|
|Monday Feb. 25, 2002 | BACK | NEXT
“Canadians still tolerant following Sept. 11” was the headline of a story published on Monday Feb. 18 in the National Post. The paper wrote that “Canadian support for an open and tolerant approach to multiculturalism remains rock solid despite security fears that swept through the country after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, a new national poll has found.” It was a story on a research conducted by Environics for the Association of Canadian Studies. I did not read the report, so I have to base my opinions on what I read in the papers. And, from what I read, it is clear that there is a lot of confusion between multiculturalism and immigration. Chris Baker, vice-president of Environics, tells the paper that from all the studies they have conducted “since terrorist attacks, show that Canadians have strong confidence in our society and believe that Canada should remain open to others.” What does he mean when he says “remain open?” That we should prefer multiculturalism over a melting pot? Or should we close our doors to new immigrants? What I do not understand is the connection between multiculturalism and terrorism. Multiculturalism is a policy for Canadians, all Canadians from all backgrounds. Multiculturalism is a policy that allows people to retain their own cultural backgrounds and share the same values of life. How people dress or what they eat is irrelevant to strengthening national values. They are based on honesty, respect for each other, the desire to work, pay taxes and respect the law. Those are values that have nothing to do with cultural differences. The fact is that in Canada there is such a mutual understanding that there has never been a real cause for terrorist activities. In fact, the last act of terrorism which was “made in Canada” was the FLQ crisis and the desire of a group of Canadians to destroy this country. This has been the only real threat to the existence of this country. If there is any problem in Canada related to foreign, and I stress the word "foreign" terrorism, it's because we're unable to control our borders. Canadian customs officials are better trained to look for the import of salami or foreign goods, than bombs and it is because Canada is more concerned about screening people who have valid documents with some mistakes, than finding people with perfect fake passports. The problem is in our immigration policy, not in multiculturalism; there is no relation between terrorism and multiculturalism. If anything, the Post headline should have read “multiculturalism helps the fight against terrorism." In fact, if you want to make a connection, and you shouldn’t, between terrorism and multiculturalism, you could ask why terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in the United States where there is a melting pot and not the CN Tower in Canada where there is multiculturalism. The uneasiness of some, especially in the National Post, with multiculturalism, however, comes out every now and then. The last one, again last week, on their editorial page was “Multiculturalism here…” the headline. Before making any consideration on what they write, it is important to define the semantics of some of the words the Post uses. First: hyphenated citizenry. Does the Post have a problem with franco-Canadians and anglo-Canadians? Are they aware that the only non-hyphenated group in Canada are “native peoples?" Second: immigrant communities. Do they have a specific definition of “immigrant?" Is it a person with a landed immigrant visa? Does it mean that when someone gets the Canadian citizenship ID he or she is not an immigrant any longer? What about a person not born in Canada? Or how about a person born from parents or grandparents not born in Canada? Is there a date or a time-frame when somebody is not considered any longer part of an immigrant community? Who or what defines a Canadian citizen: a passport or the way he or she dresses or eats? I believe that if the National Post wants to have a serious discussion of the subject, the paper should define the terms of the discussion, so at least as we know what they're talking about. One last consideration. In the same column the Post talks about “subsidized multiculturalism." Again, the newspaper makes a specific statement without having the backing of the numbers. But I have news for them: multiculturalism in Canada is not subsidized! The newspaper made a call to the Ministry (so to speak) of Multiculturalism and got a figure of $16-million. The paper immediately realized that that number doesn’t make the case so they spoke of “indirect subsidies” from provinces. But had they spent a bit more time asking questions of the “ministry” about the $16-million, they would have been told that most of that money goes to the bureaucracy, than to finance initiatives against racism, such as teaching foreign languages — God knows how much they are needed in this era of globalization — and, yes, some peanuts for folk-dancing and wine and cheese parties when the “minister” makes speeches to collect votes.
The
money the Post is talking about is not even enough for the salary of the
journalist who wrote the editorial.
Canada, they say, is a bilingual and multicultural country. Yeah, right. We
spend $2-billion for bilingualism and $16-million for multiculturalism.
Somebody has their priorities upside-down.
|