Is this bigotry? Or simply a way of saying, "my house, my rules"? ******************************************************************************** 02-03-07, 03:17 PM Scotty Good for them. That's the way it should be. When in Rome.
02-03-07, 04:01 PM babthrower I agree with Scotty. (As a French Canadian would say, "Coup de tonnere!"
Is it intolerant to believe that some immigrants might be fundamentalist Muslims who believe in the values which Herouxville rejects? Or are there in fact some such?
It was not long ago that Quebec and Ontario rejected a request for a two-tiered legal system (sharia laws) based upon the 'right to religious freedom'.
As a fifth-generation Canadian, I believe in the equality and democracy we have so dearly won and then protected over the centuries. I believe that equality of persons before the law is essential to our system. I believe that most Canadians passionately believe in our traditions.
I believe that immigrants arriving in Canada from various parts of the world where dictatorships (both military/idealistic and military/religious) are in power should know about our traditions, so that they can make an informed choice.
Any immigrant should know that he/she may not be able to follow certain practices regarding the education of their children, the treatment of people of other races, the exemption of one sex from accountability for assaults and murders committed against members of the other sex – even the treatment of animals. They should know that they should not assume Canadian acceptance of these policies just because they were acceptable in their nation of origin.
They have enough adjustments to make leaving their homelands as it is. It is unfair to leave them uninformed as to the impediments they may encounter in Canada.
Armed with this knowledge, the potential immigrant may choose to either come to Canada, and accept our democratic system, in the process perhaps losing some cherished traditions, or stay where they feel comfortable with the traditions, but at the cost, perhaps, of a lower standard of living.
If we fail to to this; if we in fact mislead potential immigrants with the promise that in our cultural mosiac, any tradition or practice from their homeland will gain full recognition under Canada’s legal system, I can see huge costs ahead, as Canada is sued by embittered immigrants who have suffered from the loss of their traditions and customs.
02-03-07, 04:05 PM newnickname No one could really object to their list of rules mostly, although it seems (certainly in their particular town) it's unlikely they'd ever have to be invoked. It's the context and tone which might make them objectionable (it's as if I invited you into my house, and asked you not to spit on the floor).
Notice, though, how someone sneaked in 'Christmas carols will be sung in schools'. The other rules could be justified as 'being intolerant about intolerance', and, for example, standing up for women's rights. The rights of women in some insular communities (immigrant or not) is a serious question.
But pushing one particular religion or tradition without mention of others is just plain old intolerance.
The town raises an important point, but their own action on it is compromised and inconsistant. And a bit silly.
02-03-07, 04:35 PM babthrower NNN sez: "... it's as if I invited you into my house, and asked you not to spit on the floor."
Ummm, well, if you were inviting the public at large into your house, and you had seen some of them spitting on their own floors, or on the floor of the public library, then I think a 'no spitting' rule is appropriate. If the guest insists that in his home he spits on the floor all the time and it's okay, well, I would ask him to leave. So it's fair to warn in advance.
When we open the door to immigrants, we are inviting the world at large to come in. The least we can do is tell them that if they accept the invitation, be aware we have a 'no spitting' law.
02-03-07, 05:55 PM Scotty
quote: When we open the door to immigrants, we are inviting the world at large to come in. The least we can do is tell them that if they accept the invitation, be aware we have a 'no spitting' law.
Very well put. I agree.
02-04-07, 01:00 AM DorianGreyed I fully agree. Where would we be in America if our founders would have insisted on bringing their culture with them instead of conforming to the culture of those already here? It's things like this that make our country great. If you doubt me, ask my neighbor, Squatting Dog.
02-04-07, 09:20 AM frankvan "Stoning women to death in the town square, burning them alive or burning them with acid" is strictly prohibited."
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a necessity for such a local law, or the inclusion of the one about singing Christmas carols? Do Canadian federal laws not provide sufficient protection of women's rights, murder, separation of state and religion ? Does federal law not take precedence over local laws? In my humble opinion, the only justification for Herouxville's ordinance as cited is hick-town bigotry.
02-04-07, 09:42 AM Scotty
quote: In my humble opinion, the only justification for Herouxville's ordinance as cited is hick-town bigotry.
That is their Town, and that is how they live, if you want to be a part of it, fine, but either comply with how they live, or stay where you are. IMHO.
02-04-07, 12:04 PM frankvan Spitting on the floor is prohibited - in my own house. Agreed. The town I live in, or of which I am the mayor, is NOT my own house. I do NOT have the authority to decide that something which is perfectly legal in the country is going to be illegal in my town. Oh, sure, I can proclaim it, and I can get a whole majority of residents to support enactment into law. But that doesn't make it legal and enforceable if it discriminates against one targeted group. Unless Canada has changed drastically since I last lived there, Herouxville's bit of xenophobic posturing is just that!
How would we feel about a town law that forbade people from making the sign of the cross in public? From wearing a star of David, or turban, or crucifix, in public? How about laws that denied residence to atheists ? That could surely meet with public approval in many communities. When babthrower and Scotty agree on an issue there's something terribly wrong. IMHO. Roll Eyes
02-04-07, 12:16 PM Scotty
quote: When babthrower and Scotty agree on an issue there's something terribly wrong. IMHO.
Why does it always have to come down to snide remarks with you, Frank? can't you state your position without attacking others? Are you that insecure?
02-04-07, 12:22 PM babthrower Do I over-react when legally-sanctioned tolerance of oppression of any subset of our population could be an issue, and the oppression is based on religious tenets? Probably.
Remember that Canada still tolerates that women are deprived of their constitutional right to education in the LDS enclave of Bountiful.
Remember that orthodox Jews and orthodox Muslims have already made a move in both Quebec and Ontario to have sharia law enshrined in our legal system. Failed both times. Do you think they will stop trying?
As my just-about-all-time-favorite cartoonist, Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"
We are so holier-than-thou about pluralistic societies that we want every immigrant to feel right at home with their quaint little customs like honor killings.
What is so wrong about letting immigrants know that there is a very stong -- very strong -- body of Canadian opinion which will allow and even encourage ethnic and religious diversity, but puts Enlightenment values such as democracy and equality before the law first?
02-04-07, 12:27 PM frankvan I don't know what you consider "snide" about that remark. I was just commenting that you make a particularly "odd couple", rarely on the same side of a controversial topic. But why not address the issue instead of picking at the individuals participating?
02-04-07, 12:36 PM newnickname Immigrants are made aware of Canada's traditions of tolerance, and pride in ethnic diversity. I've been through the immigration and citizenship processes. I guess it's possible to do that and ignore or discard the information, but how many immigrants would?
Herouxville (pop. 1,275 in 2001) is not adding anything to what the federal and provincial governments do - except insinuations that immigrants are likely to throw acid in womens' faces.
They've also included their own ethnic intolerance - stressing that Christmas carols will be sung, not that multiple traditions will be respected.
02-04-07, 12:36 PM frankvan
quote: What is so wrong about letting immigrants know that there is a very stong -- very strong -- body of Canadian opinion which will allow and even encourage ethnic and religious diversity, but puts Enlightenment values such as democracy and equality before the law first?
Not a damned thing! I thought that was what I just got through saying. But I don't recognize that in what that little bastion of democracy just outside of Montreal was trying to say. Or just what it is that you and Scotty agree about it?
02-04-07, 12:40 PM babthrower Now waitaminnit, I said
quote: I agree with Scotty. (As a French Canadian would say, "Coup de tonnere!")
Was that snide? Then Frank's wasn't snide either. We were both commenting on a unique phenomenon. Big Grin
02-04-07, 01:11 PM frankvan "We are so holier-than-thou about pluralistic societies that we want every immigrant to feel right at home with their quaint little customs like honor killings."
Wow! Who'd have suspected that? I'll have to go to Kanawake, Que. and get my poor 90 year old brother away from there. He could very well lose his scalp. Those Mohawks have some strange customs also. Temps ourageux!
02-04-07, 01:38 PM Scotty
quote: But why not address the issue instead of picking at the individuals participating?
Nescio quid dicas
02-04-07, 02:13 PM DorianGreyed Frank, if the Mohawks and other Native Americans had been a bit more stringent in enforcing immigration laws, or even residency laws, we wouldn't be having these problems. (I'm afraid that my ability to wear my hair in the correct fashion has been diminished, however. I hope they'll understand.)
**************** Det. Andy Sipowicz: What's wrong with this country? I'll tell you what's wrong; it's all these foreigners coming over here.
Det. Bobby Simone: Detective Sipowicz here is one of the few Native American Poles.
Memorable Quotes from NYPD Blue
02-04-07, 04:14 PM babthrower Sheesh! This is getting really weird! I'm not saying we should call the shots because we were here before this generation's immigrants arrived. I'm saying we should call the shots because
*** democracy and equality before the law create a better system than theocratic dictatorships. In a democracy, people try to set aside differences about spiritual beliefs, and concentrate on what's good for people. In a theocracy, the 'correct' law is found by reading the runes, using a ouija board, or dowsing among ancient texts and quibbling over translations ***
Did you ever see a theocratic government, whether in the Christian-dominated South American republics, or the Muslim-dominated middle east, where the common people have freedom or comfort? No, that is reserved, as in all dictatorships, for those at the top.
Democracy is humanistic. Theocracy is not. I'm intolerant of the notion that we are moving toward an absurd 'no-value' value: everything is as good as everything else, and that way we'll all play nicely and get along.
Statistics Canada's 2001 community profile says it was 100-per-cent French-speaking, and 96-per-cent Catholic. There were no Muslims, Jews or Sikhs (the nearest mosque, synagogue or temple is nearly 200 kilometres away in Montreal). Only 10 inhabitants were born outside of Canada.
Herouxville's average income was 22 per cent below that of the province, its rate of participation in the labour force 11 per cent lower and its unemployment rate 68 per cent higher. So it's not surprising that between 1996 and 2001, its population declined, by three per cent. And its median age was 40.5 years, nearly two years older than that of an aging province.
The numbers paint a picture of another ethnically and linguistically homogeneous, somewhat remote rural village wasting away for lack of economic opportunity.
In all, Herouxville is exactly the kind of place where immigrants are least likely to settle. The declining population suggests even people born there won't stay.
So it was hardly necessary for the town council to inform prospective immigrants on the municipality's website that burning women alive, among other supposed religious practices of outsiders, is "not part of our standards of life." ****************** It seems that there was really no need for the declaration. Why would any immigrant want to move there, new "rules" or not? The entire episode seems to the the French-Canadian equivalent of a US town full of good ole boys patting themselves on the back for putting "them furriners" in their place. Of course, it's much easier to do so when there are none of "them furriners" nearby.
"That's the way it should be. When in Rome."
Does this mean that all the newcomers need to learn the Stations of the Cross, fast during Lent, and pretend to follow the Pope's rules about birth control? Do Jews have to eat pork when it is served at the parish summer picnic? Can an Italian family make lasagne at home, or must they eat quiche? Is pizza verboten interdict, or can it be eaten as long as no offensive garlic is used? Is it really necessary to put heavy sauce on all entrees? Must New Brunswick stew be called simply a ragout? What should Yorkshire pudding be called, or can't it be made? Is espresso to be called cafe? Can you make cappucino at home?
What about jobs/income? If 10 immigrants move in, how many must quit their jobs? What if you make too much money? Do you return it to your employer, or give it to the mayor?
And finally -
Does Herouxville rhyme with Hooterville? +++++++++++++++++++++++ In trying to find the complete declaration, I came across this:
B’nai Brith Quebec deemed the declaration “an anti-immigrant, anti-ethnic backlash” and Salam Elmenyawi, head of the Muslim Council of Montreal, called it insulting.
If the B'nai Brith and the Muslim Council agree that somehing is bad, it really must be really bad.
02-04-07, 05:57 PM Scotty Whatever!
02-04-07, 06:51 PM frankvan
quote: I'm intolerant of the notion that we are moving toward an absurd 'no-value' value: everything is as good as everything else, and that way we'll all play nicely and get along.
Are you advocating a Hooterville type remedy for such intolerable altruism? If that's the case I must confess that, like Scotty, I don't know what we're talking about. Confused
02-04-07, 07:15 PM babthrower I'm saying that it should be okay to say Canada is a democracy in which persons have equal rights before the law and I'd like it to stay that way.
02-04-07, 08:11 PM newnickname It [i]is['i] OK to say that. The 'sharia' idea was rejected, for example. Treu, action against the religious nuts in Bountiful is pitifully slow, but that's a complex, family, situation.
The residents of Herouxville (number of houses with a broadband internet connection - 100) have raised an important issue, but they've raised it in an offensive, muddled and pointless way.
I see that Canadian tourist boards have asked US visitors not to blow anyone away on a whim when in Canada, as that's illegal here.
02-04-07, 08:37 PM babthrower "Offensive, muddled " yes. They did make a point, though. The response from the public to the articles in the media were supportive, by and large.
If towns and tourist boards speak offensively, they will lose immigrants and tourists. That is the price they have to be ready to pay. Maybe next time they'll think it through. Say what they feel needs saying, but in a way that doesn't smear the innocent. Roll Eyes
The fanatics and fundamentalists need to be isolated. I think the Herouxville statement is actually counter-productive. If the aim is, for example, to make sure a woman in some patriarchal extended family gets to vote, that isn't best achieved by slyly insulting the family.
02-05-07, 08:05 AM frankvan
quote: If towns and tourist boards speak offensively, they will lose immigrants and tourists. That is the price they have to be ready to pay.
Yeah, but! Unfortunately there are way too many people in towns on both sides of both borders who are all-too willing to pay that price. Some of us even plan on fenced borders. Eek
02-05-07, 02:18 PM aminator2002 It seems like it would be fine to say :
We have core beliefs and hope that people moving into our happy little town will share these same values - family, equality and eating well from the land.
The way they put it comes across as smug and as a transparent attack on "other people." It's like the Quebecers are trying to give the French a run for their money in the xenophobia department.
02-07-07, 11:46 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: But that doesn't make it legal and enforceable if it discriminates against one targeted group.
A 'no spitting' law, (or any other), does not target one group. Laws are for EVERYONE in the given locale. And if members of a group of inbound people are known to spit on their floors, or stone their women, well too bad. They'll have to conform to the new laws that really weren't necessary before their arrival if they want to stay.
And the American Indian remarks here are just silly. It is a new time; a new world, people.
02-07-07, 11:54 AM juanruiz We're talking Quebec mindset here, a province that has language police wandering around making sure the lettering on French signs in stores is larger than the English lettering.
02-07-07, 01:43 PM babthrower In quebec there is (or used to be, maybe it's been repealed) that signage has to be in French only. In Vancouver, we have signs in Chinese only. No one here gets upset about it (that I know of) because I guess they think that if the Chinese signs are in Chinese only, the proprietors want only Chinese custom. Fair enough.
(I have heard tales of "ghosts" going into ethnic stores and being obnoxious about foodstuffs e.g. salted shrimp. Can this be true? Eek Big Grin)
02-07-07, 02:18 PM juanruiz
quote: In Vancouver, we have signs in Chinese only.
Is that voluntary? In Quebec it's the law.
02-07-07, 03:22 PM babthrower It's entirely voluntary. That's why I think those who do it, do it because they're only interested in the Chinese consumer market.
02-07-07, 03:41 PM juanruiz babs, just out of curiosity and somewhat off topic, but when the Quebecois say "Je me souviens" I ask "De quoi?" The Fields of Abraham?
02-07-07, 03:44 PM dance girl ..they remember their roots...which are the Plains of Abraham!
02-07-07, 03:46 PM juanruiz Fields...Plains, c'est la même chose. Champs, n'est-ce pas?
02-07-07, 03:53 PM dance girl Doesn't matter to me either..but you better get it right when talking to a Québecois Big Grin
02-07-07, 03:55 PM juanruiz If I said it in French, they wouldn't notice...well, maybe not notice.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6369 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Originally posted by juanruiz: When the Quebecois say "Je me souviens" I ask "De quoi?"
They remember when Quebec was a French-speaking, Catholic nation. It was far from a democracy, of course. After Britain defeated the Quebeckers and the French soldiers in one decisive battle on the Plains of Abraham, the British government sent Lord Selkirk to report and make recommendations. He strongly recommended that the people be given language rights, religious freedom, and civil law (Napoleonic code).
That's why a woman in Quebec could not vote in provincial elections until 1940. Women had the Canadian Federal vote in 1921. ************************************************************ 02-07-07, 10:55 PM mozart56 Je me souviens . And the law that rules the language is called "Loi 101" (Law 101) which has been modified along the years and is a lot softer now.
I remember when people would see a "STOP" sign and not "ARRET" written on. And would transform it. The "s" was erased and the "T" and the "P" would be painted to look like a "1" which after would look like......101.... "Loi 101"
02-07-07, 11:00 PM newnickname
quote: They'll have to conform to the new laws that really weren't necessary before their arrival if they want to stay.
Where is this place where laws against violence to women, or laws protecting the right to vote, aren't necessary? Has there ever been such a place? I'd like to visit.
02-08-07, 05:44 AM Kendor This place resides within the gray matter of all sane, free, and righteous human beings.
02-08-07, 08:31 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: This place resides within the gray matter of all sane, free, and righteous human beings.
02-08-07, 09:27 AM newnickname Smile I guess the key word there is "within".
02-08-07, 09:53 AM Kendor If you guys fail to grasp what my point is I can make an attempt at clearing it up, but it's pretty elementary already and you're not stupid. Just imagine that the words came from someone else. That should help.
02-08-07, 10:24 AM newnickname No, it's OK. I think I've got it.
You're saying that laws protecting women from abuse really weren't necessary inside the heads of sane, free and righteous people, until immigrants arrived. I guess pages and pages of regulations, and whole squads of police, were necessary inside the heads of crazy, enslaved and wicked people all along - immigrants or no immigrants.
02-08-07, 10:53 AM VelvetVoice Since when is freedom free? We may enjoy freedom in the US today, but a lot of these things were a long time in coming. Women won the right to vote in 1920, take a look at the Wikipedia timeline to see how long it took other countries to have that right. Wasn't there a lot of discrimination against black people, imagine a country only 50 years ago that had separate schools and restaurants and stores and hotels (etc.) for whites and 'coloreds'. Shocking!
Freedom as we know it does not exist in a lot of places, and I am grateful to the armed forces, past and present, that keep me enjoying them. I'm sure the finghting is not over, for there are still people who want to take my freedom from me.
What people think and believe is one thing, what they say and defend is another. That town is trying to become a touchpoint for xenophobia, and I hope they get knocked down for it.
02-08-07, 11:33 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: No, it's OK. I think I've got it.
Apparently you don't 'got it.'
I'm saying that, finally, (and only very recently), we have societies which recognize that all men and women are equals, and that those individuals on the planet that do not recognize this simple fact would require a guideline (laws) if they want to be part of such a society. This includes the crazy, enslaved, (enslaved by their own vices), wicked folks already there, not just immigrants.
02-08-07, 12:08 PM newnickname So when you said that the "new laws really weren't necessary before their arrival", you meant us to understand that some societies had finally and only very recently recognised equal rights (except for some wicked holdouts who don't accept the idea), and so the laws (or their, eventually arrived at, proper enforcement) were in fact really necessary there, whether or not immigrants arrived?
02-08-07, 01:14 PM babthrower It may be that a disproportionate number of culturally French-speaking Canadians are xenophobic but then they have more cause than the rest of us. ROC (the Rest of Canada) has been intensely stupid in dealing with them since 1763 (the year the English conquest was acknowledged by the Treat of Paris).
Even after they were guaranteed language, (limited) legal, and religious freedom, they were continually being reminded that these rights could be taken away. (They coined the term 'maudit Anglais' for the English-speakers of Canada.)
Example of stupidity: The French Canadians were understandably unwilling to fight in Europe during both World Wars: they saw it as fighting for England, who had conquered Quebec. They were not crazy about fighting for France, either, because they remembered that France had made no effort to win Quebec back from the British after 1763.*
But French-speakers willing to fight were joining the reserves, which had French-speaking units.
But the first force intended to go overseas had no French-speaking units. (The Irish and Scots had their own units.) The Defense Minister belonged to a movement which wanted French suppressed in the ROC.* Only when the military realized that this was hurting recruitment did they set up the 22nd regiment, the VanDoos (English-speakers' best approximation of vingt-deux, French for 22). They were part of the second division to go overseas.
They distinguished themselves during WW I (multiple decorations including two Victoria Crosses) and fought in every major campaign. Since then they have fought in World War II, Korea, etc.
* French abandonment of New France (Quebec) after 1759: The French wit, Voltaire, for example, consoled King Louis XV, said, "After all, it's only a few acres of snow." And 80,000 fellow Frenchmen.
* Language suppression: In Ontario in 1912 a law was passed forbidding the teaching of French in schools. (That would be like and American law forbidding the teaching of Spanish in the public schools.)
02-08-07, 02:40 PM Kendor Ok NNN, you win. I bow to your superior reasoning.
:fingerdownthroatsmiley:
02-08-07, 11:07 PM newnickname Although that idea of laws inside people's heads is interesting. If we want real change, that's where it has to happen - that's how women claimed the rights that they have ( so far ). It took an attitudinal change at least as much as it did any laws.
Since when was anyone's mind changed by being hectored and insulted? Are smug lists of what foriegners mustn't try on in our village going to effect real improvements in anyone's rights anywhere? It's a cheap gesture. The people of Herouxville would seem to be more interested in a xenophobic show of redneck solidarity than in actually spreading principles of enlightened democracy for real.
02-09-07, 02:20 AM babthrower NNN says:"The people of Herouxville would seem to be more interested in a xenophobic show of redneck solidarity than in actually spreading principles of enlightened democracy for real."
Gimmee a break, NNN. You interpret their motives as you choose. You completely reject the notion that maybe, just maybe, the people of Herouxville were motivated by disgust with an alien system of "justice" that condemned the oppressed and blamed them for the violence from which they suffered. If so, they were not alone. Many people are disgusted by such a standard.
Maybe -- just maybe -- as Quebecois -- they can relate to such unjust blame.
02-09-07, 07:22 AM DorianGreyed If some people from New Guinea moved there, would they warn them not to practice cannibalism?* Hey, you never know. Like Barney Fife used to say, "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!"
*I read an old Smithsonian magazine at the laundramat the other day; cannibalism is still practiced in at least one area there.
02-09-07, 08:57 AM babthrower I don't know, DG, you'd have to ask them. I suppose if it were well publicized that cannibalism is regularly practiced and taught as a social and religious norm in New Guinea today, they just might.
02-09-07, 09:31 AM newnickname But they weren't talking about a "system of justice", BabT. They don't seem to have done anything to improve, or protest, the circumstances of anyone living under such a system. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe they're all active supporters of reform and feminist movements in Islam, or something. But it seems that they just posted a (redundant and smug) list of what immigrants can't do and had better expect in their village.
02-09-07, 12:53 PM babthrower I don't have a lot more to say on this topic.
A (much younger) cousin of mine married a Muslim Turk in Canada, and they moved to his home town, Istanbul. She has been back to Canada several times. She is obviously very happy there, both in her marriage with its large, warm extended family, and as a citizen. She is still nominally a Christian, actually an agnostic. She is a tall, strapping, confident, vivacious woman.
But if a job offer had come up requiring her husband to move to, say, Siirt, where honor killings are the norm, she would probably have been grateful if, when she googled that name, the message came up:
"The town council of Siirt wants any uppity women who are thinking of coming here that if your manner offends us, we will pressure your husband to snuff you. And if he won't, we will. We don't want your kind here, corrupting our women and our youth."
Is it offensive? Sure. But it's fair warning.
It's fair that potential immigrants know that Canada is not quite what the immigration offices say it is. They say it is not a 'melting pot', like the U.S.
They say it is a 'cultural mosaic' in which different races and creeds live harmoniously side by side while each group follows its ethnic traditions.
02-09-07, 02:08 PM aminator2002 It occurs to me that when Holland made prospective immigrants watch a video showing gay couples and women topless that we all agreed with babthrower that it is fair warning.
I'm not against the fair warning part. I read the article and the manner which the advisories were written came across as barbed and intended to meet a very specific audience. I don't have any problem with the actual message but it certainly doesn't seem that they were just broadcasting what they were about... they were actively saying "Muslims need not apply."
And as to cannibalism and honor killings - those things are covered by broader laws and need not be pointed out. Killing anyone is illegal and there are laws stating the proper manner to dispose of human remains.
I would like to put a sign up in our immigration office here that says "In the US, there are penalties for littering. Your greencard will be immediately revoked if you are seen throwing garbage out of your car." The difference is that I don't think they've had any honor killings in their town and here we have an out of control litter problem and you can very easily see who is doing it.
By all means, laws should be advertised upon arrival, but if there is a law saying that no one can kill another person does it merit saying "And that means husbands can't kill their wives, sisters or daughters." I don't think we've had much problem in that department.
02-12-07, 06:51 PM FredPuli Nice quote in the link : " I didn't leave my children with my husband for nothing" Smile That's obviously a sensible woman who thinks leaving the kids with the man is potentially risky (and who's to blame her ? Big Grin)
Wonder what 'traditional Islamic headscarves ' are. Very few Muslim women in Britain wear anything other than a hijab, a 'scarf' that frames the face. The only ones who wear a niqab, which covers the face and leaves just the eyes visible, seem to be rebellious teenagers who are 'making a statement', as youngsters will. Their own mothers and other older relations wear the hijab, if they bother with such a scarf at all.
02-25-07, 09:36 AM juanruiz For those interested, this will be the topic on CBC's "Cross Country Checkup" today. You can listen on line if you like.
02-25-07, 10:06 AM babthrower For the life of me I can't understand the purpose of the Muslim women's visit to Herouxville. To demonstrate that Muslim women in Canada can travel freely? But we know that. That's the point. Canada is an egalitarian nation - pretty well, anyhow.
Did Herouxville announce that it doesn't want Muslim women as immigrants? If that had happened, the Muslim women might have wanted to show that they are just nice folks, like anyone else. But no, Herouxville said nothing derogatory about Muslims.
Fundamentalist Muslim nations tolerate outdated tribal laws because they are consistent with those that were practiced in Old Testament times - and very possibly in the 7th century in the Arabian peninsula, too, when Mohammed invented and spread Islam. But Muslim thought is as varied as Christian or Jewish thought, and so many Muslims, Christians and Jews are quite comfortable with an egalitarian state - in fact they wouldn't have it any other way.
Maybe they just wanted a few days away from the kids.
02-25-07, 10:36 AM babthrower Thanks for the alert, JR. I see that the question on CCC is "How far should a multicultural society go to accommodate the needs of minority groups?"
That's the real issue.
Let's say a fundamentalist Christian sect, the followers of the latest of the “very last of the last of the line of divine prophets", let’s call him Desperus, who claims to have direct conversations with Jehovah, has hidden itself away in the mountains of B.C., for example, and then quietly began adopting children of African and native North American descent.
Then it came to light that these kids were being educated only till they could read and write and do basic arithmetic, while their lighter-skinned children received a high school education; that they were threatened with hellfire if they did not conform to the church's teaching; that they were threatened that if the left the community, they would be deprived of all property rights, and would never be allowed back to visit friends and family. After they finish school, they are to spend their lives as unpaid domestic servants or field workers.
Further, they are taught that as the 'sons of Ham' (fundamentalist Christian view) or as the ‘decendants of the Lamanites' (Fundamentalist Mormon view) they were destined to be slaves. That was god’s curse upon them for the ancestral wickedness.
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon [the Lamanites], yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21; Book of Mormon.).
Should their slavery be tolerated within Canada’s laws and constitution in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ or religious tolerance?
02-25-07, 02:42 PM juanruiz Canada's an interesting place. On the one hand they leave a polygamous Mormon enclave alone to do what it wants. On the other, a guy from Ohio spanks his kid's butt in the parking lot of an Ontario mall and has to appear in court. You tell me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6369 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
AnswerPool.com 
