What do you think?
Rate this book
Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism
In our time the ideology of multiculturalism the set of ideas that all cultures are equal and deserving of equal treatment in a liberal democracy such as Canada is linked to the pressing demand for equality in Western societies as these become increasingly multi-ethnic due to immigration and open borders. When first proposed, the idea of an official multiculturalism program to be sponsored by the state, supported by tax-payers, and monitored and enforced by thought-police (human rights commissions) was at best dubious, and at worst is by its very nature poised against Western liberalism. Moreover, as mentioned, it was based on the false idea another official lie, really that all cultures are equal. However, that is an orthodoxy of the last century increasingly dismissed by serious thinkers. That is because there are established criteria making it possible to judge the achievements of all cultures, whether in the arts and literature, religion, philosophy, technology, modes of governance, or science; but the primary criterion that makes possible all human achievement is freedom. My point is that although multiculturalism once seemed a very good idea, at least to politicians and others smitten with the ambition for unity, it is increasingly shown to be a lie a delectable lie, perhaps, yet a lie nevertheless that is destructive of the West s liberal democratic heritage, tradition, and values based on individual rights and freedoms. This could have been foretold, as indeed those philosophers and historians of ideas who viewed freedom as immeasurably more important than equality in the development of the West did foretell. They admonished people against the temptation to abridge freedom in pursuit of equality.
- GenresPolitics
186 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 15, 2019
This book is a critique of multiculturalism from a classical liberal perspective. It’s a primer and perfect for someone who has no prior reading in political science or political theory, (like me :)).
Its major points include:
1. Classical liberalism emphasizes individual freedom in a society protected by the rule of law. It assumes that people are created equal and deserving of equal treatment under the law. This is unlike some parts of the world that see people as collectives (tribes, castes, classes, etc.).
2. Freedom of speech is the key building block of a liberal democracy.
3. Multiculturalism holds a collectivist view of people by grouping them by “culture". It assumes that all cultures are equal and deserving of equal treatment, a premise which is easily deemed false when it's given a little thought.
4. The danger of multiculturalism is when a liberal democracy grants rights and freedoms to a group that does not respect the rights and freedoms of the individual (ie Islam). This violates the essence of a liberal democracy and sets a society up for conflict.
Good book. I learned a lot.
Its major points include:
1. Classical liberalism emphasizes individual freedom in a society protected by the rule of law. It assumes that people are created equal and deserving of equal treatment under the law. This is unlike some parts of the world that see people as collectives (tribes, castes, classes, etc.).
2. Freedom of speech is the key building block of a liberal democracy.
3. Multiculturalism holds a collectivist view of people by grouping them by “culture". It assumes that all cultures are equal and deserving of equal treatment, a premise which is easily deemed false when it's given a little thought.
4. The danger of multiculturalism is when a liberal democracy grants rights and freedoms to a group that does not respect the rights and freedoms of the individual (ie Islam). This violates the essence of a liberal democracy and sets a society up for conflict.
Good book. I learned a lot.
December 2, 2014
"Delectable Lie ...a Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism" is a must-read for freedom-loving people ...especially Canadians and Americans before it is too late which some say it already is for parts of Europe.
'Multiculturalism' as defined by Canadian Salim Mansur is an ideology (set of ideas and ideals) which posits that the traditions of all cultures are equal and, therefore, deserving of equal treatment and respect in a "liberal democracy".
He explains that what multiculturalism does well is actively and stealthily undermine and subvert core democratic principles of individual freedom by extending equal rights to cultures that oppose these ideals.
He similarly makes clear that multiculturalism, also using it's companion, Canadian name of 'pluralism', is a plague which is destroying freedom in Canada and throughout the West. He points out that freedom-loving countries around the world have become infected by this disease which was first bred in Canada in the leftist-liberal, test-tube mind of Liberal Party Leader and later Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau.
Mr. Mansur calls Prime Minister Trudeau's policy pandemic a "delectable lie" that produces the addictive and mythical liberal notion that multiculturalism / pluralism enriches classical liberal democracy.
Mr. Mansur paints a fascinating and scary picture of the who, what, where, when and why of the spread of this deadly disease. It's difficult to dismiss his well-documented thesis and write him and it off by labelling him with the typical politically-correct "phobia" because Mr. Mansur is a Sunni Muslim who immigrated to Canada from India. He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario here in Canada, plus an adviser to Western governments .
Blessings as you enjoy and learn of the dangers of political correctness around the "Demonic Duo" of "multiculturalism and pluralism from this book.
GaryFPatton
(gfp '42™ 2013-10-16)
'Multiculturalism' as defined by Canadian Salim Mansur is an ideology (set of ideas and ideals) which posits that the traditions of all cultures are equal and, therefore, deserving of equal treatment and respect in a "liberal democracy".
He explains that what multiculturalism does well is actively and stealthily undermine and subvert core democratic principles of individual freedom by extending equal rights to cultures that oppose these ideals.
He similarly makes clear that multiculturalism, also using it's companion, Canadian name of 'pluralism', is a plague which is destroying freedom in Canada and throughout the West. He points out that freedom-loving countries around the world have become infected by this disease which was first bred in Canada in the leftist-liberal, test-tube mind of Liberal Party Leader and later Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau.
Mr. Mansur calls Prime Minister Trudeau's policy pandemic a "delectable lie" that produces the addictive and mythical liberal notion that multiculturalism / pluralism enriches classical liberal democracy.
Mr. Mansur paints a fascinating and scary picture of the who, what, where, when and why of the spread of this deadly disease. It's difficult to dismiss his well-documented thesis and write him and it off by labelling him with the typical politically-correct "phobia" because Mr. Mansur is a Sunni Muslim who immigrated to Canada from India. He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario here in Canada, plus an adviser to Western governments .
Blessings as you enjoy and learn of the dangers of political correctness around the "Demonic Duo" of "multiculturalism and pluralism from this book.
GaryFPatton
(gfp '42™ 2013-10-16)
October 10, 2012
While interesting, a number of weaknesses:
- His characterization of individual rights brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s comment ‘there is no such thing as society’, in an overly classical liberal sense. Groups and group identities continue to be part of reality and society;
- Globalization means citizenship is less exclusive and immigration less a one-way ticket. Whatever our origins, we are more mobile, communications are instantaneous and almost free, and our identities are multi-layered;
- Group rights are part of the history of Canada and the Constitution (e.g, First Nation treaties, English and French language rights). Many other countries have similar historical ‘complexities’ that form their reality;
Canadian multiculturalism is integration and citizenship based, was driven in part by the Ukrainian-Canadian community that wanted their contribution to nation building in Western Canada recognized, just as British and French immigration built other parts of the country. Many European countries had more of a guest worker ‘separate community’ model, without integration and citizenship emphasis;
- Fixation on Muslim immigration and Muslim Canadians does not adequately compare and analyse in relation to past fears of the ‘other’ (e.g., Irish, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Sikh, etc.);
- Discussion of religious fundamentalism focusses almost exclusively on Islamist fundamentalism, with limited discussion of fundamentalists of other religions, apart from Sikh Canadians. A deeper, comparative analysis would be helpful; after all, from an individual rights perspective, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, both between and within communities, and most of the integration issues mentioned for Muslims have parallels in other religious communities.
Like many issues, the question is one of balance; an exclusive focus on individual rights, without taking into account how people see themselves and overall social conditions, is likely to be less effective than one that stresses individual rights but allows for some expression of group rights. But Mansur is right to flag the risk of over-emphasis of group rights, given how that limits the potential for individuals within those communities for full participation in wider society, and his critique of self-censorship and some of the related ‘spinelessness’ is on the mark.
- His characterization of individual rights brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s comment ‘there is no such thing as society’, in an overly classical liberal sense. Groups and group identities continue to be part of reality and society;
- Globalization means citizenship is less exclusive and immigration less a one-way ticket. Whatever our origins, we are more mobile, communications are instantaneous and almost free, and our identities are multi-layered;
- Group rights are part of the history of Canada and the Constitution (e.g, First Nation treaties, English and French language rights). Many other countries have similar historical ‘complexities’ that form their reality;
Canadian multiculturalism is integration and citizenship based, was driven in part by the Ukrainian-Canadian community that wanted their contribution to nation building in Western Canada recognized, just as British and French immigration built other parts of the country. Many European countries had more of a guest worker ‘separate community’ model, without integration and citizenship emphasis;
- Fixation on Muslim immigration and Muslim Canadians does not adequately compare and analyse in relation to past fears of the ‘other’ (e.g., Irish, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Sikh, etc.);
- Discussion of religious fundamentalism focusses almost exclusively on Islamist fundamentalism, with limited discussion of fundamentalists of other religions, apart from Sikh Canadians. A deeper, comparative analysis would be helpful; after all, from an individual rights perspective, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, both between and within communities, and most of the integration issues mentioned for Muslims have parallels in other religious communities.
Like many issues, the question is one of balance; an exclusive focus on individual rights, without taking into account how people see themselves and overall social conditions, is likely to be less effective than one that stresses individual rights but allows for some expression of group rights. But Mansur is right to flag the risk of over-emphasis of group rights, given how that limits the potential for individuals within those communities for full participation in wider society, and his critique of self-censorship and some of the related ‘spinelessness’ is on the mark.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews