Good bye Sweden...

[Mike F]

Once again HOZ starts a thread with some right wing ranting, throws in an inflammatory nugget like "This is in Canada...so how far are we behind?" and then, 62 replies in, isn't heard from again.

[Mad Mel]

I think Sweden's pretty safe from the invasion of the culture snatchers. When I was there, Stockholm seemed like the most monocultural, whitebread place on the planet.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

I think Sweden's pretty safe from the invasion of the culture snatchers. When I was there, Stockholm seemed like the most monocultural, whitebread place on the planet.

That may be true but it isn't so in Malmo.

I cannot read Swedish so I hope this translations is accurate.
Partial translation here

Rape statistics for Oslo
65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population.


I can't find any English links to Sweden's stats.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Once again HOZ starts a thread with some right wing ranting, throws in an inflammatory nugget like "This is in Canada...so how far are we behind?" and then, 62 replies in, isn't heard from again.

Ya...right wing rant by posting a gay left wing atheist rant. That has to be a first.

With a flame war, and ad hominem attacks...there was much to reply to.

I have to say that many posters in this thread just confirmed what Condell was saying. In Sweden they have lost the backbone to defend their culture. The very thing that made it worthwhile for these people to move there in the first place.

I show a picture of a restaurant in Canada flaunting everything that is against what, I believe, Canada should stands for. And hardly a soul said batted an eyelash about it. Go figure.

Oh well, that equality thing was overrated anyways.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I show a picture of a restaurant in Canada flaunting everything that is against what, I believe, Canada should stands for. And hardly a soul said batted an eyelash about it. Go figure.

Oh well, that equality thing was overrated anyways.

Maybe "hardly a soul batted an eyelash" because hardly a soul, other than the most paranoid souls among us, believes an extra dining room in some restaurant in Ontario is the beginning of the end of our society.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by HOZ

That may be true but it isn't so in Malmo.

I cannot read Swedish so I hope this translations is accurate.
Partial translation here

Rape statistics for Oslo
65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population.

I can't find any English links to Sweden's stats.

My observation is certainly that of a tourist. I was there for less than a week on business, and didn't get out of the commercial / retail areas. Within that context, what I observed was the case, but is definitely limited in scope.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I show a picture of a restaurant in Canada flaunting everything that is against what, I believe, Canada should stands for. And hardly a soul said batted an eyelash about it. Go figure.

That depends...

How good is the food there?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe "hardly a soul batted an eyelash" because hardly a soul, other than the most paranoid souls among us, believes an extra dining room in some restaurant in Ontario is the beginning of the end of our society.

Slippery slope there my friend, how far removed is that from having a coloured section?? Would you write that off as only the paranoid amoung us should be concerned because it's only one restuarant. I think the other poster has a legitimate beef in suggesting it's unCanadian.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by HOZ

...what, I believe, Canada should stands for.

See, here I was thinking that Canada stood for freedom to do what one wants in their own homes and places of business.

Guess "what, I believe, Canada should stands (sic) for" and what you do aren't quite the same thing.

I don't care what people do on their own time. That's what makes this country great. You can go on thinking this is an abomination, and they can continue to do as they please. Nice, that.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Slippery slope there my friend, how far removed is that from having a coloured section?? Would you write that off as only the paranoid amoung us should be concerned because it's only one restuarant. I think the other poster has a legitimate beef in suggesting it's unCanadian.

Does anyone here know if that restaurant forces women and children to go into the "family" section? Because that is the only way your "coloured" analogy stands.

Has anyone here ever seen the trains in India or Egypt? They have similar "women and children" only cars. Not for a discriminatory purpose, it's so that the women can travel without being harassed. What does everyone say about that?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I have to say that many posters in this thread just confirmed what Condell was saying. In Sweden they have lost the backbone to defend their culture. The very thing that made it worthwhile for these people to move there in the first place.

I show a picture of a restaurant in Canada flaunting everything that is against what, I believe, Canada should stands for. And hardly a soul said batted an eyelash about it. Go figure.

Oh well, that equality thing was overrated anyways.

Maybe no one responded because, rather than putting together your thoughts on what you believe Canada should stand for and a reasoned argument of why a restaurant that provides a separate section for children and families threatens that, you just post a picture with a paranoid sounding quip then disappear.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by billybob123

Does anyone here know if that restaurant forces women and children to go into the "family" section? Because that is the only way your "coloured" analogy stands.

Fair enough, I made that assumption on my own.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Slippery slope there my friend, how far removed is that from having a coloured section??

It's very far removed from having a coloured section.

This is a specialty restaurant that people choose to go to because their religion, apparently, dictates that they should eat in different sections (or rooms, or whatever).

We don't know that the people who go in there don't want to eat in different dining sections. In fact, considering it is (again, apparently) a tenet of their religion, they must like it that way. Or at least accept it as part of a religion they devoutly follow.

The "coloured section" wasn't a choice in some obscure restaurant that people volunteered to go to because that's the way they liked it.

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think the other poster has a legitimate beef in suggesting it's unCanadian.

I'd say it's more un-Canadian to insist that people who want to eat at a different table than certain members of their own family aren't allowed to do so.

Not so long ago in Canada the law said women couldn't sit in the same bar as men. This was a rule enforced, into the 1960's, by the white Christian majority.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Once again HOZ starts a thread with some right wing ranting, throws in an inflammatory nugget like "This is in Canada...so how far are we behind?" and then, 62 replies in, isn't heard from again.

I replied in jest to this thread but didn't join the discussion because I'm tired of HOZ's continued anti-muslim baiting, and I'm not interested in pursuing it further. Regardless, I'm not sure why he would need to add any additional posts to make that viewpoint of his clear.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'd say it's more un-Canadian to insist that people who want to eat at a different table than certain members of their own family aren't allowed to do so.
.

huh??? who says you can't?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's very far removed from having a coloured section.

This is a specialty restaurant that people choose to go to because their religion, apparently, dictates that they should eat in different sections (or rooms, or whatever).

We don't know that the people who go in there don't want to eat in different dining sections. In fact, considering it is (again, apparently) a tenet of their religion, they must like it that way. Or at least accept it as part of a religion they devoutly follow.

The "coloured section" wasn't a choice in some obscure restaurant that people volunteered to go to because that's the way they liked it.




I'd say it's more un-Canadian to insist that people who want to eat at a different table than certain members of their own family aren't allowed to do so.

Not so long ago in Canada the law said women couldn't sit in the same bar as men. This was a rule enforced, into the 1960's, by the white Christian majority.

I know i highlighted part of it earlier but i thought I'd comment on the general post.

It comes down to this. Do you believe sexism on par with racism, obviously you don't. I personally do, so to me your arqument is as absurd as if you're suggesting it'd be alright for a restaurant to ban/separate white/indian/japanese people because their religion says it's alright.

[something]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

We don't know that the people who go in there don't want to eat in different dining sections. In fact, considering it is (again, apparently) a tenet of their religion, they must like it that way. Or at least accept it as part of a religion they devoutly follow.

My take of these circumstances: we should not grant moral indemnity on the basis that those who are subjugated blithely accept it. A latent harm is still harmful... The deprivation of a persons dignity is not excused by their acceptance of it; just because they have been brainwashed a coerced throughout their lives to believe it to be good...

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not so long ago in Canada the law said women couldn't sit in the same bar as men. This was a rule enforced, into the 1960's, by the white Christian majority.

And I am sure there is a very Canadian reason for it having been repealed.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I know i highlighted part of it earlier but i thought I'd comment on the general post.

It comes down to this. Do you believe sexism on par with racism, obviously you don't. I personally do, so to me your arqument is as absurd as if you're suggesting it'd be alright for a restaurant to ban/separate white/indian/japanese people because their religion says it's alright.

I understood it as a women and children section was available, not required. Big difference from a "whites only" section.

Edit: Speaking of, what is your opinion on communities that have a "no children" policy? Those are still around, no?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

My observation is certainly that of a tourist. I was there for less than a week on business, and didn't get out of the commercial / retail areas. Within that context, what I observed was the case, but is definitely limited in scope.

I lived in Stockholm for 5 months in 2006 for a work term. Centrally you are right in that it is very much monocultural... But if would went into it's metro area (danderyd and kista) it was much more multicultural. While I was in Stockholm there was a lot of talk about how the influx of Immigrants is going to lead to a ruined social system. Swedes have been taught to not take for granted the social safety net and be honorable about not abusing it. However, the influx has lead to increased abuse of the system. There was a lot of Xenophobia present.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I understood it as a women and children section was available, not required. Big difference from a "whites only" section.

Edit: Speaking of, what is your opinion on communities that have a "no children" policy? Those are still around, no?

As I clarified in a previous statement, I made the false assumption that those sections were because women were excluded from the general areas hence the basis for my discusion.

Personally I have no problem with any of the things mentioned in this thread so far. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying you can segragate by sex but not by skin colour which to me is the same type of discrimination. To me, the government should provide equal access to all citizens and everyone else can do whatever the fata they want. If a restuarant only ways to serve green martians giver balls.

Business who descriminate who their clientele are fall into 2 categories, Exceedingly brilliant in that they've identified a market who will identify with the need for the service(say like spa lady) or exceedingly stupid in that they allow their racial/sexist/religious prejudices to restrict the success of their business.