Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

No stoning in Quebec
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

dulouz

Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:17 am Post subject:

Quote:

Quebec has one of the lowest rates of church-attendance in North America

This means nothing as explained in one of my My Struggle columns. Church attendance is an insignificant factor when determining secularization rates.

thebum

Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: North Korea

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: Re: No stoning in Quebec

Adventurer wrote:

regicide wrote:

BJWD wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

MONTREAL -- A rural Quebec town has taken the unusual step of formally declaring that it is forbidden to stone women in public -- part of a list of "norms" that it says is aimed at potential immigrants.

Herouxville, about 165 km northeast of Montreal, passed a document at a town council meeting this month that outlines what it considers to be its official behavioural norms.

BURNING ALIVE OUT

The document, sent to both the provincial and federal governments, states that "a woman can ... drive a car, sign cheques, dance, decide on her own."

However, covering one's face other than on Halloween, burning women alive or burning them with acid is not considered acceptable.

The document also points out to potential immigrants that Quebecers are used to receiving medical services from members of the opposite sex and that boy and girls often swim in the same pool.

"Don't be surprised," the document reads. "For us, it's normal."

Somehow, I doubt that anyone who would think it just an everyday activity to burn women alive is going to be deterred by this letter.

This is directed 100% at muslims. A small Quebec town. Amazing. Canadians are waking up.

Along these sames lines , there is the problem with Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota according to a recent USA Today story:

Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, says airport spokesman Patrick Hogan. "Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," he says. "Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage."

Taxi drivers and officials from the airport, taxi companies and the Muslim American Society are discussing how to address the issue. Partly out of concern that taxi drivers might be citing religion to avoid short-distance fares, the airport is now forcing drivers who refuse a fare to go to the end of the line for waiting taxis. It is not a popular decision among drivers, Hogan says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm

I have not heard of the Muslims in Quebec creating, so far, the kind of problems that the Somali taxi drivers are creating in Minnesota. These Somali drivers should simply have their taxi permits taken away if they don't want to pick someone because they have alcohol in their possession. That is very ridiculous.

i donno, i think they should be able to refuse anyone they want.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:31 am Post subject:

Quote:

i donno, i think they should be able to refuse anyone they want.

Well, from a hardcore libertarian persepctive, yeah. They own the cab, if they don't wanna have alcohol in it, that's their business. If there are enough booze-toting customers, they'll just go to other cabbies.

And even if(like me) you're not libertarian: is there anything in Minnesota's laws that REQUIRES business owners to allow booze on their premises? I'd guess they're prohibited from discrimination on the usual race, religion, sex categories, but I don't think being a booze-toter falls under any of those.

thebum

Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: North Korea

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:34 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

i donno, i think they should be able to refuse anyone they want.

i didn't think they were prohibited by law from discriminating on the usual race, religion, sex categories (they're not the government or a government organization, after all). i could be wrong.

i'm from minnesota by the way. my grandparents used to run a bed and breakfast on the "north shore" and they could refuse anyone for any reason (and they often did).

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:36 am Post subject:

Quote:

i didn't think they were prohibited by law from discriminating on the usual race, religion, sex categories

I thought that private businesses were prohibited from such dicrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is federal law I believe. Maybe one our American friends can help me out here.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: Re: No stoning in Quebec

Adventurer wrote:

I really don't think 3 refusals a day is a problem. Heck, a lot of the Somalis live in my friend's neighborhood, which is packed with bars. So they can't be that adverse to being around alcohol.

Anyone who opposes the taxi drivers right to choose whothey pick up, should definitely oppose this trend (which comes from the Christian right):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/earlyshow/health/main683753.shtml

Quote:

Lawmakers in at least 26 states have introduced bills that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions if it offends their religious or moral beliefs.

It be interesting to compare how the Islam bashers compare on the two issues. I'll take a look tomorrow.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:54 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

i donno, i think they should be able to refuse anyone they want.

No, this is not acceptable. If they can't be proper taxi drivers then they shouldn't service the airport and should have a sign saying they don't service people who have alcohol or whatever so others who disagree with them won't be their patrons either. This is not like a convenience store that you walk into that doesn't have booze. We're talking about people who need a ride and then are refused. That is going way too far and involves them imposing their values on a country that accepted them.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

Well, I dunno. It might not be the most considerate thing to do, sit outside an airport waiting for fares and then tell the guy who gets in that he can't bring his booze on board. But I'm not sure if it falls outside the rights of a private cabbie to do so.

I'm sure cabbies have all sorts of private rules about who they won't pick up. Some of them might not wanna pick up guys who wear scruffy clothes, or women who dress like hookers, and would just pass by such people on the street. I see your point about these Minnesota cabbies actually sitting outside of airports waiting for customers, but I'm not sure if they have any less right to refuse than the cabbies decribed in my previous sentence.

Quote:

That is going way too far and involves them imposing their values on a country that accepted them.

What does their being immigrants have to do with it? Would it make a difference if they were American-born converts to Islam?

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

That is going way too far and involves them imposing their values on a country that accepted them.

What does their being immigrants have to do with it? Would it make a difference if they were American-born converts to Islam?

These people from Somalia were given an opportunity to flee their war-torn country and make a new life in the U.S. and Canada. They should be productive members of society and not segregate themselves excessively from the norm. If someone is not drunk, then they should pick them up. If they cannot or will not, then their company should fire them or it should state they don't pick up certain people so people can avoid them. I can understand not picking up a drunk person if you don't want to but if someone has a bottle of Johnny Walker or Jim Beam and is coming in from the airport then that is quite outrageous. I understand it is their private business. Can the city compel them to pick those people up? If it is all right for them to impose such a law, then I am all for it.

I think this declaration by this Quebec city, however, is quite backward and shows the ignorance of the officials. They are acting as if stoning is practiced in the former homelands of the mostly Arab Muslim immigrants when this is false. I think the Dutch type of video showing them Quebec diversity and how Quebecers live and the norms among Quebecers and how people are meant to integrate should be emphasized by the provincial government and deal with this on a provincial level.

seoul_nhl

Joined: 18 Mar 2006

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:39 am Post subject:

Adventurer wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

That is going way too far and involves them imposing their values on a country that accepted them.

What does their being immigrants have to do with it? Would it make a difference if they were American-born converts to Islam?

I wouldn't call it ignorant! The people in the small town of Quebec now exactly what there doing. There saying your welcome to our town and our country. But keep it in doors! If you want the real deal check out Quebec talk radio

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:44 am Post subject:

I think that Fukuyama pulls together the larger issues very well in this article.

Quote:

A question of identity

* Francis Fukuyama says the West's postmodern elites are being challenged by migrants who are more sure of who they are
* February 03, 2007

THE radical Islamist ideology that has motivated terror attacks over the past decade must be seen in large measure as a manifestation of modern identity politics rather than of traditional Muslim culture.
Modern identity politics revolves around demands for recognition of group identities - that is, public affirmations of the equal dignity of formerly marginalised groups, from the Quebecois to African-Americans to women to indigenous peoples to homosexuals.

The argument that contemporary radical Islamism is a form of identity politics has been made most forcefully by the French scholar Olivier Roy in his 2004 book Globalised Islam.

According to Roy, the root of radical Islamism is not cultural - that is, it is not a by-product of something inherent in Islam or the culture that this religion has produced. Rather, he argues, radical Islamism has emerged because Islam has become "deterritorialised" in such a way as to throw open the whole question of Muslim identity. To Roy, identity becomes problematic precisely when Muslims leave traditional Muslim societies by, for example, emigrating to Western Europe. One's identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside society; indeed, there is strong pressure to conform to the West's prevailing cultural norms.

The question of authenticity arises in a way that it never did in the traditional society, since there is now a gap between one's inner identity as a Muslim and one's behaviour vis-a-vis the surrounding society.

This explains the constant questioning of imams on Islamic websites about what is haram (prohibited) or halal (permitted).

Radical Islamism and jihadism arise in response to the resulting quest for identity. Those ideologies can answer the question of "Who am I?" posed by a young Muslim in Holland or France: you are a member of a global umma defined by adherence to a universal Islamic doctrine that has been stripped of all of its local customs, saints, traditions and the like.

Muslim identity thus becomes a matter of inner belief rather than outward conformity to social practice.

Thus could Mohammed Atta and several of the other 9/11 conspirators allegedly drink alcohol and visit a strip club in the days before the attacks.

Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages radicalisation is an open question. Since September 11, a small industry has sprung up trying to show how violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic or historical roots. It is important to remember, however, that at many periods in history Muslim societies have been more tolerant than their Christian counterparts. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Cordoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning; Baghdad for many generations hosted one of the world's largest Jewish communities.

It makes no more sense to see today's radical Islamism as an inevitable outgrowth of Islam than to see fascism as the culmination of centuries of European Christianity.

Second, the problem of jihadist terrorism will not be solved by bringing modernisation and democracy to the Middle East. Modernisation and democracy are good things in their own right, but in the Muslim world they are likely to increase, not dampen, the terror problem in the short run.

Europeans argue, with some justice, that they face a harder problem in integrating their immigrants - the majority of whom are now Muslim - than does the US. Europe's Muslim immigrants tend to come from quite traditional societies, while the vast bulk of newcomers to the US are Hispanic and share the Christian heritage of the dominant culture. (Numbers also matter: in the US there are two to three million Muslims in a country numbering nearly 300 million; were this Muslim population proportionally the same size as in France, there would be more than 20 million.)

Whatever its exact causes, Europe's failure to better integrate its Muslims is a ticking time bomb that has already contributed to terrorism. It is bound to provoke a sharper backlash from populist groups, and may even threaten European democracy itself. Resolution of this problem will require a two-pronged approach, involving changes in behaviour by immigrant minorities and their descendants as well as by members of the dominant national communities.

The first prong of the solution is to recognise that the old multicultural model has not been a big success in countries such as The Netherlands and Britain, and that it needs to be replaced by more energetic efforts to integrate non-Western populations into a common liberal culture.

The old multicultural model was based on group recognition and group rights. Out of a misplaced sense of respect for cultural differences - and in some cases out of imperial guilt - it ceded too much authority to cultural communities to define rules of behaviour for their own members. Liberalism cannot ultimately be based on group rights, because not all groups uphold liberal values.

Multiculturalism, as it was originally conceived in Canada, the US and Europe, was in some sense a "game at the end of history". That is, cultural diversity was seen as a kind of ornament to liberal pluralism that would provide ethnic food, colourful dress and traces of distinctive historical traditions to societies often seen as numbingly conformist and homogeneous. Cultural diversity was something to be practised largely in the private sphere, where it would not lead to any serious violations of individual rights or otherwise challenge the essentially liberal social order. Where it did intrude into the public sphere, as in the case of language policy in Quebec, the deviation from liberal principle was seen by the dominant community more as an irritant than as a fundamental threat to liberal democracy itself.

By contrast, some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality.

These demands include special exemptions from the family law that applies to everyone else in the society, the right to exclude non-Muslims from certain types of public events, or the right to challenge free speech in the name of religious offence (as with the Danish cartoons incident).

In some more extreme cases, Muslim communities have even expressed ambitions to challenge the secular character of the political order as a whole. These types of group rights clearly intrude on the rights of other individuals in the society and push cultural autonomy well beyond the private sphere.

Asking Muslims to give up group rights is much more difficult in Europe than in the US, however, because many European countries have corporatist traditions that continue to respect communal rights and fail decisively to separate church and state. The existence of state-funded Christian and Jewish schools in many European countries makes it hard to argue in principle against state-supported religious education for Muslims. If Europe is to establish the liberal principle of a pluralism based on individuals rather than groups, then it must address these corporatist institutions inherited from the past.

The other prong of the solution to the problem of Muslim integration concerns the expectations and behaviour of the majority communities in Europe. National identity continues to be understood and experienced in ways that sometimes make it a barrier for newcomers who do not share the ethnicity and religious background of the native-born. National identity has always been socially constructed; it revolves around history, symbols, heroes and the stories that a community tells about itself.

If existing citizens do not sufficiently value their national citizenship, then European countries can scarcely expect newcomers to value it either.

Despite its very different starting point, the US may have something to teach Europeans here as they attempt to construct post-ethnic forms of national citizenship and belonging. American life is full of quasi-religious ceremonies and rituals meant to celebrate the country's democratic political institutions: flag-raising ceremonies, the naturalisation oath, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July. Europeans, by contrast, have largely deritualised their political lives. Europeans tend to be cynical or dismissive of American displays of patriotism. But such ceremonies are important in the assimilation of new immigrants.

And Europe does have its own precedents for creating national identities that are less based on ethnicity or religion. The most celebrated case is French republicanism, which in its classic form refused to recognise separate communal identities and used state power to homogenise French society. With the growth of terrorism and urban unrest, an intense discussion has been under way in France about why this form of integration has failed. Part of the reason may be that the French themselves gave up the old concept of citizenship in favour of a version of multiculturalism. The headscarf ban of 2004 was the reassertion of an older concept of republicanism.

Britain has recently been borrowing from both American and French traditions as it seeks to raise the visibility of national citizenship.

The Labour Government has introduced citizenship ceremonies for new citizens as well as compulsory citizenship and language tests. It has also started citizenship classes in schools for all young citizens.

Britain has experienced a sharp rise in immigration in recent years, much of it from the new member states of the EU such as Poland, and in imitation of the US - the Government sees immigration as a key part of its relative economic dynamism.

Immigrants are welcome so long as they work rather than draw welfare and, thanks to US-style flexible labour markets, there are plenty of low-skill jobs to take.

But in much of the rest of Europe, a combination of inflexible work rules and generous benefits means that immigrants come in search not of work but of welfare. Many Europeans claim that the less generous welfare state in the US robs the poor of dignity. But the opposite is true: dignity comes through work and the contributions one makes through one's labour to the larger society. In several Muslim communities in Europe, as much as half the population subsists on welfare, directly contributing to the sense of alienation and hopelessness.

So the European experience is not homogeneous. But in most countries, the debate about identity and migration is opening up - albeit driven in part by terror attacks and the rise of the populist Right.

The dilemma of immigration and identity ultimately converges with the larger problem of the valuelessness of postmodernity. The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship.

Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place. But aside from their celebration of endless diversity and tolerance, postmodern people find it difficult to agree on the substance of the good life to which they aspire in common.

Immigration forces upon us in a particularly acute way discussion of the question "who are we?", posed by author Samuel Huntington. If postmodern societies are to move towards a more serious discussion of identity, they will need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society. If they do not, they may be overwhelmed by people who are more sure about who they are.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161050-2703,00.html

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe