Either Canada is a beacon of democracy and freedom, or it isn’t. And since we know that it is, then the federal government absolutely reserves the right to tell immigrants in no uncertain terms how things are done in this democracy, and what sort of practices, which might have been acceptable in the old country, are taboo here.
Kudos to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney for sticking to his guns and ensuring that the federal guide for would-be immigrants uses strong language to let those who want to move to Canada know the customs that are alien to democracy and won’t be tolerated.
The booklet is entitled Welcome to Canada: What You Should Know. And what you, if you want to move here, should know is that “barbaric cultural practices” are not tolerated here. These include female circumcision and honour killings.
Under the heading “Equality of women and men,” the guide states: “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, honour killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.”
The issue is referred to again in the section entitled “Family law,” which states: “In addition, female genital mutilation and honour-based crimes are considered barbarous in Canada and are not tolerated.”
The barbaric practices of forced marriage and polygamy are also elaborated upon.
Under the heading “Police,” the guide refers obliquely to another unwelcome cultural practice: “It is a serious crime to try to bribe the police by offering money, gifts or services in exchange for special treatment.”
The wording about gender-based crimes created a furor in March 2011 when it was used in Discover Canada, a new edition of the citizenship guide. At that time, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau objected to the word “barbaric,” saying that language in a government booklet should strive for “responsible neutrality.” He later apologized and clarified his remarks, saying he got tangled in “semantic weeds” and that the cultural practices the guide highlighted were indeed barbaric and heinous.
This time around, NDP MP and immigration critic Jinny Sims objects to the guide’s mention of barbaric cultural practices because they might “stigmatize some cultures.”
I’m not sure why it’s assumed that criticism of certain practices implies a blanket condemnation of the entire culture. But any culture that inflicts such oppressive practices on its female members deserves to be told by the free world that those practices are reprehensible and should be outlawed. There’s zero reason to pussyfoot around when it comes to speaking out against atrocities.
It doesn’t mean the entire culture is reprehensible.
Otherwise, one could say that since hockey is a rite of Canadian culture, then the fact that there are fights in hockey means Canadian culture is defined solely by brawls on ice.
It’s interesting how women’s equality takes a back seat to concerns over multicultural offence in these cases.
When she frets about cultures being stigmatized, Sims leaves the impression that the basic human rights of women in those cultures are less important than the need to avoid hurting the feelings of members of those cultures who engage in these human-rights violations. That’s such a cop-out because it sacrifices those women, whose rights are being trampled, on the altar of western political correctness. That’s not a fate they ever deserve after all they’ve suffered in their home countries.
Besides, what are we afraid of — that people from these cultures will be so offended by our stance that they won’t come to Canada? If they are so wedded to these brutal practices that they intend to continue carrying them out when they get to Canada, it’s no great loss if they change their minds about immigrating.
