What is multiculturalism? Breaking the word down into three components, it means: multi — many, various or more than one; culture — customs, arts and social behaviour of a nation; ism — a distinctive system, philosophy or ideology. So basically, we have many customs and social behaviours with a distinct philosophy that form a society.
It would appear many people immigrating to this country over its history have developed a society with a cultural mosaic identifiably Canadian. Do we differ from British, French, German and other European cultures, as well as that of our American neighbour? Yes we do and we can and should all be proud. Do we have one of the strongest and most respected democratic systems of governance in the world? Without a doubt. How about our systems of public education, social assistance, and healthcare? Again, some of the best and most admired throughout the international community.
Are we a flexible society? Yes we are, and in many ways, too much that way.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have all stated multiculturalism has led to a weakening of the collective identities of their respective countries. Is this perhaps why some European states, especially France, are becoming much more selective in deciding who permanently resides in their country? Should this happen in Canada as well? I would argue it has to, in view of the fact previous immigration policy has resulted in situations where cultural, religious and political extremism has become cultivated in some communities with (informally) segregated ethnic populations. This situation runs counter to our fundamental beliefs, ideals and values.
Marco Navarro Genie, a research director at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, argued official multiculturalism has failed new immigrants because national and provincial governments responsible for implementing and enforcing multiculturalism policy have not provided a common vision of our society to incoming immigrants.
I would tend to question that because most persons coming to this country, I suspect, generally have a good understanding of what our society is about. Otherwise, why would they endeavour to come here? Such an argument suggests official policy towards new Canadians would not only encourage immigrants to retain their indigenous socio-political conceptualizations and the continued observance of customs, ‘laws’, and practices of their country of origin, but unfairly require of our society a wholesale denuding of our national identity towards that of just a multinational mosaic.
This disturbing notion has already been allowed to develop, to a degree, in several parts of Canada. This becomes especially disturbing when one considers it is these people who are most directly responsible for protecting our national identity and promoting its ideals.
Two such examples are noteworthy and disturbing. In the first case, the Liberal government of Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty entertained a request from the Islamic community to allow the practice of Sharia law amongst its members. This code emphasizes the supremacy of male citizens, the peripheralization of females, the virtual elimination of the rights of children, and allows for honour killings and female genital mutilation. Had it not been for an aggressive campaign of negative protest from Canadians of all ethnic, cultural, and religious identity across the country, Ontario could be a much different place for a sizable number of its citizenry. Had McGuinty and his cabinet had a moral compass instead of a selfish proclivity to mine for votes from the province’s ethnic communities, they would have immediately rejected out-of-hand any such overture. In the second case, a public school division in Manitoba was approached by a group of people who did not want their children to either listen to or play music while attending school. This situation even went so far as to involve the provincial human rights commission. The premise for this assertion, apparently, was it somehow violated their religious faith, but exactly how was not fully explained or justified. Aside from the selfishness, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity of such an act, but more disturbing, I think, is the fact the educational authority and the human rights commission actually entertained it to begin with.
It is occurrences like these that compel one to question whether our public institutions are staffed with people who understand their obligations to the nation, its laws, and its responsibilities to its people.
How should immigrants assimilate into a new country? By becoming a real citizen of that country — adopting its fundamental socio-cultural ideals, obeying its laws, learning one of its official languages, studying its history, contributing to its body politic, making socially-beneficial use of its educational systems and employment opportunities, and adapting to its belief standards and codes of conduct. By practicing liberal-democratic ideals, following the principles of equal justice and fair play, and observing the basic tenants of respectful social interaction, all immigrants can become true and good Canadians. By doing so they will be a benefit not only to the communities in which they elect to settle, but to the entire nation, and from there the community of nations, which is the society of all humanity.
