Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Values are not universal! I'm not white and I do not necessarily share western values. Your statements are terribly intolerant.
The common Canadian values are embodied in the portion of our constitution called "The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms". If any immigrant does not agree with those principles then they should never become a citizen.
The common Canadian values are embodied in the portion of our constitution called "The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms". If any immigrant does not agree with those principles then they should never become a citizen.
Repeatedly publish offensive content, even after millions of people have said that the content is offensive. [...] To me, it is an example of failing to appreciate other people's views, refusing to be culturally sensitive, and trumping european rules over Muslim rules. How is a Muslim supposed to feel that they are equal citizens of France? How can a french person say that Muslims are just as french when the French dismisses Muslims views?
I'm not familiar with the details of this situation. Did the French government publish the offensive content? Or was is published by private citizens?
But, in any case, this does raise an interesting point. Advocates of multiculturalism should, theoretically, be making an effort to be culturally sensitive. On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of diversity ought to be freedom of speech, and freedom of speech means that people will sometimes hear offensive things.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the details of the French situation. Were the people who published offensive things also explicitly portraying themselves as advocates of diversity/multiculturalism?
We have plenty of diversity. Values as Canadian citizens do not have anything to do with diversity. They are universal values for a "FREE" people. If you don't want to live in freedom in this country, that is not diverse, it's perverse. Grow up and understand the difference.
We have plenty of diversity. Values as Canadian citizens do not have anything to do with diversity. They are universal values for a "FREE" people. If you don't want to live in freedom in this country, that is not diverse, it's perverse. Grow up and understand the difference.
Universal values for a free people include human rights tribunals where people are literally put on trial for the crime of saying offensive things? That's what you call living in freedom?
Universal values for a free people include human rights tribunals where people are literally put on trial for the crime of saying offensive things? That's what you call living in freedom?
Nah. Human rights tribunals are about putting people on trial and hanging them for killing and oppressing hundreds of people they don't like or think different than them.
Society has political correctness to handle the small stuff like saying offensive things against other races and cultures.
You want evidence? How we're native americans treated? How were the chinese railroad workers treated? How were minorities treated in Russia, India, China, Mexico? How were the Scottish treated by the English? The examples are countless.
Around and around we go. As I've indicated in several prior posts, diversity did not cause these abuses. Diversity is plain and simply a reality of life. The problem is not diversity; the problem is rooted in historically based bad attitudes about diversity. The problem, in each and every case, lies in the way in which people respond to diversity.
Knowledge is a lot like diversity. Knowledge is a source of strength. But, obviously, some people can use their knowledge to cause a lot of pain. Should we blame knowledge when people use their knowledge to hurt others? Or should we blame the attitudes of the people who use their knowledge to cause pain? I don't blame the educational system for teaching people to fly planes, even though some people used this knowledge to fly planes into the WTC. The problem wasn't knowledge; the problem was the destructive intentions of the people who put their knowledge to bad use.
Diversity, of course, is not exactly like knowledge. Whereas knowledge has to be earned by devoting time and energy to learning, diversity (in a lot of situations) tends to happen whether we want it to, or not. Totalitarian governments might try their best to reduce diversity, or control it, or contain it, but in the long run diversity tends to find a way to emerge.
When people talk about diversity in the context of multiculturalism, they are generally striving for tolerance, respect, and an overall good, positive attitude toward diversity. The tendency for these folks is to want to celebrate diversity because diversity is a source of strength so long as we keep a positive attitude toward it. Given the reality of diversity, and given the fact that diversity is a source of strength especially when we approach it with a positive attitude, the only smart thing to do is to approach it with a positive attitude.
The cases you gave as examples are not cases in which people approached diversity with a positive/multicultural attitude. The cases you mentioned are all examples of what happens when people take a negative attitude. Diversity can sometimes seem like a problem at first because it does tend to bring challenges, but it always comes bearing a gift in its hands. Diversity is a source of strength, if we accept the gifts it brings.
Universal values for a free people include human rights tribunals where people are literally put on trial for the crime of saying offensive things? That's what you call living in freedom?
Can you give an example of a human right tribunal that put someone on trial for saying offensive things?
I'm not familiar with the details of this situation. Did the French government publish the offensive content? Or was is published by private citizens?
But, in any case, this does raise an interesting point. Advocates of multiculturalism should, theoretically, be making an effort to be culturally sensitive. On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of diversity ought to be freedom of speech, and freedom of speech means that people will sometimes hear offensive things.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the details of the French situation. Were the people who published offensive things also explicitly portraying themselves as advocates of diversity/multiculturalism?
A French satire magazine had published some works portraying Islam in a less than flattering way, which resulted in extremists storming the studio, and killing 11 people. The offensive work was criticizing Islam for acts of extremism (which mean the subsequent shooting is actually pretty ironic...). Advocates for free speech are claiming the magazine had every right to publish that work, while social activists are claiming that the work was too insensitive and the magazine should have practiced self censorship to avoid offending people.
Personally, I think satirists should have the right to create satire. They can poke fun at whomever they so please; no one is off limits.
I have no idea if they're known for advocating for multiculturalism. I doubt it, but that means nothing.
Multiculturalism only works when there is no ideological clash. In the Western world, Christianity is dominant and free speech is available to all, including those who speak out against Christianity. In the Middle East, Islam is dominant, and free speech is pretty much limited to those who have power or show support for those in power. Speaking out against Islam is generally not tolerated. That's not to say every single person who lives in the Middle East would kill you for speaking out against Islam, but you're more likely to die for speaking out against Islam in the Middle East than you are for speaking out against Christianity in Europe. That ideological rift is what allowed an event like that to occur.
Diversity is fine, though I never understood why so many praise it. There's good in it, sure, but it's hardly necessary. The fusion of ideas can bring out innovation, which is great, but innovation can exist independent of cultural diversity. If there are not unifying traits among the groups, then diversity will only create tension. In order for a group to be productive, there must be at least one significant unifying trait amongst all it's members. If diversity is valued to highly, the trait may be ignored and the push for diversity will create a negative impact.
Diversity must happen naturally for it to work. Let those who share common ideals and values congregate, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, and see what happens. But if we try and force everyone to get along by just throwing them into an arena and hoping for the best, you can't expect good results. Let people come to accept other ideas on their own. You can help them along the way, but you can't force them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
