|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: The intolerant Quebecers |
 |
|
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/25/i%E2%80%99m-with-the-%E2%80%98intolerant%E2%80%99-quebecers/
| Quote: |
The facts�or, at any rate, fact�of the case is well-known: a niqab-garbed immigrant from Egypt has been twice expelled from her French-language classes at the Saint-Laurent CEGEP and the Centre d�appui aux communaut�s immigrantes by order of the Quebec government. That much is agreed. Thereafter, the English and French press diverge significantly. The ROC reacted reflexively, deploring this assault on Canada�s cherished �values� of �multiculturalism.� In the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz compared Quebec�s government to the Taliban. So did the Globe and Mail, in an editorial titled �Intolerant Intrusion.� In La Presse, Patrick Lagac� responded with a column called �The Globe, Reporting From Mars!�
The headline was in English, and on the whole M. Lagac�s English is better than the Globe�s French. He began by noting their unbelievably stupid editorial on O Canada, in which they endeavoured to balance their charge of sexism in the English lyrics (�in all thy sons command�) by uncovering sexism in the French��terre de nos a�eux� or �land of our forefathers.� Where, fretted the Globe for a couple hundred words, are the foremothers? This is what happens when your claims to be Canada�s national newspaper rest on the translation services of Babel Fish. As M. Lagac� pointed out, �a�eux, en fran�ais, englobe hommes et femmes.� Englobe maybe, but not in Globe.
It�s not surprising, then, the anglo media wasn�t quite up to speed on �les nuances et les d�tails� of La Presse�s and the other French coverage. Ignored in the rush to raise the rainbow banner of multiculturalism were, for example, the teacher�s insistence that she needed to see the pupil�s mouth move to teach her a new language; Mme Ahmed�s demand that male pupils remove themselves from her line of sight; her refusal to participate in discussions round a table; the school administration�s attempt to accommodate these various difficulties; and, since Mme Ahmed has now gone to the Quebec �Human Rights� Commission, the right of the other students not to have their classes disrupted and their own attempts to learn French set back by one pupil�s intransigence.
...
... we have competing philosophies of group rights. In the ROC, the group rights that matter are those of leftist social engineers� preferred minorities�gays, natives, Muslims, pre-op transsexuals. Quebec also prioritizes group rights, but in this case the group that matters is the majority�la collectivit�. As I said, I rejoice in English law�s ancient disdain for the very concept of group rights. But, if I�m forced to choose between one view of group rights or the other, Quebec�s seems less psychologically unhealthy.
It�s the unthinkingness of the Anglo reaction that�s embarrassing: there�s a niqab-clad woman in the story? Oh, she must be the good guy. That�s Chapter One of Multiculti For Dummies, right? In the Quebec coverage, you at least get the sense they�re thinking through the questions. I dislike Islamic body bags and regard them as a form of degradation and an act of self-segregation. I say �Islamic,� but in fact as a mandatory expression of piousness they barely date back to the disco era. The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader�s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. Except in the ROC they�d call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets. But how quickly we�ve got used to walking around, say, Tower Hamlets in East London and seeing more fully covered women than you do in Amman. Mme Ahmed�s views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. Given that the Quebec government is paying for her francization lessons, it is not unreasonable for them to reach that conclusion.
But that�s Quebec. Canada�s state ideology says, if you can get here, you�re as Canadian as Sir John A. Macdonald. Quebec�s says this is who we are; deal with it. In the ROC, �Canadian values� are that we have no values: we value your values, whatever they happen to be.
Not so, you protest. Why, even the Globe and Mail will still draw a line or two. Their editorial denouncing Quebec�s intolerance began:�There obviously need to be some limits on the accommodation of religious and cultural minorities. Female genital mutilation is one example. Child marriage is another.�
My, that�s big of you. But in practice even this robust line is written endlessly flexible. As the Toronto Sun recently reported:
�Federal immigration officials say there�s little they can do to stop �child brides� from being sponsored into Canada by much older husbands�Muslim men, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, return to their homeland to wed a �child bride� in an arranged marriage in which a dowry is given to the girl�s parents. Officials said some of the brides can be 14 years old or younger.�
So, if it�s women�s rights vs. the joys of multiculturalism, bet on the latter. What next? Gay rights? Norway�s Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion has just given its prestigious 2009 Role Model of the Year award to Mahdi Hassan, a man who wants a ban on homosexuality, and is open to capital punishment as a means of enforcing it. No Nordic blond would make Role Model of the Year with such pronouncements, but it�s amazing how cute they sound coming from your multiculti types.
etc
|
Iggy apparently agrees with Steyn:
http://www2.macleans.ca/category/need-to-know/?current=117843#post117843
Why is Canada dealing with this? How did this happen?
Mass muslim immigration. That's how. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: The intolerant Quebecers |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader�s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. |
I liked that part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the teacher�s insistence that she needed to see the pupil�s mouth move to teach her a new language |
absurd. must see? sure it helps but indeed insensitive to insist
intolerance all around |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the teacher�s insistence that she needed to see the pupil�s mouth move to teach her a new language |
absurd. must see? sure it helps but indeed insensitive to insist
intolerance all around |
I know. I cried into my pink bib when I read that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what a jerk thing to do |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you check out the comments section on any CBC article related to this story, you'll see the emergence of an ad hoc alliance between English-Canadian rednecks and Quebec pur laine. About 80% of the comments are along the lines of "I never thought I'd be saying this, but Quebec is right on the money here! Let's hope the rest of Canada follows suit!"
For myself, I think that if you decide to wear a facial covering, you're pretty much opting to exclude yourself from any number of activities where a bare face is required. But it should still be your choice to do that and deal with the consequences. I can't see how it's the government's mandate to tell you what to wear.
Interesting to speculate where this will all go. If the law passes, it's only a matter of time before it's struck down by the courts on Charter grounds. The question then becomes whether Charest(or whomever is premier at that time) will accept the ruling, or invoke the Notwithstanding Clause(for those outside Canada, this is a clause in the Canadian "Bill Of Rights" which allows legislatures to over-rule the courts on Charter issues).
An invocation of notwithstanding might seem far-fecteched, given that it almost never happens. Historically, though, the precedents are rather telling, in that the one of the few cases of its being applied WAS by the Quebec government, and on an issue supposedly related to the preservation of Quebec culture. From Wiki...
| Quote: |
However, the most notable use of the notwithstanding clause came in the Quebec language law known as Bill 101 after sections of those laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1989, the National Assembly of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and equality rights (section 15). This allowed Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial signs in languages other than French. In 1993, after the law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Bourassa government had the provincial parliament rewrite the law to conform to the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause was removed.
|
Last edited by On the other hand on Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader�s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. |
Maybe not. But if I wanted to go into a government office to pick up a routine form which is available with no questions asked to anyone else who walks in there, I don't think it can be denied to me simply because I'm wearing a Darth Vader mask. But this bill, if I'm understanding it correctly, would prevent anyone wearing a facial mask from getting even that level of basic government service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader�s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. |
Maybe not. But if I wanted to go into a government office to pick up a routine form which is available with no questions asked to anyone else who walks in there, I don't think it can be denied to me simply because I'm wearing a Darth Vader mask. But this bill, if I'm understanding it correctly, would prevent anyone wearing a facial mask from getting even that level of basic government service. |
You understand that the veil isn't the real issue. Right? You know that this is just one step. State-multiculturalism + mass immigration has one possible outcome: Competing group rights. I'm just going to embrace it. Can't fight progress! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| State-multiculturalism + mass immigration has one possible outcome: Competing group rights. |
But the issue of whether or not we should be able to continue accessing government services in the way that we always have(ie. with no bare-face requirements unless an ID is required) has nothing to do with multiculturalism. If you're suggesting that the people who defending the right to veiled services might next turn around and demand other things, under the guise of multiculturalism, that violate Canada's recieved values, then I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it, simply by refusing their demands.
I've been opposed to official multiculturalism since I took a class on the topic in the early 90s. But fighting it's further encroachment via the Quebec law is a little like opposing Christian theocrats by making it illegal to visit a government-office wearing a Jesus Died For Your Sins t-shirt. It's simply an illegitmate exercise of state power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But it should still be your choice to do that and deal with the consequences |
And if the consequences are that the teacher of the class is not happy with teaching someone dressed in such a ridiculous way, then she should leave the class without recourse to 'human rights' tribunals. If baring her face and interacting with males is so repellant then she should leave the country. Of course, she should probably never have been allowed into the country in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What usually happens is that some group will have genuinely good intentions. They "open the door" for a good cause.
Now that they have the door open, the people with their own agendas walk right in behind them and start subverting things. It never fails to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But it should still be your choice to do that and deal with the consequences |
And if the consequences are that the teacher of the class is not happy with teaching someone dressed in such a ridiculous way, then she should leave the class without recourse to 'human rights' tribunals. If baring her face and interacting with males is so repellant then she should leave the country. Of course, she should probably never have been allowed into the country in the first place. |
Well, maybe. But the Quebec legislation doesn't limit this to language classes, or even to situations that involve extended periods of interaction. Let's say there's a form that anyone can walk into a government office and request, without having to show ID or even prove that you're a Canadian citizen. A standard tax form, for example. If I'm understanding the new law correctly, the government won't give the form to a woman wearing a veil, even though they had no concern whatsoever with who they were giving the form to before.
The question of who does and does not get a particular service should be decided according to the requirments of that service, not according to some overarching mandate to promote gender equality. Maybe the veil is in fact a dagger pointed at the heart of western egalitarianism, but it does nothing to hinder the provision of government documents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But it should still be your choice to do that and deal with the consequences |
And if the consequences are that the teacher of the class is not happy with teaching someone dressed in such a ridiculous way, then she should leave the class without recourse to 'human rights' tribunals. If baring her face and interacting with males is so repellant then she should leave the country. Of course, she should probably never have been allowed into the country in the first place. |
What a disgusting Web site this is. The woman could learn French by attending sex-segregated classes, participating in sex-segregated group work, or hiring a private tutor. I haven't followed the case and don't know what steps the school took to try to accommodate her, but it's hard to believe this had to go to court. And that you're not banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
What a disgusting Web site this is.
|
Given you're constantly whining about this web site and the people on it, why on Earth do you keep coming back to it? Are you really so pathetic that you have nothing better to do with your time than constantly subject yourself to an environment you actively despise? Do you really have no more urgent a task than trolling through threads whose topics anger you, sharing your opinion about who or who shouldn't be banned and why?
None of us are begging you to be here; no one is beseeching you to share your insights. The last thing we need is moderators further stifling free discussion here, so why not save yourself the irritation and cease your visits to the Current Events Forum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
What a disgusting Web site this is.
|
Given you're constantly whining about this web site and the people on it, why on Earth do you keep coming back to it? Are you really so pathetic that you have nothing better to do with your time than constantly subject yourself to an environment you actively despise? Do you really have no more urgent a task than trolling through threads whose topics anger you, sharing your opinion about who or who shouldn't be banned and why?
None of us are begging you to be here; no one is beseeching you to share your insights. The last thing we need is moderators further stifling free discussion here, so why not save yourself the irritation and cease your visits to the Current Events Forum? |
Sorry you feel that way. I doubt I'm the only person who found Bigverne's comment offensive, and I doubt I'm the only person who dislikes this site. Given that it's supposed to be a helpful resource for foreigners in Korea, why doesn't Dave Sperling ever post here to explain his decisions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
