Daily Blogger - Sunday, April 27th, 2008
Posted on 27 April 2008 by Jack
Cynics Unlimited (Emilia Liz) | Minorities and Accommodation in Canada
Is Canada doing too much to accommodate visible minorities? According to a poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail and CTV News, 61% of Canadians as a whole, and 72% of Quebeckers, answer in the affirmative. This figure is higher among rural as opposed to urban dwellers, people over fifty, and those who earn less than $50,000 a year. Yet 88% of respondents believe their community is welcoming of visible minorities. Moreover, only 9% claim to be bothered by the fact that non-Whites now make up a sixth of the country’s population, while 48% see this situation as positive and the remaining 42% are unsure.
The findings seem contradictory at first glance. It appears the majority of Canadians are not disturbed by non-European immigrants per se but feel the government is bending over too far backwards to please them. Furthermore, 45% of those who took part in the survey say newcomers are holding onto traditions from their homelands for too long; most of the rest think immigrants are integrating at an acceptable pace.
Peter Donolo of the Strategic Council, the polling firm that actually carried out the survey, says recent controversies like the establishment of Islamic sharia law and funding of faith-based schools have contributed to Canadians’ ambivalence about immigration. The Globe and Mail provided a forum along with the article for readers to discuss the poll’s results. As often happens, the forum turned into a White versus non-White altercation, with some participants on one hand loudly decrying immigrants’ attempt to impose their customs on mainstream Canadian society and others condemning Canada’s hostility towards visible minorities. One reader in the former camp cites the acceptance of the Sikh turban in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the creation of Black-focused schools and the attempt to bring sharia law to Ontario as examples of non-White immigrants’ incessant demands. He attributes this situation to the failure of Canada ’s multicultural policy.
[…]
Popularity: 26% [?]
April 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Canada ensures that immigrants “integrate” into mainstream society? Hello! Have you been to Surrey lately? I challenge anyone to find, as but one tiny example, an English sign let alone a French one. The only way to confirm you are still in Canada is with a GPS. Have you been into any of the immigrant populated ghettoized neighbourhoods in Toronto lately? Those would be the same neighbourhoods where the police nervously patrol only when necessary. Asserting that Canada is ‘ensuring’ anything near integration is not only misleading it is misleading and just plain false. Every immigrant entering this country is encouraged to display their hyphen proudly.
The term multiculturalism generally refers to a de facto[citation needed] state of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation. I have substituted Canada or Canadian for every mention of America in the following quote.
“Let us conclude here. Intellectually, multiculturalism is indefensible. As I believe I have shown, it is embarrassingly inconsistent. It is refuted and undermined by its own argument. Politically, multiculturalism is dangerous. Multiculturalism represents nothing less than the political suicide of the West, and in particular the crown jewel of the West, Canada. Multiculturalism attempts to undermine the good principles upon which Canada is built, and it is corrosive of the patriotic spirit that fills the hearts of free men and women. Though it operates much more subtly, multiculturalism is no less a threat to our free institutions than the terrorists who attack our cities with airplanes. It is the test of the Canadian people whether they have the intelligence to identify multiculturalism for the mistake it is, and the resolve to ensure that it does not triumph over this, the last best hope of mankind.”
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.480/pub_detail.asp
Define: de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Is Canada doing as much to accommodate homegrown Canadians and their families?
April 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The alternative is assimilation. Are you as an individual prepared to accept this? Take your time with this one, sir.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Regarding multiculturalism, I take a middle ground. I don’t see it as the invention of the devil as some seem to do. As well, I wouldn’t want a situation like Franco’s Spain where newspapers and other media in anything other than the official language (Spanish) were banned. Of course this was a completely different situation from modern-day Canada because the languages Franco wanted to ban (Basque, Catalan, etc.) were spoken in Spain for generations.
Thus I believe that while immigrants should be free to speak their languages, publish newspapers in that language, hold ethnic festivals, etc., they shouldn’t do this with public money. Of course there might be exceptions. For instance, events like the Chinese Dragon Boat festival do bring money to Toronto, so I don’t see the problem in funding that. In a way the Dragon Boat festival has in a sense ceased to be an “ethnic” event. Or if there is a huge demand to learn Spanish in schools, it should be funded with school board money. In most cases, too, students who want to learn Spanish, like I did, do so not to preserve their heritage (as far as I know, I have no Spanish ancestry) but to learn a language that is becoming very useful to know, especially in North America.
On the other hand, there are other instances where I would put my foot down on government funding of “ethnic” activities. My dad, who is part Italian himself, once laughed and said that while other government-funded multicultural activities involved singing and dancing, Italian activities were only about “eating spaghetti.” Obviously he - and I - opposed funding for this purpose.
So this is where I stand.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
When I first saw this article here this a.m., I posted the following comment over at Emilia’s (Cynics Unlimited) place. I hope you won’t mind my re-posting it here:
http://www.cynicsunlimited.com/2008/04/26/minorities-and-accommodation-in-canada/
“Multiculturalism, for instance, was established by the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971, when non-Whites constituted a miniscule portion of the country’s population. It is likely Trudeau was trying to appease not the few visible minorities in Canada at the time but the so-called “White ethnics” such as Italians and Greeks.”
Hmmm, I don’t quite agree with your interpretation of multiculturalism here. Allow me to make a few points:
1. I doubt the ““White ethnics” such as Italians and Greeks” were actually making many demands, except the possibility of working and making a living for themselves and their families. At that time, there were not that many organizations that advanced immigrants’ causes, nor was there the kind of help such as welcoming classes, health care (after 3 or 6 months’ residence ?), as well as other mechanisms to fight real or perceived discrimination. Also, to most immigrants, Canada was part of that amorphous promised land called “America” - the land of limitless opportunity.
2. Perhaps Trudeau wanted to differentiate Canada from the US, where the “melting pot” philosophy was prevalent at the time, in contrast to the “Canadian mosaic.”
3. Lastly, and perhaps the most important aspect, perhaps the policy of multiculturalism was also Trudeau’s way of attenuating the demands of French Canadians, reducing their status to that of one among many other “communities” constituting Canada, i.e. going from the “two nations” view of Canada to a more cosmopolitan view, where every ethnic group had equal standing, regardless of how long they had been here.
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/multi/canada2017/policy_forum/8_e.cfm
“… Multiculturalism was original [sic] conceived in the Trudeau era as part of a four-pronged approach, the other components being bilingualism from coast to coast, a just society, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ….
As part of a nation-building strategy to create a common Canadian identity that embraced everyone—including Québécois—Weinstock said multiculturalism was really a political tool to diffuse political expression from all cultures. Multiculturalism said Québécois were different, but so is everyone else, and by giving up distinctness all cultures in fact gained a much larger stage and greater resources on which to affirm their own identities.”
While it may have had noble intentions, the policy of multiculturalism has instead contributed to diluting the idea of “Canadianness”, IMHO. Instead of helping immigrants (like myself) identify with the national identity - Canadian - the policy has instead encouraged immigrants to hold on to their own national origins, and some have even imported their own national battles, instead of leaving that baggage where it belongs - in their country of origin.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Thus I believe that while immigrants should be free to speak their languages, publish newspapers in that language, hold ethnic festivals, etc., they shouldn’t do this with public money.” Agree 100%.
“On the other hand, there are other instances where I would put my foot down on government funding of “ethnic” activities.” Agree 100%.
But that is not the reality of our post-Trudeau Canada of being everything to everybody and standing for nothing. Thanks to liberalism and multiculturalism Canadians don’t even know who they are anymore. They’re not supposed to nor are they expected to. Talk about a lack of self identity. Too many demand that the rest of us live quietly along with them in their own little harmonious ‘utopian state of multicultural bliss’ silenced by their demands to be guided by political correctness which prohibits criticizing any minority about anything.
Assimilation as apposed to multiculturalism? An open mind need not even enquire. Now excuse me while I go and put on my flak jacket.
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2001/feitz/qtr4/1008.htm
April 27th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
An open mind needs inquire if their definition of Canada is closely tied to the cultural definitions of one group’s ancestral land.
Assimilation is attractive to self-proclaimed “real” Canadians only because it denies power to newcomers. It is extremely unlikely that these same people want the newcomers living near them and mingling with their children - no matter how much “Canadian” culture the newcomers absorb. I’ve spoken to countless domestically-born Canadians who look like they could be recent immigrants (ie they don’t look Northern European) and their conclusions are the same.
Anti-Multicultural types never address this issue, most likely because less palatable agendas will come to light. Just keep in mind that not all minorities crowd in large city ghettos, and some of us are quite familiar with those agendas.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
beentheredonethat, I see we’re in agreement with ideas like government funding for ethnic activities, allowing immigrants to speak their own languages, and so on.
I suppose I would diverge from you by blaming Canada’s so-called lack of national identity on Trudeau’s multicultural policy. This might cause people to throw stones at me, but my belief is that Canada has never been and will probably be an ultra-patriotic nation like the US, for example. Sometimes I envy other nations’ patriotism (before I go on, let me say that I am born and bred in Canada) because Canadians seem so, well, too humble. But then I realize humility too is a virtue. Maybe we just need to strike a good balance between humility and self-esteem (as distinguished from arrogance). Hence I agree that Canadians don’t have a strong self-identity as, say, Americans do, but I’m not sure I would attribute that solely to multiculturalism or liberalism, for that matter.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
What power is denied through assimilation Cynapse??
The power to vote as an ethnic block and as such have public policy tailored to your desires in exchange for your ethnic vote comes to mind.
As an individual non hyphenated Canadian, how do my special interests get met. Where is my political power and leverage?
April 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ward:
What power is denied through assimilation Cynapse??
Depends on the characteristcs of the host population. If one were to assume that the anti-immigrant and anti-minority sentiment on this site were the true beliefs of the commenters, quite a bit of power can be denied. Jobs can be denied, mortgage loans can be rejected, housing and property can be defaced, etc. The law can only go so far to fight this, since as you all know perfectly police need help from the public in fighting crime. If the public don’t see a problem with the activity then it probably won’t be effectively curtailed - look at how long the “nipper tipping” went on without incident. Nothing would have happened at all if the Red Star didn’t break the story.
So what power is lost from this?
-Economic Power: Wealth is generated by side deals and discounts between colleagues. This happens in every industry. To get these breaks you need to work within a network and on a large scale. In the small towns around my home, this was done between old farm buddies, the town’s elite and within the lodges. How are a bunch of newcomers going to enjoy the same advantages if they don’t trade with each other.
-Political Power: Tiny groups are not heard in a pure democracy. An identifiable group that is spread too thin is forgotten and the political parties only pay attention to significant voting blocs
-Social Power: When you’re outnumbered 1000:1 you have nothing to say. People forget that, as late as the 1970’s, East Indian immigrants were pushed onto the subway tracks and most older blacks recall it being unsafe to leave their homes for fear of police harassment (one supposes this is the neighbourhood model some prefer to the “ethnic ghettos”). This behaviour decreases when the numbers of migrants increases and their behaviour turns aggressive. The locals usually take flight, complaining that the newcomers are surly and disrespectful to the country, but it’s just as likely to be a power issue - you can’t beat on that “raghead” without consequences now.
This is not just a visible minority issue. In my hometown, the children of Dutch, Polish, German and Portugese settlers had their own interesting stories. Incidentally the towns in the region also have ethnic references, showing that creating blocs to consolidate power is hardly a new phenomenon.
The power to vote as an ethnic block and as such have public policy tailored to your desires in exchange for your ethnic vote comes to mind.
Obviously. This way you can control your own destiny like a grown man and not receive short-lived “token” appointments for the sake of apparent tolerance. Our two largest minority groups (Chinese, Indian) come from nations with thousands of years in merchant experience. This kind of experience is key in determining how well a minority group will perform in a new country and groups with this ability don’t need much help beyond knowing the national rules. A Sikh businessman looking for a new start does not need to waste his day being called a raghead and performing menial tasks below his capabilities - it makes much more sense for him to run a business the way he knows how within a community that can be prosperous. As a state, Canada merely needs to enforce the local laws that prevent, for instance, physical abuse of employees.
As an individual non hyphenated Canadian, how do my special interests get met. Where is my political power and leverage?
Do you belong to a province? That is a bloc
Do you belong to an industry association? That is a bloc
Police officer? That is a bloc
Christian? That is a bloc
Do you believe strongly in some cause? Those are the most high profile blocs on this continent
Everyone belongs to at least one voting bloc and the political parties jockey for who’s going to represent which bloc. That’s our system. Having a bloc that represents the norm rather than some special interest is redundant. It’s also inaccurate: I’m an individual non-hyphenated Canadian as well - doesn’t mean I don’t have to be on guard against the old boy network any less than the average immigrant.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Jack, I hope you don’t mind … I’m going to post that last comment.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Not a problem.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“Assimilation is attractive to self-proclaimed “real” Canadians only because it denies power to newcomers.” Oh bloody poppycock! That is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in a long time, par none.
Now hear this and believe it. The neighbour on my right is a newly arrived family from Israel. Second door on my left is a newly arrived family from Albania. I personally reached out to both when they arrived, one last fall the other about 2 months ago. When it snowed I went over and cleaned their driveways with my snowblower without being asked. I made a point of going and knocking on their door, introducing myself and welcoming them to the neighbourhood. I made a point of inviting them to join our annual spring neighbourhood cleanuup and BBQ, which they both did. I’m not looking for an atta boy or pat on the back, just being a decent human being. You know what? If they’d have told us they don’t like the way we clean up our neighbourhhod and should change to make them feel more comfortable I’d have just as quickly have told them that this is how we do it and if they didn’t like it (ie refuse to assiminlate) to go power rake their own stinkin yard. The entire neighbourhod was not about to change to make them happy. They moved into this neighbourhood because they liked what they saw, what it was now, not what they could change it into to suit their own special interests. So don’t even dare to hint that people like me, who believe in assimilation in lieu of multiculturalism, are pickie about who lives nearby to who. Anybody who does knows nothing about what they speak. End of story, end of discussion. If I sound mightly pissed off, you got at least one thing right today.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
But that’s you … it’s not everyone.
I’m not trying to tell you what you did or didn’t see, but you have to realize that not everyone would be offering help rake a yard, and in at least one case I know of, tried to burn the yard.
Now, in my small-town, uni-cultural, son-of-an-immigrant experience, I’ve met people like you and people like the other type of person described. One couldn’t guess on exact proportions of each type, but when you present a site so mean-spirited as CanadaImmigrationWatch, or when truly xenophobic comments go unchallenged (sometimes on this board, moreso on others), leaf-rakers hardly come to mind.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
When I was teaching school one of the lessons I set up was about how everyone lives in their own personal bubble and unless something seriously interferes with their way of life they won’t notice. One of the reasons I maintain this site is so that people can expand their personal horizons and see the larger picture which is all around us if only we care to look.
The effort appears to be working and while in some cases it generates a bit of anger I view it as “constructive anger” and we all learn.
Let’s keep it civil as we reason our way through this morass that Trudeau dumped on us.
We’ll all be much wiser at the end of the discussion.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Cynapse: I would like to respond to your response fully, because it is frankly just a bunch of Liberal pap, but have to step out. I will say this though. I am a Canadian. Period. As such I vote for the party whose policies I think are going to benefit this country and all of its citizens the most.
I would not want to be part of any group that exchanges its vote to curry (no pun intended) favor from any political party. Promoting that kind of activity will end up balkanizing Canada.(already happening)
April 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Ward:
If you think my response is liberal pap then either you don’t understand democratic politics (voting blocs long predated multiculturalism, Trudeau or Canada for that matter) or you’re simply in denial about the fact that even your party of choice relies on courting voting blocs.
What about “strength in numbers” is so hard to understand?
April 27th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Cynapse, sure everybody courts voting blocks because we are as Ward said, being Balkanized to some degree and that is due to Multiculturalism which we have to stop.
But there is a difference between courting the existing reality and wanting to create more of it. The reality is that some new communities are lead by ethnic leaders. But working with that leadership is not the same as wanting to promote more Balkanization. It is in fact, wanting a society where all have an equal chance to start the climb of the economic ladder.
I believe that diversity makes a lot of commercial sense in Canada. Because in a globally connected economy we simply cannot progress economically without diversity. But I sure don’t believe in Multiculturalism and I know a lot of new immigrants to Canada who don’t either; as Ward says, it leads to “Balkanization”.
We need to assimilate and in that process we will all adapt .. a little to each other .. just like Darwinism or biology. That is the strength of diversity.
Having said that. In the process of adaptation we need to beware of transnational, postmodern, cultural relativists, political zealots that forget how our long fought for liberty was won. Having fought for it, they won’t invest in maintaining liberty. They are willing to Balkanize to buy votes. The majority, i.e. your “strength in numbers”, must insist that in the process of assimilation a couple of principles are not negotiable:
-Men and women are equal
-The separation of Church/Mosque/Religious institutions from the state.