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.
No comments:
Post a Comment