More Madness from Canada

[JayB]

"Canadian town to immigrants: you can't stone women."

 

TTAWA (Reuters) - Immigrants to the small Quebec town of Herouxville must not stone women in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules made public by the local council.

 

 

The declaration, published on the town's Web site, has deepened a debate in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province over how tolerant Quebecers should be towards the customs and traditions of immigrants.

 

"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," said the declaration, which also says women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress how they want, work and own property.

 

"Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to ... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."

 

No one on the town council was immediately available for comment on Tuesday. Herouxville, which has 1,300 inhabitants, is about 100 miles (160 km) northeast of Montreal.

 

Andre Drouin, the councillor who came up with the idea of the declaration, told the National Post newspaper that the town was not racist.

 

"We invite people from all nationalities, all languages, all sexual orientations, whatever, to come live with us, but we want them to know ahead of time how we live," he said.

 

The regulations say girls and boys can exercise together and people should only be allowed to cover their faces at Halloween. Children must not take weapons to school, although the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikh boys have the right to carry ceremonial daggers.

 

The Herouxville declaration is part of a wider discussion over "reasonable accommodation", or how far Quebecers should be prepared to change their customs so as not to offend immigrants -- figures from the 2001 census show that around 10 percent of Quebec's 7.5-million population were born outside Canada."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_stoning

 

What the hell is going on up there? First that madman Harper gets elected, now this band of fanatics have the audacity to suggest that the norms and values that have hitherto defined the country and the manner in which it has been governed shouldn't necessarily be jettisoned in favor of whatever system of beliefs that immigrant groups happen to bring with them without at least a bit of debate about the respective merits of each. I hope that the more astute cultural relativists up there nip this one in the bud before things get truly out of control.

 

Dru - your hour has arrived!

[TREETOAD]

Glad I stoned mine before all this shit came along!! Sheesh!!

[Couloir]

I listened to this on NPR today and thought the mayor of the town defended himself pretty well. The host of the show kept trying to really make something out of it. He was simply laying down a few ground rules. Granted some of them seem pretty obvious (no stoning, burning, etc.). But as many callers pointed out, this crap goes on in other places. He's simply making it clear that the newcomers should realize that what is considered a time-honored custom in their country, doesn't mean it flies in his town.

 

Different places have different customs for sure. It always struck me as funny that in Hong Kong they have signs all over the place saying "No Hawking." In China, they actually have hawking poles, where everyone spits. In the winter these things turn into this huge frozen pyramid of hawk.

 

I can see why people would call it racist, but I don't think that argument holds water. Perhaps they should be more concerned about the misogynistic customs of some other countries...Saudi Arabia?

[Crux]

While nobody will say it's wrong for Canada to discontinue its tradition of circumsizing, burning, and throwing acid on women, we must continue to insist that Canada stop supporting the snafflecow insurgency immediately.

[archenemy]

It's as confusing to me as the people who move somewhere like Bridle Trails because they like the "atmosphere" and then complain about the "horsey smell". What happened to having to adapting to your surroundings?

 

Although watching a public stoning must be a sight to behold.

[catbirdseat]

I thought that the "horsey smell" was the big draw for Bridle Trails. People pay big money to smell horse shit.

[Couloir]

It's as confusing to me as the people who move somewhere like Bridle Trails because they like the "atmosphere" and then complain about the "horsey smell". What happened to having to adapting to your surroundings?

Exactly. Or people moving into the Pearl District in Portland, which is considered industrial, and complaining about the noise from all the trucks.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's still OK to get stoned, take acid, burn a bowl, and then have your woman say "Sir, come seize me", isn't it?

[gertlush]

I wonder if they actually get any immigrants in that town? Who the hell is going to immigrate from Kerblakistan to rural Quebec No sir, it's Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

[murraysovereign]

So we're only allowed to cover our faces at Hallowe'en? Since when? And "not rascist"? I call bullshit. That's clearly intended to tell observant Muslims they're not permitted to wear the hijab, whether they want to or not. Who else is that aimed at? Certainly not the Mayor, or any of the Coucillors, or any of the other white residents of the town who, like people all across Canada and the northern States regularly wrap their faces in scarves and balaclavas and the like when it's 30-below-freezing and the wind is howling, regardless of whether it's Hallowe'en or not. And I presume the residents of this good Catholic town permit brides to wear veils on their wedding day, even if it isn't Hallowe'en. And the kid playing goal out on the local hockey pond is allowed to wear a mask, even though it isn't Hallowe'en. How about the burn victim, who covers his face either out of his own self-consciousness, or out of concern for the sensitivities of those around him? Is he going to be run out of town? Not bloody likely. This "prohibition" they have against covering one's face applies only to persons who adhere to a particular religion, and yes, that's clearly rascist.

 

I'm surprised Jay is supportive of this. Since when are you so in favour of government restrictions on your own - perfectly legal - behaviour, Jay? If I want to cover my face I should be allowed to do so, and these clowns have absolutely no right to tell me I can't. You usually come across as the poster boy for libertarianism, Jay, and I've always respected you for that. How come you're so quick to set those principles aside when a bunch of ignorant, xenophobic hillbillies start taking pot-shots at the muslims?

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree. The 'no cover' rule would blatantly violate the first amendment in the United States. That's probably why no one has tried it here, despite our obvious affection for Islam in this country.

[JayB]

So we're only allowed to cover our faces at Hallowe'en? Since when? And "not rascist"? I call bullshit. That's clearly intended to tell observant Muslims they're not permitted to wear the hijab, whether they want to or not. Who else is that aimed at? Certainly not the Mayor, or any of the Coucillors, or any of the other white residents of the town who, like people all across Canada and the northern States regularly wrap their faces in scarves and balaclavas and the like when it's 30-below-freezing and the wind is howling, regardless of whether it's Hallowe'en or not. And I presume the residents of this good Catholic town permit brides to wear veils on their wedding day, even if it isn't Hallowe'en. And the kid playing goal out on the local hockey pond is allowed to wear a mask, even though it isn't Hallowe'en. How about the burn victim, who covers his face either out of his own self-consciousness, or out of concern for the sensitivities of those around him? Is he going to be run out of town? Not bloody likely. This "prohibition" they have against covering one's face applies only to persons who adhere to a particular religion, and yes, that's clearly rascist.

 

I'm surprised Jay is supportive of this. Since when are you so in favour of government restrictions on your own - perfectly legal - behaviour, Jay? If I want to cover my face I should be allowed to do so, and these clowns have absolutely no right to tell me I can't. You usually come across as the poster boy for libertarianism, Jay, and I've always respected you for that. How come you're so quick to set those principles aside when a bunch of ignorant, xenophobic hillbillies start taking pot-shots at the muslims?

 

Don't take this too seriously, Murray. The only reason it caught my eye is that it seemed so counter to kind of uncritical cultural relativism that's making a run at becoming Canada's prevailing ethos.

 

I am certainly not in favor of giving the government the power to regulate what people wear in the course of their daily lives. However, if you insist that wearing something that obscures your identity is a fundamental religious obligation that you are not at liberty to deviate from, society is under no such obligation to indulge this proclivity in certain places - like the lobby of a bank, for instance. At that point the burden is entirely on the person who has chosen to encumber themselves in their religious costume to work around the obstacles and inconveniences that this choice generates for them, not society. Wanna fly? Better be prepared to lift the veil upon request or restrict yourself to transport options that existed in the seventh century.

 

With respect to the "racist," bit, I can understand why one might have this this viewpoint, but the fact of the matter is that being a Muslim is an identity that one chooses to retain, rather than a racial category that one is confined to by birth. Evidently per-Sharia the penalty for renouncing one's Muslim identity is death at the hands of one's fellow Muslims, and this is but one of the precepts of this particular ideology that may account for the less-than-positive sentiments that dressing in a manner that advertises one's voluntary adherence to this particular creed inspires amongst some non-believers. I also understand that the Muslim community has adopted a conscious strategy of trying to shield their beliefs, customs, and conduct from fair, rational, and reasonable scrutiny by conflating any of the above with racism or homophobia. This accounts for the appearance of expressions like - "flying while Muslim," "Gee - that sounds lot like 'driving while black,' so it must be the same thing..." "Islamophobia? I'm no fan of homophobia, so this too must be discrimination based on an irrational fear of or dislike for someone based on characteristics that they're born with, too. Sounds the same, so it must be the same thing! No Islamophobia for me, thanks!" - on the linguistic landscape.

 

The fact of the matter is that if you mixed East-Indians and Arabs together, dressed them in sweatsuits, and made a "Spot the Muslim" gameshow you'd confound just about everyone in North America. Is the fact that East Indian Hindus enjoy a very positive reputation, and Muslims enjoy an increasingly negative reputation a consequence of the elements of their appearance that they were born with, or the beliefs that their particular mode of dress signals that they are likely to have internalized?

 

I support the right to wear a Klan get-up or a Nazi-costume in public, public, and for the Klansman's/Nazi's right to do so without suffering from any physical violence or harassment - but it's a bit much for anyone who chooses to advertise their convictions in this manner to expect those around them to suspend judgment of their convictions. In a free society, you should be able to wear whatever you like, including full Islamic garb, but the rest of society is free to judge you on the basis of your appearance.

 

Having said all of this, the issue of dress was but one of many items on the roster. I suppose the larger issue here is whether or not Canadians consider it racist to expect immigrants who voluntarily seek citizenship in their country to understand that when their particular customs or convictions conflict with Canada's laws, they must accept that it is Canadian law that will prevail in that contest.

[archenemy]

I support the right to wear a Klan get-up or a Nazi-costume in public, public, and for the Klansman's/Nazi's right to do so without suffering from any physical violence or harassment - but it's a bit much for anyone who chooses to advertise their convictions in this manner to expect those around them to suspend judgment of their convictions. In a free society, you should be able to wear whatever you like, including full Islamic garb, but the rest of society is free to judge you on the basis of your appearance.

This is a good point. I have a T-Shirt that is a "Hitler World Tour" shirt that I find funny. I quickly discovered that others do not. I don't wear it so often--even though I strongly believe in the right to free speech and self expression.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I support the right to wear a Klan get-up or a Nazi-costume in public, public, and for the Klansman's/Nazi's right to do so without suffering from any physical violence or harassment - but it's a bit much for anyone who chooses to advertise their convictions in this manner to expect those around them to suspend judgment of their convictions. In a free society, you should be able to wear whatever you like, including full Islamic garb, but the rest of society is free to judge you on the basis of your appearance.

This is a good point. I have a T-Shirt that is a "Hitler World Tour" shirt that I find funny. I quickly discovered that others do not. I don't wear it so often--even though I strongly believe in the right to free speech and self expression.

 

I love that shirt, but I'd never buy it or wear it...