Multiculturalism signed Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair, Philippe Couillard, Bouchard and Taylor, and several blind
Justin Trudeau disapproved the Conservatives' decision to appeal on the issue of Zunera Ishaq, the woman who challenged the requirement to remove her niqab for obtaining the citizenship ceremony. In the name of "protecting the rights of minorities" and "respect differences in expression and identity," the Liberal leader believes that the government should obey the judgment and swear that woman with her face covered. He accused the Conservatives of practicing a politics of division.
I criticized the fact that Justin Trudeau remained vague on too many issues and did not give us enough material. This time, it really is not. It takes a clear and courageous position and no one can accuse him of following the wind or take the easy and popular position.
However, I strongly disagree with him a number of reasons ranging from sad symbol to hide Women to the message must pass the host society in the integration of immigrants. Also, I disagree for a simple revelation principle of identity: you become a citizen of a new country through oaths, official and public gesture is done openly pointNevertheless.
Debate sliced
it is well defined positions and confrontations of ideas that make it interesting public debate and allow citizens to make their choice. Through this case, Justin Trudeau's vision becomes clearer. He defends multiculturalism pushed to the extreme. If someone is willing to accommodate a woman to keep her face veiled completely the same day he was sworn in as a Canadian citizen, one wonders what he would refuse accommodation. We no longer talk of reasonable accommodations, but universal accommodation.
By clarifying its position on multiculturalism, however, Mr. Trudeau raises other questions he must answer. What is his vision for the integration of newcomers into Canadian society? Is he afraid the ghettos? Does he believe in the linguistic, social, economic?
The other Trudeau
Without making a family business, it will also have to clarify his thinking over the legacy of his father in the field. Like it or not, there is a huge legacy with two masterpieces: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the policy of multiculturalism. Justin he think Canada has gone too far, or does it rather grow more fully the work of his father? The question arises.
There are also specific answers for Quebec. The Quebec government has set aside multiculturalism to put more emphasis on the integration of immigrants. When Prime Minister Trudeau that he would respect Quebec's approach?
In an election year, that's a debate that polarizes. Trudeau one side, Harper another. This leaves little room for the NDP was very discreet on this issue. This is the end that appeals to Liberal organizers who rely on the failure of the troops of Thomas Mulcairniqab.
Trudeau, Mulcair and When the blindness serves as political line
March 13, 2015 10:00 Daniel Baril
The profession of faith of Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair to multiculturalism seems to have plagued this point their thinking they come in the name of this culturally suicidal ideology, denying the foundations of democracy which gender equality and dignity of the person.
What distressing intellectual disabilities show gives us the political class! To believe that these "leaders" are looking to compete in insignificance, with the mayor of Saguenay.
When he announced his intention to appeal the judgment authorizing Boswell wearing the niqab during citizen swearing ceremonies, Stephen Harper defended the only honorable position in such circumstances. For the first time in nine years to be able to see you defend a democratic and progressive position.
After describing the niqab clothing "offensive," Harper said Tuesday that the full veil was "the product of a growing anti-women ". How not to agree with him on this point?
But Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair for their part, chose to defend the indefensible. In a degrading strategy to undermine the ethnic vote Conservative - unless this is sheer stupidity - they are each in their own way stowed behind the Boswell judgment. Shame on these party leaders unable to defend our core values before a legalistic judgment shortsighted.
Multiculturalism democracy against
Justin Trudeau accuses Stephen Harper to play on "Division of Canadians" on this issue. But arguing that the niqab is a right in any circumstances, he does not realize it feeds itself the division, the one between men and women; he thus waives defend gender ideology to legitimize sexist, repressive, undemocratic and anti-humanist.
He also created the division between cultures rather than relying on common civic values as we are all entitled to s' expect from a party leader who aspires to become head of state.
Thomas Mulcair is not outdone its ally the Liberal Party. In his eyes, consider the niqab reflects a growing anti-women "beyond belief."
What boggles the mind is his determination to lead the country into the wall. We have not forgotten that he had played holier promising to challenge in court any Quebec bill on secularism that would ban the wearing of conspicuous religious signs on the part of state employees and even before the filing of the bill. At that time, the NDP had never spent the least internal debate on secularism and had previously never heard a single word out of the mouth of Thomas Mulcair on this.
The Conservative Party is not provided free from contradictions. The Minister of the Treasury Board Tony Clement has indeed argued that it was "not desirable" to ban the niqab for employees of the State. If the garment is offensive and anti-women swearing-in ceremonies, he is equally at work, and even more so if these employees are in contact with the public.
So there is the Bloc Quebecois, has described as hypocritical the Conservative Party, which has a consistent position on the issue. The Bloc had also lined up behind the approach advocated by the draft charter of secularism which included, in Quebec, the prohibition of such ostentatious signs in the public service.
Multiculturalism and cerebral palsy
to realize how the radical multiculturalism corrodes the foundations of democracy and perhaps even neurons, means the president of Quebec inclusive Rémi Bourget, debate the niqab in Bazzo.tv show. While saying not to be "super comfortable with the niqab," he said, "as uncomfortable as a man white sitting on his throne to say that if you wear the niqab is you are oppressed "(at 5:26 in the video). It therefore refuses to ban even unacceptable. It further shows ill at ease to defend the equality of men and women than banning the slave symbol that is the full veil. And he is a lawyer!
As a man, Mr. Bourget, women expect you to be in solidarity with their struggle for equality. As White, other ethnic groups expect that you give them the same benefits as those we have given ourselves through our secular civil laws. As a lawyer, we expect to see you defend the democratic foundations of these laws. But the fundamentalists expect that you keep the discourse you are holding.
The philosophers, sociologists and lawyers defenders of multiculturalism concept of "open secularism" we were accustomed to intellectual productions of a distressing mediocrity. This time, we can speak of a groveling draconian revolting to obscurantism and fundamentalism which paralyze the brain and provide thinking. Simply pathetic!
Multiculturalism is dangerous
On behalf of multiculturalism, Trudeau and Mulcair lead us in the same suicidal cul-de-sac than where England is now unable to get out. To get an idea of social and political havoc that undermine English society today see the videos: "UK Go to hell," "Democracy, Go to hell" and "Behead Those Who insult Islam." It was in 2012, before the start jihad of the Islamic State.
Such radicalism did not appear overnight. It starts with the naive support of those who opened the doors in the name of values relativism. It also begins with the willful blindness of leaders who refuse to call things by their name. The only radicalism that currently leads to violence is political Islam. Do not name things, is to condemn oneself to the wrong diagnosis. And misdiagnosis can lead to a good remedyParis.
report on the burqa in
France"reasonable accommodation" and Charles Taylor pinned
- The report on the full yesterday tabled in the French National Assembly sailing is not content to draw up a comprehensive picture of the situation in France. It also hairpin Canada, where it considers that fundamentalist groups "orchestrate" the courts and indulge in "real bidding constituting communitarian excesses."
The MPs, who heard more than 200 people and proposed the ban on wearing the full veil in public services, seem well aware of the debates that tear especially Quebec. They attack also directly to the principle of reasonable accommodation and theories of philosopher Charles Taylor, who co-led with Prof. Gérard Bouchard said commission on reasonable accommodation.
According to the commissioners, in Canada, "the radical Muslim groups and fundamentalists are exploiting the very favorable legal systems liberties and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals for the consecration of specifically applicable rights to people of faith or Muslim origin.
"Extremismprosper by exploiting" legal theory of reasonable accommodation " . A theory that also raises questions in Canada increasingly pronounced recognize the rapporteurs.
Citing the testimony of three women of Muslim origin, the Commissioners claim that the theories of Charles Taylor inspire "politico-religious notables" Muslims France to launch identity claims with the aim to recognize their minority "as a community." A term rarely used in France to designate a minority.
The rapporteurs namely by taking to Canadian multiculturalism, which they define as "a differentialism" a theory that the differences in nature between groups justify different treatment under the law. The report explains that Canadian multiculturalism is rooted in the original compromise between English-speaking majority and francophone minority. A compromise extended to all minorities in the 1982 Constitution and Article 27 of the Charter of Rights.
The members of the Committee believe that Canadian multiculturalism has led to many abuses. They cite, for example, the right of veiled women to "vote without uncovering" or refuse to remove their veils during a police control on the road. They point higher than in Canada, the merits of polygamy "is still debated."
In conclusion, the rapporteurs argue that too liberal attitude of Canada urged Islamic groups to follow the example of Adventist groups Mormons and multiply identity claims. Canada would be a chosen land of what the writer Abdelwahab Meddeb, quoted in the report identifies as a "strategy of nibbling" which consists for Islamist groups "to wrest, by constant claims against . legal systems, new rights in line with religious norms they intend to promote
"Heardlast November by the commission, Abdelwahab Meddeb had said:" The Canadian idea of reasonable accommodation makes me angry: the same term does not match the spirit of French law! [...] There are two years, I have personally fought with others, like hell, because these accommodations have failed to extend the application of Sharia law.
"Thewriter referred to the recommendation made by the former Attorney General of Ontario, Marion Boyd, create family Islamic arbitration tribunals. A project finally abandoned after many events in Canada and Europe.
http://www.vigile.net/Rapport-sur-la-burqa-en-France-Les
http://voir.ca/daniel-baril/2015/03/13/trudeau-mulcair-et-le-niqab-quand-laveuglement-tient-lieu-de-ligne-politique/
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/02/18/le-multiculturalisme-signe-trudeau
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire