Compromise must come from everyone in society

The content of phone calls and E-mail in response to last week's column about the kirpan controversy at a LaSalle school highlighted once again the conflicts pluralism creates in a society.

As the size and diversity of cultural and religious groups increase, so does the pressure to accommodate and compromise.

For a country with a tainted history of racism and exclusion, Canada has undergone an astonishing transformation in the past 50 years into an open, inclusive and broadminded society that is tolerant, if not fully accepting yet, of various cultures and religions.

Some, thinking of the persistent vandalism against synagogues, mosques and temples, will argue rightly that we still have a long way to go.

Others like me will argue that we will always have a long way to go simply because creating and sustaining a just, peaceful, egalitarian society is an unending social process.

It is also a fragile process. Even with solid laws and constitutional protections, there will always be challenges. Freedom will always need defending, it cannot flourish in a cocoon. Enforcing a law is always more difficult than writing it.

In looking at the public response to the kirpan controversy - not just my mail, but letters to newspapers, statements, court injunctions, protests, etc. - I have noticed three distinct reactions.

The dominant one has been to regard the issue as a matter of constitutional rights that should be left to the courts to resolve. There is nothing surprising in this reaction, except to note the high level of acceptance the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has acquired as it enters its 21st year.

It is the other two that I find intriguing, the first of which is perhaps best represented by an Internet correspondent called Julia:

"I am so sick and tired to hear and to read about some immigrant who behaves like he has more privileges than the rest of us, and can ignore our laws and challenge it to suit his belief and force us to bow to it. Nobody took away this Sikh boy's right to practice his religion ... just leave the knife at home which to the rest of us is a dangerous weapon.

"If he doesn't like our laws, what is he doing here? Don't come to Canada and try to reshape our way of life, and insist that WE change our laws to accommodate you!"

If you set aside Julia's deplorable attitude toward immigrants (the family in question arrived recently, but Sikhs have been in Canada for more than a century), the real issue she is raising is the historic conflict between individual and collective rights.

Julia might be seeing things in xenophobic and condescending terms, but the unarticulated implication of her tirade is food for valid discussion. It forces us to examine the process of accommodation. Are the pressures and expectations to compromise equal for the majority and minorities?

I strongly believe they are and ought to be. I also believe that not just Sikhs but all minorities compromise, some of them on a daily basis. The problem is that some minorities are perceived as rigid and uncompromising, often because of the actions or attitudes of the minorities within them.

Still, constitutionally speaking, one of the historic purposes of rights legislation anywhere has always been the protection of minority and individual rights. Another purpose has been to prevent the will of the majority from degrading into tyranny.

The other interesting strain of reaction in the kirpan controversy has been the use of the word secular. Canada, some have argued, is a secular country whose laws should apply equally to all. Thus if a dagger is considered an illegal weapon to carry in public, there should be no exceptions and certainly not for religious reasons.

This is a persuasive argument except that, strictly speaking, we are not a secular nation. Many of us might be in spirit and personal behaviour, but our constitution expressly recognizes religion with its opening statement:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law ..."

Freedom of conscience and religion is also a fundamental, individual right in the constitution, which also states that the described rights and freedoms shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Secularism, on the other hand, seeks complete separation of religion and the state, and also fights religious prejudice and privilege.

True secularists tend to be atheists, agnostics and other non-believers, who collectively are still a minority in Canada and the world.

All of which creates a tangled web in LaSalle only a Solomonic court can unravel.

- Ashok Chandwani can be reached at 514-987-2469. His E-mail address is ashok@thegazette.southam.ca.