Uh Oh, Now Who's Behaving Like a Cultural Imperialist?
All this fuss about a little town's immigrant guidelines, tsk, tsk. How very inappropriate, that in a free and democratic society one instigator in one little town of Herouxville in the huge province of Quebec would seek to point out to would-be immigrants settling there that there is a public code of standards, rights-recognition, social mores that they wish everyone to adhere to. Seems kind of interesting, but redundant.
On the other hand, perhaps not. People are naturally suspicious of one another and most particularly so when they are confronted with people so obviously different, visibly wedded to a culture and tradition which deliberately marks their differences. Whereas it would seem to make eminent good sense when departing a country of origin to take up the most visible emblems of normal behaviours, customs and clothing reflected by the host country, those who seek to do otherwise, do so.
This is acceptable in a country like Canada because it is an open and free society, welcoming of other traditions and cultural artefacts, extending to what may appear to most Canadians to be exotic forms of apparel. Yet, those who disdain what is accepted in this free and open society also in a certain manner are refusing integration. They make a deliberate decision to continue to set themselves apart.
How, one might ask, is that accepting of the new country? Yes, it means that certain elements of the new country's laws and prescriptive norms in behaviour are outwardly accepted, but others, certainly not obligatory under Canada's system of multiculturalism are most definitely not. Which means while there is an agreeableness to accepting those very freedoms which permit one license to set oneself apart, the obligation to integrate into the society at large in full acceptance of its values is denied.
Women who, in their home countries chafed under certain obligations and lack of significant freedoms but who yet were not forced by custom there to wear head-and-body-covering garments, come to their adopted country where they are free to live as they wish, and at that time begin wearing a hijab, proud now that they are different in this new country and eager to demonstrate their difference in the clothing they assume.
This does nothing very good for pluralism, for good-natured acceptance, for openness. Presenting themselves as visibly 'different' and in so doing causing themselves to be noticed and wondered at, they then justified to the claim of feeling put-upon by the onerous nature of a society that will not accept their choice to be 'different'. But in fact the chador, the hajib, the niqab are symbols. Symbols of differentness if they are worn willingly and by choice.
But symbols of female oppression in countries which are by their very nature male-dominated societies. In these instances the obligation to wear these items of clothing can be left behind upon entry to a new land. Such garments worn as statements of male dominance which is the case for a good many Muslim women is what is felt to be unacceptable by many Westerners. The genders, after all, in liberal democracies are considered to be equal, not one subservient to the other.
Feeling that the town's proclamation of tolerance/intolerance was aimed directly at Muslim immigrants, offence was taken and protests launched. Best of all, a group of Montreal Muslims, men and women visited the town of Herouxville, to demonstrate by their presence that they are just as human as the residents of the town, but that their adherence to Islam sets them apart.
A good move, apart from the fact that Islamic doctrinal values don't really appear to insist that women be clad from head to foot in unrevealing garments, only that they practise modesty. That they made such an overture to the town, helped to defuse tensions and to ingratiate them to the townspeople as earnest and friendly; to elevate the opinion of the townspeople toward these sincere young Muslims.
Except, except, the true nature of human nature intrudes. That old "pot" calling the kettle "black". And one of the young people, a man of Lebanese descent, who has lived in Canada since he was 8 years old wrote, it was revealed, a rather incendiary poem. In initial and perhaps hasty response to the original town manifesto.
The poem, one whose concluding verse is replete with condemnatory cultural/religious chauvinism, revealing that its writer equates Quebec-born women of old immigrant stock as drunken sluts will certainly not now, since its revelation, endear him in particular, and perhaps his accompanying female friends as well to the townspeople and to the population at large.
Oh dear, dear me. What good will creates, incautious revenge undoes.
On the other hand, perhaps not. People are naturally suspicious of one another and most particularly so when they are confronted with people so obviously different, visibly wedded to a culture and tradition which deliberately marks their differences. Whereas it would seem to make eminent good sense when departing a country of origin to take up the most visible emblems of normal behaviours, customs and clothing reflected by the host country, those who seek to do otherwise, do so.
This is acceptable in a country like Canada because it is an open and free society, welcoming of other traditions and cultural artefacts, extending to what may appear to most Canadians to be exotic forms of apparel. Yet, those who disdain what is accepted in this free and open society also in a certain manner are refusing integration. They make a deliberate decision to continue to set themselves apart.
How, one might ask, is that accepting of the new country? Yes, it means that certain elements of the new country's laws and prescriptive norms in behaviour are outwardly accepted, but others, certainly not obligatory under Canada's system of multiculturalism are most definitely not. Which means while there is an agreeableness to accepting those very freedoms which permit one license to set oneself apart, the obligation to integrate into the society at large in full acceptance of its values is denied.
Women who, in their home countries chafed under certain obligations and lack of significant freedoms but who yet were not forced by custom there to wear head-and-body-covering garments, come to their adopted country where they are free to live as they wish, and at that time begin wearing a hijab, proud now that they are different in this new country and eager to demonstrate their difference in the clothing they assume.
This does nothing very good for pluralism, for good-natured acceptance, for openness. Presenting themselves as visibly 'different' and in so doing causing themselves to be noticed and wondered at, they then justified to the claim of feeling put-upon by the onerous nature of a society that will not accept their choice to be 'different'. But in fact the chador, the hajib, the niqab are symbols. Symbols of differentness if they are worn willingly and by choice.
But symbols of female oppression in countries which are by their very nature male-dominated societies. In these instances the obligation to wear these items of clothing can be left behind upon entry to a new land. Such garments worn as statements of male dominance which is the case for a good many Muslim women is what is felt to be unacceptable by many Westerners. The genders, after all, in liberal democracies are considered to be equal, not one subservient to the other.
Feeling that the town's proclamation of tolerance/intolerance was aimed directly at Muslim immigrants, offence was taken and protests launched. Best of all, a group of Montreal Muslims, men and women visited the town of Herouxville, to demonstrate by their presence that they are just as human as the residents of the town, but that their adherence to Islam sets them apart.
A good move, apart from the fact that Islamic doctrinal values don't really appear to insist that women be clad from head to foot in unrevealing garments, only that they practise modesty. That they made such an overture to the town, helped to defuse tensions and to ingratiate them to the townspeople as earnest and friendly; to elevate the opinion of the townspeople toward these sincere young Muslims.
Except, except, the true nature of human nature intrudes. That old "pot" calling the kettle "black". And one of the young people, a man of Lebanese descent, who has lived in Canada since he was 8 years old wrote, it was revealed, a rather incendiary poem. In initial and perhaps hasty response to the original town manifesto.
The poem, one whose concluding verse is replete with condemnatory cultural/religious chauvinism, revealing that its writer equates Quebec-born women of old immigrant stock as drunken sluts will certainly not now, since its revelation, endear him in particular, and perhaps his accompanying female friends as well to the townspeople and to the population at large.
Oh dear, dear me. What good will creates, incautious revenge undoes.
Labels: Religion
posted by Pieface | 5:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home