In a previous entry your author warned of multiculturalism as a suitable ideology. Multiculturalists believe that the host country should tolerate foreign cultures within their own borders and bequeath them with equal status. These newly arrived residents aren’t required to join with the rest of society. This differs from America’s ‘melting pot’ theory, which subscribes to the belief of assimilating with the nation and getting on the board. While your author has heard many immigrants, let’s face it we all trace our roots to somewhere else besides the U.S., state they are proud to be an American citizen he has never heard someone state they are proud to be a French citizen.
Canada is first noted to have adopted multiculturalism as their national societal ideology in 1971. However our northern neighbors had long been flirting with the notion as it related to Quebec. Since the 1960s the French speaking province, whose population has continued to dwindle, has been able to ramrod legislation through Canada’s Parliament. It began with the Official Language Act of 1969 when English and French were adopted as the official language. This caused an unnecessary burden and cost to the Canadian citizenry with regards to signage. The actual monetary impact in all likelihood is inestimable. The Act later became incorporated in Canada’s Constitution. This was followed by two referendum votes that would consider the idea of Quebec’s succession from Canada and allow the province to become an independent country, on both occasions (1980, 1995) the proposals were defeated at the polls.
Now Canadian Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has once again brought this issue to the forefront. When PM Harper won in 2006 his party did not gain majority control. It should be noted that Harper did pick up support in Quebec as Conservatives made historical inroads in the province.
Recently Harper has cut a deal with the smaller Bloc Quebecois Party, which represents the interests of Quebec. Your author states this as such because it can only explain recent on-goings with Ottawa and Quebec. It will bolster Harper’s powerbase, which may prove beneficial for the Conservative but at what price?
On November 22nd Harper reopened the Quebec sovereignty debate after the issue was revisited once again by the Bloc Party. The Prime Minister introduced legislation that would call for the recognition of Quebec as a “nation within a united Canada” (whatever that means). The bill passed five days later with a 266-16 margin. This too will be incorporated in Canada’s Constitution.
Many are asking what other province will stand up and demand the same recognition? The native Canadians, often referred to as aboriginals, may ask this same question. What about the various ethnic areas that are sprinkled throughout Toronto? Will Alberta with their rich oil, timber and mining ask for the same?
Then again maybe Harper sees the appeasement with the Bloc Party as a possible necessary evil to effectively deal with national security and other critical issues? A joint effort between the Conservatives and Bloc could potentially enable Parliament to pass legislation to deal with terrorist threats, similar to America’s Patriot Act. It was less than six months ago that the Canadian authorities scooped up 15 would be bombers practicing Islam and prevented them from receiving a shipment of ammonium nitrate. In the end Harper may find himself battling such trivial domestic issues as they related to Quebec and questions posed by your author as they relate to fancy legislative words instead of more vital matters.
Meanwhile the Islamic sharia law is gaining shares in the United Kingdom’s judicial system. According to a piece that ran in the Telegraph, several cases of assault where the victims refused to pursue charges under English law reverted to a makeshift court convened by Muslim authorities to decide the outcome.
With regards to Somalis who adhere to such ways, Aydarus Yusuf, once a victim of gang attack whose case was settled by such a court provided a description for what is going on under the nose of Scotland Yard. This judicial perversion isn’t a “religious thing” according to Yusuf “it’s a cultural thing”. No it isn’t a cultural thing Mr. Yusuf. It is a dangerous thing. Dr. Prakash Shaw, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such courts "could be more effective than the formal legal system". Your author can only wonder what will happen when a serious offense such as a violent assault or rape (two crimes that some Muslim extremists have been known to engage in) occurs and the police file charges on behalf of an uncooperative sharia practicing victim? Will there be a battle between the Queen’s law and this illegitimate pseudo court ‘cultural thing’?
Remember this is the United Kingdom, which suffered the London subway bombing in July of last year and more recently the attempted hijacking by Muslim terrorists of planes departing Heathrowlace Airport. Yet this still goes on with Muslims setting up their own shop, now forming their own court systems and refusing to recognize English society.
In France Nicolas Sarkozy, current Minister of Interior and leader of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UPM), is considered the best hope for France’s political right. He has vowed if he is elected President he will clamp down on the continual civil unrest that plagues Paris and surrounding areas. The violence as we all know has been perpetrated by alienated (by choice) Muslim immigrants who could be described as the end result of multiculturalism. Additionally Sarkozy has flirted with the idea of reforming the French economy by slashing taxes and social welfare programs, tailoring economy in a similar American fashion.
Not surprising current French President Jacques Chirac isn’t crazy about Sarkozy. Your author even questions if Chirac is a US ally. Chirac’s two previously endorsed candidates to fill his shoes have been brought down in ethical and legal quagmires. It should be noted that both of these would be candidates were loud with their opposition to the War in Iraq. What is Chirac’s endorsement really worth when one considers the repeated violent actions of these disenfranchised figures having occurred during his watch? If Sarkozy does win the 2007 election his attempts to implement strategies to halt these lethal occurrences, which your authors assures you will be ugly, the acts committed now are only scratching the surface for far worse chaos.
Whether they are giving sovereign recognition to folks who speak a different language or allowing some to set up a scaled down version of the country whence they came within the borders of the hosting nation, multiculturalism has been proven dangerous and ineffective. Not one country, they are mostly located in Europe, that practices such philosophy is looking sound and safe especially in this day and age of radical Muslim extremists. The reader should remind themselves of this obvious dangerous trend the next time someone from the left attempts to sell them on the European model for society or to a lesser degree Canada’s version. Chances are these proponents have never lived in such a society and thus cannot recognize the failures.
