Multiculturalism

This is a total misrepresentation of the choice that we face.Multiculturalism is affirmative action writ large. It is the attempt to legislate the preservation of cultures that would not otherwise survive. It is social engineering carried out under the mantra that every cultural belief has equal validity. This is not the same as saying that everyone has the same rights.The melting pot, by contrast, is the culture that you naturally get when you mix all the various parts under uniform conditions. The one overriding principal of which is that all parties are treated equally and left to either flourish or wither.So in a multi-culti nation you end up with nonsense like the Quebec language laws and separation referendums and in a melting pot you get China Town and Little Italy with lots of great restaurants where everyone can eat. In the mc nation you get Sunnis and Shiites. In the mp nation you get Americans.I say that the melting pot approach is by far a more just and efficient way to run a culture. The cream rises and those features that are good get adopted as opposed to strained relations that need reinforcing.

This is what I meant by misrepresentation. The melting pot does not necessarily destroy it's discrete components nor does it disallow any behaviour that does not conflict with the minimum universal requirements as outlined in the constitution and bill of rights.

Like the Quebec language laws. Exactly which is an attempt at multiculturalism in Canada.(I mean that it is tolerated because we have adopted a mc approach.)Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

What?

It is a way of saying that a melting pot approach is not equivalent to the Borg collective.

I suppose that there is pressure to conform but only to the most basic of requirements and they exist for all who would be a citizen. If your culture requires that you stone your daughter if she should dishonour you by being raped then you have to leave that when you flee from the shit hole that your culture has produced. I don't see why a reasonably functioning society should have to tolerate practices that are directly contrary to the principals that allow their society to succeed. One of these principals is equality under the law and pandering to individual cultures is not equality. There is a difference between coming as an immigrant and coming as a conqueror.

In 2004 the attorney general of Ontario proposed that we allow for the settling of disputes using Sharia law.

No.

Yeah it is kind of like that if one of the parties is tied up in the corner and agrees under threat of dismemberment.Here is a bit of a list of what Sharia law includes.

quote:

---

According to the Sharia law:
Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
The list goes on.

---

Source

Now that you have finished answering your own question I am glad to see that you agree with yourself.Little Italy and China town are the contributions that the previous cultures have made to their new culture. They are examples of how a melting pot does not require the destruction of preexisting cultural practices as long as they do not breach the laws of their new country. These are examples of cultural practices not only surviving but flourishing under a set of laws that apply to everyone and without the mollycoddling of multiculturalism.

Well I would much rather be interbreeding than inbreeding.They are an example that directly contradicts the notion that the melting pot is somehow oppressive. They are an example of how many cultures can thrive under one infrastructure.

Yeah I hesitated but the picture was so shocking and matched right up with my preconception that Sharia law is a barbaric and ignorant approach to justice. No amount of apologetics around the details are going to make up for the clash of core principals. Well yes they have to start somewhere. Our law has a mechanism for change where as Sharia does not. If we mix the 2 which one do you think is going to yield over time?Will the fresh immigrant appreciate the distinction or will they carry on as usual when they find the same system over here? What about divorce? Will the uneducated 14 yr old wife be able to file for a divorce or will she need permission from her husband?What do you think about the situation in the UK where I read that

quote:

---

The story revealed that The Law Society -- the body which represents and advises solicitors in England and Wales -- has drawn up guidance for its members on how to draw up wills in accordance with Islamic law. The document can be seen here. As the Telegraph pointed out, High Street solicitors in England and Wales will now be assisted in drawing up documents that refuse women an equal share of inheritance and that discounts the potential inheritance of non-believers entirely.

---

SourceWe cannot let our zeal for tolerance diminish our foundational principal of equality. I just don't see why we would even entertain the idea of allowing such an archaic and discriminatory system to exist here. We have absolutely nothing to gain beyond a temporary peace and everything to lose.

No the inequality comes from applying different laws to the act of executing a will depending on your religion. This is not a condition that should exist in a democracy (or anywhere) as it is a direct violation of the principal of equality under the law as well as the principal of seperating church and state.As you point out we can already leave money to whomever so what is it that the new law accomplishes?

While I am not actually frightened I am concerned and I think that others should be as well. My source certainly has an opinion but this doesn't mean that their information is wrong. All of the punishments listed are acceptable under some interpretations of Sharia. How do you go about changing the requirements for a women to seek a divorce under Sharia law? The alternative is for the government to concern itself with laws that apply to everybody in the country. The point is that there are 2 sets of laws and that is ridiculous. What people do is their own business as long as it does not contravene the standing law that should apply to everyone. Enshrining some weird religious beliefs in secular law is like injecting someone with an incurable disease. This is not a case of fearing what we do not understand. What I understand about Sharia law is enough for me to reject it out of hand. I think that this is an excellent point and I am not sure how we should address it but I don't think that instant capitulation under the name of tolerance is the answer. We have our standards of equality and principals of law for a reason. I don't know man. This is like the abused women saying that she does not want to press charges because sometimes he is really nice. I agree that we need to keep this behaviour out in the light but I don't think that we should excuse it or accept it. My neighbour can beat his wife quietly in the dark but he better not let me see him doing it. I get this but the first sentence from your quote is enough for me to dismiss it as anything that I could get behind.

quote:

---

Sharia consists of a set of principles governing the way that one should live one’s life in accordance with the will of God.

---

I appreciate that the same sort of language appears in my country's constitution and that there is some mention of the big Cheese in the court room but our legal systems are fundamentally different.