multiculturalism

Multiculturalism only solution

The murder of 12 at Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four at a kosher supermarket in Paris last week were not just examples of mass murder, violence to which we as a society have become sadly accustomed. These were deliberate attacks on the core values of a free, democratic, pluralist country.

We have long feared that the West might not respond in a stalwart way to such an incident, so the massive march in Paris Sunday, featuring world leaders, was an inspiration and a signal of hope that the people of France will stand on guard for the values of civilization that are epitomized by the rallying cry of that country’s revolution: liberté, égalité, fraternité.

What happens next will truly impact the future of our democracies. On the one hand, there is the potential that media will legitimately and understandably take baby steps in the direction of self-censorship, for fear that gun-wielding self-proclaimed editors will burst through the doors and kill everyone in range.

On the other hand, there is the potential that, in an effort to prove the opposite point, media (and now, with social media, everyone is a publisher) will saturate the discourse with material that is offensive to Muslims. Already, there has been a spike in attacks against mosques in Europe. Extremists on both sides could enflame this situation badly.

More optimistically, voices of reason, like those on the streets of Paris and at the Vancouver rally last week, may more positively affect the course of events.

Freedom of expression is paramount. In a democracy, where rights come with responsibilities, we would hope that people, including media, would use this right responsibly. Yet, even if they don’t – and it is both outrageous that we have to say it and that it is also at the absolute root of this discussion – there’s no case where gunning offenders down or bombing them is justifiable.

Freedom of expression is central to this discussion but, in a way that seems far too obvious to even state, the bigger issue is that people shouldn’t kill people. The four Jewish men who died at the supermarket are not martyrs to free expression. They are martyrs to just being Jewish.

Ultimately, events will probably lead more people in Europe to conclude, as many have already, that multiculturalism is a failed experiment. Certainly, multiculturalism is imperfect, as is any human endeavor. But it remains the best answer, given the unthinkable alternative, which is racial nationalism of the kind we have seen too much.

More bluntly, multiculturalism is unavoidable. We need to make it work. We cannot run to our corners and demand – what? – that they – whoever “they” are – stay on their side of the world and we – who are “we”? – should stay on ours? Because that is, effectively, the only alternative to multiculturalism. And that is plainly impossible, even if it were desirable in some cases. In today’s world, more than ever before, we are truly one people. We need to start acting in ways that reflect this reality.

There is a great deal of anger and incivility in the world today. In the car, in customer relations, certainly on the relative anonymity of the internet, the things people are saying to one another are rife with intolerance, divisiveness and rage. There are no laws that force us to be civil. Yet, there is a spectrum of the way human beings treat one another and many of us probably envision ourselves as more civil than we may deserve to self-regard.

Good citizenship is not only an obligation for newcomers, remember, it is a duty for all of us. As the people who marched in Paris demonstrated, like those around the world who have stood up, including here in Vancouver, acts of inhumanity are precisely the catalysts for us to redouble our own humanity.

Justin Trudeau meets community leaders, chats with JI

Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, was in Vancouver on April 10, and addressed a roundtable lunch organized by CJPAC. (photo by Cynthia Ramsay)

The Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) hosted a community roundtable lunch on Thursday, April 10, with Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

“CJPAC seeks to activate the Jewish community in the Canadian political process, and roundtables such as these provide opportunities to build relationships and engage with elected officials from all political parties,” explained Mark Waldman, CJPAC’s executive director, in an email after the event.

“CJPAC is a multi-partisan, national organization that has been active in Vancouver for many years,” he added. As an example of the organization’s work locally, he noted, “Recently in Vancouver, CJPAC hosted an event called Women in Politics, which was attended by more than 30 women. Participants engaged on a personal level with former and current female politicians from a number of political parties and levels of government.”

Thursday’s lunch meeting took place in a boardroom at Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP downtown. It seemed like a couple of dozen community members were in attendance. As they were leaving, Trudeau spoke briefly with the Jewish Independent before heading to another appointment.

“… I’m glad to say that any government of Canada will be supportive of Israel, not for ideological or political or strategic reasons, but because the values Israel stands for are Canadian values of openness, of respect, of democracy, of equality, and we need more of that, particularly in the tough neighborhood that Israel is in.”

“It went great,” he said about how the roundtable went. “We talked about, obviously, Canada’s support of Israel, which is extremely important to me and the point I made is that I am an unequivocal supporter of Israel. We need a two-state solution of a Jewish state on one side and a Palestinian state. Where I take issue a little bit with the prime minister these days is just that he’s tended to make it a little more of a domestic football, with some people being more supporters of Israel than others, and I’m happy to say that I love the prime minister for his support of Israel and thank Mr. Mulcair for his personal support of Israel as well, and I’m glad to say that any government of Canada will be supportive of Israel, not for ideological or political or strategic reasons, but because the values Israel stands for are Canadian values of openness, of respect, of democracy, of equality, and we need more of that, particularly in the tough neighborhood that Israel is in.”

Domestically, there have been changes made or proposed at the federal level over the years that, in the opinion of some, challenge those very values of openness, respect, democracy and equality, a recent example being Bill C-23, or the Fair Elections Act. When asked to describe his vision of the role of a federal government, Trudeau responded, “First of all, we have to understand that Canada is a federation, not a unitary state, so how we engage with different levels of government as a federal government – partnership with provinces, partnership with municipalities – and understanding the work together that we do as different levels of government all serves the same citizens.

“Giving a government a majority doesn’t give them the capacity to perpetuate themselves indefinitely by tricking the rules; that’s what happens in developing countries, that’s not what’s supposed to happen in Canada.”

“But even within the way Parliament functions,” he continued, “I made a strong commitment last June towards open Parliament, which would mean less whipped votes; open nominations, which would mean no omnibus bills, no misuse of prorogation, a lot more openness, the transparency around online posting of our expenses. Actually, what we announced in June last year then triggered similar announcements from everyone and now all of Parliament is starting to post online, and that was something that we triggered. So, I think when you look at that, when you look at the partisan approach to the Fair Elections Act – which is a very unfair elections act – I’m certainly trying to get the message out to Canadians that we do not need elections to be fixed in advance in favor of the Conservatives, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Giving a government a majority doesn’t give them the capacity to perpetuate themselves indefinitely by tricking the rules; that’s what happens in developing countries, that’s not what’s supposed to happen in Canada.”

With the defeat of the Parti Quebecois on April 7, there is reason to believe that its proposed Charter of Values will also go by the wayside. However, at least some of the sentiment that allowed it to be proposed in the first place – fear over immigration – likely still exists and, over the last few years, more than one European government has called multiculturalism a failure. In light of this, the Independent asked Trudeau what he thought about the future of multiculturalism in Canada.

“Multiculturalism in Canada is about building a diverse, flourishing fabric of a country that is strong, not in spite of its differences, but because of those differences.

“The German model of multiculturalism failed because they brought over temporary workers from Turkey and never allowed them citizenship, didn’t treat them like Germans and, even a few generations in, they never became [citizens]. Multiculturalism in Canada is about building a diverse, flourishing fabric of a country that is strong, not in spite of its differences, but because of those differences.

“And, I’ll say two things on Quebec. First of all, I, as of last fall, spoke very strongly in a number of editorials to Canadians to not get overly worked up about this Charter of Values, to trust Quebecers because Quebecers were not going to accept this, and I was pleased to see them show that on Monday night, and show that very strongly.

“But the second element: it does demonstrate how politicians can twist perceptions, and a lot of Quebecers who initially expressed support for the idea of the charter did so thinking they were sticking up for equality; you know, ‘liberating people from the oppressive yoke of religion,’ because, of course, in Quebec, that’s what happened through the sixties with their Quiet Revolution. But, as soon as people explained to them, no, this is about people having to choose between their religion or their job, Quebecers said, well, that doesn’t work at all, and that’s exactly what we have.”

When asked if he had any final words before the interview ended, Trudeau said, “Just what a pleasure it is to be out here in Vancouver. I had a great conversation with a number of strong members of the Jewish community and, unfortunately, we didn’t have enough time, so I look forward to coming back and doing this again soon.”

Bigoted values lose in Quebec

With the defeat of the Parti Quebecois in Monday’s Quebec provincial election, Canada as a whole dodged a bullet. Yes, one could say the bullet we dodged was the risk of Quebec separatism and a third in the series of referendums that threaten to tear the country apart. Many commentators are saying that the PQ’s devastating loss represents the end of separatism as a force for a generation or more. But, according to opinion polls, most Quebeckers – anglo-, franco- and allophone – were already opposed to both a referendum and to separation. The bullet we dodged was more immediate.

While the threat of a sovereignty referendum is probably what led to the PQ’s defeat, the more immediate issue was the PQ government’s Charter of Values, which would have almost certainly become law had the results turned out differently Monday. The proposed charter would have prevented government employees, and perhaps recipients of government services, including students at public universities, from exhibiting prominent displays of religious affiliation. The draft charter was the latest in decades of struggle in Quebec to preserve the majority French language and culture.

Quebec has always been the place in Canada where preservation of the majority culture (in Quebec’s case, most exemplified by the French language) has been of greatest priority. But a large proportion of Muslims in Quebec come from French-speaking North Africa and, therefore, the “values” that the charter would protect were no longer solely associated with linguistic assimilation. Marois’ PQ identified a broader range of defining characteristics under the umbrella of “secularism.”

The rhetoric around the proposed charter overwhelmingly centred on Muslims and Muslim practices, but we have, in Canada, concepts of equality that encourage us to treat in ways that are alike people who are different. So, rather than addressing whether there is a qualitative difference between, say, a full-face-covering veil and a turban, the charter attempted a sort of equal-opportunity bigotry. Even in distinct-from-the-rest-of-Canada Quebec, a law that would discriminate against people based on observant religious identity would have to discriminate equally. Crucifixes, turbans, kippot and other “ostentatious” evidence of religiosity would have been restricted under the charter along with Muslim head and face coverings – but with notable exemptions for certain symbols related to Christianity in public spaces and government buildings.

In his speech after resoundingly defeating Marois, Liberal leader and premier-elect Philippe Couillard addressed Quebec’s diverse citizens. “We share the values of generosity, compassion, solidarity and equality of men and women with our anglophone fellow citizens who also built Quebec and with our fellow citizens who came from all over the world to write the next chapter in our history with us,” he said. “I want to tell them that the time of injury is over. Welcome, you are at home here.”

These inclusive words suggest the miserable, unnecessary social divisions sewn by Marois and the PQ will no longer have sway within the government. Yet, while the PQ exploited and exacerbated social conflict with demagogic intent, the root fears, concerns and prejudices that allowed them to do so remain.

PQ or no PQ, Canada will continue to address the role not only of religion in the public sphere, but the impact on society of immigration. Successfully for the most part, Canadians have struggled over the generations to respond to successive waves of immigrants – and newcomers have struggled to respond to the demands made of them in a diverse country of immigrants. We have integrated new Canadians who believe in different gods, or no god, who speak hundreds of different languages and practise myriad distinct rituals and cultures, and the debate over degrees of accommodation is continuous. In the absence of a PQ government in Quebec, hopefully it will proceed with more nuance, subtlety and intelligence.