The debate was launched. Renart accepted my invitation and issued a ticket entitled "There's a smell of taboo." This text tries to put into perspective the argument of Reynard the integration of newcomers, particularly
"some unfortunate situations experienced by my companion when traveling by subway, in line with the lack of civility of some immigrants of recent date. "
Simply by reading this sentence from the text of Reynard, I begin with a question: Is there there a trick to identify a recent immigrant?
Unless ask, we can theorize all you want, but it is certainly not by his attitude on the subway we can define the time of arrival of an immigrant.
Thus, it is impossible to know whether the predicaments faced by his companion were linked to the lack of civility of some immigrants of recent date.
move on.
Renart stuck more with this statement:
"The natural path that the xenophobic and racist based on an established system that scrutinizes the differences in external and then reacted by strengthening its decision by adding "evidence", reveling in the status quo: that is a little more then expand its shell, the instead of making it crack. "
Renart seems to forget that his own expectations with cohabitation in transit are not shared by all. Where the rub is that this incident serves to justify questioning of welcoming immigrants, supposedly because, from rural areas of third world countries, it is not taught them good citizenship, and upon their arrival, the government has not taken support in this regard. But whatever the reason, I feel the message is:
WE know how to behave in society. Could someone explain THEM?
Of Quebec who do not live, there are of all colors and all backgrounds. Period. People who do not live like Reynard-that is to say trying to be virtuous with its next-there are tons. Racist people, there are also all colors, and even beyond "race", our mouth does not please everyone and vice versa. No need to generalize, except to say: I hate being pushed, or I hate being denigrated. Is that so complicated? No need to classify by color but by behavior, since these are the behaviors that we have problems.
Racism Xenophobia is also said that their condition is a newcomer that explains their lack of knowledge of "convention" because we are civilized, they are savages.
It's been years that the STM is promoting agreements to its customers: advance to the rear, yield your place to people in need, do not pull the red lever next to the door ... "If citizenship, as understood by Renart, was a problem of immigrants, no need of such advertisements, the Department explain their arrival and lessen the problem, at least among immigrants. But civic conventions are blurred, to change every 50 km and can sometimes go from one extreme to the other between two Montreal or area code to another.
In my world, citizenship is not to abuse the perfume before entering the subway at rush hour. Yet, at 8am, I was saturated with the sine of the different species varsol equally incompatible with each other. This is the problem of large groups. More often than not, someone crosses the boundaries of someone else, and so on and so forth. If you are the 15th in the chain of frustration is boring but it can hardly help but be the case frustrant.Dans Transit, I acknowledge that more promiscuous ethnic clashes regarding possible between humans.
But even on a Monday, I am being pushed by a Sri Lankan, that on Tuesday I am yelled at by a Haitian, I do that on Wednesday cut the queue by a Colombian, I see that on Thursday an Italian watering his sidewalk etc.. etc.. etc.. I can not in any way say that we should question the civility of our newcomers. I dealt with four individuals who, for whatever reason probably always crossed my limit.
By cons, in a case such as I state often, Quebecers do not generally the strong smell of sweat. It is difficult for many to approach this issue with the "offenders" to the convention. Proposing politely at all the use of deodorant, for example, rather than denouncing the smell of sweat some, allows easier integration of habit, avoiding the discomforts and silences which eventually degenerate into profiling, as was the case recently.
I do not think the debate on reasonable accommodation is the place to point the finger of the types of individuals or groups of individuals with behavior X or Y in isolated circumstances, but to try and build consensus on living together.
Just to look at the composition of the National Assembly, it is understood that Quebec is far from a value system and consensual agreements. Hence, difficult to establish a comprehensive code of life which everyone will adhere. I heard that his dog could écouiller yourself on a farm, I challenge you to try to sterilize yours on your balcony in Montreal. At Blainville, I think fines are distributed to owners of uncut grass, so that your Eco Quartier de Montréal, we will explain that monoculture, even lawn is bad for earth. Two cities, two worlds.
I listen to Bach at 8 am, the other listening to the House at 2am. Are you more
:
TQS or VAT?
The Montreal newspaper Le Devoir, or?
Réjean Breton or Leo Paul Lauzon?
Eric Lapointe and Daniel Belanger?
Nathalie Elgrably or ... uh ... (No, she has no equal on the other side of the political spectrum)?
I could go on indefinitely.
I think in any case, the debate on reasonable accommodation should slip on profiling " One group did this, another group did that, ah yes, ah yes. "Instead, it should provide an outline of living together and help better integrate immigrants into our society, allowing them to preserve some identity markers reassuring for them and do not in any way infringe on our own existence and that will ensure a smoother transition between the status of new Quebecers than Quebecers. Assuming there is a well-defined status of Quebecers, which I doubt. But hey, who knows, this sense of identity As expected might well take this window to display the nose. In the quiet, I hope.
This would well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment