The latest chapter in the debate over multiculturalism began with the unanimous vote banning the kirpan from the Quebec National Assembly and declarations [by Parti Quebecois critic Louise Beaudoin->35190] that multiculturalism is a Canadian value, not a Quebec one.
Critics of Canadian multiculturalism define the term as they wish and rarely offer evidence of its unpopularity. In fact, the term multiculturalism is viewed positively by the majority of Quebecers. A June 2010 survey by Leger Marketing reveals that 73 per cent of Quebecers react favourably to the word multiculturalism.
Yet Royal Military College history professor Charles-Philippe Courtois (Gazette, Feb. 11) suggests that a large majority of Quebecers reject multiculturalism. When asked in May 2010, about 90 per cent of Quebecers said they were unable to name any initiative pursued under the federal multicultural policy.
Courtois adds that the section of the Canadian Charter of Rights that supports the preservation and enhancement of the country's multicultural heritage is part of the 1982 Constitution that the government of Quebec has never agreed to sign.
Critics of the Canadian Charter section on multiculturalism would benefit from reading Section 43 of the Quebec Charter, which goes farther than the federal multicultural provision by declaring that "persons belonging to ethnic minorities have a right to maintain and develop their own cultural interests with the other members of their group"
Some Quebec opinion leaders contend that the province practises something called interculturalism, and insist upon its considerable divergence from the federal multicultural approach. A high-school teacher writing to The Gazette insists that the differences between interculturalism and multiculturalism are more than semantic. But that conclusion is based on ignorance of the federal policy, which makes intercultural and interfaith exchanges central in both program objectives and funding. Indeed, the Canadian and Quebec policies and programs are best described as intercultural multiculturalism.
If there is a semantic point, it is with Louise Beaudoin's ardent defence of the protection of cultural diversity, of which she has been described as an international advocate. She has admitted that in France she encountered great difficulty in explaining how the concept of cultural diversity -as she chooses to define it -differs from multiculturalism.
The multicultural model offers the choice of maintaining one's cultures and traditions without diminishing one's national identification. Surveys reveal that Quebecers and other Canadians are divided over whether immigrants should give up their customs and traditions. Paradoxically, a June 2008 survey reveals that 80 per cent agree that "young people should preserve family cultural traditions."
Multiculturalism does not require the abandonment of one's heritage as a precondition to being a "good" Canadian. Despite views to the contrary, most empirical evidence suggests that a strong sense of identification with a minority ethnic group does not result in a weaker sense of national belonging. In effect, I can have a strong sense of Jewish identity and feel a strong sense of belonging to both Quebec and to Canada.
But multiculturalism does not mean that governments are compelled to support all manifestations of culture.
For example, the federal multiculturalism policy does not offer a right to public services in languages other than English or French. Nor does it offer justification for cultural practices that violate the laws of Canada -even if some individuals wrongly invoke multiculturalism in this regard. When in 2005 the government of Ontario rejected the settlement of family disputes by religious-based tribunals, it did not reject multiculturalism. And while most Canadians embrace the term multiculturalism, they are also unfavourable to unrestricted access to public services for those individuals choosing to cover their face in the name of their religion.
Criticism of multiculturalism often serves as a useful pretext for those who feel it is politically incorrect to attack the freedom-of-religion provisions that are part of both the Quebec and Canadian Charter of Rights. It is worth asking why certain officials prefer to take cheap shots at Canadian multiculturalism rather than discussing complex issues in terms of freedom of religion.
In March 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a total ban on the kirpan in schools violated the Charter of Rights because it infringed upon guarantees of religious freedom. It did, however, allow school boards to impose some restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety. It is on that latter basis that, rightly or wrongly, the government of Quebec justified the recent vote to ban the kirpan from the National Assembly.
Certain opposition members chose to describe this as a broad rejection of Canadian multiculturalism. If indeed that was the intention, they might have asked the representatives of the Sikh group to remove their turbans. That, however, would have been a violation of the freedom-of-religion provisions of both the Quebec and Canadian Charters and a clear rejection of the spirit of multiculturalism.
***
JACK JEDWAB Executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies in Montreal.