What Multiculturalism Should Mean to Canadians

"Some Will Take a Route that Others Will Avoid, Alhough All Propose to Arrive at the Same End" - Sir Wilfid Laurier

This paper will evaluate the liberal democratic principles that form the bedrock of Canada’s political institutions and uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Drawing on the principles of Canadian liberalist Sir Wilfred Laurier to illuminate the significations of liberalism and conservatism, this paper will illustrate that there is a trajectory that Canadian politics has set for itself, and the growth of minority accommodation ought to occur within the civil society that is the result of years of progress.
Drawing on an international comparison with multicultural policies of the Netherlands, this paper will draw interesting questions with regards to the manner in which minority cultures ought adjust to ‘Canadian life’, but also how modifications in the current system must be accepted in order to remain in line with the core value of Laurier’s liberalism. This paper will advocate that in a true multicultural system each culture is allowed to operate independent of state interference. But also, that if the tenets of a culture run contrary to the historically shared Charter, that each culture should be allowed to influence the legislation of the majority, and thus allow for the liberal development of Canadian society and citizens.

In 1890, Sir Wilfred Laurier spoke before Catholic Canadians of French descent in Québec City to clarify the tenets of Liberalism in Canada, and also those of Liberalism across the world. Canadian liberalism underwent many transformations of thought and propositions (Laurier 72) prior to the formation of the Liberal party. With the emergence of the Liberal Party in national politics, and such complex concepts as “Catholic liberalism”, Laurier was faced with describing liberalism to the Canadian public. At the time, the Conservative party had a firm ideological base. The Conservative party had tenaciously allied itself with the mores of the existing social structures, such as the Catholic Church and the Bishops who represented the institution. Many of the utmost important members of the Catholic Church staunchly and directly condemned the new liberal ideological stances as irreligious and heretical. For example, the Bishop of Plessis affirmed that “Catholic liberalism is the most ruthless and dangerous enemy to the divine constitution of the Church” (61) as it encourages Catholics to “applaud civil authority every time invades the sanctuary of the Church with iniquitous laws” (62).
Laurier asserts that Conservatism and Liberalism are universally contemporaneous and timeless concepts. For Laurier, liberalism originates from the acceptance that “everywhere in human affairs, there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up, and new forces to be developed” (69). As follows, conservatism is “charm of habit... [as] everywhere there is a class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient” (69). Liberalism is thus the acceptance that progresses and evolutions are necessary in order to allow for the enhancements that are necessary within society. Do these descriptions by Laurier encompass the modern usages of the terms? Basic descriptions of the term have also come to encompass that individual rights are basic tenets of liberalism. Yet here, to me it seems as though this is one means of allowing for the enrichment of society that Laurier claims is at the core of liberal thought. Thus, I believe that Laurier’s simple definitions provide apt descriptions of the two modes of thought that govern human action: conservatism and liberalism.

The mobility of human beings across the globe is physical evidence of progress against geographical constraints. Accordingly, the concepts of immigration and multiculturalism must be separated. Immigration is merely the influx of new migrants to the Canadian State. In contrast, Canadian multiculturalism signifies “a non-racist immigration policy; official encouragement, through generous subsidies, for cultural activities that express diversity; and official disapproval, increasingly forceful and effective, of any public expression of private tensions that naturally flourish” in locales with varied cultural manifestations (Trudeau 349). In societies with emerging ethnic and cultural diversity, immigrant minorities are becoming more visible, and thus requesting greater power and participation within the larger society. One means of allowing for culture to influence society is the model of cultural accommodation described in On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability. Shacher describes the manner in which state methodology becomes flexible “to facilitate identity group’s practices and norms” (65). The most common examples are that certain groups are exempted from existing state laws, or that groups obtain autonomous legal jurisdiction over certain facets and actions of their member’s lives (Shacher 65).
Elected officials of the majority thus allow for the cultural nomos of distinct communities to directly impact judicial decisions by means of culturally sensitive laws. Shacher points out that this model would require members of the subcultures to define their historical nomos and tradition, and therefore may be flawed as it would reinforce existing hierarchies within the communities. Furthermore, the scrutiny of cultural edicts would be difficult to oversee in order to maintain that individual rights according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected. This paper would also indicate two more weaknesses of this model for cultural accommodation. First, this model would fragment the justice system and erode the integrity of the institution as culturally administered jurisprudence would offer greater discrepancies in verdicts with sanctioned recourse in cultural relativitism. Second, if the aim is to allow minorities to flourish and gain a more extensive grasp of the entire spectrum of the Societal Scale, would old world cultural elite be able to capture what it means to be a young person of a minority background in Canada?
From a sociological point of view, the family and the community act to socialize youth. The communities provide reflections of the values that are prized in the society and alternately develop modes of discipline to deal with deviance from these culturally requisite values (Brym 275). As the consultation document for the Bouchard-Taylor Commission indicates, Societal Scale refers to the entire array of components or structures of a society, as opposed to the microsocial or community scale (Commission de Consultation 44). Thus, the formation of culturally distinct bodies of governance would decrease the effectiveness of minorities across the Societal Scale. The exclusion of immigrants from impacting the majority society would also present a failure of the liberal state, as it would weaken the possibility of this subculture from effectively demanding and extracting progress from the larger government institutions.


Nevertheless, states have two possible avenues for addressing cultural accommodation within their own institutions. First, they can support semi-autonomous but culturally distinct institutions. The second avenue available for states to address cultural accommodation within their own institutions is to allow direct state action. In the Netherlands, both of these avenues were attempted. There were cultural accommodation policies aimed at aiding the integration of immigrants into socio-economic domains, such as the education system and the labour market. It’s not certain if social cohesion was also an intended outcome. Rather, the haste with which the policies were formulated and championed suggests that inter-ethnic solidarity was already assumed by legislators and the members of the institutions who developed these policies.
But judging the real effectiveness of the policies, social solidarity among native and immigrant citizens was quite low. Schools denied admission to applicants based on the religion or ethnicity of their parents (Vasta 722). Native Dutch parents were afraid to leave their children in schools with high percentages of immigrant children (Vasta 720); concurrently, men of industry were equally apprehensive to hire highly qualified immigrants into their workforce (Vasta 722). These real-time distinctions base themselves on the visible characteristics and qualities of the immigrant population. In the situation of the Netherlands, where immigration influx has been present for over 60 years (Vasta 715), and the populace champions liberal values and tolerance, it is difficult to imagine prevalent racism. That the government openly accepted immigrants and did effort to establish the means for immigrants to attain social and labour market success (Vasta 717) calls to question what sentiments were present within the population to bring about such negative attitudes, on personal levels, but at a systemic rate, that account for the systemic racism that was present in the practices of the educational system and labour market as described in From Ethnic Minorities to Ethnic Majority Policy.
Keep in mind that the policies not only demanded solidarity among natives and non-natives, but also presupposed it. Individuals were understood to be willing to share their public spaces, work locales, and the intimate spaces that constitute the functioning of their daily lives – with the immigrant “other”.
What did immigrants actively share with their native neighbours? The exchange seemed to be completely unidirectional. Immigrants were not seen as possessing any traits or practices which would aid the development of the Dutch state. Or do the Dutch have nothing to gain from the experiences of immigrants? Pillarization allowed minorities to establish state-sponsored and semi-autonomous institutions for social welfare, health care, and education(Vasta 716). What the article fails to address is what members of minority groups were able to accomplish within the government and within society, or if any change was possible during their half-century in the Netherlands? Vasta does discuss native the inability of Dutch to distinguish between the many diverse origins and cultures of the immigrant populations (Vasta 722). Is this not indicative of the lack of knowledge that amassed among the different cultures?
In the opinion of this essayist, it is for this reason that when violence erupted in neighbouring Denmark, or when Theo Van Gogh was murdered, the Dutch felt quite personally that their hospitality had been betrayed. Their kindness extended to honour the rights bestowed by liberalism, until they felt that these rights challenged their safety, and the stability of their established society. This shows the weakness in the bedrock of their application of liberal values. The policies of the state were not seen as insufficient in accomplishing their goals for a major part of the population, but rather the immigrants who had been granted a fair shot within a controlled environment were attacked. The society itself is unwilling to accept that compartmentalization of minorities within the larger society had not only harmed the immigrant opportunities, but had created a two-tiered system within the institutions and practices of their nation.

In the Netherlands, when the state opted to accommodate cultures directly within its own institutions, the government initiated grand policies with little attention to their implementation or real outcomes. Some policies promised to instruct students in their mother tongue; these courses poorly managed and removed attention from core classes (Vasta 717). This demonstrates that direct state action upon a subculture may be inefficient thereby sacrificing an entire segment of the student population due to educational experimentation.
Can we not draw ties to the conception that Africentric schools in urban Toronto. The impression of those in the Toronto District School Board in favour of such a school is that it will stimulate African-Canadian students to value the educational system, thereby decreasing the number of drop-outs (CBC News). The members of the Board are not elected by the greater community, yet hold the power to formulate and administer policies that shape the maturing of this segment of the society’s youth. This exercise is championed in the wake of violence and tumultuous circumstances, namely the murder of a youth of African descent (CBC News).
In institutionalizing Africentric centers of education the School Board is attempting to better address the specific needs of that subculture. Thus, the primary objectives of this new educational policy is to support the African community’s development within the greater society. Very important dilemmas emerge from this policy. Does it somehow debase other ethnic minorities in Canada who do not have this form of institution available? Or does it institutionalize the perception that African-Canadian students are unable to succeed within the current system due to some characteristic of their culture? Second, does it negate the basic rights for equality of each student in that school, who will receive a radically different syllabus for the entirety of elementary and secondary education? Most importantly, does this present piliarization of the education system due to Canada’s struggle to deal with higher drop-out rates and crime rates among members of this subculture? Equally, the state is unwilling to accept that perhaps the entire curriculum ought to be modernized in order to suit the needs of the entire society and decrease the drop out rate across ethnicity.

To conclude, within liberal thought itself there are contradictions. Does liberalism entail liberal diversity or liberal autonomy. Multi-ethnic nations worldwide try to distinguish between Freedom of Speech and permissible suppression of Hate Speech. That the Dutch so easily compartmentalize all of their minority groups, and starkly proclaim that immigrants display disappointing integration perhaps speaks to the defeat of policies that start from the bottom-up, with little regard for the actual zeitgeist of the people – both immigrant and native.
Canada of the 1800s did represent a small group of communities with similar values and traditions, and strong ethnic religious affiliations. Canadian society adamantly fought so that the powers of religious identifications, and of the Church, were made subordinate to the power and authority of elected political institutions (Plessis 61). According to Trudeau’s description of multiculturalism, cultures are encouraged to “contribute to the cultural enrichment of Canada” (139). The existence of a cultural subcommunity does not merely occur due to one’s origin or descent, but more importantly due to “one’s sense of belonging to the group”. Each member’s individual choice to actively participate within the culture is what defines the strength of that culture. Canada’s encouragement of multiculturalism in 1962 was “basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice”. Furthermore, as there is “no official culture” (139) in Canada, each citizen has the choice to engage in the activities of the diverse cultures that conduct themselves within the nation. Confidence in an identity must be nurtured within the subculture but also through the sharing of these cultural expressions with other Canadians. Ethnocentrism is human tendency and will thus be found in discussions of art, heritage, and language, but if allowed to be institutionalized in state policy or jurisprudence this would be detrimental.
If Laurier was right to assert that liberalism is progress and change, can established majoritarian societies be allowed to conceal themselves behind tradition? Must not host nations open themselves up to this concept as well when immigrants assert that change is imminent? Yet, I believe that this change must occur at a national level. The rationale and logic behind government and legal procedures must be transparent and blatantly expressed to each and every citizen, for each and every citizen. It is in this manner that Canadians will be able to strengthen the civic bonds that unite members of each ethnic group, racial minority, gender, and social echelon. Laurier, a member of the French-Canadian minority asserter “we have no more rights, no more privileges, but we have as many rights and as many privileges, as the other elements that go to make up the Canadian family” (Laurier 68). Equality before the nation is the fundamental element in determining the possibilities and liberties that exist, and Canadians should divide themselves politically in order to justly determine the progression of legislation, and of their nation.


__________________________________

Bibliography

Archbishop Plessis, “Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Quebec” in Canadian Political Thought, edited by H.D. Forbes, 96-106. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1985.

CBC News. “Toronto trustees vote in favour of black-focused schools”, January 2008 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/01/29/tto-schools.html
Shacher, Ayelet. “On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability” Political Theory, Vol. 28, No 1. Feb 2000, p 64-89.

Laurier, Wilfrid. “Political Liberalism” in Canadian Political Thought, ed. H.D. Forbes, p 134-151. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Québec, Commission de Consultation sur les Pratiques D’Accommodement Reliées aux Différences Culturelles, 2007

Radtke, Frank-Olaf. “Multiculturalism in Germany: Local Management of Immigrant’s Social Inclusion” in the International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), Vol 5, No. 1, 2003: 55-76.

Trudeau, Pierre Elliot. “Statement on Multiculturalism” in Canadian Political Thought, edited by H.D. Forbes, 349-351. Toronto: oxford University Press, 1985.

Vasta, Ellie. “From Ethnic Minorities to Ethnic Majority Policy : Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands” in Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2007.

Immigration and Education Policy: The Rhetoric Behind Discriminative Multiculturalism and Integration in Canada and France

“Don’t worry little girl, it is alright to be brown, many people are. Now, it might take you a longer time to make something of yourself, or people may point and stare, but that is because you do not look like us”.

Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but words will always hurt. At the age of 12, I could not begin to explain how much these words stung. The idea of “them” vs “us” was for the first time blatantly in front of my face. A teacher, someone who I believed to be always in the right, always caring and someone who was supposed to stop the bully in class from taking advantage of others. While that was the image in my head, it definitely was not reality. Why was the color of my skin such a huge deal? Why was I the only person, who never understood biblical terms or phrases? Why was I told that being “brown”, was alright instead of normal? At an age where being apart of the in crowd was such a huge deal, the gestures, communication and rhetoric that I heard from within the school system was very indicative of the mentalities of the larger society around me.

As I grew older this made me think a lot about what it meant to be a integrated into society? Or what the undertones of “accommodation” really were. I never really understood why tolerance was such a big deal, and more so why people did not encourage acceptance over toleration? These questions while to an extent are still unfathomable to me, I understand as a university student that the public policies that exist around us do heavily influence the mindsets of those within the society, those as a part of a larger community, the statesmen and women who make laws, and finally our reputation on the international scale. In what follows I will deal with how Canada and France through their immigration and education policies reiterate the rhetoric mentioned above by specifically masking the under toned discrimination by the idea of multi- culturalism and integration. By looking at prime examples from Maillard and his article on Muslims in France and Integration I will be able to draw some examples that help to reiterate my point about how the integration mindset in Canada and France are similar in regards to immigration and education policies, which in turn implies discriminative undertones. Overall, what will be proven in this post is that multiculturalism or integration is more so rhetoric in Canada and in France than it is in real practice.


Aspects of the Immigration Policy in relation to Discrimination and Multiculturalism In Canada:

Canada as we know it, or have been told to know it, is one of the most multicultural and diverse countries in the word. Canada, according to Liston and Carens, is “officially committed to a policy of multiculturalism” (Liston and Carens, 252). While policies might exist in a society, the larger more significant issue is whether or not these policies work. Currently Canada has in place, what is called the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Within this act, members of parliament and society believe that cultural differences are welcomed and respected( Liston and Carens, 252). However this is quite hard to believe seeing as how when immigrants come to Canada, they are understood to be working the second tier jobs to make a living for themselves and their respective families. While many might contest to this statement by saying, Immigrants know what they are getting themselves into when they accept and hence having the privilege of living in a country like Canada, they should simply be happy with what they are getting- it is undeniable however that immigrants mostly get placed in the lower end labor filled jobs that pay less than the usual pay standard. Many immigrants also are said to live under the low income cut off line and are forced to re-qualify their education to the Canadian standard.


This in itself sends a very strong message about immigration in relation to multiculturalism in Canada. If we are to all be seen as equal, and that no one gender or race shall be privileged, then how exactly is it possible for immigrants, who many a times are visible minorities to get stuck doing the lower end jobs? This reality stands in sharp contrast with the multiculturalism rhetoric of accommodating immigrants into our society. It is seen in the Canadian Immigration system itself that people need to have a certain number of points to be able to move into Canada. The point system itself raises the issue of whether or not we can equate a number to a persons education or work experience. While it can be argued that there needs to be a strict rule on letting people into the country, so as to ensure our country is safe and sound for our citizens, my point here is that in an actual multicultural society, points would not really be used to equate experience. That being said, the immigration system for those who are successful and receive immigrant status works to their disadvantage. This is because, “the average employment income of immigrants who came between 1986 and 1990 was 18% lower than nonimmigrants, and for those who came after 1990 was 36% lower” (Liston and Carens, 254).


Referring back to my earlier point then about whether or not immigrants do have an equal chance to obtain an equal standard of living in society in comparison to non immigrants, the answer is clearly no. If the mentality of the immigration policy itself, etches the idea of supremacy in the minds of individuals in society then when upon trying to get a job, immigrants will be faced with a tough lose-lose situation. The first loss because they are not able to apply their knowledge base from another developing country into this one immediately, because their education is seen as at a substandard to the education found in Canada. Secondly because while most people will harp on human resource policies for equal employment, at the end of the day, the CEO’s and upper level senior presidents tend not to be first or second generation immigrants. Rather, after years of “naturalization” or what I like to call Canadianization, family members will attain the social, financial and academic support they need to climb up the industry ladder into higher paying jobs.


Adversely, the image of Canada privileging people in underdeveloped nations by allowing them into our country needs to be brought to the surface and unpacked. Is Canada really doing a service to our hopefully immigrants or are we reaping the benefits of having these immigrants in our country so that they may in fact work the harder more labor filled jobs so that our tier two jobs are filled more readily by lower income seekers? It is ironic that experienced doctors and lawyers, are forced into lower ended jobs wherein they work as taxi cab drivers in a country that so readily claims to believe in accommodating diversity. If we really did accommodate such diversity would there be a differentiation between education in North America and elsewhere?


According to the article by Listen and Carens, “The basic underlying assumption of Canadian immigration policy is that immigrants are recognized as full members of the Canadian community” (Liston and Caren, 251). While this is something that sounds tantalizing to the ear, I beg to differ. The bigger issue here is whether or not this is true. What does it mean to be seen as “full members of the Canadian community”. To many, a Full member means that people should be able to get any job they wish and have their academic levels equated, their knowledge base respected and their non Canadian experience revered. However, upon asking for a job here, an immigrant hears way to often then not that they do not have the Canadian experience they need in order to get the job. How exactly is an immigrant supposed to get the right Canadian experience if they are never given a chance to work in their field of interest. Clearly there is a problem here when we allow people to come into our country knowing that they will probably not get to the same level they were in terms of financial stability or occupational opportunity in their own countries. Similarly, Liston and Caren’s both agree that “some elements in Canada’s policies that conflict with this basic position” that immigrants are full members of Canadian society (Liston and Caren, 251). This supports the point aforementioned about the reality of proper integration of immigrants into our country and brings to light the façade under which Canada claims so proudly that everyone on Canadian soil is seen as equal under the Charter, and the Multiculturalism act.


I must make a point here that the immigration I am speaking of applies only to those who are not seeking asylum or refugees status. I am speaking of those qualified independent candidates who wish to be able to seek higher opportunities in Canada in their field of chosen study. The fact is that when Canada puts an image on the international stage that we are all inclusive and incorporating, it leads people to believe this is true. Therefore, people spend money and time attempting to seek a better life in Canada, not knowing that to their dismay when they arrive they will become what many Canadians see as second class citizens. Is this really integration? If we were to take this idea of integration and look at its downfalls we would see that integration, accommodation and toleration all basically mean one thing- that We as Canadians, are doing YOU as an outsider a favor. That favor is that we are allowing you into our country and thus you should be happy with whatever lifestyle you end up with. This idea of accommodation does not ever exude the impression that immigrants are wanted because they are good people who will add value and culture to our Canadian society. Realistically then the idea that immigrants are FULL MEMBERS is a total falsity. Being a member of something usually means that you are wanted, and in a situation where one is wanted, the idea of toleration or integration which semantically both exude the idea of coming into another persons territory, would not be reiterated. Instead the idea of embracing differences and welcoming diversity would be reinstated into the minds of individuals, the community and the statesmen and women alike.


Furthermore, Canada claims that as a result of us being multicultural, we integrate and accommodate our immigrants into society. If the basic means of survival of immigrants are capped as a result of their non Canadian experience, then it is fair to say along the same lines that integration and accommodation are not really priorities of the Canadian society. It seems we, as Canadians want the best of both words. We want to be able to say as individuals that we love the rich culture, and context that immigrants bring with them, however, when it comes to hiring procedures that determine a way of life, we do everything in our power to ensure subordination in terms of industry jobs. The bottom line is however, if the immigration policy one that is based on a point system created on the standard of Canadian qualitative evaluations, allows people into our country, more needs to be done within societies to ensure they are embraced and not tolerated or accommodated which hints at the discriminatory undertone that exists within our multicultural image.


Here I want to point out that according to the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Accommodate means to do a favor to or for. Tolerate means: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit. Integrate means to combine. All of these words which are so readily used to describe how we treat or immigrants when broken down into their basic means show that there is no mentality of embracing them or seeking diversity which our Multiculturalism act so dictates. Instead there is this overarching idea that “Canadians” are doing a favor to “non Canadians” by allowing them onto our soil. If these words that we so use to refer to how we treat our immigrants, then it is indicative of the mentality that exists within our society and acts as a good explanation to why it is in fact so hard for immigrants to get jobs and be seen as equal within our society. Here again, we see a sharp contrast to the rhetoric that exists in the Charter about being equal, as it states that equality is tolerated and not granted. If then these words exude such a mentality then it is fair to say that within the rhetoric within multiculturalism tactic that is used by Canada to show off our values to the rest of the world, lies a discriminative undertone in our immigration policy and how we treat them once they get here. Since we have spoken about how immigrants are disadvantaged as a result of the inability to achieve success equal to standards acquired by non immigrants, it is important to see how this relates to the question of how education policy in this country also discriminates regardless of the pluralistic stigma that the institutions reiterate.


Aspects of the Education Policy in relation to Discrimination and Multiculturalism in Canada:

Under this portion I will elaborate on some of the key issues within the education system that cause discrimination to occur unto our immigrants. The First issue will be that of predominant languages, secondly, is forced assimilation into a mainstream Canadian culture. Third I will touch upon curriculum issues that impact religious beliefs and cultural conduct, fourth, admission policies of higher education. Fifth, I will discuss cultural sensitivity in terms of religious holidays, gender and inclusion of these differences into the education system.


First and foremost the two predominant languages in Canada are French and English. This is problematic for two reasons. First, because in a country that claims to be so multicultural, it is hard to expect those who want to be successful to have to know both languages well. In turn this makes it harder for those whose mother tongue is not English or French to make lives for themselves that are not substandard to other non immigrants. This is also problematic because when we allow immigrants into the country, we do not have as a criteria that they need to know English.


While it is preferred, it is not mandatory perhaps because lower end jobs do not need a strong sense of communication because they are labor jobs. Therefore, upon accepting immigrants it is understood implicitly that they will be doing the second tier jobs of society anyways. At the same time, if the child of an immigrant family has learned languages other than English or French their whole lives, they will never be able to feel fully a part of the Canadian community because the opportunities that existed for them to move up in society because of their English or French command will not exist. Especially true this is for first or second generation children who are just beginning to understand English and starting to learn how to communicate in a language other than the one they speak at home or were accustomed to in their home country.


Furthermore, everyone in the public school system is expected every morning to patriotically sign OCANADA our national anthem. While this is expected of a country that is as patriotic as we are here, it is unfortunate that children who either do not believe in God, and do not see Canada as their first home are forced to say these things when they sing the song for example, “God Keep Our Land”…. “O Canada, My Home and Native Land”. For a child from an African family who perhaps might not believe in a higher power, being forced to sing this song everyday might cause initial shock, however after weeks of realizing that their unwillingness to sing the National Anthem everyday would be shunned in the public school system, with hopes of fitting in, they will inadvertently begin to cave, regardless of what their values are. Inherently, by forcing the children to sign this national anthem and speak the words of God, we are assuming that everyone has such a belief in higher powers, and discriminating against those who do not believe in such. As a result of people who have sound knowledge in both English and French are given more opportunities to jobs in Canada then people who know one language or none. Here the reality of being seen equal in terms of occupational opportunity is also raised as an issue because even within the Canadian context there is a varying level of respect for those who can speak both the national languages.


Another flaw with educational practices in Canada can be seen when looking at curriculum creation in public high schools. First and foremost public schools are supposed to make everyone feel comfortable because there isn’t supposed to be an overarching theme of religion or culture. In fact public highschools are championed because they are supposed to be neutral enough to make everyone feel like they are welcome in the school system. However, this is not really the case. For example in courses like English and Religion, students are taught and expected to know about Christianity and Catholicism.


Especially looking at the Grade 10-12 Curriculum students are expected to know the biblical references and be able to use them in our day to day writing and knowledge base for papers in high school. While for some this is totally possible, yet for many the mainstream English curriculum is not reflective of diversity in any way. For example a child coming from Bahrain, whose mother tongue is Urdu, is disadvantaged because they are unable to understand or speak the language well enough to keep up with the class, which places them in the bottom half of achievement. This indicates to the school the child might need help academically and thus perhaps in many instances places them in remedial English.


This in turn looks bad on their transcripts for university and shots their opportunities for higher education down. In specific, when it comes to getting good grades, I use myself as an example. When I was in high school as a result of my not understanding the biblical references I was severely chastised and docked marks because I did not see things from a Christian religious viewpoint. To the system that preaches equality, many immigrant children faced the same problems however were unable to articulate them and thus were forced into seeing things from a Christian viewpoint. Not that this is a bad thing, however, for someone who is not familiar with the bible and is more inclined to things from a Hindu perspective or Muslim perspective, we are disadvantaged is we do not already know what the whole Christian bible dictates and this in turn effects in some ways our progression or success in school. Is this really fair? Could the curriculum not be changed so that we may bring everyone to the same level of understanding, so that their evaluations may be more fair? It is definitely possible, however as a result of the predominant religion, Christian or Catholic viewpoints are seen as universal viewpoints in many regards within the school system.


Holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are enshrined into our society as statutory holidays, where school is closed and society shuts down literally to preserve such holidays. While holidays such as CHINESE NEW YEAR, HOLI, DIWALI, RAMADAN, or SHIV RATRI, are holidays that the majority of our immigrant population celebrate, when we need time to be with our families and celebrate the occasions, we are forced to ask for permission, or miss school on a day that everyone else will be learning. This in itself shows an inequality in opportunity or reverence for religious diversity. No one has a choice of whether or not they want to write exams or go to school on Christmas or New Years, however when it comes to different religious holidays for other cultures, school systems have written rules about how students need to ask to be able to celebrate such occasions. Are we not then showing these immigrants by these actions that the supreme culture or religion that our society is based on is Christianity or Catholicism.


Thus any other religion by virtue of having to ask for permission to celebrate on these holidays is reiterating the idea of tolerating diversity rather than embracing or welcoming it, which is unfair in the eyes of many. Immigrants are tax payers too and to ask for permission to celebrate their own religions occasions sends a clear message to the diverse population of Canada, one that states, “WE”, are allowing you to celebrate your Religious holidays, however only if “WE” grant such permission after proper documentation. For example this past year I had to deal with one such instance where students were being asked to show proof that they were a part of the Muslim faith in order to celebrate Ramadan. A Professor insisted that they show some form of proof, as if all faiths had a religion card that they could pull out when and if asked to identify themselves with a religion. Here again within these inherent practices of having to ask for days off to celebrate ones religion, or having to show proof of being a part of ones religion, is an underlying tone of discrimination and reiteration of the We vs You mentality that exudes the immigration practices as well.


Another example of discrimination can be seen when looking at admission policies to higher education. Most higher education schools such as Law, Medicine, MBA need the hopeful student to do a standardized test. In the case of the LSAT the Law school aptitude test there has been much conversation and debate about how this test for non immigrants proves to be easier as a result of cultural undertones within the test that make it easier to find the answer. Additionally, students who are not from a North American context find it difficult to do well on the test not because their English command is not good but more so because the metaphors, messages or words used within the tests are very North Americanized to the point where it is unfair for a nonimmigrant and immigrant student to take the same test. Immigrants have repeatedly reported doing comparatively less well than non immigrants on these types of tests and yet nothing has been done to push for a more holistic policy for admissions that does not place standardized test scores at such a high value. A Canadian Federal Reform could have been done on Admission policies to higher education in order to address issues of fairness and equality in standardized tests, however this was never done. The idea of holistic admissions policies have always been raised, but nothing has been done to tackle the issue on a grandeur scale, leaving immigrants yet again at an academic disadvantage.


Finally, the question of cultural sensitivity also comes into question if you look at how public school systems direct some of their classes. To being there is no prayer space for students who are of Muslim faith. They find places to pray randomly, and do not always get the opportunity to leave 7 times during the day to pray. When some individuals ask for this, they are met with stares, gazes and as a lack of private space available to pray, are forced into doing this in public places like the halls or the library. This lack of understanding of the need for these groups to have prayer space available is of utmost concern and signifies further inherent inequality within the system.

Additionally, In some cultures associating with the opposite sex is shunned until a certain age. Not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, when these students come into a Canadian context, this mentality has to be abolished in order again to fit into main stream society. Gym classes are co-ed and requires partnership depending on what is being taught, to happen between boys and girls. This is not always comfortable for many people, however in the curriculum alternatives for these types of activities are often not built in to embrace cultural sensitivity. As these students may not feel comfortable in an environment to express this issue to be the reason why they are not attending class, this ends up being a reason why many females in marginalized communities skip gym class, and in turn lose marks that inherently lower their overall average for the year and put them in a disadvantage when it comes to competing for the highest marks. Here again it can be seen how the lack of cultural sensitivity in the Canadian education system makes way for immigrant students to do less well than non immigrant students.


Linking all this back to the idea of integrating one into society, by the definition of integration it can be seen that “combining” immigrants and non immigrants is the goal of integration. In an academic setting combining people into one main stream view means assuming that everyone will understanding and embrace that main stream view. This again is sharply in contrast of the overarching image that Canada prides itself in exuding, that being the image of allowing people to be individuals within the Canadian context. However if this were really true, some of the aforementioned examples of how the education system inherently discriminates against immigrants would not be present, or when identified as an issue would definitely not fall to the back burner. Moreover, it is questionable whether immigrants deserve to be combined into mainstream society or allowed to be individuals within a diversified community setting. Tolerating the existence of a group of people, and then attempting to make them mainstream, means that there was never an underlying tone of welcome, or an understanding of embrace. Instead there was an understanding that the immigrants if they wanted to succeed, needed to be comfortable adjusting their ways of life religiously and culturally to another way of life, regardless of how uncomfortable this may seem.


It is quite visible then that the rhetoric of accommodating our immigrants so that they become members of Canadian society is not reality. Aforementioned were some examples of the academic downfalls that immigrants must face as a result of implicit discrimination within the education and immigration systems. For the sake of a good public image, Canada shows itself on the world stage to be one of the most multicultural places in the world that treats its immigrants as best as they can. However by merely looking at the words used to describe immigration policy and how it incorporates immigrants it can be understood that the idea of welcoming them takes a back seat to ensuring they remain in the lower earning bracket then born Canadians. Overall, if in fact Canada was a multicultural society, these underlying tones of discrimination would be non existent. Integration, Accommodation and Tolerance within Immigration and Education policies would be changed to respecting and welcoming diversity. However since this is not the case, I reaffirm my point about how implicitly behind the façade of multiculturalism there lies inherent discrimination that places immigrants at a huge disadvantage when coming onto our soil. It is now time to compare this to the French model of Integration in order to see the similarities between the discriminating undertones within the Immigration and Education policies there.


Aspects of the Immigration Policy and its relation to Discrimination and Integration in France:

Dominique Maillard points out in his article about Muslims in France and the Integration model a few things that clearly signify the discrimination that similarly occurs within the French Immigration and Education policy context. As Dominique points out, 4 to 5 million Muslims take home in France(Maillard, 62). As a result of immigration into France, it may seem at first glance that the policies are lenient and wish for Muslims in France to be on par with non Muslims or the Parisian French. However taking a look at the three considerations of French immigration it will be revealed that welcoming people into the country to have better lives is, like Canada’s point system, not at the heart of the policy.


First, France’s immigration policy is based on a logic of values, political principles that distinguish amongst asylum, labor, population immigration (Maillard, 64). While I do not have a problem with this primary consideration, as I reiterate the second and third considerations my point of contention will be seen.


The second consideration of this policy is that there is a logic of demographic politics based on the principle that France needs population to remain or become again a world power (Maillard, 64). Hoping that young people moving to France will raise their Children in the French mains stream society so as to integrate them and assimilate them into what it means to be a successful French. This means taking into consideration different ethnicities that will succeed more so in France than others (Maillard, 65). Herein lies my first problem. In a country that claims itself to be one that has a long history of immigration, in which 7.4% of the total population are immigrants, it does not make logical sense to assume that all of these people will be willing to give up their individual heritage for the sake of being a part of the French State (Maillard, 62). Assimilation is something that exudes from a statement such as the one above that hopes the children of immigrants will be made into French minded people instead of holding firm their own values, beliefs and ways of life.


It is absolutely absurd to want people to come into a country and raise their children based on a totally new set of values. More so, this type of mentality is telling of the implicit expectations of success on these immigrants. It can be deduced from this statement alone about France wanting to become a world power and that when accepting immigrants they are looking for those people who are willing to give up their own heritages, in order to assimilate into the French mainstream culture in order for France to become the power it envisages. Here is the problem of expectations on immigrants. While stating that France has a long history of immigration, it seems this immigration like Canada’s immigration benefits more so the country than it does necessarily the hopefully immigrant. As a result of the two tier job system in France as well, it is only natural that the non French speaking immigrants will teach their children how to become fully indulged in the French culture in order to gain better lives for themselves as they grow older in France. This way, the first generation immigrants are setting the foundation for a better future for the French as a whole, when only the immigrants are doing the work necessary to achieve this goal, and the native French are reeping the benefits of this work. Not only is this unjust, but it shows the mind set of discrimination through cheap labor and forced assimilation. Immigrants know that if they want to succeed they will have no choice but to encourage their offspring to take on the full French lifestyle if they are to fit into society and be seen as one of “them” and not the “outsider”. This same ideaology existed in Canada’s system of immigration wherein first generations worked the hardest to make a life for themselves, while the older generations as a result of becoming more Canadian found it easier to ascertain better living standards than their generations past.



Likewise, when looking at immigration, in a country like France that also prides itself to in positively integrating people, focusing on how they recruit their immigrants it can be seen that there lies a black shadow on some hopeful immigrants and not on others. By stating the success of certain ethnic groups are taking into consideration, the French are setting out a immigration mindset that puts at the core of it, the betterment of the French economy before helping give a better life to those in developing nations. This is unfair as it reiterates the quid quo pro ideology of give and take, rather than of giving without wanting something back. In this case, giving without taking would be allowing and welcoming immigrants without place expectations of success on them, however sine the French already predetermine which groups of people are most able to succeed, it does a disadvantage for those individuals who have worked hard to immigrate but have been overshadowed by unlucky past immigrants who have not done so well in France. Here the bigger question that needs to be raised is, is it really fair for one ethnic group to be privileged over another when attempting to gain access into France? One sour grape or a few sour grapes who do not succeed in France from a particular group, do not, and can not represent the thousands of others from that group who wish to come to France with the hopes of succeeding. However with this type of mindset that looks at which groups succeed more than other upon coming to France, it disables successful individuals from different groups from gaining entry into France as a result of bad past precedent.



The third and most disturbing consideration of French Immigration policy, is that of economic logic in which immigration is looking for male, single, flexible low paid workers, in good health who can adapt to the needs of various economic sectors (Maillard, 64). Here we see parallels between Canada and France’s subjugation mentality. The idea that immigrants are for the lower earning jobs, and that men are most likely to be able to work in laborious jobs exudes both immigration attitudes. It is interesting to note while both countries boast about accepting high levels of immigrants, they equally have the same discriminatory mentality that when these immigrants will come, they will serve the jobs that only lower, less educated populations do. By stating the idea that the workers must be in good health, we are reminded of the underlying message that the French state is sending to its prospective immigrants. That being, when you come here, please be in good health so that you can give back to the society more than get back through health care. Showing immigrants that they do not want someone who will be a drainage to society, instead someone who can help make the French economy a lot stronger. Similarly this discriminative mentality can be seen in the Canadian mentality in which immigrants take on second tier jobs and thus make less money than non immigrants.


Additionally, something to be noted about France is that for a good period of time, in the 1980’s French “Mayors used various administrative tricks to avoid the construction of mosques in their constituencies” (Maillard, 74). If not blatant racism, this showed the Muslim population that the State cared more about its own dominating relgion than about the hundreds of thousands of muslims living within France. While understanding that a lot of the economy was becoming more stable as a result of all the work done by the immigrants, the French still decided that these immigrants were not important enough to allot them a place of worship. How exactly does one get integrated into a society when there own place of worship holds little or no weight of importance for the government? This reiterates the idea that while immigrants seek a change of country to have a chance at a better life for themselves and their families, the government sees this as an opportunity to acquire labor from them, without giving them the fundamental rights it seems to practice their own cultures and religions within a French context. This idea of not building mosques also outlines the assimilation based mentality that consideration two mentioned. That one day, the generations to come would become fully French, assimilating into the lifestyle of a Parisian leaving behind their own heritage, faith and way of living. The 1980’s was really not that long ago, and at a time where immigration everywhere was booming, to know racist undertones exuded the immigration mentality of the States officials in France is both disheartening and disgusting, especially because the immigrants themselves have put so much into the French economy in order to achieve a basic standard of life within the French community.


In both the second and third considerations many parallels can be drawn between France and Canada. While on the international scale Canada is more revered to be the salad bowl, and France is seem to be the land of freedom and opportunity, both countries do a good job at keeping the undertones of their discrimination quite hidden, so much as so only those accepted and rejected from immigration might perhaps be able to see the reality behind their policies. The idea more predominate in France but paralleled in Canada is that of Integration. As mentioned before, integration means combining, and as can be seen here, France does in fact have a mentality that combines others into main stream French. The more important issue here is whether or not this is just for the immigrants coming into the country. It is never fair to bring people into a country, promising them brighter futures, but then expecting them to assimilate. The difference between Canada and France though is that France does not quite mislead people to believe they are diverse or that they respect multiculturalism like Canada does. It is truthful about being integration based, however the positive spin publicized to the international realm is that which allows France to go on with their policies without blatantly being called Racist by the international world. Taking a look at the education policies and the inherent flaws underneath these policies in France, more discriminative parallels between Canada and France will be seen.


Aspects of the Education Policy and its relation to Discrimination and Integration in France:

Many issues of concern that signify discrimination have surfaced in France over the years. However for this portion of the paper, I will focus on three main ones that have been discussed in class and in the Maillard article. First being the acceptance of headdress, second, achieving higher levels of education in comparison to native French. Third, being forced to speak predominantly in French in order to succeed and lastly the unnerving issue of Name Sake dictating opportunity.


First I will begin by pointing out that Maillard states articulately that in, “2004 the French Parliament passed a law to ban the Islamic Headscarf in public primary schools, middle and high schools. Additionally wearing signs or clothes through which students visibly demonstrate their belonging to a religion is prohibited” (Maillard, 77). In a country that states they integrate immigrants well, it is very clear that this is not the case, when parliamentarians take such discriminatory measures. For many Muslim women, wearing the headscarf brings them dignity and integrity. It is unfathomable to think that girls would have to stop coming to school, if they were not allowed to wear their head scarf. In many ways this links back to the second consideration of the immigration policy whereby the idea is to help these immigrants become main stream French. By imposing such a policy within the schools no one will be able to freely express their religions as a result of such a conservative mentality.


Wearing signs or clothes that state one is a part of a religion or a community is something that individuals and immigrants should feel proud to do. There should not be, in the 21st century this idea of having to hide ones own identity and culture as a result of hatred towards dissent or difference. By enacting such a policy immigrations who are visible minorities and who are not Christian are being excluded from participating in any schooling until they decide to leave their own heritages behind. Additionally, since many girls are not allowed to take off their hijabs, it is both culturally insensitive to ask them to do such a thing, as well as ask any boy who wears a Sikh turban to get rid of his head dress. This type of mentality reiterates the “We” vs “u” mentality and further isolates immigrants into feeling unwanted, un-welcomed and un-embraced within a new country’s environment.



Although Canada has not formally banned headdress, I have mentioned the instance of public school gym classes and a lack of prayer space in schools to embrace the needs of Muslim students. I will point out here that one of the main differences between Canada and France and the way each country respectively deals wit their immigrant populations is that France is more blatant about its values than Canada is. I think most of this has to do with the fact that Canada is always seen as the neutral welcoming country on the world stage and to blatantly be racist or discriminative would ruin our public image that Canadians have worked so hard to uphold. However the French have always had a reputation of owning or dictating over its populations, and while discrimination is still not right in this context, it is on some level more expected of this country than it is of Canada. Concurrently though, both of these countries as can be seen by the parallels drawn practice the same ideology to a certain extent and the same tactics of dealing with immigrants, however in turn Canada does a better job at hiding it than do the French.


Additionally, in terms of reaching higher studies, most “Muslim students have ended up in technical” schools which will not promise a good standard of living in comparison to the standards native French live by (Maillard, 73). Only 4 % of the children of immigrants get to university compared to 25% of the native French (Maillard,73). These two phenomenon’s are indicative of the reality that immigrants are not given the same life chances and opportunities as native French. Again, this is seen even within the Canadian context in terms of earning power of occupations. Here though, since many immigrants only make it to technical school, understanding that this will lead them to lower end, possibly dead end jobs, ensures that the whole generation will suffer as a result of the unequal chance to life that these immigrants are expected to endure. Here again, while these immigrants pay tax dollars and participate in the growing economy, some more dedicated than more elite French individuals, they are still left behind in the slippery slope of that creates the occupational hierarchy. If immigrants as a result of being immigrants and facing harsh life realities do not get a fair chance at excelling, something needs to be done to embrace these people into the French community instead of priding in the fact that this is what reiterates the mere difference between natives and foreigners. The reality that nothing has been done yet to address this growing issue since 2004, is telling again of where the governments interests are and whom they see as more preferable populations.

Another example of discrimination inherent in education policies in France is that of being forced to speak French as the first native language. Although much of France understands English and other languages well, most people refuse to speak to you if you do not speak to them in French. For those struggling immigrants who need a job, the trek to finding that job is an unfortunate adventure as well. Being turned down because they do not know French, or do not have the right experience, is something that is also similar to Canadian immigrants. This is what pushes these immigrants further down the occupational ladder and leaves them in the labor jobs because human resource policies are not embracing enough of diversity within the nation.


Disturbingly, even if an immigrant had a full blown French education, it has been noted that job opportunities are also dictated by namesake (Maillard, 73). Someone named Mohammed Yasin with the same job, education and personal experiences in comparison to someone name Jean Claude, would have much less chances at good jobs. Clearly, discrimination exudes this mentality as outlined by Maillard, and what this says to me is that to the French, being native is more important than being qualified and the immigrants can be used for lower level jobs, but for the higher level ones, regardless of how much one has given up their own identity to take on that of a mainstream native French person, there visible minority-ness will always put them at a disadvantage. The only other option for these second generations would be to change their names and skin color to be able to equally succeed in life. But doing this would literally rape these people from being themselves, respecting their own identities and revering their own cultures. This in my eyes speaks volumes about where the priorities lie for the French Government, when it comes to allowing fair chances at education and jobs. It can be seen through all the aforementioned examples that the priority always lies in the hands of the natives, regardless of deserving one may be. Hence, the name sake of a person, in France dictates their position within the class structure of society and pre determines their success in life.

Overall it can be seen by the aforementioned comparison that the French and Canadian governments inherently discriminate against their immigrants via the usage of flawed immigration and education policies. While many question the intentions of these governments by stating that if they did not want to allow immigration they could completely cut off immigration flow into the country, however it was discussed here that in order to keep face with the international stage this type of action could never be done. Thus, instead inherently adding racist and discriminative undertones to the current policies in place, allows the governments to control how successful these immigrants are, literally, ensuring that foreigners never take on the success of home grown crops.




Dominique Maillard , “The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration,” Mediterranean Quarterly 16, no. 1 (2005): pp. 62-78

Mary Liston and Joseph Carens, “Immigration and Integrationin Canada,” forthcoming.

Necessary Accommodation vs. Unnecessary Accession: Drawing the Line

In ‘Citizenship and the Challenge of Aboriginal Self-Government: Is Deep Diversity Desirable?’ Joseph Carens outlines the concept of aboriginal self-government in Canada. Recognizing the unique status of aboriginal people groups and their history of marginalization, Carens outlines a system of “differentiated citizenship” which institutionalizes aboriginal self-government, which I believe encompasses a host of various problems. Through this paper I will demonstrate that “differentiated citizenship” is not the route Canada should take when addressing aboriginal claims.

I would like to preface my by noting that I wholeheartedly sympathize with the aboriginal people in Canada who have had a long history of marginalization and maltreatment, and thus believe they are fully justified in seeking restorative justice in many areas of life. I am a strong supporter of ‘the idea of cultural claiming’ whereby a particular group can claim unique status and rights based on previous wrongdoings or negligence. What I do not support however, is this particular form of cultural claiming where the aboriginal people groups in Canada are seeking retroactive justice by advocating for “differentiated citizenship” which would result in a form of self-government.

For the purpose of this argument, it is important to delineate between three forms of justice, namely: retroactive, restorative and retributive and apply them to the aboriginal claims at hand. Because of their dark history of marginalization and discrimination, the First Nations groups are seeking amends which I believe they are fully entitled to. However, the improvements they are seeking are based on claims that are a combination of retroactive and retributive justice which I believe is not the appropriate measures for this case. While it is undeniable that the aboriginal people groups in Canada have had a difficult past it is virtually impossible to correct the historical wrongs of this situation retroactively. No comprehensive set of privileges granted today could ever begin to compensate for the horrendous actions of the Canadian government or early European settlers in the past and it is a wasted effort to even attempt to, using this particular method because it is an inappropriate form of amends. The aboriginal demands for “differentiated citizenship” and self-government are a form of retributive justice which is difficult to justify as well. Retributive justice calls for the amount of punishment to be proportional to the amount of harm cause by the initial offence. A modified description of retributive justice demands that the amount of punishment must be proportional to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. The aboriginal claims which seek to elevate their own groups by giving them freedom and privileges not afforded to non-aboriginal groups in the name of justice is a form of retaliation and retributive justice which is simply unethical and unnecessary given the accepted notion that ‘two wrongs do not make a right.’ A more appropriate form of compensation would be restorative justice which would simply seek to establish the rights and freedoms the aboriginal people groups should have been granted historically. Seeking to introduce and institute what the First Nations groups have been entitled to all along is a more appropriate course of action than what I believe they are rallying for with the idea of “differentiated citizenship.” Thus, the knowledge of appropriate amends is crucial when seeking the right form of justice for a given situation since alternative forms can serve to aggravate the situation and cause further problems to ensue.

The term “differentiated citizenship” is in itself, disturbing. The very notion that certain citizens would be given government-sanctioned preference over others goes directly against the concept of equality that is so widely promoted in Canada. The concept of aboriginal self-government conflicts with other fundamental values, such as unified citizenship. Affording the aboriginal peoples privileges that transcend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms means, in effect, treating them as “citizens plus” (Carens 2000: 187) as outlined in the Hawthorn-Tremblay Report of 1996. The idea that the First Nations groups should have “all the normal entitlements of Canadian citizenship and some distinctive additional ones as well directly related to Indian status,” is an initiative which is difficult to embrace given what we know about Canada’s dedication to equality and anti-discriminatory policies.

Giving the aboriginal groups preferential treatment over other groups in Canada in order to rectify their history of marginalization seems to do little but exacerbate the issue itself. Awarding aboriginals in Canada preferential treatment seems to be an example of over-correcting history, since a valid restorative plan would simply restore the aboriginals the equal status they deserve, not allow them to transcend the status of other cultural groups. In effect, by embracing the notion of “differentiated citizenship” Canada would simply be perpetuating the cycle of marginalization and cultural discrimination and repeating history. By disadvantaging other groups now, in order to grant the aboriginal groups their request for self-governance, the relegation and confinement to a lower class is still present but the roles have simply been reversed so that the aboriginal groups are now being given preference. The aboriginal people would in effect, be ‘more equal’ than non-aboriginals and it seems absurd to think that one can right a wrong by simply reversing and perpetuating the wrong against a different group of people. Moreover, who is to say that the other ethnic groups will not realize their diminished status and then seek the same amends the aboriginals are now claiming within the next century?

In addition, granting the aboriginal people special rights and privileges at the expense of other cultural groups is bound to result in a sense of resentment against the aboriginal people by those who think this policy is unjust and unnecessary. This resentment clouds the view of other cultural groups and inhibits their ability to see the aboriginal perspective, recognize their rational claims and understand ways to make appropriate amends for past wrongdoings to the First Nations people. Thus, instead of fostering understanding and a sense of co-operation between various cultural groups, added conflicts between groups may arise as a result of permitting the First Nations to transcend the boundaries that apply to everyone else in Canada.

If it were not enough that the very title of the “differentiated citizenship” proposition has faults embedded within it, I also believe the grounds on which this concept is based to be severely flawed. Canada is a country which prides itself on its multicultural heritage. One of the fundamental reasons the aboriginal groups believe they should have the right to transcend the Charter is because they are a distinct people group with different sets of institutions, practices and belief systems. This description however, could apply to any one the numerous ethnic groups that now inhabit Canada and is therefore, a weak claim. In the name of equality, if we were to grant the aboriginal people “differential citizenship” based on these ‘unique’ characteristics, we would have to afford the same privileges to all other ethnic groups who ironically also exhibit these ‘unique’ cultural features. Thus, the logic behind this particular reason for aboriginal self-government is rather nonsensical.

In addition, as stated by Carens “any satisfactory political arrangement will have to recognize and respect …the differences between First Nations people and non-aboriginal Canadians.” (Carens 2000: 183) I could not agree more, although Carens and I seem to have differing views on what recognition and respect entail. The notion of multiculturalism should acknowledge and celebrate difference but there is no reason to over-accommodate for it as the concept of “differential citizenship” would imply. While I do not believe the aboriginal groups should suffer (as they have in the past) for their unique culture, I also do not believe it is ethical for them to benefit from receiving special consideration. Offering them the freedom of self-government is privileging them above other Canadians based on their cultural difference and is therefore difficult to justify.

Even if the notion of “differentiated citizenship” could be justified, there are a host of logistical issues that would need to be addressed before the self-government could effectively come to fruition. Within the umbrella of the First Nations people there are a number of distinct aboriginal groups which differ greatly from one another in terms of beliefs, cultures and institutions. Thus, in order to effectively and accurately represent these groups “many different ways of institutions aboriginal self-government [would] be required to meet the needs of aboriginal people.” (Carens 2000: 179) This complicates the issue further with the implication that numerous, smaller forms of self-government would be required in order to do justice to the idea of ‘differentiated citizenship’ for the aboriginal people.

In addition, if the aboriginals were in fact granted a system of self-government, it would most likely be funded by the Canadian government. If this was the case, they would still be seen as a sub-group of the main government which would undermine their power, legitimacy and the very essence of having a self-governing body. Since the aboriginal government system would be receiving financial backing there would presumably be some form of oversight on behalf of the Canadian government. Not only would this restrict their freedom and self-determinacy, but it is also likely that the Canadian government would bring their own cultural values and judgments when evaluating the allocation of resources. These values are bound to differ considerably from those of the aboriginal people since this ‘distinct difference’ was the very reason they advocated for a self-governing body in the first place. Carens himself notes that “political and legal institutions are simultaneously cultural institutions in ways that are sometimes invisible to those who share the culture.” (Carens 2000: 189) Hence, it is difficult to imagine that this issue would rectify itself with the introduction of yet another governmental system in light of the aboriginal people’s request for “differentiated citizenship.”

Thus, while I fully believe the historical wrongdoings against the aboriginal people in Canada were despicable and unjust, I cannot advocate for the system of “differentiated citizenship” that Carens describes for the aforementioned reasons.

__________________________________

Carens, Joseph. "Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness." (Oxford, 2000), Chapter 8: 177-199.

Balancing accommodation of minorities with the rights of the majority

At first glance, the “Life Standards” code by the small city of Herouxville, Quebec (Hérouxville Municipality 2007) appears to be satire, a comedic attempt to highlight the stereotypes and intolerance that some individuals have towards immigrants and those of different cultures and beliefs. Alas, it is anything but fiction; it is an actual code of the city that garnered national and international attention for its expectations that seem to run contrary to the Canadian aim of multiculturalism and the inclusion of all. I will discuss this particular code in relation to the issues of reasonable accommodation that have occurred in Canada, the lessons that can be learned by the experiences from the international realm and the importance of balancing accommodation of minorities with the rights of the majority.

Terrorist attacks in the US and England other places are common knowledge as are the riots in Paris, the Prophet Mohammed Danish cartoon controversy and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, who made a film that was critical about Muslims. All of these have occurred outside of Canada but they offer many lessons for us here as we debate about how much accommodation is sufficient and when there ought to be limits.

Events such as the ones listed above have given rise to a panic over the takeover by minorities, particularly Muslims of western regions such as European countries. Vista discusses the atmosphere in the Netherlands where there is a strong desire towards policies that favour assimilation to address the growing problems with immigrants, in this instance, Muslims (Vasta 2007). Similarly, Maillard highlights the outlooks French citizens hold that seem to echo stereotypes of Islamic backwardness (Maillard 2005). And the reactions have been to condemn the immigrants as failing to adapt to western ways of life and as being the downfall of democratic values in Europe (Vista 2007 and Walker 2006).

Reactions such as these tend to be based more on misconceptions and generalizations than reality and this can be dangerous if such misconceptions are institutionalized as policies and practices. Many people do not know any Muslims themselves but base their opinions on the actions of a few as portrayed by a sensationalist media. To blame an entire religion and its adherents is simply a mistake as it is far too encompassing in its intolerance and seeks to exclude entire groups.

In Europe, the panic that there will be a Muslim takeover that will soon turn Europe into Eurabia, relies heavily upon misconceptions (Walker 2006). They do not consider that the small minority exhibiting violence do not represent an entire group. There is a failure to make note of the fact that despite sensationalist headlines, the majority of Muslims are not so violent and hostile but rather ordinary citizens seeking to better their lives and that of their children (Walker 2006).

Walker discusses one formula calculates that in a given Muslim population in Europe, five percent are fundamentalists with only three percent with the potential to be dangerous (Walker 2006). He additionally highlights that out of 500 million Europeans; approximately 15-18 million are Muslim immigrants, far from making Europe into Eurabia (Walker 2006). Similarly whilst seeing all Muslims as terrorists many seem to forget the European contributions to terrorism such as ETA and the IRA amongst others (Walker 2006).

Canada is not immune from such misconceptions. The code of the city of Herouxville exemplifies basing views upon stereotypes especially when in this small city there is only one immigrant family (The Star Editorial 2007). The code is serious in its tone and is a perfect example of how people’s views can be so distorted. Sections of it imply that the immigrants (particular Muslims) all seem to oppress and abuse females and are ready to burn them alive or throw acid on them if they dare to be anything more than slaves to the males (Hérouxville Municipality 2007). It tells immigrants what is “normal” of us Canadians and what the values they supposedly espouse are abnormal (Hérouxville Municipality 2007). The tone is highly condescending and elitist with statements such as the one referring to halal and kosher animal products being “If our children eat meat for example, they don’t need to know where it came from or who killed it. Our people eat to nourish the body not the soul” (Hérouxville Municipality 2007). Throughout the code, there is the distinction of us and them, with “them” being backwards, strange and highly undemocratic.

And as abhorrent as this code is, it exemplifies the struggle to accommodate and be inclusive and to balance this with minimal infringement of the rights of others.

For example it could be argued that to require a gym to have tinted windows so that Orthodox Jewish males studying at a synagogue are not distracted by women exercising, may be beyond reasonable accommodation; to have to change oneself so as to not be a distraction to others wrongfully puts the responsibility on the exercising woman (CBC News 2007). Thus there can be instances where demands for accommodation would not only further segregate individuals based on religion, sex or culture but would also be doing so at the expense of the undue infringement of rights and freedoms of others.

There have to be some limits to accommodation and tolerance to ensure that whilst protecting the rights of minorities, we do not infringe upon the rights of everyone else. This is of especial importance since the Charter seeks not only to protect and promote multiculturalism but also the rights individuals and groups.

For example, there ought not to be limitations of my freedoms in criticizing or questioning a religion and the actions of some of its adherents because it does not settle well with its adherents. Some of the more extreme members (such as in Muslim communities) seek to have rights guaranteed for themselves but act out when others demand their assurance. The murder of Theo van Gogh for example is a violation of his rights of expression and thought, not to mention his right to life. Violent protests issuing death threats against publishers of the Danish cartoon (even if in bad taste and offensive) are also a problematic example as they seek to deny rights to others when no discernable harm has occurred to the group.

The Muslim communities, which it is agreed have been subjected to discrimination and more, need to cease portraying themselves as victims and cast a critical eye over the actions of some their members and that which is being done in the name of their religion. This is not equating all Muslims with the small minority of extremists but simply stating that it is high time that after continuously being critical of western ways they be critical of the actions and views that some of their members hold.

Demanding equality for themselves as minorities abroad whilst not ensuring or even caring about non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries, is hypocritical and only serves to further promote negative stereotypes about Muslims. For example, the fifty-seven-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) wishes to uphold the interests and well-being of Muslim minorities in non-Islamic nations does not extend to ensuring the welfare of non-Muslim minorities within their own Islamic nations (Kumaraswamy 2007).

Lessons from abroad and from within Canada ought to inform us of the erroneous nature of basing viewpoints and policies upon misconceptions. Walker’s article is an excellent resource that dispels myths about Muslim immigrants in Europe and helps to put the “Mosque Hysteria” into perspective by addressing the most common fears of European citizenry (Walker 2006).

Nonetheless while we ought to be ready to accommodate different religions and cultures and beliefs in order to truly be a multicultural, diverse and inclusive nation, we must do so with caution so as to not unjustifiably trample on the rights of others. Additionally, one way that the Muslim communities themselves can help alleviate the negative myths that are propagated about them, is to be able to accept criticism and to respect the rights of others just as they expect for themselves. Thus a balance is required with respect to accommodation for minorities whilst ensuring minimal infringement of rights of the majority.

Sources:

CBC News, (March 19, 2007). Montreal YMCA drops tinted windows after members protest. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from CBC News Web site: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/03/19/qc-ymcawindows20070318.html

Hérouxville Municipality (Jan 2007), Municipalité Hérouxville: Publication of Standards. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from CBC News Web site: http://municipalite.herouxville.qc.ca/Standards.pdf

Kumaraswamy, P. R (2007). "Islam and Minorities: Need for a more liberal framework" Mediterranean Quarterly 18:3

Maillard, Dominique (2005). “The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration,” Mediterranean Quarterly 16:1

The Star Editorial, (Jan 31, 2007). Hérouxville bienvenue. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from The Star Editorial Web site: http://www.thestar.com/article/176411

Vasta, Ellie (2007). “From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policies: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilation in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30:5

Walker, Martin (2006). “Europe's Mosque Hysteria”. The Wilson Quarterly. 30:2

Individual Rights versus Community Rights: Acknowledging the Divide and Moving Forward

Introduction:
In 1971, multiculturalism became an official policy of the Canadian government. Since then, each election, influx of immigrants and international political crisis has prompted a period of national navel-gazing that results in a questioning of the ‘Canadian mentality’ towards immigrant populations. The concept has remained rather abstract, but is constantly referred to as the foundation of the Canadian spirit.[1] Indeed, while it is a psychological badge of honor that the average Canadian wears proudly, “when the rubber hits the road… [people have concerns] as to the degree of accommodation.”[2] As a regional response to that reality, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was established to examine multicultural accommodation practices in Quebec. While Quebec arguably faces the lion’s share of integration, assimilation, and minority issues in Canada, it is by far not a singularly local issue.
In that light, this paper will use a foundation based on readings about similar issues from an international perspective to discuss a potential obstacle in the path of Canadian cultural integration. It will identify that obstacle as the divide between societies with a focus on individual rights as compared to societies which are grounded upon a community-based rights system.

From Readings on the International Perspective:
Cultural integration is neither a modern issue, nor an issue for the Western world alone. In fact, historically, Islamic conquerors relied upon the Dhimmi, a pact of protection with a non-Muslim governed in accordance with Sharia law, approach to minority religions and groups.[3] A theory predicated upon the teachings of the Koran, the foundations of tolerance, acceptance, and understanding were once the method of integration of conquered people. However, a shift from “theology to history and from theory to practice” is essential for an understanding of the modern repercussions of Dhimmi.[4] Defined as, and in relation to the majority, one could argue that the secular version of Dhimmi is replicated in Canadian society. In the mirroring, Canadian society also contains a divide between an idealistic theory and its questionable implementation. Indeed, Martin Patriquin asserts that “it is clear that [the Canadian] national renown for tolerance is breaking down” as the immigrant community grows in size, voice, and visibility.[5] Similar to the sources of the integration issues that many European countries face, Canadian debates about the issue are particularly heated when it comes to a communal definition of identity, of a value system, or of what constitutes rights and responsibilities. In that sense, with an increase of the ways in which the nations of the world interact, comes the starkness of the different approaches to multicultural integration. One tool for examining the efficacy of part of the Canadian approach is the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. Occasionally dismissed as “a puff of political expediency,” as more testimonies were heard, their voices became increasingly more revealing, even disturbing.[6]

The Goal of the Canadian Model of Multicultural Integration:
As Patriquin affirmed, and highlighted by the hearings of the Commission, the so-called “blanket multiculturalism” approach to immigrants is not working. Perhaps it is best to look to the goal of the Canadian model of integration to an ill-defined “Canadian norm,” rather than try to define the norm itself. The Canadian identity, for all the difficulty in a uniform definition, is certainly predicated upon the importance of individual rights. In fact, Section 15:1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “every individual is equal before and under the law…without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”[7] While those are arguably rights that encompass a high level of equality of treatment between Canadians (immigrant and native born), it is clear that the rights are extended to each individual, not to communities within Canada as a greater whole. As in France—in particular, and much of the liberal world—in general, the nations are “gathering of the citizens, not the gathering of the communities.”[8] Herein lies (a large part of) the problem. Not all societies approach the concept of culture in an individualistic manner, ‘bottom up’ manner. Consequently, the move towards equality must acknowledge the difference between an ‘individual first, group second’ society and a ‘group first, individual second’ society. Unfortunately, “if equality is a modern invention, then denial of the problem is its Siamese twin.”[9]
The Canadian model of ethnic integration is that of a multicultural mosaic with phrases such as “reasonable accommodation” and “universal multiculturalism” holding sway in the cannon of discussion concerning this issue. Reasonable accommodation, a theory which has arguably become little more than a talking point and lost any concrete meaning it once may have had, is a term which acknowledges that there are Canadian limits to accommodation. It is not endless, nor is it about immigrant cultures in particular. Rather, it is about accommodating different packages of non-liberal values which enter the country with immigrant communities. Such a process “cannot be explained simply on the basis of claims that immigrants lack the necessary socio-cultural attributes for success.”[10] Instead, the Canadian commitment to “full immigrant inclusion and participation,” as promised by the rhetoric of multiculturalism, is what will ultimately earn Canada the right to its psychological badge of honour, and give immigrant communities both a sense of belonging to a wider community, as well as a retention of their unique customs, culture, language, and heritage. Those rights certainly constitute part of an integral consideration within cultural integration.
What, then, is the goal of the Canadian model of multiculturalism? While there are a variety of interconnected goals, the reality is that integration by ‘the immigrant’ into the dominant cultural norm is a goal which is increasingly out of touch with both the psyche and the demographics of the Canadian population. Perhaps the same can be said for the model of multiculturalism itself.

The Value of an Ill-Defined Goal:
Whether or not multiculturalism is the appropriate goal for Canada at this time is outside the scope of this paper. However, assessing the value of multiculturalism as it is currently implemented is not. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission attempted to play a role in that assessment and some argue that, however unseemly, “some version of Quebec’s very public debate will have to take place across the country.”[11] The sheer percentage of immigrants in relation to Canada’s population makes a full dissection inevitable. For now, shifting focus from the historical underpinning of Canada’s multiculturalist policy to the present reality of Canada’s inequalities is a necessary step in the right direction. Melding the implementation of multiculturalism to the divide between immigrants and native-born Canadians acknowledges the space between the individual mentality approach and the community-based approach for which large immigrant communities often advocate.

Moving the Debate Forward:
Perhaps a more positive voice in the debate, Ellie Vasta notes the confusion about the definition of multiculturalism but does not allow the uncertainty to prevent the debate from moving forward. On the other hand, she asserts that “multiculturalism clearly provides a set of inclusionary principles,” and is not “based on an essentialist notion of segregation.”[12] It is possible that this assertion is what makes multiculturalism untenable in today’s Canada. Yet, until the official policy is changed, multiculturalism must be reckoned with, discussed, debated, and argued. Canada’s designation as a liberal society will ultimately have to face the demands of an ever-growing immigrant population which, even after starting the nebulous process of integration, will likely present a conflict between the ‘community values’ approach and the dominant ‘Canadian individualism.’[13]

Conclusion:
The difference between individual rights and community rights is multi-faceted and has been faced throughout time, and around the world.[14] Particularly in Canada, where multiculturalism remains the rhetoric and a clear definition is about as forthcoming as complete religious tolerance on the part of Quebecers, the debate will likely continue for quite some time. Measuring the scope of the divide is a prerequisite for any useful move towards equality of rights for immigrant Canadians. Understanding that achieving equal rights for all does not preclude the existence of ethnic or cultural communities on Canadian soil, it is important to remember that there are not mutually exclusive, hermetically sealed approaches to immigration.

Works Cited:

Engbersen, G. “Spheres of Integration: Towards a differentiated and reflexive ethnic minority policy,” in R. Sackmann, B. Peters and T. Faist (eds), Identity and Integration: Migrants in Western Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

Kumaraswamy, P. R. "Islam and Minorities: Need for a more liberal framework" Mediterranean Quarterly 18, no. 3 (2007): 94-109.

Maillard, Dominique. “The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration,” Mediterranean Quarterly 16, no. 1 (2005): pp. 62-78.

Patriquin, Martin. “Canada: A Nation of Bigots?” Maclean’s. Toronto: Oct 22, 2007. Vol 130, Iss. 41; 17-21.

Vasta, Ellie. “From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policies: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilation in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, no.5 (2007):713 -740.
[1] Patriquin, Martin. “Canada: A Nation of Bigots?” Maclean’s. Toronto: Oct 22, 2007. Vol 130, Iss. 41; 17-21, 19.
[2] Ibid
[3] Kumaraswamy, P. R. "Islam and Minorities: Need for a more liberal framework" Mediterranean Quarterly 18, no. 3 (2007): 94-109, 106.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Patriquin, 17.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Schedule B: Section 15: 1.” Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Accessed 13 April 2008, .
[8] Maillard, Dominique. “The Muslims in France and the French Model of Integration,” Mediterranean Quarterly 16, no. 1 (2005): pp. 62-78, 74.
[9] Kumaraswamy, 101.
[10] Vasta, Ellie. “From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policies: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilation in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, no.5 (2007):713 -740, 715.
[11] Patriquin, 21.
[12] Vasta, 733.
[13] Ibid, 727.
[14] Maillard, 78.