Fuelling fear in Canada
Recent attempts to paint the rejection of multiculturalism as a kind of concern for visible minorities in Canada should be seen for what they are: a Canadian mask on an alarming global trend toward fear-mongering and racism.
by Jakeet Singh
February 26, 2007
Let the fear-mongering begin, Canadian-style.
It was probably only a matter of time until the backlash against multiculturalism that has been sweeping Europe finally turned up here in Canada. And not only is it appearing in places like Hérouxville, Quebec, where the town council’s racist and stereotype-ridden resolution is now causing a stir, but unfortunately this backlash is also being promoted in the pages of The Globe and Mail.
In a recent series of articles (see “How Canadian are you?” and “Do ethnic enclaves impede integration?”), The Globe has offered an indictment of multiculturalism in Canada, suggesting that it is impeding, rather than encouraging, the integration of visible minorities.
Using a new study by University of Toronto sociologists Jeffrey Reitz and Rupa Banerjee, The Globe’s Marina Jiménez concludes that multiculturalism in Canada is failing for two reasons: first, because visible minority immigrants to Canada and their children are experiencing a greater sense of exclusion, vulnerability and discrimination; and second, because there has been an increase in the residential concentration of visible minority groups in Canada, establishing what Jiménez calls “ethnic enclaves.”
Let’s examine each of these supposed “effects” of multiculturalism. First, we need to look at the context of the study used by Jiménez to show that visible minorities are feeling excluded. This study was conducted in 2002, within the year after the 9/11 attacks, and therefore in the midst of a violent backlash against visible minorities in Canada, during which many of us were experiencing racial slurs, profiling and violence on a regular basis. As such, it is certainly true that we were feeling a greater sense of exclusion. But to suggest that this exclusion was somehow due to multiculturalism, rather than to the resurgent racism that erupted in Canada after 9/11, is to put things entirely backward.
Second, to attribute the residential concentration of ethnic groups to multiculturalism is equally curious. This phenomenon of residential concentration occurs in many countries — in fact, probably everywhere — whether a government policy of multiculturalism exists or not. In fact, this kind of concentration occurred among many groups in Canada long before the word “multiculturalism” was ever uttered here. It is perfectly natural and understandable for people to want to live among those with whom they share a sense of cultural identity, tradition and language, as well as experiences of economic hardship, discrimination and alienation from the rest of society (in which case the “enclave” becomes a safe space for the group).
Moreover, the fact that residential concentration allows the group to establish a viable, specialized economy geared toward providing specific cultural goods to the community makes this phenomenon seem all the more commonplace and unremarkable.
And finally, even if residential concentration is affected to some degree by government policy, surely the policy in question could not be the Canadian government’s policy on multiculturalism. This particular policy has never had either the funding or the mandate to have a deep impact on something as complex as residential settlement patterns.
So then why all the recent fuss about multiculturalism? Why has multiculturalism been taking the blame for things for which it is clearly not responsible? In order to explain this, we need to understand the global context in which these issues are arising today.
In recent years, a vicious backlash against immigrants and visible minorities has been spreading through the West, encouraged by the post-9/11 “war on terror” and the fear-mongering that has been a crucial part of that war. Recently this backlash has been sweeping France, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, among other countries, as citizens are being encouraged to fear their brown and black neighbours. In this context, openness to cultural diversity, often labelled as multiculturalism, has come to be regarded as a recipe for “homegrown terrorism,” and evokes fears of “the enemy within.” By this view, danger lurks wherever visible minorities fail to fully integrate into white society.
Let us make no mistake: the recent backlash in Canada against multiculturalism is a manifestation of this very same trend, and its roots lie in the same fear-mongering that is occurring elsewhere. But what is interesting, and particularly insidious, about the form this backlash is taking here, especially as expressed in The Globe and Mail, is that it is not your run-of-the-mill, angry, racist backlash. No, we Canadians are far too polite for that.
Rather, what we find in Jiménez’s recent articles is that this fear of multiculturalism is somehow masked as a form of concern for visible minorities. Multiculturalism is actually failing Canada’s visible minorities, she says. These minorities are feeling excluded. They are not integrating. They are self-segregating.
It soon becomes clear, however, that what is driving her concern is the threat to social cohesion that these “ethnic enclaves” supposedly present — not the visible minorities whom multiculturalism is supposedly failing. Jiménez provides no reason to believe that the establishment of these “enclaves” is a problem for those actually living within them. In fact, the best she offers is a paternalistic, and rather shallow, concern for the children living in these “cocoons,” who have “never been to summer camp, taken in a Blue Jays or Maple Leafs game or a rock concert.”
As such, it is clear that concerns about these communities are not arising from within them, but from those outside who find these enclaves threatening. (By the way, it is relevant to consider here why we do not label predominantly white neighbourhoods “ethnic enclaves,” and why we do not consider these equally threatening to the social cohesion of Canadian society.)
Furthermore, it is in no way clear from Jiménez’s argument why multiculturalism — a policy which is overwhelmingly supported by the “alienated” minorities of whom she speaks — is to blame for their sense of alienation, as opposed to, say, racism, discrimination and economic hardship, which would be the much more obvious culprits.
Clearly, multiculturalism is not the real problem here, and neither are ethnic enclaves. And surely, the real concern here is not whether multiculturalism is failing visible minorities. Rather, what is underpinning this current backlash against multiculturalism in Canada is the same as everywhere else: a fear of “homegrown terrorists” and “the enemy within.” Multiculturalism, according to this script, is the enemy of integration, and is therefore the friend of terrorism.
This is the nature of the backlash we are facing today. Recent attempts to paint this rejection of multiculturalism as a kind of concern for visible minorities in Canada should be seen for what they are: a Canadian mask on an alarming global trend toward fear-mongering and racism.
Jakeet Singh is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto.
This article originally appeared in Rabble News%.
