Multiculturalism as an Escape from Reality

Here's an interesting look at cultural malaise in Europe. From the piece:

Cultural relativism is an interesting highlight of Europe’s neo-leftist disposition. It’s generally touted as an umbrella to shield the mostly Muslim immigrants from cultural scrutiny but in reality it’s largely a self-serving construct. It serves as an outlet for collective neurosis through escaping reality. ... The core of Europeans’ passion for political correctness lies in their psychological need of escaping reality, of hiding their heads in the sand, of refusing to acknowledge their ideological failures, and avoiding a much needed objective assessment of their situation.

Many Europeans channel these repressed needs by applying the sophistry of cultural relativism to their backward immigrants, but in reality it’s themselves they are trying to shield and protect. When the clash between their culture and the savage Islamic influx is truly shocking, most Europeans don’t know how to react. They are so invested in cultural relativism that the path of least resistance is often appeasement.

Much the same situation in Canada I would say. "Appeasement" takes on the form of the loss of freedoms: freedom of speech and association, where speech against Islam is snuffed out. So really the cultural relativism of multiculturalism doesn't end up tolerating all expressions of culture: only those that agitate for recognition from the multicultural enforcers, with violence or threat of violence (implicit or not so). And indeed you see this take on the implicit form very often, like: "Sacred Islamic topics mustn't receive any insults or there could be extremism." Such a sentiment is already too extreme for me.

Drop it Like a Trig Class, I Say

Multiculturalism loosing(sic) ground in Canada. Nice knowing you (Just kidding! I hate you! Tee-hee!). From the article:

"The poll conducted by SES Research showed as many as 53 percent Canadians believed immigrants should "adapt fully" to Canadian culture. Just 18 percent agreed with the statement "it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities."

Of course, we should be, and perhaps are now, learning from the problems multi-culturalism has brought to similar countries[pdf]. From that pdf: "Germany’s new Chancellor Angela Merkel has pronounced that ‘multicultural society cannot succeed’."

A counterpoint from the article:

"We welcome immigrants. ... And we need those immigrants, which is why we should be able to celebrate our diversity."

No, we don't need them. We don't need anybody -- we can do anything we want on our own if we so choose, and while not having to worry about the concomitant social problems all this never-before-tested mass immigration brings. Only national sell-outs who care only for money want more immigration. Their arguments for multiculturalism always come from a greed. A very shortsighted one at that, I would say.

Multiculturalism to Ghettoisation to Terrorism

In fellow commonwealth nation Australia, Cardinal George Pell speaks:

Violent Islamic groups tarred the image of moderate Muslims...and more terrorist attacks "would change the religious scene dramatically and provoke ferocious retaliation".

"We have to acknowledge, too, that the ideological struggle against Islamist violence in the Muslim community is one in which most of the heavy lifting has to be done by Muslims opposed to extremism, but we should be prepared to help them in this task in ways which are effective and which build trust and openness instead of fear and ghettoisation."

How could we do this? Angelo Persichilli writes in the Toronto Sun:

Not only are they not integrating into Canadian society, but they are retreating into their own culture and communities, recreating their own country in Canadian neighbourhoods. The policy of multiculturalism is helping them in this endeavour.

However, there is a major detail most of these recent stories in the mainstream media don't report: It is not the new immigrants using multiculturalism to retreat into their ghettos, it is the mainstream using multiculturalism to encourage immigrants to remain in their ghettos.

...Canada is heading toward a social disaster. We have been too concerned about making Canada than creating Canadians. But please, stop blaming the immigrants. We are ready to become Canadian citizens, just tell us what that means.

And this is true. Newcomers to Canada, and otherwise, often report that there isn't even such a thing as Canadian culture. Look here at muslimmatters.org where the poster scoffs at the suggestion of adapting to Canadian culture and asks, "what exactly is Canadian culture?" This is the prevailing attitude.

A rejection of multiculturalism and a development of a (not just a return to a past) Canadian culture is the key to cohesion in Canada.

Nevermind Alcohol, Is Living In Canada Haram?

Over at The Varsity, the student paper for the University of Toronto, we get a couple updates regarding the halal controversy at the UT Scarborough campus, a topic the paper originally covered a few weeks ago. President Wulkan is censured by the student union (whatever that amounts to), and the paper mentions that they plan on continuing to cover issues of religious accommodation, though they lack an "m" with their "accomodation" (I don't know if that is a Freudian slip where the "m" may stand for something, or if it's just Canadian schooling). Anyway...

As the original article outlines, a school cafeteria, Bluff's, started to offer halal foods. Ahmad Jaballah, an MSA executive, criticised the move, saying, “This initiative was brought forth solely by Bluff’s without ever consulting the MSA or Muslim students. If this was a deliberate accommodation, it’s kind of offensive in giving us the food in a manner unsuitable to us" and he also "argued that patronizing such an establishment is wrong because Muslim students would provide revenue for Bluff’s to purchase alcohol—an action forbidden by hadith, a Prophetic saying." So, according to the MSA, not only must halal food be offered in order to be religiously accommodating, but so must the haram substance of alcohol be removed. Beer being "Canada's drink," this didn't go over so well with many.

At the bottom of this article, a discussion (of varied quality, including some nasty remarks) among posters ensues. In it, though, a few posters discuss how MSA actually comes to the conclusion that alcohol is haram and that, further, they're not even allowed to buy halal products from a store that sells it. The best evidence offered is an hadith Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 2776 Narrated by Anas ibn Malik, which is probably the hadith Mr. Jaballah was referring to, which says:

The Prophet invoked the curse of Allah on ten people in connection with wine: 1. the wine presser; 2. the one who has it pressed; 3. the one who drinks it; 4. the one who conveys it; 5. the one to whom it is conveyed; 6. the one who serves it; 7. the one who sells it; 8. the one who benefits from the price paid for it; 9 the one who buys it; and 10) the one for whom it is bought.

From this, the one poster picks out number 8, saying that everyone in Canada benefits from the price paid for alcohol, because of taxes which pay for public services. If this hadith forbids Muslims from patronising Bluff's, it surely forbids them from what everyone Canadian does: using roads, sidewalks and water.

But that the MSA can't justify their actions textually doesn't really matter as to if they should be accommodated or not. This is the bizarre but natural result that the current ideas on religious accommodation, a subset of multiculturalism, in Canada bring, as represented in University policies.

There is rarely ever a method to determine what counts as a genuine religious requirement for any religion, especially for a religion like Islam that lacks strong authorities, and this is realised by crafters of policies. They eventually come to say that anything can be a religious requirement as long as it is sincerely believed in by a person. Rather than setting up a set of actual rules and regulations, which students can consider when deciding if they either want to follow them and face no consequences, or not follow them and face the consequences, students are allowed to mend the rules to their own personal beliefs -- not having to write scheduled tests when they'd rather be praying for example. What would prevent a student from "sincerely believing" that God wants them to have an extra day to write an exam? Apparently nothing; and, indeed, students are given extra days to study as the result of religious accommodation all the time. Why even have an exam schedule? Just let students write them whenever they believe they're [divinely] ready.

So, back to the titular question, is living in Canada haram? According to multiculturalism, yes...if you sincerely believe it.