What is the ultimate goal of the multicultural movement?

Post Reply New Topic

Chipshorter, You met a few bad apples and they're certainly not an indication of what people from Toronto are generally like. I've just booked my latest trip to Canada - Toronto for the 10th time. The Canadian big cities are the nicest I've ever been to. BTW I love Wales and Ireland too and visited both last year and the year before.

Last edited by Mummy_of_Peanut on 19 Mar 2012, 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

So a few people treating you badly is all you need to pass judgement on ~35 million of their countrymen? Jeez, if I had that mindset, I would be talking trash about your little island on a consistent basis grow up

whatever was said to you or to anyone else... this has nothing to do with me, and it has nothing to do with the majority of Torontonians, and it has nothing to do with the majority of Canadians. your anecdote doesn't make multiculturalism in Toronto (or even in Canada) a mistake. and that is what we are talking about - multiculturalism.

Okay, so far, points against multiculturalism include:

The food in Toronto is not great
Toronto is a sterile place
Some Canadians pissed off some angry guy and his family
Muslims are scary and brown
The inane ramblings of a sick and delusional racist cockboy and his sockpuppets
Dey tuk 'r jawb!!


Wait a minute, wtf do the first three have to do with multiculturalism?

Last edited by Vigilans on 20 Mar 2012, 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I like the way you paint the continuing failure of many Muslims - or, rather, the Islamic ideology - to integrate into Western (or perhaps this is just European?) society as simply a racial issue rather than something far more fundamental. I don't see too many people having much of an issue with Sikhs, Hindus, Chinese or various Eastern European immigrants (besides the continuing opposition to essentially unlimited immigration here for a country that is similar not set up nor geared to this kind of influx).
[EDIT: personal insult removed by mod]

It really just seems like undefined first-stage thinking. If it were defined and clearly limited to say "Our laws first, practice as you wish within their scope and within the scope of the values that they demand" then there's no problem. With no definition and then even struggling to fight for people's right to make hate speech toward a country or speak at length all day long about overthrowing the government - that's where it goes completely wrong. If a culture believes in bigamy; we can't allow that as freedom of expression. If a culture wishes to own slaves within a free country; we can't allow that either. If a culture wishes to stone people to death for moral 'sins'; we can't tolerate that within a country which believes in civil liberties. If a culture sprung up which wished to claim pedantry as a healthy part of sexual expression - that's another thing that I couldn't see being stood for.

Can people pray to different gods? Yes. Can they dress in accordance? Yes. Clearly full body cover doesn't work well for the police on ID's, we've got a ways to go before we're comfortable with people working and shopping in their birthday suites as well, but within reason we're pretty tolerant. When people try to twist and pry things loose though or attempt to undermine a society's laws which are there to protect fundamental human rights - that's when they're on something entirely different and its really best to see it for what it is as an intolerant and self-centered agenda for supremacy.

In a lot of places in Britain people go out and about wearing niqab - a full-body veil that only exposes the eyes. Businesses routinely prohibit people who wear masks, motorcycle helmets and other obscuring clothing from entering premises but allow people (I refuse to say women) wearing burqa or niqab. Why is this (property rights notwithstanding)? And why should this be tolerated? This is tolerated in all major supermarkets and other places, even though people wearing motorcycle helmets, obscuring scarves or balaclavas are routinely turned away or otherwise severely disapproved of. Any place which bans people wearing these garments (without putting in place 'preferential treatment' measures) is potentially opening itself up to all kinds of bother. Hell, even airports struggle with this!

Immigrants in general really aren't the issue here, although I would like to see a halt to mass immigration, as it's doing an awful lot of damage to our country over the past couple of decades with little reward.

Islam is the problem, particularly when those people come from backward, tribal areas. It is a battle for supremacy of Europe. It can't be anything else.

Here in Australia we're having problems with Sudanese gangs raping and bashing people in the street.
There's a debate here at the moment about burkas and people say you can't wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank but they can wear a burka.

Tequila there's a brittish program on over here called "Escape to the country" I wonder if English people are going to the country as there's too many Muslims in London sadly we're going the same way here.

Did you mean pederasty?

Sorry to be pedant.

Sure, if you want to be historical.

What does pedantry have to do with sex?

Lol, I'm confused. I agreed with you...

Autistic culture will be regarded as the highest culture.

Eh, most British people living in multicultural places live either in crappy mill towns in the North of England, or they live in the inner city parts of the other major cities. I suppose there is a white flight out of London, but that's only because Londoners can afford it. Most people are too poor to get a country property and afford the travelling to work (if they even have a steady income) - petrol is very expensive over here and public transport even moreso.

Mostly, but not all (Blackpool has a decent-sized Islamic community AFAIK). And they still make up quite a decent section of the population of these towns. Oh, and Preston.

Basically, most of the places where large numbers of Muslims live aren't considered desirable places by most, I would wager.

Last edited by Tequila on 20 Mar 2012, 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is true. There simply isn't the incentive put in place - the government says that people should use public transport, yet the transport schemes on offer are either far too expensive, are impractical, or are undesirable for other reasons.