Sociology 1121 Multiculturalism in Canada PDF

Preview

Summary

Third of four sets of notes from Sandra Enn's class. Both the content from the power point, as well as important points from her verbal lecture. While in her class she does not do exams, the information that is not in the powerpoints is often essential to being able to do the various assignments. ...

Description

Multiculturalism in Canada Multiculturalism in Canada  Jomar Lanot- 17 (2003) o Pilipino o He was playing a pickup game of basketball o They were harassed by 10 South Asian men o He was killed o On the grounds of Tupper o Only 1 of the accused were charged and given charges  Cat Lake incedent (1998) o 14 philipino youth, 1 fijian boy aetc.  all visible minority o they were all subjected to racial slurs and injured o 25 white men attacked their camp ground o The squamish mayor did not want to see this as a racist incident o Was thought of as a alchohol problem rather than a racism problem  Devon Allaire-Bell -19 (2011) o He was visible aboriginal o Was attacked for this reason o Was playing soccer on the grounds of a school o There were 6 men that attacked him and his friend o They were stabbed, Devon did not survive the attack o Suspects were all South Asian males  In all of these cases, there was Racism at work  Revival of ORGANIZED racism  ‘In Canada we are taught that this is a multicultural country, and somehow, that racism can’t exist in a multicultural country… If you try to bring it up or make accusations it’s like you’re being oversensitive, or saying you don’t like Canada”  As a result, “ racisim in Canada is hidden, or ignored. Education is the only way to combat racism, but we cant develop any educational programmes until we admit that there is a problem in the first place.” o May Farrales of the Filipino Youth Alliance o Referring to the Jomar Lanot case  “After the big anti-racist movement in the 1960s something went wrong- peoepl became content with multiculturalism. So now it’s like we appreciate people’s ethnuc foods and fold celebrations, but still treat them like crap in the street.” o Nindy Naan- Coalition Against Racism and Extremism  There are a lot of ETHNIC ENCLAVES o High populations of certain ethnicities of people o Ex. Richmond – Asian o People that are not of this ethnicity feel like they are inferior o They feel that their needs are not being filled o

Mosaic Madness  Reginald Bibby argues that levels of racism and sexism have NOT increased signifigantly in Canada since the 1960’s o Bibby argues that times were not the same – political correctness had not yet come into vogue o Things were handled differently in those days and the media was not as quick to publicize incidents involving racism & sexism  The incidences have not increased, what has increased the VISIBILITY o Now we are more aware, but there isn’t necessarily less or more o More social media, media coverage of racism etc.  “racism and sexism were there all along.But we didn’t define such behaviour as particularily abnormal.”  “given our desire to have a more humane and just Canada, we are redefining old practices in new ways”  Canadians are changing their behaviour – motivated by a desire to relate to other in a more humanitarian way, but also by the need to protect themselves against highly damaging accusations (racist, sexism, homophobic…)  In the light of these new norms, people are seeing more inappropriate behavior than ever before – and the media is reporting it in ever greater numbers  How far are we willing to go to avoid the “racist” label? What will be sacrificed in the name of political correctness?  Does the concept of pluralism, now institutionalized into law and policy as equal rights for all, by legitimatizing everything, in the end create nothing o Pluralism: separate, but equal o If we give everyone equal rights, what are we actually creating in the end o  “what has failed at every level… is integration… we have put our own good, as individuals, as groups, as a nation, ahead of the common good.” o Assimilation policies always fail o What we need to try to do is integrate people o We failed at integration in Canada o They thought they were putting the nation ahead, but they were making it worse o  Critics of multiculturalism argue that it discourages immigrant adaptation and is divisive and detrimental to a shared and coherent Canadian identity o we claim to prefer the cultural mosaic over the melting pot o 80% approve of inter-racial marriage o 85% feel that immigrants have an obligation to learn Canadian ways  Is ethnic identification weakening the social fabric of Canada? When it comes right down to it, are we more different than alike?  “The mere presence of diverse parts does not for a moment ensure an integrated piece of art – let alone an integrated and prosperous society. In Canada, the time has come to address a centrally important question, both as a







   

 

     

country and as individuals…if what we have in common is our diversity, do we really have anything in common at all? (Reginald Bibby) o the assimilation vs. integration debate o how do we build a country on differences U of T poli sci Prof Gad Horowitz: o “multiculturalism in reality is the machoistic celebration of Canadian nothingness”  saying that Canada is just going to hurt itself  if all we have is differences we have nothing at all American creed: We, the people… - the theme of collectivity- Americanism and patriotism as an ideology o They’re individuals unitl they come under a threat o Then they’re AMERICANS o Patriotism Pledge of Allegiance, America the Beautiful, E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) o There are no equivalent songs in Canada o We don’t have the same mentality Words of national anthems “Hail to the Chief” – what song do we play when the PM walks into a room? Canada has no such “creed that binds:- there is no ideology of Canadianism “We decree – with the authorization of pluralism – that an educated, enlightened, sophisticated Canadian is a person who tolerates almost everything and seldom takes a position on anything. If a person dares to advocate a position in an ethical, moral or religious realm – such a person typically is viewed as narrowminded.” “To speak up on anything in Canada is to run the risk of being labeled a bigot.” Bruce Allen learned this lesson first handed in 2007 when he called for consistency in applying the laws of Canada to its diverse population o He said that there should be no exemptions o Allen is a music promoter o Sihk men wanted the law to change where they do not have to wear a helmet because it does not fit over their turbans What he said was “This is simple. WE have laws in this country. They are spelled out and easy to get a hold of. If you’re immigrating here and you don’t like the rules in place, you have the right to choose not to live here,” These remarks earned Allen accusations of racism and calls for him to be relieved of his Olympic duties others, however, wondered whatever happened to the constitutional right of free speech in Canada Regardless of whether we agree with what Allen said, should we not support his right to say it? Apparently, 75% of us do… what does this mean for political correctness in Canada? “There is nothing wrong with bilingualism, multiculturalism and the Charter. They are vitally important building blocks. The problem lies with the fact that the building blocks have become the sum of the building. We have stopped with

 

 









coexistence. Coexistence has become our national obsession and equality has become the indicator of how well we are coexisting.” –Reginald Bibby o coexisting= just putting up with one another o How do we find a balance between the individual and the group so that we can provide the best quality of life for everyone in Canada? Former BC Supreme Court Justice Thomas Berger: o “If we can’t do it in this country, what hope do they have in countries like Israel, Ireland or Pakistan? We have an educated population, a tolerant population and we have a high standard of living. If we can’t make it work, who can?” Multiculturalism is retreating in other parts of the world Policies and ideologies that once embraced multiculturalism as a basis for living together with differences are now dismissed as irrelevant or inferior, a failure or a threat o Angela Merkel (Germany) says that multiculturalism has failed and that Germany will not accept cultural practices and that all Germans must speak the language o Wants to be unicultural o Canada has never been unicultural o Canada can’t fall back on the unicultural society like Germany has Multiculturalism in Europe has come under criticism for everything from the spate of terrorist attacks (Spain, London) to the fostering of cultural separatism, political fragmentation and social ghettoization o There are language difficulties o Culture difficulties o Refugees are going into camps, they don’t have enough resources, they can’t work, they can’t get educated immediately etc. Multiculturalism reigns no more in Europe, which is victimized by race riots, segregated ethnic neighborhoods that breed suspicion and isolation, and increasing tensions between different groups as resources are withdrawn or become more scarce o People are afraid that this is what is going to happen in Canada This Is not the case in Canada, however, where we remain proud of our multicultural mosaic. Why the difference? o We continue to move forward with refugees, more will be accepted in 2018 because the population of Canada is not growing o There is a big issue with language ( in England nobody can immigrate unless they can FLUENTLY speak English or else they will not be allowed to immigrate) o There are loop holes that people can get into Canada without having the correct fluency for French or English o Language is a big reason for tension Multiculturealsim in European societies tended to disengage immigrants from full and equal citizenship rights











  

The French model extols the virtues of a national culture and citizenship regardless of differences (melting pot) o Very similar to the American model o If you want to go to France, you learn to speak French The German model views immigrants as guest workers who would eventually leave upon completion of their work o There have been large communities built for guest workers that are immigrants o They are doing jobs that the Germans do not want to do because the Germans are better educated o They can not apply to be a citizen  the workers’ children cannot go to German universities or schools so they are forced to be what their parents are  they are not given any sort of social mobility o Multiculturalism in the context was focused on allowing guest workers to retain their cultural and language skills in order to readjust to their homeland upon return o The communities have schools and churches that are taught in their language The neglect of immigrant communities was justified on the grounds that European countries did not see themselves as immigrant societies therefore they had minimal responsibility to actively integrate immigrants o Ex. Norway, Finland, Sweden o They bring the immigrants in, but they will not be offered citizenship o They don’t get EU membership o Canada also has this, they are used for mining, agriculture, etc.  They’re here on contract, as soon as it’s over they have to go home  They are not protected by Canadian labor laws and they have no protection under Canadian law  They can be over worked, put in bad accommodations, working overtime and not get paid etc.  The people are usually doing it because they make more money here than at home even if it’s bad conditions, they need the money and usually have families to support o There is also a lot of people that are imported to work as a domestic worker The end result has been coexistence of separate groups with little or no interethnic interaction, and thus little tolerance and even less acceptance o We are not immune to racial tensions in Canada o we could follow in Europe’s shoes or do something positive Many immigrants are marginalized with an underclass status because of the segregationist approach (no status, no rights) The situation in Canada is different Canada does define itself as an immigrant society



 

   

o We bring in 300,000-350,000 immigrants each year, through points system, business system, reunification, and student visas Immigrants are therefore seen as assents rather than burdens, crucial to nation building, and as potential citizens rather than a permanent underclass (although immigration policy does lead many to be stuck in the underclass due to undervaluation of education and skills) o Research tells us that they can get out of the underclass in Canada o In Europe it is basically impossible to get out of underclass Multiculturalism is seen as a way to integrate new Canadians by helping them fit in, settle down, move up By being brought into the national ideology through full and equal citizenship rights, immigrants, and multiculturalism and more likely to enjoy public support o In a lot of immigrant countries they’re seen as a “necessary evil” o They want unicultural society, but still want them to do all the undesirable jobs o They want a white majority, but want the jobs done by the visible minority Support is also strongest where there are principles rules regarding the acceptability of immigrant cultural practices In Canada, cultural differences are accepted as long as they do not break the law, violate individual rights, or contravene core constitutional values Canada has polity in place to make sure immigration is legal, skilled and unthreatening Europe, on the other hand, is dealing with immigrants who are from poor, unstable countries, and are anxious for opportunities, whether as legal migrants, illegal workers, guest workers, or asylum seekers

Multiculturalism  Multiculturalism as a policy and in practice raises more questions than it answers o Sihk men that wear turbans in BC do not have to wear a helmet because they can’t fit it over the turban  It makes it more unsafe for you  It makes it more dangerous for other drivers because it is risky to be around people when they are not wearing a helmet  It is saying that religion > safety  They are getting a lot of push back  The point of wearing a turban is covering your hair, so there are ways to cover hair when wearing a helmet o There is also a lot of push back because they have to wear a helmet o Cultural Accommodation  Making it possible to accommodate women that wear burkas and niqab which cover their faces, to have ID photos taken in a different area by a woman  Sihk people have a kirpan which is a ceremonial knife, some places allow It and some do not because it is “technically” a hidden weapon  Do we practice as we preach in Canada?

 

 

When it comes down to it, in a war before diversity and Canadian values, what will really win out? The concept of cultural defense illustrates this point well o This line of argument states that people may be ultimately responsible for criminal behavior, but these deviant actions do not occur in a cultural or social vacuum o The criminal justice system must take cultural difference into account when sentencing minorities for unlawful actions inconsistent with Canada’s legal and cultural traditions  Not when determining guilt or innocence!! o Is this consistent with the logic of multiculturalism? o Or is it a rationalization by those who hide behind multiculturalism or to justify law breaking or human rights violations? o It is a type of cultural accommodation when a law is broken How far would this go? Examples: Hatian men in Ontario, Shafia “Canal Killers” case o Because they were born in Haiti, not in Canada, and because they did not value women therefore they should not be sentenced as harshly as a Canadian man  The Rape still happened in Canada,  There was a lot of outrage in the Hatian community because it makes them seem like al Hatian men are rapists and do not value women  At the time Rape was not illegal in Haiti  The victim was also Hatian, so therefore they could not be blamed for it because AT HOME they would not have gotten in trouble  The judge should not have given this kind of leniency due to culture,  You can take it under consideration, but not to this extent  The men got NO JAIL TIME, when usually they should have had AT LEAST 4 years in a prison o Shafia “canal killer” case  Honor killings – family status is based on their honor, so if the honor is taken away by a family member (usually a woman) the only way to restore the family’s honor is to kill the person that dishonored them  Usually the press/judge do not call them honor killing specifically  Poligamous family  MR. Shafia  Wife 1 (52yrs) – unable to have children  Wife 2- 7 children (3 girls, 1 boy, 3 others?)  The eldest son, wife 2, husband is charged with first degree murder because the 3 daughters were found dead in the trunk of the car as well as Wife #1 o They were killed, put in the trunk and pushed in the car into a river

The 3 oldest girls were bringing shame to their family o They would not wear a hijab and had boyfriends  The Son, Wife and Father are all given 25 years to life in prison  Shafia was caught by an undercover police man as he was waiting for trial as a cell mate  He said that the daughters were whores and that they deserved to die  Polygamy is illegal in Canada  The judge refused to take culture into consideration  Do we excuse violent criminals because they are from a culture where violence is common and they cannot be expected to know better? Do we excuse thieves because they are from a poor country where many people have to steal to survive? Do we exuse bribery and embezzling because perpetrators are from countries where the system is very corrupt and to get anything accomplished requires “greasing the wheel”? DO we excuse spousal abuse because women are not valued in many countries and thus there are no laws against such an act? How far down the slippery slope of “cultural defence” do we want to slide In excusing the “criminality” of various cultures for contravening laws in Canada htat do not represent their cultural understanding, are we not just exhibiting a new type of racism? By instituting special treatment based on our ideas of what a culture or ethnicity is, are we not being unfair to all those who are not excused by not belonging to that culture? How many differet sets of rules do we want to live under? o What will that do to Canada? Too much diversity and not enough unity may destabilize a society to the point of dismemberment But too little diversity and too much nuity can create a one size fits all mentality that stifles as it standardizes Have we got this balance right yet? Reference to culture cannot trump human rights Applied to the case of the Haitian Canadian men and the cultural defense argument: o The judge was correct in finding the defendants guilty o Neither Canada’s laws nor its official multiculturalism condone the violation of women’s rights o But the judge was multiculturally correct in reducing the punishment to acknowledge the importance of culture as a key variable in influencing people’s behavior, although the severity of the punishment is open to debate o To withhold recognition of people’s culture is tantamount to robbing them of the symbolic order necessary for survival or to make informed choices 

            

o Judges in Canada are under strict instructions to take cultural difference into account when sentencing...