The article ‘Barbaric Cultural Practices’ bill to criminalize forced marriage, tackle ‘honour killings’ passes final vote, communicates information about Bill S-7. A bill that will criminalize the cultural practices mentioned above, additionally, this article shows the different perspectives of individuals (advocates, staff lawyer, and immigrant minister) have about the bill. Nationalism can be subtle or it can be noticeable idea when it’s embedded into a variety of institutions such as media, politics, and education – to name a few. Canadian nationalism/identity/culture is represented with Bill S-7 by the boundaries placed to unify the ideal of Canadian nationhood with the exclusion of practices that do not align the common shared Canadian …show more content…
The legislation of Bill S-7: The Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act is established to outlaw, forced marriages, to counteract honour killings, and prevent polygamist immigrants. The targeted audience of the bill is towards immigrant migrating into Canada that participant in these traditional customary practices different from Western traditions. It is for the “protecting of those women and girls who are victims of those crimes.”(Csanady 2015) Furthermore, with the passing of Bill S-7, committing theses practices will result in a higher sentencing, deportation, and immigrant inadmissibility into Canada. Nevertheless, Unicef and advocates for victims of forced marriages have called for amendment of the bill. (Csanady 2015)
The name of the bill has the prime term that comes to question Canadian national identity of multiculturalism. The word “barbaric” followed by ‘cultural practices’ stood out; Canada is known for being
…show more content…
It upholds the national identity of multiculturalism, meanwhile establishing the boundary of Canadian national culture that these traditions do not abide the norm. There are the sensitizing cultural practices that do not align with our cultural traditions, in which it is seen as “barbaric”, a term commonly used when describing foreign cultures during the Western colonization. Moreover, its connection to foreign cultures is closely attached with the word “primitive” that was used as well to describe foreigners. Canadian membership is to not engage in these practices for the reason that it is not customary in the nation-state, and to gain citizenship an immigrant must be a part of the imaginary community – they must share the nation’s common
Historically, Canada has held a world renowned reputation as nation with a magnanimous ideological approach to providing asylum to those individuals subjected to marginalization and persecution in their homeland – regardless of their nation of origin (Ismaili, 2011, p.89 & 92). Indeed, providing sanctuary to refugees who would otherwise experience significant hardships ranging from blatant discrimination and racism to torture and genocide, has very much become an institutionalized aspect of Canadian society. However, recent changes to Canada’s immigration policy delineated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Bill C-31 may have perhaps put this ideology in peril (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001).
Although Quebec is in Canada, a majority of Quebecers do not identify with the national identity of Canada. Both societies create a sense of identity as well as nationalism (Hiller, 295). Hiller mentions two approaches to assessing Canadian identity; the unitary approach and the segmentalist approach (Hiller, 277). The unitary approach suggests that society consists of people who regardless of their ethnic back ground, identify as belonging to the national society, while the segmentalist approach concentrates on groups and communities that share racial, linguistic, occupational, or cultural similarities (Hiller, 28). While most Anglophones are more unitary or pan-Canadian, Quebec heavily identifies with the segmentalist approach. This dissimilarity of identity perspective may be problematic for the country, at the same time however, it can also be viewed as a struggle where contradictory parties find a way to compromise and reshape Canadian society together (Hiller, 277). Canada’s former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau made it his objective to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. In 1969 Trudeau’s government implemented Bill C-120, otherwise known as the Official Language act, which made French an...
Canada is an ethnically diverse country. The notion of "multiculturalism" began circulating in Canada in 1971 and is a word that is now commonly used to define this country, unlike the word "melting-pot" which is used to describe Americans' loss of ethnic identity. The broadcasting system in Canada is pressured by the government to acknowledge the culturally diverse society by broadcasting a fair representation of the population in terms of ethnicity. This is achieved through the many acts that have been passed through parliament: the multiculturalism policy of 1971, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy of 1985, and most recent, the Broadcasting Act of 1991. These legislative and policy frameworks have provided guidelines for the management of Canadia...
Today in Canada it is not uncommon to see people of various races, ethnic backgrounds or cultural groups living within a mutual society; commonly known as multiculturalism. Multiculturalism refers to the presence of, or support for the presence of several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society. As the topic becomes more more popular due to news events and social media debates, multiculturalism gets twisted and misunderstood. In essence, multiculturalism is not about dwelling on about our differences, it is about emphasizing our commonality. Diversity of the human race has the power to unify society and make it stronger. Firstly, innovation
Generations of native people in Canada have faced suffering and cultural loss as a result of European colonization of their land. Government legislation has impacted the lives of five generations of First Nations people and as a result the fifth generation (from 1980 to present) is working to recover from their crippled cultural identity (Deiter-McArthur 379-380). This current generation is living with the fallout of previous government policies and societal prejudices that linger from four generations previous. Unrepentant, Canada’s ‘Genocide’, and Saskatchewan’s Indian People – Five Generations highlight issues that negatively influence First Nations people. The fifth generation of native people struggle against tremendous adversity in regard to assimilation, integration, separation, and recovering their cultural identity with inadequate assistance from our great nation.
The Indian Residential schools and the assimilating of First Nations people are more than a dark spot in Canada’s history. It was a time of racist leaders, bigoted white men who saw no point in working towards a lasting relationship with ingenious people. Recognition of these past mistakes, denunciation, and prevention steps must be taking intensively. They must be held to the same standard that we hold our current government to today. Without that standard, there is no moving forward. There is no bright future for Canada if we allow these injustices to be swept aside, leaving room for similar mistakes to be made again. We must apply our standards whatever century it was, is, or will be to rebuild trust between peoples, to never allow the abuse to be repeated, and to become the great nation we dream ourselves to be,
“Multiculturalism” entered public speech in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Canada that focused on unique cultural diversity, nationalities, and ethnicity across the nation. Multiculturalism and Immigration are important factors in the development of Canada to attain a strong multicultural example of economic stability, social and political growth which leads to the emergence of Canada’s identity and culture.
Historically, every effort to sanction or regulate the behaviours of Indigenous peoples in Canada were a part of a long stilled effort to control and assimilate Indigenous Canadians into the white Christian Canadian society. The 1876 passing of the Indian Act , legislation that provided a coercive and patriarchal set of directives governing Indigenous culture and education, while also setting arbitrary standards for who was granted status as an Indian (Francis 253). The Indian Act included strict regulations surrounding who was determined a ‘status’ Indian, European settlers enforced patriarchal and christianized views on Indigenous culture — effectively disturbing their power structures and ways of life — and sought to make women subservient in all ways that mattered (Barker 262). The Indian Act’s provisions for status — which ultimately stripped Indigenous women of the ability to independently claim status — represented the goal of social formation over the Indigenous populations ways of life (Barker 262). “On the cultural front, the state outlawed Indigenous religions, cultural practices and languages and distorted the integrity of familial and community structures by removing several generations of children to residential schools” (Francis 253).
...to identity with at least one of the countries predominate languages, English or French, dictated the degree in which they could participate in Canadian life. According to the Commission, this participation was real under two conditions: “that both societies, the French-speaking as well as the English-speaking, accept[ed] newcomers much more rapidly than they have done in the past; and that the two societies willingly allow other groups to preserve and enrich, if they so desire, the cultural values they prize[d]” (RCBB Book 1 xxv). It creates an interesting take on the acceptance of those “othered” groups, as change was necessary not only on the part of the minorities but also from Canada’s French and English-speakers. The Commissions work remains focused on language and culture, more so than ethnicity amongst a bilingual, bicultural and “othered” Canadian society.
Do you know that despite Canada being called multicultural and accepting, Canada’s history reveals many secrets that contradicts this statement? Such an example are Canadian aboriginals, who have faced many struggles by Canadian society; losing their rights, freedoms and almost, their culture. However, Native people still made many contributions to Canadian society. Despite the efforts being made to recognize aboriginals in the present day; the attitudes of European Canadians, acts of discrimination from the government, and the effects caused by the past still seen today have proven that Canadians should not be proud of Canada’s history with respect to human rights since 1914. First, is because of the attitudes of European Canadians towards aboriginals, which were mostly cruel and inhumane.
Canada is internationally renowned for its commitment to multiculturalism. In fact, Canada was the first nation to officially adopt a multicultural policy. However, while the Canadian government has developed a broad-based multicultural mandate that includes a national human rights code and increased penalties for hate-motivated crimes, and most Canadians oppose overt forms of discrimination and hate, racism continues to exist in Canadian society, albeit in a subtle fashion.
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
The mention of the abolition of multiculturalism for a “new” post-multiculturalist approach becomes difficult to understand. It claims, “to avoid the ‘excesses’ of multiculturalism” (47), however where does this notable governmental and social switch take place? How is the term coined, and how is it understood in theory versus in practice? How is it different from its predecessor? Even the classification of history struggles to define what is considered to be modern, let alone post-modern, and yet the term suggests a positive approach to alleviating difficult assimilation projects similar to those faced elsewhere (47). This notion may developed on the grounds of “someone else’s problems” ¬– in regards to its Canadian context – as a means to label, or justify, miscellaneous aspects of multiculturalism. However, with the government-wide commitment to policies and programs, in conjunction with social understanding, it naturally becomes subject to a wide array of differing opinions. As both immigration and citizenship policies change, its public reception often shifts as well. Especially since the channels referred to within the ‘multiculturalism...
The idea of multiculturalism is that there are many different cultures in Canada that somehow manage to live in harmony. This movie depicts a variety of different cultures all coming together in one of the most nationalist cities in Quebec, and eventually getting along. It is important to see that though there are different cultures there is still love between individuals of these cultures, stereotypes that are in common, and humour to be made out of the differences, which are all larger than any territorial and linguistic boundaries. This movie also shows the issue with bilingualism which is another important part of Canada’s heritage but encourages the idea that bilingualism policies could create a more unified Canada. In a course on multiculturalism it is important to understand the ideology of these policies and how they work in practice which this movie depicts really
Will Kymlicka writes in the Multicultural Citizen that national minorities and immigrant groups should be given room and protection to practice and express their cultures. He argues that cultural expression is key to individual freedom and allows for a greater freedom of opportunity. National minorities, as large ethnic minority populations within a nation that have historic and cultural ties to the land (Kymlicka, p. 79), should be given the utmost cultural freedom and protection culture as it enhances the nation as a whole. Immigrant groups, who by immigrating have given up their homeland, will in time assimilate into a dominant national culture, but should be given strong protection from discrimination and room to express themselves. But what happens when a national minority oppresses immigrant groups to protect its own culture? Bill 60 of the Québec government pits national minorities against immigrant groups complicating Kymlicka’s views on liberal freedom and culture. The answer to this problem lays in looking back to John Locke’s political society to show national minorities take priority over immigrant group in relation to culture.