Reading note - Kymlicka, Uneasy Partners

There are scholars who argue multiculturalism tilts the delicate balance between religious freedom and equality rights in favour of the former.  Multiculturalism's deference to religious groups may then be at odds with the open-minded, socially liberal citizenship norms that Canada would wish to promote.  This cautionary view has been strengthened from time to time by studies, or media stories, that point out where the promises of integration have failed – and where it is possible to put the blame on religious freedom. It may even be the consensus view among secular immigrants who are new to Canada.  They can find the units on multiculturalism covered in their children’s schools puzzling, a departure from the treatment of diversity in their country of origin. In the family of nations Canada is -- in Laczko's words -- a “statistical outlier” in its emphasis on ethnic, racial, and religious diversity.

Will Kymlicka sees this as a flawed lens on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is fundamentally a rights-based conception of citizenship that represents quite simply the best instrument available for integrating our large immigrant populations, he says. Moreover, Janice Stein has overstated the concern about the achievability of “deep multiculturalism” in light of the potential tension between equality rights and religious freedom.  Kymlicka says the debate about religious freedom goes back centuries and its relationship to multiculturalism (a little more than 40 years old) is unclear: “a red herring in this debate.” The great strength of Kymlicka’s argument is to show that, while multiculturalism has at times degenerated into political correctness or “tokenism,” it has been a good policy for Canada because it is consistent with the development of human rights. Critics who point to the divisiveness that is possible with multiculturalism have failed to recognize that diverse groups “converge on Charter values” (Kymlicka, 153). Moreover, it is in the diversity of participation in civil society organizations that we can find multiculturalism at work.

One weakness in the article is Kymlicka’s satisfaction with the view that religious groups converge on Charter values over time. He says multiculturalism does not deviate from equality rights and human rights jurisprudence, indeed does not exist outside that framework (146). It would appear that even the religiously orthodox have to grapple with diverse identities, and the state and the courts have granted them a measure of freedom to adapt incrementally. Kymlicka isn’t asking women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities within religious organizations to accept a curtailment of their rights indefinitely. However his argument emphasizes the importance of the courts’ role in setting accommodations – their development of batteries of tests over several years – and it gives an idea of how long some groups can be expected to wait before they have a voice or can meaningfully belong in some religious organizations.

Kymlicka notes with approval that legal requirements of non-discrimination “have gradually been extended to private sector employers” among others (143), but he overlooks that within certain ethnic groups (religious or otherwise), there is differentiated access to higher education based on gender, even in Canada.  Very traditional gender roles within families can exist, but the “ethos of multiculturalism” as Stein as argued, makes the authorities cautious about causing offence to anyone. The deference to group rights can find itself at odds with the individual rights of women and girls, who must work hard to claim their legitimate educational rights allowing them to freely pursue more advanced career goals.

With respect to immigration and integration, here too, Kymlicka says our anxieties are overblown. He says again that we can trust that they will “over time, converge on Charter values.” I think it would be more accurate to say that they converge on our civil society opportunities (note the experiences of Vietnamese immigrants in Toronto and Boston that were compared by Bloemraad). Equally important, and perhaps especially when it comes to religiously minded immigrants, is the notion of well-being, which Kymlicka does not speak to, though it can further strengthen arguments for multiculturalism. In essence, the more that religiously-minded immigrants lose the self-perception that the religious parts of their identity are inconsistent with the culture of their new country, the more quickly they can develop a sense of well-being as newcomers and be encouraged to put down roots.