Too much freedom
The follies of Canadian multiculturalism
Jacques Marcoux, Volunteer Staff
As Canadians we often pride ourselves on being amongst the most embracing and egalitarian countries in all the world. Ever since the Trudeau-era dream of a multicultural country from coast to coast was shoved down the throats of Canadians, we have come to assume that diversity and accommodation is favourable in all instances. Many Canadians accept the warm and fuzzy, politically correct feeling that comes with that buzz word, “multiculturalism,” without considering the repercussions of such policies. Today, the famed “Canadian cultural mosaic” is causing more harm than good and the issue needs to be addressed.
The cultural mosaic is in theory a very progressive and good spirited idea. It can essentially be summed up by the 1960s song by the Youngbloods — “Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together try to love one another right now” — how cute. However, in practice the cultural mosaic has created a slippery slope that shows no sign of levelling off anytime soon.
In most democratic countries around the world, we are beginning to witness an uprising of soft, liberal-nationalism sentiment emerging among citizens. During the federal elections in Switzerland last July, the Swiss People’s Party called for a law that would throw out entire immigrant families if a child violates national laws. Even with such an extreme platform, the nationalist party gained seven seats in parliament while their opponents, the Social Democrats, lost nine.
In Germany, the National Democratic Party of Germany, often accused of being neo-Nazi successors, has in recent years been the fastest growing party in terms of votes. Let’s not forget the civil unrest in France in 2005, when several thousands of young immigrants hit the streets in protest of the discrimination cast upon them by the French society.
Closer to home, in Quebec, we have La Commission Bouchard Taylor. This inquiry consists of a series of hearings in communities across the province in effort to grasp the underlying sentiment among the Québécois as to what is considered “reasonable accommodation.” In the United States, one of the most contentious issues is their immigration policy and concern over the prevalence of Spanish in the states along the Mexican border.
Like it or not, the pendulum is swinging back towards more homogeneous and ethnocentric communities, after years of being indoctrinated with fairy-tale falsehoods by leaders such as Trudeau and the like. My intention is certainly not to imply that cultural differences should not be embraced or appreciated. What I am saying is that an overriding piece of legislation such as the Charter of Right and Freedoms should not necessarily be the final word when it comes to pushing the cultural envelope.
As a result politically correctness, we are now seeing instance of reverse discrimination, where the cultural majority is having their rights to equality removed due to over-riding minority rights.
Imagine the following: If Christian-Canadians immigrated to a Middle Eastern country such as Iran, would anyone believe that Iran would amend their laws to accommodate the demands of a minority? However, when minority groups in Canada request such accommodations, the precedent set by allowing the slippery slope to grow makes it nearly impossible to deny such requests. And we have the track record to prove it.
We have allowed Sikh RCMP officers to wear their traditional turbans, which required amendments to the current policy. In 2006, orthodox Sikh Gurbaj Singh Multani won the right at the Supreme Court of Canada to wear his ceremonial dagger in high school, despite the school division’s original ruling that it caused a potential danger as it is essentially a concealed weapon. Just recently, Muslim communities in Ontario have prepared a proposal that, if passed, would enable them to practice Islamic law within Canada. In 2005, Canada recognized same-sex marriage. Now there is question that a Charter of Rights challenge over polygamy is imminent. What will happen when a lonely individual challenges the courts requesting Canada to recognize a marriage between a human and a farm animal? Remember when the Pasternak twins challenged the Manitoba High School Athletics Associations last year at the Supreme Court, since they were denied the right to play on the boy’s hockey team based on gender discrimination? Despite the fact that there was a woman’s team available for them to play on, the courts ruled in their favour.
Please note that I am not implying that any of the above examples are right or wrong. In fact, I feel strongly that same-sex marriage and Sikh ceremonial rights were reasonable challenges to the constitution. As a society, our values and beliefs evolve naturally over time; it is to be expected. However, the problem arises when we accept these accommodations based entirely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without some form of public acceptance, which begs the question: where do we draw the line?
As a result of political correctness, we are now seeing instance of reverse discrimination, where the cultural majority is having their rights to equality removed due to overriding minority rights. Organization hiring policies consider ethnic quotas rather than solely levels of competence. Retail stores now have “holiday” rather Christmas sales in December. Like a virus, this obsession with accommodation has infiltrated itself in our daily lives. For years we’ve been told that diversity and multiculturalism is to our advantage. In some cases it is true: population and economic growth, world views, and differences in opinion. But the difficulties many face in integrating into Canadian society and the economic and social burden that ensues as a result should not be overlooked, either. Canada is one of the best countries in world because of the freedom it bestows upon its inhabitants; however, remember that absolute freedom leads to chaos.
Jacques Marcoux is a fourth-year commerce student.
