Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Rerun]

Conservative MP Larry Miller apologized Tuesday for telling Muslim women to “stay the hell where you came from” if they choose to wear a niqab during a citizenship ceremony.

“Yesterday I made comments on a radio show that I recognize were inappropriate,” Miller said in a statement. “I stand by my view that anyone being sworn in as a new citizen of our country must uncover their face.

However, I apologize for and retract my comments that went beyond this.”

....

“Saying it a little harshly, but it’s the way I feel,” Miller said. “I’m so sick and tired of people wanting to come here because they know it’s a good country and then they want to change things before they really officially become a Canadian.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/1886751/to...you-came-from/

[Coach]

Obviously pretty off-base with the comments, but I can't say I disagree with the sentiment.

I enjoy Canada's multiculturalism, but there has to be a certain amount of assimilation. Too many different cultures to accommodate everyone's idiosyncrasies.

Things like people in turbans not needing bike helmets (I can't remember the ruling on this) gives special treatment to certain people based on their religions and that is not ok, whether it's Christianity, Islam or otherwise.

Same with the ceremonial daggers. Doesn't matter if it's part of your spirituality. It's a weapon and so you can't carry it through the school or into your workplace etc...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Obviously pretty off-base with the comments, but I can't say I disagree with the sentiment.

I enjoy Canada's multiculturalism, but there has to be a certain amount of assimilation. Too many different cultures to accommodate everyone's idiosyncrasies.

Things like people in turbans not needing bike helmets (I can't remember the ruling on this) gives special treatment to certain people based on their religions and that is not ok, whether it's Christianity, Islam or otherwise.

Same with the ceremonial daggers. Doesn't matter if it's part of your spirituality. It's a weapon and so you can't carry it through the school or into your workplace etc...

But his sentiment was to go back where they came from...

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

But his sentiment was to go back where they came from...

Yeah the way he's conveying the message is terrible, and for all I know he is a bigoted idiot, but I do think that there are things that you just can't bring with you when you move to a new place.

My view is that new cultures should be adapting to the country they want to be a part of, not trying to turn their new nation into their old nation.

He is wrong in this example IMO. Being Canadian gives that person the right to choose whether or not they want to wear a cover. If they choose to continue to do so, that's up to them. But I do think that assimilation (to a point) when immigrating is necessary.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

....if they want to bring all of their culture with them.

Again, the wording and over-zealousness of it is terrible and wrong.

But his sentiment (the thought behind the words) is that new cultures should be adapting to the country they want to be a part of, not trying to turn their new nation into their old nation.

He is wrong in this example IMO. Being Canadian gives that person the right to choose whether or not they want to wear a cover. If they choose to continue to do so, that's up to them. But I do think that assimilation (to a point) when immigrating is necessary.

The sentiment was "if you do not assimilate, we do not want you"

Where it should have been "become a Canadian before you try to change Canada"

The sentiment is vastly different in its intent ie inclusion vs exclusion. Is also why one is offensive, the other isn't.

Hell , bring all the culture you can, it makes us better. Don't expect to change the essential customs of the culture you are joining (like covering your face at a citizenship swearing in).

"Our culture" is constantly changing and people bringing new customs is great. It's the great that makes people show bigoted colours like this MP did. Make no mistake, that was a very bigoted comment

[rubecube]

When you make the claim that people should assimilate to fit in with a certain culture, your are effectively saying that that culture is preferable to alternative cultures.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

When you make the claim that people should assimilate to fit in with a certain culture, your are effectively saying that that culture is preferable to alternative cultures.

Certain aspects are certainly. Why else would they be moving? There are definitely things from other cultures, especially those run by theocracies, that are appalling and have zero place here. Now, this instance is not one of them, as long as it's the person's choice to wear what they are and they aren't being forced, the covering of their face imposes no danger nor infringes on any rights of others. However, having to show your face is necessary in certain circumstances (pictures on official documents, travel security, etc..).

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The sentiment was "if you do not assimilate, we do not want you"

Where it should have been "become a Canadian before you try to change Canada"

The sentiment is vastly different in its intent ie inclusion vs exclusion. Is also why one is offensive, the other isn't.

Hell , bring all the culture you can, it makes us better. Don't expect to change the essential customs of the culture you are joining (like covering your face at a citizenship swearing in).

"Our culture" is constantly changing and people bringing new customs is great. It's the great that makes people show bigoted colours like this MP did. Make no mistake, that was a very bigoted comment

This is my point.

I agree the MP has taken it way off base, no question. But you can't expect that things from whatever culture you're coming from will be acceptable or even legal in your new home.

[nik-]

I probably wouldn't emigrate to a place where the culture wasn't preferable.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Certain aspects are certainly. Why else would they be moving? There are definitely things from other cultures, especially those run by theocracies, that are appalling and have zero place here. Now, this instance is not one of them, as long as it's the person's choice to wear what they are and they aren't being forced, the covering of their face imposes no danger nor infringes on any rights of others. However, having to show your face is necessary in certain circumstances (pictures on official documents, travel security, etc..).



This is my point.

I agree the MP has taken it way off base, no question. But you can't expect that things from whatever culture you're coming from will be acceptable or even legal in your new home.

Maybe we're arguing semantics here, but you said you couldn't disagree with the sentiment. I was saying the sentiment was the problem

[Jacks]

Whatever he meant he picked a stupid way to say it. He's probably getting his butt chewed out by the PMO and the party exec.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Certain aspects are certainly. Why else would they be moving? There are definitely things from other cultures, especially those run by theocracies, that are appalling and have zero place here. Now, this instance is not one of them, as long as it's the person's choice to wear what they are and they aren't being forced, the covering of their face imposes no danger nor infringes on any rights of others. However, having to show your face is necessary in certain circumstances (pictures on official documents, travel security, etc..).



This is my point.

I agree the MP has taken it way off base, no question. But you can't expect that things from whatever culture you're coming from will be acceptable or even legal in your new home.

I don't know if I'd agree that how a state is run or having draconian laws in place is necessarily a reflection of culture in the same sense that someone wanting to wear ceremonial garb or speak in their native tongue is. I do agree that if your culture runs up against the laws in the country you're emigrating to, that you're definitely the one who should adapt, but I think that's the key difference. I expect new immigrants to adapt to our laws. I don't think they should feel required to assimilate.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Maybe we're arguing semantics here, but you said you couldn't disagree with the sentiment. I was saying the sentiment was the problem

Yeah fair enough.

What I meant was that I can't disagree with the idea that immigrating people need to, at least somewhat and in-keeping with the law of the new land, assimilate themselves into their new place.

Maybe where we are missing is that I actually have no problem telling someone to GTFO if they don't like the rules of where they are. That's likely a large reason why they left their old country. If a guy thinks he has the right to live under Sharia Law (for example) and treat women as second class, I have no problem with Canada kicking that person to the curb.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

I probably wouldn't emigrate to a place where the culture wasn't preferable.

To me there's a difference between culture and living conditions. I've enjoyed the cultures of many of the countries I've visited, but the living conditions are what would keep me from moving to them.

[nik-]

quality of life drastically informs culture.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

quality of life drastically informs culture.

While true, I don't think that really refutes what I'm saying. I could easily want to move to a place with a culture I find less preferable because it would improve my living conditions. Conversely, just because I live in Canada doesn't mean I find Canadian culture preferable to all other cultures.

[nik-]

I guess in my opinion is biased. In my opinion, if you're coming from a country where completely concealed women is the norm, our culture is better than your culture. Sorry if offend!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

I guess in my opinion is biased. In my opinion, if you're coming from a country where completely concealed women is the norm, our culture is better than your culture. Sorry if offend!

I completely agree. I don't even think that's a matter of opinion. If you as a person value human rights, then certain cultures are going to be objectively better based that criteria. I'm just not in the "Well they should dress like us because they're in our country and they need assimilate" crowd like the MP in question.

[nik-]

Well he obviously said it like a total #######, but I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. People who want in > people we let in. Why wouldn't we prioritize people who want to assimilate?

I legitimately don't feel that's a problem. It's just that once you choose to accept someone as an immigrant, you can't force them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well he obviously said it like a total #######, but I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. People who want in > people we let in. Why wouldn't we prioritize people who want to assimilate?

How does that work for refugees and asylum-seekers, those who probably need to be let in but might not be as keen to assimilate? If we base it around who wants to assimilate, the demographics of our immigrants are probably going to become uniformly European and/or wealthy South Asians. That's not necessarily wrong, but it certainly re-positions Canada's role in the world and how Canadians view the country.

[nik-]

That's a pretty large assumption on your part. There are an incredible amount of immigrants from the sub-continent who've assimilated extremely well. Sometimes people from the same regions as others hold cultural views that are much more out of step with a liberal western democracy in comparison to their neighbours.