The belief that all men and women are equal is a fundamental cornerstone on which democratic systems are based. Canada is a respected leader and model for the democratic system and this idea of equality is etched into the heart of every Canadian. Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The word equal is a very powerful word. Equality that permeates throughout an entire society must be kept in a very delicate balance. Although the roles of individuals may vary such as the role of a politician versus the role of an elementary school teacher, the basic rights that subsist in every individual are the same. Laws should not look more favourably upon one individual over another. This is an essential part of equality. Every citizen must be able to protect themselves using a preordained and uniform set of rights and privileges in just the same way as any other citizen. The unique circumstance of the make-up of Canada makes the idea of equality is evermore essential. In a country like ours, one that is made up of diverse multicultural backgrounds, equality is an ideology that pervades our thoughts and is something that has become symbiotic with the identity of a Canadian—one cannot exist without the other.
In our society, an immigrant who has naturalized as a Canadian and a person whose parents were born here and their parents before them, are equals. One does not have any special provisions nor own an edge when it comes to basic rights and laws that govern actions. The idea of equality demands that this be the case, any other approach to this would be counterproductive to the goal of equality. There are many who advocate that the aboriginals of Canada should receive differential treatment from other citizens of this country. The main argument is that because aboriginals chose not to come to Canada but instead were forced to become Canadians, they should be excluded from certain responsibilities, exempt from certain laws of Canada, not mandated to pay taxes, and they should hold different set of rights (Carens 2000). All this was an attempt to respect and accommodate the aboriginal culture. For a long period of time full Canadian citizenship was treated to be incompatible with the distinct identity of an aboriginal.
With respect to the jurisdiction of the Charter of Right and Freedoms, the Charter was meant to be a list of rights for all Canadians regardless of race, age, creed, or gender. It is an all encompassing document that ensures the basic rights of all who have the privilege of calling Canada home. According to Joseph Carens’ article entitled ‘Culture, Citizenship and Community’, Carens states that some aboriginals do not want the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pertain to their people. Those that advocate for this say that it is not because they do not believe in freedom of religion or expression, rather it is because of cultural differences that the Charter should not apply to them. Some claim that in aboriginal communities, the communal responsibilities should be put before individual rights. However if we were to allow for aboriginals to not be protected under the Charter, it could open the door for major abuses by the government to individuals. A common Charter that lists out all the rights an individual is afforded is necessary to protect citizens and to settle thoughts of inequality and/or preferential treatment for one group of people.
The center point of Carens’ article is that aboriginals are advocating for self-government. Though they would still be in the jurisdiction of Canada, they would handle their business as if they were a country within a country. This concretes the necessity of the Charter to cover aboriginal individuals because if individuals are not protected from the government, exploitation of individuals could ensue. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms unites all citizens of Canada, including aboriginal citizens, under a common citizenship. This kind of solidarity and equality is required for the Charter to be effective and embraced.
The idea of a Charter-less aboriginal self-government will cause a lot of problems in a society that values the idea of equality. If an aboriginal leaves the reserve and joins an urban community then commits a crime, will they not be protected under Charter Rights because the individual as an aboriginal has been denied those rights? What about a non-aboriginal who visits a reserve, commits a crime and then is caught in the act. Will that individual be denied Charter Rights because they committed the crime on aboriginal jurisdiction? There are many issues to consider.
In our previous class it was raised that an aboriginal is different because should they not like the system they do not have a place to move back to. It was further stated that should an African-Canadian not like the system, they should go back to Africa. This is a flawed and racist way of thinking. If an African-Canadian who was born in Canada does not like the system, they should do what they can to change the system here in Canada. The only connection to Africa that person may have is their skin colour. Our world today is an international society and the idea of the global village has been realized. Almost all developed countries do or are beginning to demonstrate a multicultural body and everyday societies are becoming less about skin colour and more about ideologies. If that same African-Canadian did not agree with the ideologies of Canada, yet agreed with that of Switzerland, that person could move there and be content—even though that person previously had no connection to Switzerland. If an aboriginal does not agree with Canadian ideologies and principles, there are many routes that that individual could take.
This is not to say that aboriginals did not have many injustices performed on them during the period of colonialism many generations ago. However since then the Canadian government has done a lot to make peace with the aboriginals. Aboriginals have been given land settlements, monetary settlements, and more to compensate for the wrongful deeds of the past. These settlements have been agreed upon by aboriginal officials and it can be assumed that after these settlements have been given, all is equal and all debts have been paid. The rationale for keeping special provisions in place for aboriginals is no longer necessary because the wrongs of the past have been rectified. These provisions also conflict with the ideology of equality because it creates a two-tiered system in the law where race, skin colour, ancestry, or geography could determine vastly different sentences. Aboriginal youth today, who have been born in the post-confederate Canada, face many problems because aboriginals are seen as different from the rest of us. If they are embraced as one of our own the unique problems that are experienced by aboriginals could dissipate. An aboriginal baby born today in Canada is as Canadian as anyone else. Therefore they should be given the same opportunity to realize their full potential. If a two tiered system is made, that child may be unfairly exposed to the smaller and narrower aboriginal side thus making them feel less Canadian than the rest of society and also make them feel like outcasts of society because they are excluded from something that is considered distinctly Canadian.
-------
Works Cited:
Carens, Joseph. Culture, Citizenship, and Community Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. 177-199
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While it is agreed with the initial post that having a separate country for aboriginals within the country of Canada is problematic, I disagree with much of the reasoning provided for it by the poster. The essential problem that I foresee would be in terms of rights violations of individual aboriginals, who come under this separate Charter-less self-government especially those who are “born into it” and have not been provided a chance to decide for themselves.
Aside from this, aboriginals in Canada are not like other cultures, as they have been systematically and horrendously treated historically by Canada and that these “wrongful deeds” as the initial post refers to them, are still unravelling their effects on First Nation populations in Canada to this day. In this sense, it is not simply that should be treated differently because they were here first (Carens 2000) but rather because there ought to be recognition of the fact that though the government and many citizens would like to think themselves absolved of the actions of the past simply by offering monetary compensation (whether or not the amount is sufficient aside), aboriginals are amongst the most impoverished and incarcerated populations in Canada, today (not in the past but today).
It is folly to think that the imposition of European values and ways upon the aboriginals in the past which took the form of destroying families, lives and cultures, have ceased to have negative effects in contemporary times. I fear that the initial poster has fallen victim to this folly as evident by the last paragraph regarding governmental compensation for injustices “many generations ago”. Actions have consequences, and the contemporary repercussions of the injustices of the past include high rates of incarceration, poverty and mental illness amongst aboriginals.
Aboriginals have the highest rates of incarcerations as relative to the general aboriginal population, followed by African-Canadians (Wortley 1999). However this is not limited to incarceration alone as aboriginals are more likely to be denied bail and held for longer periods in pre-trial detention amongst much else (Chartrand 1995).
One study has revealed that “First Nations children are suffering the greatest levels of poverty of all children in the country”, with one in four children living in poverty (CBC News). They have higher rates of disability and health problems and in many areas the rates are higher than other children in Canada.
Rates of suicide, mental illness and addictions are also far higher than the averages for rest of Canada, being either double or triple those averages (Robinson 2007). This resource also discusses various reasons behind this and also provides other alarming statistics (as per illiteracy, infant morality rates, fetal alcohol syndrome etc.) that are not only much higher than Canadian (and global) averages but are shocking in that they are present in a country we like to see as progressive and equal.
The initial poster fears a two-tiered system would ensue if aboriginals are granted their requests; however a two-tiered system already exists with the majority of non-aboriginal Canadians faring far better than aboriginal Canadians as described previously.
“Laws should not look more favourably upon one individual over another” is a nice ideal, but in the end it is simply an ideal and not a reality.
Overrepresentation in the criminal justice system can be argued to be evidence of discriminatory practices for example.
And another ideal is that “all men and women are equal” because in reality they are not, just like as I have established, all cultures are not equal, especially when one compares the realities of the aboriginal culture with all the other cultures that are present in Canada.
Carens, Joseph. Culture, Citizenship, and Community Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. 177-199
CBC News. Aboriginal children are poorest in country. Nov 24, 2006, from CBC Web site: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/24/child-poverty.html?ref=rss
Chartrand, Paul. Bridging The Cultural Divide. 1995, from First Found Web site: http://www.firstfound.org/vol.%201/cgartrand2.htm
Robinson, BA, Suicide among Canada's First Nations. Jan 3, 2007, from Religious Tolerance Web site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_nati.htm
Wortley, Scot.A Northern taboo: Research on race, crime, and criminal justice in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology.. 41:2 (1999)
The Bigger Picture of AN UNEQUAL SOCIETY : Subliminal Messages that Propagates Inequality in the Charter
While I agree in some ways with ideas you have stated in relation to aboriginal self government, I am inclined to state that the other side to the premise for your arguments needs to be highlighted. With all due respect, when the flaws within the Charter are highlighted I think perhaps your perception of how useful it is to set out expectations of an equal society will become weak. Your post assumes that the Charter is this all encompassing spotless document however this is not the case. You begin your post with the reiteration of how important the Charter is to our country and how it unites us all, (all as in everyone who lives on Canadian soil), in the name of protection, and privilege. By stating equality is a fundamental cornerstone on which the democratic system is based you allude to the fact that everyone must be seen as equal under the law and thus all people must in fact be treated equally in every regard. While you have also pointed out that section 15 of the Charter is the most important in terms of explicitly laying out the expectations of equality, I believe you seem to miss some inherent flaws within our Charter that in fact undermines anything ethical or perceived as equal within the Charter itself. This post will hence focus on four main things that I see as problems within the Charter that inadvertently negatively impact the experiences of aboriginals, and immigrants as a part of our country. Whilst outlining these points it will be seen how the charter itself propagates inequality within society that inadvertently negatively affects aboriginals and immigrants.
These four points are: 1) that the Charter itself is set out under the perception that anyone who lives on our soil identifies as being “Canadian”. 2) That the Charter is contradictory in stating Canada is diverse and multi cultural and respects people as such, seeing as how the official languages for Canada are French and English and all people are forced to learn either/or in order to become successful in the country. 3) In terms of immigrants and generational privileges, it is understood that as each new generation becomes entrenched in Canadian society, the newer generations have more privileges than the privileges of the immigrant families past as a result of “Canadian Experience” and what I call Canadianization. 4) There is a difference between equality and fairness that the Charter inherently ignores. By outlying these issues and flaws within the Charter it will be seen that this document perhaps might not be the best premise for your argument and thus the issue of aboriginal self government and immigrant accommodation do in fact suffer from the unaddressed subliminal messages within this document.
Firstly, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the basic fundamental rights that every person living on Canadian soil has the right to ascertain. Here one of the critical issues that many seem to overlook is that since this document is called “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, as opposed to “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms for those Living in Canada”, it reiterates the point that these rights and freedoms outlined are primarily for those who identify themselves as Canadians first over anything else. However, living in what we call the cultural mosaic or the salad bowl of the North, (both terms that reiterate we can still preserve our own cultures while mixing into the mainstream), the latter seems more appropriate than the former. This is because to assume that everyone living in Canada prioritizes the Canadian Identity over that of the their own (i.e. Being Indo Canadian or Chinese Canadian over being Canadian- Indian or Canadian Chinese), is insensitive and undermines the call for diversity and equity that is so called entrenched in our Charter. Now perhaps it can be argued that in order to receive protection from the Charter you must identify as Canadian first because it is inherent to Canadians and only Canadians. As a response to this type of an argument, I would state that what makes Canada different from other countries is that Canadian officials exploit the idea that people can be different and keep their differences without feeling as if they have to give them up within the Canadian mainstream context. We, as Canadians are always used as a point of comparison to differentiate ourselves from the “melting pot” that is the States or Europe in which people are unable to show their actual religions. I admit that as a result of the expectations of behavior enshrined in our Charter, people in our country are expected to live a life free of oppression.
However, my concern lies within the fact that I actually do not think that the idea of diversity, multi cultureless and equality can coexist in a document wherein the title itself does not leave room for “identifying” as anything other than Canadian first. For example, the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a document in which all member countries, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation should adhere to in order to allot proper standards of living for people around the world (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). Even though the UN is arguably run or controlled most visibly by the States, the UN could have chosen another name to the document that would somehow call on member states to highlight affiliations with the UN in order to show some sort of identification to its membership, but the UN did not. I can not explain the reasons why this was not the case, however I Can say that it probably in the long run was a good thing because it allowed autonomy to be kept within states while still affiliating themselves with the overarching theme of survival spearheaded by the UN. In the same way, the semantics within the title of the document itself shows people that the Charter is made for those who identify themselves as Canadians before all.
In relation to the issues of aboriginal development and identity, I must state that as Caren points out, the idea of advocating for self-government, to me this means that these people are fighting for the right to control themselves within the confines of Canadian borders. In this way, immigrants could also be paralleled to this in that those who are Chinese or Korean could ask the Government for self-government within Canada to create their own Diasporas and areas of living. Self Government on Canadian soil means as you have pointed out that people are asking for special privileges or rights. However the other side of this is that the Charter is only a guideline that sets out behavioral standards. It is totally possible to have self governments co existing with the current parliamentary and democratic systems. But it takes the will of a country to actually ensure this is on the agenda for the next political debate. Seeing as how the Charter is addressed mainly for Canadians, anyone who identifies themselves as aboriginal or a minority first before being a Canadian doesn’t seem to fit into the confines of what the Charter protects or stands for. Hence I ask the question then, does the charter actually promote or propagate a united front to protect against an infringement of rights and freedoms for ALL people, or does it serve as good rhetoric to make it seem as such wherein the subliminal underlying message expressed even within the semantics of the title illustrates the importance of being Canadian first over anything and everything else? It is fair to say that if Canadian mentality was really to embrace all diverse backgrounds instead of just to tolerate them then the emphasis would not be placed on the Canadian Identity.
Rather, the idea of being a dual citizen (respecting the origin country you are from and being Canadian) or being someone who lives on Canadian Soil and didn’t believe they were fully Canadian, would be upheld within the Charter. The mere fact that the titles reiterates the importance of being Canadian First is very telling of the underlying themes and tones of Canadian supremacy that lies within the Charter. This idea of the Canadian heritage or identity being more supreme than others can be understood in relation to aboriginal self government as well in that there has been much talk about how they have been inherently insulted in our system and thus deserve to come up to par with the rest of the people living in Canada. While I do not agree some people over others need to get special rights or privileges, I do in fact agree with the reality that already within the Charter there lies a supremacy of heritage and thus for aboriginals to becomes self governing would really only bring this huge issue to light and perhaps when more blatant attention is put on it, it might perhaps be seen through the lens I have discussed here. Then, perhaps this document will be questioned as the legitimacy of a document that claims to outline expectations of everyone living in Canada and for Canadians, when really it can be seen as divisive in itself.
Furthermore, while the part I am about to quote is not directly a section within the Charter, it sets the tone for the rest of the Charter. The preamble of the Charter reads, “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” (Charter). If we go back to the aforementioned point that this Charter is clearly for those who identify as being Canadian and does not embrace others who do identify as being anything else before being Canadian, then we also see the problem with the statement that the Charter is based on principles that recognize the supremacy of God. I am a believer of God, and being Hindu I have no problems in this statement what so ever. Also by mentioning GOD in the preamble it sets the tone in the document the church and the state are one. And that the values of both are equal. However that is a back dated idea that in this day of contemporary ideology should not necessarily be linked. However, it must be stated that this document clearly reiterates two things.
First then that it encourages everyone who has these fundamental rights to be seen as primarily Canadian as well that all of us then believe equally in higher powers being God. For those who are atheist or those who are from any other religion that does not see God as the higher power this might not be so accommodating. Second to this, those who are from another religions or cultural backgrounds, are forced to understand that there is One God, as opposed to the different Gods and Goddesses that exist inherently in different religions. Additionally, in the Canadian National Anthem which public school children must sing every morning in Canadian Public Schools, states in it, “O Canada, Our Home and Native Land….. God keep our land glorious and free!” (http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm#h2) The question that must be asked here is then, are we really an equal society as your post states if everyone must believe in God and sing this every morning? Does a society which seems people as equal assume everyone in Canada believes in God? Is it then aligned with equality that children of immigrants who might have a different religion or belief in God or a higher power, sing the National Anthem when enrolled in Public schools? On top of this, is equality assuming that we identify as CANADIAN before we are anything else? Is that really allowing people who immigrate here to still hold their own backgrounds close as they learn to adopt into Canadian mainstream society? These questions when asked will illustrate that no matter how much the Charter proves itself to be a document uniting people and qualifying rights and freedoms for all, that it inherently and implicitly does not reiterate equality for all but more so equality for what they define to be living, born Canadians.
Therefore when you state: “Canada is a respected leader and model for the democratic system and this idea of equality is etched into the heart of every Canadian”, I ask, is this idea of equality real? And is it really etched into the hearts of All people living in Canada or just those that are labeled Canadian through citizenship rights? Additionally how can a country who imposes the belief on God and the idea that everyone is Canadian first before all is be a respected leader and model for any other country? Without shedding light on this argument that I have exposed here perhaps your points would be left unquestioned, however as can be seen there is indeed another side to the Charter perception than believe chose to investigate. By looking at the predominance and expectation of official communication languages within Canada, this idea of an unequal society will be elaborated upon in the next section.
2). The second inherent flaw within the Charter is that the Charter is contradictory in stating Canada is diverse and multi cultural and respects people as such. This can be seen through how the official languages for Canada are French and English and all people are forced to learn either/or in order to become successful in the country. Under section 16 of the Charter, the official languages of the country are illuminated. Here the fundamental question is how can a country that believes in such diversity state profusely that only 2 languages will be imposed and implemented as the predominant language used in all “institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada” (Charter). How is this really representative of the hundreds of thousands of the immigrant population that reside in Canada. It is one thing to say that diversity is tolerated as is multiculturalism, however I think it is contradictory to state that all people are equal under the law, all people’s backgrounds are protected and that we see “equality as the cornerstone of the Charter”, as you have stated, as the same document states clearly the only officially accepted modes of communication are English and French. Children of immigrant families who do not understand English or French will have an extremely hard time adjusting to these new languages of communication and by having to use it all the time, their mother tongue gets lost in the trade.
Of course when you go to a new country you must be able to communicate with the people there, I am not arguing against this, but what I am proposing as a thought is that within the Charter itself, is it really necessary to make it seem as if we are all equal and that everyone is equally encouraged to live their own cultural backgrounds here when we within the Charter outline the predominant languages that are most acceptable for communication and that are imposed on everyone to learn? You state within your post many times the greatness that is the Charter especially in relation to ensuring that no one has more privileges than anyone else, however are we forgetting that if English and French are the most welcomed languages and languages used for accommodation that this is inherently leaving out a large part of the population who may not be on par with these communication standards and thus are seriously at a disadvantage in terms of understanding and abiding by the laws written in English and French, as well as getting a job or going to school where you must be able to communicate in a standard of English that is seen as Canadianized. In light of immigration patterns over the past fiver years, BC for example immigrants have stated that they do not conduct their daily lives in English or French and that many other do not as well (CTV.ca). If this then is a trend that is beginning to set the Charter needs to be able to reflect this and actually embrace it by excluding the primary languages of communication out of the charter and rephrasing it to something like “ While most of Canada utilizes French and English, representational authorities in institutions and parliament are moving towards attempting to learn the hundreds of other languages used by our immigrants on a daily basis within their daily working”. This would show that while there is a predominant language for instruction which could be perceived as the unifying language, it is still important to acknowledge that there are so many other languages that are used in businesses and institutions and these alike should not be undermined thus should be equally respected as languages that deserve representation within the Parliament and in institutions. Aboriginal people also have their own form of communication, and to expect them to adapt fully the Canadian way of communicating would also undermine their integrity as an autonomous peoples. To not have parliamentarians that in fact can represent these different languages puts those who are born and raised Canadians at an unfair advantage over those who are learning English or French as second and third languages. Here again, the question is, is this really equality? Should aboriginals really need to fight for self government as a result of not fitting into the expectations of Canadians society? If this means that the Charter has to change itself or clauses within it to be more accommodating to the different languages that exist.
Furthermore, you state in your post that:
”With respect to the jurisdiction of the Charter of Right and Freedoms, the Charter was meant to be a list of rights for all Canadians regardless of race, age, creed, or gender. It is an all encompassing document that ensures the basic rights of all who have the privilege of calling Canada home”. Just because people live in Canada and can call it home, it does not mean that people feel that their only home is Canada or that their only heritage is Canadian. There is a huge difference in being a part of a culture or associated with a culture or being only a part of a culture. It is questionable seeing as how the Charter outlines the predominantly accepted languages in Canada to be French and English and assumes that people will believe in God and see themselves as Canadian first, how exactly the is this being accommodating to differences? If anything it makes more sense to call Canada or the Charter tolerant of the differences that exist within our Country. It seems it is reiterating the negativity of differences by trying to make everything Canadian or what I call Canadianize peoples differences. Thus, just as people who are immigrants have the privilege of calling Canada home as you point out, it is important here to remember that the relationship is two fold. Just as Canada may offer more protection than other countries in terms of liberal freedoms, it also benefits from the incoming laborers who are comfortable doing less than average paid jobs when they come from other countries. Canada also benefits from having this diverse array of people here so that it can call itself diverse and multicultural and look attractive to the rest of the world. So the give and take relationship is reciprocal whereas your point makes it seem as if the privilege is only one slanted.
Overall then it is contradictory to pretend to be pride in multiculturalism when in terms of official languages English and French take precedence. If we were truly a multicultural country we would principally not have this type of blatant slant towards one language or anoyher to the point where we enforce the usage of this language on anyone and everyone that grows up on this land. Multiculturalism is supposed to be a way of life that incorporates all differences instead of a way of life that fits into mainstream Canadian society. However with a democratic process that isn’t necessarily representative of minority rights or aboriginal rights it is hard to believe that the Charter is really protecting any fundamental rights of anyone that does not identify with or fit the bill as a True Canadian- whatever that may be. Next, by trying to understand how this all relates to lesser privilges for first generation immigrants and new comers is important.
3) In terms of immigrants and generational privileges, it is understood that as each new generation becomes entrenched in Canadian society, the newer generations have more privileges than the privileges of the immigrant families past as a result of “Canadian Experience” and what I call Canadianization. As you state in your post: “an immigrant who has naturalized as a Canadian and a person whose parents were born here and their parents before them, are equals. One does not have any special provisions nor own an edge when it comes to basic rights and laws that govern actions.” While there are no explicit special provisions looking at the bigger picture it can be seen that the first generation to move to Canada will have more hardships than will the generations to come so the privileges will be more for those generations born later during a families resettlement. What I mean by this is that if a family were to move from China to Canada, the parents with their 2 children who came first to Canada would have to face the most horrid situations and hardships as will there children before these same children can settle down and procreate for the next generation who will reep the benefits of their own parents being born or raised mostly in Canada. When a newly landed immigrant comes to Canada it is hard for them to find jobs in their field because they lack what is called the “Canadian Experience”. The problem here is that if no one is willing to give them a job, they will never gain that experience they need to get a job that pays what they should be earning. In the same way, that first family will do what they can as parents to provide so that their children can lead better lives when they grow older and live in Canada. The second generation then will have parents who presumably got married and were educated in Canada and thus knew the Canadian way of life and got the valued Canadian education. This will allow them a smoother transition into their family lives where they will not have the problem of getting Canadian experience or not be qualified for the higher paying jobs because they will have lived here for so long. Their children in return will be citizens if they were born in Canada and thus will most probably be raised to a different standard of living than the first or second generational children. This different standard is a testament to the fact that years back, first generation great grand parents or grand parents sacrificed their lives and jobs to ensure their children got the education they needed in order to create good lives for themselves. So realistically the generational difference does not solidify equality. The generations past had to endure more hardship to attain a standard of living in comparison to the second or third generation who have already been settled in Canada for many years past, hence their opportunities and life chances are much more different and they can reep the benefits outlined in the Charter such as the ability to learn French and English an opportunity perhaps the first generations did not always have the luxury of learning.
By mere fact of experience it is impossible to think that hardship does not decrease by generational immigration or settlement. The initial move is always the hardest and once that road is paved, it makes things easier for the generations to come to pave their own, perhaps at higher standards road, in which their opportunities will flourish more so than the generation past. This is something that the Charter does not touch on. In the clause of Minority rights, it does not state that when someone immigrates to Canada they will not be incriminated for not having Canadian Experience and their work will be valued equally to everyone else who is Canadian. It isn’t in there perhaps for two reasons. First because it would throw off the power imbalance that exists in relation to class relations at present. What I mean by this is at present as can be seen the Canadian standard dominates the Charter, regardless of how multicultural it claims to be. However, if this type of a clause was added in which experience of immigrants or those not “naturalized” in Canadian societal ways would not be undermined when it came time to grading experience. Hence, “one individual” over another is “being favored” by the policies and structure enshrined into society as a result of the implicit messages within the Charter.
So overall, the Charter by merely excluding this type of clause from within it is making a statement again. The statement being that minority experience is not as privileged or important as Canadian experience. This coupled with the assumed belief in identifying as a Canadian as well as believing in God and being expected to know English and French well in order to function, inadvertently propagates the ideology that the society is unequal and only certain groups are privileged within it- those groups being Citizens and those who are willing to identify themselves as purely Canadian.
Relating it back to the idea of accommodation and cultural sensitivity, when the underlying tone is Canadian Supremacy then it is hard to believe that this document really does hold equality or rights and freedoms for all people in Canada at the heart of it. Thus further enticing me to question the legitimacy of your statement: Charter was meant to be a list of rights for all Canadians regardless of race, age, creed, or gender”, because clearly there is an implied and expected understanding of race, religion and creed within the Charter itself. This leads me to my next point in that there is an inherent difference between “Equality” and “fairness”.
4) There is a difference between equality and fairness that the Charter inherently ignores as does your post. In your post you mention equality many times and state that the Charter is the cornerstone of such equality. However as I have mentioned above the subliminal messages that can be understood from the semantics and underlying themes of the Charter mentioned show clearly that equality is not the main point in question of the Charter. While on the surface it may seem as such I think it is important here to say that equality and fairness are two different things. Equality means that everyone is equal in all regards. This is not the case, nor wil it ever be regardless of what the Charter seems to be the guidelines that the society functions under however it is incredibly back dated and thus does not fit the changes within society today. Nothing is mentioned about immigrant rights as rights of their own and aboriginal rights as separate rights either. It mentions everyone under the law should be equal meaning that aboriginal, immigrants and Canadians should all be treated and seen equally however relating back to Caren’s point about aboriginals wanting to be exempt from some parts of the overarching Charter, it can be seen that this would in a way be fair for these people as a result of all that they have had to endure in their histories. If the Charter were a flawless document then perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you about this being unfair for other people that some receive different rights than others. However, in this case the idea of fairness comes into play. Fairness asserts that what is fair for some may not be fair for all. The idea of equality however asserts that what is standard must be equal for all thus is set as standard. Even within equality, which I think you miss totally, there are levels of equality or varying degrees to which one may feel equal. This then relates back to fairness. Is it fair that a second generation immigrant because of their knowledge of English and French will be more occupationally successful than the first generations? Or is it fair that someone who is born here, will have no problems in knowing both E. and F. as a result of their public school education that immigrants did not get? Or is this a tool of equality? wherein some people must suffer for others to succeed? Some immigrants must work the lower paid jobs than others born and raised in Canada, because there experience is not valid, as a result of the importance we give to Canadian experience? Additionally, is it fair that immigrants are brought here, and then are left in the second tier of jobs? Or that Aboriginals were the first people on our land, however get treated as if they are outsiders? Is this fair or equal?
If we use the logic that you put out in your post about equality then yes, for some people to succeed others need to endure suffering, but how fair is that? Would it not be more realistic for the Charter to read, that these certain rights and freedoms are in the mindset of fairness and tolerance instead of accommodation and equality? For example, it is not fair that as a minority female in Canada that I will have to face serious obstacles when trying to work my way up the ladder in the business world, in that there is known to be looking glass ceiling to stop me at some point from reaching hire than other women do. However men are understood to not have this problem and hence the stigma of the hegemonic working male still exists in society today. That is not equal opportunity nor is it fair. In the same way, if an immigrant from Africa, a citizen from Canada, and an aboriginal all apply for the same job that requires both English and French and have Canadian work experience. In this case, presumably only the Canadian born citizen will have command of both of these languages and by virtue of their life chances and opportunities they will unfairly have experience that will cause them to have an advantage over the others in terms of getting this job that all of them are to a certain point educated enough to ascertain. The question then becomes is this fair? In all honesty the job requires certain things and the person who has it best would be most suited for the job. But in terms of the equality argument it would be seen that if the Canadian male got the job over anyone else than this is a discrimination to equality which is the top rhetoric of all human resources policies. Hence, I caution your use of such language in regards to the charter because it meshes very separate ideological ideas together- that of being fair and being equal. Further to that it assumes that the Charter is equal and fair at the same time which I have aforementioned implicitly it is not.
Overall then, why would Aboriginals not want to govern themselves when such a document exists which reiterates implicitly an unequal society? I think the problem here is that we are shaped to think the Charter is the perfect solution to our problems. Because it so wonderfully states the expectations to society which people at first glance think are exactly as they should be, we are blind folded to think that this document includes everyone. When really an upper dominant class is reiterated throughout the whole document. Far be it for me just to criticize a document that so many have worshipped, including myself before thinking about the larger ethical and societal flaws within the document that this major has taught me, however I do think this document like every other governing document needs to be revisited to see if what is inside it remains consistent with modern times and values. If society is what impacts or is supposed to shape laws and polices then it is overdue that this document take a look at what it is really saying and how it impacts a country in which immigrant and aboriginal populations are soo high, to ensure that it is actually accommodating everyone instead of giving the perception that it is.
Finally, while I really liked your post, when unpacking the hidden messages within the Charter it led me to think that perhaps it is only natural that a group decide to not affiliate itself with the Charter seeing as how it does have so many flaws it in, and govern themselves to a standard FAIR for them. I am not denying there are other problems with such actions but in relation to the Charter that you have constantly claimed to be the cornerstone of equality and unity, I think it is highly warranted. Moreover I do not think our discussions of people wanting to self govern were racist by any means, it in turn highlighted the problems within the current Canadian Society and the Charter itself, which need to be addressed so that people do not feel they need to separate themselves within Canadian borders in order to live a life they are comfortable with. Hence, since the current Charter reiterates tolerance and not accommodation it again only makes logical sense that these people who live in Canada find a way to live that works for them instead of being coerced into Mainstream Canadian society and standards.
Sources:
BC CTV.ca: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080304/census_lang_080304/20080304/
Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#langues
Caren Article: Mary Liston and
Joseph Carens, “Immigration and Integration
in Canada,” forthcoming.
National Anthem: (http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm#h2
Post a Comment