Turning racism's tide?

Editorial

The federal government announced this week a major initiative to reduce racism in Canada. Among the prongs the feds announced are increased monitoring of hate websites, public awareness campaigns, dialogue opportunities and broader anti-discrimination legislation and policies.

The announcement followed closely on the heels of last week's release of B'nai Brith Canada's annual audit of hate crimes in this country. The national study found that acts of anti-Semitism have increased dramatically over the past four years, including a spike of almost 50 per cent in 2004 over 2003 – to 857 incidents from 584. These incidents ranged from the most serious – violence, threats of death, destruction of property and the vilest racial discrimination – to acts that could possibly be dismissed as youthful indiscretion.

The plan by the federal government to target discrimination and racism head-on fits into a long Canadian tradition of government intervention in efforts to promote harmony and reduce racial or other social problems. On the one hand, we could argue that such programs, the success of which is notoriously impossible to gauge in an empirical way, have helped to make Canada a country where minority populations are generally well received, protected and supported. On the other hand, the B'nai Brith audit implies that our social cohesion is facing serious challenges.

First, the fact that the federal government is undertaking a major, $56 million plan at this stage in our history implies that we have been doing something wrong in the four decades since multiculturalism became an official part of our national identity. The alarming results of the B'nai Brith report underscore this appearance.

Second, the fact that an independent body like B'nai Brith is a primary compiler of these data suggests an omission on the part of the law enforcement, judicial and legislative branches that should be keeping these statistics comprehensively, which they are not. Independent bodies like B'nai Brith have a role in analyzing, verifying and acting upon these results, but the reality that various levels of government have not fulfilled their responsibilities in providing full public accounting of these matters demands remedying.

Admittedly, preventing racial discrimination is an ongoing process. But similar programs of the 1960s and '70s have not resulted in a self-sustaining atmosphere of racial harmony. And new problems stand out. For example, "visible minorities" have increased as part of the Canadian population from one per cent, in 1980, to 13 per cent today, and critics of Canadian immigration policies have expressed the view that such a demographic shift is to blame if there are increased racial tensions. This is, in itself, a fundamentally racist assumption that blames the victim for the discrimination they experience. Moreover, "visible minority" is a problematic concept more generally because it relies on a categorization based on physical characteristics. Are Jews a visible minority? Maybe kippah-wearing Jews but not others? Are gays and lesbians visible minorities? Maybe on Pride Day. Light-skinned members of darker-skinned cultural groups? Dark-skinned southern Europeans? The problem is obvious and delicate – one that seems not to have been dealt with by government policy to date.

Big spending on multicultural programs creates controversy, partly because it is so difficult to measure the success (or failure) of such programs. While a stark increase in anti-Semitic incidents is frightening, the reaction to these stats is also an important measurement. The individuals who perpetrated last year's 857 reported anti-Semitic incidents do not represent a majority Canadian viewpoint. Most Canadians find such acts abhorrent, but how do we evaluate the magnitude of this sentiment and how do we know how much of it is due to the general amiability of Canadians or the "result" of government programming.

If the federal government is going to spend tens of millions more on fighting racism, it needs to have some response to these and other concerns. Especially in light of the recent spate of government scandals, it needs at least to attempt to measure the apparent "intangibles" and there are a raft of areas where improvement is needed and where progress can be measured, including the creation of a comprehensive hate crimes registry at various levels of government.

More of the same, tired, 40-year-old policies will not suffice. More of the same hesitancy to measure outcomes will not be acceptable. If the government is going to spend $56 million in the name of anything – including, and perhaps especially, such an outwardly noble goal as racial harmony – the government must be held accountable for results.

^TOP