Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Possible points from the opposition.

1) Workplaces in multicultural nations have been greatly negatively impacted. Diversity can
lead to increased misunderstanding, conflict, and decreased productivity. First of all,
language barrier can be a significant problem in increased conflicts and decreased in
productivity. It is inevitable that these migrants will struggle with trying to communicate in
their workplaces since majority of the migrants speak in different languages and are not
fluent in the host nations language. Mecklenburg Schools reports that over 84 languages
are now spoken within the international student population. Because of this language
barrier, the work system will be slowed down. Migrant workers will be working in a new
environment, language, and cultures. They will not be able to work efficiently and
productivity will be decreased. If the productivity in the base of the workers pyramid falls,
the entire economic system will become chaotic.
Multiculturalism leads to discrimination at the workplace and slow down the productivity
level. Muslims, like other minority groups, often experience discrimination on the job,
such as the termination or denial of employment because of religious appearance, the
refusal to accommodate religious practices on the job, or biased behavior by co-workers
or supervisors. Such actions are commonly due to misconceptions or ignorance about
Islams religious practices, rather than intentional prejudice. This means that merely
putting all these different people together wont make them understand each other. If we
merely view everyone as equals and not understand the differences between these
people, we will be increasing the discrimination, and decrease significantly the
productivity for these workers.

3) We have no argument to make against the contention the people should help others
in pain. Let us be clear that we are not advocating closed borders, especially to
refugees. In fact, it is because we want to promote human rights that we cannot
accept that all cultures are morally equal and deserve equal acceptance.
We believe Team Lithuania has the best of intentions, but this alone does not add up to
moral might. The Proposition looks at multiculturalism as an abstract idea rather than a
concrete one with a real-world context with consequences and entailments.
Promoting multiculturalism is much more than simply helping out the deprived. The
morality this argument rests on is not a new concept. It exists in the status quo. Many
states currently welcome refugees without actively promoting multiculturalism.
Beyond this, we would argue that multiculturalism is in reality not always morally justified.
If "helping people in need" is the moral value, we don't see that introducing cultures into a
Turkish bazaar of cultures will in fact help them. Even if the Proposition's brand of
multiculturalism affords special rights to individual or minority cultural groups, this just pits
one against another. Instead of serving to balance the inequalities that exist, it

entrenches attitudes of competition within rather than between nations, and discourages
integration and cooperation.
Furthermore, we submit that the rule of law and human rights are concepts that are
inherently superior and should be protected regardless of opposing cultural values.
Multiculturalism asks us to accept both cultural and moral relativism, because morals are
rooted in cultural perspectives. If we accept them all as equally valuable, then we are
forced to go along with cultural practices like infanticide, genital mutilation, the oppression
of women, even retributive murder. This is incompatible with morality as both the
Proposition and we present it.

4) The proposition has built this argument over a major assumption- that
multiculturalism will lead to harmony. The idea is attractive. What could be
more harmonious than marriage? However the reality is somewhat different.
Inter-ethnic marriages did little to lessen conflicts in Rwanda, Ireland, and the
former Czechoslovakia. In European nations such as France and UK, the
clash of values and the promotion of differences through multiculturalism
have drastically increased right-wing sentiment, evident in the rise of populist
governments led by politicians like Le Pen.
We would like to point out the fact that the proposition has provided why genetic
diversity is good, but has not given a link to multiculturalism, further than that it
facilitates the proximity necessary for cross-breeding. Cultures themselves are
not genetically encoded, and will not automatically be passed on. In fact, we
argue that the likelihood is a mass assimilation into pop culture, and a blurring of
cultural lines as they fail to be passed on. Will the child of an intercultural
marriage be expected to maintain both cultures in any sort of depth? How about
the grandchild whose parents are both of mixed ethnic descent? What we have
seen in North America and Australia is that by the 3rd and 4th generations,
cultural heritage, heroes, and perspectives have been subjugated to an almost
tyrannical pop culture. Many have mourned the loss of a sense of community and
traditions. Sure, its fun to walk down the street in Vancouver with a samosa in
one hand and sushi cone in the other, but cultural symbols like these can hardly
replace the richness of perspective, history, and shared experience they
represent, nor can the reality of such cultures be appreciated by the casual
consumer. We beg the Proposition to make it clear whether they are advocating
for genetic diversity or cultural diversity, as the likelihood of multiculturalism
bringing about both seems nave.

Multiculturalism is antithetical to liberal democracy.

Multiculturalism as a policy is founded on an impossibility, since in making space for all
values, it provides support for none, including those behind multiculturalism itself. Prop
has pointed to liberal democracies as the focus of their argument for multiculturalist
policies. Ironically, the reality of multiculturalism is antithetical to the principles of liberal
democracy, in that providing support for all cultures to operate freely in the same
framework entails a tacit acceptance of oppressive practices such as genital mutilation,
the suppression of womens rights, even child abuse. These stand in direct opposition to
liberal ideologies. Britain, with its ethnic pluralism and openness to different religions,
provides us with a good example of the naivete of multiculturalist policies. The London
bombings of 7 July, and the abortive bombings of 21 July testify that truly open and
egalitarian policies are overly optimistic. In particular, the fact that most of the
individuals involved were born and/or brought up in Britain a country that had given
them or their parents a refuge from persecution, fear or poverty and a guarantee of
freedom of worship has led many analysts, observers, intellectuals and opinionformers to conclude that multiculturalism has failed; even worse, that it can be blamed
for the bombings.
The unfortunate fact is that multiculturalism in its most desirable form that is, distinct
cultures existing side by side and yet interacting and influencing each other is a pipe
dream. We all think some cultures are better than others. We might value them because
they are more favorable to progress, more just and free. Globally, there is room for these
differences, and room for people to make choices, and room for ideas to compete.
Within a single nation, there is not. Laws have to be based on a set of ideologies that are
at the very least

Multiculturalism doesn't create diverse societies; it creates politically

correct societies.
The idea behind multiculturalism is that it will result in a rainbow of skin hues, native
fabrics, and foreign foods. It all looks very promising on paper, but the reality is
somewhat less picturesque. Canadas introduction of aggressive multicultural policies
thirty years ago continues to be what is considered a highly successful experiment, and
we are proud of that. So why wouldnt we want the whole world to turn into one big
Canada? Well try to explain why not. First of all, everybody would end up speaking
English, even if French or other minority language laws were enacted. A few generations
of children would simply be unable to communicate with their grandparents; later
generations would lose their heritage languages completely. Second, cultural traditions
would be suppressed in order to avoid conflict. In Torontos York region, school
Christmas concerts and some Halloween activities have been banned. Other examples
of this trend can be seen throughout Europe as some countries ban the wearing of
religious symbols in public. Laws like these are sometimes necessary in order to help
diverse societies avoid conflict, but they dont encourage expression or diversity.
With multiculturalism, as with most things, we are forced to choose. Do we want people
to live in the same society and become similar, or do we want them to form individual
societies and maintain the uniqueness of their cultures? We say the latter, or when the
current rate of globalisation makes that impossible, then cultures should be integrated
that is, people in a national community should be encouraged to place the core values of
that community before those of their ethnic or individual cultures. People who live in
liberal democracies should be encouraged, as much as possible, to share liberal,
democratic values, including respect for difference. Overall, this is what we see
happening in the status quo. It is not perfect; humanity is messy - but it is preferable to
universal multi

Opposition Summary

Prop offered us the idea that multiculturalism would result in exchange of ideas, thus
contributing to the states economy. We agree that this kind of an outcome is desirable,
but we dont believe it would happen on a scale large enough to offset the practical
issues related to pulling people out of the countries where their education is relevant,
and where they understand the culture and the language, and transplant them, leaving
behind social supports just when they are faced with a huge learning curve, that the
diversity of ideas alone will make the whole equation add up to greater productivity.
Instead of resulting in interactions between cultures, multiculturalism ends up either
bringing about greater isolation, or wearing down cultural differences. In some cases,
this adds to discrimination. It entrenches attitudes of competition within rather than
between nations, and discourages integration and cooperation.
Prop brought up the point that multiculturalism promotes more tolerant societies.
Multiculturalism is idealistic in theory, but its real effect is promoting politically correct
societies, eliminating cultural activities that do not involve all the cultures. It is liberal
democracy that protects the rights of minority groups, not multiculturalism, and
increasing the migrant population from different cultures as the proposition is proposing
is going to complicate that job, not make it easier.
We cannot quarrel with Prop in their contention that countries have a moral responsibility
to help those in need. What the opposition would like to clarify is first, that liberal
democratic governments accept refuges from all different cultures in the status quo;
second, that promoting the idea that all cultures are equal in value leaves room for at
least theoretical support for violations of human rights as some cultures value cultural
practices like infanticide, genital mutilation, the oppression of women, even retributive
Finally, Prop stated that promotion of multiculturalism is going to result in a healthy new
generation. The problem is that this argument destroys their previous supports for
multiculturalism, because it places multiculturalism as a throw-away means to the end of
cross-breeding, which will ultimately destroy cultural diversity and negate the benefits
the Prop has outlined.
Ultimately, Props plan is too short-sighted. Like a child mixing paints for the first time, it
is full of rainbow-dreams, but we all know what happens when you mix the paintbox: you
dont get a rainbow, but cloudy grey. We need some separation to keep the beauty there
is in diversity.