Disentangling the debate - Kymlicka (2007) - May 26 Reading Note - Jenn Bergen

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.

Main Argument

Kymlicka (2007) critiques the argument that multiculturalism may be bolstering religious groups’ efforts to curtail equal rights, and instead argues that multiculturalism in Canada reinforces - rather than erodes - equal rights.

Supporting Points

Kymlicka (2007) describes multiculturalism as having three characteristics: “as fact, as policy, as ethos” (p. 138). Multiculturalism as fact, Kymlicka describes, arises out of the physical presence of ethnocultural diversity, displaying a “breadth of … ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” (2007, p. 138). Multiculturalism as policy refers to the set of policies that resulted in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, giving rise to a push for equitable “representation of ethnic groups within public institutions” (2007, p. 139). Multiculturalism as ethos refers to how Canadians “think about and discuss issues of diversity” (2007, p. 139).

Kymlicka first outlines the argument he is addressing – that multiculturalism reinforces the historical precedent of allowing religious groups to be exempt from certain laws supporting equity (2007, pp. 140-141). He argues that this is not the case for several reasons. First, in addressing a claim of increasing religious orthodoxy, Kymlicka proposes that it may be the case that the rise in the culture of rights post World War II, regardless of growth in religious orthodoxy, has lead to conflicts as a result of activities of non-discrimination being enacted in public institutions and society (2007, pp. 141-142). He asserts that The Multiculturalism Act was the result of the culmination of equal rights movements and activists pressuring the government to take formal action on racial and ethnic discrimination, and that this Act is rarely invoked by religious groups in place of usual claims to religious freedom (2007, pp. 145-147). 

To support his argument, Kymlicka (2007) gives examples of how The Multicultural Act in Canada has resulted in better integration of immigrants as compared to other countries (p. 150), including faster participation in national institutions and political integration (pp. 150-151). He also invokes “liberal expectancy” (p. 151) as support for his argument – an expectation that democratic values will only grow over time (p. 151). He argues that immigrant groups will be more likely to integrate successfully into a culture of rights if “people believe it will occur” (p. 153), rather than provoking religious or minority groups to make sure they are adhering to these rights.

Assessment / Critique

Kymlicka (2007) presents a powerful counterpoint to the argument that multiculturalism is potentially supporting religious groups’ claims of non-adherence to equality rights. The strength of his arguments lie in the history he gives about the act itself, how this act facilitates the integration of new immigrants, and the examples he gives of the power of the Act. He is also careful to not to conflate new immigrants with more orthodox religious groups, instead explaining that in Canada, it is more likely early settler-based white Christians who make substantial claims of religious freedom in the face of equality rights.

The weaknesses of his argument, for me, surfaced in his explanation of “liberal expectancy”, or the idea that societies will only grow to be more liberally progressive. I do not think this is always the case, and this expectation may be harmful if the erosion of equal rights in public or state institutions goes slowly unchecked. As Kymlicka himself notes, non-discrimination is just as active a process as discrimination (2007, p. 142), and I would argue that it cannot be assumed that the public will eventually endorse equal rights without enshrining those rights legally – that is, I’m not convinced that democratic liberalization is inevitable (as I think Kymlicka may be arguing).

I was left with several questions after reading this article, most notably about the difference between multiculturalism as a policy and how it is taken up by schools (or the ‘ethos’). In application, the ‘multicultural’ activities taken up in the form of festivals and celebrations in the elementary school that I attended leaned more toward the tokenising tendency of multiculturalism than toward actual practices of inclusion and active conflict resolution. However, I know that there are intentional efforts to implement anti-racist education and take issues of cross-cultural conflict as sites of learning and growth seriously in classrooms. What, then, are the best practices that are emerging in critical multicultural education, and are these practices similar to anti-racist educational efforts? If not, what are the distinctions and points of departure?

Reading Note #5: Queering Citizenship

            Macintosh and Loutzenheiser (2006) make the interesting argument in this article that “queer theories and queer bodies offer multiple ways to re/read the language of inclusivity and dominant political norms. Reading these through citizenship reinforces the necessity of placing queer theories within a larger anti-oppression framework” (p. 101). In applying queer theory into our classrooms and schools, notions on what is considered to be “normal” and “accepted” will be exposed. It is in the best interest of all to begin acknowledging that schools are “part of a larger social system and the systemic nature of the heterocentric ideology in which it is embedded” (p. 96).

             “Queer theory takes as its premise an unsettling of identities” (p. 96). Queer theory is a means to compliment and further the current model of sprinkling gay and lesbian issues into curriculum. The authors make an important criticism that not only is the lack of curriculum problematic, but inclusion of gay and lesbian content without proper and necessary contextualization is also irresponsible. Furthermore, queer theory is a lens through which we can view the complications of identity formation. Citizenship is not only tied to individual subjectivity, but also to one’s public belonging and sociopolitical placement. In relation to schools and classrooms, student’s sociopolitical placement has significant both inside and outside the school. Schools are not monolithic spaces: “these spaces have normalizing tendencies and regulatory functions” (p. 97). The destruction of queer youth and confined acknowledgement of queer youth as citizens acts as a “normalizing apparatus”. Particularly problematic is the inability of queer students to “be seen”, develop a feeling of belonging to, having the ability to attain rights or being considered a “legitimate” being. This lack of recognition suggests to queer students that they are unimportant and ought to remain invisible. Queer theory offers educators an opportunity to apply critical pedagogy and curriculum, as well as disrupt heteronormativity in schooling.

            I thought the discussion surrounding “silences within queer theory” was a particular strength of the article. It is important to recognize though a valuable theory to schooling, queer theory is not without its “faults” or criticisms. The authors highlight that the theory fails to “live up to its full critical potential” by failing to take into consideration the interrelationships between race, sexuality, and class. The normativity of whiteness remains unexamined or unacknowledged even within queer theory, which is highly problematic. The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools concluded that “the high degree of isolation for youth of colour with regard to LGBTQ matters suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to finding means of reaching out to youth in ways that are appropriate and informed about cultural issues and taboos surrounding LGBTQ matters” (EGALE, 2011, p. 21).  

            Though I appreciate the points that Macintosh and Loutzenheiser make about the need for/value in applying queer theory in schools, I believe they missed a crucial aspect with regards to religious schools and conflicting views. The reality is that religious schools, namely the Catholic school system in Ontario, remain a popular choice for many parents. This goes back to the opinion that discussions of queer inclusion, acceptance and/or recognition being “values-based” with many people (parents, administrators, politicians, policy-makers etc.) continuing to believe these debates have no place in schools. How can we overcome this belief? It would appear to me that it would be necessary in order to even begin thinking of properly implementing queer theory in schools as suggested by the authors. Does queer theory automatically come into conflict with religion? Can the two really coexist?

            While reading the article, I was also craving some (concrete) examples of implementing queer theory in classrooms. Here I also think there should have been a discussion on the unpreparedness of most teachers and administrators when it comes to queer issues/queer theory. Though most teacher education programs in Ontario, from what I have heard, touch upon LGBTQ issues and homophobic bullying, the information we receive is mostly the superficial stuff that is often “a rush to inclusivity” resulting in “a reification of heteronormativity” (p. 101). What is needed is a change not only in schools and classroom teaching, but a shift in organizational beliefs and teacher education programs.

Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE). (2011). Every class in every school:

The final report on the first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia,

and transphobia in Canadian schools. Retrieved from http://egale.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/EgaleFinalReport-web.pdf

Macintosh, L. & Loutzenheiser, L. (2006). Queering citizenship. In G. Richardson & D.

Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education. (pp. 95-102). New York: Peter Lang.

Critical Summary: Westheimer, J. (2008) On the relationship between political and moral engagement. In: f. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.) Getting involved: Global citizenship development and the sources of moral values (pp. 17-29). Rotterdam: Sense.

In his contribution, Westheimer shares some of his reflections on how teachers can use their educational role to train students to be citizens who are democratic, politically engaged and act in an ethical way.

He makes a distinction between ethics and morality: while the former is rather secular and has hence more space for critical thinking and freedom of choice, the latter has religious connotations and is formulated against invariable virtues that responsible citizens should possess.

Westheimer argues that reforms in school curricula tend to leave little space for students to develop a fully-fledged understanding of critical citizens. To elaborate this, he distinguishes three distinct definitions of citizenships that are promoted to varying degrees is school curricula: the personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the so-called justice oriented citizen. While it is common in schools to expose students to what constitutes a good character or to what constitutes individuals civic responsibilities vis-à-vis their fellow citizens and the political system, they hardly encourage “thinking about big ideas, tackling controversial social and political issues, and asking sustained, philosophical questions”. In other words, while educational systems promote personally responsible or participatory citizens through their curricula, they hardly foster a critical disposition among students; one that would aid students to engage in actual problems of society at local and global levels.

He then moves to argue that moral citizenship is not necessarily a democratic citizenship. The more emphasis is put on how to act morally in society, the less emphasis is put on critical thinking and critical engagement, both of which constitute the very conditions of a more just society.  When education focuses on the moral component, it adheres to a form of conservatism that maintains the status quo. But when curricula empower teachers to pursue a politically engaged moral education, students will turn into active rather than passive citizens. While curricula can advance the cause of educating critical citizens, teachers can take measures to ensure students are aware of their agency as active ethical role-players in society. Teachers can encourage their students to ask questions rather than absorbing pat answers; they can give information on competing narratives and encourage students to critically evaluate the subject matter of each of these narratives; and they can root instructional contents in local contexts.

I found the content of the article brilliant. I personally believe that it is important to train individuals who are critical of the status quo, as the wave of globalization seems to lead to more social, political, economic, and cultural imbalance in society. Therefore, sticking to the status quo does not lead to a more just society. This being said, I believe that there are several challenges inherent to promoting justice-oriented citizenship.

The first challenge relates to the higher educational systems in how they prepare their teaching candidates for such an endeavor. Do these institutions have enough resources to undertake this task? The second challenge is whether or not teachers are ready to engage in such activism or not. Teaching a justice-oriented citizenship requires teachers to adopt a leftist political view and the question is whether teachers adhere to such political view, and even if they do, are they informed enough to incorporate aspects of critical thinking in their teaching methods? The third challenge is whether the two other forms of citizenship do not form the basis of justice-oriented citizenship? A citizen that takes political citizenship seriously will feel responsible towards the decision he/she makes in voting, and the political parties in power can do more justice to social injustices than an individual or a group of individuals can do. And finally, I am just wondering whether justice-oriented citizenship does not promote a kind of hegemony on the global scale? It is again the center (citizens in the industrialized world) that will talk on behalf of the periphery (citizens in developing countries).

Said Al-Badri's Reading Note # 5: Tupper, J. (2008). Feminism confronts democracy: Challenging universal citizenship and democratic education

Summary:

            Tupper (2008) argues that Canada shows a little consideration for the continuing disappearances and murders of Aboriginal girls and women in the country. As Tupper (2008) notices that women have been marginalized, she decides to discuss citizenship, democracy and education in relation to women. Although Tupper (2008) agrees that education improves people's life, she argues that education has been used as a tool for "cultural transmission", "cultural genocide", and "the maintenance of the status of quo which privileges certain socio-cultural groups at the expense of others" (p. 67). Therefore, Tupper (2008) believes that democratic education has been colonized. In this chapter, Tupper (2008) endeavors to achieve three goals. First, "using feminist socio-political theory", Tupper (2008) "challenge[s] the assumption that democracy exists, particularly as it relates to the lives and experiences of girls and women in schools and in the broader society" (p. 67). Second, Tupper (2008) "examine[s] how women are discursively produced by universal conceptions of citizenship, that are, at the core, inherently masculine" (p. 67). Finally, Tupper (2008) "interrogate[s] the extent to which citizenship education, a significant goal of schooling is used to perpetuate, rather than disrupt, the fallacy of democratic education" (p. 67).

            Tupper (2008) agrees with Pateman (1989) on the subject that democracy has never included women. Pateman (1989) argues that "women have never been and still are not admitted as full and equal members and citizens in any country known as a 'democracy'" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 68). Although a lot of political theorists, as Pateman (1989) highlights, appear to acknowledge that in democracy people are all involved despite of their differences, Pateman (1989) argues that "the social contract is a fraternal pace that constitutes civil society as a patriarchal or masculine order" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 68). Additionally, Tupper (2008) agrees with Pateman (1989) that both public spaces (civil society) and private ones (non-civil society) are inherently masculine. In the public domain, the characters of 'good' citizens such as reason, self-determination, and individual potential, are, as Jubas (2006) argues, first gendered and then valued (Tupper, 2008). Pateman (1989) states that the "civil body politic is fashioned after the image of the male individual who is constituted through the separation of civil society from women" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 69). Although the liberals argue that social inequalities are irrelevant to political equality, Pateman (1989) maintains that these two aspects are integrally connected (Tupper, 2008). For example, the right to vote and the ability to campaign for a certain political party do not remove inequality (Tupper, 2008). Thus, Tupper (2008) argues that as women face social inequalities, they become unable to operate any political agency. Similar to the public sphere, the private realm is an inherently gendered space in which women are less important and less valued (Tupper, 2008). Tupper (2008) uses Helen Betty Osborne, who was murdered by four white men, as an example demonstrating how women are disenfranchised in private spaces. Moreover, Tupper (2008) argues that the racializing and gendering of women's identities make these women become 'second-class citizens'. Tupper (2008) questions the veracity of citizenship and argues that citizenship is falsely universal, complex and layered as it rests upon both difference and sameness. By way of example, Tupper (2008) asks "if security of person is a right that all Canadians are entitled to, then why are some members of the population less likely to enjoy this right than others [for example the aboriginal women]?" (p. 69) Like Pateman (1989), Lister (1997) criticizes the liberal democracies for the "binary thinking that constrains the articulation of women's claims to citizenship" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 70). Tupper (2008) is particularly concerned with citizenship in terms of both status and practice. As status, Tupper (2008) argues that liberal democracies promote what she calls the "meta-narrative of universal citizenship" which "accepts that democracy exists, despite feminist claims to the contrary, and accepts that citizenship exists universally" (p. 70). Tupper (2008) emphasizes that status and practice are often not seen as independent factors because as long as a person is a citizen (status) he/she can be fully involved as a citizen (practice). However, this is precisely where the meta-narrative collapses (Tupper, 2008). Tupper (2008) also stresses that the practices of citizenship are determined by different factors such as gender, race, class, culture, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Additionally, Tupper (2008) believes that this meta-narrative perpetuates the gendering of citizenship. As women are thought to be mostly emotional and passionate beings who are unable to be rational and reasonable, they are historically believed to be incapable of enacting citizenship which requires rationality and reasonableness (Tupper, 2008). Therefore, Tupper (2008) emphasizes that "[w]omen's citizenship could only ever be second-class as long as they differed, by virtue of being women, from men, and men were used as the standard or norm for understanding citizenship" (p. 70). Moreover, Phillips (2000) argues that it is not only the very reality of being women but also the inequality produced by the differences between men and women that makes women unable to become fully engaged citizens in both public and private spaces (Tupper, 2008).

            In what follows, Tupper (2008) discusses the degree to which schools and school curriculum advance the meta-narrative of universal citizenship which perpetuates "second class" citizenship (p. 72). Tupper (2008) argues that as citizenship objectives are made universal through curriculum, the differences between students are made impossible to see. Additionally, while teachers endeavor to achieve the goals of citizenship education for all students, they "may pay less attention or no attention to the lived experiences of difference their students bring to the classroom" (Tupper, 2008, p. 72). Moreover, although Tupper (2008) recognizes the need for establishing the same goals concerning students' knowledge, skills and attitudes, she emphasizes that these objectives should never reverse the lived experiences of students produced by their race, culture, gender, and class. Tupper (2008) uses the Canadian school curriculum as an example to show how the objectives or rationales of some school curriculum often seem neutral when they are actually partial. Tupper (2008) highlights that "standardizing educational goals does not mean education is democratic. Rather, quite the opposite" (p. 73). Additionally, Tupper (2008) explains how schools and curriculum are used to disguise the false universalism of citizenship. The stories of violence contained in the Stolen Sisters Report emphasize the failures of democracy for Aboriginal women, as well as question the veracity of citizenship (Tupper, 2008).

Assessment, critique and questions:

            I personally found Tupper's (2008) chapter an interesting read as it discusses one of the most pressing issues in the Omani society nowadays. Her point that Aboriginal women have become second-class citizens through the racializing and gendering of their identities resonates with me because it makes me think about the Eastern world's view of Western women. In Oman, people, particularly women, believe that both men and women have equal rights in the Western world. However, reading Tupper's (2008) chapter, I realize that there is discrimination between men and women, in particular Aboriginal ladies, because of gender. This strong bias against women conflicts with how Omani ladies perceive Canadian women. As Omani women consider Canada to be a democratic country, they think that both men and women obtain the same rights and responsibilities as citizens of Canada. However, Tupper (2008) argues that this is not always the case. I personally agree with Pateman (1989) that "women have never been and still are not admitted as full and equal members and citizens in any country known as a 'democracy'" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 68).

            At the beginning of the chapter, Tupper (2008) explains the context in which this chapter has emerged, clearly states the main arguments she wants to advance, and briefly describe the organization of her chapter. Thus, I found that this chapter is easy to follow. Moreover, Tupper (2008) uses real life stories taken from the Stolen Sisters Report along with examples of school curriculum in order to support her arguments. Additionally, I think that the questions, Tupper (2008) asks throughout the chapter, stimulate the readers to think critically and guide them through the content of the chapter. On the other hand, I think that Tupper's (2008) chapter constitutes a one-sided representation of women in citizenship, democracy and education as Tupper (2008) rests upon only female scholars' point of view to support her arguments. Moreover, Tupper (2008) mainly cites the work of just three researchers in her chapter, thus I personally think that her conclusions might not be conclusive. Furthermore, while Tupper (2008) criticizes Canada for treating women as second-class citizens, she does not suggest any solutions to this problem. Additionally, Tupper (2008) uses the example of the murders of aboriginal women in Canada to overgeneralize the idea that all Canadian women are mistreated by men and are unable to obtain the same rights and responsibilities as men. Reading Tupper's (2008) chapter, the following questions came to my mind:

1.      Do Canadian women, other than Aboriginal ladies, have equal rights with men?

2.      Do Aboriginal women, as citizens of Canada, obtain the same rights and responsibilities as men?

3.      Do schools perpetuate the assumption that women's citizenship is second-class by excluding the discussion about the murders of aboriginal women from their curriculum?

4.      Do you agree with Pateman (1989) and Lister (1997) that "women have never experienced citizenship in the same way as men" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 71)?

5.      Do you agree with Phillips (2000) that "equality depends on sameness" (as cited in Tupper, 2008, p. 71)?

6.      Is democracy, including democratic education, really colonized in Canada?

Reference:

Tupper, J. (2008). Feminism confronts democracy: Challenging universal citizenship and democratic education. In A. Abdi & G. Richardson (Eds.). Decolonizing democratic education (pp.67-76). Rotterdam: Sense.

Reading note on Multiculturalism and Citizenship: The Status of “Visible Minorities” in Canada by Beryle Mae Jones

     This reading is mainly focus on multiculturalism and multicultural and citizenship education from the perspective of visible minorities. Multiculturalism typically refers to the rights of immigrants to express their ethnic identity without fear of prejudice or discrimination due to the fact that Canada is a country of immigrants with a long history. It represents a desire to integrate into Canadian society. And Canada has implicitly and explicitly drawn on the conceptual framework which emphasize participation on mutually acceptable terms, transparency and accountability to strengthen multicultural imperatives.The so-called “visible minorities” have persistent impact on Canadian policy related to “ multiculturalism for all” and “citizenship for all.”

   According to Jones, the Canada’s concept of multiculturalism is rooted in the notion of ethnicity which emphasize on promoting harmonious ethnic relations as one of the three areas of social concern identified by the Multiculturalism Directorate. It did not surprise her that Multiculturalism Directorate decided to include immigrant women in the priority list of groups receiving assistance. Jones refers to visible minorities as the "other" ethnic groups which make relatively few demands for preservation of their culture when compared to the French or the Aboriginals. These "other" ethnic groups do not pose a threat to national unity and so, in her view, are likely to receive less attention. Jones builds an argument to generate a link between multiculturalism, citizenship, and curriculum from the ethnocultural minority perspective. She is guided by the need to create opportunities for all to participate in public life. Jones then identifies building blocks relevant for the construction of a regime of citizenship education. The first is the identification of sources of unity within the multicultural state. And the second is the approach to citizenship from a multi-disciplinary educational perspective, transcending the focus on constitutionalism and civics. The third is the development of an international component. And the last is the relevance of having voiced representation of ethnocultural minorities in the process of designing and delivering citizenship education. 

     Jones also deals with what she refers to as the paradoxes in multiculturalism and citizenship education, and consequent tensions such as ‘over concentration’ and corresponding de-emphasis on citizenship education, and those emerging from the articulation of group differentiated rights. 

     The question and limitation of this article, written from the standpoint of visible minorities in relation to the practice of multicultural and citizenship education, has to do with the concept of “visible minority”. Regarding the concept of visible minority, many has criticized on it and thought it is an artificial concept that has become unnecessary and counterproductive. As for the multiculturalism policy, whether the multiculturalism policy was over concentrated still need to be considered. Instead of focusing on the integration of immigrants marginalized by national, racial, religious or ethnic origins, it should address broader social inclusionary processes which influence inequity as a whole. 

       In my point of view, there is something almost racist about the assumption that whites are the standard against which anyone else is noticeably, visibly different. We should focus more on language and skill training, recognition of foreign credentials instead of just from visible minorities’ perspectives in general. It is for sure that forging bonds of understanding through mutual respect and trust between ‘whiteness’ and ‘non-whiteness’ is an effective way to promote multiculturalism. And democratic education should try to teach all students not only about their shared citizenship but also about their shared humanity with all individuals regardless of their citizenship.

Reading notes #4: It Takes a Country to be Welcoming and Inclusive-Feifei Ding

The reading is an introduction of Integration and Inclusion of Newcomers and Minorities across Canada, which aims to delineate “the range of policies and programs being implemented in various communities across Canada”. (p.1) The authors believe that integration and inclusion should not only be newcomers’ responsibility, Canadians play important roles in achieving the goals of immigrant integration and inclusion. Following this premise, the authors present various benefits of immigration to Canada and to the Canadians, and how different levels of governments act and respond to the benefits. The volume presents and compares the provincial and territorial approaches on immigration, integration and inclusion, which the introduction chapter summarizes some of those policies and development, and provides the context of the discussion. The introduction highlights the six themes of issues and challenges, including: 1. Canada has yet to capitalize the immigrant resources to ensure inclusion and integration of all Canadians.2. How we should balance and coordinate the interest and approaches of different levels of governments on immigrant integration. 3. Immigration demography has changed significantly, and thus leads to other community shifts and impact policies. 4. Broader consideration beyond traditional major immigration destination cities is essential. 5. In addition to provincial and territorial level involvement, municipal and city level engagement in immigrant integration is required and critical. 6. This volume aims to provide a complete view of immigration, integration and inclusion policies among Canadian provinces and territories, lack of data in some areas cause some challenges and difficulties.

As an immigrant myself, this introduction really resonates some of my personal experience of integrating into the Canadian society. It takes not just some policies, immigration assistance agencies and immigrants themselves, but all Canadians and all institutions to be inclusive. Respect and cultural sensitivity is also critical. Someone once offered me a coffee, and said “but you don’t drink coffee in China”. This is just one of the examples of the assumption that Canadians have about Chinese and other immigrants. When I took my daughter to the IKEA playroom, and the first question I get is “does she speak English?” Just because I am Chinese, her assumption is my daughter does not speak English?! Even she might not necessarily mean that, I felt offended. She then explained that otherwise they would not know what she wanted if she did not speak English. Did she imply because we are in Canada, everyone should and do speak English?

My association manages the Canadian Immigration Integration Program (CIIP) funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). My colleagues in CIIP division deal with immigration integration for almost a decade. One of the challenges they told me for newcomers to find a job in Canada is Canadian companies’ reluctance. Employers need to be open-minded, to value international experience and different perspectives when they recruit staff. Many of them still believe that Canadian experience is the most important, but how would those newcomers gain Canadian experience without the chance to enter the workplace at the first place? Because of the current economic situation and upcoming election, even the government agencies and different political parties are very careful in any topic related to immigrants and their integration, when they want to play the “Canadian first” cards. If Canada would continue to be recognized as a welcoming society, we need to be constant in what we say and what we do. The frequent and sudden changes in immigration policies over the past two years are more than the changes over the past few decades. The unintended consequences can damage the welcoming and inclusive image, and we have already seen some of the negative impacts.

I think this introduction raises a lot of good questions, but that is just the beginning of the journey, we need to find answers, solutions and initiatives for our integration and inclusion.

By the way, I went to visit the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba last night. We should remember and learn from our "dark history", and the museum is a good statement, but just not enough.

Said Al-Badri's Reading Note # 4: Tolley, E., Biles, J., Vineberg, R., Burstein, M. & Frideres, J. (2011). The integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada

Summary:

            In this chapter, Tolley, Biles, Vineberg, Burstein and Frideres (2011) introduce a volume they have written consisting of 13 chapters and a conclusion. As this volume discusses the integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada, it outlines the various policies and programs being implemented in different communities across the country (Tolley et al., 2011). Tolley et al. (2011) discuss how this volume emerges, explain the major themes that recur throughout it, and emphasize how this volume significantly contribute to the issues related to integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada.

            Tolley et al. (2011) argue that although Canada is regarded as a "country of immigrants" because it is "tolerant and multicultrual" (p. 1), this issue remains contentious. Additionally, Tolley et al. (2011) point out that both the literature and public discourse appear to have overlooked some of the more recent policy developments. Tolley et al. (2011) argue that research emphasize problem recognition over the solutions being tried by various actors in jurisdictions across the country. Thus, Tolley et al. (2011) have written this volume aiming to fill this gap. Tolley et al. (2011) discuss  a range of policies and programs that Canada pursues in order to ensure the integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across the country. Moreover, Tolley et al. (2011) state that the Canadian government has introduced legislation asserting that newcomers should not be facing the challenges associated with integration and inclusion by themselves. Instead, successful integration, as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2001) states, "involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society" (as cited in Tolley et al., 2011, p. 2). This approach is called the "two-way street" model of integration (Tolley et al., 2011, p. 2). Therefore, Canadians are expected to play a vital role in the integration process where they need to be flexible about social, economic and cultural practices. This flexibility will enable Canadians to accommodate new immigrants, tolerate their different behavior and beliefs, as well as value the advantages of immigration and diversity (Tolley et al., 2011). Tolley et al. (2011) discuss the enormous economic and demographic advantages of immigration. By way of example, "[a]s Canada's population ages and its fertility rate continues to drop, immigration has become increasingly important as a potential mechanism to facilitate economic development and adjustment" (Tolley et al., 2011, p. 2). However, Tolley et al. (2011) emphasize that Canada can only gain these advantages if newcomers decide to stay in Canada and are capable of finding shelters, jobs, and a promising future. Therefore, immigration and settlement issues have become one of the most important topics on the policy agenda because the changing composition of the immigrant population and its increased diversity assert that integration can only be achieved through both government action and society collaboration (Tolley et al., 2011). As a result, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform was launched in 2010 which points that "greater effort should be made to ensure that immigrants to Canada are willing and able to integrate fully into the Canadian economy and society within a reasonable timeframe" (Tolley et al., 2011, p. 3). In addition, Tolley et al. (2011) argue that policy-makers have to cope not only with the complications of immigration, integration, and inclusion but also with the ways that these issues are linked to other areas of governance.

            Tolley et al. (2011) point that immigration programs were merely run by the federal government until the mid-1970s when provinces and territories started to be actively involved in the immigration process. Thus, there has been a remarkable change in the immigration landscape of these provinces and territories with regard to the policy agenda, the available resources, program delivery models, and community involvement (Tolley et al., 2011). Tolley et al. (2011) studied the different aspects of each immigration model in order to extract some lessons that can be conveyed across the country. Given the increased interest in immigration related issues, there has been a huge increase in the resources devoted to the settlement of new immigrants. For example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) allocates more than triple of its spending for immigration programs. Additionally, a range of creative practices have been examined and approved such as the Local Immigration Partnerships Program and ministerial advisory councils (Tolley et al., 2011). In this chapter, Tolley et al. (2011) do not only discuss the various immigration programs undertaken across Canada and their impacts on immigration, integration, and inclusion but also offer insights into "intergovernmental relations, multi-level governance arrangements, and the role of communities and NGOs in policy formation and service delivery" (Tolley et al., 2011, p. 5). Tolley et al. (2011) note that this model of governance, which Leo and August (2009) called "deep federalism" (as cited in Tolley et al., 2011, p. 5), has become very popular in a number of fields, including transportation, health care, the labor market, and education. Tolley et al. (2011) argue that although Canada has made significant success in immigration and multiculturalism policies, as well as in federalism and multi-level governance arrangements, it is still an imperfect model.

            Tolley et al. (2011) note that the size and diversity of migration flows justify the recent increased emphasis on immigration, integration, and inclusion in Canada. Additionally, Tolley et al. (2011) point that the diversification of migration, which is progressively made-in-Canada, affects Canada's racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic composition. Tolley et al. (2011) argue that although integration programs facilitate the settlement of new immigrants, there are reports stating that the children of these immigrants still experience discrimination and feelings of exclusion even when they were born in Canada and are well-educated. Thus, as this attitude persists, it becomes difficult for newcomers and minorities to integrate into the Canadian society (Tolley et al., 2011). Moreover, Tolley et al. (2011) indicate that the media discuss other immigration-related concerns, including honor-based violence, resistance to integration, and what Ryan calls "multicultiphobia" (p. 8), which have an impact on policy discussions as well as public opinion about immigration and its effects. Tolley et al. (2011) also highlight that Canada has to introduce effective measures and develop innovative strategies, that facilitate newcomers' integration and inclusion into Canadian society, in order to remain an attractive destination and win the competition. Additionally, Tolley et al. (2011) point that the competition to recruit and retain immigrants, particularly the highly skilled ones, is not only between Canada and other international countries but also between different provinces, territories and municipalities within Canada. For example, provinces, like Quebec and Manitoba, consider in-migration to be vital to long-term economic and demographic prosperity (Tolley et al., 2011). Tolley et al. (2011) emphasize that the shift in "admissions technology" witnessed in various provinces across Canada has resulted in "increasing student and temporary worker numbers and rising in-Canada landings" (p. 9).

            Tolley et al. (2011) conclude the chapter with a number of themes that emerge from their discussion about "integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada". These themes are:

1.      immigration is clearly a key component of the Canadian landscape, but work is needed to ensure that we capitalize on this resource by facilitating newcomer integration and ensuring that all Canadians — regardless of origin, race, ethnicity, language, or religion — feel welcome and included.

2.      There is evidence that federal, provincial, and territorial interest in immigration, integration, and inclusion is evolving.

3.      There is the matter of the changing demographics of the newcomers population, the locales where they choose to settle, and their status.

4.      It is clear that immigration, integration, and inclusion must be examined using a sub-national lens.

5.      While provincial and territorial governments have reawakened to the need for active engagement in attracting and retaining newcomers and minorities, many of the critical elements of successful integration and inclusion strategies are controlled by municipalities and other local actors. (pp. 10-12)

Assessment, critique and questions:

            I personally found Tolley et al.'s (2011) chapter a very interesting read as it discusses various issues related to immigration which differ from one country to another. Tolley et al.'s (2011) discussion about integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada resonates with me because it makes me think about the immigration and inclusion policies in Oman. Reading this chapter makes me recall a lot of people who have lived in Oman for more than 20 years and are still unable to get the Omani citizenship or at least the permanent resident status. In Oman, there are no clear policies on immigration and it is the government in close collaboration with the Sultan who decide whether or not to give the Omani citizenship to certain individuals. As an international student who came to Canada last year, It was very interesting to learn about how federal, provincial, and territorial interest in immigration, integration, and inclusion has evolved. Additionally, I have gained considerable knowledge of different immigration, integration, and inclusion policies and programs being implemented in various communities across Canada.

            I think that Tolley et al. (2011) did a great job in this chapter because they examined immigrants' integration and inclusion across Canada through both a provincial and territorial lens. Tolley et al. (2011) also looked at immigration, integration, and inclusion form civic, political, economic, demographic, and social points of view. Thus, I personally believe that Tolley et al. (2011) provided a comprehensive overview of immigration, integration, and inclusion in Canada. Moreover, at the beginning of the chapter, Tolley et al. (2011) clearly outline the main points they want to cover and the sequence in which these themes will run through the chapter. Thus, I found that this chapter is easy to follow because Tolley et al. (2011) guide the readers through the content of their chapter. In addition, Tolley et al. (2011) "illustrate a number of best and promising practices and provide evidence and ideas for future policy-making, program design, research, and evaluation" (p. 12). On the other hand, I think that Tolley et al. (2011) show a strong bias towards their own work. This can be easily noticed in the way Tolley et al. (2011) consider their work to be unique. Additionally, Tolley et al. (2011) emphasize how different their study is compared to other scholars' work and they express little appreciation for the work of other researchers cited in their chapter. Moreover, Tolley et al. (2011) do not reveal the limitations they might have encountered during their study. However, the fact that Tolley et al. (2011) merely used data from a limited number of provinces, such as Quebec and Manitoba, indicates that these authors were unable to collect data from all provinces. Furthermore, I personally believe that it would have been very beneficial to the readers if Tolley et al. (2011) had included some examples of immigration, integration, and inclusion policies and programs from countries which have made great success in this field. Reading Tolley et al.'s (2011) chapter, the following questions came to my mind:

1.      Tolley et al. (2011) mention that the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform "supports continued immigration, but insists that newcomers have an unequivocal commitment to the basic Canadian values and a strong loyalty to Canada" (p. 3). How can this centre ensure that new immigrants have "an unequivocal commitment to the basic Canadian values and a strong loyalty to Canada"?

2.      Isn't it the time for Canada to think of viable alternatives other than immigration to boost its economy?

3.      Does the notion of globalization help newcomers to easily integrate into Canadian society?

4.      Does the concept of globalization help Canadians become more tolerant of new immigrants?

5.      Can you think of some strategies Canada can pursue in order to welcome newcomers and help them integrate easily into the society?

6.      Don't you think that the increasing number of immigrants from a particular ethnic or religious group can pose a serious threat to the country as a whole?

Reference:

Tolley, E., Biles, J., Vineberg, R., Burstein, M. & Frideres, J. (2011). The integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada. Montreal
and
Kingston: McGill‐Queen's
University
Press.