Thank God I’m Canadian. Decisions Decisions to Make.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg]
Related posts:
Uncategorized
My Fellow Americans.
Discussion
14 Responses to “My Fellow Americans.”
Post a comment
Connect With Us Ya Hmeer!
McCain, similar to Obama, denounced and repudiated the remarks made by Parsley.
Posted by Anonymous | May 27, 2008, 8:29 pmIndeed.
Also, isn’t Canada having big issues right now with regard to integration of Muslim immigrants? Efforts to criminalize blasphemy and allow Sharia courts to have standing in some disputes, as well as Mark Steyn’s right to free speech being outrageously violated (Never mind the fact that Steyn is a douchebag who disagrees with everything I stand for, his right to free speech should be sacrosanct), and a number of indicators that generally suggest Muslim immigrants to America are better integrated into American life and culture than anywhere else in the Western world?
And aren’t we in America about to elect a Democratic president, whereas Canada’s got a conservative PM right now?
Posted by Joe | May 27, 2008, 8:58 pmI never said Canada was free’er!
Posted by NarcelX | May 28, 2008, 1:57 amEfforts to criminalize blasphemy
There were some groups that objected to laws were passed to have hate speech laws cover homophobia, that is the closest thing I could think of….but they were Christian.
allow Sharia courts to have standing in some disputes
Family law religious arbritration is an option that Catholics and Jews already had, Muslims wanted to have it too, but in the end the province decided to stop allowing all of them.
So it wouldn’t have been an issue if it hadn’t been allowed for other religious courts in the first place, Ontario government still funds Catholic schools like they’re public, though, I think that’s fucked up and should be stopped.
Mark Steyn’s right to free speech being outrageously violated
We never had absolute free speech here, hate speech is prohibited under the law, like it is in much of Europe, it’s in our charter. Regardless are you arguing that Muslims are not well integrated or that they are? If they weren’t well integrated and marginalized like you said wouldn’t the government be dismissing their complaints of racism?
Besides that I don’t think Americans are in much of a position to pick on others for their treatment of immigrants.
Blahblahblha no I don’t think Canada is perfect but I think these are pretty crappy examples, actually they’re examples of stuff that most religious groups do.
Posted by nadia | May 28, 2008, 5:29 am“”I never said Canada was free’er!”"
Fair enough, but can you see how ‘Thank God I’m Canadian!’ gives that implication?
“”There were some groups that objected to laws were passed to have hate speech laws cover homophobia, that is the closest thing I could think of….but they were Christian.”"
Hm.. maybe I’m remembering this wrong? Could have sworn it was Canada. I’ll google it a bit more, but I’ll assume your memory is better than mine, seeing as how you actually live there.
“”Family law religious arbritration is an option that Catholics and Jews already had, Muslims wanted to have it too, but in the end the province decided to stop allowing all of them.”"
I think it’s good the province stopped allowing it for all of them, but you’re wrong to equate the three.
And no, I’m not saying that because I think *Islam’s* characteristics are any different — I’m saying that the reality of which countries many Muslim migrants to Canada have been coming from means that, statistically speaking, family arbitration will often be used in a coercive way (particularly against young girls and women) that you don’t see with Christian and Jewish arbitration. You see the same situation in England; while the law as intended would work alright in theory, in practice it enables ghettoized justice and coercion that happens behind a veil the police can’t pierce.
Though, again, I’m glad that they simply removed it for all faiths rather than singling out Muslims for different treatment.
“”We never had absolute free speech here,”"
Precisely the problem. Free speech that ends at speech you don’t like is essentially useless.
“”Regardless are you arguing that Muslims are not well integrated or that they are?”"
I don’t know about a blanket judgment like that, but let’s say… less well-integrated than in America?
“”If they weren’t well integrated and marginalized like you said wouldn’t the government be dismissing their complaints of racism?”"
Well, no. If the government subscribes to a European notion of multiculturalism (as opposed to the American version of multiculturalism, which stresses people of all heritages coming together under a set of common fundamental principles), you can have poor integration coupled with the government’s deference to the un-integrated on issues of ‘cultural integrity’.
Case in point: Germany, where a court ruled that a husband was allowed to beat his wife — a German citizen — if they’re originally from a culture where that was acceptable.
That’s the European model in a nutshell.
“”Besides that I don’t think Americans are in much of a position to pick on others for their treatment of immigrants.”"
Actually, we are! We’re far from perfect, but America treats its immigrants better than virtually any other country on Earth — certainly better than any other major power. The difference is stark enough that America has room to talk on this issue.
Posted by Joe | May 28, 2008, 12:08 pmI think it's good the province stopped allowing it for all of them, but you're wrong to equate the three.Equate them to what? Is any religion equatable to another? I'm equating their rights for equal priveleges, as we have a charter of rights that is supposed to free people from religious discrimination, as in you can't pick and choose which religions to give privileges to. That is pretty basic. I'm just saying that you can't allow some and not others…which is why I'm glad they removed all of them altogether.Just like funding Catholic schools and not others is not wrong in a very basic way. You are framing this in a way that some Muslims were causing trouble asking for "special rights" when they were just asking for what other religious groups already had, when it is their right to do so. Blame should be placed on the government for allowing arbitration to happen selectively, which is what made this a public issue. Precisely the problem. Free speech that ends at speech you don't like is essentially useless.This is a debatable issue, but it applies to hate speech against all groups, not just Muslims. So again, I just don't get how this is an argument about anything to do with Muslims. You're arguing that Muslims are not well integrated, but you have a problem that they do things here that virtually all religious and ethnic groups here do? Maybe then you have a problem with the way Canadian law works as a whole, but that is not a Muslim issue, so it's irrelevant. I don't know about a blanket judgment like that, but let's say… less well-integrated than in America?And you've arrived at this conclusion, how?""Besides that I don't think Americans are in much of a position to pick on others for their treatment of immigrants.""Actually, we are!Well you have those people shooting Mexicans on your border. Though I can't say that I think so highly of Canadians that I don;t think any of them would do something like that, I wouldn't feel so secure in my sense of superiority. Everyone has problems.
Posted by nadia | May 28, 2008, 8:36 am“”That is pretty basic. I’m just saying that you can’t allow some and not others…which is why I’m glad they removed all of them altogether.”"
I think we’re talking past each other here. We both agree that it’s an all or nothing thing, that all faiths should have the right or none.
My point was that even if that’s the proper policy answer — taking the right away from all of them — the exercising of that right in Muslim communities would have posed specific problems that you wouldn’t see much of with Jewish and Christian communities, due to the geographic origins of that immigration.
Hence, why I find it troubling that some Muslim-Canadian groups were pushing for those rights to be extended to Shari’a. I’d have been much more comforted if their initial position had been to remove the privilege from all groups.
Though, again, we’re splitting hairs here, as we essentially agree on the substantive points of this part.
“”
This is a debatable issue, but it applies to hate speech against all groups, not just Muslims. So again, I just don’t get how this is an argument about anything to do with Muslims. You’re arguing that Muslims are not well integrated, but you have a problem that they do things here that virtually all religious and ethnic groups here do? Maybe then you have a problem with the way Canadian law works as a whole, but that is not a Muslim issue, so it’s irrelevant.”"
Well, yes, I *do* have a problem with the way Canadian law works as a whole. It’s a ‘Muslim issue’ to the extent that, statistically speaking, the ways in which many Muslim immigrants to Canada would be using those laws are even more detrimental to society than the ways in which other groups might be using them.
It’s the same as the issue over religious arbitration above — I’m opposed to the Canadian legal system itself on that point, but insofar as that system holds, it’s worth noting when the effects of one group using that legal system will be worse for society than how other groups might use it.
“”
And you’ve arrived at this conclusion, how?”"
Nothing scientific behind it, but it’s an amalgamation of what I see and read. From my vantage point, no country in the Western world has a Muslim population as fully integrated as America’s, with Canada running a close second even if there are significant differences.
For instance, people pressing hate-crimes cases against Mark Steyn; while that simply can’t happen in America thanks to the 1st Amendment, I’d be more heartened if even though there were the *legal opportunity* to press such a case in Canada, no Muslim-Canadian organization wanted to press one out of respect for the universal principle of freedom of speech, and if a rogue organization *did* press such a case, all the other Muslim-Canadian organizations would rally around Steyn despite vehemently disagreeing with his views. In short, seeing that would make me happy.
At the same time, I’ve read about some Muslim-Canadian groups taking a very progressive stand on free-speech issues. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus one way or another.
Which is why I don’t say “poorly integrated”, simply “not as well-integrated as in America”.
“”Well you have those people shooting Mexicans on your border. Though I can’t say that I think so highly of Canadians that I don;t think any of them would do something like that, I wouldn’t feel so secure in my sense of superiority. Everyone has problems.”"
A few things:
1) I said ‘immigrants’, not ‘illegal immigrants’. And yes, there is a world of difference.
2) Are you sure the case you’re referencing isn’t an urban legend?
3) Even if it isn’t, the behavior you’re referencing is an extreme aberration. America makes very strong (though imperfect) efforts to treat illegal immigrants humanely.
Posted by Joe | May 29, 2008, 8:04 pmthe exercising of that right in Muslim communities would have posed specific problems that you wouldn’t see much of with Jewish and Christian communities, due to the geographic origins of that immigration.
But how is the fact that they tried to set up this system proof that Muslims as a whole are not well integrated in Canada? It’s not. Furthermore, lots of groups here have been here for generations and still aren’t “integrated” ie some orthodox jews mix with the general population as little as they can, what would you suggest the canadian goverment do about it that wouldn’t be blatantly racist?
It’s a ‘Muslim issue’ to the extent that, statistically speaking, the ways in which many Muslim immigrants to Canada would be using those laws are even more detrimental to society than the ways in which other groups might be using them.
It’s really not.
It’s an issue that the press blows it up every time a Muslim does something over when people of other religious groups do.
Or maybe this is just a you issue, because you seem to suck at backing up these generalizations you’re making.
Which is why I don’t say “poorly integrated”, simply “not as well-integrated as in America”.
Integrated into what? Having the exact same opinion on free speech on you do? That’s just arrogance. Large parts of the West accept this to be the norm, believe that hate speech should be outlawed, and that Holocaust denial should be a crime, America is not the norm among Western countries and it is not the only country in the world. “Integration” implies integrated into the larger society.
Maybe you need to rethink your wording.
1) I said ‘immigrants’, not ‘illegal immigrants’. And yes, there is a world of difference.
Lots of legals get treated like absolute crap, too, every time I travel to the states I can’t believe the crap that comes out of people’s mouths if you get outside of a big city. Pretty much everyone I know that’s worked in the states thinks that race seems to be a much boiiger deal there.
2) Are you sure the case you’re referencing isn’t an urban legend?
Yes.
3) Even if it isn’t, the behavior you’re referencing is an extreme aberration. America makes very strong (though imperfect) efforts to treat illegal immigrants humanely.
Uh an extreme abherration that the governor of California has actually praised (you;ve seriously never heard of the minutemen? really?)
Humanely?
Yeah, not rilly
Posted by nadia | May 30, 2008, 7:40 amGreaaaaaaaat analysis NarcelX. You’re the worst blogger on this horrible crap ass blog!
Posted by Programmer Buydatti | May 30, 2008, 12:26 pm“”Large parts of the West accept this to be the norm, believe that hate speech should be outlawed, and that Holocaust denial should be a crime, America is not the norm among Western countries and it is not the only country in the world.”"
Which is why America is among the only legitimate heirs to the Enlightenment tradition in the world right now, and why I’m not a big fan of “the West” as a whole. Countries that don’t protect those fundamental freedoms aren’t deserving of our support.
Posted by Joe | May 31, 2008, 4:04 pmand you expect them to care because?
Posted by nadia | June 2, 2008, 7:37 amhow the fuck have you not heard of the minutemen?
are you seriously an american or do you just wish you were one?
Posted by nadia | June 2, 2008, 7:38 amthanks buydatti, the less words the better. especially coming out of your goat mouth.
right back at ya my friend
mr.vain
Posted by NarcelX | June 2, 2008, 5:27 pm“” how the fuck have you not heard of the minutemen?
are you seriously an american or do you just wish you were one?”"
Uh, I’m well aware of the Minutemen — I’m from Southern California. Their leader came to give a speech at my now-alma-mater, which was heavily (but peacefully and properly) boycotted.
I was *unaware* of any story that they’ve been shooting at illegal immigrants, so I did a bit of googling.
Turns out the story you’re referring to, which did involve shooting at illegal immigrants, involves not the Minutemen, but a tiny fringe splinter group called the ‘Mountain Minutemen’ that Jim Gilchrist (the leader of the Minutemen overall) has publicly banned and ostracized.
So, yes, there was an incident that involved shooting at illegal immigrants, but it involved a tiny fringe-of-the-fringe group, not the Minutemen themselves, and is highly out of the ordinary for America. Indeed, very few countries in the world treat illegal immigrants as well as Americans do (Though I note, again, that my original point was about legal immigrants).
Posted by Joe | June 3, 2008, 10:42 pm