To the Editor:
Recent controversies over whether or not to ban the burka and what to do about honour killings in Canada raise questions about how we should deal with diversity.
The attitudes, beliefs, traditions and practices brought by newcomers to Canada differ ever more significantly from those which prevail amongst those of us who have been here longer.
In many ways, this is a good thing, and Canadians should be open to differences that enhance life here. Indeed, we have enthusiastically embraced many aspects of cultures new to the country - from Thai and Vietnamese food to Latin American dance. How much more wonderfully diverse Canadian life is than when my Scottish grandmother's cooking was the norm and the Highland dancing classes I took as a child was all that was on offer.
But there must be limits to Canadian's embrace of diversity, because not everything different (or diverse) is different in a good way.
Some may recoil from such a statement and think they smell a racist rat. But upon reflection it is pretty hard to disagree with the idea that some attitudes and practices are better than others.
For example, many people immigrating to Canada come from corrupt countries where police and judges are routinely bought off.
Importing those practices to Canada would make our law enforcement and judicial system more "diverse" but in an entirely bad way. Indeed, it is to escape lousy governance - such as, rampant corruption and its cruel consequences - that many seek a better life in Canada.
Nevertheless, many well-intentioned Canadians are conflicted about diversity. They are torn between their inclination to embrace increased diversity - or, at least their reluctance to criticize it - and their instinct to reject change which undermines hard-won achievements in human rights protection and democratic governance. Many of these conflicts centre on the status of women, but some touch gay rights and other rights, freedoms and institutions. For example, freedom of speech - a lynchpin of democracy - has come under increased attack over the last few years, including from those who think criticism of religion, especially Islam, should be prohibited by law.
A "live and let live" approach won't suffice to see us through these controversies in a healthy way. For example, should the wearing of the burka or niqab (face-coverings worn by some Muslim women) be prohibited in public places, as has been argued by some Canadians?
Law is a social institution for which we share responsibility in a democracy. So we have to decide: are we going to ban the burka, as some European countries are, or not?
We should embrace helpful and progressive diversity, but not diversity that is ethically damaging or regressive. Is allowing the burka or niqab to be worn progressive or regressive?
To decide, we need to understand better how Canada actually works. What are those elements which make our country more decent than most others?
Diversity is not a primary good; non-violent solution of problems, fairness and social justice, freedom of speech and religion and other foundations of democracy are more fundamental. These are the very things that must be defended, not sacrificed to an unthinking embrace of difference.
To protect what's good from erosion, we need to be able to identify what is crucial to our "better life." Randy Boyagoda illustrates this beautifully when he writes about the conviction of Desire Munyaneza for his part of the Rwandan genocide. In 2005 Munyaneza applied for refugee status in Canada, but instead was charged under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Boyagoda writes, "That Mr. Munyaneza attempted to seek refuge in Canada... says something troubling and revealing about how our openness to newcomers from across the world can be perceived as soft, myopic, and exploitable."
But Munyaneza's fate says something quite different: his attempt at gaining refugee status failed and his punishment "25 years with no chance of parole" shows, in Boyagoda's words, a "correct ordering and playing out of our national principles.
Our commitments to immigration and multiculturalism are not... unquestionable goods in and of themselves. Their true value and relevance comes only of their being treated as rightly secondary to our highest commitments - to justice, human rights and to the defence of innocent life at home and abroad."
Our "highest commitment" is not to diversity, or immigration or multiculturalism, per se. When the difference on offer would bring us closer to achieving our deeper ideals - or at least doesn't takes us further away from them - we should embrace it. When it threatens to undermine what makes Canada a decent place, it should be rejected.
Janet Keeping, Sheldon Chumir Foundation.
