|
Having been absent from the island for a good part of 2004 and 2005, I have not followed very closely the “debate” concerning illegal and/or irregular immigration and the emergence of the ANR. It is, therefore, with great interest that I opened MaltaToday last Sunday to read what Professor Kenneth Wain had to tell James Debono –- I invariably sit up and listen to what Professor Wain has to say as I have long considered him one of the few sources of light/enlightenment on this little island of ours, where heat and bluster is our daily fare.
But I was somewhat disappointed by the overly simplistic choices which one of our finer minds seems to offer his readers: the “multicultural, multi-racial societies” which Wain holds are the reality of the modern world, on the one hand, or cultural purism on the other. Disappointed because I somehow feel that the serious debate is not so much between multiculturalism and those who subscribe to some bizarre notion of cultural, racial or other purism but about what limits, if any, we decide to set on multiculturalism, because contrary to the opinion that Professor Wain holds, it is not just the conservative right who believes that multiculturalism is in crisis.
Much clearly depends on what one understands by multiculturalism and, perhaps more importantly, how multiculturalism is implemented or works out in practice. Regrettably, the picture that has emerged of late is not a pretty one. I agree with Wain that France is not an example of the failure of multiculturalism, but that is not for the reasons which he gives but simply because France has never been a multicultural country – on the contrary, it has always been a prime example of monoculturalism where individuals of varying ethnic, racial, religious and other attributes have been expected to fit into the prevailing cultural paradigm. That some have been and continue to be discriminated against and marginalized is another matter.
Much more pertinent, in terms of multiculturalism, would have been to look at events in Britain and the Netherlands over the last year or so. Both have often been cited as leading exponents of successful “multiculturalism” in this case meaning respect not only for the rights of individuals, as behoves liberal democracies, but also for the rights of groups whose core values in practice, if not in theory, are at variance with current basic European values such as equality for women and the renouncing of violence as a means of settling conflicting interests. Both countries have over the last twelve months or so been subject to rude shocks which are causing them to radically re-evaluate the nature of their multiculturalism. For years crippled by a misplaced preoccupation with “political correctness” these two paragons of Western liberalism are suddenly confronted with a very clear and present danger to their very existence with the British waking up one morning to find that not only had their brand of multiculturalism bred educated home-grown suicide bombers from not uncomfortable middle-class backgrounds, but that these bombers’ actions were apparently viewed positively by half of the UK’s Muslim community. Whither multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism has many facets. Linguistic multiculturalism is one of the most innocuous, although this has not prevented bitter struggles over the right to speak and learn one language and not another. Canada, Spain and Switzerland are examples of linguistic multiculturalism. Religious multiculturalism, on the other hand, has probably been and remains one of the most “problematic” forms of multiculturalism. It tore Europe apart a few hundred years ago and was only exorcised with the advent of a separation of church and state which, in principle, made religion a matter of private conviction and practice, at least in Europe’s heartland. On the fringes, such as in the former Yugoslavia, religious affiliation still constituted a critical source of identity and conflict. The problem is that having taken hundreds of years to expurgate violent conflict based on religion, while happily continuing to beat each other’s brains out for other, mostly nationalistic, reasons, Europe went on to plant the seed for future wars of religion within its own frontiers – because make no mistake that an invasive religion like what Christianity was until very recently and like Islam is at present will eventually lead to violent confrontation which extreme right wing forces will use to propound increasingly radical “final solutions” and by-the-by a rolling back of civil liberties for all. The Jews, who endeavoured to keep a low profile, were practically the only “others” tolerated in parts of Europe for hundreds of years after Spain’s expulsion of its Muslims in the early seventeenth century, and look what happened to them. Such “solutions” seem inconceivable at the present time, but are they really?
Germany’s rapid descent from civility to barbarism is ample proof, if proof were needed, of man’s capacity to inflict suffering on his fellow human beings, and it is doubtful that man is now a reformed creature. What to do?
There is no doubt that the way ahead is not particularly palatable for those of us who think that human beings from different backgrounds should be able to live in peace and harmony, but I sincerely believe that it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil. I am of the opinion that European governments should, first of all, really endeavour to ensure that none of their citizens are marginalized.
Secondly, they should not vacillate about the upholding of core values, which should be upheld and defended against all comers. For example, they should not, out of some misplaced sense of political correctness, fail to make clear that certain behaviour such as the subordination of women is not only unacceptable but will also be severely sanctioned. Thirdly, and perhaps most controversially, they should seek to attend to their manpower needs internally in the first instance and from culturally kindred societies in the second instance. As regards those countries, such as Malta, which do not yet have sizeable minorities which cannot a priori be easily assimilated for a number of reasons, then no effort should be spared to prevent entry in the first place.
Carmel Vassallo
Sliema
|
