Why I disagree with multiculturalism.

[Dead Kennedy]

I turned on the radio about 11 am yesterday morning and caught this
programme...

"Crossing Continents encounters converts in Egypt who live in constant
fear."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7g8z (it may not work
outside UK but is probably available as a torrent)

the conversation I caught was ( you can check it on the podcast but
along the lines of)

young girl: I am being bullied in school because my father has
converted to christianity. It is terrible, we are being beaten up
every day.

Interviewer to father: Do you feel responsible for the way your
daughter is being treated?

young girl tries to say something...

Father: Hush...(agressively to interviewer) You are talking like she
isnt related to me!

So there you have it.

If a girl or woman is related to a man, he can treat her as if she is
property however detrimental to her this is.

We are allowing this patriarcy to be imported into the uk because of
the multiculturalist need to be "culturally sensitive".

fuck.

[TLC]

DK,

Your example seems like a Catholic converting to be a member of a
Protestant sect, or vise versa, in some parts of the UK.

Patriachal behaviour and the demeaning of women is a part of most
religions and it's always been in the UK.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:34 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

DK,

Your example seems like a Catholic converting to be a member of a
Protestant sect, or vise versa, in some parts of the UK.

Patriachal behaviour and the demeaning of women is a part of most
religions and it's always been in the UK.

Yes but in the last 50 years or so there's been a move away from that in society at large.

And Multi-Cult is allowing this to return under the guise of "cultural sensitivity".

Not being racist and allowing people to retain cultural practices does not mean that we should devalue or give up the rights fought for and finally obtained after years.
 
Interculturalism maintains this balance by putting rights first and foremost and not accepting cultural relativism as primary, while not interfering with anyone's ability to practice their culture as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.

If a woman doesn't exercise her rights that's her personal choice but she can't violate the law to practice her culture or violate the rights of another woman or young girl (eg. female circumcision) or anyone else.

If she does she should have the full force of the law and society behind her irrespective of whether it violates anyone's cultural sensitivities or not.

And no-one's beliefs should ever give them right to be above the law or have special extra-legal privileges or force anyone else to give up their rights on the grounds of being culturally sensitive.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

You haven't provided enough evidence that patriarchy is allowed to be
imported. People are allowed to immigrate and automatically bring
cultural baggage along with them. They are allowed to practise
whatever in their cultural baggage is legal. Are they also allowed to
practise what is illegal for long time Britons?
>
> fuck.

[TLC]

Trance,

I agree that men and women should not devalue nor give up the rights
fought for and finally obtained after years of struggle. But, can you
give some examples of how our rights are being de-valued or taken away
under the guise of "cultural sensitivity"?

Also, while it can be said that there as been a move away from
Patriachal attitudes world wide over the last 90 years, there's also
been a resurgent move towards Patriachal behaviour by the religious in
both the East and the West. The growth of the Christian Religious
Right sects in America and Europe are also Patriachal and their
attitudes are not imported, nor caused by multi-culturalism.

The main dangers are when any faith is being forced on people and its
practices are accepted as being the norm.







On 6 Aug, 11:49, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:55 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

I agree that men and women should not devalue nor give up the rights
fought for and finally obtained after years of struggle.  But, can you
give some examples of how our rights are being de-valued or taken away
under the guise of "cultural sensitivity"?

Danish cartoons. Demands for "cultural sensitivity" by protesting pictures of pigs in the Children's wing of Danish hospitals (and threats which were made good on - Van Goghs murder) effectively attempted to curtail freedom of speech, that is, the freedom to criticize religion. Criticizing religion is not "racist" and that is the false accusation being made by Islamic extremists to justify encroaching on the rights of civil society by imposing *their* values on everyone.

Not to mention, the item you posted on the man who was charged in the UK when he distributed a joking leaflet about the Christian religion and some woman had him charged on the grounds that she was "offended". (Sorry don't recall the details).

There are many such stories.

Interculturalism eliminates the inherent conflicts created by multiculturalism by establishing a single civil law and the concept is based on respecting universal and civil rights.

Accommodation is only allowed on specific grounds. Those grounds being that not accommodating will violate the rights of the person or group requesting accommodation without encroaching on the rights of others or the society at large.

Being "offended" is not grounds for accommodation nor is "cultural relativism" so situations like the Danish cartoons or demands for multiple legal systems will not be accepted or even an issue using a Interculturalist approach.
 
IMO, this is the concept that needs to be advocated and implemented in order to avoid the whole host of problems created by multiculturalism and the associated demands for accommodation which encroach on the rights of others and hold their own communities hostage to backward belief systems and values (imported or not) which violate the rights of their own members.

If their members or anyone else wants to exercise their universal and civil rights and not be confined by or held hostage to the cultural values of a particular community which holds values that violate those universal and civil rigthts they should be supported by the full force of the law.

This is, effectively, what One Law For All means and the *only* way it can be implemented.

Multiculturalism undermines that concept.

Also, while it can be said that there as been a move away from
Patriachal attitudes world wide over the last 90 years, there's also
been a resurgent move towards Patriachal behaviour by the religious in
both the East and the West.  The growth of the Christian Religious
Right sects in America and Europe are also Patriachal and their
attitudes are not imported, nor caused by multi-culturalism.

Agree completely.
 

The main dangers are when any faith is being forced on people and its
practices are accepted as being the norm.

Agree completely.

Here's some detailed comments I made the topic in another thread

http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/4305521c07d8bcdb?hl=en
http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/7f41d2b399c40a31?hl=en
http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/a5a070678486c531?hl=en

[TLC]

Trance,

The examples you've given are ones of radical "faithism" not multi-
culturalism per se. Each example can be matched by radical
christianity.

Each case can be matched with religious ones of the home grown
varity. Also, where criminal acts have been committed "cultural
sensitivity" is not an excuse accepted by the courts, nor bothered
with by the police when investigating cases in Europe.

I, personally, think the arguement between Interculturalism and multi-
culturalism are of not much point and are more a diviation away from
the real point that religions, home grown or from abroad, will want to
stop freedoms which allow the criticizing of their Sky Fairies.

Also, let's not forget that the demand for laws to stop people
offending religions come mainly from the religious, white middle-class
Protestants and Catholics.

Is this really the fault of multi-culturalism, just because they
always hypocritically mention the "cultural sensitivity" of minorities
as a justification for their medieval thinking?









On 8 Aug, 14:03, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/4305521c07d...http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/7f41d2b399c...http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/a5a07067848...

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:07 PM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

The examples you've given are ones of radical "faithism" not multi-
culturalism per se.  Each example can be matched by radical
christianity.

They are not intended to be examples of multiculturalism TLC.

The issue is *how does multiculturalism respond to these demands*.

It responds inconsistently, irrationally, and based on cultural relativism.

Interculturalism will respond to these demands consistently, rationally, and based on respecting the universal and civil rights of *all* parties involved.
 

Each case can be matched with religious ones of the home grown
varity.

I'm not arguing that TLC. For me, there is no difference between Islam and Christianity.
 

 Also, where criminal acts have been committed "cultural
sensitivity" is not an excuse accepted by the courts, nor bothered
with by the police when investigating cases in Europe.

Possibly true. I've never looked into that but do you agree that the female circumcision laws in both the US and the UK are being openly violated with no action being taken?
 

I, personally, think the arguement between Interculturalism and multi-
culturalism are of not much point and are more a diviation away from
the real point that religions, home grown or from abroad, will want to
stop freedoms which allow the criticizing of their Sky Fairies.

The point that you're missing is that Interculturalism deals with the problem consistently, rationally and with a mind to preserving universal and civil rights.

Multiculturalism is inconsistent and irrational in how it deals with these issues and doesn't provide a foundation for even acknowledging the concept of rights.
 

Also, let's not forget that the demand for laws to stop people
offending religions come mainly from the religious, white middle-class
Protestants and Catholics.

Is this really the fault of multi-culturalism, just because they
always hypocritically mention the "cultural sensitivity" of minorities
as a justification for their medieval thinking?

I consider white Protestants and Catholics a cultural group and no different from other cultural groups.

You appear to have completely missed my point.

Interculturalism provides us with a workable rights based framework for dealing with these issues and maintains one civil secular law. It doesn't care which cultural group is advocating what or demanding what accommodation or whether that group represents a majority or minority culture. It will grant accommodation only to ensure the protection of civil rights and for no other reason.

Multiculturalism doesn't provide us with a workable framework. Nor does it even recognize the concept of universal and civil rights or the concepts of civil secular law. Anything goes and a majority cultural group will *necessarily* have more influence than a minority cultural group in terms of having their demands accommodated.

Ex. The Provincial Motorcycle helmet laws in Canada grant exclusion to Sikhs in BC (where they make up a large and influential voting block) but do not grant exclusion to Sikhs in Ontario where they are not influential.

This is the type of absurdity created by multiculturalism.

[Dead Kennedy]

On 6 Aug, 11:34, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DK,
>
> Your example seems like a Catholic converting to be a member of a
> Protestant sect, or vise versa, in some parts of the UK.

probably not since the 1930's.

>
> Patriachal behaviour and the demeaning of women is a part of most
> religions and it's always been in the UK.

rape has been part of human society for millenia, so we just ignore
it?

>
> On 6 Aug, 08:52, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I turned on the radio about 11 am yesterday morning and caught this
> > programme...
>
> > "Crossing Continents encounters converts in Egypt who live in constant
> > fear."
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7g8z     (it may not work
> > outside UK but is probably available as a torrent)
>
> > the conversation I caught was ( you can check it on the podcast but
> > along the lines of)
>
> > young girl: I am being bullied in school because my father has
> > converted to christianity. It is terrible, we are being beaten up
> > every day.
>
> > Interviewer to father: Do you feel responsible for the way your
> > daughter is being treated?
>
> > young girl tries to say something...
>
> > Father: Hush...(agressively to interviewer) You are talking like she
> > isnt related to me!
>
> > So there you have it.
>
> > If a girl or woman is related to a man, he can treat her as if she is
> > property however detrimental to her this is.
>
> > We are allowing this patriarcy to be imported into the uk because of
> > the multiculturalist need to be "culturally sensitive".
>

> > fuck.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dead Kennedy]

On 8 Aug, 10:55, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
>
> I agree that men and women should not devalue nor give up the rights
> fought for and finally obtained after years of struggle.  But, can you
> give some examples of how our rights are being de-valued or taken away
> under the guise of "cultural sensitivity"?

define "our" , because IMO "our" in the uk means "those that live
here". Im not the one who discrininates.

(sorry TG, had to jump in ).

> > everything else." --Dev- Hide quoted text -

[TLC]

Trance,

Multiculturalism, and Interculturalism, are just political concepts/
keywords with many changeable definitions depending on the party using
them. All modern societies are multi-cultural, not counting the sub-
cultures within each culture. Canada is a very evident example of
multi-culturalism.

Can you show any examples of where Interculturalism is providing a
more workable frame-work in law than one can see in a state which
adopts Multiculturalism? Please, don't use Quebec as an example,
because les Queboise could easily fall into the category of a multi-
cultural group which is advocating or demanding certain accommodation
based on history.

I'm not sure what your example of Sikhs not wearing crash helmets is
supposed to demonstrate. Of the US states, only 20 have full helmet
laws for all motorcycle riders. Was it a multi-cultural decision in
the first world war which allowed Sikhs to fight in the fields of
Flanders, where many died, and trenches without helmets?









On 8 Aug, 17:40, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

Multiculturalism, and Interculturalism, are just political concepts/
keywords with many changeable definitions depending on the party using
them.

Only because people don't actually understand *either* concept and misuse the terms.
 

 All modern societies are multi-cultural, not counting the sub-
cultures within each culture.  Canada is a very evident example of
multi-culturalism.

A multicultural society doesn't necessarily adopt multicultural policies so that is irrelevant and an example where you are conflating two separate meanings and uses of the term.
 

Can you show any examples of where Interculturalism is providing a
more workable frame-work in law than one can see in a state which
adopts Multiculturalism?   Please, don't use Quebec as an example,
because les Queboise could easily fall into the category of a multi-
cultural group which is advocating or demanding certain accommodation
based on history.

Quebec is the *main* example where it is working. They have put a *lot* of thought into it and IMO have nailed it beautifully.

And note, that Quebec has national rights as a nation within Canada, not special "multicultural" rights. There desire to retain their language rights is based on those *national* rights.

Those who define it as a multicultural issue don't understand Quebec's history.
 

I'm not sure what your example of Sikhs not wearing crash helmets is
supposed to demonstrate.  

It demonstrates that multiculturalism makes arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent decisions which are not based on a consistent framework.

The Sikhs in BC were granted exclusion because they are an influential elective force and in Ontario they weren't granted exclusion because they aren't an influential elective force.

These are absurd reasons for such decisions.

In Quebec, accommodation is granted where rights violations will occur without it and for no other reason.

When a Sikh student in Quebec wanted religious accommodation (exclusion from the carrying concealed weapons regulations) so that he could wear his kirpan to school, he was required to accommodate the law in order to do it. That is, the dagger had to be sealed into the sheath so that it couldn't be removed.

This allowed him to wear his religious symbol, required by his religion, thus maintaining his religious rights, but also ensured that the concealed weapons law was not violated.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

<snipped>
 

I'm not sure what your example of Sikhs not wearing crash helmets is
supposed to demonstrate.  Of the US states, only 20 have full helmet
laws for all motorcycle riders.  Was it a multi-cultural decision in
the first world war which allowed Sikhs to fight in the fields of
Flanders, where many died, and trenches without helmets?

In addition, exclusion from these types of regulations is not required if one actually understands the Sikh religious requirements.

The religious requirement is simply that the hair be covered.

There are many different kinds of turbans and there are styles of turbans which can accommodate helmets.

Either wearing a helmet is a safety issue or it isn't.

If it is, then it has to apply to all consistently, unless we don't care if Sikhs die from massive head injuries when riding a motorcycle. This, IMO, would be a despicable attitude.

[Dead Kennedy]

On 8 Aug, 17:40, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ive just singled out this exchange as an example of why TLC will
continue to miss your point.

> > Also, let's not forget that the demand for laws to stop people
> > offending religions come mainly from the religious, white middle-class
> > Protestants and Catholics.
>
> > Is this really the fault of multi-culturalism, just because they
> > always hypocritically mention the "cultural sensitivity" of minorities
> > as a justification for their medieval thinking?
>
> I consider white Protestants and Catholics a cultural group and no different
> from other cultural groups.
>
> You appear to have completely missed my point.

The problem lies with a generation brought up with cultural relitivism
mixed with the anti western bias of the left.

As far as TLC is concerned the problem is the "white" dominant culture
in the west. However many black, asian, brown or whatever people claim
that multiculturalism is divisive, he will always see it as an attack
by white dominant over "other".

I have noticed it in many posts where what ever you claim an "other"
person has done, it is justified by a ref to an action by a european
eg: muslim terrorists/but what about the crusades, genital mutilation/
well christians used to do stuff as bad, domination by patriarcy in
third world theocracies/see cut'n'paste above.

for TLC the problem will alway be the west, however many young girls
have thier labia cut off.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@live.co.uk> wrote:

On 8 Aug, 17:40, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

> I consider white Protestants and Catholics a cultural group and no different
> from other cultural groups.
>
> You appear to have completely missed my point.

The problem lies with a generation brought up with cultural relitivism
mixed with the anti western bias of the left.

As far as TLC is concerned the problem is the "white" dominant culture
in the west. However many black, asian, brown or whatever people claim
that multiculturalism is divisive, he will always see it as an attack
by white dominant over "other".

I have noticed it in many posts where what ever you claim an "other"
person has done, it is justified by a ref to an action by a european
eg: muslim terrorists/but what about the crusades, genital mutilation/
well christians used to do stuff as bad, domination by patriarcy in
third world theocracies/see cut'n'paste above.

for TLC the problem will alway be the west, however many young girls
have thier labia cut off.

It's endlessly frustrating when one tries to get the blindfolds off and the person clings to them so desperately.

Unfortunately TLC isn't the only one.

There are a lot of people who choose to ignore the reality of multi-cult and just cling to it as some sort of Holy Grail of anti-racism when it is, in fact, the opposite.

Propaganda is a very powerful thing.

Although I have hope the TLC will change his mind after giving it some thought.

[TLC]

Trance,

Quebec, had difficulty with the term multiculturalism, but Quebec
developed its own programs in response to the new ethnic and racial
reality. These programs are similar in many ways to those of the other
provinces and the federal government. So, what's the difference
between multiculturalism and Quebecs interculturalism? Or, is that
because Quebec has very few immigrants?

Quebec is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and when in a report, (the
Bouchard-Taylor Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices
Related to Cultural Differences), it was recommended that the
crucifix above the speakers chair in the National Assembly be removed
the Quebec Assembly immediately voted to keep it there.

Also, Québec is allowed to set it own immigration policy. One which
favours French speakers and tends to work against potential immigrants
from China and India who are much more likely to have English-speaking
skills or intentions to obtain them. Compounding the matter is that
the province doesn’t have the resources to help immigrants integrate
into Québec society.

Strange, you think inter-culturalism in, "Quebec is the *main* example

where it is working. They have put a *lot* of thought into it and IMO
have nailed it beautifully."

What we are really talking about is the large numbers of immigrants,
from the 1940's onwards, who've brought their traditions and religions
with them.

On 9 Aug, 14:58, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:48 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

Quebec, had difficulty with the term multiculturalism, but Quebec
developed its own programs in response to the new ethnic and racial
reality. These programs are similar in many ways to those of the other
provinces and the federal government.  So, what's the difference
between multiculturalism and Quebecs interculturalism? Or, is that
because Quebec has very few immigrants?

TLC. This is quite frustrating because I have explained in detail *several* times precisely what the difference between Interculturalism and Multiculturalism is.

And I have illustrated precisely how they differ by giving examples.

And if you believe that the rest of Canada has a multicultural "program" which is implemented similarly to Quebec, please provide evidence of a such a thing.

In fact, I would like to see a document produced by Canada which explicitly states the standards and guidelines upon which accommodation based on multiculturalism is allowed.

I've asked Ma-choo, who made a similar false claim to provide me with such evidence and would happily retract my statements about multiculturalism.

I'm still waiting for him to follow through and I issue you the same challenge.

Of course, hell will freeze over by the time either of you provide me with such a document since one doesn't exist.

Please reread my previous posts if you are *actually interested* in understanding where the differences between the two lies.

Instead of trying to understand, you are completely ignoring those explanations and refusing to deal with the arguments I'm making to support Interculturalism over Multiculturalism.

I'm not going to continue repeating myself simply because you choose to miss the point.

I will however repeat one point since I've only stated it once and unless you are a Canadian, which you are not, you likely don't understand the Quebec situation.

Quebec Has National Rights because of it's history. It's Language Rights and it's Rights to Control Immigration amongst other things are based on it's legally and constitutionally recognized Rights As A Nation.

This has nothing to do with muliticulturalism.

<snipped complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Quebec situation>

[TLC]

Trance,

"In fact, I would like to see a document produced by Canada which
explicitly states the standards and guidelines upon which
accommodation based on multiculturalism is allowed."

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/936-e.htm#5quebec

Love this part, "I will however repeat one point since I've only

stated it once and unless you are a Canadian, which you are not, you
likely don't understand the

Quebec situation. " Christians tell me the same thing!



On 10 Aug, 12:42, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:35 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

"In fact, I would like to see a document produced by Canada which
explicitly states the standards and guidelines upon which
accommodation based on multiculturalism is allowed."

Note that I asked for: "a document produced by *Canada* which explicitly states the *standards and guidelines* upon which accommodation based on *MULTICULTURALISM* is allowed." (my emphasis).

I already have one and there are others which explicitly state Quebec's position on Interculturalism and provide standards and guidelines upon which accomodation is based on where Interculturalism is concerned as demonstrated by your link.

Quebec and Interculturalism are consistent and apply consistent guidelines and standards to Interculturalism based on Universal and Civil Rights which is probably *why* there is so much documentation on Quebec's position.

Multiculturalism has *NO* such standards and guidelines and is irrationally and inconsistently applied resulting in different legal exclusions in different parts of the country which are often  based on nothing more than electioneering. Which is probably *why* there is *NO* such documentation on Canada's position.

*THIS* is my point.

Unless you can provide the evidence I *actually* asked for I will not retract my statements about multiculturalism.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/936-e.htm#5quebec

Love this part, "I will however repeat one point since I've only

stated it once and unless you are a Canadian, which you are not, you
likely don't understand the

Quebec situation. "    Christians tell me the same thing!

There are atheists who give idiotic arguments regarding Christianity which can no more be supported than the Christian ones.

I'm not saying that you are such an atheist but when Christians say that they're not *always* wrong.

[Dead Kennedy]

On 10 Aug, 12:42, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

As you said, blinkered.

Its the problem with libernazis, they are in a tiny minority but feel
that everybody should think exactly as they do as they know best. As I
have said before, Hitler was a liberal to those who agreed with him.

So now we have an english man telling a canadian how Canada is run.

What next, a white man patronising a woman of indian decent about
multiculturalism!

[Trance Gemini]

Too late ;-)

Seriously though, just the fact that the biggest critics of multi-cult are minorities and the biggest advocates are from the majority culture should tell them something ... if they would take their damn blinders off.

The multi-cultists won the propaganda war that multi-cult is "anti-racist" despite the fact that *all* of the evidence demonstrates that it's racist not to mention, irrational and inconsistently applied.

Somewhat like religion won the propaganda war that it's peaceful, loving, and charitable despite the fact that *all* of the evidence demonstrates that it is the opposite.

And there are no standards because cultural relativism can't have any standards. The only standard is that all cultural practices and beliefs are accepted by default. And this is the standard that multiculturalism maintains inconsistently because it can't do otherwise.

How is making genital mutilation illegal even justified while accepting Sharia Law?

Where is the consistency in those two decisions?

On what grounds is one right and the other wrong?

[Dead Kennedy]

On 10 Aug, 15:21, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

well you dont need to interact with somebody to know whats best for
them, not when you have an ISM. Its like political barrier
contraception.

> The multi-cultists won the propaganda war that multi-cult is "anti-racist"
> despite the fact that *all* of the evidence demonstrates that it's racist
> not to mention, irrational and inconsistently applied.

IMO, it comes from the "r" word. You can call anyone just about
anything and they will laugh it off but call them a racist and its
like lighting a fuse paper. One of the biggest problems for me is
people who will automatically claim "im not a racist" without any real
self assesment. The kind of people who will automatically reject
israeli oranges or boycotted S.A products because of their "recieved
wisdom", then tell you they love to go to black music venues because
black people are so good at music, must be their natural rhythm eh?

So as you said, to be anti-multiculturalism MUST be racist because it
was an ism designed specifically not to be racist. The fact that the
day to day reality creates ghettos (ive actually heard a black woman
say that its unfair to push black boys in school because its not in
their culture to succeed academically FFS) doesnt fit the self image,
so it is automatically rejected.

Im sure you know what "recieved wisdom" is but if anybody else would
like to google it....

>
> Somewhat like religion won the propaganda war that it's peaceful, loving,
> and charitable despite the fact that *all* of the evidence demonstrates that
> it is the opposite.

we can only try.

>
> And there are no standards because cultural relativism can't have any
> standards. The only standard is that all cultural practices and beliefs are
> accepted by default. And this is the standard that multiculturalism
> maintains inconsistently because it can't do otherwise.

As dawkins said, you cant have a western cultural relitivist in an
aeroplane. Anyone who thinks differential in air pressure keeps it in
the air would be a hypocrite, if they also believed it was equally
accepteble to believe it is the big magic bird god who is making it
fly.

>
> How is making genital mutilation illegal even justified while accepting
> Sharia Law?
>
> Where is the consistency in those two decisions?
>
> On what grounds is one right and the other wrong?

what ever their pretty heads tell them that allows them to feel right
on, meanwhile in the ghettos of whitechapel (insert local ghetto here)

>
> --
> "Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as

[TLC]

Trance,

if you consider the ethnic nationalism of the Quebecoise as being
"Inter-cultural" and being ideal, then I don't think you understand
what the ever changing concepts of multi-culturalism and inter-
culturalism mean.

Call it multi-culturalism or inter-culturalism, all it comes down to
is getting different ethnic communities living and working together
without too much adverse reaction. If you believe that multi-
culturalism is taking away your rights then tell us why.

By the way, why keep throwing in female genital mutilation, which has
nothing to do with multiculturalism? Having known an African woman
who had her clitoris cut and labia sewn up as a girl, it's easy to see
why it should be illegal. Even though clitoradectomies were openly
per- formed on children and women in England and the United States as
late as 1945.



On 10 Aug, 15:21, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 8, 11:07 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trance,
>
> The examples you've given are ones of radical "faithism" not multi-
> culturalism per se.  Each example can be matched by radical
> christianity.
>
> Each case can be matched with religious ones of the home grown
> varity.  Also, where criminal acts have been committed "cultural
> sensitivity" is not an excuse accepted by the courts, nor bothered
> with by the police when investigating cases in Europe.
>
> I, personally, think the arguement between Interculturalism and multi-
> culturalism are of not much point and are more a diviation away from
> the real point that religions, home grown or from abroad, will want to
> stop freedoms which allow the criticizing of their Sky Fairies.

All religions? Really? Do you think that's true of the 99% of the
world that practices religion too? Only you and your friends who make
up that 1% of atheists want freedom in the world?

Sounds like somebody's getting a bit too hasty with their
generalizations. Men with religious beliefs founded the freest nation
on the planet.

>
> Also, let's not forget that the demand for laws to stop people
> offending religions come mainly from the religious, white middle-class
> Protestants and Catholics.
>
> Is this really the fault of multi-culturalism, just because they
> always hypocritically mention the "cultural sensitivity" of minorities
> as a justification for their medieval thinking?

You're accepting false premises in the first place - killing someone
because they offended you with a cartoon is not "multi-culturalism" -
it's murder. Multiculturalism only asks that cultures be treated
equally - that is - the govt shouldn't favor one ethnic group over
another. Anything beyond that is extraneous - an action which is
improperly being conflated with "multiculturalism" for rhetorical
purposes.

> >http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/4305521c07d......

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, TLC <tlc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

if you consider the ethnic nationalism of the Quebecoise as being
"Inter-cultural" and being ideal, then I don't think you understand
what the ever changing concepts of multi-culturalism and inter-
culturalism mean.

I said that the fact that Quebec is a legally and constitutionally recognized Nation has nothing to do with multiculturalism or interculturalism for that matter.
 

Call it multi-culturalism or inter-culturalism, all it comes down to
is getting different ethnic communities living and working together
without too much adverse reaction.   If you believe that multi-
culturalism is taking away your rights then tell us why.

Answered in my first response to you. Please re-read.
 

By the way, why keep throwing in female genital mutilation, which has
nothing to do with multiculturalism?

It is a culturally established, legal, and accepted practice in certain parts of the world.

On what grounds is it illegal based on multicultural practices, standards and policies (you know the non-existent ones that no-one can find)?

Perhaps because the cultural relativism associated with multiculturalism is inconsistent, irrational and racist and only applies when the majority culture subjectively deems it acceptable?

Like I said, the problem is No Standards.

 

 Having known an African woman
who had her clitoris cut and labia sewn up as a girl, it's easy to see
why it should be illegal.  Even though clitoradectomies were openly
per- formed on children and women in England and the United States as
late as 1945.

Lots of women want to have it done and it continues to occur in the UK and Canada despite the fact that it's illegal.

How dare you infringe on the rights of those women who *want* to do it.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 10, 6:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:48 AM, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trance,
>
> > Quebec, had difficulty with the term multiculturalism, but Quebec
> > developed its own programs in response to the new ethnic and racial
> > reality. These programs are similar in many ways to those of the other
> > provinces and the federal government.  So, what's the difference
> > between multiculturalism and Quebecs interculturalism? Or, is that
> > because Quebec has very few immigrants?
>
> TLC. This is quite frustrating because I have explained in detail *several*
> times precisely what the difference between Interculturalism and
> Multiculturalism is.
>
> And I have illustrated precisely how they differ by giving examples.
>
> And if you believe that the rest of Canada has a multicultural "program"
> which is implemented similarly to Quebec, please provide evidence of a such
> a thing.
>
> In fact, I would like to see a document produced by Canada which explicitly
> states the standards and guidelines upon which accommodation based on
> multiculturalism is allowed.
>
> I've asked Ma-choo, who made a similar false claim to provide me with such
> evidence and would happily retract my statements about multiculturalism.

Ive been busy the last few days with family birthdays - will be
posting a response soon. But I'm not clear on what you mean here -what
false claim are you referring to?

My quote from Charles Taylor where he says that inter/multi-
culturalism aren't that different?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 10, 6:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

Ive been busy the last few days with family birthdays

Hope you had a nice time.
 

- will be
posting a response soon. But I'm not clear on what you mean here -what
false claim are you referring to? 

My quote from Charles Taylor where he says that inter/multi-
culturalism aren't that different?

No. I'm asking for a Canadian (not Quebecois) Government Document which explicitly specifies the standards set for establishing Multicultural policies. Since Multiculturalism is handled at the Provincial level it can be *any* document from *any* Province except Quebec. But I'm looking for something similar to the one that you referenced from Quebec.

My point being that no such document exists and the reason that none exists is that Multiculturalism does not apply *any* consistent standards where implementation is concerned whereas Interculturalism does as evidenced by the reference that you supplied from Quebec.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 8, 11:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You seem to be valiantly attacking windmills here - nipping at the
heels of non-existent problems.

Multi-culturalism is, essentially, nothing more than the idea that we
should extend "equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious
groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or
cultural community values as central.[1]"

Beyond that - you're only talking about a particular government, which
enacted a particular policy. Just because they claim to be multi-
cultural (rightly or wrongly - that doesn't matter) - doesn't mean
every decision they make is an accurate reflection of, or even based
on - multiculturalist principles. So when Sikhs are properly excluded
from helmet laws in one area- and not another - the problem isnt
multiculturalism. The problem is Canada - which is choosing not to
uniformly enforce these principles -for whatever reason.

>
>
>
> > Also, let's not forget that the demand for laws to stop people
> > offending religions come mainly from the religious, white middle-class
> > Protestants and Catholics.
>
> > Is this really the fault of multi-culturalism, just because they
> > always hypocritically mention the "cultural sensitivity" of minorities
> > as a justification for their medieval thinking?
>
> I consider white Protestants and Catholics a cultural group and no different
> from other cultural groups.
>
> You appear to have completely missed my point.
>
> Interculturalism provides us with a workable rights based framework for
> dealing with these issues and maintains one civil secular law. It doesn't
> care which cultural group is advocating what or demanding what accommodation
> or whether that group represents a majority or minority culture. It will
> grant accommodation only to ensure the protection of civil rights and for no
> other reason.
>
> Multiculturalism doesn't provide us with a workable framework. Nor does it
> even recognize the concept of universal and civil rights or the concepts of
> civil secular law. Anything goes and a majority cultural group will
> *necessarily* have more influence than a minority cultural group in terms of
> having their demands accommodated.

You're entirely missing the point of multi-culturalism here. The
faceless neutrality of multiculturalism towards all cultures IS the
point - not a problem. The goal is that no culture or ethnic group is
to be favored by public policy over another. "No ethnic, religious, or
cultural values are central" (wiki quote) - from the govt's point of
view. So the framework is *purposefully silent* on 'cultural values'
- because it bans any particular ethnic group from setting it's own
framework - to the detriment of other cultures (like Quebec has).

This does not mean that any culture can come in and openly violate
laws. While their culture is to be respected generally - laws are not
ignored - as you seem to claim. It appears that you're confusing
"political values"- which are immutable and central - with "cultural
values" - which should not be law, and are not central.

So yes - I cannot make the Protestant work ethic part of US law -
because my race isn't to be valued above all others. But the political
values of freedom of expression, religion, right to trial, etc - basic
*political values* of democracy - those are law - and they are
abrogated for no one.

These core democratic principles never change - whether inter or multi-
culturalist policies are used. The difference is that multi-
culturalism explicitly bans the enshrinement of *cultural values* -
e.g. trying to force immigrants into speaking French.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 10, 12:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 6:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Ive been busy the last few days with family birthdays
>
> Hope you had a nice time.

Thanks ;)

>
> > - will be
> > posting a response soon. But I'm not clear on what you mean here -what
> > false claim are you referring to?
> > My quote from Charles Taylor where he says that inter/multi-
> > culturalism aren't that different?
>
> No. I'm asking for a Canadian (not Quebecois) Government Document which
> explicitly specifies the standards set for establishing Multicultural
> policies. Since Multiculturalism is handled at the Provincial level it can
> be *any* document from *any* Province except Quebec. But I'm looking for
> something similar to the one that you referenced from Quebec.
>
> My point being that no such document exists and the reason that none exists
> is that Multiculturalism does not apply *any* consistent standards where
> implementation is concerned whereas Interculturalism does as evidenced by
> the reference that you supplied from Quebec.

Gotcha. I dont really want to invest the time looking for it - and I
think it's irrelevant for reasons listed in my newest post, near the
bottom of this thread. Look forward to reading your response.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 8, 11:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

>
> The point that you're missing is that Interculturalism deals with the
> problem consistently, rationally and with a mind to preserving universal and
> civil rights.
>
> Multiculturalism is inconsistent and irrational in how it deals with these
> issues and doesn't provide a foundation for even acknowledging the concept
> of rights.

You seem to be valiantly attacking windmills here -  nipping at the
heels of non-existent problems.

Multi-culturalism is, essentially, nothing more than the idea that we
should extend  "equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious
groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or
cultural community values as central.[1]"

Which is both meaningless and impossible to implement.

And if one held to that statement then, as I asked TLC, what are the grounds for making female circumcision illegal?

There are none.

There are also no grounds for criminalizing domestic violence, bride burnings or honor killings.

Those are culturally acceptable, legal practices in many countries.

And therefore should, by your definition of multiculturalism, be acceptable here.

The only standard that can be applied to multiculturalism is that cultural relativism is completely acceptable and all of those cultural practices should be acceptable.

The fact that they are not is inconsistent with multiculturalism and indicates that the majority culture *is* in fact *imposing* it's values on the minority cultures through law.

Which is precisely what it claims not to do.

Interculturalism openly and honestly states that secular law and universal and civil rights reign supreme and establishes that as the clearly defined and established standard by which all requests for accommodation are held to and makes no comment on culture nor does it establish any preferential treatment for either majority or minority cultures.
 

Beyond that - you're only talking about a particular government, which
enacted a particular policy. Just because they claim to be multi-
cultural (rightly or wrongly - that doesn't matter) -  doesn't mean
every decision they make is an accurate reflection of, or even based
on - multiculturalist principles. So when Sikhs are properly excluded
from helmet laws in one area- and not another  - the problem isnt
multiculturalism.  The problem is Canada - which is choosing not to
uniformly enforce these principles -for whatever reason.

Responded to above.

[Trance Gemini]

Wise move since you won't find one.

I never make such a request until I've looked myself and I've already looked.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 10, 6:48 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quebec, had difficulty with the term multiculturalism, but Quebec
> developed its own programs in response to the new ethnic and racial
> reality. These programs are similar in many ways to those of the other
> provinces and the federal government.  So, what's the difference
> between multiculturalism and Quebecs interculturalism? Or, is that
> because Quebec has very few immigrants?

Define "few".

> Quebec is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic

Less and less so. Many churches in Montreal have been torn down or
tuned into Condos...

> and when in a report, (the
> Bouchard-Taylor Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices
> Related to Cultural Differences),  it was recommended that the
> crucifix above the speakers chair in the National Assembly be removed
> the Quebec Assembly immediately voted to keep it there.
>
> Also, Québec is allowed to set it own immigration policy. One which
> favours French speakers and tends to work against potential immigrants
> from China and India who are much more likely to have English-speaking
> skills or intentions to obtain them. Compounding the matter is that
> the province doesn’t have the resources to help immigrants integrate
> into Québec society.

Really? How so?

> Strange, you think inter-culturalism in, "Quebec is the *main* example
> where it is working. They have put a *lot* of thought into it and IMO
> have nailed it beautifully."
>
> What we are really talking about is the large numbers of immigrants,
> from the 1940's onwards, who've brought their traditions and religions
> with them.

Where in Québec, exactly, do you live?
______________________________________________
Once you attempt legislation upon religious grounds, you open the way
for every kind of intolerance and religious persecution.
-- William Butler Yeats

[Answer_42]

On Aug 10, 7:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, it all has to do with the fact that we throw way better
parties than the rest of Canada!

[Answer_42]

Exactly. they alwasy criticize interculturalism because it, according
to them, promotes the idea that western culture is superior to all
others who should kneel in front of it...
Which is silly since there are many types of western cultures....
Germans are nothing like Portuguese, for instance.

In my mind, interculturalism is about immigrants adapting to the
locally dominant culture, even though that culture is dynamic and
changing, often because of the impact from the immigrants themselves.
In the West, this usually translates as making human rights dominant
over cultural beliefs, but if you were to move to a non-western
country, interculturalism would be applied differently, depending on
the local culture.

When I gave the example of me practising interculturalism in Asia,
somehow nobody complained that ti was unacceptable that an Eastern
culture promote itself as the dominant one....

Wonder why...

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 10, 7:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

<snipped>
 

> Quebec Has National Rights because of it's history. It's Language Rights and
> it's Rights to Control Immigration amongst other things are based on it's
> legally and constitutionally recognized Rights As A Nation.
>
> This has nothing to do with muliticulturalism.

Indeed, it all has to do with the fact that we throw way better
parties than the rest of Canada!

That too! And great festivals all summer long :-)

[Trance Gemini]

Actually this is a common misunderstanding.

Interculturalism doesn't speak to the question of culture at all.

It establishes that secular law and rights are above culture.

And accommodation occurs within the context of rights and not culture.

So, as long as a cultural group (majority or minority) doesn't violate secular or anyone's rights their practices are acceptable and accommodation will only ever occur where a rights violation occurs.

It encourages but doesn't require integration and/or absorption of other cultures but effectively doesn't care or get involved.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 10, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 11:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The point that you're missing is that Interculturalism deals with the
> > > problem consistently, rationally and with a mind to preserving universal
> > and
> > > civil rights.
>
> > > Multiculturalism is inconsistent and irrational in how it deals with
> > these
> > > issues and doesn't provide a foundation for even acknowledging the
> > concept
> > > of rights.
>
> > You seem to be valiantly attacking windmills here -  nipping at the
> > heels of non-existent problems.
>
> > Multi-culturalism is, essentially, nothing more than the idea that we
> > should extend  "equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious
> > groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or
> > cultural community values as central.[1]"
>
> Which is both meaningless and impossible to implement.
>
> And if one held to that statement then, as I asked TLC, what are the grounds
> for making female circumcision illegal?

The fact that you're assaulting another human being.. You're making
this really difficult, and unnecessarily so.

You snipped and seemed to have ignored the bulk of this post -which
stresses the difference between *cultural values* - like learning
French - and *political values* like not assaulting someone.

I explicitly stated in the last post that multiculturalism does not in
any way prescribe that political values or existing laws be abrogated
to accommodate *every* cultural practice.

So if a practitioner of African religion needs to slaughter goats for
his religion - violating normal city health codes - than by all
means - we should make an exception in accordance with his natural and
inalienable right of religious expression - ***because there's no
criminal behavior here*** - and it because it doesn't violate basic
political values and rights.

If his wife tries to mutilate her daughter , a criminal assault
according to core *political values* in the US - then we arrest him
for assault.
Is it really so hard to see the difference between assaulting someone,
and letting a Sikh ride a bike without a helmet?

>
> There are none.
>
> There are also no grounds for criminalizing domestic violence, bride
> burnings or honor killings.
>
> Those are culturally acceptable, legal practices in many countries.
>
> And therefore should, by your definition of multiculturalism, be acceptable
> here.

You apparently didn't read that definition very closely.

>
> The only standard that can be applied to multiculturalism is that cultural
> relativism is completely acceptable and all of those cultural practices
> should be acceptable.

"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's
beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own
culture" (wiki qoute). I repeat, it does not mean that every act is
therefore moral or acceptable (which would be moral relativism,
ironically a common atheistic view)- which is a bastard child you've
tried to attach here.

Again, quoting from wiki's first paragraph on the topic: "This
principle should not be confused with moral relativism."

If you feel differently, please provide a reputable source.

>
> The fact that they are not is inconsistent with multiculturalism and
> indicates that the majority culture *is* in fact *imposing* it's values on
> the minority cultures through law.

You're neglecting the difference between cultural values and political
values.

>
> Which is precisely what it claims not to do.
>
> Interculturalism openly and honestly states that secular law and universal
> and civil rights reign supreme and establishes that as the clearly defined

"Secular law"..."universal rights"....you realize that means a million
things to a million people?

> and established standard by which all requests for accommodation are held to
> and makes no comment on culture nor does it establish any preferential
> treatment for either majority or minority cultures.

No - interculturalism does exactly that - it enshrines one culture's
values over all others, for whatever reason. In our example of Quebec,
it has enshrined the french Canadians above their immigrant
counterparts - for reasons of cultural sympathy.

[Trance Gemini]

It's not assault in *their* culture. You're imposing *your* cultural values on *them* and by your *own* definition you have no grounds for doing so.

This is the hypocrisy *inherent* in multiculturalism and the result is an implementation which is inconsistent and irrational.
 

You snipped and seemed to have ignored the bulk of this post -which
stresses the difference between *cultural values* - like learning
French - and *political values* like not assaulting someone.

Responded to above and there is no standard in multiculturalism that differentiates between political values and cultural values.
 

I explicitly stated in the last post that multiculturalism does not in
any way prescribe that political values or existing laws be abrogated
to accommodate *every* cultural practice.

Citation? Please provide evidence to support this claim. I have seen no standard applied to multiculturalism that supports this claim that it differentiates between political values and cultural values.

<snipped>

[Ma-who?]

?? It's not silly because it's tyrannical and racist to force all
other cultures to accept your own and "kneel in front of it" ?

>
> In my mind, interculturalism is about immigrants adapting to the

No, not adapting. Being forced to take on your culture.. And that's
the problem

> locally dominant culture, even though that culture is dynamic and
> changing, often because of the impact from the immigrants themselves.
> In the West, this usually translates as making human rights dominant
> over cultural beliefs, but if you were to move to a non-western
> country, interculturalism would be applied differently, depending on
> the local culture.
>
> When I gave the example of me practising interculturalism in Asia,
> somehow nobody complained that ti was unacceptable that an Eastern
> culture promote itself as the dominant one....
>
> Wonder why...

Because the problems of interculturalism occur when you make it public
law -*forcing* other people to assimilate into your culture. Of
course there's no problem with you personally trying to learn another
language.

[Dead Kennedy]

which of course is ridiculous. It is western (we may as well use it as
a short hand) culture that is the continually changing and evolving
culture. It is the conservative, tribal, age old customs of the
immigrant population that we want to let go of. I personally want
everyone in the uk (as im sure you do in quebec) to join in with this
dynamic cultural change. This absolutely includes the changes the
immigrants bring.

> Which is silly since there are many types of western cultures....
> Germans are nothing like Portuguese, for instance.

other than in their belief in a democratic system and a society based
on equality of oppertunity.

>
> In my mind, interculturalism is about immigrants adapting to the
> locally dominant culture, even though that culture is dynamic and
> changing, often because of the impact from the immigrants themselves.
> In the West, this usually translates as making human rights dominant
> over cultural beliefs, but if you were to move to a non-western
> country, interculturalism would be applied differently, depending on
> the local culture.

I think i just agreed with you before getting to this point ;0)

>
> When I gave the example of me practising interculturalism in Asia,
> somehow nobody complained that ti was unacceptable that an Eastern
> culture promote itself as the dominant one....
>
> Wonder why...

norm chomski ?

> ______________________________________________
> Once you attempt legislation upon religious grounds, you open the way
> for every kind of intolerance and religious persecution.

> -- William Butler Yeats- Hide quoted text -

[TLC]

Answer_42:

Define "few".

Over the decade from 1996 to 2005 Ontario admitted 1.235.123 or 55.3
per cent of the total allowed into Canada, compared to Quebec, which
only admitted 348.295 or 15.6 per cent of the total. And even in
relative terms, Ontario admitted more immigrants.

Quebec is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic: The 2001 census showed the
population to be 90.3% Christian (in contrast to 77% for the whole
country) with 83.4% Catholic Christian (including 83.2% Roman
Catholic); 4.7% Protestant Christian (including 1.2% Anglican, 0.7%
United Church; and 0.5% Baptist); 1.4% Orthodox Christian (including
0.7% Greek Orthodox); and 0.8% other Christian; as well as 1.5%
Muslim; 1.3% Jewish; 0.6% Buddhist; 0.3% Hindu; and 0.1% Sikh. An
additional 5.8% of the population said they had no religious
affiliation (including 5.6% who stated that they had no religion at
all).

Québec is allowed to set it own immigration policy. How so?

The Canada-Quebec Accord, which was signed in 1991, the Quebec
Government entered into the first comprehensive immigration agreement
with the Federal Government. Within the overarching Federal
Government policy framework and immigration targets for Canada, the
Canada-Quebec Accord granted Quebec the sole responsibility to select
all independent immigrants and refugees abroad who want to live in
that province. With a “certificat de sélection du Québec” granted by
the Quebec Government.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 10, 4:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cultural sensitivities doesn't that other cultures redefine words -
assault refers to any unwanted physical violence. So this may be a
form of assault that their culture tolerates - but there's no way
around the inevitable fact that this IS assault. And when cultural
practices conflict with criminal law - and *political values* - for
obvious reasons - US law takes precedent. Accommodation is made only
for non-criminal practices, usually when involving natural rights like
expression or religion - e.g. - non political values.

>
> This is the hypocrisy *inherent* in multiculturalism and the result is an
> implementation which is inconsistent and irrational.

You've still given no examples or evidence of "multiculturalism" being
applied in this way. Local problems with Canadian politics prove you
have problems in Canadian politics - it does not prove this is a
chronic result of multiculturalist policies. In fact, quite obviously
- the problem is one of your provinces is not enforcing these
multiculturalist policies -or else the helmet law would be changed
there also.

So the inconsistency is the result of multiculturalism not being
applied - not multiculturalism itself.

>
>
> > You snipped and seemed to have ignored the bulk of this post -which
> > stresses the difference between *cultural values* - like learning
> > French - and *political values* like not assaulting someone.
>
> Responded to above and there is no standard in multiculturalism that
> differentiates between political values and cultural values.
>
>
>
> > I explicitly stated in the last post that multiculturalism does not in
> > any way prescribe that political values or existing laws be abrogated
> > to accommodate *every* cultural practice.
>
> Citation? Please provide evidence to support this claim. I have seen no
> standard applied to multiculturalism that supports this claim that it
> differentiates between political values and cultural values.

It's in the first paragraph of wiki's page on multiculturalism. I'm
sure you'll find similar definitions in academic works.

You snipped and seem to have ignored many points in the last post - do
you accept that cultural relativism and moral relativism are not the
same thing - that cultural relativism doesn't mean all cultural
practices are okay? Please respond.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 11, 6:10 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Answer_42:
>
> Define "few".
>
> Over the decade from 1996 to 2005 Ontario admitted 1.235.123 or 55.3
> per cent of the total allowed into Canada, compared to Quebec, which
> only admitted 348.295 or 15.6 per cent of the total. And even in
> relative terms, Ontario admitted more immigrants.

300,000 plus is not "very few."

> Quebec is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic:   The 2001 census showed the
> population to be 90.3% Christian (in contrast to 77% for the whole
> country) with 83.4% Catholic Christian (including 83.2% Roman
> Catholic); 4.7% Protestant Christian (including 1.2% Anglican, 0.7%
> United Church; and 0.5% Baptist); 1.4% Orthodox Christian (including
> 0.7% Greek Orthodox); and 0.8% other Christian; as well as 1.5%
> Muslim; 1.3% Jewish; 0.6% Buddhist; 0.3% Hindu; and 0.1% Sikh. An
> additional 5.8% of the population said they had no religious
> affiliation (including 5.6% who stated that they had no religion at
> all).
>
> Québec is allowed to set it own immigration policy. How so?

My "How so?" was referring to the part that immediately preceded it,
i.e.:
"
(...) the matter is that

the province doesn’t have the resources to help immigrants integrate
into Québec society.
"

You forgot to answer:

[Answer_42]

On Aug 10, 6:08 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

> > > I have noticed it in many posts where what ever you claim an "other"
> > > person has done, it is justified by a ref to an action by a european
> > > eg: muslim terrorists/but what about the crusades, genital mutilation/
> > > well christians used to do stuff as bad, domination by patriarcy in
> > > third world theocracies/see cut'n'paste above.
>
> > > for TLC the problem will alway be the west, however many young girls
> > > have thier labia cut off.
>
> > Exactly. they alwasy criticize interculturalism because it, according
> > to them, promotes the idea that western culture is superior to all
> > others who should kneel in front of it...
> > Which is silly since there are many types of western cultures....
> > Germans are nothing like Portuguese, for instance.
>
> ?? It's not silly because it's tyrannical and racist to force all
> other cultures to accept your own and "kneel in front of  it"  ?

Except that what you describe is nothing like interculturalism .

> > In my mind, interculturalism is about immigrants adapting to the
>
> No, not adapting. Being forced to take on your culture.. And that's
> the problem

Except that what you describe is nothing like interculturalism .

> > locally dominant culture, even though that culture is dynamic and
> > changing, often because of the impact from the immigrants themselves.
> > In the West, this usually translates as making human rights dominant
> > over cultural beliefs, but if you were to move to a non-western
> > country, interculturalism would be applied differently, depending on
> > the local culture.
>
> > When I gave the example of me practising interculturalism in Asia,
> > somehow nobody complained that ti was unacceptable that an Eastern
> > culture promote itself as the dominant one....
>
> > Wonder why...
>
> Because the problems of interculturalism occur when you make it public
> law -*forcing* other people to assimilate into your culture.

Who said it was about assimilation?

>  Of
> course there's no problem with you personally trying to learn another
> language.

It was moe than language...

[Trance Gemini]

We are talking about Canada not the US and I suspect that they are even *more* inconsistently applied in the US.

And please provide evidence that the standard applied by multiculturalism is when "criminal law" and "political values" conflict with cultural practices.

Sikh students in BC are *allowed* to wear a kirpan to school without sealing it which violates the criminal concealed weapons laws.
 

Accommodation is made only
for non-criminal practices, usually when involving natural rights like
expression or religion - e.g. - non political values.

Not true. Example given above.
 

>
> This is the hypocrisy *inherent* in multiculturalism and the result is an
> implementation which is inconsistent and irrational.

You've still given no examples or evidence of "multiculturalism" being
applied in this way.

I gave you the helmet example and now you have the kirpan example.
 

 Local problems with Canadian politics prove you
have problems in Canadian politics - it does not prove this is a
chronic result of multiculturalist policies.

Multicultural policies are *determined* by politics and that is a *huge* part of the problem and my point.
 

In fact, quite obviously
- the problem is one of your provinces is not enforcing these
multiculturalist policies -or else the helmet law would be changed
there also.

There *is NO standard*. That's the point. As a result decisions are inconsistent and irrational and frequently based on nothing more than political expediency.
 

So the inconsistency is the result of multiculturalism not being
applied - not multiculturalism itself.

Multiculturalism *CANNOT* be applied consistently because there is *NO* Standard.
 

>
>
> > You snipped and seemed to have ignored the bulk of this post -which
> > stresses the difference between *cultural values* - like learning
> > French - and *political values* like not assaulting someone.
>
> Responded to above and there is no standard in multiculturalism that
> differentiates between political values and cultural values.
>
>
>
> > I explicitly stated in the last post that multiculturalism does not in
> > any way prescribe that political values or existing laws be abrogated
> > to accommodate *every* cultural practice.
>
> Citation? Please provide evidence to support this claim. I have seen no
> standard applied to multiculturalism that supports this claim that it
> differentiates between political values and cultural values.

It's in the first paragraph of wiki's page on multiculturalism. I'm
sure you'll find similar definitions in academic works.

I'm asking for a *Standard* that states that since *standards* are what determines how something is implemented.

I have demonstrated repeatedly the multiculturalism is *inconsistently* applied so to make such a claim is meaningless.

We know that they don't apply it to every cultural practices despite the fact that the philosophy would require it and *there are no grounds not to*.

Other than political expediency or majority cultural approval.
 

You snipped and seem to have ignored many points in the last post - do
you accept that cultural relativism and moral relativism are not the
same thing - that cultural relativism doesn't mean all cultural
practices are okay? Please respond.

Cultural relativism, by definition means that *all* cultural practices are okay.

To claim it means something else is absurd and self-serving.

[TLC]

Answer_42,

If you think my post is wrong, please explain why and if you think
Québec does have the resources to aid migrants tell us what it's
doing.

“There is a divide between immigration policy and integration policy,”
says Marie-Thérèse Chicha, an economist who specializes in immigration
and diversity issues at the University of Montreal. The province, she
says, encourages immigration, but then lacks the funding or policy
coherence to help new arrivals integrate into the Quebec economy."

And what does where I live have to do with this or any subject?

[Dead Kennedy]

On 13 Aug, 09:59, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Answer_42,
>
> If you think my post is wrong, please explain why and if you think
> Québec does have the resources to aid migrants tell us what it's
> doing.
>
> “There is a divide between immigration policy and integration policy,”
> says Marie-Thérèse Chicha, an economist who specializes in immigration
> and diversity issues at the University of Montreal. The province, she
> says, encourages immigration, but then lacks the funding or policy
> coherence to help new arrivals integrate into the Quebec economy."
>
> And what does where I live have to do with this or any subject?

recieved wisdom v actual experience.

[Ma-who?]

/snip

>
> > > It's not assault in *their* culture. You're imposing *your* cultural
> > values
> > > on *them* and by your *own* definition you have no grounds for doing so.
>
> > Cultural sensitivities doesn't that other cultures redefine words -
> > assault refers to any unwanted physical violence. So this may be a
> > form of assault that their culture tolerates - but  there's no way
> > around the inevitable fact that this IS assault.  And when cultural
> > practices conflict with criminal law - and *political values* - for
> > obvious reasons - US law takes precedent.
>
> We are talking about Canada not the US and I suspect that they are even
> *more* inconsistently applied in the US.

No, we're talking about multiculturalism. You're ranting about Canada.
It is a matter of demonstrable fact that cases such as these are
prosecuted as crimes by multicultural societies -whether in the US, UK
or Canada. The point is contrary to your claims- not all cultural
practices are allowed under multiculturalist principles.

At this point, your continued repetition of this claim, despite the
known existence of proof to the contrary - is nothing more than the
repetition of ignorance and lies.

>
> And please provide evidence that the standard applied by multiculturalism is
> when "criminal law" and "political values" conflict with cultural practices.

This is implied in the definition. Political values are held central
by the state -which includes laws on crime and punishment. As the
definition states - multiculturalists ensures that all cultures are
treated equally by a central government - this necessarily implies
that criminal law applies to all.

You're digging for answers in a mud hole here - why dont you just read
the definitions and work from there - instead of imposing your false
notions and biases first -and then trying to make the definitions fit
your false stereotypes?

>
> Sikh students in BC are *allowed* to wear a kirpan to school without sealing
> it which violates the criminal concealed weapons laws.

The exception is made because the dagger is a *religious* practice,
and therefore an extension of religious rights and freedoms . It is
not a criminal practice.

I also found the Canadian criminal code on knives - which doesn't
prohibit the Kirpan in the first place:

Certain knives are designated as 'prohibited weapons' pursuant to the
Criminal Code of Canada. Section 84(1) defines such knives as "a knife
that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal
force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device
in or attached to the handle of the knife".

The Kirpan does not qualify as banned under your country's criminal
code - the problem was simply school policy and worried parents - both
of which were resolved by the accommodation eventually reached.

> > Accommodation is made only
> > for non-criminal practices, usually when involving natural rights like
> > expression or religion - e.g. - non political values.
>
> Not true. Example given above.

Your example is false.

>
>
>
> > > This is the hypocrisy *inherent* in multiculturalism and the result is an
> > > implementation which is inconsistent and irrational.
>
> > You've still given no examples or evidence of "multiculturalism" being
> > applied in this way.
>
> I gave you the helmet example and now you have the kirpan example.

And I already made the point - which youve left without any response
or rebuttal - that those problems are with YOUR government. If Canada
has no consistent standard for applying multiculturalism - then Canada
has a problem. Multiculturalism is a philosophy - it's not a
philosophy's fault that your government doesn't have any consistency
in it's legislation. It's your government's fault - so if there's an
issue, it's an issue you have with your local government, and nothing
more.

>
> >  Local problems with Canadian politics prove you
> > have problems in Canadian politics - it does not prove this is a
> > chronic result of multiculturalist policies.
>
> Multicultural policies are *determined* by politics and that is a *huge*
> part of the problem and my point.

ALL policies are determined by "politics" -the same applies equally to
Interculturalism. Case in point - Herouxville, Quebec.

Again - you have a problem with Canadian politics- not
multiculturalism.

>
> > In fact, quite obviously
> > - the problem is one of your provinces is not enforcing these
> > multiculturalist policies -or else the helmet law would be changed
> > there also.
>
> There *is NO standard*. That's the point. As a result decisions are
> inconsistent and irrational and frequently based on nothing more than
> political expediency.
>
>
>
> > So the inconsistency is the result of multiculturalism not being
> > applied - not multiculturalism itself.
>
> Multiculturalism *CANNOT* be applied consistently because there is *NO*
> Standard.

There is a definition and basic principles which dictate how a
standard could be created. If the Canadian government does not have a
standard -then you have a problem with the Canadian government. Im
not sure you are escaping this obvious fact - that the problem is your
government, not the principles they fail to properly enact.

No - you're flat wrong and Ive already posted quotes from wiki to
prove it. I'm telling you for the last time here:

To believe that all cultural practices are okay is moral relativism.

Wiki: " Normative [moral] relativism, further still, is the
prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral
standard by which to judge others, ***we ought to tolerate the
behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or
cultural moral standards.***

This is what you're talking about. Notice that in wiki's definition of
cultural relativism - it EXPLICITLY STATES CULTURAL RELATIVISM SHOULD
NOT BE CONFUSED WITH MORAL RELATIVISM. See below.

"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's
beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own

culture...This principle should not be confused with moral
relativism."

Your continued repetition of this false claim is nothing more than the
willfull repetition of lies and ignorance - in the face of proof to
the contrary.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 4:59 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you think my post is wrong, please explain why and if you think
> Québec does have the resources to aid migrants tell us what it's
> doing.

There are language courses sponsored by the governement, assistance in
finding jobs, subsidies for housing, etc.

> “There is a divide between immigration policy and integration policy,”
> says Marie-Thérèse Chicha, an economist who specializes in immigration
> and diversity issues at the University of Montreal. The province, she
> says, encourages immigration, but then lacks the funding or policy
> coherence to help new arrivals integrate into the Quebec economy."
>
> And what does where I live have to do with this or any subject?

Depends on the subject.
In this case, it is quite relevant because I am talking from first
hand experience and you are not.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 16, 11:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > And please provide evidence that the standard applied by multiculturalism is
> > when "criminal law" and "political values" conflict with cultural practices.
>
> This is implied in the definition. Political values are held central
> by the state -which includes laws on crime and punishment. As the
> definition states - multiculturalists ensures that all cultures are
> treated equally by a central government - this necessarily implies
> that criminal law applies to all.

Are you suggesting that a state's political values are unrelated to
the dominant culture in that state?

> You're digging for answers in a mud hole here - why dont you just read
> the  definitions and work from there - instead of imposing your false
> notions and biases first -and then trying to make the definitions fit
> your false stereotypes?

First, show us how political values can be unrelated to cultural
values and then you might convince us that you are the one not playing
biased semantic games.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

/snip

>
> > > It's not assault in *their* culture. You're imposing *your* cultural
> > values
> > > on *them* and by your *own* definition you have no grounds for doing so.
>
> > Cultural sensitivities doesn't that other cultures redefine words -
> > assault refers to any unwanted physical violence. So this may be a
> > form of assault that their culture tolerates - but  there's no way
> > around the inevitable fact that this IS assault.  And when cultural
> > practices conflict with criminal law - and *political values* - for
> > obvious reasons - US law takes precedent.
>
> We are talking about Canada not the US and I suspect that they are even
> *more* inconsistently applied in the US.

No, we're talking about multiculturalism.

And you provided the example of Interculturalism from Quebec this places the discussion in the Canadian realm.
 

You're ranting about Canada.
It is a matter of demonstrable fact that cases such as these are
prosecuted as crimes by multicultural societies -whether in the US, UK
or Canada.  The point is contrary to your claims- not all cultural
practices are allowed under multiculturalist principles.

And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made for criminal acts.

Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime in Canada and carrying any kind of weapon on school property, concealed or not, is a crime.

A Kirpan is a *real* dagger, a knife.

Exception has been granted from Criminal Law in BC but not in Ontario.

This demonstrates that Multiculturalism is *not* consistently applied and neither political values nor Criminal Law are consistent grounds to prevent accommodation.

So you are wrong. Wiki is wrong. The *facts* state otherwise whether you like or not.

It's an inconvenient truth where MultiCult is concerned.

Live with it.

Carrying a knife as a religious requirement has everything to do with cultural relativism and nothing to do with moral relativism.

<snipped personal attacks, arguments based on ignorance, refusal to acknowledge the facts and arbitrary conflation of the terms cultural relativism and moral relativism>

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 16, 12:52 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And please provide evidence that the standard applied by multiculturalism is
> > > when "criminal law" and "political values" conflict with cultural practices.
>
> > This is implied in the definition. Political values are held central
> > by the state -which includes laws on crime and punishment. As the
> > definition states - multiculturalists ensures that all cultures are
> > treated equally by a central government - this necessarily implies
> > that criminal law applies to all.
>
> Are you suggesting that a state's political values are unrelated to
> the dominant culture in that state?

No. Political values are obviously based on culture. That doesn't
negate the difference between cultural values (the Protestant work
ethic e.g) - from political values (freedom of speech).

>
> > You're digging for answers in a mud hole here - why dont you just read
> > the  definitions and work from there - instead of imposing your false
> > notions and biases first -and then trying to make the definitions fit
> > your false stereotypes?
>
> First, show us how political values can be unrelated to cultural
> values and then you might convince us that you are the one not playing
> biased semantic games.

They dont have to be unrelated. These are not semantic games - the
fact that political values may be based in culture are irrelevant. The
relevant point is to distinguish cultural values (another example -
the common American cultural value of self-reliability) - from
political values. This shouldn't be hard to do.

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 16, 1:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > /snip
>
> > > > > It's not assault in *their* culture. You're imposing *your* cultural
> > > > values
> > > > > on *them* and by your *own* definition you have no grounds for doing
> > so.
>
> > > > Cultural sensitivities doesn't that other cultures redefine words -
> > > > assault refers to any unwanted physical violence. So this may be a
> > > > form of assault that their culture tolerates - but  there's no way
> > > > around the inevitable fact that this IS assault.  And when cultural
> > > > practices conflict with criminal law - and *political values* - for
> > > > obvious reasons - US law takes precedent.
>
> > > We are talking about Canada not the US and I suspect that they are even
> > > *more* inconsistently applied in the US.
>
> > No, we're talking about multiculturalism.
>
> And you provided the example of Interculturalism from Quebec this places the
> discussion in the Canadian realm.

It makes Canada an example. This isnt only about Canada.

>
> > You're ranting about Canada.
> > It is a matter of demonstrable fact that cases such as these are
> > prosecuted as crimes by multicultural societies -whether in the US, UK
> > or Canada.  The point is contrary to your claims- not all cultural
> > practices are allowed under multiculturalist principles.
>
> And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made for
> criminal acts.

No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:

Trance Gemini said in "The terrible damage done":

" Why? Because the Sikh student was required to *seal* the dagger
making it
inaccessible. That is, the dagger is sealed into the sheath
permanently and
cannot be removed.

This ensures that the dagger cannot be legally considered a concealed
weapon
because it can no longer be used as a weapon therefore *not*
violating the
concealed weapons laws."

So which is it Trance? Criminal law or not? Let me guess for you -
the answer is you dont give a shit about the truth - all you care
about are selfish efforts to save face while you refuse to admit error
-ever. Truth has no meaning when you can flip flop from day to day
just to maintain your lies and factual errors. It's disgraceful -and
I'm done wearing kid gloves and trying to assume the best about you in
the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The actual answer is that this doesn't violate criminal statutes due
to the fact that the courts have interpreted the ban on concealed
weapons as follows:

"The courts have decided in the past with respect to a similarly-
worded section [on concealed weapons] that the offence requires that
the weapon be concealed for an unlawful purpose in order for it to be
a crime; that is, in addition to the weapon being concealed, the court
has to be satisfied that the person carrying it intended to do
something illegal with it. "

This does not apply in the Sikh dagger case.
---------------

If you think criminal law is actually excepted for multiculturalist
reasons - please find me one case in the UK or Canada of honor
killings or female mutiliation being ALLOWED. Just one, that's all -
surely you can do that?

>
> Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime in Canada and carrying any kind of
> weapon on school property, concealed or not, is a crime.
>
> A Kirpan is a *real* dagger, a knife.
>
> Exception has been granted from Criminal Law in BC but not in Ontario.
>
> This demonstrates that Multiculturalism is *not* consistently applied and
> neither political values nor Criminal Law are consistent grounds to prevent
> accommodation.

It absolutely demonstrates that your government is not appropriately
or consistently applying those policies. Which has absolutely nothing
to do with multiculturalism. Figure it out already.

It also demonstrates that I'm banging my head against a wall here -
because I've made this point three times to you today at least -
without even a hint of a response or rebuttal from you.

So let's stop wasting our time Trance. Please rebury your head in the
sand - and live in the fantasyland where Trance's word = truth, and
facts dont matter.

I'm done feeding your martyrdom complex. Be a racist, and be happy
about it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 1:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

>

> And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made for
> criminal acts.

No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:

Do you know what a Province is?

Quebec required that the Sikh Student accommodate the law by sealing the Kirpan into the sheath on the grounds of Interculturalism.

BC allowed the Sikh Student to be excluded from the law on the grounds of multiculturalism by allowing the student to wear a concealed weapon to school violating existing criminal law which does not allow *any* weapons to be taken to school.

You are confusing yourself in your last ditch attempt to appear as if you have a valid argument to support the indefensible.

1. Prohibited weapons. A Kirpan is a "Constant Companion" weapon. (From *YOUR* source).

"If one is found to be in unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon by any law enforcement officer, he or she is liable to maximum of 5 years in jail and the weapon being seized. The peace officer can then apply to a provincial court judge for the said weapon to be forfeited and be disposed as he or she sees fit. The import and export of such devices are also strictly regulated and enforced by the Canada Border Services Agency.^[3]

Examples of such knives include:^[4]

• automatic knives such as switchblades;
• centrifugal knives such as flick knives or butterfly knives;
• gravity knives;
• Constant Companion (belt-buckle knife)
• finger rings with blades or other sharp objects projecting from the surface;
• push daggers;
• spiked wristbands;"

Which means it can't be carried *concealed or not* anymore.

Which also means that the law is being abrogated in BC on the grounds of multiculturalism because Sikh students are *allowed* to wear kirpans to school without sealing them into the sheath.

A kirpan is worn over or under a loose shirt and the sheath is attached to a belt slung over the shoulder and across the chest.
 
A Constant Companion knife, therefore a *prohibited weapon.

---------------

If you think criminal law is actually excepted for multiculturalist
reasons - please find me one case in the UK or Canada of honor
killings or female mutiliation being ALLOWED. Just one, that's all -
surely you can do that?

>
> Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime in Canada and carrying any kind of
> weapon on school property, concealed or not, is a crime.
>
> A Kirpan is a *real* dagger, a knife.
>
> Exception has been granted from Criminal Law in BC but not in Ontario.
>
> This demonstrates that Multiculturalism is *not* consistently applied and
> neither political values nor Criminal Law are consistent grounds to prevent
> accommodation.

It absolutely demonstrates that your government is not appropriately
or consistently applying those policies. Which has absolutely nothing
to do with multiculturalism. Figure it out already.

Then provide *evidence* that multiculturalism *actually* and in *practice* follows the standards that you claim in the form of actual written *official* government standards not bullshit and unsupported bare assertions.

That's the only way you're going to have anything *close* to a valid argument.

<snipped>

[Ma-who?]

> > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made for
> > > criminal acts.
>
> > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
> > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> Do you know what a Province is?

Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case - and in all cases we were
referring to the Quebec case. You have now argue that this case is
both an example of criminal law being abrogated -and that it's an
example of the law not being abrogated. You cannot have it both ways.
And to be frank, why dont you just keep your answer to yourself - I'm
tired of watching you throw shit at the fan, and then making me clean
up your lies.

>
> Quebec required that the Sikh Student accommodate the law by sealing the
> Kirpan into the sheath on the grounds of Interculturalism.

Yep, that's the case we've been talking about - that you flip flopped
on when convenient.

>
> BC allowed the Sikh Student to be excluded from the law on the grounds of
> multiculturalism by allowing the student to wear a concealed weapon to
> school violating existing criminal law which does not allow *any* weapons to
> be taken to school.

No, we talked about a BC case where the helmet law was excepted. I
have searched both Canadian govt websites as well as Canadian Sikh
websites on relevant legal cases and precedents - there are no listed
cases of the Kirpan being contested in BC. Are you pulling this claim
out of your ass? Maybe try your head next..

Contrary to your claims about BC banning the kirpan, I did find this
interesting nugget on the Sikh Coalitions website:

"Sikhs may wear kirpans in schools in Surrey, British Columbia....
There is no evidence that kirpans have sparked a violent incident in
any school, no evidence that any other school board in Canada bans
kirpans, "

This is a valiant effort,but anytime you care more about being right
and saving face than the truth - you're going to miss the truth - like
you have here.

The Kirpan IS allowed to be carried in most public places in Canada
(check wiki entry on kirpan). As for the question of whether criminal
law is being abrogated here - just read the ruling itself. Your own
Canadian Supreme court has ruled in Multani v. Commission scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] that
*****an order of a Quebec school authority*****
that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a
violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "

(emphasis and line breaks added)

Youll notice - they did not override any laws on concealed weapons or
prohibited weapons. THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL LAW INVOLVED - as reflected
by the court's own writings and ruling - which struck down a local
school board order, not any criminal law on knives generally.

That information and more support is contained in wikis entry on this
case, Multani vs Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys.

This conclusion is further strengthened if you examine the timeline of
this case - in which after first being rejected, the school board
accepted the kirpan - before finally rejecting it again. Obviously, if
a kirpan violates criminal law - the school wouldn't allow the knife -
at all.

I hope you'll notice here - these are the court's own rulings - a
conclusive answer. This is the legal case at hand, and its ruling and
description on wiki quite obviously show there is no criminal law
involved in the case. I dont care if you admit error, I dont care if
you even respond - I just hope you have enough sense and sanity to
admit , to yourself, when you're wrong - and maybe take a dose of
humility along with it.

/snip

> > If you think criminal law is actually excepted for multiculturalist
> > reasons - please find me one case in the UK or Canada of honor
> > killings or female mutiliation being ALLOWED. Just one, that's all -
> > surely you can do that?

I'll take your silence as a no. And if there are no cases where honor
killings and criminal laws are abrogated for multiculturalist reasons
- well, you know what that means...

>
> > > Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime in Canada and carrying any kind of
> > > weapon on school property, concealed or not, is a crime.
>
> > > A Kirpan is a *real* dagger, a knife.
>
> > > Exception has been granted from Criminal Law in BC but not in Ontario.
>
> > > This demonstrates that Multiculturalism is *not* consistently applied and
> > > neither political values nor Criminal Law are consistent grounds to
> > prevent
> > > accommodation.
>
> > It absolutely demonstrates that your government is not appropriately
> > or consistently applying those policies. Which has absolutely nothing
> > to do with multiculturalism. Figure it out already.
>
> Then provide *evidence* that multiculturalism *actually* and in *practice*
> follows the standards that you claim in the form of actual written
> *official* government standards not bullshit and unsupported bare
> assertions.

That's irrelevant - how much your local government sucks at
implementing standards. ***Multiculturalism is a set of principles
which exists entirely independent of your government, and your
governments failures.*** Any inconsistency is **Canadian**
inconsistency, not multiculturalism. You just don't seem to get that,
and I'm not repeating myself anymore for you. Better luck next time.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made for
> > > criminal acts.
>
> > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
> > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> Do you know what a Province is?

Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case

No. I introduced the second case later. Please learn to read.

I deliberately introduced the second case to demonstrate the difference.
 

- and in all cases we were
referring to the Quebec case. You have now argue that this case is
both an example of criminal law being abrogated -and that it's an
example of the law not being abrogated. You cannot have it both ways.
And to be frank, why dont you just keep your answer to yourself - I'm
tired of watching you throw shit at the fan, and then making me clean
up your lies.

>
> Quebec required that the Sikh Student accommodate the law by sealing the
> Kirpan into the sheath on the grounds of Interculturalism.

Yep, that's the case we've been talking about - that you flip flopped
on when convenient.

>
> BC allowed the Sikh Student to be excluded from the law on the grounds of
> multiculturalism by allowing the student to wear a concealed weapon to
> school violating existing criminal law which does not allow *any* weapons to
> be taken to school.

No, we talked about a BC case where the helmet law was excepted.

And in a recent post I introduced a second case from BC which involved the Kirpan.

Please learn to read.
 

I
have searched both Canadian govt websites as well as Canadian Sikh
websites on relevant legal  cases and precedents - there are no listed
cases of the Kirpan being contested in BC. Are you pulling this claim
out of your ass? Maybe try your head next..

"Sikhs may wear kirpans in schools in Surrey, British Columbia. "

Source: http://www.sikhcoalition.org/LegalCanada5.asp

http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIsikhs/WHOs_WHO/Raghbir_Bains/1_Recognition_Five%29Kakkar.htm

Note that Quebec requires the kirpans to be sealed not abrogating criminal law.

BC does not require the kirpans to be sealed abrogating criminal law.

That is the key difference.

Get it yet?

Contrary to your claims about BC banning the kirpan, I did find this
interesting nugget on the Sikh Coalitions website:

"Sikhs may wear kirpans in schools in Surrey, British Columbia....
There is no evidence that kirpans have sparked a violent incident in
any school, no evidence that any other school board in Canada bans
kirpans, "

Funny how you missed this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07/toronto-kirpan-debate-brampton.html

Whether it has occurred in a school or not is quite irrelevant. As long as the blade is not sealed into the sheath it's a weapon.

"An attack in Brampton, Ont., last Friday involving a kirpan has renewed discussion within the Sikh community over the right to wear the ceremonial dagger.

An attack in Brampton, Ont., last Friday involving a kirpan has renewed discussion within the Sikh community over the right to wear the ceremonial dagger. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

The incident happened on April 2 outside of the Sikh Lehar Centre on Bramsteele Road, near Highway 410 and Steeles Avenue West, west of Toronto."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07/toronto-kirpan-debate-brampton.html#ixzz0wodTxh7f

 

WHERE HAVE I DISPUTED THAT?????

The point is that it is being carried in ABROGATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW WHICH CONSIDERED IT A PROHIBITED WEAPON.
 

 As for the question of whether criminal
law is being abrogated here - just read the ruling itself. Your own
Canadian Supreme court has ruled in Multani v. Commission scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] that
*****an order of a Quebec school authority*****
that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a
violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "

AND IN QUEBEC THE KIRPAN MUST BE SEALED WHICH MEANS THAT IT CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THE SHEATH AND CANNOT BE USED AS A WEAPON.

GET IT YET?

<SNIPPED>

[Answer_42]

On Aug 16, 5:49 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > And please provide evidence that the standard applied by multiculturalism is
> > > > when "criminal law" and "political values" conflict with cultural practices.
>
> > > This is implied in the definition. Political values are held central
> > > by the state -which includes laws on crime and punishment. As the
> > > definition states - multiculturalists ensures that all cultures are
> > > treated equally by a central government - this necessarily implies
> > > that criminal law applies to all.
>
> > Are you suggesting that a state's political values are unrelated to
> > the dominant culture in that state?
>
> No. Political values are obviously based on culture. That doesn't
> negate the difference between cultural values (the Protestant work
> ethic e.g) - from political values (freedom of speech).

Freeedom of speech IS culturally based... ask any Muslim or
Chinese....

> > > You're digging for answers in a mud hole here - why dont you just read
> > > the  definitions and work from there - instead of imposing your false
> > > notions and biases first -and then trying to make the definitions fit
> > > your false stereotypes?
>
> > First, show us how political values can be unrelated to cultural
> > values and then you might convince us that you are the one not playing
> > biased semantic games.
>
> They dont have to be unrelated. These are not semantic games - the
> fact that political values may be based in culture are irrelevant.

It is very relevant when you claim that political values are
culturally neutral:

"
Political values are held central by the state
"

and then claiming that the state is culturally neutral.

> The
> relevant point is to distinguish cultural values (another example -
> the common American cultural value of self-reliability)

And this very same "cultural value" is used as an argument to support
various policies, such as Washington's hesitation to go with a real
social medical program...

All policies are based related to one or more cultural values, like it
or not.

> - from
> political values.  This shouldn't be hard to do.

Except that by acknowledging that political values are based on
cultural ones, your previous statement that

"
As the definition states - multiculturalists ensures that all cultures
are treated equally by a central government
"

is now invalidated because that central government is using political
values that are based on its cultural values, thus giving more weight
to one culture.

This is why multiculturalism is inherently doomed to failed, it
pretends to be culturally neutral when it is actually impossible to be
so, which interculturalism honestly acknowledges..

I am still waiting for you to provide an example of a "culturally
neutral government" (at least I think this is the label you used.)

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 16, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made
> > for
> > > > > criminal acts.
>
> > > > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
> > > > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> > > Do you know what a Province is?
>
> > Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
> > involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case
>
> No. I introduced the second case later. Please learn to read.
>
> I deliberately introduced the second case to demonstrate the difference.

Stop with your bullshit already -there is no second case. There's a
man stabbing another with a kirpan in Toronto - there is no other
legal case or standard here - only the one we discussed, in Quebec.

You have stated now, in regards to the Quebec case - that this is an
example of criminal law being abrogated, and that it's an example
showing that laws are not changed to give 'special treatment'. You
cannot maintain both. In future debates, you need to choose one
position - and then stick with it.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

>
>
>
> > - and in all cases we were
> > referring to the Quebec case. You have now argue that this case is
> > both an example of criminal law being abrogated -and that it's an
> > example of the law not being abrogated. You cannot have it both ways.
> > And to be frank, why dont you just keep your answer to yourself - I'm
> > tired of watching you throw shit at the fan, and then making me clean
> > up your lies.
>
> > > Quebec required that the Sikh Student accommodate the law by sealing the
> > > Kirpan into the sheath on the grounds of Interculturalism.
>
> > Yep, that's the case we've been talking about - that you flip flopped
> > on when convenient.
>
> > > BC allowed the Sikh Student to be excluded from the law on the grounds of
> > > multiculturalism by allowing the student to wear a concealed weapon to
> > > school violating existing criminal law which does not allow *any* weapons
> > to
> > > be taken to school.
>
> > No, we talked about a BC case where the helmet law was excepted.
>
> And in a recent post I introduced a second case from BC which involved the
> Kirpan.
>
> Please learn to read.

What post? And this is irrelevant to the fact that you have two
contradictory positions on the Quebec case. Get yourself together
before you fall apart.

>
> > I
> > have searched both Canadian govt websites as well as Canadian Sikh
> > websites on relevant legal  cases and precedents - there are no listed
> > cases of the Kirpan being contested in BC. Are you pulling this claim
> > out of your ass? Maybe try your head next..
>
> "Sikhs may wear kirpans in schools in Surrey, British Columbia. "
>
> Source:http://www.sikhcoalition.org/LegalCanada5.asp
>

> http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIsikhs/WHOs_WHO/Raghbir_Bains/1_Recognit...

>
> Note that Quebec requires the kirpans to be sealed not abrogating criminal
> law.
>
> BC does not require the kirpans to be sealed abrogating criminal law.
>
> That is the key difference.
>
> Get it yet?

No - you dont get it. The Kirpan was required to be sealed in the
Kirpan case due to school concerns - there is no law against carrying
the Kirpan. Contrary to your previous claims , the Kirpan is not a
prohibited weapon. Your acknowledgement that kirpans can be carried in
public - presumes that the weapon is not prohibited. Stop trying to
put a rose on top of your bullshit, and face the facts.

>
> > Contrary to your claims about BC banning the kirpan, I did find this
> > interesting nugget on the Sikh Coalitions website:
>
> > "Sikhs may wear kirpans in schools in Surrey, British Columbia....
> > There is no evidence that kirpans have sparked a violent incident in
> > any school, no evidence that any other school board in Canada bans
> > kirpans, "
>
> Funny how you missed this one:
>

> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07/toronto-kirpan-deba...

I didnt miss that one - because ITS NOT A CASE OF LAW - and it does
not include schools, at all. Dont try to bullshit me into believing
this is what you were referring to when you said previously:

BC allowed the Sikh Student to be excluded from the law on the grounds
of
multiculturalism by allowing the student to wear a concealed weapon to
school violating existing criminal law which does not allow *any*
weapons to
be taken to school.

The link you provided involves a 53 year old man who had a stabbing
incident on the street. Is that the Sikh Student you were referring
to? Is school another word for "street" in Canadian or something?
You're refusal to ever admit error -even when it stares you in the
face - is the worst example of intellectual cowardice I have ever
seen.

>
> "An attack in Brampton, Ont., last Friday involving a kirpan has renewed
> discussion within the Sikh community over the right to wear the ceremonial
> dagger.
> [image: An attack in Brampton, Ont., last Friday involving a kirpan has
> renewed discussion within the Sikh community over the right to wear the

> ceremonial dagger.]*An attack in Brampton, Ont., last Friday involving a

> kirpan has renewed discussion within the Sikh community over the right to

> wear the ceremonial dagger. * *(Chris Wattie/Reuters)*

>
> The incident happened on April 2 outside of the Sikh Lehar Centre on
> Bramsteele Road, near Highway 410 and Steeles Avenue West, west of Toronto."
>

> Read more:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07/toronto-kirpan-deba...

You also made the point that it is an abrogation of criminal law. How
curious. Do you want me to post the quotes again for you?

>
> >  As for the question of whether criminal
> > law is being abrogated here - just read the ruling itself. Your own
> > Canadian Supreme court has ruled in Multani v. Commission scolaire
> > Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] that
> > *****an order of a Quebec school authority*****
> > that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a
> > violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian
> > Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "
>
> AND IN QUEBEC THE KIRPAN MUST BE SEALED WHICH MEANS THAT IT CANNOT BE
> REMOVED FROM THE SHEATH AND CANNOT BE USED AS A WEAPON.
>
> GET IT YET?

Of course you snip and refuse to admit your greatest error here - the
point you're trying to ignore, the main point, is that this case
definitely shows that the kirpan does not violate criminal law -
contrary to your claims- and contrary to the general pattern you have
in this thread of posting absolute lies and falsehoods - without any
concern for the truth.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made
> > for
> > > > > criminal acts.
>
> > > > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
> > > > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> > > Do you know what a Province is?
>
> > Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
> > involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case
>
> No. I introduced the second case later. Please learn to read.
>
> I deliberately introduced the second case to demonstrate the difference.

Stop with your bullshit already -there is no second case.

Your screeching, name-calling and abuse doesn't change the facts.

Read the three threads and you will see that I was clearly and deliberately referring to two cases.

1. Sikh student in Quebec.
2. Sikh student in British Columbia

Both were granted permission to wear the kirpan on religious grounds.

Quebec required the student to accommodate the law by sealing the kirpan.
BC allowed the student to violate the law by wearing a concealed weapon.
 

There's a
man stabbing another with a kirpan in Toronto - there is no other
legal case or standard here - only the one we discussed, in Quebec.

This is a *third* case and was provided in response to your bullshit claim that based on your purported "research" that a kirpan had never been used as weapon.

<snipped irrelevant and repetitive bullshit based on your refusal to acknowledge basic facts>

[Ma-who?]

On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are
> > made
> > > > for
> > > > > > > criminal acts.
>
> > > > > > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan
> > example
> > > > > > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> > > > > Do you know what a Province is?
>
> > > > Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
> > > > involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case
>
> > > No. I introduced the second case later. Please learn to read.
>
> > > I deliberately introduced the second case to demonstrate the difference.
>
> > Stop with your bullshit already -there is no second case.
>
> Your screeching, name-calling and abuse doesn't change the facts.
>
> Read the three threads and you will see that I was clearly and deliberately
> referring to two cases.
>
> 1. Sikh student in Quebec.
> 2. Sikh student in British Columbia

Then provide the posts. Or the quotes. Or respond to any of the points
I actually made. If your case is so strong, why do you consistently
have to snip my arguments , and refuse to address them?

>
> Both were granted permission to wear the kirpan on religious grounds.
>
> Quebec required the student to accommodate the law by sealing the kirpan.
> BC allowed the student to violate the law by wearing a concealed weapon.

Your changing the subject. You have taken two contradictory positions
on the Quebec case, did they violate existing criminal law or not? Do
you admit the kirpan is not a prohibited weapon, as you claimed? Do
you admit that criminal law is not changed for cultural practices by
multiculturalist socities - that there are no cases of honor killings
or genital mutilation being allowed by multiculturalist countries? Do
you admit any errors at all? Or does your shit smell like roses still?

>
> > There's a
> > man stabbing another with a kirpan in Toronto - there is no other
> > legal case or standard here - only the one we discussed, in Quebec.
>
> This is a *third* case and was provided in response to your bullshit claim
> that based on your purported "research" that a kirpan had never been used as
> weapon.

Right, a new case you're introducing now to try and cover your ass.
The fact is the Quebec case was our previously discussed case, you
took two contradictory positions on it - and now you refuse to face up
to your own error.

As for my research, the quote is:

There is no evidence that kirpans have sparked a violent incident in
any school, no evidence that any other school board in Canada bans
kirpans, "

You'll notice that quote does not claim that the kirpan has "never
been used as weapon" (sic)

In the future, I encourage you to check your bullshit before you post
it and go on embarrassing yourself.

[Trance Gemini]

Post repeated and elaborated on.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And as I demonstrated with the Kirpan example, exceptions are made
> > for
> > > > > criminal acts.
>
> > > > No, because in previous posts you actually claimed the Kirpan example
> > > > is NOT an exception made for criminal acts -quote below:
>
> > > Do you know what a Province is?
>
> > Yes, and I also know what rank bullshit is. This entire discussion has
> > involved ONE case with the Sikh dager case
>
> No. I introduced the second case later. Please learn to read.
>
> I deliberately introduced the second case to demonstrate the difference.

Stop with your bullshit already -there is no second case.

Your screeching, name-calling and abuse doesn't change the facts.

Read the three threads again that were created because of *your* thread jumping and you will see that I was clearly and deliberately referring to the following cases. The confusion is yours not mine.

1. An example of Interculturalism. Sikh student in Quebec.

Quebec required the student to accommodate the law by sealing the kirpan.

2. An example of Multiculturalism. Sikh student in British Columbia

BC allowed the student to violate the law by wearing a concealed weapon.

Both were granted permission to wear the kirpan on religious grounds.

The purpose of introducing the BC case was to provide concrete evidence to refute your bullshit claim that MultiCult doesn't allow abrogations of the law.

The entire problem with MultiCult is that *there are NO STANDARDS* applied to determine how and when accommodation should occur and accommodation *often* allows exemptions and therefore violations of criminal and civil law.

And it does so arbitrarily and inconsistently.

The concrete example of MultiCult's inconsistency was the helmet example.

Both BC and Ontario follow MultiCult.

BC allows Sikhs to violate the law by not wearing helmets.
Ontario does not give Sikhs an exemption to this law.

There's a
man stabbing another with a kirpan in Toronto - there is no other
legal case or standard here - only the one we discussed, in Quebec.

This is a *third* case and was provided in response to your bullshit claim that based on your purported "research" that a kirpan had never been used as weapon.

In addition, Ontario may *well* use this as a justification to revoke the accommodation granted which will result in two inconsistent implementations of accommodation under MultiCult.

<snipped irrelevant and repetitive bullshit based on your refusal to acknowledge basic facts>

Now do you have any actual, concrete *facts* to support your specious claims about MultiCult?

Or are you going to continue spewing nothing but bare assertions and making unwarranted claims based on sheer ignorance?

[Trance Gemini]

I've rewritten my response to you.

Reply to that one.

And you were the one who chose to create confusion by thread jumping.

Look them up yourself.

I don't jump because you screech.

[Ma-who?]

What a colossal waste of time trying to argue with you.

On Aug 19, 11:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

What a colossal waste of time trying to argue with you.

Nice to see that we agree on something.

<snipped>