sharia
This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia. This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario.
I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this.
This is an interesting issue, since it brings into conflict two important principles: religious freedom vs. equal rights for women. For me the conflict is resolved with another basic tenet. In a pluralistic society, no subculture's customs can take precedent over the principles of the larger society, when it comes to individual rights.
Some years back, a judge in New York City acquitted an immigrant for attacking (and nearly killing) his wife with a hammer, because - said the judge - harsh discipline of women was acceptable in the man's original culture. Excuse me??? (There was a huge outcry, of course.)
All sorts of repugnant behavior has been excused by "cultural standards", the most egregious being slavery, and then Jim Crow, which white Southerners called "our way of life". So for me, it comes down to this: each of us is free to practice our religion, but if that religion makes someone else a second-class citizen, it should be curbed.
This is the principle invoked when parents of US Christian Scientists are forced to have their children treated by conventional medical doctors. Some see this as an unconstitutional curb on religious freedom. I see it as a defense of that child's individual rights. Practice your own religion as you see fit, but don't threaten someone else's well-being.
Religious courts are often used to curtail the rights of women. The rights of a girl born into a Canadian Muslim family have to be the same as the rights of one born into any other Canadian family.
One argument in favor of religious courts is that, under Canadian law, participation in sharia must be voluntary. This seems disingenuous. Voluntary for whom? If a woman is accused of some trespass against fundamentalist mores, is she given the right to not be judged by those standards?
Then there's the issue of the religious courts used by Orthodox Jews. If sharia is banned, those courts must also be illegal. And of course there's the fact that religious courts will still be used, whether or not they have legal binding status. That may be so, but it's not an argument to allow them.
I see this as a victory for basic equality. Your thoughts?
I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this.
In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province.Since I started wmtc, whenever US wingnuts want to bad-mouth my decision to move to Canada, they bring up sharia. Of course, these are the same people who claim I will be forced to speak French, and subject to arrest - via Gestapo-like middle-of-the-night raids - if I disparage the Queen. So it's not like I put much stock in what the Big Soccer crew has to say. But it's clear that Fox News has been feeding them lies about the compulsory use of sharia courts in Canada.
McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration.
"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency.
"There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."
The announcement prompted tears of joy and cartwheels among opponents of sharia who say they suffered constant harassment, including verbal taunts, physical attacks and even death threats by fundamentalist Muslims because of their stance.
"I'm just thrilled! It validates what we've been saying. It's a big victory for separation of religion and state and a huge defeat for Islamic fundamentalism," said Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, adding the group feared McGuinty would allow sharia after receiving a report recommending it by former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd.
"I want to congratulate the premier for taking such a bold and courageous decision. It restores my faith in politicians," said Fatah.
Boyd could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Proponents of sharia expressed shock and disappointment at what they call McGuinty's "flip-flop" on the issue, and the fact that he went against the recommendations of Boyd's report.
"He is misguided and will alienate many people of faith in this province," said Mohammed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
"He obviously caved in to political pressure from a minority with a loud voice. Not only will it cost him at the polls in the next election, the problem won't go away ... Arbitration will continue anyway, because it is part of our social fabric."
"If McGuinty is worried about women abuse," Elmasry said, "then recognizing and regulating arbitration is much better than the ad hoc procedure that is currently happening because, when you regulate it, there is transparency and accountability."
A representative from Ontario's Jewish community also expressed surprise at McGuinty's decision.
"We're stunned," said Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
"At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we've had for so many years."
Richler said the current system -- in place since 1992 -- has worked well and he saw no reason for it to be changed for either his or other religious communities.
. . .
"We're still in disbelief. But it's such good news. It's remarkable. We're very happy because it's been a difficult fight. We got a lot of flak from other Muslims who called us Islamaphobic," said Nuzhat Jafri, a spokeswoman for the group.
"It was way too complicated for the government to allow faith-based arbitration. Most faiths, whether we like it or not, are not fair to women because they are based on a patriarchal tradition."
Banning all religious arbitration is an "equitable move," Jafri added. "To single out Muslims would have been discriminatory."
Just hours before McGuinty's announcement, writer June Callwood, actress Shirley Douglas and other prominent Canadian women had, as a group, issued an open letter to him on behalf of the No Religious Arbitration Coalition.
Elated, Callwood and Douglas were full of praise for McGuinty.
"Wow, that's brilliant!" said Callwood. "So many women and a lot of men, too, felt this (sharia) was going to be a disaster. To do it in one big stroke is wonderful. It provides consistency."
McGuinty's decision "will be cheered around the world," said Callwood. Douglas was equally effusive. "It's terrific. Dalton McGuinty has made a move he will be proud of for a long time."
Expanding legal use of sharia would have been a "huge step backward for women ... being dictated to by men and elders of the (faith) ... this is a recipe for deep trouble for women in those communities ... why terrorize people with that kind of insecurity? I'm very pleased he's discontinuing the others as well. Religion has no place in law."
Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia law is already legal in the province so long as both parties agree to its use and the arbitrators' decisions do not violate Canadian law. Aboriginal, Christian and Jewish tribunals have operating similarly under the act for the past 14 years.
This is an interesting issue, since it brings into conflict two important principles: religious freedom vs. equal rights for women. For me the conflict is resolved with another basic tenet. In a pluralistic society, no subculture's customs can take precedent over the principles of the larger society, when it comes to individual rights.
Some years back, a judge in New York City acquitted an immigrant for attacking (and nearly killing) his wife with a hammer, because - said the judge - harsh discipline of women was acceptable in the man's original culture. Excuse me??? (There was a huge outcry, of course.)
All sorts of repugnant behavior has been excused by "cultural standards", the most egregious being slavery, and then Jim Crow, which white Southerners called "our way of life". So for me, it comes down to this: each of us is free to practice our religion, but if that religion makes someone else a second-class citizen, it should be curbed.
This is the principle invoked when parents of US Christian Scientists are forced to have their children treated by conventional medical doctors. Some see this as an unconstitutional curb on religious freedom. I see it as a defense of that child's individual rights. Practice your own religion as you see fit, but don't threaten someone else's well-being.
Religious courts are often used to curtail the rights of women. The rights of a girl born into a Canadian Muslim family have to be the same as the rights of one born into any other Canadian family.
One argument in favor of religious courts is that, under Canadian law, participation in sharia must be voluntary. This seems disingenuous. Voluntary for whom? If a woman is accused of some trespass against fundamentalist mores, is she given the right to not be judged by those standards?
Then there's the issue of the religious courts used by Orthodox Jews. If sharia is banned, those courts must also be illegal. And of course there's the fact that religious courts will still be used, whether or not they have legal binding status. That may be so, but it's not an argument to allow them.
I see this as a victory for basic equality. Your thoughts?
I thought it was a good decision. If you move to Canada you should obey all their laws not just the ones that you like. They would expect no different if we moved to a Muslim based country. KW
ReplyDeleteSome see this as an unconstitutional curb on religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteEver notice how the things that generate the big "religious freedom" outcry are the ones concerning how certain people of that religion treat other people? Namely, how the men get to treat the women, children, etc? And, back in the day, their slaves, of course.
Who was it who said, "Your right to throw a punch ends just short of my nose"?
I wasn't sure what to think about this when I heard about the decision. My feelings went both ways. There's that kneejerk fear of Muslim ways that's kind of ingrained, but overcoming that was the idea of being fair and respectful of the traditions of others. That was re-enforced when I heard that Ontario's been accommodating Catholic and Jewish arbitration for a while now.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the Premier has decided not to give force to sharia, it's only just that Catholic and Jewish arbitration neither should have the force of law in Ontario.
But still, I was a little murky on the decision till I read what you had to say. You make a lot of good points, and so while I salute the effort the province was making at inclusivity, I agree it was misguided and likely to be troublesome and cause real hardship for some people, women in particular. And the Premier's pledge that "there will be one law for all Ontarians" strikes a chord with me.
Something I've always been wary of is separate education. What you do on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or whatever day, and what you teach your children is your own business. But I believe there are some fundamental things we all share as a society and a polity. For children to grow up thinking of their fellow citizens as essentially foreign, with no gut-level day-to-day experience of them, is poisonous to any society like ours, founded from the start on a multiplicity of origins. We need to learn and grow together in order for our society to work. And, again, since I've always believed that, then this decision on sharia is in accord with my feelings about the nature of our society. We're not a momentary collection of permanently different communities lumped together for expediency's sake like the Roman Empire. We're a new society, a synthesis of what was before. Fundamentally, we need to converge on commonalities. It's those things we hold in common that will support the differences we cherish.
I'll start a debate and say it should have been allowed, and it was the wrong decision.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of this stuff was to settle stuff out of court with binding arbitration. You should have the right to choose who you want to settle your disputes.
What people seemed to ignore in all the parnoia about Sharia law is that these out-of-court things are not above the law, so if anything in Sharia contradicts Canadian law, Canadian law would take precedence. There always was, and still would have been one law for all Canadians. Canadian law guarantees equal rights for women, so this would take precedence over Sharia where it takes two women to equal a man. I know there's debate that women could be tricked and denied their rights, but I feel that is more likely to happen in the closed door, non-legal way it is happening (and will continue to happen) now, then if it had been allowed and out in the open.
Still, at least McGuinty decided to make the ban universal. I was afraid he'd make it apply just to Muslims.
Good decision in my opinion. I am a firm believer that religious beliefs have no place in a pluristic societies laws. James, I believe the quotation you are looking for is "My rights end at the bridge of your nose." I don't know who said it and I can't seem to find it in google either.
ReplyDeleteThe chance of someone getting swept up into such a system is just too great to allow it. Besides in a free and equal society everyone should have the same rulebook. Otherwise you never know what the rules and consequences are.
Peter
I agree with Kyle on this and for the same reasons he does. It's refreshing not being the lone standout for a change.
ReplyDeleteJames, I believe the quotation you are looking for is "My rights end at the bridge of your nose." I don't know who said it and I can't seem to find it in google either.
ReplyDeleteIt's paraphrased all over the place, and I've seen it alternately attributed to Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and just about every other Founding Father in the US. Probably it finds it true orgins with Oliver Wendell Holmes, American jurist. The exact quote (and degrees of clumsiness with which it's expressed) varies, but I think it's most pithily framed "My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of the other man's nose."
The more I think about it, the more I can admit I'm relieved we've managed to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Peter is right in my view. It's important there be fundamental standards which apply to all of us.
ReplyDeleteKyle has a point about the ultimate universality of civil law. But I think it ignores the way tradition tends to insinuate a privilege as a right, given enough time. How long would it be before the ability to appeal to religious norms in family law would become an easement that people would see as a "right" that courts would be reluctant to interfere with? And where would it end? Catholicism, Judaism, Islam... what next? How long would it be before fundamentalist Protestants would demand their due, and rightly so? Finally, what would be left of the civil law which supposedly trumps them all? It would be a hollowed-out shell despised by all and seen as an interloper, state interference. We would instead, over time, have replaced it with myriad and contradictory systems. And whose tradition would follow in the case of marriages between people of different faiths? I think we may have dodged a bullet by taking a little heat now.
I think we may have dodged a bullet by taking a little heat now.
ReplyDeleteBut you see, we shouldn't have dodged it. This is one of those tough issues, and we've decided to ignore it instead of handle it.
Notice that we talk endlessly about a pluralistic, multi-cultural society and yet this debate was ended by essentially saying "this has no place in our culture, you must conform".
The real key to a true multi-cultural society is to figure out how to handle cultural clashes, and not simply reduce ethnicity to "look, we have an Ethiopian restuarant". This is deeply intertwined into the religion debate. I feel we've decided to "solve" that debate by burying it, and essentially reducing religion in the same way we've reduced culture to cuisine.
We haven't quite figured out exactly where my nose ends and your fist begins, so to speak.
One of the issues I have with the Left is that they claim to love freedom, yet freedom of religion always seems to take a back seat to everything else. Being completely non-religious, you would think I would applaud this, but I don't. Even from a purely selfish perspective, I don't wish to limit any religious practice which does not contravene Canadian law. Remember, the Christian Right in the US seeks to impose its own brand of limitation on religious expression and we certainly don't appreciate that. Should imposed secularism be held to a different standard?
ReplyDeleteWhat people seemed to ignore in all the parnoia about Sharia law is that these out-of-court things are not above the law, so if anything in Sharia contradicts Canadian law, Canadian law would take precedence.
ReplyDeleteWhile this is true, there is a serious problem in that the types religious arbitration that are contrary to Canadian law are generally fairly repressive -- and those affected by them are not often in a position to "go over the heads" of those who decided against them. Unless all arbitration decisions are actually going to be reviewed for consistency with Canadian law, Canadian law will be helpless in protecting people from the more repressive decisions.
It's paraphrased all over the place, and I've seen it alternately attributed to Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and just about every other Founding Father in the US.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound like something any of them would have said. I would have guessed Clarence Darrow, but Holmes makes sense, too.
When I first heard about the debate over sharia, I agreed with the viewpoint Kyle expresses. But the more I read and thought about it, I went towards what Peter expresses: "...that religious beliefs have no place in a pluristic societies laws." Freedom of religion can only go as far as it doesn't impinge on anyone's civil rights.
I don't feel banning sharia sidesteps the issue. How so?
As far as imposing secularism, if we're talking about legal issues, that might be a sine qua non of making a pluralistic society work. The individual is not forced to lead a secular life, but in matters of law, there should only be one court and one standard. That's part of what makes a society more than a collection of people living in proximity to each other.
and those affected by them are not often in a position to "go over the heads" of those who decided against them.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the "it's voluntary" argument is disingenuous. Women in fundamentalist societies have the status of children. That power imbalance is the very reason religious courts shouldn't be allowed.
That's part of what makes a society more than a collection of people living in proximity to each other.
ReplyDeleteOne could make the argument that is precisely what Canadian multiculturalism is intended to achieve.
That's why the "it's voluntary" argument is disingenuous. Women in fundamentalist societies have the status of children. That power imbalance is the very reason religious courts shouldn't be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI believe the gist of Kyle's argument is that domination of women in Islamic communities already takes place behind closed doors with no recourse to the courts at all. At least with religious courts, there would be some external oversight.
Wow, good discussion on this topic... I just wanted to add to what I said earlier by quoting one of my favorite documents:
ReplyDelete"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15.1)
This is our code, it is the law of the land and cannot be overruled. Sharia law in particular does not hold this to be true (quite the opposite in fact) and therefore goes against one of the core beliefs that is now enshrined in our constitution.
I am all for religious freedoms, you can have all the freedom you want, as long as you stay within the law of the land. And the foremost tennant in Canadian law is that everyone has the same rights and freedoms. Personal freedom trumps a desire for religious beliefs to be used to control people.
I think we would be giving up more of what it means to be Canadian if we allowed sharia and other "Religous" rule sets to continue.
Peter
One could make the argument that is precisely what Canadian multiculturalism is intended to achieve.
ReplyDeleteWe-ell... one could make the argument, but that doesn't mean the argument would be valid or make sense. It sure doesn't seem like that from the point of view of a recent immigrant.
I believe the gist of Kyle's argument is that domination of women in Islamic communities already takes place behind closed doors with no recourse to the courts at all. At least with religious courts, there would be some external oversight.
That's the best argument for allowing it. I do find that compelling.
I like what Anonymous Peter says, above. Including that this is a good discussion.
The cool thing about this discussion is that everyone here is concerned with what's best for people and what's best for society. We have slightly (ok, sometimes more than slightly) different ideas on how to achieve those goals, but everyone is coming from an accepting and open point of view.
ReplyDeleteEveryone here takes as a given that women should be full members of society, that everyone should be free to practice their own religion, etc.
I wouldn't venture into this discussion in the US unless I knew everyone was progressive, or unless I was prepared for a big fight. These days freedom is much more a Canadian value than an American one.
It sure doesn't seem like that from the point of view of a recent immigrant.
ReplyDeletePerhaps not, but you are hardly typical. English-speaking and secular, you are not exactly the template of what official multiculturalism represents. The whole point is to live in Canada while maintaining as many of the cultural norms of the "old country" as humanly possible. Of course, the chickens are now coming home to roost. First it was same-sex marriage, which many ethnic communities opposed quite vigourously and now this ruling on Sharia. The Ontario gov't has opened up Pandora's Box on this one because in order to deny Muslims, they also had to take away religious courts from Jews and Christians in the process. I suspect as unassimilated ethnic communities continue to grow, they will start flexing more political power and we will see such challenges to our secular society.
Everyone here takes as a given that women should be full members of society, that everyone should be free to practice their own religion, etc.
ReplyDeleteEquality is the fundamental basis of democracy, but equality doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. A true conservative believes in equality of opportunity. A socialist believes in equality of result.
true conservative believes in equality of opportunity
ReplyDeleteActually, I'd define that as "social libertarian", not conservative.
Socialism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Egalitarianism, etc. are all defined doctrines, but "conservative" and "liberal" are rather fluid terms. I mean, an old communist party member is Russia can be called a "conservative", and a free-market entrepreneur can be called "liberal".
Totally off topic, I know....
A true conservative believes in equality of opportunity. A socialist believes in equality of result.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, that's what L-Girl was referring to when she said that we disagreed on the methods of improving society.
However, it seems that in today's America there's no longer a debate on how to improve society, its just "I win, you lose, ha-ha".
You're quite right, Kyle. Conservative and Liberal don't even mean exactly the same things on either side of the 49th parallel. I would describe my brand of conservatism as socially-libertarian, fiscally-conservative, but even then, there'd be qualifiers like "moderate" thrown in somewhere. That's what happens when you decide each issue based on its own merits, instead of accepting a bill of goods.
ReplyDeleteL-girl,what a great post and interesting debate.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a lot to add except to say that I too support the decision. At the same time, I feel a bit of a twinge because I like to be open to allowing people to fully follow their beliefs.
However, in the case of the subjugation of women, it is just too easy and too real in so many societies today. Many of these same societies thrive within our own country so their women are not as safe as we think.
That being said, I am eternally grateful to be a woman living in Canada. In a very large area of this planet, my life would be poverty and drudgery at best, enslavement and endless defilement at worst.
What an lively group of readers/posters you have here. I like coming to visit!
Laura
It sure doesn't seem like that from the point of view of a recent immigrant.
ReplyDeletePerhaps not, but you are hardly typical. English-speaking and secular, you are not exactly the template of what official multiculturalism represents.
That isn't what I meant. I meant, from my perspective, as an outsider examining the multiculture Canada, it doesn't look like everyone is living in separate communities with separate standards and not being part of a larger community called Canada.
I think your "chickens home to roost" argument is backwards. Same-sex marriage passed despite the objections of certain minorities, because it represents Canadian values. That's the way it looks to me, anyway.
Equality is the fundamental basis of democracy, but equality doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. A true conservative believes in equality of opportunity. A socialist believes in equality of result.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're in a bad mood from getting in too many arguments here? No one's talking about opportunity vs result (and by the way, socialists do not believe in that). We're talking about equality of rights, privilege and responsibility. A different use of the word equality.
Thank you, Kyahgirl! This is a great group of people who've stuck around on wmtc. Everyone has interesting things to add to the mix.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiments about this law. I am so down on the US, but I am eternally, forever, unbelievably grateful that I was born there. As a woman and as a Jew, I know how lucky I am. If I was brown, perhaps I'd feel otherwise, I don't know.
Notice that we talk endlessly about a pluralistic, multi-cultural society and yet this debate was ended by essentially saying "this has no place in our culture, you must conform".
ReplyDeleteWhat, are we now expected to apologize for having a culture and legal tradition and utterly dispense with them whenever someone steps off the plane? I certainly hope not. I think this country has been markedly accommodating to different ways of life. People choose to come here and live here (right, Laura?)... there has to be some give and take. If our culture is really so egregious that a person can't imagine life here, it's probably not for them. If not, adapt a little. Meet us half way.
LP, I agree completely. There is no society without some measure of shared values and commonly accepted norms. One cannot only take the privileges of a society without taking some responsibility as well. That responsibility may require some change, and that change may be thought of as conformity.
ReplyDeleteIf that is too onerous, perhaps the individual and the country are a bad fit.
This is, of course, the argument many right-wingers make in the US, only there it usually takes an extreme form: "love it or leave it". The Canadian prescription allows for much greater flexibility and individuality, but still, something is required. Why shouldn't there be? Either The Charter has meaning or it doesn't.
I don't feel banning sharia sidesteps the issue. How so?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Laura's got a point. No one has said people can't take their family problems to their religious structures for arbitration. They simply will not have the force of law in Ontario. If two Catholics go to a priest and head off a divorce, Ontario's just fine with that. But canon law would not bind the civil courts in this province as a result. And really, it shouldn't.
A true conservative believes in equality of opportunity. A socialist believes in equality of result.
ReplyDeleteOh, the rich always believe in "equality of opportunity", because it doesn't cost them a dime. If the guy running the hot dog cart starves, it's his own fault for not having enough hustle, like their great-great-grandfather who got rich selling moonshine did... ahem.
Others believe in equality of condition, not result. And in this, it's a bare minimum. These are the necessities of human life and dignity: we'll see to it that everyone has them. All the opportunity in the world doesn't help anyone who's frozen to death in an alley.
If two Catholics go to a priest and head off a divorce, Ontario's just fine with that. But canon law would not bind the civil courts in this province as a result.
ReplyDeleteExcellent example.
I was thinking of my own parents' divorce, an extremely bitter, angry proceeding. My father tried to get around various court decrees by claiming that my mother was still legally married to him, until there was an annulment from a rabbi, called a get. (No matter that my family was not Orthodox and never consulted a rabbi for anything. This was just a nasty trick.)
If religious arbitration was legal and binding in the secular society, my mother would have been left penniless, without her share of the sale of the family home, half the assets, etc. In fact, she would not have been allowed to initiate the divorce, and would have been legally trapped in her bad marriage.
Now, the Orthodox Jews of New York State weren't petitioning the state to make their own laws legal and binding. But what if they had been?
I understand the argument that no religious law could supercede Canadian law, but there can be a lot of grey area. Who would be there to protect my mother, in that example?
I understand Islamophobia, but I also understand abuse and repression.
If the guy running the hot dog cart starves, it's his own fault for not having enough hustle, like their great-great-grandfather who got rich selling moonshine did... ahem.
ReplyDelete...and here I feel I must clarify: notwithstanding a certain very wealthy and very liberal New England family of some renown... heh. ;)
My main concern is that since Dalton McGuinty did it, he's unlikely to have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Nothing like a hasty decision to muddy all the waters concerned. The flip-flop comment is kind of telling, too: from this great distance, the man does seem to be a bit of a knee-jerker...
ReplyDeleteto quote Spitting Image:
Interviewer: And what would you say, Mr. Kinnock, to charges of blatant electioneering?
Kinnock: VOTE FOR MEEEE!
I loved that show in the 80s. :) Whatever happened to Neil Kinnock? "You can't imagine saying 'Labour government' or 'Labour prime minister'..."
ReplyDeleteSame-sex marriage passed despite the objections of certain minorities, because it represents Canadian values.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true. But if the Canadian voting public at large held the same views as those of first-generation immigrants, the same-sex marriage bill very likely would not have passed. Polls indicated something like 65% of new immigrants oppose same-sex marriage, obviously because the world's major religions oppose it.
We're talking about equality of rights, privilege and responsibility. A different use of the word equality.
Fair enough. I went off on a tangent there.
Oh, the rich always believe in "equality of opportunity", because it doesn't cost them a dime.
ReplyDeleteCould be, I've never been rich, so I don't know.
Fair enough. I went off on a tangent there.
ReplyDeleteRob, how will we get into knock-down fights if you insist on being so reasonable? ;-)
Oddly enough, I feel I've been a bit too contrary on your blog lately. I should be more polite.
ReplyDeleteLone Primate brings it out in me.:)
Lp, seriously guy, you rock. I disagree with almost everything you say, but you force me to bring my A-game and I respect that.
Oddly enough, I feel I've been a bit too contrary on your blog lately. I should be more polite.
ReplyDeleteYou are very nice (very Canadian) to say so, but you haven't been impolite in any way, you never are. I sensed you were feeling contrary, that's what I meant by being in a bad mood from too much arguing.
If I were hanging around a conservative blog, that would happen to me in about 30 seconds.
Good post.
ReplyDeleteIf a religion you practice is in conflict with the very basic norms of society, you should vote with your feet and leave. That is what the Pilgrims did and there is no reason why people can't do the same today if they are that committed to their belief. The North Pole still has a lot of room :)
I've never been rich
ReplyDeleteFreezing Guy in the alley might have a different perspective on that. So might much of the human race, in fact... freezing, roasting, or otherwise.
Lp, seriously guy, you rock. I disagree with almost everything you say, but you force me to bring my A-game and I respect that.
ReplyDeleteWell, not to start patting each other on the fanny or anything, but I'm glad the level of discourse here is as high as it is (particularly since you are, as you pointed out, usually the odd man out). I don't mean to cast blanket aspersions on the people in the US, but so many of the online debates I've seen in the US quickly leave the material issues behind and get into name-calling and who's-the-biggest-patriot games. Meanwhile, no ideas are tested, no preconceptions re-examined, no new insights arrived at. Debates like ours should be like self-sharpening scissors that get keener with every pass while they work together in opposition to accomplish their mutual task.
The form that would have been introduced here would have been unique in the Muslim world.
ReplyDeleteHow so?
instead we listened to fearmongering about creating a mini Saudi Arabia here.
It's not necessary to reduce concerns about women's equality to this caricature. The abuses against women in all fundamentalist religions are very real. The treatment of women under sharia in many parts of the world is horrendous.
I understand that there was fearmongering, but in my reading about it, this is not what I saw. I saw legitimate concerns about basic human rights.
Sharia law isn't something codified, it's something interpreted. There is no consistent "correct" Sharia law, and it has varied dramatically in history and by geography.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Muslims don't believe its even possible to achieve a correct Sharia law, as its simply a human approximation of God's laws.
Women are generally treated harshly in most current forms of Sharia, but that's because of the way current Muslim scholars have chosen to interpret it. This is like any other religion that has been used to repress women (and other groups). You make up your mind and then search for justification in religious material, instead of reading the body of religious material and then make up your mind.
I think it was more than possible to adapt Sharia law into a form that would have been acceptable to Canadian society. To the truly religious, its more than where you spend your Sundays, its how you live your life. I really think we squandered an opportunity to give religious Muslims a way to integrate more into society without feeling they have to give up their beliefs.
Instead, 30-40 years from now well have a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims joining with fundamentalists Christians and others who feel society is waging war on their way of life.
Sharia law isn't something codified, it's something interpreted. There is no consistent "correct" Sharia law, and it has varied dramatically in history and by geography.
ReplyDeleteSo what can of worms does this open up when a decision is appealed to the civil courts, where suddenly (likely) non-Muslim judges will be asked to second-guess the Word of God? Given that it's most often going to be cultural Christians and Jews (at least for the foreseeable future) making these decisions, I think this system was opening the door for the possibility of huge resentment, and real pressure on those against whom judgements were made not to appeal to the civil courts. There probably already is such pressure, but at least it's not justified by the initial judgement having the force of law in the English Common Law system worldwide. Precident is precident and people elsewhere would have been able to point to us in their own deliberations in English-speaking countries around the world with the same legal system.
To the truly religious, its more than where you spend your Sundays, its how you live your life.
ReplyDeleteSo whose "way" do we follow at the official level? We can't possibly follow them all. There has to be a point where people, no matter how religious, render unto Caesar... or we don't have a country. Everyone wants to be progressive and it's rough to say "no", I know. But there has to be a common basis, and for now, we've decided that this is it.
30-40 years from now well have a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims joining with fundamentalists Christians and others who feel society is waging war on their way of life
If we get to point that fundamentalists unite to dismantle the state, we've lost everything. Once they've finished waging war on the state, they're going to wage war on each other; there won't be any such thing as Canada at that point. That's why a society like ours has to have a division between the spiritual and the secular.
Exactly how are we "overconfident"? We set out after the Bi & Bi Commission to establish a society where people would feel basically comfortable and want to migrate to, while at the same time reconciling older strains of Canadian ethnicity to the newcomers. I think we've handled that quite nicely.
ReplyDeleteYou answered your own question. Everything is perfect and peachy, so what's left to fix?
This is far bigger than Sharia law. This is determining the placement of religion in society. Have you seen what's happening south of the border? Do you see the resentment already building in rural, conservative Christian Canada? What we, secular people don't realize is how important religion is to many people. Most of us don't understand how it intertwines with every activity in a religious person's life. This obliviousness by American secularists is what has contributed greatly to the rise of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., and the destruction of seperation of church and state. Don't think it can't happen here, it can and it will.
This is what is incomplete in our multicultural society, and its the most difficult to solve. I don't know how to allow the seemingly impossible pluaralistic, multi-faith society. But if we ignore it, and believe the status quo is good enough, then the way America is headed may be our future as well.
In otherwords, I'm willing to put windows in the wall between church and state if it will prevent the wall from collapsing later. I know it sounds dangerous, but I really feel that it prevents far greater dangers down the road.
ReplyDeleteYou answered your own question. Everything is perfect and peachy, so what's left to fix?
ReplyDeleteWell, actually, no; you've merely restated the question without answering it. My confidence in the system is hardly constitutes evidence that it isn't working.
Most of us don't understand how it intertwines with every activity in a religious person's life. This obliviousness by American secularists is what has contributed greatly to the rise of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., and the destruction of seperation of church and state.
I feel that quite the opposite is the case, in fact; it's blurring the distinctions between the religious and the secular that encourages the extremists to twist the knife a little further. There's a reason that Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate and demands for the teaching of "Intelligent Design" go on the US and not so much in places like Canada and the UK; the more rigid separation between church and state to be found here. Laura may take issue with what I'm about to say, but I think it's a not uncommon sentiment outside the US, and that is: the US talks a good game on the separation of church and state, but large sections of it pay it only lip service. It doesn't matter much if there are no official barriers to being a Jew or holding office as a Muslim if most of the laws you have to live your life by are enacted by devout Christians who see no reason not to inject Christian tenets into the rules by which everyone is suppose to live his or her life. While there's less of this in the north, it's very evident in the south, and increasingly so in Washington. So I have to say that blurring that line and admitting 'just a little' religion into the secular sphere is truly crystalizing with me as a bad idea. Let people live how they wish to live; certainly. But if they're unhappy not living under their theocracy of choice, one must be quick to remind them that so are people of many other faiths... would they be happier of one of theirs should trump instead? This is why the West has secularized in the past two or three centuries. This is why there's no need for modern Gunpowder Plots.
Now obviously, it can be argued either way: opening the door to religion in secular life is bad because it encourages fundamentalists to try for more; or keeping the door shut is bad because people feel frustrated that their beliefs are not being used to guide their lives by officialdom. But I think the evidence what goes on in the US and what doesn't go on here and in most of the rest of the West has to be evidence that we're on the right track here.
We don't have ghettoes or pockets of ethnic exclusivity
ReplyDeleteWe don't? I can't speak for TO, but if you take a walk through Chinatown in Calgary or Montreal, you won't see many "round eyes". In my experience, pockets of ethnic exclusivity are rather commonplace in major Canadian cities.
Now obviously, it can be argued either way:
ReplyDeleteObviously. I think we've reached the limit of this debate here. Neither of us is going to budge, so I guess its up to you, dear reader, to decide what's best.
I can't speak for TO, but if you take a walk through Chinatown in Calgary or Montreal, you won't see many "round eyes".
ReplyDeleteIt's rather disingenuous of you to associate places where immigrants naturally gather for mutual support in an alien society with a place from which cultural or economic realities will not permit them to emerge; and clearly, they do. For myself, I'd say the fact that there are enough 'others' in the country nowadays to be perceived as a presence, even in Calgary, is in fact some testament to the inclusiveness and success of our policies. These aren't wretched refugees living in tents behind barbed wire and waiting for some glorious future when they can go home, and when we'll be rid of them. They're Canadians.
In my experience, pockets of ethnic exclusivity are rather commonplace in major Canadian cities.
You need to look up the word "exclusivity" and contrast it with the definition for "preponderance". You're supposedly a scientist. You should know the difference between an exclusive sample and a preponderant one. I know a number of preponderant neighbourhoods in the GTA... Malton, Markham, Woodbridge, Bathurst/Thornhill, Agincourt... Leaside is preponderantly WASP, though few people would characterize anyplace full of such people as an "ethnic" neighbourhood -- though, of course, it is. But to my knowledge, there are no communities in Canada outside treaty reservations where there real ethnic bounds to who may or may not live there as they please, and that's the point. We're living together without much trouble; at least, nothing like the trouble a lot of these people saw in the countries they left to come here. No?
It's rather disingenuous of you to associate places where immigrants naturally gather for mutual support in an alien society with a place from which cultural or economic realities will not permit them to emerge
ReplyDeleteI made no such association, I merely pointed out that minority ethnic groups do tend to form communities within Canada which have little day-to-day interaction with the rest of Canadian society.
But to my knowledge, there are no communities in Canada outside treaty reservations where there real ethnic bounds to who may or may not live there as they please, and that's the point.
Very well, if your definition of pockets of ethnic exclusivity demands the provision of forceable segregation, then yes, we have no such problem. Of course, by that definition, no other country in the western world has that problem either so our success is hardly noteworthy.
Embedding religious arbitration into Ontario civil law is probably not in keeping with the highest goal of multiculturalism, which is, finally, to find ways for us all to live together.
ReplyDeleteThis says a lot. To me, it's really the central point.
Have you seen what's happening south of the border? Do you see the resentment already building in rural, conservative Christian Canada?
And don't you see how the US govt has become slowly beholden to and controlled by that religious minority, until great numbers of people who don't belong to that minority feel oppressed and alienated? And how the laws and educational system of the US increasingly reflects a fundamentalist Christian POV?
Because the US has not said, "We are a secular country, governed by the rule of civil law and the Constitution, not one group's holy book", the govt has infringed on women's rights, the rights of gay people, and the rights of Muslims, while cow-towing to the Christian right.
Freedom of religion has to end at the point of my nose, too - but it does (or, did) not. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion for all is to not let any one religion supercede or conflict with civil law.
I do agree with Lone Primate that this discussion has probably reached its limits. I've learned a lot, and I thank you all for that.
Of course you're free to keep discussing. I've been checking in once in a while, but now I'm gone for the day.
I merely pointed out that minority ethnic groups do tend to form communities within Canada which have little day-to-day interaction with the rest of Canadian society.
ReplyDeleteI never said they didn't; if you'll recall, what I said -- what you're taking issue with -- is: We don't have ghettoes or pockets of ethnic exclusivity, backlashes against immigrants or riots or demonstrations against them...
Feel free to dispute any of this... but if so, you have far looser, less precise definitions of "ghetto", "exclusivity", and possibly "riots" than I do. If I want to move into Chinatown -- any of the several in town -- or Little India, or Little Italy, Little Portugual, the Danforth, etc., etc., etc., I will. No one's going to stop me, or any of their archetypal denizens from living elsewhere (which, of course, they do). In fact, the largest ethnic group in my part of Toronto is Iranian, not British: over 65% of the population of my ward is foreign-born. Does it sound to you like any kind of recipe for exclusivity, Rob? Local, regional, or national? If it does, let me know. It'll sure come as a surprise to me.
Of course, by that definition, no other country in the western world has that problem either so our success is hardly noteworthy.
If you'll recall, the remark was in response to a vague, unsubstantiated assertion on Kyle's part that our policies were somehow falling short. If, as you say on the retreat, we're no better than anyone else, then I'm still waiting to hear how we're any worse. And given that most of the people we're talking about are not from the Western world with its more liberal ideas about ethnic equality, I still maintain that that aspect of life here must still be a positive experience for them, generally speaking.
Now, again, as I asked in the first place: if we have policies towards immigrants and "ethnic minorities" that need addressing, what exactly are they? Religious arbitration was not given the force of law in Ontario -- moreover, it was, in fact, removed from more established religions in the name of fairness and equality.
And...?
Re multiculturism, I have a hard time imagining a country that's doing it much better than Canada.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, very few countries are actively encouraging immigration at all. Those that are more or less "stuck with it", as most of Europe is, are having a host of growing pains as national identities are redefined.
While I've lived here all of a minute and a half, I've been reading Canadian newspapers online for two years, and watching various CBC shows, that might count for something. It sure looks like Canada is doing an amazing job of balancing assimilation, ethnic identity, and all the other issues that come along with multiculturism.
That doesn't mean every single person or group is going to be happy with the balance - that's not possible with any compromise. But it hardly looks like the experiment is failing or issues are being swept under the rug.
Perhaps in a year's time I'll feel differently, I don't know.
And anyway, I said I was gone for the day. This time I really am.
If you'll recall, the remark was in response to a vague, unsubstantiated assertion on Kyle's part that our policies were somehow falling short.
ReplyDeleteI never said we were failing, well, not originally anyway, I just don't think that we should rest on our laurels. To borrow the Lexus tagline, "the relentless persuit of perfection". I don't think we're failing, but we are generally complacent. 10 years ago, we could have had a similar discussion, and many people would have said things are just peachy. Yet, we've made substantial changes in those 10 years, notably on gay rights.
First of all, very few countries are actively encouraging immigration at all. Those that are more or less "stuck with it", as most of Europe is, are having a host of growing pains as national identities are redefined.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is essential to our national survival. Our natural birth rate is comparable to countries in western Europe, in other words, really low. I guess the fact that, except for Quebec, we have no discernable national identity at all makes it a comfortable place for immigrants.
I never said we were failing, well, not originally anyway, I just don't think that we should rest on our laurels.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
Immigration is essential to our national survival.
True!
we have no discernable national identity at all
Oh, this is a tired old saw and it's time we threw it out of the shed once and for all. Every culture on Earth has more in common with every other culture than it has differences, because we're all human beings. There are greater differences and lesser differences respective to which cultures you're comparing. But they exist. I can guarantee you, we have a marked identity to the people who come here: we are certainly different from them. And before you get rolling about how we're just the same as X, Y, or Z anglosphere country... hey, Laura! Do you think Canada's exactly the same as the United States? Don't want to put words in your mouth, but two years, reams of paperwork, and thousands of dollars later, I'm guessing you don't. Could you please tell Rob?
Do you think Canada's exactly the same as the United States?
ReplyDeleteThat is illogical. Canada has no national identity, America has one of the most robust, of course they are not the same. In fact, if you want to push it, you could say that if there is even the slightest thread of national consciousness in this country, it is that we are not American.
I can guarantee you, we have a marked identity to the people who come here: we are certainly different from them.
ReplyDeleteOf course we are. There is this bland broth of British descendants that has completely forgotten any of that heritage and then you superimpose Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, even Europeans, with rich cultural tapestries and remembered histories. We must seem as foreign to them as they do to us.
There is this bland broth of British descendants that has completely forgotten any of that heritage and then you superimpose Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, even Europeans, with rich cultural tapestries and remembered histories.
ReplyDeleteWell, just as you feel you can't speak for Toronto, I guess I can't speak for Calgary, except to say that if you truly do feel yourself to be nothing more than one sad little bubble in a big bland loaf of white bread, well, maybe your random thoughts have been emanating from Cowtown for a little too long, and you have my sympathies. I'm sorry, too, that you perceive the new ways as an imposition, no matter how "super" it may be; but it's a telling choice of words, to be sure.
I, however, am fortunately not feel myself so stifled. I live in a place where I'm a minority in being born in this country; the only native English speaker on my floor. I lunch at Indian restaurants with Russians, attend Mozart with Scots, go to Caribana with Italian friends, watch the gay pride floats in the St. Patrick's Day Parade and the Irish floats in the Pride Parade; I shop in malls where Chinese signs are laconically translated into English. Lack of culture? This is my culture! This is what Canada is to me; has been all my life, and thank God for it. My culture is whatever I choose to make it, moment by moment, out of the cloth spun from every corner of the world, brought to me in bolts by the friends all around me. If your Canada is just foamy white bread with foreign substances making it soggy -- a sad, faded England spattered with proud stains that somehow don't become it -- so be it; so long as you make the best of it and are happy with it, more power to you. Can't say as I'd like to live in your Canada, though. Luckily, I don't.
Canada has no national identity
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think, Laura? Do you feel you came here for nothing? Or is there something different about us, some, ohhhh, je ne sais quoi, "national identity", perhaps, that called out to you in a way your own no longer did? Rob apparently thinks you're deluded, though it would seem he's too kind to say so. Not in so many words, anyway.
Sorry Rob, I have to move over and side against you with this one.
ReplyDeleteCanadians do have a national identity, just becase its more subtle than the Americans doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We aren't simply "not Americans", or Canadian just because we have free healthcare.
I don't think even I realized this until I lived outside of Canada for a few years.
We're so overwhelmed by extrovert next door that we belittle ourselves far more than we should. I can assure you, if Canada wasn't next door to the U.S. we wouldn't have an "identity crises".
There's so many little things about Canadian culture, such a sort of self-deprecating humour. I seriously doubt any other country in the world could call a coin a "loonie" with a straight face.
Our fears about being overwhelmed by American culture though isn't really unique either. Every country from France to South Africa to Singapore frets about the invasion of "brand America" and its erosion on the local culture.
Every country from France to South Africa to Singapore frets about the invasion of "brand America" and its erosion on the local culture.
ReplyDeleteA Frenchman would notice the encroachment of American culture. French teens walking around dressed like American rap stars, a Macdonald's showing up on his street, women shaving their armpits; if American culture imposed itself on Canada, how would we know? Maybe we would start appreciating the humour of Jim Carrey.
I think history and culture are intimately related. If you asked the average Canadian to name as many Fathers of Confederation and Founding Fathers of the US as he could, which list do you think would longer?
I lunch at Indian restaurants with Russians, attend Mozart with Scots, go to Caribana with Italian friends, watch the gay pride floats in the St. Patrick's Day Parade and the Irish floats in the Pride Parade; I shop in malls where Chinese signs are laconically translated into English.
ReplyDeleteThat's not an national identity, it's a buffet and, I might add, one that is limited to urban Canadians only. Where is the common thread that binds all Canadians, not just the ones in Toronto?
Canada has no national identity, America has one of the most robust, of course they are not the same.
ReplyDeleteI was going to respond to this even before I noticed LP's special invitation. :)
I've heard this about Canadians supposedly having no national identity, mostly from right-wing Americans. They often spit it out like it's the worst thing you can say about a place.
I can't understand the accusation at all. Canadians have a distinct identity, and it's more than just being "not the US", although that is part of it.
I can easily list the many things that come to mind when I think of the word Canadian. Perhaps I will write a post about just that.
And even if it were true that Canada didn't have a national identity, better to have none at all than to have an identity based on a pack of lies and myths. That's all the US has.
Laura may take issue with what I'm about to say, but I think it's a not uncommon sentiment outside the US, and that is: the US talks a good game on the separation of church and state, but large sections of it pay it only lip service.
ReplyDeleteI don't take issue with this at all; I agree with it entirely. It's one of my main reasons for resenting the US to the point of wanting to leave. It is increasingly a Christian-only country, and only a certain brand of Christianity at that.
Put windows in that wall between church and state, and suddenly you have a wall with holes. The holes get bigger, the wall disappears. You are left with what I have referred to so many times in wmtc: creeping theocracy.
That wall between church and state should be bricked up tight. It's the only way to ensure that everyone can practice their own religion or lack thereof, and that the state is for all.
I made no such association, I merely pointed out that minority ethnic groups do tend to form communities within Canada which have little day-to-day interaction with the rest of Canadian society.
ReplyDeleteThis is generally true only for first-generation immigrants. You should come to Mississauga. Canadians of every color and accent are living alongside each other, shopping in malls, driving their cars, sending their kids to the same schools, and worshipping in mosques or churches or synagogues of their choice. It's a huge melting pot, and it's very Canadian, even I can see that.
New immigrants from distinctly foreign cultures do tend to gather together in big cities. It's a wonderful thing. As the generations grow, they move on.
There is this bland broth of British descendants that has completely forgotten any of that heritage and then you superimpose Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, even Europeans, with rich cultural tapestries and remembered histories. We must seem as foreign to them as they do to us.
ReplyDelete. . .
That's not an national identity, it's a buffet
I think this is very sad. To me it sounds like Rob is pining away for something that does not, cannot exist in the 21st Century, not unlike American conservatives who are drowning in nostalgia for an America that never existed, or existed only for a select few who held power.
Being part of a diverse mosaic of culture can certainly be part of a national identity.
As for urban vs rural, that's the Great Divide - in most countries and cultures. I don't know that any country has a one-size-fits-all identity.
Where is the common thread that binds all Canadians, not just the ones in Toronto?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the good folks in Vancouver would take issue with this. It's the most diverse city in North America.
If you asked the average Canadian to name as many Fathers of Confederation and Founding Fathers of the US as he could, which list do you think would longer?
Just don't ask the average American to name anyone, cause they don't know shit. Most Americans can't find their own state on a map and think Africa is a country.
James: I love that quote about losing enemies when they become friends. Great stuff.
if American culture imposed itself on Canada, how would we know?
ReplyDeleteOh, I dunno; tenfold rise in gun homicides, medical-related bankruptcies, thousands of our soldiers coming home in boxes from wars of choice, renewed arguments about the necessity/likelihood of a draft and our soldiers embarrassing us by seeking refuge in other countries, swears being bleeped off Kids In the Hall because people would rather control the airwaves than change the channel, cheques from banks in the same cities taking days or weeks to clear, our government spending like Brian Mulroney was still in office... little things like that, I suppose. I don't know about you, but I think I'd notice.
If you asked the average Canadian to name as many Fathers of Confederation and Founding Fathers of the US as he could, which list do you think would longer?
ReplyDeleteI myself am rather more impressed with the liveability of their relative results in the modern world than the roll of the credits. Hopefully, so were they.
That's not an national identity, it's a buffet
Rob, just because McDonald's is Canada (and vice versa) to you doesn't mean it is for all of us. Sorry, but your angst and insularity are your own; they're not a hair shirt I'm going to don. That "buffet" is Canada to people like me. I can't speak for the rest of you. But if all of that suddenly vanished, what was left over wouldn't be my country. It would be, possibly, my grandfather's country; but not mine.
limited to urban Canadians only. Where is the common thread that binds all Canadians, not just the ones in Toronto?
Canada is far and away predominantly an urban country, even moreso than the United States. It has been for a while. Not everyone lives in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, but to a greater or lesser degree, this experience is in no way uncommon across the country post-1975. I don't imagine it particularly bothers rural Canadians, either. Why would it? If it's not their day-to-day experience, they're certainly aware that it's not 1950 anymore.
That wall between church and state should be bricked up tight. It's the only way to ensure that everyone can practice their own religion or lack thereof, and that the state is for all.
ReplyDeleteHear hear. Well put. In keeping religions separate from the state, we also keep them from coming into conflict with one another as often, in a sphere where one must win and one must lose. Multiculturalism is a balancing act of mutualities and exclusivities. The state, the law, and our citizenship (or permanent residency in lieu thereof) is what binds us one to another, no matter what else we believe, what we speak, or where we live.
So lp, if I understand you, the sum total of the Canadian experience is ethnic diversity. That is what defines us as a country.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, my Filipino wife would probably be surprised to hear of my insularity.
Being part of a diverse mosaic of culture can certainly be part of a national identity.
ReplyDeleteSure it is, but is that it? Hell, you can find ethnic diversity in New York, London, Paris. There has to be more than that to define a national identity.
To me it sounds like Rob is pining away for something that does not, cannot exist in the 21st Century
ReplyDeleteI'm not pining away for anything. I think ethnic diversity is a wonderful thing, makes life more interesting. I just don't think you can define a country by something that is not even remotely unique to that country. New York City has more diversity than all of Canada put together.
It's a huge melting pot, and it's very Canadian
ReplyDeleteIf you went to grade school in Canada, you'd see the irony in that statement.
Rob:
ReplyDelete1. I didn't say ethnic diversity is the sum total of Canadian identity. I said it was included in it, part of it. You dismissed it as a buffet. I don't think it's anything to dismiss.
2. The ethnic diversity of NYC is not extended to the entire country, not even to the suburbs that surround it. Canada is that diverse in every major city.
3. Anyone can be married to anyone, and it proves nothing. Rob, I am not - repeat, NOT - saying you are a racist. I know you are not. However, I have known a black racist married to a white person, white racist married to asian person, etc. Love is blind, and sometimes so is racism. So being married to a Filipina (from Montreal, no less!) in itself is just that and no proof of anything else.
4. If Canada has no national identity, what do you mean when you say, I love Canada but she disappoints me? How can you love something that has no meaning? I think you do believe there is Canadian identity. Perhaps you don't like it very much, but you know it's there. That's my reading, ymmv.
It's a huge melting pot, and it's very Canadian
ReplyDeleteIf you went to grade school in Canada, you'd see the irony in that statement.
Explanation, please!
Okay Rob, what is your definition of a National Identity?
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia:
Nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national character, a national culture, a national music and national literature, national folklore and a national mythology. Individuals share national values and a national identity, admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport.
Okay, let's run down the list:
- Symbols: Seems taken care off. We have the maple leaf, the beaver, and the mountie.
-National Character: We all know the Canadian sterotype. The quientessential nice guy who says "eh" a lot. Check.
-National Culture: We tend to be a somewhat liberal society, much more conservative than Europeans, but much more socially liberal than Americans. We tend to downplay the importance of war and place more value on keeping peace. Our national culture is still evolving, having changed from rough frontiersman, to stuffy Victorian, to where we are today.
- Music & Literature: Well, we do seem to generate a lot of rock bands, pop divas, and have some famous authors. But there is nothing distictly Canadian about this. However, I think that has to do with Canada's relatively young age.
-national folklore and a national mythology: We are lacking in this area, I'll admit.
- Individuals share national values and a national identity: Canadians do tend to recognize themselves as Canadians first, not Albertans or Ontarians or Maritimers, even recent new comers.
- Admire the National Hero: We seem to have competitors for a national hero, but we can't seem to agree on who it is. Still needs work.
- Eat the national dish: Okay, we're lacking a true national dish that can be associated with all of Canada. I mean there's peameal bacon, Nanaimo bars, Maple syrup, and Poutine, but nothing that's a clear front runner.
- Play the national sport: Do I need to answer this?
Canada is still a very young country. We don't have centuries of history like the British, French, or even Americans.
If your looking to boil down national identity to something as simple as "peace, justice, and the American way", no we're not there yet.
The funny thing about people who fret about Canada's "lack of identity" seem to want us to become more like Americans so that we can say with real confidence that we are Canadians.
I do sense that I have not communicated my opinion here very well. I love ethnic diversity. If anything, I respect immigrants more than pur laine. Canadians. If you'll recall from an earlier post, I said: There is this bland broth of British descendants that has completely forgotten any of that heritage and then you superimpose Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, even Europeans, with rich cultural tapestries and remembered histories. That sounds pretty pro-immigrant to me, but maybe it got lost in the fray.
ReplyDeleteI did not mention my Filipina wife to defend myself against charges of racism (I hope I don't have to). I mentioned her because I was accused of being insular. I spend every day of my life in intimate contact with multiculturalism. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not insulated.
Explanation, please!
ReplyDeleteSorry, it just reminded me of Grade 10 Canadian Studies class.
"Ok class, today we'll discuss the difference between the American Melting Pot and the Canadian Cultural Mosaic."
By the way, my Filipino wife would probably be surprised to hear of my insularity.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet she would too! She'd probably want to check your head for bumps.
Sure it is, but is that it? Hell, you can find ethnic diversity in New York, London, Paris. There has to be more than that to define a national identity.
So what's our role here, Rob; to sit here and set up examples you're only going to use as straw men to knock down because no answer we give is going to satisfy you? Why don't you give some solid examples of how Canada does not have a culture. Then we can point out where you're wrong; how about that? I mean, this is YOUR point, not ours. Then we can sit on our duffs for a while and wave away your points by substituting snide opinions for proof for a while instead. I think it's only fair we get a turn. How about it?
Rob, I am not - repeat, NOT - saying you are a racist. I know you are not.
Neither am I. But it's clear you're one of those Canadians for whom pretty much every thing the US does is the standard by which Canada is measured and forever comes up short, simply because it's different. There's really nothing we can do about that; every example we offer you of what we value about Canada is something you don't, and you're only going to mock. That's what I meant about your insularity. It's a narrowness of conceit. Frankly, I'm amazed you lived in Montreal and managed to convince yourself of the validity of your assumed position.
-national folklore and a national mythology: We are lacking in this area, I'll admit.
When you look around the world at the kind of balls-first thinking and resultant trouble that kind of nonsense tends to stir up, this may not be altogether to our disadvantage.
So what's our role here, Rob; to sit here and set up examples you're only going to use as straw men to knock down because no answer we give is going to satisfy you?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, you keep offering the same example over and over again. Let me meet you halfway, we have regional identities. Atlantic Canada has cultural icons, the Bluenose, the Cape Breton fiddler, Celtic everything. Quebec has the its French heritage and if anyone in Canada can be said to remember its history, it is Quebec. Alberta has the frontier mentality, oilmen and cowboys. And, as you have pointed out, Toronto has a lot of different cultural threads woven together. If this patchwork of different regional identities qualifies as a national identity to you, then so be it.
Where is the common thread that binds all Canadians, not just the ones in Toronto?
ReplyDeleteDoes complaining about Toronto count as a National Identity? :)
That wall between church and state should be bricked up tight. It's the only way to ensure that everyone can practice their own religion or lack thereof, and that the state is for all.
On the other hand, I've read persuasive arguments that the US separation of Church & State is what gives the Religious Right their energy. Few other democratic countries actually exclude the Church from their government (Canada doesn't, for example -- our head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church, and taxes pay for Catholic schools), and yet they have far less trouble with religious reactionaries than the US does.
I made no such association, I merely pointed out that minority ethnic groups do tend to form communities within Canada which have little day-to-day interaction with the rest of Canadian society.
Here's a list of the last names at my company. You can't tell me that this does not involve a lot of day-to-day interaction between ethnic groups:
Abbott
Allmen
Anderson
Ann
Anthony
Balme
Barnard
Batina
Beaubien
Bowen
Boyd
Brennan
Campbell
Carion
Chahal
Chan
Chisholm
Chupa
Clark
Conn
Dams
Daum
De Melo
Dehnashi
Diab
Elhart
Flint
Glass
Haider
Henson
Higbee Clarkin
Hrischenko
Jahazi
Jilani
Johnson
Kameka
Kashuba
Kathakkal
Kent
Kulcsar
Kumar
Kuzyk
Laing
Lau
Lemieux
Lockhard
Lu
Ma
Maas
MacLean
Manley
Mansoori
Marco
Martin
Medina-Provato
Midgley
Miranda
Mitchell
Montgomery
Murtell
Naka
Nakamura
Nirenstein
Odobas
Pala
Perlman
Philip
Poole
Purchase
Quereshi
Qureshi
Radford
Rahman
Rai
Ramesh
Redekop
Reed
Rivard
Rossi
Shah
Sheta
Sikora
Skeet
Stevens
Strijewski
Taeima
Tchokonte
Thakur
Thompson
Tilev
Van Hoeve
van den Heuvel
Wadehn
Wenman
Wyley
Young
Yuzpe
I did not mention my Filipina wife to defend myself against charges of racism (I hope I don't have to). I mentioned her because I was accused of being insular. I spend every day of my life in intimate contact with multiculturalism. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not insulated.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. You don't need to defend yourself against charges of racism, and now I see what you meant. I was equating the two (insularity and racism) but they are not the same thing.
But it's clear you're one of those Canadians for whom pretty much every thing the US does is the standard by which Canada is measured and forever comes up short, simply because it's different.
ReplyDeleteIt may seem that way sometimes, but it's not true. If I was as enamoured with the US as you say, I'd have moved there. I did have the opportunity. I just think that since America is the most successful nation that has ever existed, it is rather irrational of us as a people to do everything we can to be as utterly unlike America as possible. They must have done something right.
"Ok class, today we'll discuss the difference between the American Melting Pot and the Canadian Cultural Mosaic."
ReplyDeleteWell then I'm glad to hear it. I vastly prefer the mosaic image to the melting pot image, and I did use the wrong expression. I use "melting pot" to mean a big stew of cultures, but I always forget it implies that everything comes out looking the same.
Here's a list of the last names at my company. You can't tell me that this does not involve a lot of day-to-day interaction between ethnic groups:
When I was a kid, my mother liked to watch the credits on TV shows or American films to see all the different kinds of last names. It was a bit of patriotism, really - she loved that all these different people made up America.
Kyle, I like that checklist. I'm going to take a shot at it tomorrow: my ideas about Canadian identity. FWIW, which is basically nothing. :)
I just think that since America is the most successful nation that has ever existed, it is rather irrational of us as a people to do everything we can to be as utterly unlike America as possible. They must have done something right.
ReplyDeleteIf you put enough horsepower in an engine, it will go really fast. If you put enough money into a military, it will get really powerful. If you put enough arrogance into the people who run that military, it will spread all over the world.
Rob's opinion of the US reminds me of people who are impressed with someone else's expensive sports car or huge mansion. All the car and home mean is that the owner has more money than someone else. It doesn't mean he's more talented, more intelligent, more interesting, or has contributed more to the world. It only means he has more money.
Admiring the US is like admiring someone with a big flashy car, and thinking that means he's a better person that you.
Let me amend that.
ReplyDeleteIf you put enough arrogance into the people who run that military...
And make it profitable enough.
American success if far more complex than that. Many nations have had big armies, history is rife with them, but only three have captured the imagination of the world, ancient Rome, the British Empire and the United States. They brought something more than just an iron fist, they brought a culture, they brought traditions that people actually wanted. Even when Rome and Britain retreated, the newly-emancipated people they left behind kept much of those traditions. The same is true of America. For better or for worse, people want what America has to offer. That's why so many people emigrate there.
ReplyDeleteIf this patchwork of different regional identities qualifies as a national identity to you, then so be it.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to what, exactly? This is what I'm asking you.
ancient Rome, the British Empire and the United States.
ReplyDeleteInteresting list, that. I guess if you admire empires, then these are admirable. I prefer people to live freely and in peace. I prefer nations to own their own resources, rather than be exploited for other people's profit.
They brought something more than just an iron fist, they brought a culture, they brought traditions that people actually wanted.
They got 'em whether they wanted 'em or not.
Empires bring a culture, but at what price? And what makes the culture they bring better than the one already there?
The best thing about that list is the reminder that the US Empire is as doomed as the others.
I did not mention my Filipina wife to defend myself against charges of racism (I hope I don't have to). I mentioned her because I was accused of being insular. I spend every day of my life in intimate contact with multiculturalism. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not insulated.
ReplyDeleteRob, you were the one who accused Canada of being pale England with fake culture grafted on, and when you're called on it, you suddenly turn right around and jump up to offer yourself as a shining example of the very Canadian virtue you find so risible. So if you're not in fact insular, then you're being disingenuous and deliberately contrary only for the ends of twisting the tails of Canadians who find pride in their country for what it's accomplished and how it situates itself in the world. There's a small, insecure narrowmindedness evident even in this. You can't decide if you're fish or fowl on this one. All you want to do is sit there and demand we bring our pride on a platter for you to slap to the floor laughing. How long do you expect us to cater to this?
I just think that since America is the most successful nation that has ever existed
I don't. I did, once. Now I recognize it as an extremely powerful country that's used the momentary or institutional disadvantages of others to further itself in the world -- and it has a great press. But other countries achieve greatness too. Other countries, in my opinion, do a better job of looking after the human beings who make them up -- and that's finally what being a member of a nation-state is all about. You love the story they spin, you think Canada falls short, so you're happiest crapping over anything the rest of us find praiseworthy about Canada, even to the point of reducing one of Laura's reasons for moving country to a canned lecture for school children; while with almost the same breath, you praise the wisdom of immigrants to the US for buying into their homespun homilies. Now isn't it funny how you can pick out the chestnuts you find so eye-rolling in Canadian culture, but yet can quote "America is the most successful nation that has ever existed" right off the bubblegum card. Seems your sense of discernment ends at the border.
Let's try another approach, if you discuss different nationalities with a hypothetical globetrotter and ask what characteristics he or she associates with each choice, you would get something like this:
ReplyDeleteBritain - stiff upper lip, royalty, resolve, rich history, Winston Churchill, Sir Isaac Newton, the Royal Navy, Rule Britannia, the Raj
France - food, culture, the French Foreign Legion, Napoleon, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower
America - jazz, rock, blues, country, Neil Armstrong, democracy, the Staue of Liberty, the Declaration of Indepenence, the Great American Melting Pot, the Wright brothers, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln
Canada - Mounties, hockey, polite guys who say "eh?"
Rob, you were the one who accused Canada of being pale England with fake culture grafted on, and when you're called on it, you suddenly turn right around and jump up to offer yourself as a shining example of the very Canadian virtue you find so risible.
ReplyDeleteNot a shining example, just an example. I also don't claim it as a virtue, merely a fact.
They got 'em whether they wanted 'em or not.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but what is relevent to my point is whether or not they kept them. India seems content to remain a member of the Commonwealth and retain the Parliamentary tradition brought to them by Britain. Germanic Europe embraced Christianity even as they destroyed Rome. American pop culture infiltrates every country in the world.
Now isn't it funny how you can pick out the chestnuts you find so eye-rolling in Canadian culture, but yet can quote "America is the most successful nation that has ever existed" right off the bubblegum card. Seems your sense of discernment ends at the border.
ReplyDeleteWould it help if I said something bad about the US to balance the ledger? Ok, here goes.
They love guns too much.
They love their non-existent Supreme Being way, way too much.
They have a hard time admitting mistakes and an even harder time believing anyone might know better.
Rob, that list by nationality is patently ridiculous. Like any of us couldn't make a list to make the Brits, French, etc. look silly, and another to make them look laudable. I'm not getting into the Canadian identity thing here, I'm saving it for tomorrow, but come on, you can do better than that.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't so much trying to make them look laudable, as recognizable. I could have thrown in things like segregation and gun violence (and I guess I should have). The point is, I didn't have to say what country I was referring to, you instantly knew. If I said multiculturalism or universal health care, however, only a Canadian (and maybe an American) would automatically think of Canada.
ReplyDeleteI keep starting replies and deleting them. You're cherry-picking examples and setting them up as some kind of paradigm. But I disagree with the basic premise. Replying about India's parliamentary system of government or the spread of Christianity is pointless.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why any Canadian would want their country to be more like the US, and not be proud of the differences. But if one is pro-military and admires empires, then it makes sense. Each to his own.
I wasn't so much trying to make them look laudable, as recognizable.
ReplyDeleteUm, no. You were going for laudable, then backed off. Give us a little credit here. That's why you put "democracy" instead of "slavery/segregation" and Abraham Lincoln instead of John Wilkes Booth.
The point is, I didn't have to say what country I was referring to, you instantly knew. If I said multiculturalism or universal health care, however, only a Canadian (and maybe an American) would automatically think of Canada.
You're only going for recognizable? I can do that list off the top of my head. (I just did, then copied it for tomorrow's post.) But if you were only going for recognizable, you wouldn't be talking about the virtues of those three empires.
Rob, I thought Lone Primate was being a little rough on you, but in truth, your argument is devolving.
Hasta manana, everyone.
Something like:
ReplyDeleteUS - Genocide of Native Americans, slavery, two atomic bomb drops, long-standing refusal to allow women to vote, inhumane testing of drugs on its citizens without their consent ...
??
P.S.: Lone Primate does rock!
Maybe I should get back to basics, since it seems I'm doing a poor job of explaining the source of my discontent. Canada has existed in some form or another about as long as the US. We were colonized by the same European powers, we went through many of the same national traumas together. Sometimes, we faced each in conflict.
ReplyDeleteNow sometime in the last 40 years, our history became a source of shame and something to be forgotten, glossed over or rewritten. Anything that predates the Trudeau era is bad. Every national accomplishment is soiled. We opened the West, but we displaced the First Nations. We defeated the Nazis, but we interred the Japanese. Yes, we did those things and we need to recognize our failings, but not by forgetting our history. All the hard work making this country was done by 1945, we've been coasting since then. Yet, it seems we can only acknowledge multiculturalism, health care and UN peacekeeping missions.
If you have no history, how can you have a national identity?
You were going for laudable, then backed off. Give us a little credit here. That's why you put "democracy" instead of "slavery/segregation" and Abraham Lincoln instead of John Wilkes Booth.
ReplyDeleteWell actually, I was going for consistent. I thought about including slavery for the US and collaboration for the French, but I couldn't think of anything negative that is uniquely British, maybe soccer hooligans. Anyway, I'll stop now. I'm making a nuisance of myself and I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself.
You are totally and utterly not a nuisance. However, you are a minority of one, which must be tiring. Have a good night.
ReplyDeleteNow sometime in the last 40 years, our history became a source of shame and something to be forgotten, glossed over or rewritten. . . . Every national accomplishment is soiled.
ReplyDeleteAll conservatives feel this way, it seems. In the US, what I call a more honest, less mythical view of history is (at best) derided as "PC".
History should never be forgotten (although in the US, it always is), but it should certainly be rewritten if it was originally written in lies and half-truths.
The sordid bits have to be filled in. The glorious story of the West must be "soiled" by genocide - because that happened. The glorious story of WWII must be soiled by the Japanese internment, because that happened, too.
Can't we hold all sides of the story in our heads at the same time? Must we only puff ourselves up on half-truths? A national identity that can't stand the light of day isn't worth owning - and I'm not talking about Canada here.
Late comment (Laura and I were talking about this at dinner):
ReplyDeleteRob: Many nations have had big armies, history is rife with them, but only three have captured the imagination of the world, ancient Rome, the British Empire and the United States. They brought something more than just an iron fist, they brought a culture, they brought traditions that people actually wanted.
I think Rob may be confusing "influential" with "successful". The US is clearly the former, perhaps the most influential culture in human history; the latter term is highly subjective.
Also, a country can't get that big and that powerful without doing some pretty bad things, both within and without its borders.
(My verification code for this post: gmsox. Hi, Theo!!!!)
Canada - Mounties, hockey, polite guys who say "eh?"
ReplyDelete...Banting and Best, comedians, Vimy Ridge, Expo '67, maple leaf, Mike Pearson's Nobel Prize for inventing peacekeeping, last stop on the Underground Railroad, Norman Bethune, inuksuks, Brock's Monument, Aerodrome of Democracy, HMCS Haida, the Flag Debate, the Avro Arrow... you don't have to dig far to find icons of Canada and our culture, even ones that would resonate abroad. You just don't want to.
Guys, come on over to the new thread!
ReplyDeleteThere's much I admire about the United States. Particular accomplishments, the things it's done with aplomb, the zest it has for remembering those things and using them to inspire. It sets some high marks for itself, and that's not a bad thing. On the whole, we're better off for it being there. The reason I'm so often critical of it is just that it has the potential to be and do so much better than it is, and it puzzles me why it willingly falls sort when it comes to looking after its own people, and respecting the same rights of others abroad it's so adamant about demanding for itself.
ReplyDeleteBut none of this is to say that Canada has no culture. No place on Earth is without a culture. It's often hard for the people immersed in a culture to perceive it... it's like air; it's only the contrasts, like clouds and wind, that make it visible and bring it to one's attention. While one merely breathes it in and moves effortlessly through it, it's essentially invisible. I give Rob credit for knowing enough about the world to realize that Canada is a different place for anywhere else on Earth. So what he really means when he says Canada has no culture is that Canada has no culture he finds worthy of praise or recognition. Does the fault lie in a nation of 32 million people, or the expectations of one? Canada's by no means perfect, but no place is. How could any place be? But it's a good place. It's a place that, for the most part, cares about what happens to human beings, and that's not true wherever you find yourself in the world. We live in a country where the weather can kill you. Regardless of where our ancestors hailed from, living here, we've had to create or adopt a culture of co-operation. I think in the long run, that's going to work out in our to our advantage. I think it's why Canada seems, in some ways, so paradoxically different from the US in things like medical care and homicide rates. To quote XTC: "You blame the weather." The land really has shaped who we are.
We live in a country where the weather can kill you. Regardless of where our ancestors hailed from, living here, we've had to create or adopt a culture of co-operation.
ReplyDeleteThat's such an interesting observation. I don't doubt there's much validity to it.