|
|
November 8, 2002
The evolution of a 1960s ideal
Panelists discuss the difference between diversity and multiculturalism.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Multiculturalism and diversity are terms used interchangeably by
many Canadians, particularly politicians who want to appear sensitive
to minority voters. But the terms have distinct meanings and their
conflicting definitions could have a dramatic impact on Canada,
according to panelists at a recent Vancouver forum.
Traditionally, Canada has been dubbed a "mosaic," which
is differentiated from the American-style "melting pot,"
in that Canadians of various origins are explicitly encouraged to
maintain their distinct identities, while Americans are encouraged
to adapt themselves to an overall norm.
Neither of these theories represents exact science. However, Canadian
federal government policy, since the 1960s, has deliberately encouraged
multiculturalism.
Prof. Mark Wexler, a Simon Fraser University professor of applied
ethics, offered an analysis of the views of Canada's multi-ethnic
makeup. He was one of six panelists at the public forum, entitled
Can Multiculturalism Survive Diversity? at the Norman Rothstein
Theatre Oct. 29.
Multiculturalism and diversity have the same ultimate intent: to
create an inclusive identity strengthened by differences, said Wexler.
But while multiculturalism celebrates our many differences for their
own sakes, Wexler described "diversity" as a market-driven
variation, which sees Canadians' mixed heritages as a tool by which
we can tangibly profit. For example, the many languages spoken by
Canadians can prove a financial boon to international trade.
In practical terms, he added, multiculturalism is sponsored by the
state and is by definition hierarchical; it protects differences
and defines Canada as a community of communities.
Diversity represents the creation of an "interlocking team"
to work together for the greater economic good. Wexler wryly described
multiculturalism as a system through which we learn to argue with
each other effectively. Diversity advocates would prefer we not
argue at all, emphasizing our mutual self-interest rather than our
differences.
Wexler stressed that diversity and multiculturalism are not synonyms.
But the forum's title should also not imply that the two are opposites,
he said. The nuances are many, but Wexler said this is not merely
a semantic argument. Whether Canadian policy morphs from multiculturalism
to diversity could have a profound impact on how we view ourselves
and the outside world.
Victor Goldbloom, who travelled from Montreal to participate in
the forum, was the first Jew appointed to a Quebec cabinet, in 1970,
and went on to become Canada's commissioner of official languages.
A conflict between diversity and multiculturalism, Goldbloom said,
should not be surprising because social changes have caused us to
rethink many things we once considered static. The idea of multiculturalism
that existed in the 1960s is – and should be – different
from the ideas we have today, said Goldbloom.
"We have, perhaps, different thoughts today than we did [when
Canada explicitly adopted multiculturalism policy]," he said.
"If there were a sharply defined definition of multiculturalism,
we wouldn't be here tonight."
Not only has Canada changed over time, he suggested, but "ethnic"
Canadians have changed too. As a Jewish Canadian, he said, he has
a remarkably different view of his place in society than did his
immigrant grandparents. These changes are due in part to external
changes (a century has passed and this country has changed) as well
as internal factors (being an immigrant is different from being
a third-generation member of a minority community).
Sen. Mobina Jaffer, Canada's first Muslim senator, said the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks have had a disastrous impact on our cultural
cohesion. Perhaps because she was an immigrant and certainly because
she held a special passport (the unusual passport was issued to
her because she is a senator, not because she is an immigrant),
she was diverted for special attention before flying back from the
United States shortly after the attacks.
"The brutal treatment I received I will never forget,"
she said.
At the risk of muddying the rhetorical waters, Jaffer said she prefers
the term "pluralism" to "diversity" because
it implies togetherness.
Also on the panel was Mason Loh, past chair of the Chinese-Canadian
social service agency SUCCESS (United Chinese Community Enrichment
Services Society). Loh said Canada has been a destination for many
immigrants because of its explicit multicultural policy. The preservation
and encouragement of cultural differences has drawn immigrants who
could have gone to the more economically powerful United States,
he said.
Gian Sandhu, a Sikh community leader and business operator, offered
economic critiques of the policy. Canada's personal connections
to so many other countries provides an economic boon, especially
in an increasingly globalized economy, he said. The advantages worldwide
are excellent, but problems arise at home, he argued.
Politicians have let multiculturalism down, Sandhu said. Part of
the aim of multiculturalism should be the elimination of discrimination,
but no major strategic plan has been put in place to this end. Just
as ad campaigns have helped reduce drunk driving while increasing
the stigma attached to such behavior, racism has not been subjected
to so concerted an approach.
Margot Young, a University of B.C. law professor, discussed legal
intricacies in multicultural policy. Canada's Charter of Rights
and Freedoms guarantees equality before the law for all Canadians,
she noted, but Canadian courts and governments have also noted that
equality of outcome does not equal equality of treatment. The context
of a person's experience is often considered in courts, for example,
which have treated aboriginal peoples differently in the interest
of equality.
The event was sponsored by Canadian Jewish Congress, SUCCESS, the
B.C. Human Rights Coalition, the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies
and Service Agencies of B.C. and funding was provided by the B.C.
Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.
The panel discussion was hosted by former premier Ujjal Dosanjh
who, earlier that day, was reported to be considering a run for
federal office with the Liberal party. Dosanjh said in a scrum before
the forum began that his emphasis now is on his law practice, but
he refused to explicitly deny that he is working with the Liberals
or on former finance minister Paul Martin's leadership campaign.
Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and
commentator.
^TOP
|
|
