is the banlieues don't look anywhere near as scary as American urban ghettoes.

Where they differ IMO is that the American ghettoes are dysfunctional fucked up branch of broader American society, whereas the worst of the banlieues are more representative of a wholesale importation onto French soil of a particular way of life that exists elsewhere.

Are they though? If I recall correctly, didn't you mention some second and third generation radicalization happens as the younger generation become even more religiously conservative than their parents?

So, some ways of life that become harmful traps are the products of alienation from society or post-immigration (in the case of the poorer African American marginalized communities, it's the post-trans-Atlantic slave trade, post-Jim Crow and Great Migration).