Diverse backgrounds are part of the solution, not the problem

Vancouver Sun Files: When one culture recognizes another culture it does not fail, says Naveen Balkhi. It is a win-win situation, rather than a win-lose.

"Most people would rather die than think," rationalized philosopher Ayn Rand.
Our recent multiculturalism debate might be another feather in her hat of 'Die we will!

Some Manitoba parents petitioned to excuse their children from certain subjects, for religious principles.

The result: Attacks on their beliefs and legitimacy to call Canada home -- in print, radio and online.

Licia Corbella's Feb. 12 column, Time to change tune on official multiculturalism, blamed the school division of "bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these demands ..."

In 2009, the Alberta government changed the Alberta Human Rights Act with Bill 44. It incorporated parents' rights to be notified and withdraw children from class.
The new culprits: religion and sexual orientation. Human sexuality already had opt-out choice.

Conservative MLA Jonathan Denis summed the debate up: "It's up to parents to raise children, not government." (CBC, 2009).

Five organizations built a coalition to support it: Catholic Civil Rights League, United Families Canada, United Mothers & Fathers (UMF), REAL Women of Canada (and the Alberta Chapter). With UMF's exception (no online existence) they also don't support homosexuality or women's reproductive rights for abortion.

Unlike the recent attacks on Manitoba parents, we didn't hear attacks on their rights to live in Canada.

"The changes reflect what the majority of Albertans want," said Conservative MLA Rob Anderson, of Bill 44 (CBC, 2009). Research and political wisdom agree: The majority enjoys rights. When "another" claims these, the same rules may not apply.
Thomas Jefferson called this the "universal spirit of ... intolerance in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble; practised by all when in power.

The majority has previously imposed its views, causing loss of rights, if unrestrained.

"Those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it," wrote George Santayana.

What does our past show?

A majority decided women couldn't enter the Calgary Petroleum Club until 1989 or have full choice in abortion until 1988.

A majority decided taxpayers pay Catholic School Systems in Ontario and Alberta, which UN Human Rights ruled discriminatory. "Ontario must fund no faith-based schools, or all."

A majority enacted Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act until 1972.

A majority enforced aggressive assimilation and caused 150,000 first nation children to be "stolen" by being sent to residential schools.

Human rights protect all against an unrestrained majority. History shows majority will is no justification; yet "fear has a greater grasp on human action than does the impressive weight of historical evidence," wrote Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel.
I discussed this with a colleague -- of different opinion -- and we both left the conversation with greater understanding.

Unfortunately, most of us assume and dictate views more, and dialogue less: Respectfully debating how to live in peace and prosperity with differences is healthy.
There are three debate fundamentals to keep in mind:

First, debates on immigration and multiculturalism are entwined. The statement that official multiculturalism has failed often implies immigration has failed.

It's not about urbanites not integrating with rural-ites, or Maritimes' families not integrating in Alberta. It's mostly about race and religion.

We are multi-generational, yet unlikely to say grandmothers mugged by teenagers proves multi-generationalism has failed.

Women are raped by men, and everyone agrees it's wrong -- few suggest male-female culture has failed.

Second, unless everyone (but first nations) leaves, we're home to many cultures. First nations settled 12,000 years ago, followed by French (1600s) and British (1700s). Jews came in 1700s and Muslims in 1800s.

Multiculturalism is inevitable in progressive, pluralistic economies and nations.
Do we outlaw generational Chinatowns? Or self-contained Hutterite communities? Multiculti is a fact. We must learn to be better at it -- not deny it.

Finally, zero-sum is a myth: Your bigger slice does not shrink my slice as the "pie" keeps growing.

Empowering you does not disempower me. Recognizing your culture is not a loss for my culture. It's more win-win, not win-lose.

For example, respectfully being able to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Eid" or "Happy Hanukkah" has an equal place in Canada.

Ancestors, such as Swiss-Germans or Amish, often lived in small farming communities of fellow immigrants and didn't learn English until older.

Those newcomers to Canada lived in silos more than newcomers today yet they were no less Canadian. Many Quebecois haven't learned English after hundreds of years, but are no less Canadian.

Yet we judge later immigrants.

Canada will continue to be built by diverse people.

Newcomers today must have liberties that new Canadians decades ago enjoyed.
It's easy to denounce multiculturalism. But what would stopping it mean? Deport those who don't speak English? Stop foreign language brochures for public services? Penalize those who don't eat maple-glazed Canadian bacon? All unethical or counter-productive choices.

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's February report "reaffirms multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society."
Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, 2008, says public polls ... consistently found the vast majority of Canadians (75 per cent) approve of multiculturalism.

Irene Bloemraad, a scholar with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research wrote recently: "multiculturalism provides inclusion; ... supports newcomers to join as full citizens. Canadians are proud of it. ... Rapid demographic change transformed Canada. In Europe, similar change resulted in riots. But in Canada, despite challenges ... it happened peacefully, productively, positively."

First generation or 100th, we choose to live here and have a right to lobby for our way of life. Our challenge is to provide Canadians with inspiration and opportunity to transform potential into achievement.

Our diverse backgrounds are part of the solution, not the problem. This is the kind of Canada we can, and must, strive to build.

By Naveen Balkhi, Postmedia News

Naveen Balkhi is a former Wall Street investment banker and is a corporate HR organizational development leader bringing a global perspective from living in four continents.

Original article: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Diverse+backgrounds+part+solution+problem/4389181/story.html