Effective communication in English or French to be a Canadian citizenship requirement

From here:

People applying for Canadian citizenship must now provide “objective evidence” that they can not only read, but actually communicate in English or French. If they don’t have a diploma from an English or French school, they will have to either pass a language test or take government-approved language classes.

By that measure, Rowan Williams would be denied Canadian citizenship.

Some Muslim families coming to Canada don’t want to be Canadian

From here:

WINNIPEG — A dozen Muslim families who recently arrived in Canada have told Winnipeg’s Louis Riel School Division that they want their children excused from compulsory elementary school music and coed physical education programs for religious and cultural reasons.

“This is one of our realities in Manitoba now, as a result of immigration,” said superintendent Terry Borys. “We were faced with some families who were really adamant about this. Music was not part of the cultural reality.”

Britain is finally waking up to the fact that living in Britain entails becoming British:

The Prime Minister also hit out at Labour’s experiment with multiculturalism – calling it a failure. He says society has failed to provide a strong sense of what it means to be British, making it easier for extremists to prey on youngsters seeking something to identify with.

He added: ‘We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.

Canada should do the same.

Another nail in the marriage coffin

From here:

Saskatchewan’s highest court has ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.

The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.

But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.

This decision has the unusual property of making sense and not making sense simultaneously.

It make sense because, from a secular perspective, once marriage has been redefined – and it has been – to mean just about anything you want it to mean, you cannot deny it to those who would have been outside its purview before redefinition. We shall see how long it takes for incestuous and polyamorous marriages to be accepted by the courts.

It makes no sense in the context of religion – which, after all, was the inventor of marriage – since all major religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Western Anglicanism excepted, of course, but, then, it is no longer a major religion.