With the benefit of hindsight, how to change Canada's immigration policy?

[Tewder]

Tewder:
Then you better be ready to debate the specifics of how multicultural policy is operationalized in Canada, and demonstrate exactly what negative effects are the direct result of such operationalized policies, rather than coming up with generic slogans like "Down with multiculturalism". Down with what kind of multiculturalism?

Oh come now, in the context of a casual discussion forum I hardly think I need to "debate the specifics". How about you though? If that's what you are insisting on then where is your quantifiable non-anecdotal proof that Multiculturalism has any benefit *whatsoever* for Canada? Platitudes about 'unity through diversity' do not cut it either!

Can you genuinely say you understand (much less practice) the mindset, values and motives of the Fathers of Confederation, for example; and that they are the same mindset, values and motives of say the Canadians 50, 100 years later? Has these characteristics ever been universal in nature? Can you argue some combination of all of the above is more valid than others as being Canadian?

Of couse I cannot understand and practise the mindset of the Fathers of Confederation. I'm not arguing for that. If you look at my earlier response to Syn you will see that I'm not talking about rolling back the notion of Canadian identity to any particular socio-historic time or context in the past. That would be ridiculous of course, and hardly representative of Canada today. Rather, I'm talking about the ongoing understanding and appreciation of an evolving Canadian identity that is the 'sum' of our history, the overall trajectory of the underlaying themes and ideas that shape our history and who we are. We are diverse today, for example, but that embracing of diversity was the result of underlaying currents. What are those currents? How are they legitimate hallmarks of being Canadian? This is just one example. Another might be about tolerance? Where did Canadian tolerance come from, and how did it progress in ways different than in other places in the world?

There are many other facettes to identity that we could discuss in a similar fashion in the understanding that there is a commonality of Canadian'ness that we share and that informs who we are, that is still in a process of evolving, and that will continue to inform future notions of what it is to be a Canadian. To me, this understanding is important for both people who live here and people who newly come here, and is far more important than the rote, dismissive Multicultural stance that there is simply 'nothing' worth discussing that is Canadian except being Multicultural.

I didn't say our laws exists a-priori - what I am arguing is that you can't find a universal set of values that define us, without excluding others who rightly claim to be Canadian, and that the most accurate, most inclusive definition of what Canadian means is citizenship and expectations of behaviour consistent with Canadian law.

Those laws have evolved to reflect Canadian society and continue to do so. For instance, in Canada we can unequivically reject an embracing of the principles of Sharia law because they do not reflect Canadian values. We don't say they are bad or wrong, only that they are not 'Canadian', which underscores the fact that you cannot have a discussion about law without talking about the values of the society those laws represent.

That said, if you are a born Canadian or Canadian citizen then of course you have the right to question and dispute what being a Canadian is. This is only right, but it doesn't imply that there is no such notion to start with. This is an ongoing discussion, as it has already been ongoing for hundreds of years, and it is an important discussion. The dismissing of this in favour of Multiculturalism aborts this discussion.

In Canada we have arrived at a place where it is not 'Canadian' to discriminate based on gender/sexuality. Did we arrive at this overnight or did past historic trends and events lead us here? My feeling is that it is the very trajectory of our history/evolution that has brought us to this value, and that it is an appreciation and understanding of this evolution that will help to preserve it. Future Canadians or Canadian citizens may disagree or challenge this, as is their want, and it will be future Canadians that will decide if this is a legitimate value. In the meantime these values stand a better chance if they are embraced by Canadians, and if newcomers are assimilated to them.

If you throw words like "disrespectful" around, I am fairly certain you already have expectations and parameters on what Canadians should be. No?

Actually, come to think of it, one of the most destablizing aspects of the Canadian Confederation isn't multiculturalism - it's provincial politics - and that's actually enshrined in our Constitution.

AoD

You cannot make a claim that Canadians have no value-system or pre-Multicultural identity, or that any such identity is simply unworthy and obsolete, without understanding that such a claim is offensive to many. You would only need to travel outside of the relatively unique context of Toronto to truly understand this.

I've already discussed some of the parameters of what I think being Canadian is, and much to your surprise, I'm sure, it's not about colour of skin or ancestry, ethnic background or religious affiliation etc. That said, being Canadian is of course about excluding, and how could it not be? We are not Jamaican or English or Saudi, or a religion-based nation state, or a totalitarian regime, or any number of other things that may define other countries... and it is not simply our citizenship or passport or lawbook or the coincidence of geographic location that differentiates us. Like it or not Canada is a belief system too, and it is the one that we have created, and that we continue to create through the rule of law and democracy etc. (which in turn is part of our belief system). As a country we should do more to acknowledge this, to celebrate it, and to teach it to those who come here. This is what adds value to that passport or that citizenship. Multiculturalism does none of this. Once again I say, with all due respect, 'Down with Multiculturalism' and long live diversity!!

 

[syn]

No, many European National groups exist. But when you go beyond national origin and make a European club, it's racist. Yet the Asian Christian Federation or the South Asian club doesn't get evaluated in the same way. No matter how you want to look at it, it's a double standard.

That isn't really saying much because there is no reason given for why they were rejected. If their mandate was not in keeping with school policy then they're not going to be allowed to exist no matter who they are.

And the solution isn't to allow a European Students Club, it's to get rid of these exclusionary clubs altogether which you keep calling culture clubs.

Because that's what they are.

To eliminate such cultural groups is one of the more ridiculous ideas I've come across. Universities are about exploration and discovery; to eliminate so many opportunties for people to explore and celebrate different cultures would not be in keeping with how our society operates. It would also take them back decades.

I've been involved in many *actual* culture clubs dedicated to Japanese language/culture, classical music, etc....

What do you think the South Asian club does? Sit around ensuring no one else from other cultures join and congratulating themselves on their superiority?

No, I never said they were racist. I said they were isolationist and a hindrance to true diversity, and another indicator of the problems with so-called multiculturalism in the city. I said they promote segregation and fragmentation.

Only if you choose to view them that way.

I'm close minded because I when I read "Black Students Association" I interpret it to mean......."Black Students Association"?

No, you're close minded because you evaluate them on the most superficial level.

Well, good for you. I like a good anecdote as much as anyone else. But here's a fact, do a survey of these clubs and you will find that most, if not all, are ethnically homogeneous. These aren't centers of mass cultural discourse. Well, there actually was a true "multicultural club" back in my high school. It was the least attended club all year. There's an anecdote for you.

Here's another fact: most if not all of these clubs are open to everyone. You're making the assumption that they're isolationist because not everyone joins, which is completely illogical. You're also making the assumption that people who join these groups don't participate in campus life in any other way, which is pretty silly when you think about it.

Why? Because one person on a message board says he joined the Filipino club? Open your eyes and take a look at what's actually happening here instead of thinking about idealized situations. Most, if not all, of these groups are homogeneous and they all serve primarily as organizations which....well, just reread afransen's definition from earlier.

lol

So we're just supposed to take your word for it? What I'm giving you is evidence that just because you feel these clubs cater only to specific people that isn't the case at all. That's not to say they can only cater to specific group in some instances, but your blanket characterizations aren't accurate.

It really wasn't that long ago that you'd find mostly Chinese at Chinese restaurants, Indians at Indian restaurants, and so on. Now it would be nearly impossible to find anyone of any background that would find these restaurants exclusionary. They're frequented by everyone.

It wasn't that long ago that you'd find predominately Chinese in Chinatown. Who finds it odd to find someone of another culture there now?

It wasn't that long ago that interracial dating and interracial marriages were very uncommon, even taboo. Now they're fairly common and accepted, and becoming more so with each passing year.

These university clubs have always existed in some way shape or form, and they always will. Right now a lot of people simply aren't as comfortable as we'd like to think exploring other cultures...which is why the percentage of people from different backgrounds in these groups is still growing slowly. However, as time goes by I have no doubt that people will become more and more comfortable joining a Filipino club, for example, even if they aren't Filipino.

 

[theowne]

That isn't really saying much because there is no reason given for why they were rejected.

I just told you that they were rejected for being discriminatory. That was the reason given to the would-be-founding members, according to their Facebook page.

Universities are about exploration and discovery

Which is prevented by having clubs so people can bar themselves from any other experiences and live in their own little corner with only their own "kind" and eliminate any chance at diversity.

to eliminate so many opportunties for people to explore and celebrate different cultures would not be in keeping with how our society operates.

Seriously, go take a look at some of the photos for these Chinese and South Asian association groups on their websites or Facebook groups. Take a look and tell me how much exploring of other cultures is going on there. I don't care if one Korean is sitting with the 100 Chinese guys. Look at the big picture.

What do you think the South Asian club does?

Quote (by afransen): They are pretty much exclusively about insulating oneself with the university community as a whole by forming a social network with those of a similar ethnic/religious/racial background as oneself.

Here's another fact: most if not all of these clubs are open to everyone.

The mandatory disclaimer on their website might be enough to fulfill you, but sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture, the social factors, the environment created in these clubs, the effects on the community and true diversity......

Anyways, this discussion clearly isn't going anywhere.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

Oh come now, in the context of a casual discussion forum I hardly think I need to "debate the specifics". How about you though? If that's what you are insisting on then where is your quantifiable non-anecdotal proof that Multiculturalism has any benefit *whatsoever* for Canada? Platitudes about 'unity through diversity' do not cut it either!

Oh but you are the one saying that multiculturalism is at fault for a variety of ills, shouldn't you be providing evidence of such? Throwing the question back at me diverts the point.

Of couse I cannot understand and practise the mindset of the Fathers of Confederation. I'm not arguing for that. If you look at my earlier response to Syn you will see that I'm not talking about rolling back the notion of Canadian identity to any particular socio-historic time or context in the past. That would be ridiculous of course, and hardly representative of Canada today. Rather, I'm talking about the ongoing understanding and appreciation of an evolving Canadian identity that is the 'sum' of our history, the overall trajectory of the underlaying themes and ideas that shape our history and who we are. We are diverse today, for example, but that embracing of diversity was the result of underlaying currents. What are those currents? How are they legitimate hallmarks of being Canadian? This is just one example. Another might be about tolerance? Where did Canadian tolerance come from, and how did it progress in ways different than in other places in the world?

But does having a policy of multiculturalism excludes any of what you've said - that is, an understanding or appreciation of the evolution of Canadian identities and history? You made it sound as if the two are completely incompatiable. BTW, diversity and tolerance are not unique hallmarks of being Canadian either.

There are many other facettes to identity that we could discuss in a similar fashion in the understanding that there is a commonality of Canadian'ness that we share and that informs who we are, that is still in a process of evolving, and that will continue to inform future notions of what it is to be a Canadian. To me, this understanding is important for both people who live here and people who newly come here, and is far more important than the rote, dismissive Multicultural stance that there is simply 'nothing' worth discussing that is Canadian except being Multicultural.

Except what you've said is implicitly what multiculturalism is about - it explictly recognizes the multi-faceted nature of Canadian identity, and facilitates this understanding. There is nothing that says because of multiculturalism there is nothing worth discussing about being Canadian - in fact, it accepts the reality that many aspects are worthy of discussion.

Those laws have evolved to reflect Canadian society and continue to do so. For instance, in Canada we can unequivically reject an embracing of the principles of Sharia law because they do not reflect Canadian values. We don't say they are bad or wrong, only that they are not 'Canadian', which underscores the fact that you cannot have a discussion about law without talking about the values of the society those laws represent.

Again, multiculturalism does not deny the process of evolution in Canadian law. Besides, the rejection of Sharia Law isn't because it's some edict from the top that said it is un-Canadian (nor is it unequivocally rejected by all at an individual level) - it's because of the systems in place that allows a judgement of whether to have it enshrined as part of the Canadian Law. There are a multitude of values at work here.

That said, if you are a born Canadian or Canadian citizen then of course you have the right to question and dispute what being a Canadian is. This is only right, but it doesn't imply that there is no such notion to start with. This is an ongoing discussion, as it has already been ongoing for hundreds of years, and it is an important discussion. The dismissing of this in favour of Multiculturalism aborts this discussion.

It's funny, because I offered by definition of what being a Canadian is to me already. What I am challenging is your notion that a) Canadian-ess is a unitary construct of values applicable to everyone in Canada and b) that this construct is incompatiable with multiculturalism.

In Canada we have arrived at a place where it is not 'Canadian' to discriminate based on gender/sexuality. Did we arrive at this overnight or did past historic trends and events lead us here? My feeling is that it is the very trajectory of our history/evolution that has brought us to this value, and that it is an appreciation and understanding of this evolution that will help to preserve it. Future Canadians or Canadian citizens may disagree or challenge this, as is their want, and it will be future Canadians that will decide if this is a legitimate value. In the meantime these values stand a better chance if they are embraced by Canadians, and if newcomers are assimilated to them.

Is it really? Under Canadian law it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexuality under certain circumstances, and that's a result of political and social processes - but to suggest that it is un-Canadian to have these values? I have a feeling that certain segments of the population will VERY strongly disagree with you even today. Personally I share your values in this case, but like it or hate it, the individuals with these values are still Canadian whether I like it or not. The state cannot tell anyone that these values are necessary in order to qualify as Canadian - what the state can do is set forth the conditions under which practices of these values are unacceptable AND encourage the uptake of practices congruent with Canadian Law.

You cannot make a claim that Canadians have no value-system or pre-Multicultural identity, or that any such identity is simply unworthy and obsolete, without understanding that such a claim is offensive to many. You would only need to travel outside of the relatively unique context of Toronto to truly understand this.

But see, you are already doing the us-vs-them. I said that there are no unitary value system beyond very basic points (much less there is no value to having an identity; and I have no doubt that some would challenge even THAT interpretation as being too limiting, but I can't please everyone right?) - which you have just proven my point. So are you saying the unique context of Toronto and the thinking of some Canadians there is un-Canadian, just because they are different from what others outside Toronto perceive Canadian values should be? Who are these others? Do they all agree on what Canadian values are? How should I chose? And if I challenge their interpretation, does that make me "un-Canadian"? But isn't the right to free thought a Canadian right - and therefore, these challenges are ultimately "un-Canadian"?

I am suggesting that there is no need to be exclusionary - but there is the need to accept that there are differences in the interpretation of what Canadian identity is all about.

I've already discussed some of the parameters of what I think being Canadian is, and much to your surprise, I'm sure, it's not about colour of skin or ancestry, ethnic background or religious affiliation etc. That said, being Canadian is of course about excluding, and how could it not be? We are not Jamaican or English or Saudi, or a religion-based nation state, or a totalitarian regime, or any number of other things that may define other countries... and it is not simply our citizenship or passport or lawbook or the coincidence of geographic location that differentiates us. Like it or not Canada is a belief system too, and it is the one that we have created, and that we continue to create through the rule of law and democracy etc. (which in turn is part of our belief system). As a country we should do more to acknowledge this, to celebrate it, and to teach it to those who come here. This is what adds value to that passport or that citizenship. Multiculturalism does none of this. Once again I say, with all due respect, 'Down with Multiculturalism' and long live diversity!!

Being Canadian is indeed simply our citizenship - and violation of the conditions of such (i.e. our laws and regulations) as landed immigrants and you can lose that right. Anything more and you run into a problem - we can enforce laws, but we can't enforce beliefs. Ironically, our Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't allow it. So are you saying that we should do so and in the process violate all these laws? That's rather perverse!

In addition, you make it sound as if somehow the policy of multiculturalism prevented the celebration of history as an official government policy. A look around you should suggest otherwise.

AoD

 

[urbandreamer]

Being Canadian is indeed simply our citizenship

How many of you UT-ers are at the cottage this weekend?

'nuff said.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:
Oh but you are the one saying that multiculturalism is at fault for a variety of ills, shouldn't you be providing evidence of such? Throwing the question back at me diverts the point.

I am stating my point of view and the evidence is exactly what is being discussed here throughout the thread. In the context of this forum it is not a question of demanding empirical data as evidence, and your position is no more empirical than mine.

But does having a policy of multiculturalism excludes any of what you've said - that is, an understanding or appreciation of the evolution of Canadian identities and history? You made it sound as if the two are completely incompatiable. BTW, diversity and tolerance are not unique hallmarks of being Canadian either.

Yes, I sincerely believe that Multiculturalism - as it has been practiced in Canada at least - precludes the appreciation and evolution of an understanding of the Canadian ethos/identity/value system. It is also counterproductive in the assimilation of newcomers to those very things. Again, Multiculturalism is not just a benign acknowledgement or appreciation of diversity (as a 'melting-pot' approach would be). It is a governmentally mandated policy, embedded in Canadian law, that deliberately deconstructs the very notion of a Canadian identity through propaganda, and that urges Canadians and newcomers to celebrate, to identify with and to practice the lifestyles and traditions and belief-systems of their ancestral homelands... and in so doing it is encouraging the ghettoization and balkanization of Canadian society (for examples of this please refer to the postings of many others here talking about just this very thing).

Except what you've said is implicitly what multiculturalism is about - it explictly recognizes the multi-faceted nature of Canadian identity, and facilitates this understanding. There is nothing that says because of multiculturalism there is nothing worth discussing about being Canadian - in fact, it accepts the reality that many aspects are worthy of discussion.

No, it is a 'melting pot' approach that recognizes the multi-facetted nature of a country's identity, while still recognizing the identity of the whole, whereby the sum parts make up the whole. In our Multicultural posture we only see diversity but do not recognize the whole. This is what is divisive about the policy.

Again, multiculturalism does not deny the process of evolution in Canadian law. Besides, the rejection of Sharia Law isn't because it's some edict from the top that said it is un-Canadian (nor is it unequivocally rejected by all at an individual level) - it's because of the systems in place that allows a judgement of whether to have it enshrined as part of the Canadian Law. There are a multitude of values at work here.

I can only repeat from my previous post on this issue, that it is a society's values and beliefs that inform law. Theoretically, in a purely Multicultural society we should be deconstructing the law such that it meets the value-systems of all Canadians (i.e. Sharia law for Muslims, a separate law for aboriginal Canadians, Napoleonic law for French Canadians, etc....) Clearly, this would not work. Canadians need to believe in and share a common social contract if Canadian society is to function or have any meaning in its totality (its Canadian'ness). Peace, order and good government is part of this belief-system and as such is what newcomers should rightly be assimilated to.

It's funny, because I offered by definition of what being a Canadian is to me already. What I am challenging is your notion that a) Canadian-ess is a unitary construct of values applicable to everyone in Canada and b) that this construct is incompatiable with multiculturalism.

Not at all. It is your opinion, and you have your right to it. I am merely offering a different one, all the more vehemently as yours represents the accepted, codified and institutionalized point of view that holds power in Ottawa.

Is it really? Under Canadian law it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexuality under certain circumstances, and that's a result of political and social processes - but to suggest that it is un-Canadian to have these values? I have a feeling that certain segments of the population will VERY strongly disagree with you even today. Personally I share your values in this case, but like it or hate it, the individuals with these values are still Canadian whether I like it or not. The state cannot tell anyone that these values are necessary in order to qualify as Canadian - what the state can do is set forth the conditions under which practices of these values are unacceptable AND encourage the uptake of practices congruent with Canadian Law.

...but that's the whole danger of deconstructing meaning, isn't it? In the end there is no meaning. To suggest that one cannot affirm any meaning in Canadian identity because there may exist someone somewhere who doesn't subscribe to it is incredibly nihilistic. Why not take this further then? Why claim Canada is Multicultural if there is one Canadian somewhere who doesn't believe this to be so?

But see, you are already doing the us-vs-them.

And just who is this us-vs-them that you so relentlessly perceive? Your claim that Canada has no fundamental identity that predates Multiculturalism will be offensive to many Canadians of all backgrounds who were born here or who are citizens that chose to come here. In an urban area such as Toronto where 50% of the population was born somewhere else it stands to reason that there are many people living there who are neither, and as such would not necessarily care one bit one way or another about your assertion. This isn't exclusionary or drawing lines, other than those that are the most logical to draw (Canadian vs non-Canadian).

Being Canadian is indeed simply our citizenship - and violation of the conditions of such (i.e. our laws and regulations) as landed immigrants and you can lose that right. Anything more and you run into a problem - we can enforce laws, but we can't enforce beliefs. Ironically, our Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't allow it. So are you saying that we should do so and in the process violate all these laws? That's rather perverse!

AoD

Lets not lose sight of the issue. I'm not advocating we legislate and enforce a Canadian identity. Rather, I 'm asserting that we should not be legislating and enforcing Multiculturalism. Stop the bucks, stop the propaganda, and stop the divisive policy. Let the Canadian identity and ethos continue to evolve, as it has for generations, without government tinkering and meddling. Canadians and newcomers will find and celebrate what's right for them and its institutions will continue to reflect that.

 

[syn]

I just told you that they were rejected for being discriminatory. That was the reason given to the would-be-founding members, according to their Facebook page.

But why exactly were they deemed discriminatory? Something mentioned in their charter? Or simply their name?

Which is prevented by having clubs so people can bar themselves from any other experiences and live in their own little corner with only their own "kind" and eliminate any chance at diversity.

These clubs only do that if:

a) Only people of a certain background or backgrounds are allowed to join the club

b) People are only allowed to join an ethnic club but not get involved in any other way with school life

Since none of the above is true it's pretty ridiculous to keep calling them exclusionary because you want to.

It's like saying the chess club is exclusionary because only people interested in chess can join and it makes them isolate themselves from everyone else.

Seriously, go take a look at some of the photos for these Chinese and South Asian association groups on their websites or Facebook groups. Take a look and tell me how much exploring of other cultures is going on there. I don't care if one Korean is sitting with the 100 Chinese guys. Look at the big picture.

Yes, look at the big picture. That's exactly what I've been trying to get you to do. Looking at an image or name is the most superficial way of evaluating things.

Look at the trends in society. Look at the increase in interracial marriages and dating. Look at the increasing comfort each generation has dealing with people of different backgrounds.

These clubs have always existed and always will. Their place in the university has evolved and will continue to do so. You're suggesting extreme censorship and limitation of rights that no one will accept.

Quote (by afransen): They are pretty much exclusively about insulating oneself with the university community as a whole by forming a social network with those of a similar ethnic/religious/racial background as oneself.

Simply saying something does not make it true.

The mandatory disclaimer on their website might be enough to fulfill you, but sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture, the social factors, the environment created in these clubs, the effects on the community and true diversity......

You keep going on about the 'big picture, social factors and the environment' created by these clubs yet you do nothing to support what you're saying except point to naming conventions and pictures.

You've made up your mind and are simply deciding to believe they're exclusionary.

 

[Admiral Beez]

During the summer of 2006, my office provided support to Operation Lion, the non-combatant evacuation operations of Lebanese Canadians. And after all that work, most promptly returned to Lebanon within a few months. Some had no known family ties in Canada. Having participated in this experience, I truly feel that Canada was taken for a ride by these people.

And here we are again.

Canada makes deal with Cyprus to aid potential evacuation from Lebanon

Planning has been underway for months for possible “assisted departures” from Lebanon in the event that the conflict between Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel escalates from daily cross-border exchanges of missiles

www.thestar.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Not making them pay for evacuation was a mistake last time.