Good bye Sweden...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Personally I've never met a 2nd or 3rd generation Canadian who didnt speak english. I have a hard time believing there is any out there. 1st generation, I can totally believe it, but for their kids and grandkids to never learn is a bit unbelievable.

If anything they get the benefit of being bilingual because their parents often teach them their native tongue and they learn english.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by fotze

The anti-immigration sentiment here even doesn't even compare to what is brewing in those nordic countries. An extremist bombing is actually way better for the anti-immigration sides than for whatever goofy cause the bomber is trying to promote.

Definitely. Anti-immigration (which often basically translates into anti-muslim) has been made into a big political football in Europe, whether it's by cynical political leaders or true-believing ideologues. It's like a hateful machine manufactured to create politics. I don't know what the Canadian perspective is, but there's a real cultural war going on, and it's not between the secular west and some backward islamism, it's actually the age-old fight between the civilized aspects of European culture and its own half-repressed barbarism. People have very short historical memories and they are much too easy to direct towards societal scapegoats.

The basic idea is to create the conditions for a cultural conflict which would not have occurred otherwise. Then you can say, "See, multiculturalism simply doesn't work."

Anti-muslim sentiment is a huge, huge problem in Europe. I know it's pretty much the last surviving semi-acceptable form of racism in America too, but the issue feels more acute in Europe.

8 years ago there was a bomb attack in a mall in Finland which killed 7 people, including 3 children, and wounded 80. That was by a Finnish chemistry student. I find it interesting that now that an "islamic" terrorist has blown himself up, we're supposed to act extra horrified and make solemn pronouncements about how some new era has begun.

Really it's just some sick misguided guy blowing himself up. And now the ghouls gather around to score whatever points they can from it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hanni

Since your first reply was only 3 sentences and contained only one comma I'm going to assume your implying I ignored this.


I thought I had addressed this in my last response but I am assuming you find it reasonable that women of certain cultures are oppressed because they belong to that group. It's hard to say since you don't seem to want to respond with an argument for your point of view.

The Kirpan issue is not important if they are welded shut, I'm not sure how carrying around a knife is acceptable under other circumstances.

So you read what I wrote and still can't figure it out? Dude, c'mon.

so long as those beliefs don't impinge upon the rights of others

How much more clear do I have to make it? How do you possibly come to your 'oh you must find it okay that women are oppressed' conclusion in light of that? Guess who has rights? Those women. Guess whose rights would be impinged in the scenario you proposed? Those women. I think that makes my stance incredibly clear.

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

The only conclusion I can draw from your post is that your eyes stopped functioning at the sign of a comma, because everything after that was apparently disregarded.

And please, go on about the Kirpan issue. I'll dust off the 40+ pages I wrote last year about the legal and social issues at play. The notion that they're requesting to carry around knives as a weapon is laughable.

Why don't you start with your own conclusions? Posting 40+ pages of your pride on an internet forum is also, coincidentally, laughable.

If you have the intellectual stamina for that kind of academic effort, I suppose contributing more than 150 words of ad hominem to this forum should be an easy task?

Aside from the above, the following link is an excellent source for information on the nature of intercultural rapprochement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you read what I wrote and still can't figure it out? Dude, c'mon.

so long as those beliefs don't impinge upon the rights of others

How much more clear do I have to make it? How do you possibly come to your 'oh you must find it okay that women are oppressed' conclusion in light of that? Guess who has rights? Those women. Guess whose rights would be impinged in the scenario you proposed? Those women. I think that makes my stance incredibly clear.

Actually, it makes it incalculably vague.

What foundations of morality or of rights are you presuming? Are they categorical and universal? Are they ethnocentric?

I think we can both agree that "oppression" is, assuming its conventional definition, an affront to the human condition and therefore generally immoral. Aside from such "black and white" circumstances, is your watertight thesis going to elucidate and furnish justice?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Thor

Regarding rape statistics, its important to remember in the modern west reporting them is much more likely due to our women's rights and treatment of the fairer sex.

I know here in Iceland women are very strong minded and I can see why Iceland would be listed #10, not because rape is a problem in Iceland but because when they do occur the girls/women are way more likely to report it. In Iceland its such a small nation, being known as a rapist is a seriously tough thing to carry around, so its extra incentive to report these a**hats.

I was going to post about this.

Something about Saudi Arabia being last on the list and having a per capita rate of rape 220 times less than Canada seems a little off...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by something

Why don't you start with your own conclusions? Posting 40+ pages of your pride on an internet forum is also, coincidentally, laughable.

If you have the intellectual stamina for that kind of academic effort, I suppose contributing more than 150 words of ad hominem to this forum should be an easy task?

Aside from the above, the following link is an excellent source for information on the nature of intercultural rapprochement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw

No doubt, hence it not being done. The point was simply that I have familiarity with the issue, an issue that is frequently presented with very little connection the the truth and numerous exaggerations. I certainly failed in not sounding pompous though, but at least I'm not alone now.

[something]

Originally Posted by fotze

Hmmmm, I've got a thesis about something alright.....

[valo403]

Originally Posted by something

Actually, it makes it incalculably vague.

What foundations of morality or of rights are you presuming? Are they categorical and universal? Are they ethnocentric?

I think we can both agree that "oppression" is, assuming its conventional definition, an affront to the human condition and therefore generally immoral. Aside from such "black and white" circumstances, is your watertight thesis going to elucidate and furnish justice?

There's really no need to take the analysis that far when there's a set of rights granted to all Canadians, immigrants or natural born, through the Charter and the laws of the nation. We could certainly discuss the basis of those rights, but that's not really at issue at the moment.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

In 250 words or less define Canadian or Albertan culture and how it effects you on a day to day basis.

Go!

Alberta culture is rooted first and foremost in the unwaivering fact that Albertan's dearly love and take great pride in their province. Our weather is extreme but that doesn't stop us from taking pride in working very hard, pulling over to the side of the road to pull someone out of the ditch, volunteering in the community, and treating other people with a level of dignity and respect that is enviable by most of the world.

We have created a place where men and women are equal and it is outrageous to suggest otherwise. We have created a place where education for boys and girls is mandatory and it is outrageous to suggest otherwise (and happily paid for through taxes). We have created a place with enough social programs to ensure every man woman and child has a place to turn to eat, sleep, be safe from abuse, recover from addiction and find employment. We care about each other.

We have created a place that allows us to enjoy and participate in both professional and amateur sports, theatre, film, music, art, and any other avenue of interest or passion. And despite being a little rough around the edges we are progressive and forward thinking, judging people by their character and their actions and not the color of their skin, their religion, or how much money they make.

Best I could do. I think I went over 250 words.

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

No doubt, hence it not being done. The point was simply that I have familiarity with the issue, an issue that is frequently presented with very little connection the the truth and numerous exaggerations. I certainly failed in not sounding pompous though, but at least I'm not alone now.

I was addressing the fact that you were quick to criticize others without providing resolution to the dilemmas you had scrutinized in their statements.

I have written many papers and since junior high I have not sat down to write a paper without knowing for what I was arguing. That being said, I would expect you to know your arguments beyond the simplicity observed in your previous statements.

Keep in mind that your previous statements did not sound pompous, they were arrogant.

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

There's really no need to take the analysis that far when there's a set of rights granted to all Canadians, immigrants or natural born, through the Charter and the laws of the nation. We could certainly discuss the basis of those rights, but that's not really at issue at the moment.

It absolutely is at issue! This thread was created to discuss the debasement of Sweden's nationalism, resulting from immigration immigration, as an analogue to the OP's xenophobia. Do you not see the connection, or would it be appropriate to distill my thoughts into a simple, enigmatic sentence? Would it help for me to cite my credentials? Or is that not the issue, perhaps?

I'm honestly not trying to instigate conflict by my responses. rather I would appreciate if you gave a more insightful response, something the reflects your presumed intelligence. Otherwise your intimidation tactics will yield nothing constructive to the furtherance of your own thoughts or those of others on this forum.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by something

I was addressing the fact that you were quick to criticize others without providing resolution to the dilemmas you had scrutinized in their statements.

I have written many papers and since junior high I have not sat down to write a paper without knowing for what I was arguing. That being said, I would expect you to know your arguments beyond the simplicity observed in your previous statements.

Keep in mind that your previous statements did not sound pompous, they were arrogant.

I like to think I'm both of those

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

I like to think I'm both of those

It is at the point where someone facetiously denigrates their own character that I am led to believe they are not sufficiently mature to sustain reasonable criticism.

I don't get this internet thing...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by something

It absolutely is at issue! This thread was created to discuss the debasement of Sweden's nationalism, resulting from immigration immigration, as an analogue to the OP's xenophobia. Do you not see the connection, or would it be appropriate to distill my thoughts into a simple, enigmatic sentence? Would it help for me to cite my credentials? Or is that not the issue, perhaps?

I'm honestly not trying to instigate conflict by my responses. rather I would appreciate if you gave a more insightful response, something the reflects your presumed intelligence. Otherwise your intimidation tactics will yield nothing constructive to the furtherance of your own thoughts or those of others on this forum.

How is the basis of the rights put forth by the Charter at issue here? Indirectly sure, but that's a much larger discussion. Perhaps you're attempting to take a response to a direct statement as a summary of my position on a much larger topic?

Look at the context of my initial post. It is a response to a statement that immigrants should be forced to adapt to certain Canadian customs on the one hand, while praising the equality guaranteed to all in Canada on the other. Now certainly there are areas in which customs that are tolerable elsewhere must yield, hence my reference to your rights ending where my rights begin (paraphrasing), but a policy of forced adaptation in cases where the rights of others are not being impinged upon flies in the face of the very freedom and equality that is being praised.

[onetwo_threefour]

I don't get this internet thing...

That's obvious. After all, you're "not trying to instigate conflict," right?

ETA: Just thought I'd go with what will probably be called a driveby ad hominem by someone or something, but I'm actually commenting on posting style... Verbosity without substance is often confused with intelligence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by something

It is at the point where someone facetiously denigrates their own character that I am led to believe they are not sufficiently mature to sustain reasonable criticism.

I don't get this internet thing...

Nothing to do with maturity, everything to do with the fact that I have a train to catch.

I wish I had time to get further into this, I really do. I'm sure it would be interesting.

[something]

Originally Posted by valo403

How is the basis of the rights put forth by the Charter at issue here? Indirectly sure, but that's a much larger discussion. Perhaps you're attempting to take a response to a direct statement as a summary of my position on a much larger topic?

Look at the context of my initial post. It is a response to a statement that immigrants should be forced to adapt to certain Canadian customs on the one hand, while praising the equality guaranteed to all in Canada on the other. Now certainly there are areas in which customs that are tolerable elsewhere must yield, hence my reference to your rights ending where my rights begin (paraphrasing), but a policy of forced adaptation in cases where the rights of others are not being impinged upon flies in the face of the very freedom and equality that is being praised.

There was little concern with your original response. It was quite valid, in such a brief context. You should note, though, that nationalism and the constitutional documents with set forth the parameters of "equality" are two sides of the same coin; and it is the confusion of fusing these two concepts that the poster seemed to address (intentionally, or not). It seems to me that the poster, which you then denigrated by way of ad hominem, was quite simply and reasonably expressing the difficulty of integrating immigrants into a pluralistic society while maintaining the identity and foundations of that society.

I actually think some of your comments were quite intelligent and though-provoking, and I commend you for having introduced them. I do not think that it warranted the undue criticisms that followed.

And this notion of rights being granted to all insofar as they do not impinge on the rights of others is, as the cornerstone of liberalism, impractical and defective. Until we have a categorical foundation of what rights are, and a mechanism by which we are able to identify them, we must settle for a hierarchy of rights and emphasize those which we believe are progressive to individuals and society. I wanted you to address exactly this and explain your concept of liberalism in light of this criticism, rather than deflate your ego to inauthentically present yourself as being humble.

I do appreciate your response though, thank you.

[macker]

Goodbye....or good-bye

[Hanni]

You dismissed this as being ridiculous in your first response so I assumed you disagreed with it.

Originally Posted by Hanni

Yet we allow women to be oppressed right on our own soil, the fact that honor killings even happen, being forced into marriage or cover themselves from head to toe and board an airplane without proving who they are. Allowing Sikh's to bypass the law so they don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike or allow their children to bring a knife to school.

I wasn't trying to say that they should have to completely assimilate and lose their culture in favour of ours. I was trying to say that they should know what is expected of them, that our laws apply to them equally regardless of the nature of their religious belief.

However we are still afraid to truly enforce many of these things because we as a society are scared to offend someone (see burqa clad woman getting on a plane unchecked).