« Comments please | Main | Tax rage! »
June 12, 2006
17/32,554,571=.000052%
Let's say every Muslim in Canada somehow up and left tonight. Would Canadian multiculturalism still be the huge, self-destructive delusion tomorrow morning that certain people assure us it is today? I'm thinking not. They aren't up in arms about the number of Chinese, Russians or Australians in Canada the way are about the number and disposition of Muslims. Religious fundamentalism is a worthwhile enemy, but my point has always been that since the only violent religious fundamentalists in Canada today are Muslims, it's at most one culture that's the problem.
That's if "Muslims" comprise a single culture, which they naturally do not. Peruse a list of mosques in and around Toronto and you'll find the Canadian Turkish Islamic Centre and the Bosnian Islamic Centre, just for starters. Is a gathering of Lebanese Muslims in Toronto first and foremost a Lebanese gathering or a Muslim one? What if a couple of Iranians show up? Wait, they're Zoroastrians? You could waste your whole life trying to figure it out.
In his otherwise terrific piece in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen, Robert Sibley came off the rails a bit with this:
Most western countries regard themselves, officially or not, as multicultural societies. They assert the principle that different cultures have the freedom to develop as they wish, regardless of the standards of any majoritarian culture. But as political philosopher Roger Scruton argues, the result of the multicultural ideal has been to create a system of "apartheid" in which various cultures within a country refuse to assimilate to any substantive degree with the large order and exist independently of each other as much as possible. Anyone who questions this system, much less criticizes a minority culture, is censored and silenced by accusations of racism. Consequently, immigrant groups conclude they can live in a western society "as an antagonist and still enjoy all the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship," Mr. Scruton writes in his essay, "The Muslim Next Door: Can we live with him? Can he live with us?"
The idea of apartheid in Canada is unsalvageably nuts. We are obsessed with integration — we have togetherheid, if anything. Canadian educational institutions and employers (most notably in the public sector) follow diversity targets even to the point of turning down the most qualified candidate for a given position. It's difficult to see how Canada could encourage economic and social integration more forcefully.
No one in Canada is "marginalized" or "ghettoized", the latter of which Robert Fulford suggested today. To be marginalized is to be confined by someone to the margins; to be ghettoized is to be told by someone where to live. Fulford says so himself:
Some groups have decided to live in ghettos of their own making, apart from the rest of us.
And many rich Anglophones choose to live in Westmount, and many middle-class Jews in Côte Saint-Luc. The negative connotations of "ghetto" come from the denial of freedom, and that simply isn't relevant here. There isn't much more Canadian a thing than choosing where you want to live.
And what's this "some groups", anyway? Fulford's just talking about Muslims, as far as I can see. Similarly, the Roger Scruton essay Sibley quotes has "Muslim" right in the title, and yet Sibley tells us that there are "various cultures… [who] refuse to assimilate to any substantive degree with the large order" in Canada, and who have furthermore "conclude[d] they can live in a western society 'as an antagonist'." Who are we talking about — the Portuguese? New Zealanders? It's bizarre. Fulford and Sibley are trying to question the "all cultures are equal" orthodoxy of multiculturalism, and yet they are equating all non-native (small n) Canadian cultures with the one that's currently presenting a problem. If we're just talking about Muslims, then let's just talk about Muslims and leave multiculturalism alone for now.
So, 17 Canadian men and boys are up on terrorism charges. We are told by officials, absurdly, that they share no common feature. We are told by columnists and bloggers, still absurdly though less so, that their dominant common feature is Islam, which is like saying the dominant common feature of the Real IRA is Christianity. Maybe I'm dense, but why do we need to find a common feature more dominant than the strip mall mosque that most of the arrested attended? Why does the solution have to be more complex than shutting it down and trying to prevent similar outfits from cropping up again?
It's like Marcus Gee said in the Globe & Mail last week: "The best that Western countries can do is believe in their own values." I'm willing to listen to arguments against the current incarnation of Canadian multiculturalism, but not based on the threat (allegedly) presented by 17 braindead cretins who couldn't be bothered to take advantage of all Canada offered them. It's unfair to all Canadians to allow would-be terrorists to open such a debate.
Indeed, this sudden interest in the root causes of terrorism fascinates me when it manifests itself in people who otherwise have no interest in root causes. When young men of Jamaican extraction kill each other and innocent bystanders, Canadian reactionaries instinctively know the solution: deterrent justice and fewer social programs. But in the case of people who want to blow up a building or behead the Prime Minister, it's not good enough to lock them up. Suddenly they're willing to dig deeper, or as deep as they need to dig to find Islam and multiculturalism anyway, at which point they catch their breath, smirk, and mash their keyboards appropriately. They'll try anything to discredit tolerance so as to justify their own lack of it. We shouldn't be altering the philosophical foundations of Canadian society on these terms.
UPDATE June 15. Anar Ali's piece in the June 10 New York Times nails what I imagine many "moderate Muslims" must be feeling, and why I don't think it's fair to "ask" things of them as a group:
Whether you want it or not, as a Muslim (secular and otherwise) you are automatically pulled into the debate on terrorism. Not that I don't want to discuss it, I do. But I want to discuss it as a citizen, not just a Muslim.
As a Muslim, people expect you to be an expert, to have special inside knowledge on the topic. They want your opinion on the issue, your help in explaining and analyzing complex political issues, the history of Islam, the psychology of suicide bombers.
I have no sense of what motivates a terrorist (except maybe as a fiction writer, since it's my job to enter the hearts and minds of characters). Terrorists and radical Islamists live in a different place from me, psychologically and culturally, even if they were raised in Canada just as I was. To better understand these young men and why they turn to violence as a means to an end, it might make more sense to ask someone who was a skinhead, a member of the Irish Republican Army, a Tamil Tiger, or a Weatherman.
If you asked me, I would have to speculate, as most people do, from the sidelines.
Her family is Ismaili, a Muslim sect whose leader resembles an Italian grandfather more than he does your average fatwa-issuing Mullah. People like her just aren't relevant to this debate.
UPDATE II. Adam Radwanski takes on George Jonas' very weak attempt at the same anti-multiculturalist screed.
Posted by Chris Selley at June 12, 2006 11:16 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/426
Comments
I completely agree with you. As it happened, I posted along those lines a couple of days ago ("Home-Grown Terrorism and Fear" - http://mentarchblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/home-grown-terrorism-and-fear.html).
We simply have to "get a grip" and not slide the way the Americans have into a bog of fear-driven smoke and mirrors ...
Posted by: Mentarch at June 13, 2006 06:26 AM
Robert Fulford should go volunteer at an Iraqi orphanage.
Policies he advocated, like the invasion of Iraq, have directly contributed to Muslims everywhere becoming more radicalized.
I guess it is more convienent for Conservatives like Fulford to attack multiculturalism, rather then confronting their own failures. Failures which could get us all killed.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq Harper’s Magazine put Bin Laden dressed as Uncle Sam on their cover. Underneath was written: HE WANTS YOU TO INVADE IRAQ!
The implication being the invasion of Iraq would help el Qaeda advance its aims.
Thanks a lot Bob!
Posted by: wsam at June 13, 2006 11:53 AM
As usual, I totally agree with everything you have said in this post. Especially the suggestion that maybe shutting down the one rogue mosque, I had actually wondered why that hasn't been suggested (maybe it has, but I have not heard of that)
Posted by: lk at June 15, 2006 01:39 AM
Society of moderate muslims. very nice blog
Posted by: ismaili at June 24, 2006 11:45 AM