Immigration

The 2012 Summer Series is a collection of essays, articles and op-eds published by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The Summer Series explores some key questions about rights and responsibilities in democracy and examines topical issues through a civil liberties lens. 

To view all articles of the Summer Series, click here. 

The article below is an edited version of  this article published on the Canadian Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs on August 12, 2012. The article was written in response to Prof. Salim Mansur’s piece entitled “Multiculturalism: What does it mean to be Canadian in the 21st century?“

Multiculturalism is the celebration of different cultures as part of a national identity.  In my view, multiculturalism is fundamentally democratic and is a morally sound aspiration, grounded in liberty, equality and the dignity of human beings.  It does not lead to coward “relativism” or moral ambiguity, but rather to a rich and innovative society that constantly evolves and engages in self-reflection. No less should be asked of a truly democratic society.

I make three arguments. First, multiculturalism is both morally and culturally sound. Unlike claims made by individuals such as Professor Mansur who state that it is incompatible with liberal political theory because of its promotion of group rights, I argue that these rights are in fact integral to the principle of equality and an example of advances in constitutional theory. Professor Mansur additionally states that multiculturalism is flawed because it helps to promote “bad” cultures, especially problematic in the post-9/11 context where some of these “bad” cultures are bent on undermining liberal democracy. I contest these claim in two ways. First I challenge the claim that multiculturalism necessarily imprisons individuals in oppressive cultural groups, and second I argue that multiculturalism is the best available vehicle for equality, especially compared to the alternative of “monoculturalism” which risks returning to the cultural superiority policies of the past.

Multiculturalism and Equality before the Law

The aspiration for equality is one that is at the core of democratic beliefs. There cannot be any exclusion based on race, ethnic origins, or gender. This commitment to equality is deep and includes not only a recognition that laws should not discriminate but that they should strive to achieve a real and substantive equality.

Multiculturalism recognizes that people live within cultures.   A multicultural policy attempts to offer to newcomers or people of minority cultures the ability to feel pride and connections to their heritage, the same way that Protestants, Scottish, Irish, and French Canadians have had the benefit of cultural provisions because of their long establishment in Canada, and their dominant role in framing Canadian policies, which had excluded many Aboriginal contributions. In a way, multiculturalism protects the right to be different from the mainstream culture and to be connected to something else. They are therefore rooted in strong beliefs about liberty because they protect people from the obligation to surrender one’s beliefs to a majoritarian culture.

Professor Mansur objects to the recognition of “group rights”, stating that they are incompatible with liberal political theory.  Much has been written about the necessity to recognize group or collective rights to ensure true equality.  In Canada, there was always a recognition of some form of collective rights, as there is now at international law.  There is always a tension between individual rights and collective rights, but the denial of the existence of the group and the importance of collective rights is antiquated and does not recognize much of the scholarship that has developed. Group rights recognize that it is not possible, for example, to live as a francophone outside Québec without access to schools where French is taught.  It is not possible to live as an Aboriginal without access to land where cultural practices may take place.

In Canada, the protection of the multicultural heritage of Canadians has not taken the form of a “group right”.  Section 27 of the Charter of rights and freedoms is an interpretative tool and does not confer any direct entitlement.  The Charter only states that : “[it] shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”Instead, multiculturalism has primarily meant access to some governmental funding for cultural events, schools and languages. As of now, there is no constitutional guarantee to this funding, and it has been at the mercy of different governmental priorities.

Multiculturalism and Coercion

Criticisms of multiculturalism suggest that there is a danger in supporting all cultures. Professor Mansur’s objection is that not all cultures are equal, that is, in his view, some are oppressive, dysfunctional, and rooted in archaic beliefs or intolerance.  This is certainly possible.  We should then explore what tools can be developed to prevent intolerance and the oppression of members.  Professor Mansur’s view is that the dismantling of multiculturalism may be a way to prevent the spread of “bad” cultures.  I disagree that this is the appropriate mechanism. Indeed my view is that a liberal society believes that the marketplace of ideas is where debates about values should take place and that fostering competition between cultures is the best recipe for the “best” cultural values to prevail. This is what liberal societies cherish because the alternative, giving power to governments to decide which cultures were “bad”, would be privy to discrimination, exploitation, and the exercise of the “tyranny of the majority”.

Nevertheless, there are real risks that some vulnerable people within a group could be exploited, and that the unequal treatment of women or children grounded in cultural or religious beliefs may prevent members of the group to fully realize their potential. What is the solution?  The dangers of oppression exist in all families and cultures. In general, the opportunities to leave are what is offered in a free and democratic society : to leave or move away, intellectually, culturally, physically from a cultural environment that one finds oppressive, or that no longer meets one’s desires or demands. A liberal society prides itself in the ability to offer choices, the choice to stay or to go, the choice to comply with religious beliefs or to abandon them, to maintain cultural practices, to change them, to adapt them or to transform them.  It also fosters the possibility of discussion or debate.

The only responsibility that a liberal society must undertake is to protect children and people who can be victimised. Canadian society does that : violence against women and against children is a criminal offence: that is the limit. The criminal approach may not resolve all issues and is a blunt tool, but it serves as framework within which differences can be accepted or cherished.

The Alternatives to Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is not the antithesis to a liberal society. Indeed, it both reinforces equality and liberty aspirations.  The dangers of coercion through the group can only be confronted by a continued commitment to reaching out, protecting against violence and ensuring that there is space within Canadian society for continued discussions. Further limitations on these important group rights risk a return to our history of assimilationist residential schools for Aboriginal children and immigration policies that sought to exclude or discourage non-whites from coming to Canada.

Nathalie Des Rosiers

General Counsel