At first glance, the “Life Standards” code by the small city of
Terrorist attacks in the
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
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
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
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).
Kumaraswamy, P. R (2007). "Islam and Minorities: Need for a more liberal framework" Mediterranean Quarterly 18:3
Maillard, Dominique (2005). “The Muslims in
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
Walker, Martin (2006). “
2 comments:
While I do agree with your thesis that a balance must be found when dealing with accommodation for minorities versus the rights of the majority, I found several of your points to be controversial and at times downright racist. Although the final premise of the post is a valid point, this post exudes the bigoted stereotypical viewpoints that the writer criticizes.
With the inauguration of the globalized society, those of the Muslim community have reached virtually all countries of this world. Do to our international community, especially in the West, I found it questionable when you wrote that ‘Many people do not know any Muslims themselves’. Perhaps what you had meant to write was that not many people have experienced the appalling actions of radical Muslim sects. In the western world, followers of the Islamic faith abound. It is the second most practiced religion in the western world next only to Christianity.
With respect to the issue of the Danish cartoon controversy which depicted racist pictures of a sacred figure in the Islamic belief, we must look at the limits of the freedom of expression. The Cohen Committee was called upon to establish whether expressions of hate needed to be curbed in some way in Canada. The committee eventually concluded that indeed the freedom of expressions needed to be given limits because of the harm that hate propaganda can produce. One of their reasoning for this conclusion was because of the lack of sincerity and honesty in the discussion of hate. There was nothing to be gained from allowing people to express such reprehensible discriminatory remarks. Although no physical harm was committed against the Muslim community, I disagree with you that no ‘discernable harm’ was done. The Danish cartoon controversy was an attack on the very identity of Muslim people. The Prophet Muhammad is a central and sacred figure in the religion and an attack on him is equivalent to an attack on an individual. The symbolic harm that was done through this cartoon was much more serious than a physical attack.
Continuing on, I found your demand for reciprocity of minority rights between Western and Islamic nations to be faulty. Islamic countries are countries that have a state religion where Islam is the official and singular recognized religion in the nation. The rights and privileges of minorities in those countries are limited because it is not a free and multicultural society like the society we currently enjoy in Canada. To demand the same treatment for minorities in a country like Canada versus a country like Iran would be elementary and futile. In Canada we have written in our Charter the idea of multiculturalism. This idea is not shared by most if not all Islamic nations. To demand a western ideal from an Islamic state would not work.
In your closing paragraph where you give your final opinions on how those of the Islamic faith can help themselves, you claim that they need to “be able to accept criticism and respect the rights of others just as they expect for themselves”. Where is the evidence that Muslim people do not already accept criticism and do not respect rights of others? That statement radiates with the stench of ignorance to such an extent that it can be seen as racism. Since the events of 9/11, the Muslim people are unarguably the most criticized and discriminated against cultural-religious group. The Muslim community experiences racist and discriminatory acts on an exponentially higher rate than the so called majority. This disadvantaged community lives with policies and practices that are preordained to be naturally biased against them. For this same community to ask for treatment that is equal with that of other Canadians is not only right but also necessary for a country like Canada. I believe that their plea for equality is a plea that must be heard and rectified.
This article did a great job in considering the readings critically while bringing in alternative resources when others simply rephrased or summarized the material. It seems that only the actions and beliefs of a few are responsible for the intolerance and outright condemnation of an entire culture and religious belief system. Agreed, a small minority exhibiting violence does not represent an entire group. But while this post argued this point, it does not go much further. This issue is a timeless one and seems to have plagued conceptions of immigrants and their ‘other’ cultures since the founding of nations, North American or European. For instance, in Canada, large numbers of post-WWII immigrants experienced severe criticisms and nativist backlashes from Canadian Anglo-Saxon citizens which then served to create and promulgate discriminatory immigration policy and beliefs around certain misconceptions of those entering the country.
The fact of the matter is that moral panic in response to immigration and ethnic diversity is in no way a new problem. What is new, however, is the international stature and impact of these issues throughout the world. Immigrants in Canadian history have bore the brunt of strong desires towards policies that favour assimilation in the answer to growing problems associated with immigrants, like those mentioned in the Vasta article. Also, these immigrants faced stereotypes like those of populist politician Pim Fortuyn when he claimed that “the Netherlands had too many immigrants and that Islam is a backward religion” (Vasta, 714). Post-WWII immigrants to Canada faced debilitating cultural-ethnic stereotypes that were seen to obstruct adaptation to Canadian life and society such as cultural tendencies and physical characteristics that did not blend well or suit the character of a Canadian citizen or religious beliefs that would benefit Canada in socio-economic ways. Given this recurring cycle, what does this have to say about current times of cultural accommodation and balancing of minority/majority rights and freedoms?
There is no question that at the forefront of current misconceptions, people of Muslim background are experiencing discrimination most severely than any other cultural group. It is clear that severe negative effects can result from the inherent falseness and ingenuity of cultural misconceptions and generalizations. However, in a world impacted by “adverse effects of globalization, threats to security and a changing political climate” (Vasta, 715), perhaps these misconceptions and ideals of cultural cohesiveness have taken on new life and will remain for longer periods of time. Perhaps they have been created in this new context and will remain forever. The issue widens considerably if one considers that when it comes to people of Muslim backgrounds, the cultural or inherent link with national security concerns (whether they be real or conceived through sensationalist media) further complicates issues of cultural accommodation and this is where the debate takes on new light.
The Vasta article asserts that “in numerous European countries of immigration, there has been a widespread ‘moral panic’ about immigrants and ethnic diversity” (Vasta, 713). This is quite a different statement than what the author states in this post in claiming that events like the Theo Van Gogh murder have given rise to a panic over the takeover by minorities, particularly Muslims of western regions such as European countries.” What Vasta hypothesizes can be seen to be critically different than the issue that the author points out in this post and should be clarified. Is this what the author intended to say or was their discussion meant to be different? This may seem to be a small point to another observer but the use of the phrase ‘takeover by minorities’ seems to imply a strict point of view of the ‘Muslim problem’ when it comes to immigration and ethnic diversity. Perhaps the author meant to argue that within the moral panic of immigrants and ethnic diversity, the ‘takeover by minorities’ given their numerous advances in numbers create significant issues when it comes to cultural differences and accommodation.
It is entirely agreeable that the author see problems cultural misconceptions and the impacts of the institutionalization of these generalizations but the reader remains unsure as to how this fits together with the author’s claim that limits to accommodation and tolerance must be insured while protecting the rights of minorities with those of the majority. The author claims, on the one hand, that “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.” This is entirely acceptable to claim. But, on the other hand, the author states that Muslims are hypocritical in that they portray themselves as victims, criticize western ways and yet, remain unwilling or unable to look inward and question the actions of their members in the name of religion. The author then concludes by stating that a balance must be struck between accommodation minorities and ensuring minimal infringement of rights of the majority.
In the end, the post also discusses many instances of the minority/majority problem that brings up some considerable questions in debates of cultural accommodation. How does one balance accommodation of minorities with the rights of the majority when the majority is a) no longer truly a majority given the large influx and national character of immigrants and b) holds conflicting views of cultural accommodation given the multicultural character of nations like the Netherlands and Canada? Debates about how much accommodation is sufficient and when there ought or ought not to be limits when it comes to affording accommodation and restrictions is a difficult one to discern when one considers these issues.
Post a Comment