I just finished a Jacobin article on "Racism" in Stephen Harper's Canada, which I found very interesting:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/racism-in-stephen-harpers-canada/
What is interesting is that Stephen Harper's new bill is an attempt, in part, to define Canadian Identity, in form of a bill entitled the "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act". I am old enough to be wary of the names of legislative bills. Certainly, I too am against tolerating "Barbaric Cultural Practices" and "Animal Cruelty" to boot. But is Harper really seeking to ban "Barbaric Cultural Practices", or is he seeking to implement some form of repression under the guise of rooting out purported "Barbaric Cultural Practices"? What are these so-called "Barbaric Cultural Practices"? Jacobin is good enough to tell us some of the practices banned under the act, specifically, polygamy, child marriages, and honor killings. Okay, question to readers, if there are any, is anyone freaked out if the Canadian Parliament declares polygamy, child marriages, and honor killings to be Barbaric Cultural Practices? Is anyone in favor of the legalization of polygamy, child marriages, and honor killings? Jacobin, of course, doesn't defend these practices as being anything other than barbaric, and notes they are already (properly by implication) illegal acts under Canadian law. So what is wrong with the law, if it is redundant?
The problem is that one of the proponents of the bill indicates that the law is directed at recent immigrants to Canada, which Jacobin finds offensive because, Socialist's honor, immigrants in Canada do not practice these customs, unlike some native Canadians. The problem with this claim is that in certain countries from which these immigrants come, these practices are alive and well, sometimes even legal. We are not talking about a blood libel, we are talking about real customs that real people actually practice in real parts of the world. Moreover, Canada is not talking about deporting its immigrants or anything else, they are simply saying if you come to Canada, leave these customs at home. If Canada's immigrant population is not maintaining these customs, and has no interest in preserving these customs, how can they possibly be harmed by such a law?
Why can't Canada define what it means to be Canadian, and define what customs it sees as contrary to its democratic values as a free nation? It's not like China or Iran or Russia or Nigeria don't promulgate laws in these matters themselves. Why can't a democracy enact criminal penalties for the brother who butchers his own sister in response to her rape? Does such a law make Canada more civilized, or less civilized?
Jacobin does not provide a reasoned argument for what is wrong with the bill. Instead, they label it "racist" and "xenophobic". Here we discover the new weapon of the cultural Marxist: call things you do not like "racist". But I grew up in the old days, when racism was a biological theory that different racial groups had differing genetic make-ups, and that these differing genetic make-ups contributed in positive and negative ways to the character of people from different races. Moreover, this biological theory claimed that certain racial groups were superior to other racial groups. I must say, I can see nothing in Harper's bill that is in any manner racist, in the way that this term has ever been historically defined, nor is there anything in Harper's bill that resembles anything akin to the Nazi eugenics laws.
Xenophobic means "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries." If we construe the definition of xenophobia widely enough, perhaps Harper's bill is mildly xenophobic, as indeed my own narrow-minded prejudice against the noble custom of honor killing might be so construed. Perhaps it is xenophobic to reject issuing death sentences on people for publishing books hostile to your religious beliefs, or for insisting on the education of women. On the other hand, if you are being precise, the bill in question does not outlaw people, or take collective action against a people, it outlaws certain prescribed behaviors that people may voluntarily choose to engage in or not. Thus, the bill in fact appears to ban "Barbaric Cultural Practices", not the poor immigrants themselves seeking refuge from countries that practice these barbaric customs.
If a country is willing to accept immigrants from countries that have very different cultures from its own, I do not think it is fair to label it "xenophobic." This label would be much fairer if Harper sought to ban immigrants per se from traditionally Muslim countries, or ban immigration altogether. Instead, Canada is opening its borders and embracing individuals from a vastly different cultural system, the very essence of cosmopolitanism. I think it is incumbent that Canada not only can, but should, insist that immigrants assimilate into the dominant culture and customs of their new country. To do otherwise would be to court disaster, because I cannot imagine a multicultural Canada which practices monogamy, has modern consent laws, and does not murder rape victims, living side by side with one that is polygamous and practices child marriages and honor killings. Perhaps America would still live side by side with slavery but for those "xenophobic" Yankees and their Republican party?
Democratic nations have a right--which flows directly from the People--to define themselves, and to establish their own national identity. This power is nothing more and nothing less than the ability of a legislature to promulgate laws. Being sovereign, a nation has the right to take in immigrants, and the right to exclude them. Moreover, it is counter-productive, and guaranteed to produce real "xenophobia," if a nation cannot insist that its new comers assimilate themselves to the existing culture of their new homeland.
Culture relativism holds that all cultures and their customs are equal, and that one cannot establish any kind of hierarchy, even relative, with respect to customs. Under cultural relativism, we cannot judge the Nazi's for example, because they had a different cultural and political system from our own, nor can we judge Islamic customs, because they represent a different cultural and political system from our own. "Racism" and "xenophobia" are today being re-defined, and used by cultural relativists to label the enemies of cultural relativism. If this is the new "racism", then I would submit that any human being with a working intelligence should embrace this "racism", as the alternative is nothing more than a form of cultural and political suicide. Go visit all the Civil War Memorials in the USA, if you want to see how real cultural pluralism plays itself out historically.
Should Canadians be concerned about Harper's efforts to define Canadian national identity? Absolutely, these questions strike at the heart of all citizens, and should not be treated lightly or cavalierly by anyone. If Harper were seeking to deport en masse a host of legal immigrants who had peacefully assimilated into Canada based on anti-Muslim prejudice, the writer of this blog would be horrified and would speak out against such an abuse. On the other hand, if the Canadian Left is intellectually incapable of distinguishing between a bill that bans honor killings, and a bill that deports immigrants based on anti-immigrant prejudice, then it has nothing constructive to contribute to the debate in Canada. Moreover, if the Canadian left regards the question of national unity and assimilation as a politically unimportant and insignificant questions, the Canadian left needs to familiarize itself with the history of Yugoslavia. There is no democracy without a demos.
No comments:
Post a Comment