Multiculturalism in Canada

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I won't post the whole Charter here, but it's worth 5 minutes to go take a look at it.

An important thing to remember is that almost all provisions of the Charter apply to all those in Canada, even non-citizens (the only notable exception being voting). In contrast, the US Constitution does not apply evenly to everyone within their borders. So someone claiming asylum or applying for citizenship while in Canada can challenge immigration practices which may be discriminatory or unfair on the basis of their Charter rights.

Hmm, so you're basically saying that unlike the citizens of most countries, Canadians really don't have much in the way of recourse in order to protect their way of life from rapid cultural change because the Charter guarantees rights to anyone who manages to set foot on Canadian soil?

I see that levels of immigration can be controlled by the state and French/English are enshrined as official languages (which I did know beforehand) and is good imo. Otherwise I do find what you just said quite troubling.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

Hmm, so you're basically saying that unlike the citizens of most countries, Canadians really don't have much in the way of recourse in order to protect their way of life from rapid cultural change because the Charter guarantees rights to anyone who manages to set foot on Canadian soil?

.

Anyway, that's what the majority of people on SSP Canada think. Or at least, they seem to think that that's desirable. Or even the utmost in human evolution. OK, being a bit sarcastic. A bit.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by JM5

I think we need some broad ground rules. Let's not call them "Canadian Values", that sounds too old fashioned.

Canadian Values
-Freedom
-Capitalism
-Hard Work

That's pretty much what it boils down to. You can also use "western" values.

[Aylmer]

What some people consider uncomfortable change, others see as long-fought justice. The Charter has been used in order to eliminate legal discrimination against homosexuals and employment discrimination against women and minorities. It also upholds the rights of the majority when a minority practice endangers the Charter rights of others.

Many of these cases brought about change which was seen as "too fast" or "challenging to our way of life". But who nowadays would argue that preventing a gay man from working in a school is part of Canada's "way of life"?

The Charter doesn't guarantee that you won't be uncomfortable with something or other, but then again, everyone has always been uncomfortable with something. I feel uncomfortable around guys with face tattoos, and sometimes they feel uncomfortable with my skin colour. That's just a by-product of the real world - not everything is exactly as we might want it. But the Charter does ensure that both of our rights are absolutely protected.

My point is that what we, as a majority, are comfortable or uncomfortable with is ever-changing. The Charter ensures that no one gets 'crushed' by the opinions or practices of others, whether you happen to be in the majority or the minority.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Ha, what a well thought out response. Enjoy your majoritarian woe is me narrative.

Seriously. Extreme globalists like you really do exhibit true believer traits that are reminiscent of religious fervour: damnation and scorn for non-believers, an unhealthy obsession for nit-picking people who are suspected of not believing "enough"...

Religions and belief systems totally start out like this. Christianity wasn't originally a religion. It started out with this cool guy named Jesus Christ talking about love and fraternity. Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you. All very Bob Marley-esque stuff.

And tons of people bought into it. It was good. So much that a lot of them eventually got convinced that it was "the only way".

And then eventually some of them started doing decidely un-Bob Marley-esque things to people who didn't agree. Or who just happened to be in the way of the "great project".

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

What some people consider uncomfortable change, others see as long-fought justice. The Charter has been used in order to eliminate legal discrimination against homosexuals and employment discrimination against women and minorities. It also upholds the rights of the majority when a minority practice endangers the Charter rights of others.

Many of these cases brought about change which was seen as "too fast" or "challenging to our way of life". But who nowadays would argue that preventing a gay man from working in a school is part of Canada's "way of life"?

The Charter doesn't guarantee that you won't be uncomfortable with something or other, but then again, everyone has always been uncomfortable with something. I feel uncomfortable around guys with face tattoos, and sometimes they feel uncomfortable with my skin colour. That's just a by-product of the real world - not everything is exactly as we might want it. But the Charter does ensure that both of our rights are absolutely protected.

My point is that what we, as a majority, are comfortable or uncomfortable with is ever-changing. The Charter ensures that no one gets 'crushed' by the opinions or practices of others, whether you happen to be in the majority or the minority.

I see your point Aylmer. Societies do evolve and trying to stop that is wishful thinking/deception. Otoh, I do think that it's important to work towards ensuring a level of comfort, otherwise people loose faith in our institutions and this country.

Personally, I admit to being afraid of islam. I have known lots of muslims, one I disliked for no other reason than his personality, but most I liked and a number of professors I admired. I do fear though, that at some point a critical mass can be reached if a large enough community builds up and segregates itself. I'm scared of people in Canada freely choosing to submit to Sharia law, creating a parallel legal system. I'm scared of Sharia patrols enforcing their values in predominantly muslim areas.

Maybe this is just a bunch of silly over-hyped bs from the internet. But maybe it's not. I know that they are only seeking the comfort that their culture and their way of life offers them in a place surrounded by different values. This is why I consider the possibility to be real.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM5

Personally, I admit to being afraid of islam. I have known lots of muslims, one I disliked for no other reason than his personality, but most I liked and a number of professors I admired. I do fear though, that at some point a critical mass can be reached if a large enough community builds up and segregates itself. I'm scared of people in Canada freely choosing to submit to Sharia law, creating a parallel legal system. I'm scared of Sharia patrols enforcing their values in predominantly muslim areas.

Maybe this is just a bunch of silly over-hyped bs from the internet. But maybe it's not. I know that they are only seeking the comfort that their culture and their way of life offers them in a place surrounded by different values. This is why I consider the possibility to be real.

Not many people have the ability to put a finger on their fears with such clarity. If these are the things that you're afraid of, I'd encourage you to search them up to see whether they're founded. I'll caution that it's not only a question of seeing whether they exist at all (on a planet of 7 billion, pretty much everything's been done at least enough times to fill a few Rebel blog posts), but whether they are significant. Whenever I see something - even when it confirms my views - I always try to have the presence of mind to ask things like "How often does this happen vs not / now vs before" to be able to gain perspective.


Here's some of my insights:
- Sharia Law is not applied in Canada in any legal sense. From 1991-2005, there was the possibility of resolving a small number of civil (not criminal) cases through a faith-based tribunal if both parties consented to it. It was originally intended for Jewish Ontarians, but the issue became controversial in 2004 when it was determined that the privilege could not be accorded to Jews, but not to Muslims. Soon after, the whole program of faith-based resolution tribunals was scrapped altogether.

Even if it had gone ahead, any and all of the subsequent jugements would have to conform to the Charter. That means no death penalties (or any bodily harm), no gender/religious discrimination, no limits on freedom of expression.

- Ethnic enclaves. It's hard to have a 'Muslim enclave' because the Muslim world is tremendously diverse. A Muslim from Morocco, one from Nigeria, one from Croatia, and one from Indonesia have almost nothing in common - not language, food, music, politics, worldview, etc. They often don't even agree on religion. There is not nearly enough cultural cohesion to create a Richmond-style enclave.
It's like if you had a "Christian enclave" with an Anglican from Ontario, a Catholic from Spain, an Orthodox from Siberia and a Copt from Egypt. You'd have pretty much nothing in common with anyone.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Seriously. Extreme globalists like you really do exhibit true believer traits that are reminiscent of religious fervour: damnation and scorn for non-believers, an unhealthy obsession for nit-picking people who are suspected of not believing "enough"...

Religions and belief systems totally start out like this. Christianity wasn't originally a religion. It started out with this cool guy named Jesus Christ talking about love and fraternity. Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you. All very Bob Marley-esque stuff.

And tons of people bought into it. It was good. So much that a lot of them eventually got convinced that it was "the only way".

And then eventually some of them started doing decidely un-Bob Marley-esque things to people who didn't agree. Or who just happened to be in the way of the "great project".

Let me applaud you again on yet another insightful post. You're all about substance.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

I see your point Aylmer. Societies do evolve and trying to stop that is wishful thinking/deception. Otoh, I do think that it's important to work towards ensuring a level of comfort, otherwise people loose faith in our institutions and this country.

Personally, I admit to being afraid of islam. I have known lots of muslims, one I disliked for no other reason than his personality, but most I liked and a number of professors I admired. I do fear though, that at some point a critical mass can be reached if a large enough community builds up and segregates itself. I'm scared of people in Canada freely choosing to submit to Sharia law, creating a parallel legal system. I'm scared of Sharia patrols enforcing their values in predominantly muslim areas.

Maybe this is just a bunch of silly over-hyped bs from the internet. But maybe it's not. I know that they are only seeking the comfort that their culture and their way of life offers them in a place surrounded by different values. This is why I consider the possibility to be real.

Regardless of whether this is desirable or undesirable, I think there would probably be an openness in Canada to letting something like this happen.

This statement of mine is independent of the question of whether or most most Muslims actually want something like this.

Obviously some of them would. But a majority? I am not at all sure of that.

In any event, if ever some type of parallel societal set-up came into being, it's likely that many Muslims who didn't have a burning desire to see it take shape, would likely end up "in there" in some way, shape or form. Simply through rubbing shoulders with other Muslims. You'd have to write off your religion and the culture and community that goes along with it almost completely in order to not have at least some exposure to the "parallel" place.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Not many people have the ability to put a finger on their fears with such clarity. If these are the things that you're afraid of, I'd encourage you to search them up to see whether they're founded. I'll caution that it's not only a question of seeing whether they exist at all (on a planet of 7 billion, pretty much everything's been done at least enough times to fill a few Rebel blog posts), but whether they are significant. Whenever I see something - even when it confirms my views - I always try to have the presence of mind to ask things like "How often does this happen vs not / now vs before" to be able to gain perspective.


Here's some of my insights:
- Sharia Law is not applied in Canada in any legal sense. From 1991-2005, there was the possibility of resolving a small number of civil (not criminal) cases through a faith-based tribunal if both parties consented to it. It was originally intended for Jewish Ontarians, but the issue became controversial in 2004 when it was determined that the privilege could not be accorded to Jews, but not to Muslims. Soon after, the whole program of faith-based resolution tribunals was scrapped altogether.

Even if it had gone ahead, any and all of the subsequent jugements would have to conform to the Charter. That means no death penalties (or any bodily harm), no gender/religious discrimination, no limits on freedom of expression.

- Ethnic enclaves. It's hard to have a 'Muslim enclave' because the Muslim world is tremendously diverse. A Muslim from Morocco, one from Nigeria, one from Croatia, and one from Indonesia have almost nothing in common - not language, food, music, politics, worldview, etc. They often don't even agree on religion. There is not nearly enough cultural cohesion to create a Richmond-style enclave.
It's like if you had a "Christian enclave" with an Anglican from Ontario, a Catholic from Spain, an Orthodox from Siberia and a Copt from Egypt. You'd have pretty much nothing in common with anyone.

Thanks Aylmer, you've reassured me somewhat. Another thing that reassures me is that imo Canada is fundamentally different from the European countries that have had issues integrating their Arabic muslim populations. First of all, we have had good immigration policies that ensure that the "right" people come as we have not felt morally bound to accept mass immigration from former colonies for various reasons. Also, our society is more multicultural and welcoming I think than even Great Brittain due to our collective immigrant past (this is just an oppinion). Hopefully these differences will ensure that things go smoothly going forward.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Acajack

R
In any event, if ever some type of parallel societal set-up came into being, it's likely that many Muslims who didn't have a burning desire to see it take shape, would likely end up "in there" in some way, shape or form. Simply through rubbing shoulders with other Muslims. You'd have to write off your religion and the culture and community that goes along with it almost completely in order to not have at least some exposure to the "parallel" place.

This is how I feel as well. I was trying to get at this with the "critical mass" expression. Society is made up of individuals who agree with various issues to various degrees. Unfortunately imo the comfort provided by the community is valuable enough that you will tacitly go along with a lot of things that you don't necessarily agree with. The people with the more extreme opinions usually talk the loudest. Also, usually it's not really a matter of disagreeing, just not feeling as strongly about it as others. In many cases, speaking up would be seen as splitting hairs so people just go along with the crowd.

Heck I'm a prime example of this myself, just airing my opinion about the subject at hand now that it seems more OK to do so.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by JM5

Thanks Aylmer, you've reassured me somewhat. Another thing that reassures me is that imo Canada is fundamentally different from the European countries that have had issues integrating their Arabic muslim populations. First of all, we have had good immigration policies that ensure that the "right" people come as we have not felt morally bound to accept mass immigration from former colonies for various reasons.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. In Europe, refugees are generally educated and middle-class. Immigrants even moreso.

The problem is that it is often very difficult to break into mainstream European society. My theory for this is that the definition of what is and is not "mainstream European" is much more rigid than it is in Canada, and people from away often end up marginalised. As a result of this marginalisation, parallel identities and societies are more likely to develop. Unlike in Canada, where newcomers naturally end up gravitating towards the mainstream after a few years, newcomers to (and within) Europe often face higher barriers to joining the mainstream, as do their children.

So these enclaves aren't just a landing ground for newcomers as they are in Canada - they end up developping into multi-generational parallel societies.

From what I have learned, the strength of Canadian integration is that we lower the barriers to our cultural mainstream by making it flexible enough that newcomers can latch on to it without having to leave their entire identity behind. That way, over time, new immigrant communities move towards the centre instead of festering on the edge. This is why I fear moves to "protect" Canadian-ness - we risk putting up barriers which will hinder integration, not help it.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

one from Croatia

I have fun making racist heads explode by mentioning indigenous Eastern European Muslims.. the ones that form a majority in Albania and Kosovo and a significant minority in Bosnia and Bulgaria. These people are white, ethnically & culturally European, speak European languages, and have been around for centuries. The Slavic Muslims in Bosnia are more or less the same people as Orthodox Christian Serbs (**though don't tell them that--politics are complicated!) The very idea of their existence contrasts so heavily with the narrative of Muslims as fundamentally opposite to "Whiteness" that mentioning them gives many racists an existential crisis.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
one from Croatia .

Though Muslims from Croatia living in Canada would be extremely rare... they're only about 1% of the population over there.

You guys were probably thinking of Bosnia.

[Aylmer]

I thought of putting Bosnia, but I thought that people might not have as good an idea of where that is. I figured that Croatia, although less accurate, would better get the point across since it's better-known

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I have fun making racist heads explode by mentioning indigenous Eastern European Muslims.. the ones that form a majority in Albania and Kosovo and a significant minority in Bosnia and Bulgaria. These people are white, ethnically & culturally European, speak European languages, and have been around for centuries. The Slavic Muslims in Bosnia are more or less the same people as Orthodox Christian Serbs (**though don't tell them that--politics are complicated!) The very idea of their existence contrasts so heavily with the narrative of Muslims as fundamentally opposite to "Whiteness" that mentioning them gives many racists an existential crisis.

Are you really that exposed to people who have concerns about "whiteness"? I live in Quebec which is considerably less PC and more blunt than Anglo-Canada on such things, and I basically never hear this.

Some people do express concern about loss of culture, cultural change, and even "values", but "whiteness"? Nope.

I find it hard to believe this is a thing that is common in today's Ontario.

[Acajack]

....

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are you really that exposed to people who have concerns about "whiteness"? I live in Quebec which is considerably less PC and more blunt than Anglo-Canada on such things, and I basically never hear this.

On the internet, yes. In real life, no.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. In Europe, refugees are generally educated and middle-class. Immigrants even moreso.

The problem is that it is often very difficult to break into mainstream European society. My theory for this is that the definition of what is and is not "mainstream European" is much more rigid than it is in Canada, and people from away often end up marginalised. As a result of this marginalisation, parallel identities and societies are more likely to develop. Unlike in Canada, where newcomers naturally end up gravitating towards the mainstream after a few years, newcomers to (and within) Europe often face higher barriers to joining the mainstream, as do their children.

So these enclaves aren't just a landing ground for newcomers as they are in Canada - they end up developping into multi-generational parallel societies.

From what I have learned, the strength of Canadian integration is that we lower the barriers to our cultural mainstream by making it flexible enough that newcomers can latch on to it without having to leave their entire identity behind. That way, over time, new immigrant communities move towards the centre instead of festering on the edge. This is why I fear moves to "protect" Canadian-ness - we risk putting up barriers which will hinder integration, not help it.

Yes, lowering the barriers to mainstream will help people with different backgrounds integrate better and prevent parallel societies from forming but I just don't believe it's that simple.

I believe as our multicultural society has integrated more and more diverse individuals, they have stretched the mainstream more and more. I believe that currently the mainstream is so broad that it's meaningless and causes people to say that "Canada lacks it's own culture". I fear that at some point the mainstream will be so broad that it will fragment and people will flee to a number of separate cultural "poles" - in fact maybe this is what we are getting at by having this conversation: the two of us are on different poles.

[Aylmer]

That's an interesting perspective. I agree that there is an increasing fragmentation, but I disagree about the cause. If it were caused by multiculturalism, the fracturing would be along cultural lines, but that is not the case. We see fracturing along lines like ideology, education, rural vs urban, but not cultural lines.