THE ARAR CASE HAS
SHOWN THAT CANADIANS CAN LOOK BEYOND RACE AND RELIGION
WHEN BASIC RIGHTS ARE AT STAKE
By Riad Saloojee
Multiculturalism has always been an obsessive feature of our navel-gazing as
Canadians. As an official policy, it has garnered much praise and scorn. To
some, it is a landmark, indicative of a collective will to both celebrate and
transcend difference, a common commitment to growing older together. To others,
it is a divisive social centrifuge that leads to a ghetto mentality. From time
to time, the essential debate at the heart of multiculturalism --togetherness
through difference -- ignites anew. How can we chart a future that criss-crosses
between divergent collective identities, pollinates the best of interaction and
transcends, with grace, the worst?
Ironically, as today's world brings us closer together, we've never been further apart. Racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are all a familiar, inescapable fixture of our post-modern identity. Hate activity against Arabs, Muslims and other minorities after Sept. 11 was, in many cases, an actualization of a pre-existing xenophobia.
In September, I attended the Metropolis
conference in Oslo, Norway, which gathered participants from government agencies
and diverse national and international community organizations across Europe to
discuss "togetherness through difference." The vigorous debate on
multiculturalism made it clear that countries the world over are grappling with
the politics of difference. Despite the chagrin of some naysayers, Canada's
secretary of state for multiculturalism, Jean Augustine, insisted that
multiculturalism has worked in Canada, apart from a number of hate
incidents after Sept. 11…
Critics of multiculturalism point to the fact that celebrating difference makes
it difficult to forge common values. For some commentators, West is best and is
synonymous with universalism. This analysis is not only simplistic, but mired in
a form of cultural imperialism. The same, of course, holds true for those who
hold the competing position. This camp eschews all self-examination, decrying
Euro-centrism. Here, too, is a cultural imperialism, though more subtle and
usually legitimized by claims to victimhood. Notwithstanding both these
extremes, how does one forge common communities and, therefore, interaction
beyond race, religion and culture?
Almost two months after the conference, the
debate still surges afresh in my mind. The final conclusion, however, has been
clinched by the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian who was deported by the United
States to Jordan and who now finds himself in a Syrian jail.
This case has generated a national outcry in Canada. That Mr. Arar was Arab and
Muslim was insignificant. The public outcry was not confined to just those who
share his faith or ethnicity. Canadians' outrage stemmed from the fact that the
United States broke a defining feature of international human-rights law when it
deported a citizen of another country to the place of his birth, where he would
have faced foreseeable harm. More specifically, however, Canadians took umbrage
at how Mr. Arar was treated.
He was detained through a secretive and non-transparent procedure. He was interrogated without a lawyer present. His lawyer said she was notified of his deportation and immigration on a Sunday afternoon when the U.S. authorities knew she would be unable to attend. Mr. Arar was allowed to call his family only after a full week had elapsed since his detention. His whereabouts were, until very recently, a mystery, because U.S. authorities have been thoroughly unco-operative about providing details of his deportation. In fact, at no point since his deportation did the United States ever admit that it sent him to Jordan. In what can only be described as callous indifference, if not the cruel conceit of a hegemonic state drunk with power, the U.S. allowed Canadians and Mr. Arar's family to labour blindly over his whereabouts.
Canadians have, admirably, taken up this issue
seriously. If the popular media are a gauge of public opinion, the response to
Mr. Arar's
predicament has been overwhelming: There have been several newspaper editorials
in support of Mr. Arar. And his wife, Mounia, herself a Canadian citizen, has
been the eloquent and often-invited advocate of her husband on television and
radio. The pressure continues to mount. This is not an issue of passing fancy.
And this, for me, appears to be a solid vindication of the ethic of
multiculturalism. Although we can disagree about the practical
actualization of the policy, there is little doubt in my mind that the Canadian
reaction to the Arar case demonstrates an amazing meeting of the minds. For as
vast a vista as Canada is, our shared sacred spaces include legal beliefs that
emanate from the wellspring of a fundamental and near universally accepted
ethic: equality, the rule of law, procedural fairness, transparency, justice and
compassion.
Bravo, Canada.
Riad Saloojee is the Executive Director of
CAIR-CAN
(This article was published in the Ottawa Citizen
4/11/02)