Monday 18 August 2014

No Country for Old Values - Multiculturalism Revisited

Multiculturalism, as we practice it in Canada, has been in the news lately. Events involving various parts of the Middle East have been the driving force. I’ve been revisiting what I once believed about how the diverse pieces of our Canadian puzzle fit together and I am questioning our laisser-faire approach. So, for me, our multiculturalism is now in a state of flux.

You should see a remarkably informative and horrifying film called "Honour Diaries". It is the work of a woman named Raheel Raza, a Muslim Canadian lecturer and author of some note. She and eight other brave and brilliant women are the mainstays behind this feature-length documentary and, on camera, they expose the so-called 'cultural' issues confronting women within (primarily) the Islamic world. I use the single quote marks around the word cultural because, while the issues discussed do fit that description technically, they are examples of intolerable inhumanity forced on unwilling girls and women. I describe these remarkable women as brave because speaking out against female subservience, female circumcision, or undesired marriages is, for all intents and purposes, heresy…in some countries, death would be the end result for simply questioning practices that tie in directly with so-called family honour and are simply accepted there. Here in Canada, we reject them and we applaud the bold, public stance of these female heroes…what else can we do?

That question has an answer. We deplore these practices but we don't interfere. Indeed, we can do little about what customs are observed by others living thousands of miles away. But we must certainly speak out forcefully against human rights abuses on Canadian soil and we can find ways to stop such abuses here - and they do occur here! We have seen honour killings in Ontario and in  other parts of Canada…and we're appalled, but we aren't discussing the Canadian multicultural invitation we extend that tacitly allows these practices to continue in Canada.

I see a conflict between the acceptance of multiculturalism (which is a positive work in progress) and the absolutely nonsensical pretzel-twisting we seem to engage in because of the religious dictates of certain newcomers. This is not healthy multiculturalism. It's about immigrants with values counter to Canadian ones who want broad accommodation - even changes to common law, if possible. It is not discriminatory to say "here is how things work in Canada - if you have special needs, address them privately in your community...but respect our laws".

Meanwhile, the activities in question do occur behind closed doors in Canada. We tend to take the 'live and let live' approach, culturally. Sounds fair on a superficial level but it’s not – because that attitude doesn't address suffering, humiliation, and subjugation here at home and around the world. Because  something is a cultural tradition dating back centuries does not make it right. Female circumcision, for example, is not excusable under any circumstances which is why the non-participating world correctly calls it Female Genital Mutilation. 

Women in Canada and women everywhere must have a full and equal entitlement to dignity, self-determination, and to basic human rights. Women are not trying to be men…but women are fully equal under our laws and in the view of all thinking people the world over.

I tire of the convenience we afford groups practicing tribal rituals when, cast in another reality, such rituals would justify imprisonment. And so it is in this context that I question what Canadian multiculturalism really means today. Are  we to welcome anyone to our country and either tacitly or overtly acknowledge  certain practices of their religions or customs even when they challenge our Canadian beliefs and laws? I don't think so. When we began to discuss multiculturalism 50 years ago, I believed, along with most people, that we’d benefit from the contribution of newcomers who would offer the best of their backgrounds to our bright and multi-faceted mosaic. Generally, that has been the positive result.

Multiculturalism was, for me, never about restricting or changing existing broad common practice to suit newcomers. I've never thought of multiculturalism as having been designed to change mainstream Canadian life based on one group attempting to impose its' ways on others. In fact, my own immigrant background and how it meshed with Canadian reality has informed this view. I am from a generation when kids attended public and high schools under a Protestant school board. In the late 50s and early 60s, after saluting the Union Jack and singing God Save the Queen each morning, we recited The Lord's Prayer and sang hymns I can still remember...Onward Christian Soldiers, Jesus Loves Me, and others. Somehow, no one complained and our parents didn't object...they thought it was appropriate if this was, indeed, Canadian custom. I grew up to be a reasonably well educated non-Christian with a good grasp of Christian culture and, while no longer practiced, it probably helped reduce the divide.

I have been reading about efforts in France, Britain, the Netherlands to put the brakes on tolerance. That is sad because tolerance goes a long way towards correcting much of what is wrong around the world. Perhaps it's a slingshot effect following a lengthy period of allowing new immigrants to rewrite the rules instead of asking that they follow those already existent. I'd prefer we not go that route in Canada.

Here, all people of all religions, colors, social backgrounds, and sexual orientations are equal in fact and in law. No person may rule or dominate  another. If your culture forces young girls to accept a chosen (by you) husband, Canada may not be for you. If you force your wife or daughter to cover herself, Canada may not be for you. If you think that sex is entirely for procreation and that the choices of where, when, and under what circumstances are not a choice and right of the female partner, Canada may not be for you.

I support multiculturalism. I don’t support forced physical mutilation; forced marriage; forced servitude…or forced ANYTHING. My country is Canada and Canada has successfully built multiculturalism into its fabric. But it has also put human rights first and I believe human rights always supersede everything else.


If you are here in Canada now and not free to live as you wish, reach out to a support group, a law enforcement officer, a shelter, a trusted friend, anyone…and seek help. And if you are an abuser, I invite you to leave our land…this is not your home because you don't accept Canadian values, and you are no countryman of mine. 

Peter

2 comments:

  1. Hey Peter! I worked on your campaign a looong time ago and since then have been studying immigration policy at university, so this was a really interesting post. I've got two things to add:

    (1) On the word 'abuser'--real abuse happens, it's against the law, and it must be prosecuted. But I always try to maintain a humble perspective about this. I was forcibly circumcised (well, nobody asked me) days after I was born, because a few thousand years ago someone decided that this would be the mark of a Jewish male. Many people now consider this a form of genital mutilation. But I can't imagine how challenging it would be to grow up and know that I had been permanently cut off from the most basic rite of membership in the Jewish people because it made someone else uncomfortable. Point being, I am grateful that even the people who genuinely and deeply believe that male circumcision is wrong have the humility to understand that it may be right for the Jews--and I try to do the same for other practices that are unfamiliar to me. And if we still think that some rites or traditions are legal but bad, then we--like those opposed to circumcision--should do our best to engage in dialogue and explain exactly why we believe our practices are better.

    (2) In my time as a student of immigration policy, I am constantly--I mean, constantly--asked how it is possible for Canada to have achieved such a harmonious integration process. I am convinced that the answer is multiculturalism. Again, as I said above, genuine abuses of the law must be prosecuted. But the fact that the vast majority of immigrants to this country see no conflict between who they are and being Canadian is a huge deal. The truth is that the most powerful way to get immigrants to adopt liberal values is to encourage them to participate in shared institutions, like elections, schools, and community centres. Canada's immigrants do this at higher rates than any other immigrants in the world. Nowhere do immigrants vote at rates even comparable to Canadian immigrants. I think this is exactly because this sort of participation does not seem threatening to their ability to be themselves. So while I think it's important to think about when intervention in cultural practices is warranted, I think it's also crucial to be aware of how fragile and valuable Canada's multicultural order is. It is the envy of the world. And we must be careful not to undermine this enormous accomplishment while pursuing comparatively rare instances of criminally domineering behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I take both your points guardedly. I was aware in writing about FGM that the "infliction" of circumcision on a Jewish (or other) baby boy could be construed similarly by some. Not to get technical (I am not a physician!), but male circumcision is broadly practiced as a health issue and is no intrusion into the future life of that child as he matures. FGM is entirely different. It is forcibly performed on screaming, terrified adolescent girls, is often botched resulting in permanent damage or death, and forever denies all sexual pleasure. The two practices are not remotely comparable. There is no "live and let live" duality here for me.

    On your second point, I did take great pains to say that multiculturalism has largely been a positive thing and I support it. So have CPP and health care. Doesn't mean they can't use an update. Our multiculturalist tolerance is indeed unlike any other country's for many good reasons. Some, however, are not so desirable.

    I love Canada. I would take an oath of citizenship and I favor no duality of citizenship. Why aren't we having a look at that? Generally, I am a centrist who is more on the "progressive" side of conservatism - but on this issue, I stand by what I wrote.

    ReplyDelete