I actually think you're both making valid points, yet neither acknowledging that this is a much more difficult question than we like to think.
If you're going to move to a country I think you ought to be able to adapt to their culture to some degree. In short, you shouldn't expect or demand they adapt to your culture. This gets tricky when it involves law. Traditionally, Europe and North American liberalism tends to push for greater individual freedom. At times they move backwards (sometimes in a huge way... Germany) but the general trend is towards greater individual social choice and opportunity. Which makes things like outlaw Muslim clothing in schools seem contrary to liberal values. However it's equally fair to suggest that the implementation of gender-based clothing, one which so openly aims at restricting individual freedom in a sense, in fact violates liberal values of gender equality. The genders are not yet equal in liberal western countries, but we like to think we're moving further in that direction, not backwards. It's a very difficult balance and Europe is having a hard time adapting to this change.
On the other hand, I think Lucy's side over Sam is that certain groups attempt to bring over cultural artifacts that actively work to not only influence our culture but bluntly reject it in all form. There are certain cultural points we see as basically optional - music, hamburgers, hockey (well, may hockey is not optional!) - and others that are the basis of our stability, growth and philosophical base.
I have dreams (wild fantasies) about how good diplomacy could influence China. In those dreams I imagine democracy, movement towards ethnic and gender equality, freedom of religion and the resolution of the Tibet question. In all of these fantasies freedom of press and freedom of religion are the first ones that occur. This is because neither would forcibly destroy the philosophical basis of the national identity. Free press, art and religion were pretty prevalent in China for a good long while, at least relative to the current time. I believe democracy would also foster Chinese culture and philosophy, growth and strength, but it couldn't come quickly or through outside influence. Movement towards equality and resolution of domestic issues would then be natural.
As an immigrant, I don't believe it's my place to push for democracy; it would be too destabilizing at the moment. Free press would eventually lead that way anyway, and I don't believe it would do anything but good for the nation.
So maybe the divide is between things which threaten the philosophical, economic or cultural basis, and those which could simply be molded into the existing culture. That would explain why I and many others couldn't care less if a Muslim woman wants to wear a Burka, yet are displeased with Dutch Muslims demanding the removal of all images of Mohammad: the Burka could just become another piece of fashion in my country and I wouldn't care; some Muslim groups pushing for a law that reflects the basis of their culture (religious observance) rather than the basis of my culture (freedom of expression) is just too far. This might be a workable line in the sand, though there are bound to be odd cases that come up and are not so easy to analyze.
If you're going to move to a country I think you ought to be able to adapt to their culture to some degree. In short, you shouldn't expect or demand they adapt to your culture. This gets tricky when it involves law. Traditionally, Europe and North American liberalism tends to push for greater individual freedom. At times they move backwards (sometimes in a huge way... Germany) but the general trend is towards greater individual social choice and opportunity. Which makes things like outlaw Muslim clothing in schools seem contrary to liberal values. However it's equally fair to suggest that the implementation of gender-based clothing, one which so openly aims at restricting individual freedom in a sense, in fact violates liberal values of gender equality. The genders are not yet equal in liberal western countries, but we like to think we're moving further in that direction, not backwards. It's a very difficult balance and Europe is having a hard time adapting to this change.
I think this is kind of closed-minded. I do not approve of the Chinese system and have a great many criticisms, yet I will likely live here for a long time. I've learned a lot about the positives of China's system and my stay here has been an excellent learning experience. I welcome people to come to Canada and openly criticize our culture and our politics: Nothing was ever solved by people staying quiet; much improves through debate and interaction. My only caveat is that while you are welcome to criticize, debate and influence our culture so long as you do so while trying to work within it, rather than try to destroy or stay outside. Not only do I think it's basic good manners and good education to be inside of a culture you live around, it also happens to be the best way to influence a culture.
On the other hand, I think Lucy's side over Sam is that certain groups attempt to bring over cultural artifacts that actively work to not only influence our culture but bluntly reject it in all form. There are certain cultural points we see as basically optional - music, hamburgers, hockey (well, may hockey is not optional!) - and others that are the basis of our stability, growth and philosophical base.
I have dreams (wild fantasies) about how good diplomacy could influence China. In those dreams I imagine democracy, movement towards ethnic and gender equality, freedom of religion and the resolution of the Tibet question. In all of these fantasies freedom of press and freedom of religion are the first ones that occur. This is because neither would forcibly destroy the philosophical basis of the national identity. Free press, art and religion were pretty prevalent in China for a good long while, at least relative to the current time. I believe democracy would also foster Chinese culture and philosophy, growth and strength, but it couldn't come quickly or through outside influence. Movement towards equality and resolution of domestic issues would then be natural.
As an immigrant, I don't believe it's my place to push for democracy; it would be too destabilizing at the moment. Free press would eventually lead that way anyway, and I don't believe it would do anything but good for the nation.
So maybe the divide is between things which threaten the philosophical, economic or cultural basis, and those which could simply be molded into the existing culture. That would explain why I and many others couldn't care less if a Muslim woman wants to wear a Burka, yet are displeased with Dutch Muslims demanding the removal of all images of Mohammad: the Burka could just become another piece of fashion in my country and I wouldn't care; some Muslim groups pushing for a law that reflects the basis of their culture (religious observance) rather than the basis of my culture (freedom of expression) is just too far. This might be a workable line in the sand, though there are bound to be odd cases that come up and are not so easy to analyze.
