[Godstud]

Vancouver has a good example of typical Canadian demographics. How is this not multicultural? pretending that the size of a nation makes any difference would make sense if these immigrants were rural populations... but they are not.

Caucasians 52.5%
Aboriginal 2.3%
Latin, Central and South American origins 1.3%
African origins 1%
Middle Eastern origins 2.1%
South Asian origins 11.1%
East and Southeast Asian origins 29.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

Here's Edmonton... in the prairies... Canada's midwest.

5.3% of Edmontonians were considered Aboriginal and 64.7% were considered Caucasian.
South Asian 7.2%
Chinese 6.2%
Black 3.8%
Filipino 4.6%
Lain 1.7%
Arab 1.7%
SE Asian 1.9%

Ethnic origin Population Percent
English 153,190 19.25%
Canadian 139,440 17.52%
Scottish 120,575 15.15%
German 185,990 15.51%
Irish 118,800 14.93%
Ukrainian 93,420 11.74%
French 83,245 10.46%
Chinese 57,920 7.28%
East Indian 46,570 5.85%
Polish 44,365 5.58%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Edmonton

Diverse and multicultural, even the one of the most northernmost large cities in Canada.

So, Pants-of-dog, an example of European Muslim Immigrants working to have their own set of laws in the use of Sharia Law in UK and elsewhere.

Please show evidence of Sharia law in the UK, please. Every time someone has said this, they have NEVER provided evidence of this, because it's simply not true. A very small minority of the minorities do this, and if you take them seriously, it's you who has the problem.

[Steve_American]

Vancouver has a good example of typical Canadian demographics. How is this not multicultural? pretending that the size of a nation makes any difference would make sense if these immigrants were rural populations... but they are not.

Caucasians 52.5%
Aboriginal 2.3%
Latin, Central and South American origins 1.3%
African origins 1%
Middle Eastern origins 2.1%
South Asian origins 11.1%
East and Southeast Asian origins 29.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver

Here's Edmonton... in the prairies... Canada's midwest.

5.3% of Edmontonians were considered Aboriginal and 64.7% were considered Caucasian.
South Asian 7.2%
Chinese 6.2%
Black 3.8%
Filipino 4.6%
Lain 1.7%
Arab 1.7%
SE Asian 1.9%

Ethnic origin Population Percent
English 153,190 19.25%
Canadian 139,440 17.52%
Scottish 120,575 15.15%
German 185,990 15.51%
Irish 118,800 14.93%
Ukrainian 93,420 11.74%
French 83,245 10.46%
Chinese 57,920 7.28%
East Indian 46,570 5.85%
Polish 44,365 5.58%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Edmonton

Diverse and multicultural, even the one of the most northernmost large cities in Canada.

Please show evidence of Sharia law in the UK, please. Every time someone has said this, they have NEVER provided evidence of this, because it's simply not true. A very small minority of the minorities do this, and if you take them seriously, it's you who has the problem.

My evidence is right there. You wrote, "A very small minority of the minorities do this,... "
You said it is being done. You just call it small. Others seen to think it is bigger than you think. But you said it is a thing.

[Sivad]

Please show evidence of Sharia law in the UK, please. Every time someone has said this, they have NEVER provided evidence of this, because it's simply not true. A very small minority of the minorities do this, and if you take them seriously, it's you who has the problem.

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

Lawyers have issued grave warnings about the dangers of a dual legal system and the disclosure drew criticism from Opposition leaders.


Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said that sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals under a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

The disclosures come after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a national debate and calls for his resignation for saying that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

In July, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice agreed that Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Islamic law to decide financial and marital disputes.

Mr Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

"All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases," said Mr Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

There are concerns for women suffering under the Islamic laws, which favours men.

Mr Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Mr Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... itain.html

[Godstud]

Show me where this applies to ALL UK Citizens, and not simply Muslims who abide by Sharia law. You aren't proving anything other than that Muslims are making and obeying their own laws, which is not in contravention of UK laws.

100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

Not breaking any UK laws, I see. In fact, this doesn't affect anyone who doesn't recognize the Sharia courts. That said, it won't affect you unless you are part of their culture, and abide by their religion. These are people willingly following rules, and these are not imposed on anyone else.

nice try, though.

My evidence is right there. You wrote, "A very small minority of the minorities do this,... "

My point is that it's the exception, not a norm by any means, and there's always someone doing something. You're trying to inflate something to far more than it is.

A man might marry his computer. That doesn't mean it's actually something people do.

[Sivad]

It's pretty hypocritical to single out the Muslims for Sharia arbitration when Christians, Mormons, and Jews have been doing it since 1925 in the US.

Although there has been a long and winding road over the last seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has consistently over the last three decades expanded the scope of arbitration to include most fields and most types of litigation. Essentially, by contract, a two people can now choose a forum other than a court and can choose a law other than American law. The forum can be an arbitration panel made up of sixty-three Polish-speaking Italian jurists residing in New York or three members of the American Arbitration Association. It can be French law, British law, Jewish law or Islamic law. So long as it is clear in the contract, it works.

This has given rise to a thriving network of independent rabbinical courts throughout the United States, many Islamic courts that have been created over the last decade, and the beginnings of Christian arbitration as ever more people in the Evangelical community realize that individual Christian denominations, too, are a minority religion in the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1cc6e15b57

[Godstud]

Very true, @Sivad. Americans are trying to put religious law in the USA, and they're getting it done one step at a time.

[Sivad]

Very true, @Sivad. Americans are trying to put religious law in the USA, and they're getting it done one step at a time.

Yeah, Christian fundies have been imposing their bullshit on the rest of us since before the country was even founded. They had mandatory prayer in school, the ten commandments in courthouses, all kinds of prohibitions on LGBT people, etc.

Blue laws in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws ... ted_States

The Case against Religious Arbitration
https://law.pepperdine.edu/nootbaar-ins ... broyde.pdf

[KS edit: Don't double post.]

[Political Interest]

- Introducing multiculturalism - ? The UK is probably second only to the USA in it's multicultural history. Celts, Gaels, Picts, Danes, Normans, Saxons, Africans, Indians, not to mention the Welsh who are probably alien abductees who were rejected for cause. The Arabs are only the latest face in the crowd. The only complete failure I'm aware of are the scientologists (who may be distantly related to the Welsh). The instability you refer to is due to multiculturalism … But they're working on it.

That is simply not the case.

First of all, who were Celts and Picts? These were all present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons moved to what became England during the 5th to 7th centuries AD.

The Gaels were also in Scotland at this time, although this was before the consolidation of Scotland as a country.

Yes, there was also invasion by Danes and an establishment of Danish influence in the northern and eastern regions.

And then there were Africans from the 9th century and Indians some time later during the arly modern period.

The fact is that all of these peoples assimilated into English, Scottish and Welsh identities. The processes were slow enough to allow for this assimilation to take place. Therefore I must disagree with you when you claim that the British Isles have always been multicultural. They have always had a wide diversity of people settling in them but these peoples always assimilated, except in cases where there were small waves of mass settlement in which case there were major changes. In fact it was the large scale migration of Anglo-Saxons into England which allowed for the establishment of England and the end of old Britain. And likewise mass immigration of Germanic speaking people into the lowlands of Scotland resulted in the loss of Gaelic and the eventual assimilation of Scotland into English culture.

Therefore mass immigration will always produce a conflict and change.

I suppose the example of Scotland contradicts my claim that the British Isles have never been multicultural and have always assimilated the peoples who settled in them. But this is the very point, the mass settlement will produce instability whereas having a measured immigration policy will allow for assimilation and continued stability.

And in Scotland's case, the Germanic migrants eventually did adopt Scottish identity, but only just.

The linguistic division of Scotland has been a source of massive friction there and is the cause of a lot of the country's historic problems. Now can we actually imagine such assimilation happening today, especially in the 21st century where national identities are far more consolidated than in the early modern period?

My main point is that British identities were generally stable, and in instances where they have not been it was always a painful experience, as in Scotland. Therefore upsetting established identities is not a good idea.

Apparently you're easily amused. Parading an Idol around a building just don't get it after you've seen Paris or New York, or Cincinnati for that matter.

With all due respect I don't think New York or Cincinnati can compare to Saint Petersburg.

Right, because we send them out to isolated places to live. Your "lots of space" argument is rubbish. How does that apply to any city?

Overcrowding will contribute to a decline in communal relations. British cities are notoriously overcrowded. It leads to increased economic discomfort and that that will obviously produce communal instability. Overcrowding and poverty are massive factors in the communal instability present in countries like India and Indonesia.

It is multicultural in the advanced sense that there are multiple cultures living together. What is "advanced", to you?

The demography of the country is overwhelmingly European. According to the 2016 Canadian census Asians constitute only 17.7% of Canada's population.

Now let's compare it to colonial Malaya at a time where multiculturalism reached its most advanced stage.

According to the 1947 census Malays constituted 49.5% of the population and Chinese constituted 38.4% of the population. The total population of Malaya at that time was 4.9 million.

Since you live in South East Asia I am sure you are aware of the consequences this had for the political stability of the country. There were high tensions between Chinese and Malays, and there were often riots between the two communities. The worst of them happened in 1969. Till this day Malaysia is still a country with severe divisions and that is in a situation where the country is far less diverse than at the height of Malaysia's multiculturalism in the mid 20th century.

Canada is no more prosperous than UK, and the "land" argument, is bullshit.

Well I cannot comment on what life is like in Canada.

I highly doubt that you could tell a Thai from a person from China, the Phillipines, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, or Laos. Thais are already multicultural due to their long history.

Yes I can.

How much did you actually really travel in Bangkok? Did you go down Sukhumvit road(runs thru the city and straight thru to Pattaya) where there are whole Arab and Middle Eastern areas, and the streets change every block or so, to a different ethnic style? Did you go to the Chinatown markets? Did you see some of the streets lined with signs in Russian?

Admittedly not a lot. I cannot profess to be an expert on Thailand. And maybe I did see more of what you describe but it was a very long time ago.

Now you're being a Snowflake. No one is calling you a Nazi, Sweetheart. Maybe, just maybe, if your arguments weren't steeped in racism and xenophobia, people might take your arguments more seriously, too. As it stands, they are usually irrational, and based on fear, and emotional baggage that you carry with you.

Please explain to me how my arguments are based on racism or xenophobia. I'd really like to see how anything I have written here could be considered racist or xenophobic.

Actually the rise of the far right terrifies me and I have witnessed it growing over the last five or so years. And what is frightening about them is that unlike me their racism is very real. There is a way to stop the far right but it is not like you imagine.

There is a reason why they are growing and it is a lot more complicated than what leftists and centrists attribute it to.

The very rapid change people are seeing throughout Western societies is contributing to the rise of the far right. The very people who would call me a racist, despite not having any evidence of this, are actually doing more to aid and abet the right than I ever could. Why? Because they do not look at reality objectively and want to believe in ideological fairy tales. And one of the fairy tales they believe in is that mass immigration and the formation of multicultural societies is possible without leading to an accompanying rise in communalism. Therefore they continue to advocate for more mass immigration without considering the long term implications this will have. One of the most unpleasant of these is a rise in support for far right movements.

But of course we would not want to actually have this realisation because it is far easier to just insist that it’s all because people are racist.

:lol: What happened to the thoughtful and intelligent Political Interest of whom we are so familiar? Did someone hijack his account? This is all feelings and emotional garbage that you're spewing.

Stud, you must surely agree that in the West we really do not have the ability to think. And that is evident in how people repeat what others have told them and do not form their own opinions. There are a lot of taboo subjects and no one listens to what the other person is saying. And what people think you sound like is always given far more importance than what you actually believe.

And you can find this among people of both a left wing and right wing orientation. Everything is hyperbolic and naïve.

[Godstud]

Stud, you must surely agree that in the West we really do not have the ability to think. And that is evident in how people repeat what others have told them and do not form their own opinions. There are a lot of taboo subjects and no one listens to what the other person is saying.

And what people think you sound like is always given far more importance than what you actually believe. No. That's absolute bullshit. You are making a ridiculous statement, and there is no basis for it in reality.

You are making this statement on the basis of how you feel, and not actual facts.

The demography of the country is overwhelmingly European. According to the 2016 Canadian census Asians constitute only 17.7% of Canada's population.

So what? Multicultural means a lot of different cultures, not just Asian ones, but European, as well. It also depends on where you go. Demographics change drastically depending on where you are, but in the end the European demographic is still only 40-60%.

Canada is not spitting distance from China, so of course we're not going to have as many Chinese.

Yes I can.

Horseshit. It's almost impossible to tell Thai people from others, as my wife often gets mistaken for being Korean or Chinese (Her heritage is Laos/Vietnamese). Even the Thai people vary from north to South and East to West in appearance because of so many foreign invasions and their history. You cannot tell a Laos girl from a Thai one, and my friend's girlfriend from the Philipines is constantly engaged in Thai, by Thais, and she has to explain that she's not Thai, and doesn't speak the language. Sorry, but you're talking rubbish.

But of course we would not want to actually have this realisation because it is far easier to just insist that it’s all because people are racist.

If you are spouting racist rhetoric, then you are a racist. Stop talking like one, and people don't call you one.

You're whining, btw. You're going to lose your 'Hard Man' status, at this rate.

[Political Interest]

You are making a ridiculous statement, and there is no basis for it in reality.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree, sir.

So what? Multicultural means a lot of different cultures, not just Asian ones, but European, as well. It also depends on where you go. Demographics change drastically depending on where you are, but in the end the European demographic is still only 40-60%.

The fact is, the majority of Canada is overwhelmingly European, mostly British and French, with other Europeans assimilated into those cultures.

:lol: Horseshit. It's almost impossible to tell Thai people from others, as my wife often gets mistaken for being Korean or Chinese (Her heritage is Laos/Vietnamese). Even the Thai people vary from north to South and East to West in appearance because of so many foreign invasions and their history. You cannot tell a Laos girl from a Thai one, and my friend's girlfriend from the Philipines is constantly engaged in Thai, by Thais, and she has to explain that she's not Thai, and doesn't speak the language. Sorry, but you're talking rubbish.

Fair enough, I yield to you on this. I cannot speak with any authority on Thailand. I do know the Malays quite well, though.

If you are spouting racist rhetoric, then you are a racist. Stop talking like one, and people don't call you one.

Where did I spout "racist rhetoric"?

I'd be quite interested if you could provide an example. Unlike the Anglo-American Alt-Right I am not a racial essentialist who is obsessed with race. The weaknesses of multiculturalism have nothing to do with race. I'm not going to sit here and quote the supposed IQ of different races or call for bans on niqabs and hijabs. I've never said anything negative about any race or religious group. Ever.

You're whining, btw. You're going to lose your 'Hard Man' status, at this rate.

True.

[Godstud]

Where did I spout "racist rhetoric"?

I never called you one. You were the one whining about being called one. The people on this forum don't call you racist unless you are actually spouting the rhetoric, and making racist statements.

[Zamuel]

That is simply not the case.

Yes it is.

The fact is that all of these peoples assimilated

Sure they did, Multiculturalism presupposes a dominant culture and assimilation to standardized laws. But the root cultures still survive. Traveling thru England is a rich tour through diverse traditions and popular local identification with them. And the languages still exist too (Ok, Pictish is gone AFAIK). The effects of assimilation are time sensitive, that's true. -But - Ingrained cultural traits remain to prove that Britain has a long history of cultural diversity. It's not something being "Introduced" at this time as was alleged.

It's apparent that once again someone is trying to redefine "Multiculturalism" to suit their own particular ides. That ain't the way it works.

Zam

[Rugoz]

There are statistics on that kind of stuff. E.g.

[Tainari88]

Like many others, you apparently misunderstand my position. I agree with everything you said up to the last paragraph. It is a tremendously complicated problem, but the solution will not be found in mass migrations. The solution might be found by smaller countries not allowing foreign ownership. They can not free themselves by be dependent on foreign investment and aid. This would require some hard times initially, but might be worth it to their descendants. They need to find their own solutions, because no one else has a reason to. They just waste their breath placing blame.
Multiculturalism requires geographical separation. Multi racial does not. Failing to recognize the difference allows people to conveniently call me and others names to avoid discussing them separately.

This is where you fail to be realistic One Degree. I agree with everything you said. Except for that part I highlighted. I think you really underestimate how difficult it is for a small nation with no real independent army or nukes or anything, to stand up to big nations with bucks, guns and imperial aspirations. You are asking for a blood bath. Genocide, your family getting killed, civil war, destroyed economies and total devastation. It is easy to sit back and say, "That is what has to be done."

I am going to be very very personal here. And because I will be with you.....I won't post on this topic again. Because if you or another person contradicts that? It will piss me off something bad. Because it would be discounting my life experiences and invalidating my lived in the flesh reality.

I lost my mother to a terrible cancer caused by depleted uranium thrown on an island called Vieques that the USA Navy was using for practicing to invade Iraq. They could not contaminate in the Hawaiian Islands or Martha's Vineyard, etc because there would be heavy political consequences for that in Washington DC. Those places are part of states that have voting members of congress and senators. They went to Vieques because they knew that Puerto Rico is POWERLESS to contradict them. There were no consequences for creating cancer in the children, the women, and the men who lived there or the people who believed in defending their ancestral lands from pollution for wars that were far away and about a resource they were over paying for and were impractical to hold on to for their own part of the world. Refined oil for Puerto Rico is expensive, dirty and non renewable. She was sacrificed on the altar of what the USA wanted to happen in the world. That is the reality.

She wanted EXACTLY what you said has to happen locally for her nation. The USA doesn't allow that shit to happen. Got to murder, jail and repress and chase in black cars and make your life a living hell and have your kids answer FBI calls stating how your parents are a threat for wanting what you stated One Degree and should SHUT their mouths about what they were doing and take with with no resistance. What price do those people pay One Degree....my mother, my father, my aunt and uncles and other family members living the experience of a totally living in limbo situation, slaves to corporations, banks and a powerful Empire with liars as presidents telling them what to do.

I am realistic One Degree. The peaceful solutions are not possible when these bullies and unethical violent, dirty people are calling the shots. I have nothing but anger towards them. And the only way to fight them is to become independent. But you will be fighting FEAR. Fear from the native people who know via their own experiences that if you go against those pigs they will TAKE YOU OUT. You want to live and have children...most say, let them have their way. We got to accept losing it all.

Once they can't get past the fear_and are paralyzed with the colonial brainwashing that tells them 24-7 that they can't live on their own with their own efforts. That they are nothing. That it is futile fighting for what you wrote they have to do for themselves...then they give up. Give up equals death. And that is what the Empires leave behind. A bunch of dead, ghost nations who gave up because fighting these freaks is serious business.

The worst of it is that you have these blithely ignorant USA citizens who never question how terribly unjust their own government is with others in their own nation and around the world. They just think it is some kind of a nice guy neoliberal paradise. It is not. They are creating an atmosphere of instability, war and hatred.

And they made that world for themselves. They chose that stupid path of injustice. They did. Don't blame anyone else. The USA chooses this nasty and unjust path. And the apologists make excuses for their bully tactics. Stop the èxcuses and be responsible for the destruction.

[Pants-of-dog]

If no culture is objectively superior or inferior to any other culture, then they must be all equal, no?

Not at all.

We can objectively show how two countries differ, by measuring things like the number of people who lack access to clean water or doctors per capita.

At the same time, we introduce our own cultural biases by determining, for example, which questions to ask. When we ask about doctors per capita, we are expressing a bias supporting access to health care, which is a cultural trait.

Of course, the bias expresses itself in many ways. I should not have to tell you how the bias of a researcher can influence even the most rigourous study.

Cheap shot and bad example. This is a universal moral standard. There is no culture or society which doesn't frown upon its children being murdered indiscriminately or doesn't punish the perpetrator.

We can use a different example, if you prefer.

----------------

This is a joke, right?

I often approach our dialogues with humour.

To begin with, I'm talking about epistemic rationality, that article is conflating epistemic and instrumental rationality. With epistemic rationality, background assumptions are just as subject to the same objective, universal standards as any of the beliefs or behaviors predicated upon those assumptions. The discovery of the objective, universal principles of rational reason was what allowed Western culture to escape ethnocentrism. All cultures that embrace rationality will eventually converge on core rational principles like civil rights and equality, secularism, democracy, skepticism, etc.

But even instrumental rationality is objective and universal, there's always an objectively best, or most efficient way of achieving any goal, and epistemic rationality determines which goals are the most rational to pursue.

The wikipedia article you cited as some kind of authority, again lol , only offers a very superficial analysis . You should maybe delve into it a little deeper before spouting off. Start with critical thinking, it's the set of clear, objective, universal rules for rationality.

I would say that the portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted not only does not look at the difference between epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, but also does not look at the differences between the different types of rationality that are each unique to philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science. But the use of background assumptions is common to all of these, including epistemic rationality.

And while these assumptions may also be subject to critical assessment, they are not, by definition, since they are assumptions. And it would be impossible to actually critically assess all these assumptions anyway.

Even if we assume, as you do, that objective, universal principles of rational reason exist, and also assume that epistemic rationality is capable of discovering these objective, universal principles of rational reason, such a pursuit would still be subject to the same subjective biases and assumptions that have influenced every other human project ever.

Speaking of humour, I found your ethnocentric boast (about how western cultures have superseded ethnocentrism through objective, universal principles of rational reason) to be amusing.

——————————

I don't understand what this statement means. It may be the case that by experiencing MC he understands it's weaknesses.

Then I have experienced its strengths and my opinion should be just as valid as his.

How have either of you benefited from multiculturalism?

@Decky put it more bluntly than I, but he was essentially correct in that we (@Albert and I) both had more economic opportunities in Toronto, in the private market and in terms of government benefits.

But this is the very point of the issue. Multiculturalism is working in Canada because people there are fundamentally liberal minded. It is a Western English and French speaking country. And New Zealand is very similar, liberal and English speaking. Both countries are also very wealthy with lots of land. And multiculturalism is not yet as advanced as it could be in either of them. Both are still fundamentally European based societies.

Well, other than the economic argument, I have seen no evidence that Anglo countries or liberal countries or large countries fare better than others in terms of successful multiculturalism.

Toronto may be wonderful and a nice place to live but try living in London. It's multicultural and it is hardly an ideal city.

Well, Toronto is more multicultural and it is a great place to live. If the argument is that cities will suffer as they get more multicultural, then Toronto should be worse than London. It is not.

What is possible in Canada may not be possible everywhere. The UK is a fundamentally dangerous and violent place. It has never been a very stable or cohesive society. Introducing multiculturalism only makes it worse.

I believe that Canadian multiculturalism, as it presently stands, only works because of high economic prosperity and plenty of land.

I have no reason to believe that population density has any impact on the success or failure of multiculturalism.

As I said before, it works under certain conditions. Canada has a lot of land, the people are well off and Canada is hardly multicultural in the most advanced sense.

Places like Toronto are far more multicultural than the UK or anywhere else in the developed world.

—————————

The short answer is no, there isn't. There are no examples of multicultural democracies in history. It's a recipe for decreased pluralism, state growth, and centralization.

Please note that at least one example of a successful multicultural democracy was mentioned in the OP.

——————————

Well, Pants-of-dog is still not man enough to admit he was wrong.
I wonder what the adjective for a male who is not man enough to admit faults is? Wimp isn't right and neither is sissy.
Too bad he can't admit faults.

First let me remind all the Lurkers and guests that the 2 sides are talking past each other in this thread. One side uses Multiculturalism as like the Irich in America celebrate St. Patrick's Day every year, and the other side uses the word to mean what I called XYZMC, that is where 2 plus cultures live in the same nation and have significant differences in the laws they live under.
. . The 1st side uses Canada as an example, but Fr.Canadians are not that much different from the other Canadians.
. . OTOH, Canada has been more open recently and I really have no idea what the new situation is there with respect to other ethnic immigrants.
. . The same sort of thing goes for Louisiana. The Fr. American elements there are maybe not that different from the rest of Americans. The laws are maybe not that much different. For example in France IIRC, once you are charged with a crime it is up to you to prove you are innocent. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true in Louisiana. If it is true there, then America is an example of XYZMC that is working [sort of well. I add this because I'm appalled by recent actions by the President, etc.]

Can you give an example of multiculturalism so that we can all be clear on what exactly you mean by multiculturalism?

When I asked you to define multiculturalism, you described legal pluralism. I then gave examples of that working.

You are now confused, and you think I am arguing that these are examples of the sort of multiculturalism that involves the Irish in the USA. I am not, since we are using your definition and not the commonly accepted one.

So, Pants-of-dog, an example of European Muslim Immigrants working to have their own set of laws in the use of Sharia Law in UK and elsewhere. So far it appears to be voluntary, but their desire to bring their laws into Europe is clearly seen here.

Please note that you have not presented any evidence to support this claim.

You really should thank @Sivad for doing your work for you. He posted an article from the Telegraph.

Please note that these “courts” are basically just another voluntary arbitration system. These already exist in many ways and for many reasons. Some are religious, others are not.

So, this shows us two things:

1. It is no more coercive than any other voluntary arbitration system and only works if both parties consent to the system.

2. It looks like another example of multiculturalism as you have defined it. Since the UK seems just as successful as always, it seems to answer your OP question.

. . There are also many videos of or about so called no go areas in a few European nations. These videos are evidence even if you reject them as biased. If you label them as "fake news" then you are just rejecting the evidence without studying it. These videos are evidence of some Muslims in Europe working to live under their own laws because if the police can't go into neighborhoods then clearly the police can't enforce the normal national laws there.

Please provide evidence for your claim that there are no go zones in Europe. Thank you.

[Zamuel]

“These videos are evidence of some Muslims in Europe working to live under their own laws because if the police can't go into neighborhoods then clearly the police can't enforce the normal national laws there."

Please provide evidence for your claim that there are no go zones in Europe. Thank you.

There are many videos, though a lot of them are old (2015-2017). What they collectively demonstrate is GANG activity, with little if any local religious sponsorship. This isn't novel behavior, recall the "Crips & Bloods" here in the USA. It is a problem. Police do "GO THERE" but only with sufficient backup and due consideration. Anti-gang programs in the US cleaned things up considerably, and it looks like EU has followed the same model.

Sharia Law, which involves much more than optional arbitration courts, is not operational in these areas. Harassment, and extortion seem to be the gang's primary objectives. The areas are attractive to terrorists as they help screen individuals and their activities. This makes them anathema to state and local security forces. They are not "accepted" multicultural manifestations.

White supremacy try's to make them into Islamic artifacts, which they are not. A few religious extremists try and use them to bolster their Jihadi rhetoric, but their words are not reflected in gang activities. This is not a Muslim campaign to dominate EU. It's a manifestation of young men with to much time on their hands.

Zam

[Unthinking Majority]

Multiculturalism is about accepting the differences and at the same time recognizing the shared values that all cultures have.

Mutliculturalism works very well in Canada.

Multiculturalism has worked so well in Canada that Quebec has had multiple referendums for Quebec separation, where the last one 49% of Quebecois wanted to separate vs 51% stay. So successful that Quebec still hasn't signed onto the 1982 constitution or Charter of Rights. So successful that aboriginals have been treated like crap for its whole history. So successful a Quebec white man shot up a mosque the day after the Prime Minister tweeted that Canada would welcome all refugees to the country. So successful that the country's biggest city is separated by a dozen ethnic ghettos where different cultures generally don't want to live amongst each other, and racial tension is the city's worst kept secret.

[Godstud]

@Unthinking Majority You really know nothing about Canada if you point to this and talk about multiculturalism. This had to do sovereignty, and failed because of modernism and progressivism. It failed in the biggest cities, and is a thing of the past (the final referendum being in 1995).

Nice try, anyways.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are many videos, though a lot of them are old (2015-2017). What they collectively demonstrate is GANG activity, with little if any local religious sponsorship. This isn't novel behavior, recall the "Crips & Bloods" here in the USA. It is a problem. Police do "GO THERE" but only with sufficient backup and due consideration. Anti-gang programs in the US cleaned things up considerably, and it looks like EU has followed the same model.

Sharia Law, which involves much more than optional arbitration courts, is not operational in these areas. Harassment, and extortion seem to be the gang's primary objectives. The areas are attractive to terrorists as they help screen individuals and their activities. This makes them anathema to state and local security forces. They are not "accepted" multicultural manifestations.

White supremacy try's to make them into Islamic artifacts, which they are not. A few religious extremists try and use them to bolster their Jihadi rhetoric, but their words are not reflected in gang activities. This is not a Muslim campaign to dominate EU. It's a manifestation of young men with to much time on their hands.

Zam

I checked Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shari ... -go-zones/

The claim is false.

———————————

Multiculturalism has worked so well in Canada that Quebec has had multiple referendums for Quebec separation, where the last one 49% of Quebecois wanted to separate vs 51% stay. So successful that Quebec still hasn't signed onto the 1982 constitution or Charter of Rights.

I was in Montreal for the last referendum. The CBC was hilariously biased.

Anyway, no one is arguing that it is perfect. But in comparison to other secessionist movements like the Basque in Spain, the Quebece separatists have been relatively peaceful.

So successful that aboriginals have been treated like crap for its whole history.

And this is why multiculturalism should not be defined as the mere presence of more than one culture in a country.

It would be incorrect to say that the relationship that Canada has with indigenous people in Canada “promotes maintaining the distinctiveness of multiple cultures” or champions tolerance and expression of indigenous cultures.

Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Canada has been involved in a deliberate campaign to destroy indigenous cultures. This is not hyperbole. Canadian judges have even used the term “cultural genocide” to describe it.

And the reason for this is economic.

The Canadian economy depends a lot on natural resources. These resources, and the land they are found on, are still considered indigenous lands by indigenous people. This poses a threat to economic development. Therefore, in order to protect and improve economic development, the Canadian government should (and does) try to get rid of indigenous communities.

There is no economic interest threatened by immigration or Quebec culture, so these are handled differently.

So successful a Quebec white man shot up a mosque the day after the Prime Minister tweeted that Canada would welcome all refugees to the country.

Yes, this was a failure on our part as Canadians to reach this young hateful man. But this does not mean that all our successes should be ignored.

So successful that the country's biggest city is separated by a dozen ethnic ghettos where different cultures generally don't want to live amongst each other, and racial tension is the city's worst kept secret.

This I do not think is true.

Do you have any evidence?

[Sivad]

But the use of background assumptions is common to all of these, including epistemic rationality.

No, the basis of epistemic rationality is doubt, not assumption. Rational inquiry begins with doubt and proceeds on evidence and reason. I'm not surprised that you have no idea what rationality is but you should do us all a favor and figure it out.

And while these assumptions may also be subject to critical assessment, they are not, by definition, since they are assumptions. And it would be impossible to actually critically assess all these assumptions anyway.

They are subject to critical assessment, that's what rational people do when formulating their views. We look for unstated assumptions and unsupported premises. That's called intellectual rigor.

Even if we assume, as you do, that objective, universal principles of rational reason exist, and also assume that epistemic rationality is capable of discovering these objective, universal principles of rational reason, such a pursuit would still be subject to the same subjective biases and assumptions that have influenced every other human project ever.

I agree, which is why we hold to the norms of rationality. Rationality is subjective in the sense that people can choose not to adhere to it, or just be bad at it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an objective standard.

Speaking of humour, I found your ethnocentric boast (about how western cultures have superseded ethnocentrism through objective, universal principles of rational reason) to be amusing.

Well I would never expect a charitable, good faith interpretation from you, but obviously I didn't mean everyone in the West has overcome ethnocentrism. It's our institutions that have recognized that the only real authorities are evidence and reason, that's the basis of civil rights, equality before the law, democracy, secularism, pluralism, Western jurisprudence, science, etc.