If it’s truly empty, then I’m not sure how dangerous it can be. Then again maybe I’ll have to think about that some more. Maybe attaching great significance to a vacuous tagline can actually lead to real harm, regardless of whether the tagline itself actually refers to anything of substance on which the citizens involved can agree.
In response to a number of the interesting posts I’ve read on this thread in the last couple days, I’ve been reading up on the Canadian constitution, and in particular on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
My initial impressions are:
(1) I may have been wrong in thinking that Canada’s supreme court was engaged in a disgraceful elitist power-grab when they handed down the knife decision. Based on what I’ve read recently, it certainly seems that the Canadian constitution gives the judiciary far greater power to act as something of a “second legislature”, and overturn not only those laws that are clearly and obviously unconsitutional, but also those laws that “maybe the legislature could have done a little better job on”. I still think that this is a bad role for any court system to play. But still, when it comes to the knife case, perhaps the current supreme court was doing was following their job description.
(2) Regarding your question on the vote about multiculturalism, bob, I would be interested in learning more about that as well. About all I’ve read so far is:
-a- that multiculturalism is explicitly mentioned as the correct manner of interpretation in Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
-b- that the Charter (and thus multicultural interpretation) are part of the Canadian Constitution; and
-c- that the Canadian Constitution is binding on Canadians because it was passed by the British Parliament in 1982, and proclaimed to be binding on Canadians by the Queen in March of that year.
It’s all a little confusing for me still. But as I say, perhaps some of our other Canadian colleagues can shed some additional light on the subject.
Quickly, because I’ve just gotten home and have to run…
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]After all, ask any 70 year-old if, thirty years ago, they would have believed you if you’d told them that in the year 2006 the Supreme Court would make it okay for only certain people to bring weapons to school. They would have laughed in your face. Impossible!
Did you catch that “only certain people” that I italicized? Yep. Think about that one, Jaboney. In all your rhapsodizing over the veritably catholic and non-discriminatory nature of this ruling, you’ve overlooked the, erm, supreme irony at work here: Not everyone gets to take weapons to school.[/quote] I’m sorry, where’s the irony? The policy is multiculturalism, not panculturalism.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]And lets drop the semantics, shall we? It’s a weapon. If it were an oblong mass of gelatin we wouldn’t be having this conversation. [/quote] Yes. And if you go back, you’ll see that I’d prefer the use of a sheath that locked the blade in place. That’s what both sides were moving towards, if imperfectly. A purely symbolic dagger, apparently, doesn’t cut it. (ba-da-ching!)
Someone asked if anyone had read the decision. Here are relevant sections, by various justices. The justices return, time and again, to the failure of the school board to reach a reasonable accomodation before limiting the individual’s rights. The relevant section of the Charter is section one.
[quote=“Supreme Court of Canada”]G and his father B are orthodox Sikhs. G believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times; a kirpan is a religious object that resembles a dagger and must be made of metal. In 2001, G accidentally dropped the kirpan he was wearing under his clothes in the yard of the school he was attending. [color=blue]The school board sent G
In my opinion, Harper should consider using the notwithstanding clause to stop this.
[i]Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause d
[quote=“Hobbes”] If it’s truly empty, then I’m not sure how dangerous it can be. Then again maybe I’ll have to think about that some more. Maybe attaching great significance to a vacuous tagline can actually lead to real harm, regardless of whether the tagline itself actually refers to anything of substance on which the citizens involved can agree.
H[/quote]
Poor choice of words on my part perhaps. The concept of multi-cultralism isn’t empty so much as illogical and based on vague sentiment. The pillars of our civilization are equality, freedom of expression and democracy, and well established elements of other cultures such as Sharia law from Islam and the Hindu caste system directly contradict those basic values. There was no real debate about the multicultural act that I recall and and I suspect that if there had been the idea would have been rejected.
Bad form, bob, bad form! The pillars of our civiliation are [color=red]insert the best[/color], and those of other cultures are [color=red]insert the worst[/color]? Shall I play Chomsky-turn-about and given counter examples, drawing on our less attractive attributes and the best of others? phhht.
So, you suspect that multiculturalism would go down to defeat in a referendum, do you? hmmm… Well, there’s not a direct correlation, but a strong (if asymetrical) correlation between ethnicity, mother tongue, citizenship/immigratino status and support for multiculturalism. Unsurprisingly, those who are members of a visible minority, grow up speaking another language, or immigrate, support the program in large numbers. Then there’s a large block of friendly, welcoming folks like myself, who don’t fall into any of the above profiles and yet still think it’s a wonderful program. Anyways, just to have a bit of fun with numbers…
Hopping over to Stats Can: Community Profiles from the 2001 census, I looking at the three largest cities, added the totals from a few select categories, and this is what I found:
Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver census areas:
*all the numbers aren’t going to add up precisely because people skip boxes on the census form. I’m not worried about it, and I’m not triple checking. The picture is clear in any case. And yes, like Harper, you can win an election without winning a seat in any of the three major cities, but you’re not going to get 50%+1 that way.
Language(s) First Learned and Still Understood
Total - All persons 9,996,075
English only 2,864,640
French only 2,330,310
Both English and French 41,175
Other languages 3,320,750
[color=blue]WOW! In three largest cities, more people first learn a language other than one or the other of the official languages.[/color]
Immigration Characteristics
Total - All persons 9,996,070
Canadian-born population 6,480,825
Foreign-born population 3,393,395
[color=blue]One in three person in the three largest cities is an immigrant. Almost the same number who grew up speaking, and still speaks a language other than English or French. [/color]
Religion
Total - All persons 9,996,075
Christian
-Catholic 4,462,615
-Protestant 1,838,180
-Other 599,380
Muslim 406,890
Jewish 270,545
Buddhist 209,555
Hindu 245,790
Sikh 197,520
Other 32,850
No religious affliation 1,735,760
[color=blue]Ok, on a good day, you might be able to squeak out a bare majority if you go with Catholicism. If you spread your net significantly wider and lump Christians of all sorts together, you could certainly pull it off… for now. At least, that is, until they got a look at your program. Many of the Christian churches are at the forefront when it comes to making multiculturalism and inter-faith dialogue work at the community level… so lots of luck on getting support here to repeal the policy.[/color]
Now, you could argue that the pillars of our civilization are xy&z. Very nice. You could also acknowledge all the filth that gets swept up with those sterling virtues. You might also want to consider that those pillars aren’t marble, they aren’t carved in stone; they’re organic, and their various meanings grow and evolve. In and of themselves, they’re also deficient. The very virtue of free speech is that it allows the rot that settles in to be identified and either treated or cut out, is it not? Well, what in history, heaven, or the bottom of a Heineken ever told you that all of the solutions to present or future deficiencies were already to be found in our current tickle-trunk of tricks? What better way of equiping ourselves with new solutions than by importing new ideas and ways of conceptualizing the problems?
Besides, if we’re being selective about what we import from our own past, why wouldn’t we be selective about what we import from other cultures? Multiculturalism does not mean being so open-minded that you let your brain fall out.
(Nor is it based on vague sentiment–though it’s rather nice that support for it does grow out of our finer feelings. There’s a tremendous amount of scholarly literature available on multiculturalism–theoretical, critical, case studies–and much of the world’s best work on it is being done by Canadians, so if you look, you’ll find much that’s relevant. Besides, it’s incredibly practical in our increasingly populated, crowded, and mobile world. Shameful as our military and foreign affairs are in many regards, nation building–particularly across ethnic divides–is something Canada does very well. And our federal system with it’s balances for competing ethnic/national demands is a model that’s taken seriously.)
If you read the Supreme Court judgment, they make it abundantly clear that religious rights do not automatically trump all other considerations, but there is a significantly high standard that ought to be met before deprive anyone of those rights. In this case that standard was not met. This simply wasn’t a bow-before-the-pc-golden-calf moment on the part of the court. It’s not the ideally best policy, but to error on the side of the individual’s right rather than the community’s concerns is a well-established, conservative position.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“porcelainprincess”]After all, ask any 70 year-old if, thirty years ago, they would have believed you if you’d told them that in the year 2006 the Supreme Court would make it okay for only certain people to bring weapons to school. They would have laughed in your face. Impossible!
Did you catch that “only certain people” that I italicized? Yep. Think about that one, Jaboney. In all your rhapsodizing over the veritably catholic and non-discriminatory nature of this ruling, you’ve overlooked the, erm, supreme irony at work here: Not everyone gets to take weapons to school.[/quote]
I’m sorry, where’s the irony? The policy is multiculturalism, not panculturalism. [/quote]
Obfuscationally incoherent. Multiculturalism in Canada is about allowing every culture to flourish equally under the laws of the land. But this ruling, patently made under the rubric of multiculturalism, gives only one culture a certain allowance, viz. taking a weapon to school. Thus the irony.
Reasonable accommodation for a weapon? This is a non-starter. How about the Sikhs making some goddamned accommodations for my goddamned Canadian culture! Honestly, this whole issue has me up in arms, as it were. Jesus H Christ…this is not India, this is Canada.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]Obfuscationally incoherent. Multiculturalism in Canada is about allowing every culture to flourish equally under the laws of the land. But this ruling, patently made under the rubric of multiculturalism, gives only one culture a certain allowance, viz. taking a weapon to school. Thus the irony.
[…]
Reasonable accommodation for a weapon? This is a non-starter. How about the Sikhs making some goddamned accommodations for my goddamned Canadian culture! Honestly, this whole issue has me up in arms, as it were. Jesus H Christ…this is not India, this is Canada.[/quote]
Seriously, I don’t see the irony. I see where you’re coming from, but there’s no irony involved. Multiculturalism is about allowing and encouraging every culture to flourish within a broader framework. Particular cultures require particular arrrangements that differ from those common within the broader framework. There’s one culture that has a deep and vested interest in this issue, thus one that’s had special consideration extended. When the issue was religious headgear, that issue was also raised by Sikhs, but it quickly emerged that Canadian Jewish, and to a lesser extent, Muslim, people also had a deep and vested interest in the issue. Thus accommodations were made for each.
You would like the Sikh community to make some ‘goddamned accommodations’ to your ‘goddamned Canadian culture’? Very well. How is Sikh culture preventing you from flourishing within the broader Canadian context? How are you hard done by? The machinery of state has been designed and timed according to our interests; has that been significantly altered?
Your Canada? From day one Canada has NOT meant one set of rules govern everyone: English Common Law vs. French Civil Law is a positive example of this; the Indian Acts and status of natives as wards of the state is a negative one.
We’ve never been individual libertarians in the same way as that those pursuing life, liberty and happiness are; peace, order and good government emphasize other ends and means. The immediate goal is not equality of opportunity–a myth where there’s no equality to begin with–but equality of condition (ultimately leading to truly equal opportunity).
Are there problems with the model? Yes, certainly. And these are acknowledged by it’s serious supporters. There point you seem to be aiming at is that certain individuals appear to have more rights than others. It’s a troublesome result of the fact that individuals bear rights while collectives bear culture; how do you nurture a collective’s culture, which only lives in individuals coming together, without creating unequal individuals in the process? More troublesome in that culture attaches to descent from peoples of certain locations and thus race. Tough call. If you come up with an answer, I’d love to hear it. For now, take a look at any group with special rights–Sikhs, natives, French outside of Quebec, English within Quebec, ect…–and ask yourself whether or not the majority of those who protest that there’s got to be ONE set of rules for EVERYONE would prefer to continue thriving comfortably in the larger pond with fewer rights, or existing somewhat uneasily on the margins of waters somewhat strange.
To point out the bleedin’ obvious, when my kid goes to school with a group of kids who are allowed to carry weapons, I am hard done by. Do you get it now? That’s what this is all about. The weapons.
Yes, because there are kids in school who are allowed to carry weapons.
We don’t carry weapons in schools in Canada. My Canada, yes.
“Appear?” Sikhs can now carry weapons in schools. Can other people?
Whoa…Anglos in Quebec have special rights? What would those be, exactly? The right to educate their children only in French? The right to have the French on their shopfront twice as large as the English?
The whole multicultural mantra and discussion is obfuscation. We don’t allow children to carry weapons in schools. This is where multiculturalism should bump up against more important concerns for the safety of our schoolchildren. If sharia law and clitorectomies are non-starters because they cross a line, why not weapons in schools?
Jaboney, you’ve argued the case for religious tolerance with outstanding eloquence and clarity. I reviewed your entire argument though and it seems to have a major hole in it. While you make the case for religious tolerance you don’t seem to adequately address the equally legitimate counter-argument for security in schools. You seem to address that concern at one point when you argue for purely ceremonial, non-functional religious “daggers”, but then you still seem to leave the door open later for functional daggers in school.
Do you draw no lines on the possession of functional kirpans? Should they be allowed on airplanes? In court houses? In prisons? How about inside the security cordon around heads of state the Sikh community is opposed to?
Even allowing non-functional ceremonial “daggers” in schools is problematic because of the difficulty of policing them. How do you determine on a daily basis for example if the piece of dagger-shaped metal under the clothing is still the non-functional “dagger” you inspected earlier?
My sympathies are with religious tolerance but I believe even that value can be practiced to an extreme which violates common sense.
Nonsense. I wasn’t talking about positive attributes I was talking about the fundamental basis of our culture.
Heck I want to include the right to freedom FROM religion in the constitution so, no, I don’t imagine I would get much support “if” I wanted to repeal the policy, something I never said. What I said was that if had been adequately debated in the first place it would have been rejected.
Your tone is offensive and your points weak. Those are the fundamentals of our society and it should be clear that they are. The fact that Saria law would even be discussed as a reasonable option indicates to me that certain immigrants and certain muddle headed second or third generation Canadians don’t understand that. In case you didn’t know the rights to equality, free speech and democracy were a long time coming, extremely hard won and the result the work of generations of brilliant thinkers. Referring to them as a “current tickle-trunk of tricks” is beyond stupid and I would suggest dangerous as well.
Except in your case apparently.
Finer feelings? Incredibly practical? Have a stroll through the government offices of any of the large cities you mentioned earlier. There, I can guarantee you, you will a dispropotionate number of immigrants. The Vancouver post office would be a good place to start. Take a drive through Richmond and see how many signs most Canadians can’t read because they are in Chinese. It’s wonderful that you are so generous with our country, but did it ever occur to you that a good many of the people coming in would not in a million years support the same measures in their own countries? Did it ever occur to you that your own government might be discriminating against white males in particular and that the “finer feeelings” asociated with multi-culturalism might have something to do with that?
The religious right to carry “a knife” takes precedence over the communities right to protect its safety. Absolute maddness.
First up, spook, thank you for your kind words. I’ll try to balance them against bob’s contention that my tone is offensive and my points weak, and see what I come up with.
The hole you identify in my argument is a serious, legitimate, and–as you say–an acknowledged concerned. If it seems that I nonetheless leave the door open for functional daggers in school, that’s my bad. Allow me to clarify. I have a problem with any child playing with, or having possession of a knife. (As a child, I had different ideas regarding the utility and appropriateness of knives, and have the scars to prove it. )
Legitimate security risks are one thing: airplanes, court houses, prisons, ect… Finding security risks in everyday life is something else entirely, unless our societies have become so security conscious and xenophobic that every potential source of harm–material or personal–is to be proscribed. Personally, I’m just not that worried.
As for the day-to-day policing of schools, is there any point in regularly policing non-functional, ceremonial daggers? The point of making it non-functional is to guard against accident or a sudden irrational act. If premeditation is involved–which is what a covert switch of blades suggests–an outright ban on weapons isn’t likely to make a whit of difference-- I think that there have been enough premediated schoolyard shootings in Canada and the US to make it clear those bent on violence will find more dramatic means to make known their rage.
Beyond that, I am compelled to confess my ignorance. Where I come from, schools are not policed, save by officers on community outreach programs, and even then, they only show up occasionally to talk about drinking and driving, drugs, or in a very few cases, to try and keep kids out of gangs. So, if you’re intent on policing these things, I truly don’t know how to answer your question. How would you reasonably police drugs, or switch blades, or guns in school? I just don’t know.
Moving on… I completely agree that religious tolerance can be practiced to an extreme which violates common sense. But again, open-mindedness needn’t mean completely losing our senses. (No worries, bob, my faculties are intact.) As much is acknowledged in the judgment, which I’ll rip through briefly since I’ve failed to make all of my reasoning clear.
If you have a guaranteed right, and an agent of the government acts to infringe that right, then in the absence of clear guidelines the power of the government to limit your rights is constrained by the Charter. Which is simply to say that (War Measures Act aside) Canadian government bodies CANNOT, willy-nilly, trample on individual rights. In somewhat more precise language, that’s what the justices state. All well and good.
The justices also state that “only freedom of religion is in issue here,” and I can see why many reasonable people would strenuously disagree. The justices address the concern, but far the time being I’ll skip over it because it’s dealt with in my conclusion and is, I think, the key to the logic of the decision.
Regarding freedom of religion, it’s also stated that “that freedom is not absolute and can conflict with other constitutional rights.” Again, so far so good. It’s open-minded and reasonable.
You were talking about the fundamental bases of our culture? Ok. In your words,
Also, in your words.
Actually, I did know that, but thank you for making an important point. To make that point, I could have posted a list of important dates, events, parliamentary acts and generations of thinkers, but as you point out, you could infer the conclusions yourself: these things have only recently been won and secured; they are robust ideas, but politically fragile and must be protected.
But, that being so, how can they be fundamental bases of our culture? I mean, if they’ve only been recently won, if they’ve been so long in coming, how can they be fundamental???
I can see only three possible answers:
they’re not fundamental. (But we both think they are, so nix that.)
our culture is extremely young. (Well, no.)
these things were present in a proto-form in the earlier eras of our culture, and have been slowly, painfully elaborated, extended, and enforced. Our ancestors may have known these things only imperfectly, but they realized their values and nutured them. Thanks to their efforts, we’ve inherited these values in full bloom. (I believe this is correct, and will assume you do to. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
But if you do agree with the third solution to the problem I’ve identified, then why do you take issue with my earlier statement:
Btw, I’m sorry you don’t like the “tickle-trunk of tricks” metaphor. In a thread on Canadian politics, I thought a Mr. Dress-up reference was rather cute. Besides, the list of three you provide doesn’t exhaust our cultural storehouse of ideas relating to governance. Different ideas, in different combinations, are differently emphasized in different times and locales. That’s “dress-up.” Anything that solves the problem well is a “neat trick.”
Moving on…
[quote]Those [see above] are the fundamentals of our society and it should be clear that they are. The fact that Saria law would even be discussed as a reasonable option indicates to me that certain immigrants and certain muddle headed second or third generation Canadians don’t understand that. In case you didn’t know the rights to equality, free speech and democracy were a long time coming, extremely hard won and the result the work of generations of brilliant thinkers. [/quote] One of the most important of those brilliant thinkers you mentioned was John Stuart Mill. Did you know that he worked for the East India Company? Have you read what he thought of extending those values to the subcontinent? Fundamental values, perhaps, but certainly not universal. And if not universal, what are some of the other things that sneak in and obscure what should be essentially uncompromising? I gave my answer earlier.
As for the suggestion that those suggesting Sharia law be applied in Canada are muddleheaded, you may be right. Can you think of a better way of making that clear to them than by sitting down to discuss with them the problematic aspects of such an attempt?
.
…
…
Is that the root problem, too many immigrants? Too many signs you can’t read? I believe you’re misstating something; I refuse to believe that’s what it comes down to for you. (By the way, what is a ‘disproportionate’ number of immigrants? Proportionate to what?)
Yes, generosity is wonderful, particularly when it costs so little and brings so many benefits.
Yes. Has it ever occurred to you that a good many of those people would, after only a few years spent in Canada, support, advocate and aggitate for the same measures in their countries of origin? Comparatively speaking, how many people, having arrived in North America or Europe, would rather turn their new homes into something more like the old, and how many instead–basking and flourishing in what they’d never known–would never give it up? Current unrest? A troublesome very small minority. Given the number of people who re-emigrate, I think the answer is clear.
Yes. But I’m tall, thin, white, male, and educated and that’s still the demographic to which fall the most plums. Would I change anything for the sake of having a better shot at some gov’t program? LOL. No. Would you?
I’ve dealt with the legalities of the dagger issue–this time more clearly–in my previous post. This deals more specifically with multiculturalism. Tell me, bob, how does any of this threaten, rather than enhance, your Canadian way of life?
Jaboney, your argument seems to come down to “in the absence of clear regulations by the appropriate governing body, lower levels of government have no authority to make decisions which limit religious practices.”
Fair enough – but you plant a bit of a self-destruct mechanism in even that argument by saying the appropriate authority would also have to “prove” minimal impact on the religious practice if it met your minimum requirement by coming up with such a clear regulation in the case of the kirpan. What is your standard of “proof of minimal impact.” Can it, in practice, actually be met?
Assuming a clear regulation has been implemented by the appropriate governing body but even then you aren’t satisfied justice has been done, here’s the standard I think your own argument has to meet at that point in order to avoid being negated by both logic and fairness: show that there’s the slightest hint that religious bigotry or intolerance played a part in the decision to prohibit the wearing of ceremonial daggers in schools. Show beyond a reasonable doubt that a functional weapon allowed into schools for any reason won’t intimidate other students or potentially harm other students.
A truly just society succeeds in balancing rights. That ultimate standard of justice is rarely met when one right is given absolute predominance.
Essentially, yes, but the point is more general: in the absence of clear regulations, lower levels of government have no authority to abridge any constitutionally recognized rights–those of religion included. Which is why, tolerance and multiculturalism aside, this is good ruling.
Minimal impact standard? The standard of the court is the Oakes test, and the onus is on the Crown to pass the Oakes test. There’s a two step process to this test:
There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional
-a. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
-b. There must be minimal impairment of rights
-c. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective
Unfortunately, 2b does not define minimal impairment. Originally, it meant “as little as possible.” Later this was changed to “as little as is reasonably possible,” which is more realistic.
Hard to think of a more specific, one-size-fits-all definition. Ideally, “as little as is reasonably possible” would be decided through negotiations–such as were underway between the principal and parents, or as I suggest, between religious communities and the government. In this case, a purely symbolic plastic or wooden kirpan was rejected as being something other than a kirpan. Fine. I suggested an immobilized blade as a reasonable alternative. The ultimate solution will–I contend–be better for all if it is agree to by all. Takes some work and imagination, but it’s that or a heavy hand.
If it comes down to the heavy hand, then the test for the infringement–2.c–is proportionality. The court found that an outright ban was disproportional. I agree: there are other alternatives.
Assuming that clear regulations have been implemented, the first test of those regulations–I believe–may still be #1: “a pressing and substantial objective.” That wasn’t addressed by the supreme court. The court acknowledged that there was a substantial objective–public safety, but is it a pressing concerning? Are kirpans being used as weapons, to wound or intimidate? Proportionally, a guaranteed right more than balances an undemonstrated threat, thus the onus is on those who would restrict rights to demonstrate need, or those who would contest such regulations to show that there is no pressing objective. Demonstrating that “the slightest hint that religious bigotry or intolerance played a part in the decision,” or that “beyond a reasonable doubt that a functional weapon allowed into schools for any reason won’t intimidate other students or potentially harm other students,” seems to reverse the onus and overshoot the mark.
Would you allow kirpans on airplanes? Presumably no evidence exists that a Sikh has ever used one to hijack an aircraft or attack crew or passengers who are unarmed by law so the guaranteed right to wear a kirpan could only be trumped if that threat could be demonstrated somehow.
How could such a threat ever be demonstrated in advance? Isn’t the mere fact that human nature is unpredictable and the kirpan a deadly weapon enough?
Would you allow kirpans on airplanes? Presumably no evidence exists that a Sikh has ever used one to hijack an aircraft or attack crew or passengers who are unarmed by law so the guaranteed right to wear a kirpan could only be trumped if that threat could be demonstrated somehow.
How could such a threat ever be demonstrated in advance? Isn’t the mere fact that human nature is unpredictable and the kirpan a deadly weapon enough?[/quote]
Thanks for that tempered response and while I still disagree with you I hope the way forward can be productive and harmonious.
Sorry, but the school board did not compell the boy to forfeit his right to an education, they compelled him to leave the knife at home or not come to school. They should have the right to do that and most people would say that, indeed, it is their obligation.
The municipal, provincial and federal governments should not be required to make exceptions to any law (especially tax laws) to accommodate every or any religion that crosses its borders. It is analogous I think to the situation in which some members the Sikh community wanted to wear turbans to work as police officers. The response to that one should have been swift. No. There is a uniform and you wear it. Rastafarians don’t get to wear dreadlocks, Muslim women don’t get to wear veils, Scottish pipers don’t get to wear a kilt, punkers can’t wear spikes ands nudists can’t come to work in the nude. Accept that or don’t apply for the job. The police force has real problems to deal with.
Here you went clear off the rails. The federal, provincial and municiple governments are the country’s largest employer by far. If there is a pattern of discrimination against any citizen it is a major isssue. Would I accept a cushy government job with a full pension to look forward to? Fuckin A I wouldn’t but a lot of white guys would if they had a chance.
Legalities smegalities. The government blew it when they guaranteed freedom of religion without guarenteeing freedom FROM religion. All of this threatens my sanity more than my way of life because I know that bird brain beuraucrats are getting paid a handsome salary to discuss something that should have been a non-starter.
Yes. Has it ever occurred to you that a good many of those people would, after only a few years spent in Canada, support, advocate and aggitate for the same measures in their countries of origin? Comparatively speaking, how many people, having arrived in North America or Europe, would rather turn their new homes into something more like the old, and how many instead–basking and flourishing in what they’d never known–would never give it up? Current unrest? A troublesome very small minority. Given the number of people who re-emigrate, I think the answer is clear.[/quote]
To swerve off topic slightly, it’s merely a question of numbers, i.e. critical mass. Look at Europe. Every larger Muslim community in every country has a strong and vocal minority of “agitators” who do indeed advocate for the same measures there as in their countries of origin. How dangerous are they? Well, they’ve killed Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh so far. I would say that the canaries in the proverbial coalmine are singing loud and clear.
Numbers are important. Too many politically correct people use the strawman canard of racism when someone talks about limiting immigration from certain areas. While racism or ethnocentrism or xenophobia certainly can play a part in people’s fears, they are not completely groundless fears at that. For example, however nice individual Arab Muslims are, I would not want 30,000 of them descending upon my sleepy city of 30,000 people in southern Ontario, for obvious reasons. A few families, sure…they’re already here. And the two mosques in the neighbouring city of 300,000 a half-hour drive from here are a nifty multi-culti addition to the urban scene. But ten, twenty or thirty mosques with their concomitantly large population of Muslims agitating and getting city hall to allow them to blast the call to prayer five times a day so that you can hear it wherever you live?
Gawd no. This is already happening in Detroit. Limit the numbers and you avoid critical mass, making issues such as this easier to handle.
)