Does multiculturalism defeat the purpose of countries?

Post Reply New Topic

do not confuse multiculturalism with religious freedom, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. the latter are inherently good while the former erodes countries, as it gives anyone permission to defy the law, while simultaneously enjoying the material benefits and security of a civilized society.

i must admit that i agree with that. as an individualist, i also think that cultural rights should include the right of everyone to participate in their community. how are subjugated people in traditional societies, especially women, supposed to enjoy involvement in their cultures, if they fear reprisals?

Last edited by petitesouris on 13 Aug 2010, 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, you're just a right-wing bigot who think that Western society is superior to other societies. You fail to see the other cultural aspects of other societies and only focus on the bad parts. I'm glad the people who share your views are in the minority and are slowly dying away.

Well, I think most people are willing to say that it is. I mean, multiculturalism probably won't work if it requires that the strengths of Western societies to be eroded, so, the goal is to allow it without eroding the cultural core. In some sense, multiculturalism though, actually is an extension of Western values, and no non-Western society would likely even contemplate this to the same extent.

It depends on what strengths of western society you're talking about. If it is about democracy and a society shaped by what the people want, then the society can change over a period of time and adjust to the values that the people believe in. I understand that other societies have less interest in multiculturalism but to look down on other cultures and societies is a bit of a stretch.

Well, I mean the values that promote our economic welfare, that promote civil disagreement as opposed to uncivil, and that tolerate differences in the population and give people freedom.

I don't consider democracy a large enough distinction, although it is arguable that it is a form of freedom.

As for multiculturalism, the issue is this:
1) If it is right to be multiculturalist, then it is justified to look down on non-multicultural societies, as they are wrong.
2) If multiculturalism is just a choice, then it is fine to look down on other societies.

2) doesn't make sense. Lets say you choose to be vegetarian. It doesn't mean that you will look down on people who eat meat.

Well, right, but the issue is that this analogy doesn't work.

If multiculturalism and valuing other cultures is just an arbitrary cultural choice where each cultural choice is equally good, then monoculturalism and holding to the superiority of one's own culture is equally valid. That's the point of "2)". Because of that, we don't have a real justification for multiculturalism.

The fact that we can deal with the "problem" of two languages pretty much demonstrates just how good we have it in this country. While other countries deal with famine, natural disaster, civil insurrection, poverty and disease, in Canada we are free to think about our Constitution and the balance of individual and community rights. That's a pretty nice situation to be in.

By and large, Canada embraces multicuralism, and by and large Canada has one of the most enviable standards of living in the world. I don't think that those two things are disconnected.

i wish that multiculturalists would get the difference between accepting the strengths and weaknesses of each group or nation and tolerating the heinous crimes that some of their members commit. even if all cultures today were equal in their just treatment of people, nothing should be immune from criticism.

be careful what you wish for. lets say, hypothetically, that muslims become the majority of the population in europe and canada, as they have more children and also do not mix with us. if they start pushing for the sharia law, would you support that too, despite how its codes would spit in the eye of the constitutions of western democracies

every individual should have a right too practice their own culture, unless it can be proven that their doing so is pernicious for other people. therefore certain practices, such as child marriage, have to go, yet if cultural values were to be shaped collectively, instead of only having the government act as a whistle blower for violations of religious freedom, than our individual rights to freedom of association, religion, and speech would be curtailed. an alternative interpretation to multiculturalism could be the section of the european convention on human rights concerning cultural rights. they argue that each individual could practice their own culture when its practices abide by laws that apply to everyone else. no more special priviledges for certain groups, or one day i will assert my own, create my own small cultural group, and ask to be exempt from taxes

Last edited by petitesouris on 12 Aug 2010, 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

USA, Canada and South American countries are largely built off multiculturalism, because their societies were made by immigrants from all over the world as well as the native inhabitants.

However, not all of the world works like America and Canada do, a point I can not stress enough. Most of the time, multiculturalism is not a good thing for a society, because it gets in the way of self determination. I'm Eastern European and we Slavs are very nationalistic, and we had multiculturalism pushed on us by the Soviet Union, so we're not up for a round 2. The attitude is basically "Slavic lands for Slavic people" and that allows us to get so much done, by focusing on the problems our own people face, instead of taking in a bunch of Muslim immigrants and letting them express their foreign culture on our lands. Countries like the UK and France that do take Muslim immigrants, look what it has gotten them: a dwindling national identity, higher crime and the exhaustion of their welfare. I'm also a Jew and the Muslims that do find a way into Slavic countries commit violence against Jews. So no Slavic countries will be opening their borders to refugees anytime soon...

I'm not saying Muslims are bad, or inferior to any other people, because countries like Brunei, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, etc all have a high standard of living while being Muslim countries. But Islam is incompatible with modern Europe. As a Slav, I wouldn't walk around Muslim land speaking Serbian or Russian and gambling and drinking...it goes against their culture, just like the Islamic views of hijab wearing, child marriage, and anti-Semitism goes against ours.

Ah, the old bugbear of Sharia. All that one needs to do is mention the word, and all the 'infidels' run screaming for the hills.

A few home truths:

1) Not all muslims follow sharia. There are jurisdictions where it has been copied into public law, but these are the exception, rather than the rule.

2) Sharia as private law, in other words as a way of resolving disputes between parties, is a matter of choice-of-law. It is no different than a clause in a contract that says, "disputes under this agreement shall be adjudicated under the laws of XXX."

3) Sharia as public law is a legislative choice, but subject always to the scrutiny of the courts, and the overarching potential of constitutional invalidity. I trust The Charter to invalidate any attempt by Parliament to codify sharia into public law in Canada.

If muslims become the majority, then it would make sense that they would have more say in the govenment of a democratic country. I would say that it would be fair to implement some Islamic values if the people wants to. However, any law that gets passed must meet the human rights standards of the constitution. So no, religious persecution would not be allowed/tolerated. Stoning of women and chopping off of hands would not be allowed either. But other things like criminalization of porn and restrictions/control of alcohol consumption I don't care.

Are you going to throw personal accusations at me or debate my argument? I said it's fine for other cultures to come here (even the ones that are backwards and don't benefit society) as long as they obey the law and don't act detrimental to society.

Here, we are a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. Any laws passed must meet certain standards to be legal and enforceable. If Muslims became a political force, any laws they passed would still have to be constitutional.

Were you saying that criminalisation of porn or control of alcohol consumption is unconstitutional?

I'm assuming you are talking about USA/Canada and not Europe? In USA/Canada, I would agree, because their governments have to follow "human rights" standards. But not every country works like America, again I can not stress this enough. In Europe, it's different, if Muslims become the majority in a country, then the purpose of that country is defeated, because multiculturalism gets in the way of self determination. That is why Eastern European countries will not take in any Muslim immigrants and Western European countries are starting to follow the trend.

Switzerland is a truly democratic country, and the Swiss people declared Islam to be unfitting in Swiss culture, so they banned minarets which will keep Muslim immigrants out. Democracy has spoken, and the whole "human rights" thing is a politically correct fraud that violates self determination and therefore sovereignty.