Question

谢谢帮忙翻译一下吧。。。急急急

The closing years of the twentieth century were
depressing for anyone who believed that
Western societies were evolving towards a greater
appreciation, or even tolerance, of cultural diversity.
That may have seemed a logical conclusion
as the optimism of the 1960s was realised, in the
1970s and 1980s, in programmes, legislation, and
even in some cases constitutional amendments
that were designed to promote cultural harmony
and counter racism. Many countries developed
human rights instruments to ensure fair access
to their labour markets, for example, and multicultural
policies were adopted widely. But neoconservative
movements emerged in a variety
of countries in the final decades of the century.
In Austria, Australia, Denmark, France, the
Netherlands, and so on, these movements
revealed deep-seated antipathy to newcomers
who were culturally different from the mainstream.
Everywhere, it seemed, immigrants were treated with growing suspicion, with asylum
seekers and Muslims receiving particularly
negative attention.
Canada has been an exception to this nearly
universal trend, which is quite remarkable. As
in many other countries, there was a proverbial
earthquake in Canadian politics in the 1980s,
when the familiar three-party right/centre/left
system dissolved and was recast. The traditional
party of the right disintegrated, and two new
parties emerged – one of them seeking the
secession of Quebec which, many critics believed,
was the product of ethnic nationalism; the other
was motivated by neoconservative ideals. In this
maelstrom, with acute political sensitivities
and sharp discord on almost every conceivable
topic, the issue of immigration has somehow
remained virtually sacrosanct. The 1988 federal
election was the last that was dominated by the
traditional right/centre/left political configuration.
There were no real differences in the
platforms of the three parties with respect to
immigration, though they were strongly divided on almost every other issue. Surprisingly, this
was also the case in the subsequent elections of
1993, 1997 and 2000, even with five major parties,
and most recently, in 2004, with four major
parties. There is no Canadian counterpart to
the antagonistic, anti-immigration movements
elsewhere. On one level, it is easy to distinguish
a reason for this unanimity in Canada: there
was, and is, little to be gained by adopting an
anti-immigration stance in Canada because the
political constituency for this view is meagre.

Answer 1

二十世纪的最后几年是
任何人都认为，谁郁闷
西方社会有更大的发展走向
升值，甚至宽容，文化多样性。
这也许似乎是一个合乎逻辑的结论
作为20世纪60年代实现了乐观，在
20世纪70年代和80年代，在计划，立法，
甚至在某些情况下，宪法修正案
这是旨在促进文化和谐
和反种族主义。开发了许多国家
人权文书，以确保公平接入
他们的劳动市场，例如，和多元文化
政策广泛采用。但是，新保守主义
涌现出各种动作
在本世纪最后几十年的国家。
在奥地利，澳大利亚，丹麦，法国，
荷兰，等等，这些运动
揭示深层次的反感新人
谁是主流文化的不同。
无处不在，它看来，越来越多的移民分别用怀疑的眼光，庇护
求职者和接受，特别是穆斯林
负面的眼光。
加拿大一直是一个例外，这个近
普遍趋势，这是相当显着。随着
在许多其他国家，有一个众所周知的

地震发生在20世纪80年代加拿大的政治，
当熟悉的三方右/中心/左
系统解散，被改写。传统的
右翼政党的解体，两个新的
双方出现了 - 其中一个追求
魁北克分离主义的，许多评论家认为，
民族主义是产品，其他
是出于新保守主义理想。在这
漩涡，与尖锐的政治敏感性
和夏普在几乎每一个可以想象的不和谐
主题，在移民问题却令
大致神圣不可侵犯。 1988年联邦
选举是占主导地位，是由去年的
传统的右/中心/左政治结构。
目前还没有真正的差异，
三党就平台
移民，但他们强烈分歧几乎所有的其他问题。令人惊讶的是，这
也是在随后的选举情况
1993年，1997年和2000年，甚至有五个主要政党，
而最近，在2004年四，主要
各方。加拿大外长没有到
的对立，反移民运动
在其他地方。在一个层面上，很容易分辨
一本在加拿大一致的理由：有
过去和现在，小中能获得通过采用
反移民的立场，因为在加拿大
这种观点是微薄的政治团体。

Answer 2

密切岁的二十世纪在压抑而任何人谁相信西的社会在发展朝一个优越感谢，或偶的公差文化多样性的，。那可能有似乎一个合乎逻辑的结论由于乐观的1960s被实现，在1970s，1980在方案，立法，甚至在某些情况下宪法修正案，被计划促进文化的和谐和计数器种族主义。许多国家开发人权工具确保公平访问他们的劳动力市场，例如，多元文化政策被采取广泛。然而新保守主义运动出现在各种各样的国家在最后十的世纪。在奥地利，澳大利亚，丹麦，法国，荷兰，等等，这些运动揭示根深蒂固的反感新人谁文化性异于主流。
到处，它似乎，移民被对待增长怀疑，同庇护导引头，穆斯林收到尤其负的注意。加拿大已经是一个例外这将近普遍的趋势，——相当卓越。像在许多其他国家，有一个谚语的地震在加拿大的政治在1980s，当挚友three-party权/中心/左手系解散，重铸。惯例的党的正确的瓦解，二种新党出现像在许多其他国家，有一个谚语的地震在加拿大的政治在1980s，当挚友three-party权/中心/左手系解散，重铸。惯例的党的正确的瓦解，二种新党出现移民的问题有不知何故留实质上极神圣的。1988通过联邦选举产生最后那个被主宰附近的的惯例的权利/中心/离开政治的组态。有没有的真相差异在平台的三党关于移民，