Multiculturalism is an idealist notion. It works as long as minorities essentially assimilate, while practising only symbols and relatively unimportant cultural traits, like cooking traditional dishes, playing traditional music or trying to keep the languauge alive as a second language at home. But when minorities resist assimilation, and want to practise essentials, like law and government, differently than the nation which welcomed them, serious issues arise. Because it takes a substantial population to demand changes in fundamental matters, like law and government, the process is gradual, increasing with demographic power.
Multiculturalism is a reality, fascist uniculture is a utopian vision I am afraid has swept the globe and will lead to much suffering within this century. Even the UN has hopped on board as a tool for uniculture and their efforts at promoting cultural understanding are perfectly described above in the fascist statement: good foreign culture is cooking, music, and talking in funny ways at home while everyone agrees to one world standard for law.
What I find ironic is that this is hidden within a discussion of democracy. Democracy is not anathema to foreign cultures though some might choose not to be democratic. There is absolutely no sense, no logical reason that western democracies are the only possible democracies, and concepts of justice or law.
Intriguingly our founding fathers, the ones who brought back pagan democratic ideals to overthrow monotheistic feudalism, desired local law to be diverse across the singular nation, and also discussed our compatibility with islam (at that the time of history of course).
Thus, those who desire to form an islamic country within a western one, cannot yet make strident demands. Instead, they carefully choose their battles, hoping to win incrementally. The proposal for Sharia law arbitration in Ontario is an example.
This is fear mongering and religious intolerance. And the irony is that if true, argues for allowing arbitration rather than setting single standards by the majority.
I do not want to live in an Islamic state, but I'd rather live in one that gave me an alternative than a Xian state that gave me none until it was an islamic state that gave me none.
And interestingly the author ignores that there is a growing Xian fundamentalism that is working very hard for imposing a fully fundamentalist Xian country within our secular one. Well really it is growing within all western nations. They are seeking to change our laws and the constitution in order to make sure all laws constrain to Xian fundamentalist standards. They even wish iconography set everywhere to remind others that the basis of all law is from the 10 commandments (which of course is a lie).
In contrast Sharia law reflects another civilization (one born intending to supplant the judeo-Christian world, as it blatantly says in the koran), another set of sensibilities, and a form of law and governance that is not democratic.
There is no doubt that there is islamic fundamentalism, as there is xian fundamentalism. The latter is a much more imminent threat at this time to democracy. You can read directly within the text that they take as literal truth that it is to dominate everything in a feudal way, that is the end goal. What's more you can read this in the writings of the fundamentalists today.
The scare tactics are a nice ploy to end multiculturalism in order to get ordinarily rational and tolerant people on the side of the fundamentalists who want to break a rival religion as well as seal power within one authority which they hope to wield through their numbers.
They do not believe in a democracy with protection of minorities, but rather the kind of theodemoaristocracy witnessed in places like Saudi Arabia, where allegiance is to the majority culture which may use its laws to keep itself in power. The majority should not have to cede power, nor respect the minority.
That is why there were demonstrations against it in 100 nations, mainly european, where there was dread amongst democratically-minded European muslims about such a precedent being set. It is why the legislature of the canadian french province of Quebec passed unanimously a resolution presented by a muslim women member opposing sharia law.
Please cite these mass demonstrations against... what exactly? Canada's thought at arbitration? But let's say they are for real, then that is very sad and not part of any truth or health.
Mass demonstrations were in many places in all of history to stand in the way of greater freedom, driven by a fear of minorities.
The time is now to look back at history and at our current position and ask what does the future hold for us, and what is justice, democracy, freedom, and tolerance?
And perhaps look at what was under judgement and imagine it wasn't a scary "islam" figure asking for this ability. Could you conceive of a gov't coming to power where you would like the ability to arbitrate based on your own code within your own community as long as you and those involved agree? That's the precedent that would be set. Instead we have the precedent of a nation acting in knee jerk fashion, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in order to disallow greater choice in gov't at the local (personal) level.
The problem is that when we recognize threats to our western values, laws, governance and culture posed by minorities that would rather see us become them rather than convert, our decency, generosity and fair play handcuff us. Thus, when Ontario finally decided against Sharia law, it felt it also, for the sake of fair play, had to get rid of jewish and catholic religious arbitration - even though they posed no threat and faced no opposition over the 15 years it has existed. Thus, when france decided against jihabs in schools, it also felt compelled to ban large crosses and stars of david, even though they posed no issues.
Strawman and blaming the victim. Those seeking alternative arbitration were not and could not seek to convert "us" to "them". They sought to live within a nation of laws, and yet retain their own codes as many others have done in the past. Yes it is interesting to see that we realize this has gone on (so far with no harm), yet decide to nuke all difference, rather than to see a new face in the crowd.
And again what goes without saying is that telling them to hide their symbols, and denying their right to alternative arbitration cannot stop this "hidden nation" occuring from within, if that is what is supposedly happening. Romans, Catholics, Protestants, and Nazis attempted the same thing each in their turn and it did not work.
and those who come to live apart, dreaming of taking us over from within.
This is true, this is not good. But what is the difference between that and people that were born here doing the exact same thing? Xian Fundies are separating themselves and dreaming of taking us over from within. Well more than dreaming, they are acting in many ways.
If one is afraid of a religious takeover, one does not need to look into the future. Though as I suggest it is a great way to take people's eyes off of what is happening, and grow knee jerk alliances that can be dashed when no longer needed.
We subscribe to multiculturalism because it seems just so bloody nice. But the implications are sometimes, usually in fact, not understood. This unpleasant reality needs to be confronted.
Multiculturalism is reality. E pluribus unum. The first democratic nation in the western world after nearly 2000 years of Xian oppression recognized and championed maximum diversity and tolerance... because all nations cannot help but contain many cultures. In one nation, time itself will break a people into many.
Solidity then is not in uniculturalism, but a way of living together. If there are cultures that refuse to live with others, tolerate the very existence of others, then they are an enemy. That is true. But that threat can come from within our own population as from without. And they will likely use alleged threats from outside in order to secure their own power, by weakening democracy and freedom behind a cloak of security.
The author has yet to suggest how on earth alternative arbitration could lead to forced arbitration, or an overthrow of our system. And he avoids any reply because he knows he cannot. What's more, the very interesting thing he also does not discuss is that in doing this thing, the canadian system was changed, to put more hands in the power of the majority and strip concepts of alternative adjudication which had been working without problems thus far.
It is true that an unpleasant reality must be confronted: intolerance and fascism using fear of different cultures to drive their agendas.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2