Midterm Exam 1 Flashcards
(77 cards)
1
Q
What kinds of thinking run contrary to a liberal education?
A
A partisan and all biased approach’s run contrary to a liberal education, since a liberal education circulates around evidence and research, and often individuals adopting a political, ideological or moral stance are too absolute and rigid to their bias
2
Q
According to A.C. Grayling what is the purpose of a liberal education? What kind of thinking does a liberal education promote?
A
the aim of liberal education is to help people continue learning all their lives long, and to think, and to question.
3
Q
What kinds of thinking do universities oppose?
A
Morality, Ideology, Partisanship, Blind Activism, Brainwashing, Editorializing, Ad hominem arguments, Noble Cause Distortion, Confirmation on Bias, Conjecture
4
Q
What is Morality as a thinking
A
the imposition of absolute values based on morality (E.g., disputes regarding abortions are often detested by religious groups and individuals due to their rigid and absolute stance founded by no evidence nor statistics but rather by their commitment in faith.)
5
Q
What is Ideology as a thinking?
A
Absolute ideology can be grounded in devotions and loyalty, evident through partisanship and nationalism
6
Q
What is Partisanship as a thinking?
A
Prejudice in favor of a particular cause, often seen as political partisanship through individuals’ loyalty to their political party.
7
Q
What is Blind Activism as a thinking?
A
blind belief in a cause an individual cannot and/or will not question.
8
Q
What is Brainwashing as a thinking?
A
Indoctrination, the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, evident in propaganda
9
Q
What is Editorializing as a thinking?
A
Creating comments or expressing opinions rather than just reporting the research or evidence found. Editorializing drives away evidence
10
Q
What is Ad hominem arguments as a thinking?
A
Snarky remarks and personal attacks, evidently used in propaganda as a method of using hateful comments to impose ideology
11
Q
What is Noble Cause Distortion as a thinking?
A
The belief that a noble cause automatically indicates truth and rightfulness in an ideology.
12
Q
What is Confirmation bias as a thinking?
A
Disregarding evidence against your hypothesis and only acknowledging
13
Q
Conjecture
A
An opinion or conclusion formed based on incomplete information, relying on a gut feeling and ignoring evidence
14
Q
According to Mark Mercer, what three values should a university promote?
A
Critical thinking, Teaching and Research
15
Q
Research covers three activities?
A
the need to inquire and research, the ability to create interpretations based on evidence by breaking down evidence, the emotional and intellectual appreciation of the world as understood through inquiry and by interpretation
16
Q
What are the results of promoting academic values
A
- Autonomous individuals: students becoming an autonomous agent.
- Sharing of ideas establishes the ability to freely share ides in conversations
- Discovery of higher (provisional) truths: The free flow of ideas leads to the discovery of higher/provisional truths in contrast to absolute truths
17
Q
According to Jonathan Rauch, what does the reality-based community consider to be valid forms of knowledge? What is invalid knowledge?
A
- Metaphysics
- Avoid Metaphysical phrasing
- Propositions
- Colloquial definition of reality
- Reality Epistemically
18
Q
What is Metaphysics ?
A
thinking of reality metaphysically as an external unknowable world out there
19
Q
Avoid Metaphysical phrasing in terms of reality
A
Truth that is independent of human perception, interpretation and experience does not use an objective criterion.
20
Q
Reality based communities utilize ..
A
Colloquial definition of reality, as the world independent of human perception and cognition,
21
Q
Reality Epistemically
A
we have objective knowledge, they think of reality as a set of propositions (or claims, or statements) which have been validated in some way, and which haver thereby been shown to be at least conditionally true
22
Q
What is propositions in terms of reality based learning?
A
have no volition and can do nothing on their own, yet once they are acquired by the reality-based network, they can interact with each other across the network – the adjustment, acceptance or rejection of one proposition can force adjustments to many others.
- Reality based networks behave like an ecosytem
23
Q
What are the core rules that derive from the liberal science’s distinctive quality?
A
The Fallibist Rule and Empirical Rule
24
Q
The Fallibilist Rule
A
no one gets the final say, you may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and only insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it.
25
The Empirical Rule
no one has personal authority; you may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker and regardless of the source of the statement
26
What is invalid knowledge
- Breaking the empirical rule by exempting my views from contestability by others – (E.g., claiming access to divine revelation or claiming race)
- Claiming that a conversation is too dangerous or oppressive or traumatizing to tolerate will always break the fallibilist rule
- Arguing in bad faith (when individuals resist honest conversation, they drop out of a reality-based community.)
27
What does a sociologist accept as valid knowledge?
- Thriving to seek out objective (provisional) truth, finding higher truth through evidence-based research, evaluating all evidence related to the topic.
- Evidence based research.
- Epistemology – investigating what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, with regards to methods, validity and scope.
- Credible theories (however, they can be manipulated through cherry picking quotes, hence changing the objective of a credible theorist’s text to suit their data).
- Data
- Surveys
28
Where is truth found?
- Evidence and arguments.
- Asking tough questions.
- Judgment of ideas.
- Conversation (cross-fertilization of knowledge) – learning through the diversity of ideas.
- Marketplace of ideas
29
What poses as objective truths
Strong Relativism and Culturally specific knowledge
30
Strong Relativism
“all truths are of equal merit”, E.g., an individual who believes that the persecution of Jews is acceptable, arguing that their truths are as equal as yours. – Giving merit where merit is not wanted, why give such individuals the platform – all things are equal, however not everything is relative
31
Culturally Specific Knoweldge
The belief that a propositions link to culture certifies its legitimacy as truth, hiding behind certain cultures or ideology as though it has some validity even when the claims are debunked.
32
What are the three (3) basic conditions necessary for free speech to be relevant? Explain in detail.
- Liberty to communicate ideas
- Audience comprehension of ideas behind the message
- Genuine Exchange of ideas
33
What is condition 1, Liberty to communicate ideas, mean in detail?
An individual or group must have the ability to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas and emotions free from government censorship
34
What is condition 2, audience comprehension of ideas behind the message, mean in detail?
The audience must be able to fully comprehend the message of the speaker. The environment in which the ideas are being shared contribute to the perception of the message. (Ex. if the speaker is unable to speak during a protest, as they cannot physically vocalize themselves over the protests.)
35
What is condition 3, Genuine Exchange of ideas, mean in detail?
There must be speech that is substantial. There must be an open adversarial form, ideas are subject to judgment , update ideas, finding higher truths.
36
Define the two (2) forms of liberalism that dominate free speech debates? What are their major faults?
- Muscular liberalism (free speech absolutists)
- Multicultural/pluralistic liberalism (free speech accommodationists)
37
What is Muscular liberalism (free speech absolutists) ?
One believes the view of freedom is absolute. Therefore there is freedom to offend and defend. One is unable to tell the difference between offensive and free speech. Offensive speech can be countered by more speech. Individuals cannot tell the difference between hate speech and speech with substance.
38
What are the faults of Muscular liberalism (free speech absolutists) ?
- Vilify Minorities
Believes it is justified under the idea of having free speech
- Inviting people who lack substance and support their opinion to promote their ideology.
39
What is Multicultural/pluralistic liberalism (free speech accommodationists) ?
Free Speech has specific limits. No one should be invited to promote hate speech. Hate speech demeans them as a group. Legal restrictions are encouraged.
40
What are the Faults of Multicultural/pluralistic liberalism (free speech accommodationists)
- Overly Sensitive
- Says free speech is encouraged, however, actively tries to eliminate offensive speech
41
What is Substantial Speech?
Open adversial form, ideas are subject to judgement, update ideas and finding higher truths
42
Explain the circumstances surrounding the following cases of hate speech in Canada
Decisions keep in place part of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code that Prohibits expression “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of person on the basis of prohibited ground.
43
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor in 1990
A proceeding done by the Supreme Court of Canada after a complaint concerning series of messages containing statements denigrating the Jewish race and religion were lodged with the Canadian Human Rights Commission – who concluded that the messages constituted a discriminatory practice under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the section makes it a discriminatory practice to communicate telephonically any matter likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt on the basis of race or religion. Pursuant to the Act, the cease-and-desist order was filed in the Federal Court. No proceedings were taken by the appellants to have the order set aside. Despite the order, the appellants continued their messages and were found in contempt of the order. The Party was sentenced to a $5,000 fine and T, the Party's leader, to one year of imprisonment. The sentence was suspended upon the condition that the appellants obey the Tribunal's cease and desist order. They did not and the suspension of sentence was vacated. The Party paid its fine and T served his sentence
44
Canada (Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott in 2013
Flyers distributed by William Whatcott containing a vile attack on gays that suggested exposure to homosexuals would “lead to the early death and morbidity of children,” among other odious beliefs. While no thinking person would find such thoughts acceptable on a moral level, whether the expression of such thoughts should be subject to state sanction presents a fundamental constitutional issue relating to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights. The Court found that two of his four pamphlets fall under the Code.
The decision keeps in place part of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code that prohibits expression “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.”
The decision also largely upholds the most relevant precedent (the 1990 Taylor Case) but with a few changes that narrow the definition and application of “hatred.”:
- The judge confronts the blurred distinction between offensive and hateful speech as emotion is central to a person’s reaction to speech, and that an approach that interprets “hatred” should not be premised simply on eliminating feelings of dislike.
- The purpose of the legislation is to prevent the risk of harms associated with “extreme” examples of speech, such as discrimination. The Court settles on “detestation” and “vilification” to describe the harmful effects (abandoning a third word from the Taylor case, “calumny,” as unnecessary).
- The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the effects of the speech, rather than on the nature of the ideas expressed. “If the repugnancy or offensiveness of an idea does not exclude it from Charter protection under s.2(b), they cannot, in themselves, be sufficient to justify a limit on expression.” Thus, a blanket prohibition on hateful ideas would clearly be contrary to the core of freedom of expression. The distinction drawn here is between such expression and expression “which exposes groups to hatred.”
- The judges find that the phrase “ridicule, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in the Code does not meet the standard of “detestation” or “vilification” and should be severed from the legislation.
- The Court lays out what it calls an “objective” approach: would a “reasonable person,” knowing the full context and circumstances of the hateful speech, believe it likely to raise the risk of discrimination or some type of societal harm?
- The Court’s notion of a risk of “harm” that results from hate speech is ill-defined. Shouldn’t there be evidence that the expression of hatred had actual discriminatory effects?
45
What is the muscular liberal approach?
the scenario where hateful speech produces an actual harmful environment for vulnerable groups seems to imply the lowest common denominator expectation of the reaction broader society will have to the hateful speech. Why expect, however plausible, that a harmful environment will be produced rather than the opposite: where individuals drown out the haters with expression of their own?
The “reasonable apprehension of harm” approach seems to act in direct contradiction to the Court’s stated position that the standard of review should be based on the effects of the speech rather than the ideas contained within.
46
Multicultural Liberal Approach
The end goal of hate speech is to shift the environment from one where harm against vulnerable groups is not tolerated to one where hate speech has created a place where this is either accepted or a blind eye is turned. Hence, the best approach to take is one of a “reasonable apprehension of harm.”
- The standard laid out for lower courts to follow ultimately boils down to “some hateful ideas are okay, but not the really hateful ones that a reasonable person thinks might cause discrimination or harm.”
- Likewise, this not only creates a general criteria for hate speech, but also allows the creation of loopholes.
47
What are the beliefs of the sanctity of life?
A paradigm founded by community values and religious belief, created to pursue their values and moral code without question.
- If the sanctity of life is made by God, then why are their exemptions? Initiatives created within the religious context, which beings with the assertion that life is a holy and that this holiness must be served in all we do.
- All life is made in gods image, hence human beings cannot intentionally hasten death upon another by either commission (a positive act such as shotting someone) or omission (a negative act such as retracting food and water).
- Stord-ship: Human life is loaned from God; hence it is valuable and sacred, and only god can take it. You are a Stord on your body. God is infallible, being however should not act as such.
- Suffering: Suffering possess transcended meaning and purpose that individuals have no access to. God has purpose for all suffering and events, no human being can intervene with your purpose. Furthermore, mortals are made to suffer for their sins, questioning suffering equates to questioning God. Suffering must be endured; you accept suffering as it is the completion of your prophets suffering. Suffering had to be endured as the penalty of sin. The good death would involve the administration of the sacraments and provide the opportunity for the sick person to atone for any wrongdoings and provide the opportunity for the sick person to atone for any wrongdoings committed in life.
- Divine wrath: Disobedience of the sanctity of life jeopardizes the safety of the community, as unless the community rids of the pollution (through exile, persecution or death) the community suffers the punishment.
- Innocent versus non-innocent exception: a moral distinction that assumes that Gods command exempted non-innocent individuals from the sanctity of life principle, individuals can take the life of those labeled as sinful (those who go against the mainstream groups command, heretic, outsiders).
- Nazism: used as a mechanism to scare individuals from euthanasia and to preserve the sanctity of life, through the example of the use of euthanasia to murder thousands of Jews during the Nazi regime.
- Martyrdom testified for an individual’s faith, dying for one’s faith, when Christians went willingly to their death at the hands of imperial authorities were celebrated, contradicts the sanctity of life.
- Intend versus foresee exception: Individuals are pardoned from killing innocent people if they did not intend to do so, as people can only foresee the possibility of it happening. (Excusing collateral damage evident in wars). A valid distinction can be drawn between consequences that are intended and those that are foreseen (and even inevitable) but not desired.
- God equals community values: People become the arbiters of life and death, excusing and morphing community values to suit their interests and justify mass murder. Shifting the moral code and blurring the lines between community values and what is God sent, as they begin to equate each other. This is evident by the form of moral code pursued, as it suits interests such individuals interested and it provides such individuals power by declaring such codes as divine or go given. Humans are not separated from God, they are the forgotten creators of God, made to excuse their own values and moral codes. When cultural and religious beliefs become ingrained in society, it is difficult to undo them.
- If life is too sacred for one to seek release from it under any circumstances, does life nit also become too sacred to have it taken away by another?
- Jewish scriptures state: Death was the penalty for sin and life was a gift from God that his people were meant to choose so they could continue to love, honor, and obey him. Choosing death was an affront to God that demonstrated contempt for the gift of love “No man has authority over the day of death”.
- The emergence of Christianity and Judaism were momentous factors that shaped the new era in the history of euthanasia.
- Euthanasia constitutes an interference with expiation for sin, and thus subverts the divine plan.
- Suicide deprived society of the roles we are expected to play; it offended God, the proprietor of all life.
48
What is the life ethos/principle?
he belief in autonomy, an individual’s autonomy is sacred, their consent is required and constitutionally needed.
- Suffering is subjective to the individual’s circumstance; you cannot identify with another’s suffering.
- It is because life is finite that we do not postpone the quest for meaning indefinitely. Death and finitude are what give humanity its precious quality. That is your way of affirming the sacredness of life. Individuals can take their own lives or ask others to do the deed if they were stricken by painful and incurable illnesses that may affect their quality of life and put an end to torture. By taking their own lives to escape physical torture of disease and disability resides the Utopia “lose nothing but suffering”.
- When medical science shifts from expanding the length and quality of life and begins to simply postpone the reality of death, the sacredness of life is no longer served. We can push back death inexorably; human life has evolved to a point at which it must accept godlike responsibilities.
- The freedom to kill oneself was a sign of one’s autonomy and one’s power over the vagaries of existence. – a form of mercy killing.
- Life is an individual’s property, not Gods.
49
What is the origin of Sacredness of human life? Bishop John Shelby Spong "Death: A Friend to be Welcomed, Not an Enemy to be Defeated,
- Judeo-Christian faith opens in the book of Genesis with the assertion of life’s sacredness.
- The assertion that life is holy, and that this holiness must be served in all we do.
- Human life has been made in the divine image, hence the power to live or die resides in God alone – No one can be given the liberty of ending his or her life under any circumstances.
- The bible prescribes the death penalty for: worshipping false gods, being disobedient, talking back to or cursing one’s parents, for being a medium, a wizard, or witch, committed adultery and having sex with one’s mother-in-law.
50
What are four historical examples that demonstrate how Christians or authorities have ignored the sanctity of life to detriment of others
- Christians have endorsed wars, killed religious enemies and imposed the death sentence upon those who violate either the norms of faith or the boundaries of prejudice under a particular set of circumstances in the present – This creates an irrational inconsistency.
- Christians have fought religious wars in which people were killed deliberately, justifying these political acts of violence with elaborate arguments about what constitutes a “just war”
- Christians have employed the practice of capital punishment in the Western world throughout history.
- Giordano Bruno burned at the stake in 1600 by the religious authorities because he taught that the earth was not the center of the universe, which contradicted the prevailing Christian synthesis of the time.
- The Inquisitions execution of thousands of human beings for the sin or “crime” of being a Jew.
- The Crusades, sponsored by the Vatican, convenient murders of many Jews in Europe after their journey to free the holy land from nonbelievers failed to reach their appointed destination.
- Christian church enforcement of prejudice against homosexuals by burning so many of them at stake that the little stick that ignited the fire called a “f*****” became a derisive slur applied to homosexuals.
51
What was significant about the Sue Rodreguiez?
- Was slowy dying from ALS and she wanted the right to have physicians's help to end her life.
- Assisted suicide was illegal in Canada, so Rodriguez applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in December 1992 to have section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, which prohibited assisted suicide, declared constitutionally invalid on the grounds that it violated sections 7 (Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security), 12 (Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) and 15(Every individual is equal before and under the law) of the Charter. Arguing that she has a right to refuse treatment and hence die, as she is physically unable to commit suicide or refuse treatment due to her disability, hence the discrimination. Sue Rodriguez’s right to security of the person was denied by section 241(b) because it deprived her of personal autonomy in decisions concerning her body and that it caused her both physical pain and psychological distress.
- following a 5-4 majority ruled that it was constitutional and did not violate CCRF
- Lastly, she committed suicide by her doctor
52
What was significant about the Robert Latimer Case?
- Ended his 12 year old daughter's (Tracy's) life
- Tracy had Cereal Palsy (disorder of muscle control cause by brain damage)
-Latimer was charged with first degree murder
- He appeals to the supreme court, and it was ruled that Latimer's crime could not be justified through defence of necessity
- found that Latimer's sentence was not a breach of section 12 of CCRF
53
What was significant about the Nancy B Case?
- Nancy was a young woman suffering from incurable neurological disease
- Nancy B objected against taking life-sustaining treatment (eg. respirator)
- Quebec court recognized her right to consent or withhold from medical treatment
- The court held that a patient's right to consent or withhold consent to any medical process has been recognized throughout legal history.
- The court cited other jurisdictions that have granted permission to cease life-sustaining treatment in similar situations.
- The court concluded that her imminent death would be considered a natural occurrence and would not carry any criminal culpability for the doctor or hospital.
54
In 2012, how did Gloria Taylor finally win her assisted suicide case in Carter v. Canada?
Gloria Taylor suffered from ALS, she and the BCCLA filed the lawsuit in April 2011 to challenge the laws that make it a criminal offense to assist seriously and incurably ill individuals to die with dignity. The legal challenge seeks to allow seriously and incurably ill, mentally competent adults the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death under certain specific safeguards.
55
In 2012, how did Gloria Taylor finally win her assisted suicide case in Carter v. Canada?
Gloria Taylor suffered from ALS, she and the BCCLA filed the lawsuit in April 2011 to challenge the laws that make it a criminal offense to assist seriously and incurably ill individuals to die with dignity. The legal challenge seeks to allow seriously and incurably ill, mentally competent adults the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death under certain specific safeguards.
56
Section 7 (Taylor Case)
(Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security)
- the Court held that the laws prohibiting physician-assisted dying interfere with the liberty and security of the person of individuals who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.
- They interfere with liberty by constraining the ability of such individuals to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care, and with security of the person by leaving such individuals to endure intolerable suffering.
- The Court also held that the laws deprive some people of life by forcing them to take their own lives prematurely for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached a point where their suffering was intolerable.
57
Section 15 (Taylor Case)
(Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination)
- The Court held that the prohibition on assistance in dying is not arbitrary because it “clearly helps achieve” the legislative objective of protecting vulnerable persons from being induced to die by suicide at a moment of weakness. However, the prohibition was found to be overbroad because it applies to individuals who are not vulnerable (as they are able to commit suicide unassisted with no consequence, while people with disabilities are physically unable to do so), thereby denying the rights of some people in a way that bears no relation to the purpose of the law.
58
Section 1 (Taylor Case)
(The charter guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.)
- Limitations of Charter protections are constitutional if they are reasonable and demonstrably justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter.
- The Court concluded that the section 7 limitation was not justified. Although the Court accepted that the absolute prohibition on assistance in dying furthers a pressing and substantial objective, it concluded that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards could protect vulnerable people from abuse and error and that the absolute prohibition goes farther than reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative purpose.
59
What is the ideal to aspire to (homophobia)
Procreation, if one person does not participate in procreation, they are looked down on
60
What is perfectionism?
Uniformity of values; everyone else needs to be put into place (Sinners)
61
What are the 5 main ideas of perfectionism?
1) One set of values. Everyone must follow their roles and ideals in society
2) The majority always wins
3) You will get punished for your voice
4) Rejection of pluralism
5)Arrogance (close-minded towards homosexuality)
62
What are the 5 main beliefs of Contractualism?
- Effecient social arrangement increase welfae of one person without decreasing another welfare
- Each person can pursue their own good life in a private matter
- People who disagree morally about alternate aims of life, can peacefully coexist together
- An efficient society is like a good car ( May not selcect your destination, however helps you get their without minimal hassle
- Society is more efficient when it does not harm majority
- Living in a contractualist societies must have consent
63
What does embracing diversity encourage other generations to form these skill sets
Respect
Empathy
Civility
64
What did Aristotle believe?
Believed in the pursuit of a “good life”, the aim of human existence should be to achieve happiness or fulfillment
65
What is the purpose of political association is to achieve the perfect man?
starts with an ideal of the best human life and then organizes all society to assist individuals in the pursuit of said ideal.
66
Is scientific reality and culturally specific knowledge the same?
Scientific reality and culturally specific knowledge are not the same. The concepts of what define natural and unnatural are concepts taken from Christian theology rather than scientific fact.
67
What is the most important component of sexual morality?
Consent is the most important component of sexual morality in the contractual age, everyone can agree about the need for consent during sexual activity
68
Using a three-step process, explain how tier-1 superficial tolerance functions as intolerance. Be sure to define each term, and then provide one (1) example of each type of intolerance as they relate to Muslims.
Tier-0 tolerance: no tolerance – use of violence and open disproval and hate. The projection of white supremacists that do not want to integrate onto immigrants and minorities, accusing minorities for not wanting to integrate because you do not want to integrate. Projection of racism instead of confessing their fear of difference – often blames the policies that allowe3d multiculturalism, despising those that introduced multiculturalism and add more diversity.
Tier-2 superficial tolerance: no judgement calls made; you view them as equals under the constitution. Adopting a multicultural policy. Tolerance that stops with the constitution.
Tier-1 superficial tolerance: Tolerance to a degree – has different types, namely:
labelling minorities, segregation of minorities, scapegoating minorities
69
What does labelling minorities entail?
- Labelling groups and societies differ from the majority, labelling a specific minority as inferior barbaric and immoral.
- Used in everyday language through microaggression – although it may abide by the law it delivers hateful speech and fuels violence against said minority.
70
What does Segregation of minorities entail?
- Ensures that minorities are indivisible by keeping their culture and identity concealed.
- No visibility, start implementing laws that remove their visibilities.
- It is a solution to a non-problem.
71
What does scapegoating minorities entail?
- Blaming the minority for society’s ills, blaming them for radical acts
- Suggests that introducing their culture will lead to dangers.
- Muslim families are assumed to be a threat.
- New immigrants cause social strive, blamed for the struggles of society (jobless, radical ideology).
72
What myths did Anders Breivik perpetuate about multiculturalism that led to a deep-seated hatred of Muslims/liberals? Explain in detail three (3) of these myths.
- Believed Muslims were dangerous.
- Often an individual’s prejudice is sought out and projected through the propaganda and reading they choose to partake in.
- Anders Breivik read such propaganda and used it to fuel his prejudice through violence. He went to a government building and set off a boom, as an attack towards those that enforce multiculturalist law – killing 8 government workers.
- He later shoots 69 children and people – with the intention of gaining an audience and attention to spread his anti- multiculturalist theory. Furthermore, by killing children he hoped to prevent generational tolerance.
- Breivik believed that Muslims would dominate Europe and control both Christians and Jews.
- That is false, as per evidence, the next generation of Muslim kids in western countries do not maintain the same rigid religious beliefs as their families due to integration which fades faith.
- He believed he had to fight against his targets - politicians that allow Muslim integration and anyone that promotes tolerance or tolerates integration.
- Anti-European hate ideology: he had to use a premediated strike against them, judged them as guilty of treason before any crime was even committed.
- He wanted to prevent them from committing cultural genocide and extremism.
- A demographic war he aimed to win.
- These ideas were brought from mainstream media, that has played anti-multicultural broadcasting. Promoting the violent image of multiculturalism and Muslims.
- However, the media does not take responsibility for encouraging violence, suggesting that was not the intention or the redirect of the media.
- When anti-multiculturalism is too rigid it becomes violence – all extremes are dangerous.
- Conception of such ideology are based on misreading’s and impacts of anti-multicultural media and politicians.
- Bruce Bawer – who inspired Andrew states: Inspired Andrew by proposing solutions to stop Muslims in Europe through armies, police and prisons. Then after the shooting states that Andrew is still highly intelligent (as he was unable to shame his actions as it would discredit Bawers ideology and theories.
- individuals like that do not take responsibility for inciting shooting however encourage the violence and hate through their work. Often such individuals do not criticize their work or take judgements.
- Spreads demographic warfare redirect. Muslim population will grow and overtake, a demographic takes over. A fear that the presence of immigrants is what pollutes, the great replacement, replace the dominant group.
- False as people that immigrate westernize and adopt the values of society.
- Often individuals will blame the multicultural policies rather than the deflected prejudice.
73
What is Rigid secularism?
Rigid and loyal belief towards one ideology. May create policies that suggest that removes the visibility of other beliefs – tied to intolerance.
- Immigrants that are unfamiliar with European Judeo-Christian nature and western democracies are unable to integrate.
- Often a form of projection: individuals unwilling to integrate will blame the other party and project their own prejudices.
- Immigrants will retain their culture and spread their culture and influence rather than integrate.
74
What is Equality and Multiculturalism
- Typically, not rigid.
- Supports equal rights – equally under the law, equality under the constitution.
- Tied to tolerance.
- Does not tolerate extremists – supports the equal treatment of all individuals, minorities and cultures.
- Invites plurality.
- Equal rights are sacred in a multicultural society.
- Everybody is treated fairly under the constitution.
75
What is Shallow Multiculturalism
- Integration and the assimilation of immigrants is not possible.
- Immigrants are incompatible and incapable of adopting Canadian Values.
- Immigrants are tainting Canadian values, namely: democracy, freedom, multiculturalism and humanitarian caring country.
- The presence and title of “minorities” presents the failure of integration.
76
What is Deep Multiculturalism ?
- It is easy to build bridges across cultures.
- There’s an overlap between cultures.
- Integration is possible with work and effort.
- You learn from others through deep multiculturalism – learning develops through mixing.
77
What is Liberal Expectancy
- Expectation of immigrants to be liberal.
- Immigrants will gravitate towards charter values.
- Stop provoking immigrants if you want them to display respect to your constitution.
- People will integrate if you display deep multiculturism, contrastingly if not immigrants are unable to naturalize into Canadian Society.
