Far too many interfaith cultural dialogue sessions have focused on the appeasement of immigrant groups while ignoring human rightsabuses from their foreign countries of origin; abuses which many immigrants have accepted as the norm and often seek to protect in an effort to sustain the dignity of their group identity.
“This loathsome term [Islamophobia] is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché, conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” — Abdur-Rahan Muhammed, former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought.The real answer lies in the recognition that multiculturalism to promote equality was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Multiculturalism is engrained in the Canadian constitution—as well as in the constitutions of many European nations. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act
states that all are equal under the law regardless of their race,
national or ethnic origin, color, or religion. Canada was the first
country in the world to legislate national multiculturalism. Under this
policy, all citizens “can keep their identities, can take pride in their
ancestry and have a sense of belonging.” Citizens also “have the
freedom to preserve, enhance, and share their cultural heritage,”
and “full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of
all origins in all aspects of Canadian society” is promoted. Diversity
in Canada is deemed a national asset, and although its constitution
allows all citizens equal rights and freedoms, it also requires “equal
responsibilities,” a factor that has been overlooked.
overlooked.
The cover of the Canadian government’s “Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act”. (Image source: Goverment of Canada)
|
According to Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen:
Given the neglect of the responsibilities component, multiculturalism in Canada (and elsewhere) is open to exploitation by special interest groups that threaten the country’s national identity and democratic heritage, in addition toEven Pierre Trudeau, the key architect of multiculturalism, regretted how multiculturalism had been warped to emphasize an immigrant’s identification with his country or culture of origin rather than his assimilation of a Canadian identity. At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: “No, this is not what I wanted.”
homeland security
. In Canada, this oversight also bears implications for its neighbor, the United States. Canada was forced to shut down the Iranian embassy in Ottawa after it was discovered
to have been mobilizing Iranian immigrants to infiltrate the Canadian
government, and spreading messages of propaganda and hate through
“cultural programs”, under the directorship of Iran’s Supreme Leader,
Ayatollah Khamenei.
Similar — though less dramatic — abuses have also been evident in Canadian courts and Human Rights
Commissions [HRC], both of which often seem influenced by political
correctness and aspirations to appease special interest groups. Courts
and HRCs, which are endowed with sweeping interpretive powers at the
highest levels, are left to balance individual rights with that of what
they deem to be multicultural rights. The right to free speech, which is
a hallmark of democracy, has hence eroded, creating a fear even
justifiably to criticize certain groups or offend them. Given the
challenges of Islamism in particular to national security, this
immunization from criticism is particularly worrisome. What constitutes
hate speech, for example, is left to their judgment, which frequently
appears subject to erroneous accusations of racism and intolerance. To
highlight some examples:
Commissions [HRC], both of which often seem influenced by political
correctness and aspirations to appease special interest groups. Courts
and HRCs, which are endowed with sweeping interpretive powers at the
highest levels, are left to balance individual rights with that of what
they deem to be multicultural rights. The right to free speech, which is
a hallmark of democracy, has hence eroded, creating a fear even
justifiably to criticize certain groups or offend them. Given the
challenges of Islamism in particular to national security, this
immunization from criticism is particularly worrisome. What constitutes
hate speech, for example, is left to their judgment, which frequently
appears subject to erroneous accusations of racism and intolerance. To
highlight some examples:- The high profile cases of human rights lawyer Ezra Levant and political commentator Mark Steyn were directly impacted by the Islamophobia judgment. Levant—who was then publisher of the Western Standard — republished the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in 2006. Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities subsequently lodged a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission resulting in Levant’s book, “Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights.” Similarly, political writer Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were taken to task by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for a so-called Islamophobic article in Maclean’s — entitled, “The Future Belongs to Islam” — following a complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress.
- The Canadian RCMP issued an apology to the Muslim community for arresting terror suspects during Ramadan, and then reached out to Ottawa Muslims to reassure them that they were not being targeted.
- Niqab security breaches have been evident at airports.
In multicultural Canada,
diversity incentives are embraced as the answer to combat racism. One
cannot exclude the unfortunate consequences of racism as a societal
scourge with harmful social and psychological repercussions that require
attention as a human rights issue. Combating racism is also the
cornerstone upon which the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was built.
Unfortunately, zeroing in on
the verifiable manifestations of racism is a significant challenge:
racism is often declared when there is none and therefore becomes hidden
under a veil of propaganda, such as the often unwarranted use of the term Islamophobia,
propelled by special interest groups. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a former
member of the International Institute for Islamic thought (IIIT).
Muhammad was with IIIT when the word “Islamophobia” was formally
created, and having since then rejected the ideology of the IIIT, has
revealed the original
intent behind the concept of Islamophobia. He states that “[t]his
loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché
conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating
down critics.” Those special interest groups (and their followers) that
“beat down critics” fail, however, to decry worse forms of
discrimination, racism and abuse that are found in their own cultures of
origin. These include race-based slavery, the subjugation of women, honor killings, physical punishments for disobedience and female genital mutilation. This has led activists for equality and human rights such as Irshad Manji, a Muslim, to declare that multiculturalism needs to be abandoned. She states rightly that “the vast majority of the world’s
known cultures are patriarchal,” where the “desires and dreams of men
outweigh those of women.” This circumstance, she continues, means that
“multiculturalism clashes with our country’s aspiration to gender
equality” and that “the time has come to replace multiculturalism with
true diversity.”
such as Irshad Manji, a Muslim, to declare that multiculturalism needs to be abandoned. She states rightly that “the vast majority of the world’s
known cultures are patriarchal,” where the “desires and dreams of men
outweigh those of women.” This circumstance, she continues, means that
“multiculturalism clashes with our country’s aspiration to gender
equality” and that “the time has come to replace multiculturalism with
true diversity.”
Manji’s fellow moderate Muslim adherent, Salim Mansur, also addressed the “delectable lie of multiculturalism”
and advocates its eradication. Far too many intercultural dialogue
sessions have focused on the appeasement of immigrant groups while
ignoring the human rights abuses from their countries of origin; abuses
which many immigrants have accepted as the norm and often seek to
protect in an effort to sustain the dignity of their group identity. So
while many members of these groups, during diversity dialogue sessions,
bemoan the old notions of white privilege, a dominant culture, as well
as the victimization of Muslims
and other minorities, there is little or no effort to deal with or
understand the racism and discrimination that occur between non-white
cultural groups globally, as was evident in the slaughter of 400,000
non-Arabs in Sudan’s Darfur region at the hands of Islamic extremists,
or the racist slavery
that still exists in Mauritania among other regions, as well as the
widespread subjugation of women in many cultures. Moreover, some of
these imported values that find a new home in Western nations go
unquestioned by the host society for fear of reprisals from the leaders
of these groups, who are quick to label critics as racists. Even
justifiable criticisms of an identifiable group can earn
one the reviled label of racist, a bigot, Islamophobic and an enemy of
diversity. This attitude is now institutionalized in multicultural
Canada.
one the reviled label of racist, a bigot, Islamophobic and an enemy of
diversity. This attitude is now institutionalized in multicultural
Canada.
The progress that Western
nations and Canada have made in the areas of human rights and correcting
past wrongs — which include mass immigration, multicultural legislation
and countless social programs to facilitate dialogue and belongingness —
are equally ignored; as is the circumstance that a large segment of
cultural groups immigrating to Canada experience far more freedoms and
acceptance than in their countries of origin.
The Right Honorable Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin highlights the dilemmas faced by judges
in a multicultural society. She states that multiculturalism to date
has served Canada well, using the benchmark that Canada is a “prosperous
and peaceful nation that affords its citizens a high quality of life.”
Despite this, McLachlin is straightforward about the challenges posed by
multiculturalism, such as: “inter-group tension,” manifested in
“discrimination or in extreme cases of violence against members of
minority groups on the basis of their ‘different’ cultural and religious
practices.” She also points out the “divergent moralities” and values
of various cultural groups, and the challenge of national identity that
“sees itself as an amalgam of a plethora of cultures” and thus becoming a
nation “without its own identity” and ultimately risking “withering
away.” Her solution is to “work to strengthen our Canadian culture…
focus on our common values and beliefs… and use the law.”
McLaughlin’s words need to be
examined closely as a model for the evolution of multiculturalism in
Canada as well as in societies where multiculturalism is legislated.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British PM David Cameron and former
French President Nicholas Sarkozy have already declared multiculturalism a failure in recognition of the extent to which it encourages group segregation and a lack of a strong national identity.
Yet as a policy, it is
unrealistic to expect that multiculturalism will be thrown into the
dustbin, labeled as a historic error. Instead, multiculturalism demands
an evolution with requisites of responsibility that include an adherence
to common values and beliefs under the law. Unfortunately, policies
such as the controversial proposed Quebec Charter of Values — which
seeks to ban all religious symbols (including skullcaps and crosses) in
state-funded institutions in pursuit of a secular society — only cause
further problems. As Amnesty International pointed out in a statement,
“for people, and particularly for women, who might be coerced into
wearing a religious symbol, prohibiting them from wearing it will not
solve the problem… the people who had coerced them will still go
unpunished, while the people who have been coerced will be punished in a
number of ways, such as losing their jobs and hence their right to work
and risking becoming isolated and stigmatized in their communities.”
Despite the impracticality of
the proposed Quebec charter, well-intentioned critics of
multiculturalism have put forth valuable cases and well-reasoned
documentation that highlight the loopholes of multiculturalism. The real
answer, however, requires the recognition that multiculturalism to
promote equality was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Based on the principle of human dignity; the Declaration has provided a
sound definition of values, which Western nations need to be
unapologetic in advancing. The Declaration — the principal author of
which was a Canadian, John Humphries — is “the milestone document in the history of human rights,” drafted by representatives from diverse cultural backgrounds.
,” drafted by representatives from diverse cultural backgrounds.
It is now necessary to rescue
Canada’s identity from “withering away” and to resuscitate other Western
countries from the foreign infiltrations that have usurped the common
values that made these countries great and attractive to immigrants in
the first place. Multiculturalism will not disappear, nor will
immigration from societies with values inconsistent with Western
democracies. As the West faces a continued influx of immigration, it is
imperative that we do not limit ourselves to mere criticisms of
multiculturalism. Instead, policies need to be established and
implemented– at every level of society—that would facilitate in a
practical way a multiculturalism that includes, under law,
responsibility as a central focus — and on the same level of importance —
as equal rights and freedoms.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου