Hérouxville and the Big City
Over the past year, Montrealers have been subjected to a steady flow of stories on “reasonable accomodation,” a catchphrase that refers to the accomodation of religious minority needs in public institutions. Like other major Canadian cities, Montreal is very diverse. It has a long history of intercultural relations, so reasonable accommodation seemed, well, reasonable.
But then something happened: some media began interpreting reasonable accommodation as an attack on Quebec’s values and identity. Last year’s Supreme Court decision to allow a Sikh boy to wear a kirpan—a ceremonial dagger—to school, as long as it was permanently encased in a wooden sheath, was met with almost universal furor from the francophone press. Columnists saw it as an attack on Quebec’s cherished secularism. Then came news that men had been excluded from a prenatal class in Park Extension attended mostly by Hindu and Muslim women. The breaking point was a minor controversy that erupted over the Mile End YMCA’s decision to frost the windows of its exercise room after concerns from the adjacent Hassidic synagogue that its young male students were being distracted by the sight of Spandex-clad women. That set off a storm, with the YMCA affair being used as an excuse to dredge up every conceivable concern over immigration and ethnicity. Last week, the storm reached its peak with what seemed like a joke: a headline in La Presse that read, “It is forbidden to stone women!”
It wasn’t a joke. The people of Hérouxville had spoken.
It would seem that the elected officials of Hérouxville, a tiny town of 1,200 people in Quebec’s Mauricie region, had been following the controversy over reasonable accommodation. Even though Hérouxville has virtually no immigrants, they felt the need to act preemptively, just in case a large influx of foreigners should decide to settle in the town. So they adopted a code of norms that has come to be known as the Hérouxville Declaration. It stipulated that women may not be stoned, burned alive, mutilated with acid or circumcised. They may drive and conduct business. Christmas trees may be erected and decorated with impunity. Kirpans will not be tolerated. Faces must be uncovered except on Hallowe’en. Naturally, the media has had a field day—but, instead of outrage, the reaction from many Canadians seems to be agreement.
Yet there is a big problem with Hérouxville’s declaration: it is totally unnecessary. There have never been any cases of women being stoned to death in Canada; nor is the mutilation of women regularly practiced in any immigrant communities. Proposals to use sharia law to resolve civil disputes were soundly rejected by Ontario and Quebec. Nobody has suggested that women be denied the right to drive out of respect for some cultural tradition. More importantly, most of the norms established by Hérouxville’s politicians are already enshrined in the law: it is quite simply illegal to stone women, illegal to circumcise them, illegal to prevent them from driving or working. There is no need to dress a laundry list of cultural norms when they are already legally enforced. Hérouxville’s declaration serves no purpose other than to perpetuate harmful stereotypes—that Muslims want to establish sharia and stone women to death, for instance—and project an atmosphere of paranoid xenophobia.
It is hard to ignore the larger context of the Hérouxville issue, however. There is increasing anxiety on the part of Canadians over the effect of immigration on Canadian cities and society. Part of this might be a manifestation of the rural-urban split. Surveys have repeatedly shown that anxiety over immigration and ethnic diversity is lowest in the most diverse urban areas. People in more homogenous communities are left with nothing but their imaginations, which are nourished by a sensationalist media eager to capitalize on fear and ignorance. I don’t think that the residents of Hérouxville are racist or even bigoted. By all accounts, they seem like very amiable and earnest people. But they simply don’t have much experience with ethnic diversity: the town has only three non-white residents, one of whom is an adopted Haitian boy. (The other two are Gabriel and Cyrillia Mitchell, a retired couple from the Caribbean who have lived in Hérouxville for three decades.) Given the way Muslims are depicted in the mainstream media, Hérouxville’s misconceptions about immigrants are understandable.
What is harder to understand are those pundits and politicians who cynically exploit fear and misunderstanding for their own personal gain. Mario Dumont, leader of the right-wing Action démocratique du Québec, has become the self-appointed champion of “ordinary Quebeckers” against immigrants who supposedly want to subvert Quebec’s identity. He does this knowing full well that the balance of power in Quebec politics rests in its rural ridings—ridings that are among the most culturally and ethnically homogenous places in Canada. Conservative pundits such as Margaret Wente exploit fear and uncertainty by implying that immigrants are actively rejecting the Canadian mainstream, isolating themselves in ethnic bubbles that breed religious extremism. “The ethnic enclaves have become a breeding ground for the enemy within,” wrote Wente last December. She was referring to Germany, but such a statement distills the sentiment expressed in many of her columns about Canada.
For people like Margaret Wente, ethnic enclaves are clear evidence of Canada’s multicultural shortcomings. But consider today’s Globe and Mail feature on ethnic enclaves. “Do ethnic enclaves impede integration?” asks reporter Marina Jiménez. “The number of ethnic enclaves … has exploded in Canada,” she continues. “In 1981, there were only six in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. By 2001, there were 254, according to a study by Statistics Canada, which defines ethnic enclaves as communities with 30 per cent of the population from one visible minority group.” Increasingly, immigrants are settling in suburbs and neighbourhoods dominated by members of their own ethnic group. This coincides with increasing poverty and marginalization on the part of recent arrivals. Jiménez points to the fact that visible minority immigrants are less likely to succeed economically than their white counterparts. Even more worryingly, second-generation non-white Canadians complain of discrimination and limited opportunities. But how much do ethnic enclaves have to do with this? The Globe’s feature seems to suggest that it is discrimination, not ethnic enclaves, that impedes integration.
Ultimately, the issue of ethnic enclaves seems like a distraction. (Statistics Canada’s flawed definition of an “ethnic enclave” certainly plays to that perception: a neighbourhood that is 31 percent black is considered an ethnic enclave, but a neighbourhood that is 92 percent French-Canadian is not. By this absurd standard, the entire City of Vancouver—exactly 30 percent Chinese—can be considered an ethnic enclave, yet the overwhelmingly British-Canadian neighbourhood of Rosedale in Toronto, cannot.) The real problem is outlined by Jiménez: visible minorities are underrepresented in the white-collar workforce and civil service, they vote less and they earn less than white Canadians. Is this because so many of them live in ethnic enclaves? Probably not. If the number of ethnic enclaves has increased by 248 over the past twenty-six years, it is because Canada has become that much more diverse, not because Canadian cities are becoming more and more segregated. There are mountains of statistical evidence that point to Canadian society becoming more and more ethnically integrated. In every Canadian city, for instance, the percentage of mixed-race marriages has increased over the past ten years.
No, the real reason that non-white Canadians are not doing as well as whites is they are faced with barriers that prevent them from fully participating in mainstream society—barriers that include racism and the reluctance of companies to recognize foreign degrees and experience. Unfortunately, employment equity does not stir the imagination, but when people read that the number of ethnic enclaves has increased from 6 to 254, they are alarmed. Their perception is that Canadian society is becoming more and more fragmented, whatever the reality may be. It doesn’t help that every Canadian is limited by his or her own experience. I simply cannot conceive of a Canada where cultures do not mix. I was born in 1984 and I grew up in Calgary with white kids, Chinese kids, Sikh kids, Mormon kids. I now live across the country and my social circle is even more diverse. So how can I identify with a baby boomer who has never had a close relationship with someone who is not white? Or a rural resident of Hérouxville who has spent his entire life in a town that is 98 percent white, French and Catholic?
As a society, we need a common set of values. But these values are already outlined in our laws and constitution. What is more important is that we ensure an equality of opportunity for all Canadians, regardless of origin. This means less emphasis on the hollow symbolism of the Hérouxville Declaration and more on anti-racism projects, recognition of foreign credentials and, of course, cross-cultural exchange.
Maybe Hérouxville’s newfound notoriety can result in a bit of multicultural exposure for its sheltered residents. Yesterday, the town councillor that spearheaded the code of conduct, André Drouin, declared he would welcome meeting with Muslim leaders to talk things over. “I often have Muslim tea with my friends,” he said.
Montreal Apartments
David Maloney says:
Christopher, you have done a great service to Canadian society by writing this article. This point of view needs to be expressed loudly and clearly. You have identified the real issue with regard to integration that our society must address; recognition of foreign credentials and experience; rather than the imaginary threat of the creation of breeding grounds for those who practice stoning, acid abuse, and all that hogwash.
As for ‘ethnic enclaves’, would anyone expect anything different? Anyone who has any experience studying the migration of people knows that, when possible, people settle close to others who share cultural commonalities (food, language, religion, etc.). This is an aspect of the human condition that government policy in a free country cannot alter. The result for the greater community is another neighbourhood where one can experience authentic international cuisine or other imported goods for example, and more generally get a sense for different ways in which people can live.
Personally, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Ethnic enclaves make life in places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal (to name the biggies) exhilarating and rich. I cringe thinking of what these cities would be like without their vibrant immigrant communities, never mind the state of the national economy (whole other debate – I know).
I am comforted with the hunch that our generation (those old enought to think about this issue, born since ‘75 maybe?), of whom the majority live in urban areas, overwhelmingly share this point of view. As for people that live in places such as Hérouxville or Dryden – I respect your lifestyle, your community and your values but I do ask that you not contribute divisive and ignorant stereotypes to the cultural integration debate. I really don’t know how the people of Dryden feel about the state of multi-culturalism (and I apologize for my assumption) but it seemed like a reasonable English-Canadian cousin to a town like Hérouxville.
Thank you Quebec. As usual you have got the rest of the country talking about things that we’re generally a little bit too shy to bring up first! Gotta love the dynamics of this country.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Christopher DeWolf says:
The thing about ethnic enclaves is that they’re very visible and they make good scapegoats—but they’ve always existed and they always will.
I think it’s unfortunate that when matters of immigration and ethnicity are discussed in Canada there is so little historical context and perspective. It’s as if all of this is happening in a void (except of course for token references to “Paris riots” and “British bombings,” which only serve to make the discussion more sensational). But virtually all immigrant groups to Canada have lived, at one point or another, in highly concentrated ethnic enclaves. Why do people suddenly forget that there are distinct Italian, Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish neighbourhoods in Canadian cities? Why does nobody attack Westmount for being 1/4 Jewish while Markham is held up as a cautionary example because it is 1/3 Chinese?
Honestly, some people might roll their eyes at this, but I think that many Canadians hold underlying assumptions about this country that can only be described as racist or at least “white normative.” It’s somehow okay when white people congregate, as in Forest Hill, Rosedale or the Beach, but not when people of colour congregate, as in Agincourt or Brampton.
That said, another big problem is the superficial understanding of the dynamics of ethnic enclaves themselves. Places like Markham and Brampton simply have nothing in common with old-style Little Italys and Chinatowns, which were more of a reaction to external forces than anything else. When a Punjabi person moves to Brampton he does so for a wide range of reasons. The phenomenon is complex and cannot be reduced to “he wants to live with other brown people.”
Finally, I think that Canadian coverage of immigration issues tends overwhelmingly towards the negative. Marina Jiménez’s article is no exception. Why is there no emphasis on the many neighbourhoods that are racially and ethnically mixed? There are plenty of examples to choose from.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am
The Angry Geographer says:
Sounds familiar to us Americans–only in addition to Muslims, Mexicans are feeling an even more overt prejudice disguised as a language issue. The Chicago Tribune published a headline in Spanish last week, which was followed by hundreds of angry letters saying “this is the last time I buy your newspaper,” and “we speak English here.”
Polish immigrants, who make up a larger proportion of Chicago’s population than any city outside Poland, experience none of this prejudice. Those people who are pushing the English-only issue give language-related arguments for their stand, but it really boils down to the American war on the poor and the nonwhite.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm