Kymlicka, W. (2007). ‘Disentangling the debate’. In J. Stein, D. Cameron, J. Ibbitson, W. Kymlicka, J. Meisel, H. Siddiqui & M. Valpy (Eds.), Uneasy partners: Multiculturalism and rights in Canada (pp.137-156). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Summary of the article:

Will Kymlicka reflects on the potential conflict between religious freedom and equality and the role multiculturalism plays in reinforcing or resolving the conflict.

He begins with a study conducted by Stein who argues that the more space a society allocates to religious freedom, the less space remains for equality rights. Stein sees in multiculturalism a weight that falls on the side of religious freedom and at the cost of equality rights. “Multiculturalism provides a pretext or justification for religious organizations to avoid the broadening and deepening of equality rights” (p. 144) Kymlicka contends that this line of though is not valid, as it rests on a faulty understanding of multiculturalism.

Kymlicka differentiates among three senses of multiculturalism: as a fact; a policy; or an ethos. He argues that the texture of Canadian society shows that multiculturalism is a fact; that multiculturalism is enshrined in law and is recognized in the constitution show that is a policy; but less measurable is multiculturalism as an ethos that shapes the way Canadians think about and discuss issues of diversity. He then argues that multiculturalism as a legal principle and public policy clearly fall into the side of equality rights. In this sense, multiculturalism should be understood as part and parcel of human rights revolution that promotes the universality of human rights.

He also argues that multiculturalism does not give religious organizations and communities broad exemptions from equality rights. Multiculturalism is about the right to be different and to be respected for being different, but because it puts emphasis on equality rights, it delimits the space within which religious communities can pursue their religious rights.

Comments:

I found the distinction Kymlicka makes among the three dimensions of multiculturalism very helpful. I am of the same mind that multiculturalism in Canada is a fact because so many cultures are living next to one another peacefully. This peaceful coexistence is taken for granted in Canada, but in fact the religious or ethnic conflicts all over the globe demonstrate well that different cultures do not necessarily live next to one another if appropriate constitutional, political, or legal measures are not taken. Furthermore, I agree with the author that the legal and political dimensions of multiculturalism (multiculturalism as a policy) constitute a fundamental achievement of the post-war and (post)modern society. Similarly, I concur with the implicit claim of the author that multiculturalism in Canada at a political level has been implemented more efficiently compared to other modern democratic societies. I trust multiculturalism gives in principle the vulnerable citizens and minorities a minimum of legal protection against exclusion or discrimination.

While the first two dimensions of multiculturalism are depicted in rather optimistic terms, the third dimension of multiculturalism, I regret, was not sufficiently addressed in the article. Perhaps this is where a link could be made to the educational system. If acceptance of and respect for diversity is to enter into the minds Canadian citizens, what roles do educational systems should play in preparing individuals for the requirements of such a society?

Last but not least, I am not sure whether the author understands the ‘liberal expectancy’ as a universal or a context specific wish. If he means it in the latter sense, would not the need for its universal applicability end up in a new form of colonization? I believe that liberal democracy is not applicable to all societies (I wish it were!). While I do trust that democratic political systems or welfare states provide the most fertile ground for the integration of individuals in the most number of social spheres, the segmentary differentiation of world political systems requires the development of different form of political system.