Dr.
Nazila Isgandarova
Canada’s
cultural diversity is the direct result of the immigration policies. It also
reflects how far Canada opens its doors to newcomers, and to which newcomers.
It depends on the country’s current economic needs, resources, and security
concerns. For instance, after September 11, the Canadians feel more affinity
with Americans and have more concern about immigration and boarder security.
However, Canadians have more optimistic view of immigration than Americans and
this may be based on the contributions that immigrants make to the Canadian
society.
Nevertheless,
historically, the Canadian immigration governments made sure that only the world’s best and
brightest come to Canada and the immigration policues were heavily dependent on
the ideological interpretations of multiculturalism, role of religion, etc.
These
approaches can be divided into three categories: (1) the conservative or
right-wing approach, (2) left wing and (3) both at the same time or mixed. The conservative
approach develops a narrative of Canadian history to counter the hegemonic
left-liberal interpretation of Canadian history, which celebrates the growth of
Canadian independence from Britain, the development of multiculturalism in
Canada, the advent of socialized medicine, Canada’s efforts to remain separate
from the United States, accommodation between French- and English-speakers, and
Pearsonian peacekeeping. The conservative narrative has a celebratory attitude
towards the old days of the British Empire, or monarchism, and Canadian
participation in imperial conflicts such as the First World War. Some of its
proponents are still hostile to multiculturalism, although others argue that
multiculturalism is part of Canada’s legacy from the British Empire.
Historically,
the Canadian society has always strived for making a new country that is
composed of extremely diverse people but they also have some core elements. It
puts emphasis on uniting Canadians by fostering a culture of inclusion and a
commitment to core values of equality, accommodation, and acceptance. For this
purpose, there were several attempts on government levels. Three of the most
recognized attempts are former PM Jean Chretient’s “Canadian Way” speech at a
conference on “Progressive Governance for the 21st Century” in
Berlin in 2000; a study by the Department of Canadian Heritage from the
Canadian Policy Research Network entitled “The ‘Canadian Diversity Model’:
Repertoire in Search of a Framework” and the presentation of the “model” by
then deputy minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage, Lex Himmelfarb, at
a preparatory meeting for the third progressive governance summit in 2001.
However, religion does not figure prominently in any of these documents. Therefore,
Tariq Modood mentioned that multiculturalism must have a secular bias and
“whether such a bias is in itself an example of a cultural hegemony that
multiculturalism is supposed to challenge? ”
J.
Biles and H. Ibrahim also points out that the absence of religion or secularism
in multiculturalism is a recent phenomenon in Canada. Historically, religion
played an important role in the formation of the “model,” especially by the
Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, the challenges to immigration policy by Sikhs
in the beginning of the 20th century, a broad conception of human
rights in the context of the Jewish immigration following World War II, etc.
In
general, there were three issues that
became the primary axes: immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism that
directed the discussion of diversity in Canada.” Some of these axes remain in
ideological tension with one another. For instance, the concepts of immigration
and naturalization are founded on an ideological division between “us” and
“them,” which is evident in the levels of immigration, selection policy. Yet a
broader conception of citizenship and multiculturalism rejects this distinction
and emphasizes a heterogeneous category of “us” and includes a range of diverse
identities, including religions, ethnicities, races, and languages. These
aspects of diversity are evident in inclusion or broad citizenship and
multiculturalism as a framework within which conflict can be resolved.
Despite
the warm welcome of immigrants to the country, Canadian immigration policies
have not always been welcoming to all newcomers. In the 20th century
the discriminatory practices shaped Canadian immigration policy. Up until 1906,
Canada had an “open-door” immigration policy that allowed most white people to
move to Canada. The Canadian immigration policies intended to keep out poor,
sick, or “immoral” applicants. For instance, Immigration
Department used its discretion to discourage Black immigrants.
South Asians come to Vancouver on the ship the Komagatu
Maru in 1914 to test the "continuous journey” policy. They were
refused entry.
p Chinese
immigrants had to pay a Head Tax (increased to $500 in 1903);
p Asians
and others deemed undesirable were excluded by the "continuous
passage" policy, and;
p In
the 1930s and 40s thousands of European Jews tried to flee Nazi Germany. Motivated
by anti-semitism, the Canadian government used its discretion to exclude Jews. The
magazine Immigration reports that in
1930s, the Toronto streets had the signs on some store fronts that declared,
“No Jews wanted” or “No Jews or dogs allowed.”
Only in
1953, Immigration Act opened Canada’s doors to other “white” nations but again
made it more difficult for people from less-favored nations to become Canadian
citizens. In 1966, after two years when Rene Tremblay becomes Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, a white
paper was tabled, recommending an immigration policy that was
"expansionist, non-discriminatory, and balanced in reconciling the claims
of family relationship with the economic interest of Canada". The paper
began: "There is a general awareness among Canadians that the present
Immigration Act no longer serves national needs adequately, but there is no
consensus on the remedy". Evidently no consensus was found, since the
white paper did not lead to a new Act.
Gradually, the euphemism of “absorptive capacity” was used
to examine the immigration policy in terms of the rate of change in the ethnic,
racial, religious, and linguistic attributes of the population and the capacity
of institutions, and the federal government consulted with religious
communities which often either aided or ran the social agencies, schools, and
hospitals upon to help refugees and immigrants.
In
Quebec this aspect of immigration is more reflected in multicultural policy or interculturalism
as they define it, has never been fully defined by the Quebec government.
Integrative dimension is a key component of Quebec interculturalism that aims
to reconcile ethnocultural diversity with the continuity of the French-speaking
core and the preservation of the social link.
Gerard
Bouchard and Charles Taylor argue that the Canadian multiculturalism model does
not fit to condition in Quebec for four reasons: “anxiety over language is not
an important factor in English Canada; b) minority insecurity is not found
there; c) there is no longer a majority ethnic group citizens; d) it follows
that in English Canada, there is less concern for the preservation of a
founding cultural tradition than for national cohesion” (p. 39).
Interculturalism
emphasizes interaction with a view to overcoming stereotypes and defusing fear
or rejection of the Other, taking advantage of the enrichment that stems from
diversity, and benefiting social cohesion. The principle of multiple identities
is recognized. Quebec inteculturalism institutes French as a common language of
intercultural relations, cultivates a pluralistic orientation that is highly
sensitive to the protection of rights, etc. It is also established in the
concept of secularism, which is challenged by different perspectives in respect
of privatization of religion. In Quebec secularism, religion is be absent from
public space in the broad sense and the Quebec government does not respect the
state neutrality principle in respect of all religions. However, such as
position contradicts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, the Quebec
secularism is restrictive and not appropriate for Quebec.
Today
the Canadian Council for Refugees informally consults with religious
communities, but there is not a direct link between government and ethnic and
religious communities that once existed before. Nevertheless, the ethnic and
religious communities play an important role in the area of the settling of
refugee levels, especially for Chileans, Ugandas, and the Vietnamese boat
people. The Jewish community played an important role in settling the Jewish
refugees in Canada, and the Agha Khan Foundation helped the Ismaili Muslims and
other South Asians to flee Idi Amin’s Uganda to Canada in the early 1970s. The Presbyterian Church in Canada also is an official
Sponsorship Agreement Holder with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and
sponsors refugees to resettle in Canada.
However,
as Robert Putnam in E Pluribus Unum
points out, most forms of social capital – volunteerism, basic trust, electoral
engagement, a commitment to the very institutions upon which communities are
based – suffer when local populations become more heterogeneous, when
streetscapes become missed and the smells and odours and skin colors suggest alien
others in “our” midst. Ken Alexander in Puzzling
Ethnicity in Walrus suggests that “diversity in Canada is a troubled thing,
and this trouble is felt most profoundly within the broad borders of Montreal,
Toronto, and Vancouver, where nearly three-quarters of new arrivals land” (p.
15). For him, multiculturalism is a cultural retention, which “Canada has
received what it demanded and proclaimed” (p. 16).
Despite
the challenges, two important transformations in Canadian multiculturalism in
1980s were:
1 – in
response to increasing racial diversity in major urban centers, the policy
evolved toward race relations in the early 1980s;
2 –
multiculturalism was enshrined in the Constitution in 1982 and the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. This was the most important development in the evolution
of the multiculturalism policy. Before this Charter, Canadian governments have
introduced different legislations to promote multiculturalism. For instance, in
1960 the Canadian Bill of Rights prohibited discrimination by the federal
government on the basis of race, colour, gender, or ethnic origin. In 1971,
Canada’s Multicultural Policy paved the way for ethnocultural programs.
The
Charter assures freedom of conscience and religion. It is about protection of
freedom of religion, which guarantees individuals and minority communities
equality before the law in regards to religion and immunity from interference
or the imposition of other beliefs on themselves or their children.
No comments:
Post a Comment