[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= peacedove] Since the riots in Paris in 2005, multiculturalism has come under attack throughout the Western World including Canada. The biggest critics of multiculturalism are far right groups. These groups blame immigrants for just about all social problems and want to restrict or in some cases eliminate immigration all together. However, criticism is not just coming from the right. Multiculturalism has now even been gaining criticism from the liberal left. The main reason the liberal left would be opposed to multiculturalism has to do with the values of many new immigrants. Immigrant communities generally have socially and traditionally conservative, which are different from the mainstream societies they live in.<br /> <br /> However, multiculturalism and immigration should not be blamed for the French riots. The main issue here is French society in general. Muslims and other ethnic groups in France have suffered from decades of discrimination and racism. Currently no affirmative action programs are in place and no laws are in place preventing employers from discriminating based on religion and race. <br /> <br /> The French government is also partially to blame for the living conditions of the immigrant population. For decades, the French government has been building housing projects for immigrant families on the outskirts of major cities and not in the cities and downtown areas. This leaves many immigrants isolated from the rest of French society. This makes it more difficult to gain opportunities and escape from poverty.<br /> <br /> Multiculturalism and immigration should not be blamed for the problems going on in the immigrant community in countries such as France and Canada. Western countries that pride themselves on human rights and equality on an international level must practice these same values in their own home countries. Furthermore, western societies should stop pressuring groups to assimilate. In tolerant and diverse societies people should have the right to preserve their culture and traditions. This will help to ensure a society where all groups can live together peacefully and have the same opportunities in life.<br /> <br /> Harjit Gill<br /> Winnipeg<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Thank you sharing this with us. I agree some with aspects of your post and disagree with others.<br /> <br /> First of all, France doesn't have "offical multiculturalism", it has immigration from former 3rd world countries that were former colonies like Algeria.<br /> <br /> I disagree that French politicians have not been generous. 50% of the social assistance in France was spent the areas that experienced riots.<br /> <br /> The so-called "decades of racism and discrimination" you speak of is valid, but I disagree that this caused the riots. The discrimination is based on the REPUTATION minorities have for violence--which IS deserved. This DOES hurt minorities who are productive and law-abiding but discrimination is onyl human nature.<br /> <br /> You talk about equality and discrimination against minorities--but you also recommend affirmative action--which discriminates against white people. Some people call it "positive discrimination", because apparently anything that favours minorities over the people that built Canada is a good thing.<br /> <br /> <br /> I AGREE with you that French politicians are to blame--but I think they are to be blamed for a different reason. French politicians are to be blamed for allowing people into France from backgrounds that were simply incompatible, causing many headaches for everyone.<br /> <br /> The left wing also opposes immigration increasingly because they recognize that it lowers wages for workers--and the French government is criminal because they knew there weren't any jobs--millions of French were already employed and they still allowed or even forced immigration.<br /> <br /> You say at the end of your comment that people should have the right to preserve their cultures and traditions, and I agree but not in their new country. They should stay where they are if they value traditionas and culture over money--which is a big reason why they leave.<br /> <br /> You also complain the French government built lots of housing for the immgrants (isn't that what they left asks for in Canada) because it was on the outskirts of town--but this is more due to income than anything else, and you also argued immigrants should NOT have to integrate and become French--so why is this exclusion from french society a problem? Isn't it merely what you are asking for, as France does not have multilculturalism while Canada does?<br /> <br /> You sound a bit utopian to me and I should add that Canada doesn't pressure people to assimilate much at all...you simply often have to learn english or French to get a job.

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]Canada doesn't pressure people to assimilate much at all...you simply often have to learn english or French to get a job.[/QUOTE]<br /> It's the other way around, perturbed. Recent immigramts increasingly impose their values on Canadians and they are achieving this through courts and politics which the irresponsible Liberals have turned a blind eye to for over a decade because it assured them votes.<br /> <br /> Strike that. Liberals have actually been encouraging this. Take Paul Martin's recent spite of madness about abolishing the notwithstanding clause. I can see it now, fundamentalist Muslims take Sharia law to the Supreme Court, win it and government is helpless to strike it down.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]Canada doesn't pressure people to assimilate much at all...you simply often have to learn english or French to get a job.[/QUOTE]<br /> It's the other way around, perturbed. Recent immigramts increasingly impose their values on Canadians and they are achieving this through courts and politics which the irresponsible Liberals have turned a blind eye to for over a decade because it assured them votes.<br /> <br /> Strike that. Liberals have actually been encouraging this. Take Paul Martin's recent spite of madness about abolishing the notwithstanding clause. I can see it now, fundamentalist Muslims take Sharia law to the Supreme Court, win it and government is helpless to strike it down.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Don't get me wrong I agree with you....and the notwithstanding clause is a red herring because they could always bring it back.<br /> <br /> With respect to Paul Martin, I don't know if you have seen his English language commercial in Ontario, but the Liberals before Christmas were emphasizing "the gains of women", equality, the charter of rights and "minorities" by showing various people (including a black woman speaking in Saskatoon--are there any black people in Saskatoon??) and were pushing everything minority-centric in a desperate bid to win the election and stay in power.<br /> <br /> I see no good choice this election, and I can tell you Paul Martin has recently held a RALLY at an ISLAMIC COMMUNITY CENTRE, and has in the past dined with terrorist Tamil Tigers to simply garner votes. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

[Calumny]

Not to get off-topic however, the notwithstanding thing is extremely significant and Martin's comments in this regard are to me mind-boggling.<br /> <br /> In essence, his suggestion move us closer to a U.S. system where a 'Supreme Court' makes the rulings rather than elected officials.<br /> <br /> The concept of the 'rule of law' is a great idea in 1776 when previous experience was dealing with, as colonials might put it, 'tyrants' who could basically change the rules whenever they chose and experience with democracy was nil.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, as recent U.S. events have shown, the concept of the 'rule by law' doesn't come off as well as anticipated when put into human hands which each have their own particular viewpoint, in that the interpretation of 'law' may differ depending on a court's liberal or conservative leanings.<br /> <br /> My view is that democracy means the people who support that democracy should decide what the law is, not an unelected court. <br /> <br /> The thing about democracy is that it has nothing to do with people always making the 'right' or 'fair' decision. What it means it that the people who support a nation and who will ultimately have to live, for good or ill, with that decision should be the ones making it. <br /> <br /> In our 'representational' democracy, it is our representatives, not an unelected court, that should make the decisions based on the will of the people.<br /> <br /> If the people choose to be their own 'tyrant', so be it.<br /> <br /> As concerns 'muti-culturalism', I agree that anyone coming to a country should be prepared to live within the rules of that country. If not, they should stay where they are. It isn't incumbent on a nation's population to adjust their own values to align with those of newcomer's, particularly if some of the newcomer's values are of a nature that the society they've chosen to join decided centuries before were undesirable for whatever reason. <br /> <br /> I'm sorry, however if an immigrant's values or religion include some notion of women being male 'property' and/or female children being mutilated and/or any notion that is unacceptable within current Canadian values, they need to be willing to drop these if they want to be here.<br /> <br /> By unacceptable, I mean something that would drag the nation back a thousand years rather than a concept that could improve the system for everyone. Obviously, our system isn't perfect and we can learn quite a bit from our own First Nations and immigrants that could improve things for everyone.<br /> <br /> At the same time, we shouldn't be hypocrites. Some of the issues in France, the U.S. and here arise from a need for cheap labour, which was satisfied through immigration, and a reluctance to understand that the labour may not be satisfied to remain cheap or be relegated to some peripheral ghetto role in society. You can't have things both ways, or prevent people from wanting the same life people around them have.<br /> <br /> Anyway, I've got no problem with anyone else's religious holidays (frankly, I believe every religious holiday should be of a statutory holiday nature, which in today's Canada leaves us having to work about 10 days a year.). However, for me Christmas is Christmas in Canada, or at least points outside of Ottaw and Toronto. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be here.<br />

[AntiFate]

Ok if you want to know what Multiculturalism is just go down to UT or Waterloo, walk around the campus, you'll see people mixing togather. <br /> <br /> Some people are very short sighted, yes, first generations do bring heavy cultural habbits along with them, but 2nd generations will competely fit in and build a new Canadian culture. <br /> <br /> I think most people who are against Multiculturalism are the people who cant compete with the new Canadians. I noticed most anti-Multiculturalism kids are high school drop outs who are just angry that the new Canadians have beaten them in life.