Assignment 3:2 The Multiculuralism Act
2] In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.
The Multiculturalism Act in its preamble states “WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and that everyone has the freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association and guarantees those rights and freedoms equally to male and female persons.” The act was officially ratified in 1988 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and designed to ensure different cultural demographics were protected under the law in Canada and could not be discriminated against by groups or individuals such as employers, landlords, police, educators or others on the basis of cultural signifiers. This act aims to set out a basic guideline for a Canadian standard on the way to treat people. However it begs the question, why did the Canadian government need to create a law to protect citizens against prejudice and racism? Erna Paris, in an article for the Globe and Mail, states “Multiculturalism with a capital M was born of smart crisis management – of political agility and the characteristic Canadian willingness to compromise in the service of national unity and nation building” (Paris, 2018). She describes the initial effort by Pierre Trudeau in 1971 as a response to the FLQ crisis and as a way to quell opposition of bilingualism. In a way this effort was as more about biculturalism than it was about multiculturalism.
For those of us who grew up post Multiculturalism Act, this concept of bonded togetherness (or Colemans “fictive ethnicity”) despite difference seems to be the glue of Canadian Identity. If we can’t celebrate our diversity then who are we as Canadians? But again, this begs the question, if Canadians are so welcoming, non discriminatory and anti-racist, why did we need a law to protect against prejudices at all? Short answer, we are not as all-inclusive as a nation as we would like to believe. Of course all of this is at complete odds with the existence and governance of the Indigenous population in Canada. Professor Paterson notes in the framing of this question that “as the [CanLit] guide points out, the nation is an imagined community,” and certainly an imagined community imposed on Indigenous people. To fully understand this polarization it is important to understand that the Indian Act is still largely in effect and continues to have debilitating consequences on Indigenous communities. The government of Canada is synonymous with whiteness, it is a facsimile of British governance, which cannot be separated from its whiteness, nor its global history of colonialism.
Coleman’s concept of “white-civility” is an excellent example of the band-aid that is the Multiculturalism Act. Civility does not equal acceptance. As Coleman puts it Canadians need to “be reminded of the brutal histories that our fictive ethnicity would disavow” (9). While I am grateful and can acknowledge the importance of having laws that protect people based on how they to choose to live their lives it is very clear that Canada is still struggling with, and failing at, addressing its past atrocities not only against Indigenous people, but many other groups as well. In contrast, the Multiculuralism Act is an affront to Canada’s racist and colonial history.
Works Cited:
Coleman, Daniel. White Civility The Literary Project of English Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2014.
“Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act.
“Introduction to Nationalism.” CanLit Guides, 15 Aug. 2013, canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/introduction-to-nationalism/.
Paris, Erna. “Canadians Must Never Take Multiculturalism for Granted.” The Globe and Mail, 17 May 2018, www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadians-must-never-take-multiculturalism-for-granted/article30773630/.
Hi Emilia,
Great post! I agree with you that even though there are many positive benefits of having the multiculturalism act, it is very much so used as a blanket to cover over all the other issues cultures face in Canada. Racism is not something that can be avoided with an act, and as you say, civility does not equal acceptance. There is a clear divide among the citizens in Canada in terms of segregating aboriginal communities as if they aren’t a part of the rest of society. It seems to be a continuing and possibly a growing issue, and with this in mind, what are the ways we can try to stop/limit this? Do you think there’s something we can do, or would it be more effectual by influential and powerful individuals, aka the government?
Thank you for your question! I feel that both are necessary. The Canadian government has a lot to answer for and there is a real sense of if it didn’t happen while current representatives were in office it’s not their problem. I find a very similar response from the average person as well, to the tune of ‘well I was born here, I didn’t make people live on reserves.” These same unfortunate and racist responses are rampant on the comment sections of news articles circulating about the road and railway blockades. Efforts need to be monumental, and public school education can only do so much when students go home to hear racist vitriol from their parents. I’m honestly feeling personally very defeated in response to what feels like efforts falling on deaf ears. I really think both the government and the average person has to be diligent in their efforts to counter negative rhetoric. I see social media as both a hindrance and an opportunity to facilitate this conversation. Some of my favorite Instagram handles I go to in order to unlearn white ignorance and further educate myself are @nogentle and @gidimten_checkpoint
Hi Emilia!
I really enjoyed reading your post about the multiculturalism act! Sorry for the late comment as I am trying to catch up on some assignment!
One instance when I realized the cultural diversity of Canada is that I had a friend visiting from the US and after the third day he told me that he heard the first English spoken language after he arrived when he walked in the streets! That was an eye opening story for me to really think about the diversity we have in Canada!
My question for you is that I personally think even with the multiculturalism act, we still have to “compensate” or make actions for the mistakes that was done to the Indigenous people of Canada. Just the multiculturalism act itself is like putting band aid to an arm fracture. What are you thoughts about what we could do?
Hi! Interesting blog post! I found your comparison of the Multiculturalism Act to a band-aid solution interesting! I do believe it has, at least in some ways, been beneficial as people cannot be legally discriminated against! What do you think the government could do to improve this act? Are there certain limitations?