Reading the Constitution

[PhoneLobster]

... an amazing lack of knowledge of the American legal system....

Meanwhile 80 years ago in Australia police could pick a shifty looking migrant up off the street for NO REASON (generally rough them up a bit) and then if the migrant failed a language test they were deported. And while the language test used English the OTHER language in the test could be ANY language, so you could be a Chinese migrant and they would test your English translation skills with Swahili.

THAT was the kind of thing that was a staple of our monocultural policy here in Australia. So remember that whenever you go "Aw multiculturalism is HARD!" that it's things like the White Australia policy (actually named that) which are what multiculturalism dragged us out of and are literally the alternative that Tzor and friends are advocating.

[Kaelik]

No PL stop lying.

No one is advocating deporting anyone who fails a English to Swahili translation test. No one is even advocating that people who fail an English to English test be deported.

People are advocating that Muslim women not be the slaves of their husbands and fathers, that if a 18 year old Muslim girl wants to go to college, and not marry someone she`s never met, or if a Muslim woman wabts a divorce, we should apply the US/UK/Western laws instead of allowing their culture to make that decision the way it prefers, ie, father/husband makes decision, daughter/wife obeys or gets murdered.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

No PL stop lying.

No one is advocating deporting anyone who fails a English to Swahili translation test. No one is even advocating that people who fail an English to English test be deported.

People are advocating that Muslim women not be the slaves of their husbands and fathers, that if a 18 year old Muslim girl wants to go to college, and not marry someone she`s never met, or if a Muslim woman wabts a divorce, we should apply the US/UK/Western laws instead of allowing their culture to make that decision the way it prefers, ie, father/husband makes decision, daughter/wife obeys or gets murdered.

I'm not really sure that anyone (at least in Britain) is arguing against this. In fact, if you can show me any politician in the UK who *wants* Muslims to be able to kill their daughters or keep them from going to college, please share. If 'multiculturalism' means 'letting minorities do whatever they want to their own members', then there are no multiculturalists anywhere.

The terrifying and threatening Sharia courts that American conservatives like to talk about are,

1) Voluntary. No-one can be legally bound by the decisions of these courts unless they decide to be. Obviously there's the possibility that young women will be coerced into 'agreeing', but the same is true of arranged marriage, and no-one claims that marriage is the thin end of the Sharia wedge.

2) Limited. I don't know how many such courts exist off the top of my head, but it is very very far from being a widespread practice here.

3) Controversial. There is an extreme amount media and legal attention focused on these courts, and I rather doubt that they will survive the rest of the Coalition's term in office. They are definitely not the first step on the road to beheading adulteresses; it would be more accurate to think of them as a leftover random attempt by New Labour to win votes in the North.

For myself, I am not comfortable with the Sharia arbitration for a number of reasons. I probably wouldn't have allowed them to be set up if the decision had been mine - but they are *not* an essential part of 'multiculturalism', and they are not the catastrophic threat to human rights that they are often presented as.

I put 'multiculturalism' in quotes because no-one on the other side has yet been able to tell me what it is, and why we should be afraid of it. I'm *still* waiting for Tzor to tell me how he thinks Sharia law is going to take over the UK.

[cthulhu]

Also, the funniest part about it is that most US corporations force contract provisions that require submitting to binding arbitration with their own appointed arbitrators. It's like Rayethoen law taking over - and as they get to apoint the judge, I suspect it's not very fair.

It's pretty funny.

[Kaelik]

I'm not really sure that anyone (at least in Britain) is arguing against this. In fact, if you can show me any politician in the UK who *wants* Muslims to be able to kill their daughters or keep them from going to college, please share. If 'multiculturalism' means 'letting minorities do whatever they want to their own members', then there are no multiculturalists anywhere.

This isn't about multiculturalism.

No seriously, look at the thread of the conversation.

Some people said "this stuff is bad." PL jumped in to call those people who said so monoculturalists, and also racists.

I am pointing out that we have talked about specific things that we don't like, and so if those things aren't multiculturalism, then no one is actually talking about multiculturalism.

The terrifying and threatening Sharia courts that American conservatives like to talk about are,

American Conservatives are not very vocal about the threat of Sharia courts. You know who is? American liberals. The real ones, concerned with human rights, instead of the rights of cultures.

1) Voluntary. No-one can be legally bound by the decisions of these courts unless they decide to be. Obviously there's the possibility that young women will be coerced into 'agreeing', but the same is true of arranged marriage, and no-one claims that marriage is the thin end of the Sharia wedge.

Yes we do, all the time. Filthy liberal atheists who appose Sharia courts are the same filthy liberal atheists who oppose arranged marriage, homeschooling, and denial of medical treatment, as things that can be coerced or brainwashed, that need to be opposed.

For explicit evidence, look at my goddam post that you quoted, in which one of the two examples I presented was arranged marriage.

2) Limited. I don't know how many such courts exist off the top of my head, but it is very very far from being a widespread practice here.

If slavery is limited is it okay? I oppose slavery, even limited. I also oppose anything that diverges from one law for all, even if it's limited. I do this so it stays limited, and goes away, instead of praising it or saying it's not a big deal, and allowing it's advocates to expand it.

3) Controversial. There is an extreme amount media and legal attention focused on these courts, and I rather doubt that they will survive the rest of the Coalition's term in office. They are definitely not the first step on the road to beheading adulteresses; it would be more accurate to think of them as a leftover random attempt by New Labour to win votes in the North.

They are the first step to legitimizing the beheading that already occurs. Establishing bounds within in which different people are subject to different laws is the obvious first step to having different laws for different people, which is the stated goal of many islamic clerics who support these divergent courts.

but they are *not* an essential part of 'multiculturalism', and they are not the catastrophic threat to human rights that they are often presented as.

I don't know what is or isn't an essential part of multiculturalism, nor do I care, but they are not catastrophic threat to human rights, they are just a current infringement of and threat to human rights. Not catastrophic, but that's not a good reason not to oppose them for what they are.

I put 'multiculturalism' in quotes because no-one on the other side has yet been able to tell me what it is, and why we should be afraid of it. I'm *still* waiting for Tzor to tell me how he thinks Sharia law is going to take over the UK.

The reason you should put multiculturalism in quotes is because it's proponents have never told you what it is, and why we should support it. No one in this thread has at any point said that multiculturalism is bad, or that we should be afraid of it. PL has whined a lot about how we are even monoculture racists, but we have not said anything about multiculturalism being bad, we have only decried certain acts, like wearing a burka everywhere you go and getting mad when people want to see your face, or establishing separate muslim divorce courts that adhere to sharia law, and giving people the option of ostracizing anyone who refuses the "voluntary" arbitration of a non secular court.

But I think we can all agree that Tzor is wrong and crazy. But that's not anything that should surprise anyone.

[tzor]

THAT was the kind of thing that was a staple of our monocultural policy here in Australia.

No PhoneLobster that is the kind of thing that happens when your toilets flush in the wrong direction. Seriously, your argument is akin to a European defending its policy by the "it's not Nazi" argument. No one is suggesting that one give random tests that they know people can't pass. Fuck, the shit they pulled at Ellis Island is a wonderful liberal paradise compared to your argument. Your argument was never used in the United States. I really doubt it was used in Europe.

[Maj]

American Conservatives are not very vocal about the threat of Sharia courts.

Oh, no.

I have received multiple pieces of eMail from my step-mother (conservative) who is concerned that Islam is taking over the world. My husband has received comments from his mother (tea party) to the same effect. In effect, the fear is that Muslims are the next "barbarian invaders" that will take over the Western world and force all of us to be Muslim.

Here's a sample of just some of the crack/hatefilled vitriol/lying propaganda. If you'd like more, I have it:

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: - "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat."

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%


At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. "
-Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just
wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already?? That should make the US' homeland much safer, huh!!

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no… Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no… Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

[Kaelik]

Yes Maj. Crazy people talk crazy talk. But the fact that some crazy people whine about Muslims taking over the world has nothing to do with who is the most vocal about opposing Sharia courts. Read butterfliesandwheels sometime. Filthy liberal atheists have real not crazy people with some level of influence beyond starting chain letters who oppose sharia courts. Only daniel dennte of the four horsemendoesn`t make opposition to this sort of thing a central tenant of his message.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

This isn't about multiculturalism.

No seriously, look at the thread of the conversation.

Some people said "this stuff is bad." PL jumped in to call those people who said so monoculturalists, and also racists.

I am pointing out that we have talked about specific things that we don't like, and so if those things aren't multiculturalism, then no one is actually talking about multiculturalism.

First off, I apologise for lumping you in with the earlier discussion. I didn't follow the thread closely enough. My bad.

American Conservatives are not very vocal about the threat of Sharia courts. You know who is? American liberals. The real ones, concerned with human rights, instead of the rights of cultures.

While I'm sure that many American liberals are concerned about Sharia courts (and rightly so), the American right also uses them as its primary example of OMGEURABIA. That's what I was addressing.

but they are *not* an essential part of 'multiculturalism', and they are not the catastrophic threat to human rights that they are often presented as.

I don't know what is or isn't an essential part of multiculturalism, nor do I care, but they are not catastrophic threat to human rights, they are just a current infringement of and threat to human rights. Not catastrophic, but that's not a good reason not to oppose them for what they are.

In the one section of my post that you did not quote, I said that I, too, was against the Sharia courts. If it was in my power, I would shut them down. I'm not arguing that they are a good thing! I'm arguing that they aren't a step on the road to Londinistan. That's all. They aren't part of the normal British legal structure (because they are 'voluntary'), they aren't gaining ground in Britain (they are limited) and they aren't an accepted part of British social culture (they are controversial).

I put 'multiculturalism' in quotes because no-one on the other side has yet been able to tell me what it is, and why we should be afraid of it. I'm *still* waiting for Tzor to tell me how he thinks Sharia law is going to take over the UK.

The reason you should put multiculturalism in quotes is because it's proponents have never told you what it is, and why we should support it. No one in this thread has at any point said that multiculturalism is bad, or that we should be afraid of it. PL has whined a lot about how we are even monoculture racists, but we have not said anything about multiculturalism being bad, we have only decried certain acts, like wearing a burka everywhere you go and getting mad when people want to see your face, or establishing separate muslim divorce courts that adhere to sharia law, and giving people the option of ostracizing anyone who refuses the "voluntary" arbitration of a non secular court.

But I think we can all agree that Tzor is wrong and crazy. But that's not anything that should surprise anyone.

Actually I think Tzor has heavily implied that multiculturalism is bad and that we should be afraid of it, but as you point out, he is wrong and crazy.

[Maj]

Filthy liberal atheists have real not crazy people with some level of influence beyond starting chain letters who oppose sharia courts.

What you're saying to "refute" my statement doesn't actually address it.

I don't understand how you can say American conservatives are not very vocal about the threat of Sharia courts, and then dismiss their crazy chain letters as being "not vocal." Just because conservatives protest sharia out of fear, rather than a desire for social equality doesn't mean that they aren't speaking out, or that they don't have a non-crazy level of influence (Fox news and Republicans aren't influential enough for you?).

It also doesn't mean that "filthy liberal atheists" aren't protesting.

[PhoneLobster]

No PhoneLobster

No? Really?

So what IS your alternative to multiculturalism? Once you remove this hated policy from say, the UK and enforce your own personal variant of monocultural assimilation to prevent the imaginary Muslim take over you are shitting your racist pants over what next?

What IS the policy you are promoting and what IS the "or else" that the policy MUST require in order to be enforced?

(and while you are at it how the hell does pushing the government and government enforcement into everyones personal lives and "cultures" going to mesh with your small government tea party nut job ideals?)

Because we HAVE templates of monoculturalism and they DO look a lot like the White Australia policy, if you are actually promoting something genuinely new under the sun then you had damn well better tell us WTF it is now hey?

[tzor]

I put 'multiculturalism' in quotes because no-one on the other side has yet been able to tell me what it is, and why we should be afraid of it. I'm *still* waiting for Tzor to tell me how he thinks Sharia law is going to take over the UK.

In the first case think it could not that it will. (Recent evidence suggests that those in authority are starting to get the problem.) The worse case scenario ... increasing "ghetto" creation and the establishment of Sharia law within those ghettos. (Think of England having it's own "Gaza Strip.") This in turn would eventually infect the common law statues of the country in general.

Actually I think Tzor has heavily implied that multiculturalism is bad and that we should be afraid of it, but as you point out, he is wrong and crazy.

I have argued agains the Eruopean notion of multiculturalism as cultures that do not want to integrate being allowed to form isolated ghetto communities within the larger community.

This is in direct contrast with the notion of the melting pot or the better notion of the salad bowl. I, for example, an an Irish/Scots/Roman Catholic/American. I just went to a fancy Greek Resturant where I sat at the bar with a number of Italians. I regularly go to both Indian and Sushi resturants. I'd visit all the local Thai places, but they tend to be big on peanuts and that's my allergy. My definition of heaven? The place where Charlie Parker and Dizzie Gilespie are currently performing, and other than walking into a TARDIS, the only place I might be able to hear them "live." Oh did I mention my vegan (actually he prefers to say "no meat, dary or oil" because he does it purely for health reasons) Jewish doctor who I sing Barbership harmony with in quartets?

[tzor]

So what IS your alternative to multiculturalism?

The salad bowl; I am the tomato, and you are the carrot, but we are all bound together by the salad dressing which marinates us all. We each contribute to the salad in our own way, but we are still a part of the salad, not separate isolated courses that don't want to acknowledge each other.

[Juton]

So what IS your alternative to multiculturalism?

The salad bowl; I am the tomato, and you are the carrot, but we are all bound together by the salad dressing which marinates us all. We each contribute to the salad in our own way, but we are still a part of the salad, not separate isolated courses that don't want to acknowledge each other.

Congratulations, you've just described Canada's version of multiculturalism.

[tzor]

Congratulations, you've just described Canada's version of multiculturalism.

Yes, Canadian multiculturalism is not the same as that in Europe, with the possible exception of those annoying ones in Quebec. There are generally not cultural ghettos in Canada with populations that are totally in opposition to the tradition of Canada. You might even be better at that than the United States, although I don't have the evidence to back that up.

[sabs]

Isn't that very similar to the american version of multiculturism?

[Kaelik]

Maj, that`s not how things work. The fact that you have recieved email chain letters is not evidence that American Conservatives are vocal about something. You appeal to fox news about how influential people are talking about it, but fox news doesn`t talk about it. Nor do republican politicians. That`s the difference between being vocal and having someone talk about it in an email.

Of course, none of the stuff you posted is actually about sharia courts, it`s about opposing Muslims in general, but whatever.

[PhoneLobster]

Congratulations, you've just described ...

...flat out EVERYONE'S version of multiculturalism. Including Europe and the UK's.

The separation thing he is criticizing is called things like segregation and apartheid and has basically nothing to do with Europe and the UK or his imaginary Muslim hoards that will totally take over the UK any minute "because of 'European' Multiculturalism".

Seriously Tzor, you said multiculturalism was bad, you don't get to describe multiculturalism as your alternative to multiculturalism, and you also don't get to continue to make up crazy crap and call it "European Multiculturalism".

[tzor]

...flat out EVERYONE'S version of multiculturalism. Including Europe and the UK's.

Really? You don't say? Oh wait you did say. That doesn't mean it is so.

I can look about me and see American Muslims; people who are proud of being both American and Muslim. I don't think I can find French Muslims; the Muslims in France are not proud of being a part of France; they want nothing to do with France, and her traditions, and her rich history. They are Muslims, who happen to be in France. That's not what Canada would call multiculturalism.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't think I can find French Muslims

I see. You are just pulling flat out CRAZY MAN! talk again aren't you.

It's no true Scottish Muslim hey.

Literally no less.

Here is a hint Tzor, the fact you can't find them there French Muslims and fall hook line and sinker for every neo nazi con job out of the UK and Europe might be connected to the fact that you appear to be incredibly gullible, myopically short sighted when it comes to culture and you aren't actually in France.

I have every reason to believe if you lived in France right now you would be telling us about all those scary USA Muslims who don't accept their nation about to take over the USA and how they are totally different to the French Muslims you actually occasionally see and therefore don't MASSIVELY DEMONIZE IN AN IGNORANT RACIST MANNER.

Seriously man, Racist much? "Muslims in my own country/region are OK, but Foreign Muslims I don't know anything about MUST be EVIL INCARNATE!".

edit: Again as usual Tzor's proof through his "inability to find something" turns out to be UTTERLY hilarious when a very brief glance picked up this on wikipedia no less...

Several studies reveal that France seems to be, among the Western countries, the one where Muslims integrate the best and feel the most for their country. French Muslims also have the most positive opinions about their fellow citizens of different faiths. The study from the Pew Research Center on Integration is a good example of works revealing this typically French phenomenon.

[Orion]

I went back through the thread Kaelik. As far as I can tell it goes like this

--argument about sharia
--tzor condemns "multiculturalism"
--you come in

So your claim that Lobsterphone brought up MC to avoid your points is factually incorrect.

---

You've said several times now that immigrant groups should not be "allowed" to form isolated ghetto communities. What specifically would you make illegal and how would you enforce it?

--

[The Vigilante]

Congratulations, you've just described Canada's version of multiculturalism.

Yes, Canadian multiculturalism is not the same as that in Europe, with the possible exception of those annoying ones in Quebec. There are generally not cultural ghettos in Canada with populations that are totally in opposition to the tradition of Canada. You might even be better at that than the United States, although I don't have the evidence to back that up.

Please don't talk about Canada, you obviously have no idea what goes on here. For starters, Quebec is much less multiculturalism-friendly than the rest of the country. There's also a lot of political analysts, both from Quebec and the rest of Canada, that blame Trudeau for introducing multiculturalism in his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to undermine the separatist movement in the province by delegitimizing the "two founding peoples" theory.

[Juton]

From what I understand the big difference between Canadian multiculturalism and most everyone else's is whom we allow to immigrate. To come to Canada you need to have marketable skills, the side effect of that is that our immigrates are probably on average better educated, and since they have skills they it's a bit more likely they will find employment, even if it's not in their given field. I think nearly every other country relies on immigrants to do menial labour, since that isn't very lucrative they don't have any real class mobility so they end up marginalized, which breeds resentment.

[Maj]

You appeal to fox news about how influential people are talking about it, but fox news doesn`t talk about it. Nor do republican politicians. That`s the difference between being vocal and having someone talk about it in an email.

You know, I understand the whole burden of proof thing, but seriously, why don't you even try? When I'm interested in something that someone's talking about, rather than spout off some unbacked tripe, I go look it up. I even deliberately look up views in opposition to my own because I'm less interested in being right and more interested in understanding.

To that end:

http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2010/1 ... in-the-us/
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=42440
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... ia-law.php
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... -in-us.php
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/t ... nts-sharia

When I searched for [sharia law in the US] on Google, almost every link was a right-wing link. And those that weren't conservative were mocking conservatives for their fears that sharia could even take hold.

Republicans are the biggest and strongest force the US has in making sure sharia courts won't happen. They may be dicks; they may be Islamophobic, but it is precisely those qualities that will keep sharia out.

flat out EVERYONE'S version of multiculturalism. Including Europe and the UK's.

Nah. While I'm grossly stereotyping, and am sure that some other Americans will dogpile me for it, from where I'm sitting, Europe seems a lot different in its ability to deal with other cultures.

Take a look at Belgium... One of my good friends is Belgian, a Flemming, more specifically. That means he speaks Flemish, a version of Dutch that's not quite the same as what's spoken in the Netherlands, and hates everything French. Coincidentally enough, there's the Walloon part of Belgium that speaks French and hates everything Flemish. The dislike between the two groups is strong enough that the subject of Belgium splitting up is currently under debate.

Across the world - Sudan, Palestine, other parts of Europe - countries are redrawing their boundaries based on ethnic lines. And Canada doesn't even get entirely off the hook because they have the Quebec thing.

Personally, I don't know how much more "monocultural" that you can get if your country is defined by the singular ethnicity of the people living in it. Why the hell can't they get along? It would be absurd to think of Los Angeles petitioning for independence because it's mostly Hispanic.

From my perspective, at least, those national politics don't look very "multi"-cultural.

[Username17]

The Flemish secessionists poll 20% in Flanders. That's roughly the percentage of Americans who strongly feel that we should teach the controversy about heliocentrism. The only reason that splitting up even got into the news was that because of a party split and rebranding, they collectivly got almost a third of the vote in Flanders. Then with the help of a parliamentary stalemate they were able to demand that it got on the agenda in exchange for getting parliament to go forward. Also, there was this.

Vlaams Belang is a powerful party, so is Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie, but they can't muster th 50% of the vote needed to even be a majority, let alone the 2/3 needed to procedurally divide the country.

-Username17