Post by rollerk on Oct 27, 2017 15:20:35 GMT
Moghaddam holds a pessimistic view of the long-term social benefits of Canada's multiculturalism policy. The main reason that seems to motivate Moghaddam to reject our multiculturalism policy is his position that multiculturalism is necessarily associated with cultural relativism. This relativistic view of multiculturalism leads to the belief that all values are created equal, there is no "better" value. This is in direct contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is based in the belief that some values are, indeed, better than others.
For example, according to relativism, the various views on women's rights are completely contextual and equally valid. In one culture women have very few rights compared to men, in another women are entitled to the same rights as men. Neither view is right or wrong, they are both valid. This view is disastrous for those with less power.
If multiculturalism is truly relativistic then Canadians must allow for the practice of these cultural values and norms that could be in conflict with other Canadian values. This is Moghaddams main issue with Canadian multiculturalism.
I argue, however, that relativism is not a necessary component of multiculturalism. Or at least not multiculturalism as Canada defines it. Each country has the power to define multiculturalism within the context of their own nation. This is why it is called the "Canadian Multiculturalism Act".
A main premise of this Act is as follows.
"AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada" (The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985).
Canadian multiculturalism policy is always upheld within the existing framework that all individuals are to receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The multiculturalism act does not negate previous policies, rather it is held within those existing policies.
For example, according to relativism, the various views on women's rights are completely contextual and equally valid. In one culture women have very few rights compared to men, in another women are entitled to the same rights as men. Neither view is right or wrong, they are both valid. This view is disastrous for those with less power.
If multiculturalism is truly relativistic then Canadians must allow for the practice of these cultural values and norms that could be in conflict with other Canadian values. This is Moghaddams main issue with Canadian multiculturalism.
I argue, however, that relativism is not a necessary component of multiculturalism. Or at least not multiculturalism as Canada defines it. Each country has the power to define multiculturalism within the context of their own nation. This is why it is called the "Canadian Multiculturalism Act".
A main premise of this Act is as follows.
"AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada" (The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985).
Canadian multiculturalism policy is always upheld within the existing framework that all individuals are to receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The multiculturalism act does not negate previous policies, rather it is held within those existing policies.