Canada is the only formally-declared multi-cultural country in the world.
The Canadian multi-cultural policy was adopted by the Canadian government in the 1970s and 1980s. The multi-cultural idea is based on the notion of cultural and religious pluralism, and the ideal that a wide variety of cultures and religions -- generally imported by immigration from elsewhere -- can coexist, and in a collage-like way, will make up what we call Canadian culture.
Generally, this collage or mosaic analogy is juxtaposed with the 'melting-pot' image generally declared as the way that immigration into the United States operated.
Regardless the Canadian multi-cultural social experiment as policy is very young and still very much in the process of being worked out in practice. The most direct federal legislation related to this policy is the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically, section 27 of the latter.
The separatist government in Quebec recently proposed a Charter of Quebec apparently intended to curtail the wearing -- while actually on the job -- of religious adornments, by people employed in the Quebec public service or by government-supported agencies such as public schools.
At the time of the writing of this blog entry, I have found it impossible to find the actual text of the proposal, although there exist some sample images of religious adornments that the Quebec government suggests would be both unacceptable and acceptable under this proposed charter.
A key notion of the charter proposal apparently is that, in a 'secular society', clients of public services may feel uncomfortable, intimidated or pressured by being served by an employee who is wearing prominent religious garb or adornments. Implicit is the idea of the separation of 'church and state' in the provision of government services.
The proposal, as some media have suggested, has set off a firestorm of controversy, now including public demonstrations. Not just in Quebec, but across the country. Indeed, many commentators have called the proposal abhorrent, especially in a multicultural nation such as Canada. Others -- particularly in the religious community --argue that the proposal is a violation of the right to have or practice religion, or even to be religious. Frankly, there is so much hair on fire at the moment that I am having a good deal of difficulty trying to get to real substance of the arguments for and against, particularly as they might relate to the Canadian context.
Many political commentators have questioned the motivations of the Quebec government, suggesting that the government is less interested in the substance of the proposal than in attempting to deflect political interest away from the economy, and to something which may appeal to a disaffected segment of the Quebec electorate. Others suggest that the motive is to perhaps create a diversion in terms of relations between the federal and provincial government. Frankly, I am not interested in such speculations. I do not belong to an organized religion.
What interests me is that the Quebec government, intentionally or unintentionally, has offered Canadians an opportunity to discuss what it means for us to live in a secular, multi-cultural state. If such a discussion has ever taken place in Canada, I have no recollection of it. And if we think we do live in a secular but multi-cultural country, how ought that to look and operate as we go forward? Ought we to be involved in any mid-course corrections to the policy?
Since the notion of multi-culturalism was codified in Canada not all that long ago, and aside from an ongoing process of court proceedings around the various aspects of operationalizing the concept, the citizenry has not -- to my knowledge -- taken an opportunity to revisit the idea in open debate. How we are doing? Where are we headed after a few decades? What, if anything, ought be happening in terms of the evolution of the ideas and ideals of multi-culcturalism and secularism as national values?
I think it is past time we had such a discussion and I hope that it emerges as a result of the Quebec proposal, regardless of what happens to their particular proposal. Having such a discussion -- conducted in a mature fashion (if people would stop setting their hair on fire) -- would, I think, offer the opportunity to fine tune the Canadian multi-cultural ideal without resorting to the kind of sectarian name calling and ultimately to the violence that has erupted in many other nations across the globe.
Like most legislation, I do not think that the original Canadian multi-cultural legislation arrived full-blown, absolutely complete and evidence prescience about all matters that would arrive as Canada continues to develop as a country. We need to talk. We need to stop yelling at one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment