Disentangling the Debate by Kymlicka (2007)

This reading shows the different views of two scholars which revolve around two questions, one being, are there significant connections between religious freedom and equality rights and immigrant integration? And whether multiculturalism is a cause or remedy in all of these issues (Kymlicka, 2007). Kymlicka argues against Stein’s conclusion on the view of multiculturalism, as an ideology and policy, and its type of effect on religious freedoms, equality rights, and immigration integration. In addition, Kymlicka does not see a supposed link between these rights and issues.

Kymlicka first clarifies to the reader that there are three forms of multiculturalism in Canada.  One being that it is a fact, it is reality that Canada is comprised of citizens who come from all over the world, “…we are a statistical outlier among the western democracies in the breadth of our ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” (2007). Secondly, it takes the form of a policy where Canadian institutions acknowledge and integrates ethnocultural diversity.  Thirdly, Kymlicka makes a point that although private groups such as companies and organizations are not obliged to adhere to any of the multiculturalism policies, they seem to have a strong effect on them, this is influenced from “[t]he multiplication and diffusion of multiculturalism policies [which have] helped to promote a certain kind of multicultural ethos that shapes how Canadians think about and discuss issues of diversity” (p.139). This multicultural ethos promotes inclusion in several ways from all groups.   

 Kymlicka’s first issue with Stein involves her emphasis on the religious freedom debate and its perceived connection with multiculturualism. Stein, as Kymlicka suggests, should place more focus on equality of rights for that is the debate in which will have an effect on all areas of society, especially in an increasingly liberalized democratic nation. It is also what had “upset the old status quo” (p. 142), not the issues of freedom of religion.  I feel that Kymlicka believes equality rights encompass the central issues and debates in today’s society and equally touch upon deeply rooted areas of discriminations. It is embedded in the liberal democratic atmosphere as well as formal non-discrimation rights such as constitutional rights, where religious beliefs are not.  It also promotes a more meaningful, in-depth approach to human rights, including inclusion which religious orthodoxy is against. Stein, on the other hand, believes multiculturalism supports religious orthodoxy and in turn will not help in building toward an inclusive culture, in other words, “…provides a pretext or justification for religious organizations to avoid the broadening and deepening of equality rights” (p.145).  Kymlicka strongly argues that religious groups reject multicultural discourse and that no multicultural policy supports rejections by a religious group. Lastly, Kymlicka suggests multiculturalism as policy and ethos be used as a resource where people can draw on it as a guideline, instead of something that needs to be assessed (2007).  If used as a tool it will not only be evidence of acknowledgment for immigrants but help them feel more secure and confident to exercise their rights.    

            Another point of Stein’s is that multiculturalism works against a conflict-free immigration integration. First, Kymlicka argues that the problems of immigration admittance actually fall outside the multiculturalism policy.  Secondly, according to Kymlicka there seem to be no major disagreements among ethic groups toward constitutional rights, or a “clash of civilizations” (p.150). Multiculturalism in his view actually help to facilitate the integration of immigrant’s beliefs and views into policies.  Kymlicka concludes that although it is still an ongoing, difficult debate on religious freedoms and equality rights, and immigration it relies on the building of a liberal democracy.       

            I appreciated Kymlicka’s positive points on Canada’s approach to multiculturalism, a topic that sees a lot of criticism. For example, it has allowed for the implementation of a variety of private groups/organizations to freely voice their beliefs and to comfortably take action if they choose to or not.        

I would like to explore more on how one assesses and decides when equality norms are being pushed too far. As Kymlicka suggests, there needs to be a balance between instilling norms and freedom of expression, for the consequence of meaningless groups is not very appealing.   

 

Reference:

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