screening for beliefs

--------------------

A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail gave me pause to consider some things I had written about redefining the notion of "citizenship." Also this week, the editors of our school newspaper asked me to play Captain Canada and respond to an article attacking the notion of Canadian values. My response was simply this: good for the author for feeling secure enough to exercise his freedom of speech to express his opinions, disagreeable as some of them may have been. Indeed, many wars have been fought for – amongst other things – (in his words) the right of assholes and fools to speak freely, even if that freedom is used to speak against the same liberal values underlying that freedom. That’s the beauty of a liberal democracy – and, unfortunately, that’s also its tragic irony at times.

However, in choosing to use that freedom to speak against diversity and pluralism, the author seemed to have missed the point of liberalism, and the very notion of what Canadian values are. It isn’t simply tolerance for tolerance and diversity for their own sake; rather, it’s the notion that, by starting from a position of tolerance and respect for each other’s different values, cultures, and opinions, it allows us to engage and connect with each other and build civil society together. Tolerance doesn’t undermine liberal democracy; it is its very foundation. Canada isn’t made poorer by its multiculturalism, diversity, and commitment to liberal values; in fact, it is one of our national treasures, one that we should hold dear and defend, against all enemies -- foreign and domestic.

Concerns about terrorism have led Western governments to re-examine their immigration and refugee policies, with the aim of tightening the rules for entry, facilitating the integration of newcomers into mainstream society and more easily finding and removing the ones who pose genuine threats to security. Some have implemented or are considering loyalty oaths for prospective citizens. There is nothing wrong with asking people to promise to uphold the laws of the country in which they have chosen to make their home. But there is a great deal wrong with screening people for their thoughts and opinions.

This unacceptable infringement of individual freedoms enshrined in the very constitution the new citizens are being asked to uphold could happen in Canada if a key recommendation in a study issued by the Fraser Institute is followed to its logical conclusion. The study, written by Martin Collacott, a former Canadian diplomat and government counterterrorism expert, focuses on the very real shortcomings of federal refugee policies and the inadequate safeguards that have made the country vulnerable to entry by terrorists and their supporters. Among the remedies, he argues that newcomers should be required to make “a more explicit commitment to Canada and Canadian values” as a condition of admission, and that they should understand that failure “to live up to our expectations” will result in their removal. But he acknowledges that “it will often not be easy to identify those who do not share our values — or, for that matter, even to determine how such a judgment can best be made.”

That's the problem in a nutshell. The impetus for oaths of allegiance and loyalty tests is understandable, particularly in Europe, where the growing alienation of large immigrant communities has created fertile ground for the recruitment to terrorism and other criminality of disaffected young people. Western democracies are wrestling with the problem of how to integrate people who may not accept such bedrock societal values as religious tolerance, and of how to identify the potential extremists among them. However, stigmatizing an entire immigrant group will not make this task any easier. It is legitimate to worry that newcomers may not be accepting the broader values of the society in which they have chosen to rebuild their lives. But screening based on individual beliefs and values is not the answer.

--------------------