« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Sarah
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 8
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 21
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
reasonable accommodation?
March 9, 2007 - 11:13 PM
|
|
Canada is unique in its adoption of multiculturalism as an official policy. Multiculturalism has allowed cultural minorities to retain their identity yet still feel Canadian and be proud of it. But multiculturalism is built on a paradox: nations need to be built on a sense of a shared identity yet multiculturalism is based on the idea that everyone's identity is equal and so everyone should keep their identity. This tension between these two ideas creates the problem of reasonable accomodation: how much should Canadian society accomodate to the needs (usually religious) of cultural minorities? What is reasonable accomodation and what is unreasonable accomodation? How does multiculturalism cope with cultural traditions incompatible with Canada's constitutional values? Why do you think the debate is so strong today? Why is there so much disagreement?
This post was edited on: 2007-03-10 at 11:29 AM by: Sarah-H
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Manosij Majumdar
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 21
Country: India
Province/State: West Bengal
City: Calcutta
|
Re: reasonable accommodation?
March 11, 2007 - 09:47 PM
|
|
1. Canada is not unique in this respect. Look south.
2. Accommodate as long as everything is being done with consent. Canada is within its rights to prevent FGM to a baby not able to provide consent. It would not be in its rights to ban the hijab, and I hope it never takes that tacky French move.
3. If you can live with a bunch of whiners like Quebec, you can live with anyone.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Sarah
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 8
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 21
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: reasonable accommodation?
April 6, 2007 - 09:33 PM
|
|
1. Canada is the world's only country that has embraced an official policy of Multiculturalism, demonstrated by the passage of the world's first Multiculturalism Act in 1988. According to the Canadian government, which has a whole section of its website dedicated to Multiculturalim (something the US govt website definitely lacks): "Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. ... Through multiculturalism, Canada recognizes the potential of all Canadians, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs."
Also according to the Canadian government, Canada has the world's highest per capita immigration rate.
In contrast, the US may be a multicultural country, but it does not have a multiculturalist policy. The US is much more focused on integration into mainstream society. US ideology says that anyone who embraces American values (especially the American dream, the belief that anyone can strike it rich because of talent and merit) is an American. Canada in contrast, leaves citizens totally free to retain their original identities and even accommodates to their religious and cultural needs and believes that one person can and should be able to identify with 2 or more cultures.
=Whereas the US thinks of itself as a melting pot, Canada sees itself as a mosaic.
2. Canadian lawyer Julius Grey (who defended Gurbaj Singh in the "kirpan case" ) has interesting ideas on reasonable accommodation. According to him, societies should accommodate to minorities to the extent that the accommodation has integration as its goal. If the outcome is ghettoization and isolation, there should be no accommodation. In the case of the hijab, he argues, that as long as you can see the woman's face, there is no problem. (A burqa would be a problem because it is like a barrier between people.) And when the case is not so clear, he says, "when in doubt, accommodate."
3. And what's up with the Quebec bashing? It's probably meant as a joke, but ironically that is exactly the kind of crude generalization that is incensing the reasonable accommodation debate and polarizing the situation.
This post was edited on: 2007-04-06 at 09:34 PM by: Sarah-H
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
chengzhao1993, Liamjod
|
|
Home
Community
