Most of the issues they highlighted were the ordinary growing pains of any society with a diverse population: intermarriage, gender equality in religion, assimilation vs ethnic identity. To my mind, none of it showed Canada's mosaic as especially "uneasy". Multiculturalism and diversity bring all sorts of tensions and challenges. And a majoritarian society - where minorities are second-class citizens and conformity is required - does not?
In today's Star, Haroon Siddiqui offers a good perspective.
Canada Day brought with it the usual hand-wringing about Canada.
Are we too multicultural? Do we have enough common values? Are too many immigrants importing alien values and contaminating ours? Are too many of them clustering in "ethnic ghettoes" and not learning enough about Canada and other Canadians?
Such discussions tend to be ahistorical and, therefore, uninformed and unhelpful. Those fretting should read some history themselves.
Canada has always had ethnic enclaves, still does. Is the Lawrence and Bathurst neighbourhood too Jewish? Woodbridge too Italian? Rosedale too WASP? Yes. So what?
People live where they want to, with their own kind, if you will. The rich "self-segregate" in Forest Hill. Why are pundits mum on that bit of isolationism but pontificate against "ethnic segregation?"
Immigrants have always brought their beliefs, languages and cultures with them. They don't develop amnesia the moment they land in Canada. There was a time when they were expected to, and many pretended to. Multiculturalism has done away with that bit of posturing.
What we can, and do, demand of immigrants – something they accede to, anyway – is that they obey the law of their adopted land. They cannot import any cultural or religious practice that might run afoul of our law. Where there is ambiguity between the law and some egregious imported practice, the government outlaws it, as Ottawa did with female genital mutilation, by amending the Criminal Code to remove any doubt about its illegality here.
Prejudice against the religious practices of immigrants is also as old as Canada. Just ask the Catholics – French, Irish, Italians, etc. – and the Jews, who faced the most scorn.
Social exclusion, too, predates multiculturalism. In fact, it is universal and timeless. Most people marry their own kind. Why is intermarriage between whites the accepted norm but not among others?
There's always tension between the young and the old, especially in immigrant families. That's the push-pull of old values and new – and of "old country" attitudes and newer, evolving ones. That's the alchemy of a living, breathing – as opposed to an ossified, dead – culture.
Cultural and social effervescence is what makes Canada a nation of possibilities. Each generation feels free to redefine the country and does, for the better. That's something to celebrate, not condemn.
Immigrants are not the only ones blissfully ignorant of our history. In fact, a poll for the history-conscious Dominion Institute shows that immigrants may know more about Canada than the native-born. In a 21-question test, more immigrants answered more questions correctly than those born in Canada. While only 7 per cent of the foreign-born did not know the name of our prime minister, nearly thrice that many of the Canadian-born, 18 per cent, had no clue.
Canadian history should be compulsory in school. That would, to start with, make the debate on immigration/multiculturalism less banal, more logical. It would also help explain some Canadian quirks: why pipsqueak P. E.I. has four guaranteed seats in the House of Commons while Toronto is denied its due demographic representation; and why Catholic schools get government funding but not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other separate schools.
Often the debate on Canadian identity/values is a smokescreen for old-fashioned immigrant bashing. Or it is designed to denigrate multiculturalism, whose bedrock principle of the equality of all cultures and the dignity of all groups is hard for some people to stomach. So such people suggest setting some undefined "limits" on this or that immigrant religious/cultural behaviour.
But there can be no limits other than those drawn by the rule of law. People need not sacrifice their culture, religion and ethnicity, let alone their sense of self-worth, to suit majoritarian mores.
How far can respect for difference go? As far as the law allows, and no further.
This is not a negative assertion. Rather, it is a stirring affirmation of one of the core constitutional values of modern Canada: The strong shall not dictate to the weak on what is, or is not, acceptable. That power rests only with the people's parliaments.
No comments:
Post a Comment