Towards Smart Integration: The Choice of Canadian Muslims
By
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry
National President
The Canadian Islamic Congress
Email:
np@canadianislamiccongress.com
Web page:
www.canadianislamiccongress.com
A paper presented at
The 10th International Metropolis Conference, Toronto, Canada
October 19, 2005
Although Canada’s political and social cultures are highly inclusive, minorities tend to follow a pattern of either assimilation or isolation. Both of these choices overlook a third option -- smart integration.
This paper focuses first on historical and social bases for the assimilation and isolation of Canadian minorities. It then goes on to explain how some ethnic and religious minorities became Canadianized under these two models, but with devastating results for themselves and the country.
It has become increasingly obvious that all of Canada stands to gain if a new model -- that of smart integration -- is defined through criteria that incorporate a balanced blend of three models: the melting-pot, the mosaic (or cultural pluralism), and that of foundational Canadian core values.
Finally, this paper applies the proposed smart integration model to Canadian Muslims showing how this model, applied in real-life practice, helped in educating this community about multi-issue, informed, and committed voting during the last federal election in 2004.
Canada is among the most polyethnic and polyreligious countries in the world today. Although Canada’s political and social cultures are highly inclusive, minorities tend to follow a pattern of either assimilation or isolation.
But what does “minority” really mean when applied to a given social group? Profs Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris in their book Minorities in the New World give these definitions:
Minorities are usually consciously or unconsciously excluded from full participation in the life of the country. As a result, they become self-conscious social units sharing a sense of belonging to a group that sees itself as distinct from society’s dominant majority.
In Canada there are minorities who differ only slightly from the mainstream population in their characteristics of race, language, culture, or religion; and there are those who differ markedly from the majority in all of these ways. Some minorities include native or aboriginal peoples, while others have arisen from both voluntary immigration and forced displacement. And there are minorities who seek assimilation living alongside those who desperately strive to avoid it.
Within any given minority, the assimilation model is promoted by encouraging individuals to “fit in”; that is, to seek treatment no different than that of other Canadians, to avoid discrimination at school or at work, to be accepted by neighbors and co workers, to advance in their careers, etc.
When taken to extreme lengths, assimilation may lead to the phenomena of “dying to fit in,” resulting in the loss of identity, loss of self-esteem, and even to intentional changes of skin color, name, language, or religion. The net result is an under-developed Canadian citizen who can make little contribution to the rich heritage of this country and who cannot fully participate in the political public square.
Although assimilation has traditionally been promoted as something good for minorities and for the country, history shows that it has had a devastating effect on minority groups, serving only to increase their alienation and to result in a net negative return for the well-being of the entire country.
The isolation model is equally devastating for minorities and the country as a whole. Isolationism seeks to preserve, virtually intact, a minority’s culture, religion, and heritage over all other social aspirations. Although it would appear that assimilation and isolation require the same group effort, the net result of isolationism can lead to graver consequences, resulting in marginalization and ghettoization, both physically or mentally.
Isolation obstructs cross-cultural understanding and often results in a minority’s rejection by mainstream society. And, contrary to any expectations of enhancing the self-identity of community members, the result eventually is the complete opposite.
The assimilation model was the method of choice in post-colonial Europe and particularly for the UK and France. But today, British Muslims are still called “Pakis” even if they came from Egypt or Turkey, while in France Muslims are called “Algerians” even if they actually originated in Pakistan, Indonesia, or other Muslim nations.
The irony here is that while European armies were engaged in various wars, they were busy subjugating minority and mixed-race peoples at home and using them to defend their overseas empires. The assimation model was also vigorously promoted by the United States and (although to a lesser extent) by Canada. In fact, Americans are proud of their long-term “experiment in assimilation,” which still goes on.
Contrary to general perception, the assimilation model does not protect minorities from discrimination by the majority. In Nazi Germany it was no help if a Jew looked like thousands of German non-Jews, and even converted to Christianity, or married a Christian spouse. According to the Nazis, he or she would always be a Jew; therefore, an impurity in the Aryan race and targeted for extermination.
In Canada, globalization and free trade agreements have done little to ease the plight of minority labourers in being able to move more freely from their countries of origin to take up seasonal jobs in Canada. And although Western Europe has been reorganized into transnational affiliations, its Muslim minorities are still ghettoizied, physically, socially, and culturally.
Minorities themselves may oscillate dramatically between one model and another at both individual and group levels. And self-serving governments may force a population into the assimilation or isolation model -- or a combination of both -- resulting in major historical tragedies.
Canadian Mennonites have traditionally preferred the isolation model. They established their own schooling and community institutions (e.g. insurance companies), are reluctant to associate with the outside world, and see themselves as being distinctive and apart through the use of different dress, transportation, morality, and political non-involvement.
Historically, our First Nation and aboriginal peoples were subjected to a combination model, as they and their children were forced to convert into Christianity but restricted to living on reserves; the reserves proved to be both geographical and psychological barriers. Ongoing attempts by mainstream Christian churches and the federal government to correct historical injustices have largely came too little, too late.
It will likely be a long time yet before Canada will appoint a Governor General from among our First Nations peoples. And the subsequent history of peoples from former African and Asian colonies bear tragic testimony as to how the wrong proportions of assimilation / isolation can negatively impact aboriginal societies for generations.
The choice between assimilation and isolation is a problem experienced by all minorities, especially those are singled out within their own countries by negative media stereotyping, and suffer from resulting discrimination in the workplace, in the education system, and in virtually all contact with government services. They become the “other” -- people who are disliked and ridiculed because their accent, religion, skin color, hair, clothing, or mannerisms are different from the norm.
Unlike the foregoing models, “smart integration” offers a happy medium that enhances positives and minimizes deleterious extremes. Although it is difficult scientifically to define it, smart integration promotes the preservation of one’s identity in matters of religion, culture, language and heritage, while simultaneously encouraging full participation in the country’s political square, and promoting both individual and collective contributions in all fields to its well-being. This positive hybrid model follows the ancient wisdom which recognizes that as minorities adapt, countries should adopt.
Although the smart integration model might appear to have more in common with the assimilation than isolation model, it is in fact distinctive in its own right and goes beyond merely choosing the best from both worlds.
One may assume that modern communication and transportation modes would make it relatively easy for minorities to adapt and for their host countries to adopt them, thereby leading automatically to successful smart integration. But in reality, the smart integration model poses key challenges that must be understood and addressed.
The smart integration model is optimal, as it requires overall less effort in terms of maximum benefits to the individual, the community and the country. It allows individuals and to be proud of their heritage -- all essential ingredients to foster a sense of purpose and direction. Smartly integrated individuals would not try to hide their ethnicity or religion, nor would they feel inferior as compared to their follow citizens. In sum, they would not feel restricted or handicapped by by their identity.
In Canada, the reasoned and humane adoption of the smart integration model could also contribute significantly to East-West relations, as well as addressing chronic North-South inequalities with credibility and active empathy. In both hemispheric directions a smartly-integrated Canadian society embracing all levels of authority could substantially reduce the global toll caused by political extremism, human rights abuses, social justice gaps and economic exploitation, replacing these modern-day scourges by realistic hopes for peace with justice around the world.
Today’s international ethno-religious conflicts are primarily political. Smart integration can provide a reliable and trusted backdrop for speedy solutions to such conflicts because the opposing parties would be treated as equal partners, co-responsible for resolving not only existing their conflicts but also preventing potential ones.
It is not easy to measure or quantify the ethnic or religious identity of a given minority, because “we are dealing with a phenomenon that involves many levels, both macro and micro, each of which is multidimensional,” writes Prof. Leo Driedger in his book Multi-Ethnic Canada (1996).
Although the smart integration model could well prove beneficial for all of Canada’s ethnic and religious communities, it is a must for Canada’s Muslims. They stand today at 750,000 making them the nation’s largest non-Christian religious community.
Statistics Canada recently predicted that their number will double in 10 years to 1.5 million souls. But some experts believe their population percentage could grow even faster because two key factors: (a) the sharp decline in Canada’s birthrate, and (b) the rapidly rising standards of living in China, India, and Eastern Europe, all countries which traditionally supplied large numbers of immigrants to Canada. Today, and in the foreseeable future, Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, all with growing young populations, are seen as potential sources for new waves of immigration to Canada.
Here is an example of smart integration in action. When the Canadian Islamic Congress carried out research for its 2004 Election Report, it included a position paper on 20 issues -- 10 national and 10 international concerns. National issues included those which were addressed for the first time by this community, such as health care, taxes, and defense spending. As well, the international issues included non-traditional one (for Muslims) like reforming the UN.
The report specifically tried to promote “informed, committed, multi-issue voting.” It appealed to Canadian Muslims to vote by reminding them that voting is one’s civic duty as a citizen, as well as a religious duty in Islam, which teaches that bearing witness for the best candidate will be Divinely rewarded.
As result, for the first time in more than 50 years, the percentage of eligible Canadian Muslims who voted in the 2004 federal election was higher than the national average of 61%. This was a practical and successful exercise in smart integration; by becoming informed, committed, multi-issue voters, Canadian Muslims proved on Election Day 2004 that they could be simultaneously good Muslims and good Canadians.
But post 9/11 Canada has created an extremely challenging environment for Canadian Muslims and increased the urgency of accelerating their smart integration movement. Imported extremist religious and political ideologies from their countries of origin are still dominant in some Canadian communities and are hindering smart integration; the result in some cases has been division, fragmentation, increased isolation, and in few instances, destructive fanaticism.
In response to these challenges, many post-9/11 Canadian Muslims are trying to break away from such ideologies, because they are simply not an appropriate or constructive fit for the time and place in which we live. Because the civil liberties of Canadian Muslims are eroding, they feel that they cannot afford to follow the road of either assimilation or isolation.
The Canadian Islamic Congress has worked to link associated current events with smart integration, such as when it called for the community to embrace “smart integration beyond condemnation” in response to recent terrorist acts in the U.S., Spain and London.
On Labour Day weekend (2005) the CIC hosted an intensive two-day short course for Imams, teachers, leaders, men and women, youth and seniors, covering subjects such as Canadian history, law, political system, the media, family counselling and Islamic Law. The course – a first in Canada – was well received, with women comprising fully one-third of the participants.
As a traveling guest Imam, the author of this paper annually presents sermons and talks on the smart integration model at some 50 mosques across the country; these are attended by about 50,000 Canadian Muslims and positive feedback is by far the majority response.
Canadian Muslims are currently at the bottom of the political engagement level, about the same participation rate as Canada’s First Nations and Blacks. The good news for Canadian Muslims, however, is that there is nowhere to go but up.
Two other minorities that have proactively increased their profile through active political engagement are Canadian Jews and Sikhs; gone are the days when being Jewish or Sikh could result in being unjustly fired from one’s job.
Other minorities are at the middle of the scale of political involvement. Canadian Muslims could benefit by positively emulating the examples of communities that have broken the “glass ceiling” barrier to social and political respect.
The smart integration model allows a minority to be considered an asset, thereby leading to a positive feedback that benefits society at large. In the case of Canadian Muslims, smartly integrated individuals and communities are far better able to look after new immigrants from within and without their groups.
And it goes without saying that the contributions of those following the smart integration model will have greater positive impact on the well-being of their country than if they work through either the assimilation or isolation models.
The combined pressures of prejudice and discrimination often compel a minority population to increase its collective political involvement in order to influence change. However, the nature of prejudice must be understood in order to address it.
There is a fundamental difference between the prejudice shown to Canadian Muslims today and that shown, for example, toward Canada’s our First Nations or Blacks. Similarly, the biases felt between English and French Canadians are also the result of historically distinct problems. Taken as a whole, today’s prejudices, even toward traditionally recognized minorities, are different from those experienced a century ago or even during the past generation.
The justification of prejudice and / or its denial usually relies on specious blame-the-victim arguments. Prejudice against Canadian Muslims today is compounded by media stereotyping that has built an image colouring them all as terrorists, potential terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers.
They are marginalized as having values different from Canadian values, and if they criticize our government they are condemned for lacking patriotism. The media and right-wing politicians do not take the trouble to seek the truth or to find credible voices among the vast majority of moderate Muslims because they have already decided (on the basis of their own disinformation) that Muslims are by nature fundamentalists, radicals, militants, or extremists anyway.
By contrast, English Canadian prejudice against French Canadians was justified (wrongly) on differences in language and culture, while prejudice toward Canadian Jews was a continuation of European anti-Semitism.
Today, French Canadians have built a strong political voice, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada; and Canadian Jewish organizations have successfully lobbied the federal government to adopt a pro-Israel foreign policy.
But while French Canadians have served in the highest office of the land, that of Prime Minister, there has yet to be a Canadian Jew elected as PM. Canadian laws guarantee the distinctiveness of French Canadians and their culture, but as yet no similar guarantees are granted to Canadian Jews, or Muslims.
Canadian Muslims -- like Canadian Jews, but unlike most French Canadians -- tend to feel in solidarity with Muslims in other countries. Since the war on Iraq, their sense of identity and empathy has increased in relation to Muslims elsewhere who are struggling for self determination (in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir) or for democracy (in most Muslim countries).
When Ontario Muslims asked their provincial government that they be treated like other religious groups (including Jews) in having their faith based arbitrations recognized and regulated by the courts, the government abruptly decided to scrap its recognition of all faith-based arbitrations, rather than grant Canadian Muslims the same rights.
Promoting smart integration across the generations is one of the most difficult tasks for any minority. For many Canadian Muslims and Jews, a son or daughter who marries outside the faith community is often considered “a fate worse than death.” Even minorities from Europe or China still tend to react negatively to mixed marriages and will place obstacles in the way of these unapproved relationships.
One of the difficulties in studying minority groups and of assessing minority-majority relations is their great diversity. Minorities can be far more diverse than the majority groups within which they live.
Canadian Muslims, however, have proven to be the most internationalist and cosmopolitan of all Canadian minority groups; there include some 50 countries of origin, and at least a dozen mother tongues. They embrace five styles of religious practice, maintain about ten levels of social status and education, and recognize a number of major sects and sub-sects.
Half of them are born in Canada, some immigrated willingly, and some came as refugees escaping persecution. Some strive to disappear into the majority, even beyond assimilation, while others determinedly seek to preserve their identity through isolation. But amid these extremes an increasing number struggle to come to terms with smart integration. After all, who wants to be labelled as “alien” or “foreigner” in the land one calls home?
While Canadian Jews can be studied under such categories as: Ultra Orthodox, Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed, Canadian Muslims have no similar denominational groupings. Nevertheless, the media have adopted a short hand language to enhance negative stereotypes such as “fundamentalist,” “modern,” “progressive,” “Islamist” -- all of which reflect contemporary politics, rather than the scholarly and historically authentic terms used to describe Jewish practice in Canada.
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that Canadian Muslims are still among the least-studied minorities in Canada -- and a change is long overdue.
