Canada’s values worthy of defence
Re: Canada’s Values, Then And Now, Allan Levine; Leitch’s Objectionable, But Not Unusual, Focus On Canadian Values, Andrew Coyne, both, Sept. 8.
Kellie Leitch is not prejudiced against a group because they are a race or religion as Allan Levine suggests, but against people with certain i deas, especially ideas supported by religion, which are difficult to change.
Let’s look at some of the specific values. Monogamy is a Canadian value — female circumcision is not a Canadian value. Honour killing is not a Canadian value — respect for women is a Canadian value. Covering the face is not a Canadian value — respect for other religions and races is a Canadian value.
Leitch is suggesting that anyone, no matter what religion or race, who strongly believes in values that are not Canadian and is unlikely to change those beliefs should not be allowed to be a new Canadian citizen. Of course, at the moment this applies mostly to Muslims. However the policy is not anti- Muslim but is pro- Canadian. The idea that anyone who wants to keep our values is an Islamophobe is ridiculous and insulting. Many Canadians are very proud of the country they and their ancestors have developed, and want to maintain the freedoms and values we have. There is nothing wrong with that — in fact, it is admirable. Jonathan Usher, Toronto. Andrew Coyne states the f ac t t hat Kelli e Leitch “chose this particular issue suggests she thinks … that this is an issue of some urgency.” Coyne should i nstead be lauding Leitch for attempting to be proactive.
One need only look to the cities of Europe to see Mideast immigrants behaving as they were accustomed to whilst back at home in their medieval societies — committing mass sexual assaults on women at New Year’s festivals, beating wives and daughters for not adhering to religious dress codes, demanding governments remove non- halal food from public school cafeterias, and such — to see what happens to a liberal democratic society when people are admitted in who do not believe in Western ( read: “Canadian”) values.
Perhaps t he question of adherence to Canadian values is not an issue now, but given the real prospect of more immigration from highly un- assimilatable ethno- religious groups to this country, it will most assuredly become an issue i n the future. Hence the need to be proactive. As citizens of a country that enjoys peace, freedom and tolerance, there is nothing untoward for us to expect our gatekeepers to be conscientiously vetting those who come in to make sure it stays that way. Mark Woods, Winnipeg. The selection of immigrants is inherently and necessarily a discriminatory process. If it were not, the first 250,000 people to immigrate into Canada every year could just walk in, no questions asked. The discomfort raised by Kellie Leitch’s survey comes from the notion of discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable immigrants on the basis of values — which means on the basis of culture and beliefs — rather than on more objective criteria, such as language, education or criminal records.
All functional societies, including Canadian society, work because they have a culture based on some common beliefs. We should have the debate Leitch raises rather than sweep it under the rug. If we don’t debate it re- spectfully now, we could find ourselves in a louder, more disrespectful and dangerous argument later. Phil Green, Mississauga, Ont.