Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Canada doesn't want to assimilate cultures.
That is kind of not our goal here.
So... Thank you?
Not to mention there are... negative implications of any society that has a strong sense of assimilation. A current embarrassment in Canada is how we are slowly assimilating Inuit culture passively.

Don't thank me m8 it's your country, I'm just glad to see Canada is finally getting over it's serious racism, it's so progressive for lesbian premiers to obey imams who preach their followers to warn her that she'll be treated the same as alcoholics, adulterers and gamblers for her sinful ways. It's at times like this when Canada bravely shows its face, that it looks to the world and declares in the defence of its values, it will sit in the corner obediently, in those moments I know Canada's values will stand the test of time.

On a more serious note, affluent gated communities can easily preach others to tear down their front door. What a glory it must be to have a continent to your own flanked by two oceans and guarded by the most powerful naval force in the world, thus that whoever arrives is a person of your choosing! Alas poor Canada, burdened as it is by wealthy Asian migrants, bringing in all their money and commerce - however will it cope?!! Where on such a tiny continent can it house all these rich people who applied legally to become a part of Canadian civic society? One man can only kowtow so much!

In case I haven't been clear enough, I take issue with gross oversimplifications. As it happens, not everywhere is the same, and you would do well to know what you're talking about before asserting it as fact, as I'm sure you have no reason why you believe the UK has been doing the bare minimum to keep its people alive - indeed, we live in mordor, where everyday is a terrorist attack and BNP marches through the streets whilst industrial capitalists purchase souls on the flesh market for reckless consumption and needless greenhouse emissions. I reckon if I looked out my window I would see another march of racists out to lynch the Angolans for the crime of drinking semi-skimmed milk and sounding too much like Anglos.

Or perhaps we don't. With a look out my window I see the sun setting in another regular day in Britain.

Neo, this would be much, much less frustrating if you would post a single source for any claim you make. If you're going to tell me how my country is run and how it should be run then please provide the information you used to conclude this, simply calling everyone racist if they disagree with you is no substitute for good reason - I think you'll find one can have a strong dislike of being murdered for their faith and not be racist.

[Neonivek]

I think you'll find one can have a strong dislike of being murdered for their faith and not be racist

It is because... There is this very obvious undercurrent here... that is very blatant.

But because it is so obvious it kind of can't be commented on, but sidestepped around.

Don't thank me m8 it's your country, I'm just glad to see Canada is finally getting over it's serious racism, it's so progressive for lesbian premiers to obey imams who preach their followers to warn her that she'll be treated the same as alcoholics, adulterers and gamblers for her sinful ways.

Once again... Thank you?

You seem to have this idea that the ideal situation was for her to bravely bust down the door and slap the religion out of them... for the sake of... tolerance?

--

But if you want a GENERAL idea of what has been whispered in my ears

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9075849/Multiculturalism-has-left-Britain-with-a-toxic-legacy.html

So what is the enemy here?

"an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs"

[Neonivek]

Another choice quote is

where different communities did not interact with each other and all sense of a common identity was lost, replaced by a Babel of languages and conflicting cultures.

And then there is

Some of the arriving groups have deep commitments to religious views that place women in a subordinate position, and which lead them to think that practices such as homosexuality are an abomination that should be severely punished.

And then we have the quote I used earlier... and we get the general tapestry.

A culture scared of losing its culture sees outsiders as the general enemy and as such wants to impose... limitation on the effect they can have on the culture.

[Neonivek]

I think I may have just lost my mind for a moment, but is Neo attacking his own argument right now?

No... though, I guess... without context they only stick out as choice in my mind... rather then as admonishment for other views.

It is a very... Troubled Climate.

I can understand the idea of there simply not being ready to take on such a burden of immigrants... But it is kind of clear that isn't the issue. It is the pretense that people use to give it legitimacy. The article is a bit closer to what I think is actually going on in a few people's minds.

[Starver]

(Multiple messages coming in during the typing of the following (and yet another as I typed this). I see some of what I say is relevant to these, whilst a lot is not. Take it as you will.)

And that would be applicable to the situation if we were only talking about 1000 people rather than millions.

Millions, schmillions...

And non-assimilation was much earlier perpetuated by the rules against giving Council Housing to recent immigrants. Quite rightly, one could say, not allowed to jump the queue over natives of long standing(-in-line), but that just highlights the problem of not enough such housing (which Right To Buy v1 didn't help).

So, anyway, with the country only gradually weaned off of "No children, no dogs, no Irish, no blacks, and if you think I'll let anybody cook curries in my houses day-in day-out forcing me to replace all the carpets when they leave...", and immigrants not given randomly scattered council homes so as to 'dissolve' them into British culture, the ones already settled because they had the money to buy homes helped the newcomers settle in homes they get help buying (located near to where the assisting immigrants were, due to familiarity and access and sustaining those original socio-geographic links), and so clumps of immigrants arose, perhaps precipitated to out-movement of original residents to free up more homes, and leading to potential self-ghettoisation in areas, putting extra pressures on links to the 'normal' communities beyond the amorphous borders.

So it happened with the Huguenots, that's how various Chinatowns arose, the themed streets of the Godfather setting, why Corby was dubbed "Little Scotland". What matters is what happens next.

And multiculturalism isn't a bad thing. Multiculturalism should be that your neighbours might celebrate Christmas or Hannukah or Eid or the birthday of Guru Gobind Singh or...  Heck, they could be Catholic or Methodist or Greek Orthodox or even towards Puritanism (they likely don't celebrate anything if they're Jehovah's Witnesses, but the ones on my street don't begrudge any of the rest of us, and I suspect they also keep the doorknocking JWs from passing by that often. It might be a 'terretorial thing', but I've known them to have visited my parents' house several times, with nary even a leaflet on my own doormat...  but I digress).

What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.  That is not multiculturalism, that's more of a cultural balkanisation, made all the more unsettling to all other (pre-existing) cultural observers because of the double-whammy of otherness compressed into a handy collection of streets or even entire districts. (All but the "been here since the ice-age" lot forgetting that their self-identified community was disturbing to the predecessors they displaced or else inherited the Brick Lane-type nexus of congregation and transition from...)


I know there are people with far more vehement opinions about this than I, and I think they're wrong in so many ways. But that's a given, and I suspect I wouldn't be entirely comfortable living alongside them.

[Jopax]

I think Neo is having one of those arguments were half of it is left uwritten in his head for some reason. You ok there buddy? Because I really can't make much sense out of your posts, just vague notions that do not adress the topic at hand in a particularly useful way.

[Neonivek]

What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.

Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-europe.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sharia-law-alive-well-uk-6957168

Hmm... those are close... but religious courts aren't anything new (though complaining about it sure is)... So where is this idea from? AHA!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html

Yeah that guy is nuts... I am not sure under what circumstances would it be acceptable other than gated communities.

I'd ask why you guys don't have laws that pertain to this... But then I'd probably find out you already do.

Then again it IS important to know how contract law works in the UK (YES it is related...)

No one's calling for forced assimilation here; the banning of foreign languages, etc. That'd be ridiculous. Multiculturalism is fine and good so long as the boundaries between groups are sufficiently lax.

Remember the folly of multiculturalism is SPECIFICALLY as quoted:

"an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs"

Though... Given how even the US has religious courts...

---

Edit: Here we go an UPDATED article!

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

[Neonivek]

Okay, since we're playing hardball, let's play hardball.

Say you have a large immigrant influx into Canada who practice female genital mutilation. What then?

Why does large influx matter?

But let me check for a moment...

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Canada/

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[Neonivek]

Oh good, a page from 2001 last updated in 2007 that's 100% unrelated to female genital mutilation.

Answer my question, Neo.

The scream was on how dense it was and how much reading I'd need to find do to find out.

I know there are limits to religious practices in Canada (Though we will let some people die, even innocent children, if it means keeping their religious practices often times) but I don't know how much female circumcision goes by... (not to mention there are types and degrees)

So I have NO idea... I can't read through all this!

[Starver]

What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.

Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?

It's not me that's getting 'this'. I was going into what the "anti-multiculturalism, blend everybody up into a (white, probably Anglican if possible) homogenous goop with no texture" lot tend to talk about as (bad, but for them the only form of) multiculturalism.

I say that if you are viewing a map at any level above the basic pixel's-worth of data, you should ideally get a smeary wash composed of all differently-coloured elements in an unclumpy way, any gradients of resulting hue being self-similar regardless of how far you zoom in or out...

[Neonivek]

What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.

Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?

It's not me that's getting 'this'. I was going into what the "anti-multiculturalism, blend everybody up into a (white, probably Anglican if possible) homogenous goop with no texture" lot tend to talk about as (bad, but for them the only form of) multiculturalism.

I say that if you are viewing a map at any level above the basic pixel's-worth of data, you should ideally get a smeary wash composed of all differently-coloured elements in an unclumpy way, any gradients of resulting hue being self-similar regardless of how far you zoom in or out...

Multiculturalism tends to be opposed more by Strong National and/or Cultural Image.

Not homogeny or at least directly, racism.

I want to know what you think the government of Canada should do, not what the current legislation says that it would do.

I'd never be able to tell you on the spot. I know the two lightest forms are acceptable and should be allowed under religious circumstances only.

I don't think Canada should allow any more then that, but I'd want a consensus first. Though given that any more then that and we get into serious cases of life-altering maiming... I don't think Canada favors it.

[Neonivek]

The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights.

I said circumcision.

[Jopax]

Which incidentally falls under genital mutilation.

Edit:

So it doesn't seem like a snipe. Neo, earlier you said you couldn't read the whole thing that was linked. What are you arguing with then? What are your tools and weapons in this discussion of ideas and merits if your ideas are based upon misguided beliefs that aren't based in reality and fact?

I really suggest you take a step back and take a few days to read up on these issues before coming back to the discussion. You aren't doing anyone any favors, you're just irritating people by being impossible to talk with because it's basically like boxing with fog at this point, fog that is talking nonsense at that :V

[Neonivek]

Which incidentally falls under genital mutilation.

Indeed, though it is a separate issue.

As for example... None of these apply to the lightest form.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

urinary problems (painful urination, urinary tract infections);
vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections);
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.);
scar tissue and keloid;
sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction, etc.);
increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths;
need for later surgeries: for example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks;
psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.);

Mostly because the lightest form of female circumcision is lighter than the standard male circumcision.

[Neonivek]

The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights.

I said circumcision.

My question was about female genital mutilation.

Yeah, but you were including it. (actually I thought you were referring to it... AS Female Genital Mutilation)

It amazes me how reticent some people are to give their viewpoints on things nowadays. I imagine it's due to some sort of fear of having the wrong opinion, or offending someone.

For my part, I don't want anyone fucking with the genitals of babies in any way that isn't medically necessary. I don't care how 'light' it is, or whether it's done to males or females. I'll happily share that opinion.

Agree or disagree, I don't get why with some people it's like pulling teeth trying to find out what their own opinion is. It's like they have to cite legal precedent for their opinions.

It is something that is a bit culturally ingrained in some religions... As long as it isn't excessive (and arguably it is already excessive) I feel I should accept it.

Still think babies should at least be numbed... but then again we are so dumb as a society it wasn't that long ago that we had to discover that yes... babies do feel pain.