Paris, anyone?

[Ian]

It isn't and couldn't be; I agree with M. Leboeuf here. Each country, if it's to be a country, has to have laws for all, otherwise it would never work; imagine what would happen for mixed race couples whose origins are in countries with quite different laws...

In reality it might be that your hypothetical mixed race couple have to decide which of their respective homelands they want to live in (i.e. what sort of laws they want to subject themselves to) In a country that has managed to found a way to be multicultural according to my definition the only difference is that they wouldn’t need to physically move in order to make that choice.

[Ian]

Yes, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the real world. It would be difficult, in my view, to devise a system of laws which attempted to reconcile irreconcilables -- unless one were only imagining it.

Very true, but the nature of the difficulty lies in getting universal agreement that society should be organised that way. If, by magic, such a consensus could be reached then the implementation would be relatively easy.

[ahinton]

In reality it might be that your hypothetical mixed race couple have to decide which of their respective homelands they want to live in (i.e. what sort of laws they want to subject themselves to) In a country that has managed to found a way to be multicultural according to my definition the only difference is that they wouldn’t need to physically move in order to make that choice.

But as I pointed out, any one country will have its own set of laws that might differ from some of those in other countries from which people have immigrated to it and, once they've done so, they'll be subject to that country's laws and no longer to those of the coutry from which they've immigrated.

[french frank]

BTW, I've got no idea what the 'official' definition of multiculturalism is - My definition is simply one that makes sense to me.

Mine in #367 was the OED definition.

One of the points including law was referred to by aeolium way back and it troubled me a little. This was that according to Islamists all their actions such as the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre could be justified in Sharia law. This poses the problem of why it is that some Muslims condemn the attacks if others can justify them? But, more fundamentally, why do some Muslims justify them while others condemn them? Would one, in the name of true multiculturalism, allow people to live according to a law which they are free to interpret as they wish because it is part of their 'culture' to do so?

[Ian]

But as I pointed out, any one country will have its own set of laws that might differ from some of those in other countries from which people have immigrated to it and, once they've done so, they'll be subject to that country's laws and no longer to those of the coutry from which they've immigrated.

Sure - and clearly such a country would not be 'multicultural' (by my definition)

Just to be clear - I answered a call for definitions of multiculturalism. I produced one that makes sense to me. The fact that it might not describe an existing society or indeed be a workable model for a future one is not my problem.

[Ian]

Mine in #367 was the OED definition.

That definition certainly covers mine but I’m not sure it’s rigorous enough to avoid classification disputes. Presumably for some immigrants having to live by new and possibly unwelcome laws is an acceptable compromise - what is left to them are the aspects of their culture that are legally compatible with the local culture. The consequence of this is that those compatible elements aren’t necessarily going to be ‘theirs‘ for much longer - not all Italian restaurants are run by Italians. I think this describes the process of a culture expanding not a society changing from a mono-culture to a multi-culture.

[MrGongGong]

They are not inherently synonymous, sure, but they can occur simultaneously.

So can an itchy foot and an understanding of serial composition

[Flosshilde]

I'm not sure Muslim law (Shariah) councils have been set up to provide advice, as you put it.

The Muslim (Law Sharia) Council UK says that it was set up to resolve domestic issues and social dilemmas for all British citizens.

...

Here's the website. http://www.shariahcouncil.org

"B. Marriage in accordance to Islamic law (Shariah) in the United Kingdom, and the marriage is registered in the United Kingdom

1. For an Islamic Divorce, follow the procedures as described in [A].
2. You also need a Civil Divorce (Decree Absolute). Contact a firm of solicitors dealing with matrimonial disputes. They will apply for Civil Divorce in a Local County Court"

From the FAQ section of the site.
So it's clearly not suggesting that procedures according to Shariah law should contravene or replace UK law.

[Flosshilde]

Not necessarily, I’ve no idea what any distinct, but uk resident, cultural group might vote for if the legal framework allowed that sort of group self-determination.

If we are talking about, for example, Shariah law then Muslims in the UK would not have any control over what it included.

[Don Petter]

A multicultural society would be one where people of different cultures are allowed (by universal agreement among all the cultures present) to live according to whatever traditions and laws that constitute that particular culture.

A bit like the Raj, then, when the Brits were allowed to keep on with their cricket, bridge and pink gins?

[Ian]

If we are talking about, for example, Shariah law then Muslims in the UK would not have any control over what it included.

If you are referring to the claimed divine authority for Shariah then of course you are potentially correct. However, it doesn’t mean that all muslims would vote for such a legal system - the world isn’t that simple. As it happens there doesn’t seem to be much appetite from any group in the UK for Shariah. Surely there would be a Shariah party if there was? (Unless there was something in Sharia about not forming political parties!)

[Krystal]

I’m sure it probably would be unworkable - but ‘multiculturism’ is an idea - it can exist as a concept if not a practical reality.

However, just for the sake of idle speculation, the ‘universal agreement‘ that would be needed to make such a society work would obviously have to cover situations like the one you mention. I don’t think it’s too hard to outline how it might do that. However, as I’m not actually proposing such a society I don’t feel the need to .

It's academic speculation to ponder all these things; this kind of discussion should have been conducted well BEFORE the utopian multi-cultural project was initiated. In teaching we had things called "outcomes" which were used to make decisions before creating lesson plans; this kind of logic should have been applied before Britain opened the flood gates. Like it or not, there are many millions of people in Britain (and elsewhere) who detest the kind of nation it has become because of immigration. You can try and shoot the messengers to prevent the argument, but wouldn't it be more intelligent to ask, "why are good and decent people feeling this way?".

Really, it's a question the Left cannot afford to ask because it challenges their own notions of grievance-privilege (Hitchens' words) which is central to their idea that everyone is a victim. The old canards of the Left are failing everywhere and they've got to stick to the old nostrums of political correctness to shut down the discussion. Easier to call people racists, populists etc. etc.

This topic has digressed a long way from its origins, but these things need to be said and all around the world they are being said - right now.

[MrGongGong]

Bloody Normans eh Krystal Tipps coming over here with their ecclesiastical architecture.

I'd send the Flemish back as well, let the Fens flood I say, who needs stained glass anyway?

The problem with the kind of stuff

Like it or not, there are many millions of people in Britain (and elsewhere) who detest the kind of nation it has become because of immigration.

Is this really true? or is it just another bit of "received wisdom"?
When pressed, folks who say these things always end up being very unsure what they really are unhappy about (apart from the obvious 'out of the box' racists).

[teamsaint]

It's academic speculation to ponder all these things; this kind of discussion should have been conducted well BEFORE the utopian multi-cultural project was initiated. In teaching we had things called "outcomes" which were used to make decisions before creating lesson plans; this kind of logic should have been applied before Britain opened the flood gates. Like it or not, there are many millions of people in Britain (and elsewhere) who detest the kind of nation it has become because of immigration. You can try and shoot the messengers to prevent the argument, but wouldn't it be more intelligent to ask, "why are good and decent people feeling this way?".

Really, it's a question the Left cannot afford to ask because it challenges their own notions of grievance-privilege (Hitchens' words) which is central to their idea that everyone is a victim. The old canards of the Left are failing everywhere and they've got to stick to the old nostrums of political correctness to shut down the discussion. Easier to call people racists, populists etc. etc.

This topic has digressed a long way from its origins, but these things need to be said and all around the world they are being said - right now.

actually, I suspect that many more people detest what this nation has become, not because of immigration, but because of the class war perpetrated by the already very rich and very powerful .
Nobody (much)voted for privatised NHS, tax breaks for the ultra rich, privatised utilities, sky high tuition fees, handing control of the economy to the Bank of England, bank deregulation, endless foreign military adventures, etc etc ,ad Nauseum. (and I am not just blaming the tories).
These things were foisted on us by those with power and no collective responsibility.
Race /religious conflict is the outcome, not the cause of the real problems

[MrGongGong]

actually, I suspect that many more people detest what this nation has become, not because of immigration, but because of the class war perpetrated by the already very rich and very powerful .
Nobody (much)voted for privatised NHS, tax breaks for the ultra rich, privatised utilities, sky high tuition fees, handing control of the economy to the Bank of England, bank deregulation, endless foreign military adventures, etc etc ,ad Nauseum. (and I am not just blaming the tories).
These things were foisted on us by those with power and no collective responsibility.
Race /religious conflict is the outcome, not the cause of the real problems