GRSJ224/Multiculturalism In Canada

Multiculturalism is defined as relating to or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society. In 1971, Canada was the first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. The purpose of multiculturalism in Canada is to affirm the value and dignity of all Canadian Citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, language, or religious affiliation (Government of Canada 2012). During the 1970s and 1980s the Canadian government officially adopted multiculturalism as a sense of an equal celebration of racial, religious and cultural backgrounds. Since then, Canada has been defined and accepted their role in promoting multiculturalism and being a mosaic in celebrating various cultures and ethnicities. Multiculturalism is reflected in the law through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with being administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage. Throughout history, Canada has used the term multiculturalism descriptively and prescriptively in the media. Canada reaffirms the fundamental belief that all citizens are equal, and ensures that multiculturalism allows citizens to keep their identities to take pride in their ancestry.

History of Multiculturalism

On a global context Canada is identified as a mosaic and its support for the rich multicultural diversity of its peoples, which is a key distinguishing element from the other nations. Although, analyzing Canada within a local lens calls for critics of multiculturalism in Canada to debate the violent history of Canada that has been consistently overlooked. Canada until around the 1940s saw itself culturally, linguistically and politically as English and French. European immigrants that came to Canada, such as Canadians of German ethnicity and Ukrainian Canadians, were suspicious, especially during World War I, when thousands were put into camps because they were originally citizens of the ‘enemy nations’. Moreover, during this time, in Quebec where anti-Semitism was a factor, Jewish Canadians were also suspects. The Catholic Church in Quebec associated the Jewish population with modernism, liberalism and other unacceptable values. Along with the Europeans and Jewish Canadians, Asians encountered legal obstacles limiting immigration during the early 1900s. Specific ethnic groups that did immigrate during this time faced barriers within Canada preventing full participation in political and social matters, including equal pay and the right to vote. The specific and discriminatory rules towards people of diversity began to change during World War II. Japanese Canadians were interned during the overseas conflict and their property confiscated. Prior to the arrival of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 and its successor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the laws of Canada did not provide much in the way of civil rights and it was typically of limited concern to the courts. It was not until the 1960s that Canada placed emphasis of equality and inclusiveness for all people. The federal government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared its commitment to the policy of Multiculturalism in 1971 and in so doing formalized a policy to protect and promote diversity, recognize the rights of Aboriginal peoples, and its support the use of Canada's two official languages.

How is Multiculturalism and Residential Schools Connected?

It was not until 1996 when the last Residential School was closed. “Residential schools were government sponsored religious schools established to assimilate Aboriginal children into Euro-Canadian culture”, specially advertised to “kill the Indian in the child” (The Canadian Encyclopedia 2015). The history of Aboriginal peoples in Canada has been unrecognized as violent or discriminatory. What many people do not realize is that the many years of Residential Schools is defined as genocide. It was not until 2008 that Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an official apology on behalf of Canadians for the Residential School System. I argue that the system of settler colonialism is a practice of social differentiation. There was a perceived emptiness, because the people who were living on the land were not Christians or ‘economically developed’. Settler’s having the power to designate land and its people as ‘anachronistic space’ is a direct form of social differentiation. The economic and social progress, which defined in European terms “generated the subject of the European settlers as the pinnacle of civilization”. What is interesting is that settler colonialism justified their process by presenting it as a gift to the Indigenous communities to become socially and economically civilized. It is important to think about settler colonial practices as the erasure of Indigenous culture, in relation to this ideology of multiculturalism. Canada presents its history in the media as very prestige and good. Therefore, once Canada was known for committing a cultural genocide the overall environment of Canada’s diversity and multiculturalism started to create an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility. Canada believes that diversity is a national asset. I argue that the multicultural processes are a way to hide and ‘apologize’ for the settler colonial practices and many actions of social differentiation. Canadian policies have used the media to funnel positive multicultural spaces, however the media has also tested these ideologies by exposing settler colonial systems. It is important to give voices who have been ‘othered’ space in the media to analyze the social differentiation multiculturalism has caused. All of the rights, freedoms, and dignity are guaranteed through Canadian citizenship, Canadian Constitutions and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, seen throughout Canada’s history the follow through of the laws surrounding equal rights and multiculturalism has consistently failed.

Bridging the Gap Between Multiculturalism and Immigration

Multiculturalism in the 21st century is often characterized as being very progressive, diverse, and equal. As Canadian citizens, people share the basic values of democracy with all other Canadians who came before them. At the same time, Canadians have the freedom to choose for themselves, whether they want to identify with a specific group or not. By taking an active part in civic affairs, Canada affirms these rights and strengthens Canada’s democracy, ensuring that a multicultural, integrated and inclusive citizenship will be every Canadian’s inheritance. Consequently, when immigration became common in Canada, the topic of multiculturalism increased, meaning Canadian citizenship gives equal rights and equal responsibilities. Immigration played an integral part in the development of multiculturalism in Canada. The number of people who are becoming immigrants is steadily increasing. Canada currently has one of the highest per capita immigration rate in the world, driven by economic policy and family reunification. New immigrants in Canada are attracted to the publicized ideology of moving to a country that provides equal rights, equal opportunities, and recognizes multiculturalism as a part of the societal structure. In a book titled When Race Becomes Place by Sherene Razack, she explores various places within the lens of race, “to highlight our specific interest in how the constitution of spaces reproduces racial hierarchies, we examine the spatial and legal practices required in the making and maintaining of a white settler society” (Razack 1). The demographic characteristics of immigrants have drastically altered. The Immigration Policy Relative uses categories such as economically assessed, family and refuge class, although the variations in the point system for selecting skilled workers has changed due to the demographic development and the likelihood of economic success among new immigrants. Determining the interrelationships between the aspects of the immigration policies and multiculturalism is a continuous battle for the majority of Canadians. The criticism of multiculturalism in Canada often debates whether the multicultural ideology of kindly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical or even desirable. Many scholars argue that the distinctiveness of Canadian immigration experience discusses that multiculturalism promotes spaces of poverty, encouraging members of ethnic groups to look inward, and emphasizing the differences between groups rather than their shares rights or identities as Canadian citizens. Many critics emphasize that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members, by confining them to cultural and geographical areas. I agree with Razack because, "If we reject the view that spaces simply evolve, are filled up with things, and exist either prior to or separate from the subjects who imagine and use them, [perhaps] they represent poverty to us and enable us to understand ourselves as located in a social system where status derives from one’s position" (Razack 8). Ethnic identifiers and cultural distinctiveness are very complex and must be recognized in order to provide proper interaction between kin relationships and different social groups. I argue that the government does not aim to intersect diverse cultures or celebrates multiculturalism, but views cultures as being about specific festivals and cuisine, which in turn oversimplifies the topic of multiculturalism leading to easy stereotyping. Many Canadians struggle with a sense of belonging, finding themselves dislocated from society as a result of specific ethnic areas. Many immigrants choose to live in ethnic areas because it seems to be easier to find psychosocial integration that attempting to conform to mainstream Canadian culture. Multiculturalism works better in theory than in practice and Canadians need to be far more forceful about valuing the national identity of being a functioning multicultural society. Multiculturalism is understood in Canadian media as encouraging visible minorities to affirm their ethnic identities. Although, I question the equality and inclusiveness of the Multiculturalism Policy in Canada as over the years it has encouraged an increase amount of conflict between various ethnic groups, specifically under the immigration system. Immigrants who come to Canada are excited to celebrate a new life, while sustaining their ethnic and cultural identities. Unfortunately, the immigration system has left many immigrants below the poverty line and without a sense of psychosocial integration, causing massive dislocation. Canada needs to learn how to reflect multiculturalism through the process of immigration in order to bridge the gap between the local and global borders.

The Practices Multiculturalism Today

In 1971 Canada was one of the first countries to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy, but it was not until 1988 that Canada passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. This act sustains the Canadian government’s commitment to multiculturalism and outlines the official multiculturalism policy. Specifically, the act ensures “the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage” and works to “promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins… and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation” (Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1988). This means that the Canadian government attempts to acknowledge and appreciate different cultural groups, in order to “[reflect on] the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society” (Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1988). Overall Canada attempts to be a fully functional multicultural society and a “mosaic”, which provides positive psychosocial integration through institutional integration. The concept of multiculturalism has become very ambiguous over the years because Canada wants to emphasize the acceptance of all cultures but ends up segregating ethnic groups to specific cultural spaces without allowing individuals to obtain many ‘selves’. This is shown through Quebec’s behavior in the recent years. In 2013 a bill was proposed under the Quebec Charter of Values to prohibit public sector employees from wearing or displaying “conspicuous” religious symbols. According to the bill, relatively discreet items such as a finger ring, earring, or small pendants bearing a religious symbol will be allowed, while more obvious items such as kuppah, turban, hijab, and larger crosses and religious pendants would be prohibited. Elected politicians would be exempted and temporary opt-out provisions have been proposed for universities and hospitals. Furthermore, certain items and customs with a seemingly religious nature, such as the large crucifix on display in the Quebec National Assembly cultural heritage and observing Christmas are exempt on the rationale of them reflecting the provinces cultural heritage. In an article by Naved Bakali titled “Contextualizing the Quebec Charter of Values: how the Muslim ‘Other’ is conceptualized in Quebec”, the author explains that in Quebec’s recent history, majority of the political parties have gained power through identifying Muslims as a threatening ‘other’. This bill is a form of heavily implementing binary oppositions that are not only racializing a group of individuals, but also acknowledging the settler colonialism of social institutions. The idea of the other derives from orientalism. By generating social difference settler colonialism maintains the idea of the other, which reaffirms this relationality that “orientalism is not just about the production of the Orient, but also about the production of the west”. Naved Bakali analyzes Quebec as the opposite of multiculturalism and defines the province as intercultural. Interculturalism is defined as a government policy regarding the relationship between a cultural majority and cultural minorities, which emphasizes integration by exchange and interaction. Therefore, multiculturalism was created to change the socioeconomic makeup of Canada. However, very recently in September of 2016 CBC News announced that “Quebec’s charter of values, [was] revisited” (Montpetit 2016). When Quebec attempted to pass Bill 60 in 2013, it exposed the true definition of multiculturalism in Canada. This revisit in Bill 60 energized Facebook Radicalism “who linked the charter debate with a rise in right wing radicalism on Facebook” (Montpetit 2016). Scholars who researched 10 Facebook pages found that Island is the highest researched and hated religion (Montpetit 2016). “This creates a general climate of mistrust” and refers back to the idea of the othering (Montpetit 2016). Many argue that due to multiculturalism Canada has lost its sense of nationalistic identity therefore, the reasoning behind Quebec implanting interculturalism instead of multiculturalism is because Quebec feels as though it “is a betrayal of Quebec’s historical status” (Bakali 2015). Montpetit states “now, three years later, the province appears headed again towards an episode of identity politics” (Montpetit 2016). By Quebec proposing this type of law exposes how Canada is not functionally represented as a multicultural country, by not enforcing the laws of multiculturalism respectfully, in regards to celebrating their cultural symbols and the process of immigration. Now that multiculturalism has become one of the biggest parts of Canadian nationalism, it is time for the Canadian government to provide a better definition of what it means to be a multicultural country.