|
MULTICULTURALISM: DEAD OR ALIVE? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Articles -
Commentary
|
|
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 19:47 |
What does multiculturalism and Tim Hortons have in common? From an abstract academic perspective nothing seems to match, but from a practical everyday reality they have everything that a student of public policy and culture needs to understand about the dynamics of multiculturalism in contemporary Canada.
order of a double-double at a Tim Hortons near you is all you need to do in order to discover the present troubles and dis-functionality of multiculturalism. If you were waiting in line, for instance, the exchange of morning pleasantries and weather talk between different ethnic customers is virtually nonexistent. It is confined to persons of the same stripes and colour. Moreover, it is either by design or pure chance, that the majority of the workers at a particular Tim Hortons happen to belong to a particular ethnic group. That, I believe, could be the function of the origin of the franchisee/owner. And if you were, on the other hand, happen to sit down inside for your coffee break you will soon discover that different people from different countries colonize certain corners and confine themselves to talking among themselves oblivious of the others present around them. This cantonization/Balkanization within a particular Tim Hortons is the epitome of the present debate and dilemmas of multiculturalism. “A multicultural Canada is a great idea in principle,” wrote Michael Ignatieff when he was a public intellectual roaming the globe, “but in reality it is more like a tacit contract of mutual indifference. Communities share political and geographic space, but not necessarily religious, social or moral space. We have little Hong Kongs, little Kabuls, just as we once had little Romes or little Lisbons.” Thus the million dollars question must be this: What must we know about each other in order to be citizens together? For starters, multiculturalism involves a two-way process of accommodation:”you” adapt, the newcomers, “we” adjust, the indigenous community. This balancing act has been illusive at best, and totally absent at worst. Neither side has been successful in this regard, hence the present tensions and uncertainty surrounding the health of the Canadian version of multiculturalism policies. The infamous declaration in January of this year by the Quebec town of Herouxville is nothing but a striking example of the divide inflicting the principles of immigration policies and the realities on the ground. It is nothing short of a warning episode for all to take notice before we arrive at a crossroad not unlike the French riots that we have witnessed in the fall of 2005 around the suburbs of Paris and major cities. Further to the point, consider the recent study by the Montreal-based Institute for Public Policy that was based on Ethnic Diversity Survey using the 2002 Statistic Canada data. It confirmed empirically the suspicion, widely held, that visible–minority immigrants are slower to integrate into Canadian society than their white, European counterparts, and feel less Canadian suggesting that multiculturalism doesn’t work as well for non-whites as envisioned by the founders of its conceptional parameters. The study’s authors found that only 33 per cent of first-generation visible-minority immigrants identified themselves as Canadians, compared with 64 per cent of white immigrants, while 70 per cent voted in the last federal election, compared with 82 per cent of white immigrants. Seventy-nine per cent of visible-minority immigrants had Canadian citizenship, compared with 97 per cent of white immigrants. As for the children of visible-minority immigrants the study found that, “44 per cent of them felt a sense of belonging, compared with about 60 per cent of their parents. In contrast, 57 per cent of the children of white immigrants felt a sense of belonging, compared with 47 per cent of their parents.” Professor Jeffrey Reitz, a co-author of the report from the University of Toronto, said: “When you study the trend over time, visible minorities who were born here feel less like they belong than their parents.” That is exactly the opposite of what Pierre Trudeau and other Liberal intellectuals thought would happen when they embarked on building this crumpling social engineering project. Furthermore, Professor Reitz added:” Multiculturalism doesn’t have specific goals and objectives. The majority thinks too much is being done already, while minorities think the policy lacks credibility.” If that is the case, then the question is: What is to be done? The fact remains that any immigration policy, or any form of multicultural crusade, is never conceptionally envisioned or implemented in a vacuum. Too many political, social, religious and economic variables inevitably come into play. That is the nature of present social structure of any bureaucratic system. Therefore, human prejudice and cultural habits interplay with any idea or system of thought. Hence we find that the present world political, security problems and civilizational tensions between East and West have burdened and made unsustainable the original underpinning of present multiculturalism scheme in Canada. The truth has always been the daughter of time. From this proven axiom, we must embark on a new definition of multiculturalism to adjust to present realities in Canada and the world. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be our guiding principle. How? Consider these following thoughts as a contribution to the debate intended for policy makers and legislators: - Every accepted immigrant should be made aware, read and comprehend the basic principles of the Canadian Charter which is the source of our laws.
- Multiculturalism is meant to be a transitional phase not a destination by itself.
- Rights and freedoms have by necessity a corresponding integral parts; Duties and responsibilities, they both are two faces of the same coin.
- As Michael Ignatieff once wrote:” We are a political community that has outlawed the practise and advocacy of violence as an instrument of political expression. We have outlawed it within, and we need to outlaw it without.” Thus immigrants should be made to leave the memories of injustice behind and abandon fantasies of revenge.
- Accommodation, destroying discriminatory barriers, removal of prejudicial attitudes and practices are a two-way street. The old formula must remain: “You adapt, we adjust”. Canadian should also realize that they have no monopoly over virtue, values and that their way of life is not sacred or unbendable to adjustments.
- Take some serious time to practice your hard-earned citizenship. Vote, participate in civic duties, example, charity work, sports (watch Hockey Night in Canada with Don Cherry!), learn the two official languages as much as possible, broaden your intellectual horizon by adopting new modes of thinking, habits, sports, traditions, and communicate with your neighbors, etc.
- Multiculturalism means above all accepting change and adapting to change. It doesn’t mean transformational change or dictation of cultural norms and practices. (The Charter does guarantee freedom of religion and thought.)
- We should have an “Immigration Day” every year to celebrate differences within a framework of Canadianness.
- Culture should not be considered our destiny. It is only a way to adapt to the world at large. Change it when need be. Improve it when necessary. Do not let it imprison you and subjugate you.
All in all, multiculturalism is in the intensive care unit, not dead yet, but barely alive. We need renewed political vision, leadership and some brain power to create a new invigorated system to deal with the various challenges ahead. The U.S. and European models are not models to emulate. We need a workable made in Canada immigration system that the world would copy and envy.ELIE MIKHAEL NASRALLAH |
|
|
|
|
|
Quotations
| We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men : Woodrow Wilson |
|
|
|
Articles 
Subscribe to RSS Feed