It’s like fighting fire with kerosene

TESTING FOR ‘CANADIAN VALUES’ ISN’T UNREASONABLE AND USING ANTI-POPULIST HYPERBOLE JUST MAKES THINGS WORSE

Monday’s headlines proclaimed “disappointment” and “concern” over a new CROP poll of Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration. “A majority of Canadians express concerns,” Société Radio-Canada declared on its home page. Notably, we learned that 74 per cent of respondents support implementing (as the pollsters put it) “a test of values to identify (potential immigrants) who have ‘anti-Canadian’ values.”

That’s Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch’s signature immigration proposal: personal interviews for all new immigrants; values screening; and passing the extra costs on to the new arrivals. This is by no means the first poll to find widespread support for the ideas. And one wonders how often we need to learn of it before we stop being shocked and disappointed — or even particularly concerned.

In theory, in isolation, the ideas are perfectly defensible. All immigrants got personal interviews until 2002. Immigrants pay all manner of fees throughout the process. And if we could somehow empirically test potential immigrants for violent tendencies, misogyny and indolence — three “anti-Canadian values” Leitch has suggested — then we surely would.

To hear some of Leitch’s opponents, you would think the idea of pushing “Canadian values” on immigrants — if not the very idea of “Canadian values” — was beyond the pale. Of course it is not.

The “A Look at Canada” citizenship guide — the Liberal one, which the Conservatives replaced amidst apocalyptic howls — says Canadian values include equal rights, “respect for cultural differences,” “freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,” and “law and order.” Being proud of “our international role as peacekeepers” is a Canadian value, it says.

Why push these supposed values on immigrants in book form, but not in person? Are they important or not?

Of course we can’t empirically test for violent tendencies, misogyny and indolence. There are many good practical reasons not to pursue these policies. The consensus among bien pensant campaign-watchers is that this is nothing more than a populist “dog whistle” appeal to nativists and xenophobes who believe immigrants are more likely to be violent, misogynist and indolent.

But most Canadians aren’t watching the campaign at all, and couldn’t pick Kellie Leitch out of a lineup. If you ask them whether Canada should screen immigrants for objectively undesirable traits, then of course most are going to say yes. It’s absurd to hold that up as evidence of a surge in anti-immigrant sentiment, especially when the poll in question provides plenty of evidence to the contrary: 78 per cent think immigration makes Canada a better place to live or makes little difference; 83 per cent think we have much to learn from other cultures; 79 per cent have no desire to see a Trump-style figure in Canadian politics.

If you were inclined to worry about anti-immigrant sentiment, there’s plenty you could latch on to in this 61-page poll that’s far more disquieting than support for “values screening.” But that’s the genius of a wedge issue like this: it provokes a level of outrage and condemnation that to those not following closely would seem unhinged, which in turn makes the policy and the candidate seem all the more reasonable by comparison.

“Leitch’s proposal to screen every immigrant and visitor is nothing but Donald Trump’s executive order, disguised as Canadian values, and crafted to keep Muslims out of Canada,” leadership candidate Deepak Obhrai said last week. He suggested it could incite racists to murder, such as in Kansas last month.

I’m disgusted by Leitch’s campaign and even I think that’s crazy. But more to the point, it won’t help. Fighting populism with hyperbole is like fighting fire with kerosene, and it’s strange how few anti-populists seem to realize this. If Leitch’s proposal weren’t surrounded by people screaming “Trump! TRUMP!” at her, it would just be one silly, unpractical and unnecessary idea among dozens in play in this campaign.

At times Leitch’s campaign has seemed less like an actual leadership bid and more like a clinical trial of Trump-brand populism in the Canadian body politic. Perhaps it will yield useful data for its architects to use with a less terrible candidate in future. But moderate Conservatives and others arguing in good faith against her really need to up their anti-populist game. Leitch is an intensely unlikable and uninspiring campaign presence who will probably lose. But some day a populist candidate with an ounce of sincerity and charisma might come along with some truly dangerous ideas.