Raptors' Multicultural Canada, Antidote to Trump's US

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Migration,Multiculturalism,Sports at 6/16/2019 04:35:00 PM

The chances of a Sikh gent being the face of Trumpmerica: 0.00%. For multicultural Canada, it's already reality.

The white supremacist sympathies of Donald Trump have put paid to the idea that diversity is inevitable in the United States, as have any number of actions his administration or party are pushing: asking citizenship status in the census (which is a population and not a white person count); strategizing electoral victory through disenfranchisement of minorities, reducing all forms of legal and illegal immigration---you name it. For a country whose birthrate is below replacement, the inevitable consequence of continued Trumpism would be depopulation. "But hey! We may be depopulating, but we're a depopulating majority white country," rabid Trump fans would say.

As those who've watched the recent NBA Finals have seen, though, the Canadians have other ideas. Not only has the entire city of Toronto become a strong supporter of the multicultural Raptors, but the entire country. In other words, they are not quite Trump-like America (i.e., white people) firsters. The rainbow team is a microcosm of where Canada is headed, and the Canadians are not as disdainful of this general direction:

The team itself is celebrated for its own diversity, starting at the top with Masai Ujiri, the team’s widely respected president from Nigeria. There is player Pascal Siakam of Cameroon or Serge Ibaka, born in the Republic of Congo. And one might argue that as the lone NBA team from Canada, the vast majority of the players come from somewhere else – specifically south of the border – like Raptors star players Kawhi Leonard (Los Angeles) and Kyle Lowry (Philadelphia).

Yet it’s the team’s fanbase, outside or inside the Scotiabank Arena, that illustrates the diversity of Toronto, where 51.5 percent of residents identified as a “visible minority” in the latest census – women like Claudette Gardiner, born in Jamaica, who is at the playoff game with her Canadian-born daughter Micaela Evans and who talks about the team’s plucky rise in Toronto.

The rise of basketball as a sport in a country dominated by ice hockey deserves mention as a reflection of demographic trends:

Marvin Ryder, who analyzes sports marketing as a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, expects the basketball buzz to grow, at least in urban centers. Canada’s newcomers gravitate to basketball and soccer, which are more accessible than ice hockey. This season the Raptors have given Canada a chance at a badly desired championship. As television crews pan the arena, he says, it shows the pulsing metropolis that is today Toronto and that many outsiders (specifically Americans, he says) haven’t understood. “It is a great way to showcase that Toronto is truly a city of the 21st century,” Professor Ryder says.

Importantly, maybe there is hope even for Trump's America. It was not always this way as even now famous Raptors superfan Nav Bhatia was no stranger to racism when he first arrived in Toronto:

It was not always that way, as Mr. Bhatia can attest. When he first arrived, as a trained mechanical engineer, he couldn't get a job in his field. Instead, he worked as a car salesman. He says at that time he was called far worse than a cab driver. “I never get upset; I do something positive to take away the negativity,” he says. For him that meant inviting underprivileged kids from all different religious and racial backgrounds to games, something he could afford as his own career grew from salesman to manager to successful car dealership owner today. “That is why today you will see here my community,” he says. “I use the game of basketball to bring the world together.”

Perhaps even Trump's America can change if Canadians have even if the latter are generally regarded worldwide as the more civilized North Americans.

UPDATE: See Kareem Abdul-Jabbar expounding on a similar theme in a new Guardian op-ed.

Read More

Leno, Branson & Brunei: On Boycotting Shari'a Law

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in CSR,Middle East,Multiculturalism,Religion,Southeast Asia,Sports at 5/11/2014 12:30:00 AM

Can Jay Leno and other white people "save" us foreign primitives from shari'a law?

Life is a series of endless annoyances you just wish would go away. This latest brouhaha started when big-chinned American funnyman Jay Leno publicized his boycott of the landmark Beverly Hills Hotel which is part of the Dorchester Collection hotel chain owned by the Sultan of Brunei. His recent implementation of shari'a law in Brunei has provoked an outcry among Western activists. Instead of blowing away, however, it's gotten worse as the glitterati have followed suit. The Hotel Bel Air which is also part of the Dorchester Collection has also been targeted. Not to be outdone, Sir Richard Branson decided to wade into the fray by prohibiting all Virgin employees from patronizing the sultan's properties--including the flagship Dorchester Hotel favored by the late Michael Jackson--citing "human rights violations."

I have four points:

(1) Ignorant Westerners living in their white people's worlds and applying their biased interpretations of morality on others is hardly unusual. Shari'a law with its--how shall we say--vivid punishments is a favorite target of Westerners since these include storing to death of adulterers and homosexuals. However, there is a not-insignificant difference between the literal interpretation of shari'a law and the punishments most commonly meted out. Take for instance, how shari'a is followed in the UAE:

Consider the courts' interpretation of family law. The UAE mandates that Sharia is used as the primary legal justification on matters involving family legal issues. But the UAE personal status law, which covers marriage, divorce and succession, also states in Article 1 that "the law shall apply to all UAE nationals except where non-Muslim UAE nationals have special rules relating to their specific creed or sect".

What's more, Article 1 adds that the law will apply to non-UAE nationals as well, unless they choose their own law. Elements of the nation's criminal code offer similar distinctions. For instance, payment of blood money in the event of a death or injury is allowed according to Sharia. Crimes such as the desertion of Islam, fornication, murder, theft, adultery and homosexuality - all crimes classified as "Al Hudud" in Arabic - are punishable by predetermined penalties (flogging and arm amputation among them). And yet some emirates have suspended Al Hudud provisions pursuant to their rulers' decrees and replaced the Sharia penalties with jail terms and fines as determined by the law according to each case respectively [my emphasis].

I am less concerned with the archaic punishments a literal interpretation of shari'a demands--the Old Testament is hardly more palatable in this respect to modern eyes. Rather, less concern should surround a country's legal system adopting aspects of shari'a law--usually the civil code--and  more with what punishments are actually meted out. Not having sentenced anyone to death by stoning for adultery yet--the sultan's brother, the dissipated wastrel Prince Jefri, should be first in line with his global philandering [1, 2]--Brunei still has the benefit of the doubt.

(2) If these Westerners were truly aghast at shari'a law in any way, shape or form, then their boycott should not only be confined to tiny Brunei. In the UK, it puzzles me why the Emiratis have not been subject to the sort of boycott the sultan has when Emiratis bankroll even more visible bits of the UK in the football clubs Arsenal (which plays at the Emirates Stadium) and Manchester City (which is owned by a member of Abu Dhabi's royal family). Doing so would bring football, the country's most-watched sport, to an absolute standstill since Manchester City looks likely to win this year's championship while Arsenal gains another Champions League berth. British royal warrants notwithstanding, Sir Richard Branson and his high society pals should also refrain from shopping at the world's most famous department store, Qatari owned Harrods. Similarly, Virgin Atlantic ought to stop flying out of Heathrow airport since it's part-owned by the Qataris.

In America, even the right-wingers at Breibart have a laundry list of other concerns that should be boycotted if shari'a law was to be avoided at all costs. Me, I'll stick to Jay Leno's other passion here--collecting automobiles. With so many big-engined exotic cars to fuel up in his garage, how sure is Jay Leno that his petrol has not been sourced from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or another homosexual-hating hydrocarbon supplier? Last I checked, Saudi alone supplied 13% of US-consumed oil, likely making Leno a rather famous consumer of products originating from a shari'a law-abiding nation (20% come from the "Persian Gulf"). To be safe on the safe side, he should also sell all his Ferrari car(s) since the automaker has a longstanding commercial tie-up with Abu Dhabi, including a theme park.

(3) Implicitly, there is also this typically condescending Western conceit that they "know better" about the barbarity of others and have a responsibility to "save" us colored people from our despotic rulers. Did it ever occur to them that some Muslims actually prefer the implementation of shari'a law--especially in civil matters? It is not uncommon for even predominantly non-Islamic countries to bow to such wishes granting shari'a courts powers of interpretation over these matters.

From Political Science 101, there is this notion of political legitimacy. Jay Leno and others only focus on extreme punishments not usually meted out by shari'a courts. Would so many people--especially in non-Islamic countries--tolerate or even demand these courts if the decisions made were completely out of line with people's expectations? I do not believe so. Rather, most courts issue rulings that pass muster even in non-Islamic countries which sufficiently meet the expectations of Islamic and other communities. In other words, the operation of these courts passes the test of legitimacy. Granted, some rulings may be abhorrent to Western sensibilities, but consider first what citizens' expectations are of their legal systems. Just because rulings are made by "authoritarian" figures does not mean they are bereft of popular support. If Brunei's citizens want to turf Sultan Bolkiah over enacting shari'a law, then it's their call and not anyone else's.

(4) If Jay Leno, Richard Branson and all these busybody celebs were truly concerned with human rights violations, then they should focus less on a country which hasn't stoned a single offender to death but rather their own countries that actually commit human rights violations on a massive scale. The United States invades other countries on false pretenses resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and then leaves them worse off in the name of democracy and freedom. It also kills innocent people indiscriminately the world over via drone strikes in the name of the global war on terror.

Complain if you will with the interpretation of shari'a law, but at least there is due process. The United States reserves the right to indefinitely detain and Guantanamo Ghraib people without any legal recourse whatsoever, Americans included. Unlike a certain other government, Brunei's doesn't abduct persons in 50+ countries Boko Haram-style and torture them somewhere else. Speaking of excessive punishment, there is also the matter of the United States jailing a larger proportion of its own people than any other country on earth--especially African-Americans not lucky enough to be well-off, white activists who have all the time in the world to pick on things of limited consequence outside the Beverly Hills Hotel.

Following the Gandhian principle of "peaceful disobedience"--he's, like, big in Hollywood since his biopic won 8 Oscars--I suggest that Jay Leno and his followers stop paying taxes to the US government which inflicts death and misery worldwide on an unprecedented scale instead of picking on a country that *may* issue an inhumane punishment in the future. My guess is they won't because they pick targets that are easy to demagogue against.

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

Bottom line for these Western activists: As sung by the late Michael Jackson, if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change.  Start with your own country since these holier-than-thou attitudes certainly don't impress us after years and years of American hypocrisy. It's "We the People," right? The IPE Zone does not suffer religious intolerance gladly  coming from Western left-wing or right-wing crusaders. They are too secure in their smug self-superiority. In the end, however, their differences are small since they share largely similar, narrow-minded whitebread views of the world.

To show you just how asinine these protests are, some desperately uninformed soul wearing designer shades [natch] in Leno's protest is seen urging Brunei to be excluded from the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) expansion negotiations. My dear, Brunei is a founding member of the TPP. Your country is merely trying to join it. Should your country press for what you suggest, it's far more likely that Brunei will "kick out" the United States. As many a blog post here will attest, Americans are this proud of parading their ignorance for all the world to see.

Read More

Malaysia, Where Iranians Seek Respite from Iran

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Middle East,Multiculturalism,Religion,Southeast Asia at 9/07/2011 12:01:00 AM

There's an interesting article from TIME about how those seeking a respite from "the pananoid style in Iranian politics" are heading for Malaysia. To be sure, Malaysia is not exactly an exemplar of freedom from political suppression--witness the continued persecution of Anwar Ibrahim by the ruling party he used to belong to (UMNO) on what many international observers believe are trumped-up, salacious charges.

As with many things, however, matters are relative. Iranians themselves often feel that they are able to leave the tumult of domestic politics behind while in Malaysia, all the while partaking of a comparative atmosphere of tolerance...in another Islamic country. The latter qualification speaks to the common wish not to break away entirely with the familiar but to perhaps do away with the most egregious of strictures and limitations. It takes me back to the pre-Asian financial crisis era when Indonesia and Malaysia were often lauded as models of a tolerant brand of Islam. With both countries having recovered from the aforementioned crisis, we may be coming full circle. From TIME:

The Iranian influx is small but growing fast. At present, there are about 60,000 Iranians, studying, working or waiting for visas in this relatively easygoing, multiethnic Muslim-majority country. Iranians hold shares in an estimated 2,000 Malaysian businesses and occupy about 15,000 spots in Malaysian universities. Tourist arrivals from Iran jumped 14.3% to 116,000 last year. And, observe new arrivals, words of Persian origin, such as dewan for hall and anggur for grapes, have long been part of the Malay language. Most Iranians in Malaysia bask in the comforts of a life free from ideological pressures and from, in one exile's words, "bribing the police every time you want to have a party." Malaysia has become the base for frequent "Persian disco nights" and glitzy concerts by famed singers — in one performance earlier this year, during the Iranian New Year in March, there were singers calling for the overthrow of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; it was not part of the program.

The Sunni-Shia divide is also another important consideration:

But life there isn't without hassles. Many, including Ali Manafi, a radio anchor who recently fled Iran at considerable risk, are exhausted by Malaysia's religious rules. "Spirituality should be personal," he says. "Here there are too many mosques and imams." Few Malaysian mosques welcome Shi'ite Muslims, leaving Iranian Shi'ites to worship at their embassy. Iranian activists have also faced rough treatment for political protests. Five Iranian student leaders were arrested for carrying candles in a memorial for protesters killed in Iran. In 2009, a protest of Iran's recent elections outside the U.N. building led to tear gas. However, most activists say they try to stay away from Malaysia's current unrests — though they are quietly pleased that the recent July 9 demonstration, in which 1,400 Malaysians were arrested, took place on the 12th anniversary of one of Iran's largest protests.

Malaysia is not quite the ideal escape, but it comes closer than most while retaining a touch of comforting familiarity for Iranians.

Read More

Like Merkel, Cameron Doesn't Get Multiculturalism

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Europe,Multiculturalism at 2/10/2011 12:02:00 AM

Why oh why do Benetton ads make more sense than some of our leaders? Politicians are not usually the most discerning observers of social dynamics. George W. Bush simplifies matters of anti-Americanism into "either you're with us or against us." In similar fashion, public dialogue concerning multiculturalism is quite poor in Western Europe. Angela Merkel has famously declared multiculturalism a failed concept without fully understanding what it means. Over the weekend, David Cameron made a similar proclamation that multiculturalism has failed. As I explained with the Merkel incident, however, Cameron too has a rather narrow and misleading view of multiculturalism. In calling for a "shared national identity," he derides multiculturalism thusly:

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

… I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past...So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone.”

And guess who would applaud this sort of statement? In France, none other than Marine Le Pen, daughter of Dominique Le Pen and the new leader of the ultra-right wing National Front (think Euro Klux Klan):

“It is exactly this type of statement that has barred us from public life for 30 years,” she told the Financial Times. “I sense an evolution at European level, even in classic governments. I can only congratulate him...”

Ms Le Pen said it was “indisputable” that Mr Cameron was taking his party closer to the traditional positions held by the National Front. “Moreover,” she said, “he will do something about it, unlike Nicolas Sarkozy who talks a lot without taking political decisions.”

Aside from attracting applause from extremists, Cameron simply does not understand what multiculturalism is in practice. Multiculturalism encompasses the idea that we have multiple identities that can act as common ground for building a spirit of community. That is, the presence of diversity shouldn't be an insurmountable barrier towards building on commonalities and shared concerns. What Cameron describes is not multiculturalism but what Amartya Sen famously called plural monoculturalism:

One important issue concerns the distinction between multiculturalism and what may be called "plural monoculturalism." Does the existence of a diversity of cultures, which might pass one another like ships in the night, count as a successful case of multiculturalism? Since, in the matter of identity, Britain is currently torn between interaction and isolation, the distinction is centrally important (and even has a bearing on the question of terrorism and violence)...

In contrast, having two styles or traditions co-existing side by side, without the twain meeting, must really be seen as plural monoculturalism. The vocal defense of multiculturalism that we frequently hear these days is very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism. If a young girl in a conservative immigrant family wants to go out on a date with an English boy, that would certainly be a multicultural initiative. In contrast, the attempt by her guardians to stop her from doing this (a common enough occurrence) is hardly a multicultural move, since it seeks to keep the cultures separate. And yet it is the parents' prohibition, which contributes to plural monoculturalism, that seems to garner the loudest and most vocal defense from alleged multiculturalists, on the ground of the importance of honoring traditional cultures--as if the cultural freedom of the young woman were of no relevance whatever, and as if the distinct cultures must somehow remain in secluded boxes.

If Cameron's speechwriters actually knew a thing or two about multiculturalism, they would have recognized that plural monoculturalism is what they've mistakenly substituted it for. While I often find it sardonically hilarious to point out the incomprehension of those in power, I am afraid that such muddle-headed thinking can have very negative consequences. While National Front-style intolerance may not have made much inroads in European politics, my greater fear is that their preferences filter down into more mainstream parties that readily observe the appeal of such rhetoric to certain audiences. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

No prominent author on the subject I know of has ever mentioned that tolerance of intolerance represents multiculturalism, but that's what Cameron suggests. As he compounds his errors by confusing plural monoculturalism with multiculturalism, he merits a failing grade.

UPDATE: The British National Party (BNP), another ultra-right wing party here in the UK, also applauds Cameron's speech.

Read More

Why Merkel Fails Multiculturalism, Not Vice-Versa

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Europe,Multiculturalism,Religion at 10/19/2010 02:52:00 PM

It's interesting times in Germany-outwardly one of the most insular EU countries when it comes to discussions of multiculturalism. There is, of course, the still-unresolved matter of the French and Germans blocking several chapters for Turkish accession to the EU. (As a champion of Turkish EU membership, I even placed a clip of "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" from the hit musical Avenue Q.) Now, we have an even more vehement statement of cultural insularity care of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Addressing the youth wing of the CDU, she avers that "multiculturalism has failed." This, of course, is partially aimed at the large Turkish minority in Germany who came as gastarbeiter (guest workers) but never left:

In a speech to supporters, Chancellor Angela Merkel said multiculturalism in Germany has not been successful. Party leaders also sparred over immigrants' role in filling the country's shortage of skilled workers. Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed," according to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"This approach has failed, utterly failed," said Merkel, head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in a speech to the party's young people's association in Potsdam on Saturday. She added that not enough was done in the past to support the movement. "The failures of the last 30 or 40 years cannot be resolved so quickly," she said.

The comments followed a similar speech from Horst Seehofer, head of the CDU's Bavarian sister party the CSU. On Friday he declared his party's stance against multiculturalism: "Multiculturalism is dead," he said, to delegates' applause. Seehofer's comments were criticized by Stephan Kramer, the general secretary of the Central Council of Jews. In an interview with the Rheinpfalz am Sonntag newspaper, he said the idea that immigrants from Turkey as well as Arab countries found it harder to integrate was "not just tactless, but downright irresponsible."

There are two components to this version of multiculturalism. The one dealing with those living in Germany having to speak German is common sense and can fit within a concept of multiculturalism for the obvious reason that socioeconomic interaction would be difficult outside of diaspora communities. However, overtures to making Christianity the standard religion are very worrying to me. While this speech may indeed be an empty political gesture, the chequered history of German race relations suggests it may nonetheless spur untoward sentiments.

"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor. "Subsidising immigrants" isn't sufficient, Germany has the right to "make demands" on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.

Merkel spoke a week after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in which they pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany's 2.5-million-strong Turkish community.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul, in a weekend interview, also urged the Turkish community living in Germany to master the language of their adopted country. "When one doesn't speak the language of the country in which one lives that doesn't serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society," the Turkish president told the Suedeutsche Zeitung. "That is why I tell them at every opportunity that they should learn German, and speak it fluently and without an accent. That should start at nurseries."

German President Christian Wulff was due for a five-day visit to Turkey and talks with the country's leaders on Monday.

Beyond the headline statement about multiculturalism failing, however, there is still much triangulation at play, with Merkel stating the need for Germany to attract skilled workers, who presumably would be able to speak fluent German. While making the usual conservative gestures about no-gooders sponging on the welfare state, she also says...

On Saturday, Merkel also underscored the continued importance of immigration to Germany and the job market, especially highly skilled migrants. She pointed out that every year, 200,000 Germans retired and left the job market, and weren't replaced, which could lead to companies leaving Germany due to labor shortages. The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce has said Germany's shortfall of about 400,000 skilled workers costs the country 1 percent in growth annually.

Merkel said, however, that older German workers should not be overlooked in favor of immigrant laborers, adding that immigrants should not be considered "until we have done all we can to help our own people to become qualified and give them a chance." For his part, Seehofer, in an interview with Focus magazine, said Germany should not use a lack of skilled workers as an excuse to open its doors to all comers, adding that demands made of those who wish to move to Germany should not be watered down. "We do not want to become the world's welfare office," he said.

It's the same all over the developed world, I guess. Skilled workers are welcome who do not disturb the postwar social fabric. At the same time, however, the welcome mat is always tenuous as scapegoating is not bound to any particular ethnic group. In that sense, immigrant-baiting at least is multicultural. As for making older workers work for longer, that is standard stuff in the immigration debate. Why hire foreigners when you can employ "your own people"?

Overall, I don't see the point in this speech other than repeating scare tactics that have been used by Germans at other points in time. Speaking fluent German is not a disavowal of multiculturalism, but forcing everyone to convert to Christianity would certainly be an affront. Not only is it very unlikely to happen, but it also offends many who would consider Germany as a destination for immigration. Let's face it: English speakers far outnumber German speakers, so asking even more for (1) Christian (2) skilled (3) German speakers is too much. (2) and (3) should suffice, no? And even (2) can be done away with in performing simpler service tasks.

And, like in the rest of Europe, the claim that Christianity is central to European or in this case German identity must be taken with a grain of salt. With church attendance still in fairly significant decline, Germany is at least as secular as the European average. In other words, politicians give religion lip service, but huge swathes of the populace couldn't care less about going to Sunday mass. The pretence is obvious, but hey, politics is largely symbolic. It's just that the rhetoric scares me given Germany's history.

UPDATE: A reader recommends this clip from Newsy.com.

Read More