Multiculturalism does not mean anything goes

October 24, 2011

CALGARY, AB, Oct. 24, 2011/Troy Media/ – Multiculturalism has been described as a failure by various European leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron. However, as Canadians discuss the issue, care must be taken to distinguish our experience from Europe’s.

France has banned hijabs and niqabs from public facilities. Switzerland has banned the construction of minarets. European Union agencies charged with learning why African, Arab and Turkish immigrants aren’t fitting in well identify poverty and racism as barriers to integration. Politicians bemoan this lack of integration. Racist skinhead louts or ultra-rightist thugs clash with their darker complexioned counterparts on the streets of Paris, Amsterdam and Milan. Such is Europe. Such was always Europe, cynics say.

The merits of multiculturalism

As Canadians discuss the merits of multiculturalism, we should look with pride to the fact that we were first with our policy of multiculturalism in 1971, which affirmed the equality and contributions of all Canadians irrespective of ethnic, national or linguistic backgrounds or religious beliefs. Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires courts to make decisions “consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada.” The final instrument in this legal trilogy is 1988’s Multiculturalism Act which gave legal status to the policy of multiculturalism.

However, critics say multiculturalism promotes moral relativism. If all cultures are inherently valuable (so goes one of the most common “straw man” arguments of these critics) then we condone practices like female genital mutilation or “honour killings.” Another favourite theme of multiculturalism’s critics is that, by allowing Muslims and Sikhs to wear religious attire in public buildings, we encourage a diminished sense of loyalty to Canada. That these critics never question the loyalty of habit-wearing nuns or Orthodox Jews and their garb should show the speciousness of the criticism.

When, among other rights, newcomers can freely practice religion here without fear of persecution, surely this is critical for their successful integration. However, no religious or cultural practice is free from the constraints of the Criminal Code or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example: a South Asian immigrant family who arrives thinking it is acceptable to beat up or kill their daughters to enforce dating restrictions will find they are subject to the Criminal Code and the Charter like everyone else. There’s nothing relativist about that.

But what about Canadian values?

At some point, the multicultural discussion addresses the notion of Canadian values. Although there is nothing inherently wrong in this, such discourse may become unhelpful at some point, even unproductive. Many who identify as so-called “mainstream Canadians” (bigots of any stripe please insert the name of whichever ethnicity, nationality, or religion you want to devalue here), feel morally superior to newcomers struggling with issues of identity and fitting in. For example, take the hot button issue of “honour killings”. Barbaric as the practice admittedly is, it is tritely obvious too that Canadian women who are white and of Anglo-Celtic or other European backgrounds will suffer abuse and some will die at the hands of their boyfriends, husbands or exes in a domestic example that could attract the label of barbarity. Any sense of moral superiority is even more untenable when you consider that until legal reforms barely a generation ago husbands could force sexual intercourse on wives in Canada without any criminal consequences. How many of us had that in mind when we learned a few years back that Afghanistan’s lawmakers had failed to include a clause in their own criminal code that would make it illegal for a man to rape his wife?

Last year, at a conference in Calgary about gender equality and freedom of religion, one speaker touted a theory about multiculturalism that I’d heard before. The speaker was writer and self-anointed multiculturalism critic, Tarek Fatah. The theory was that former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had brought in multiculturalism 40 years ago to win votes in ethnic communities and dilute the demographic strength, and thus the political power, of Quebec’s francophones. Like so many others these days in our information-saturated world, he of course offered nothing to substantiate this categorical assertion. It didn’t matter, as his words won a lot of applause and support from his Calgary audience. However, as Canadians suss out how we are to live and work together, I think it behooves all of us to engage in more honest discussion.

Brian Seaman is a researcher with the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre. As part of this discussion, over November 10-11, 2011, Canadian and European experts in cultural diversity issues will meet at the University of Calgary. For more information, please visit www.regonline.ca/ACLRCEURAC.