In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

their impoverished homeland, their children would chafe at being excluded from full participation in the life and economy of the host country .This is why the Europeans are having such agonized debates about citizenship and multiculturalism and whether the hijab should be allowed in the schoolyard and whether people in Holland should be required to pray only in Dutch. But we don’t need to have this debate. Canada’s policy of recruiting immigrants from all regions of the world reduces the danger of creating a single large, ethnically or culturally homogenous underclass . Only about 2 percent of the Canadian population is Muslim, and there is no reason to believe it will ever get that much higher. Europe may be worrying about turning into Eurabia, but Canabia isn’t ever likely to happen. For another thing, there isn’t any reason to believe that large numbers of native-born Muslims are turning away from Canadian society . There is no reason why they should. To repeat: unlike Europe, Canada has a strong tradition of welcoming new immigrants, and the lack of an entrenched culture makes it far less likely that Muslim youths here will grow up feeling alienated and victimized. The only ones who feel that way have other, larger, problems. So it is wrong to say that political correctness, or a desire not to offend, is keeping us from facing a growing threat.There is no threat, pure and simple. That does not mean that there aren’t some troublemakers within the immigrant community.There always have been, whether they were Irish toughs or Italian Mafia or the Chinese tongs. New arrivals are vulnerable , and some members of their own community prey on that vulnerability . And yes, there is clear evidence that a few young Muslims are not integrating and are listening to dangerous messages. It only takes a small cell of well-trained martyrs to wreak havoc. But we have tools to deal with this.We have laws to guard against dangerous speech, and laws to guard against terrorists, and police and security services with both the mandate and the resources to keep a close watch. So far, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. If anything , the case of Maher Arar suggests that the problem is not one of lack of vigilance, but of overzealousness. 66 | Uneasy Partners Most importantly, we have a Charter, which protects the rights of all, and we have courts to interpret that Charter, when rights come in conflict. The biggest problem with the argument against toleration of cultures and religions that conflict with Charter rights, or that bring one Charter right into conflict with another, is that we really don’t know what is being proposed by the people who make this argument.They speak of the need for debate and dialogue and they speak of difficulties and discomfort, but they never actually come out and say what it is they want done.This is very frustrating for the rest of us.You can insult a Muslim woman by telling her that her dress makes you uncomfortable , but apart from being rude, what have you achieved? You can talk about bringing the Charter inside the church, but apart from uniting rabbis, priests, imams, preachers and libertarian atheists in common cause against you (which may not be such a bad thing), what do you hope to accomplish? Every now and then, as part of this debate, someone will argue for a renewed definition of citizenship—a reaffirmation of the social contract —so that those arriving here, or those born here of immigrant parents, know exactly what is expected of them in this society. But, again, what does that mean? A new loyalty oath? An expanded definition of citizenship? Or worse, a qualified citizenship that puts new arrivals on some form of probation until they have proven they can fit in? Whatever it is, some of us are ready to oppose it. We’ll fight tooth and nail. Why? Because we already have a Charter. We already have laws, and no one has put forward a decent argument that they are insuf ficient. All this ideological shadow-boxing is aggravating, because no one has yet come forward with a concrete proposition: a piece of legislation , an amendment to the Charter, a new oath of citizenship. Maybe people are reluctant to get specific because they know most of us would find their proposal anathema...

Share