FACE TO FACE: 'Tom-ay-to' or 'tom-ah-to'? 'Barbaric' or 'absolutely unacceptable'?
Justin Trudeau doesn't think our Canadian Immigration Handbook should use the word "barbaric" to describe "honour killings, female genital mutilations, forced marriages and other gender-based violence." I agree with him.
Trudeau abhors these cultural practices, as do we all, but that isn't the point. His point is that official government communication should not use value-laden, subjective rhetoric to describe the political or cultural practices of other countries.
Trudeau has been vilified, forced to equivocate by a political media that more and more seeks a George W. Bush-like, name-calling approach to international discourse.
For our immigration handbook to delineate the cultural practices and beliefs we Canadians embrace is appropriate but to rhetorically denounce other cultures erodes our long-standing, respected Canadian moral authority.
Canada's action in not joining the U.S. "coalition of the willing" in Iraq was an strong statement of Canadian moral perspective, accomplished without a subjective denunciation of American foreign policy. The point was made more strongly by principled action rather than by editorial condemnation. Canada remained above the fray.
If we describe the cultural practices of other countries as "barbaric" in documents we present to the world, what might we next include as barbaric, cruel or racist?
I humbly suggest the following for inclusion in Canada's Immigration Handbook:
"Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to people from countries that allow the barbaric practice of encouraging its citizenry to carry assault, automatic and concealed weapons wherever they go, or from countries that continually and amorally prop up dictatorial regimes around the world for their own gain, or from countries that allow the immoral practice of capital punishment or encourage the brutal practice of bullfighting. "
Are these generally accepted Canadian judgments? Yes. Are they appropriate for inclusion in an official Canadian document? No.
Trudeau is right. We should not use such rhetoric in government communication with the world. Nor should we reduce ourselves to the level of some leaders and politicians who routinely and publicly use pejorative terms such as "axes of evil," "madman," "exporters of terrorism" or "murderous thugs."
Canada's most helpful international contribution has always been to defuse, rather than exacerbate, international conflict.
Face to Face columnist Jim Nelson is a retired Tri-City teacher and principal who lives in Port Moody. He has contributed a number of columns on education-related issues to The Tri-City News.
