New Source of Conflicts in Canada

Is multiculturalism the most overlooked source of issues within Canadian society? As much as 84% of Canadians agree that multiculturalism is one of the greatest things regarding their political identity. But what if the recent assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the leader of the Sikh independence movement, is the consequence of the “Canadian Mosaic”? This is an exemplary event that shows that multiculturalism can be a source of conflict. Unfortunately, there might be more evidence of the problem. Nowadays, we have to become aware and proactive when it comes to International conflicts as the expansion of Canadian diversity brings them into Canadian borders.  

To start with a brief background, ‘Mosaic’ is a term which is used to describe the political identity of Canada. Usually, it is used in contrast to the US. While Canada is accepting immigrants to retain their own culture, America is assimilating them into one distinct identity.¹ Ninette Kelley argued that the creation of the mosaic should be attributed to a sequence of decisions regarding immigration policy throughout Canadian history.² Others would point to the complex relationship between Anglo- and Franco-Canadians. But whatever the cause of this phenomenon, one thing is clear: Canadian cultural diversity has grown substantially. Today, it accounts for 450 different cultural or ethnic origins for Canadians.

But what does it all mean for Canada? It means that people had brought their culture into the country and maintained it. However, with their culture, they also brought their conflicts. It made the complex world of international relations a domestic Canadian issue. Today, Canada is the land where you can find Palestinians and Israelis, Ukrainians and Russians, Indians and Pakistanis, etc. 

The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar is an example of this issue. The Indian government is solving the problems of their dissidents on Canadian soil. Reportedly, Hardeep was warned by authorities about the future assassination. However, he did not receive sufficient protection. One possible explanation is that neither the Canadian Secret Services nor the Canadian society understood the seriousness of this situation due to the lack of knowledge of this external conflict. In retrospect, it is pretty simple to see how this situation was unfolding for years, as India was quite vocal about their concerns with the Sikh leaders’ activity in Canada. Moreover, the lack of an adequate proactive response has led to deteriorating relations with the Indian government. Escalation even led to the point of demanding a number of Canadian diplomats leave India.

Another example is the rise of anti-Ukrainian hate in Canada. Yet again, due to the lack of understanding and acknowledgment of the situation, hate symbols like “Z” and anti-Ukrainian sentiments continue to appear throughout Canada, sparking conflicts. The multiculturalism that we are quite proud of, left unchecked, put people in Canada at risk.

On a brighter note, we can already see exemplary decisions regarding the problem of multiculturalism. After a slightly humiliating discovery of Chinese “police stations,” Canada started a country-sized investigation. The danger to the Chinese and Taiwanese communities from the Beijing government is being recognized. Moreover, in the face of the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mayor of Ottawa had shown his understanding of its danger to Canadians. He had ordered police to protect synagogues and mosques during the pro-Palestine protests in the city. Indeed, the escalation did not happen, but this act did show the degree of awareness of this international conflict. However, these examples can, indeed, be described as reactive actions, while what we need are proactive measures. 

Contrary to the main point, some scholars have argued that Canadian multiculturalism does not differ much from the US.³ It can be argued that the absence of a clear-cut definition of the Canadian political identity, in contrast to that of the US/Europe, provides the Mosaic theory with, at least, some substance. However, even if we agree that Canadian culture is not unique and similar problems do exist in other parts of the world, it does not detract from its seriousness in Canada. It needs to be addressed regardless.

Others argue that these problems are inevitable consequences of multiculturalism and that Canada is better off abandoning it. To which I would say that this would be impossible. You cannot create a strict definition of a Canadian identity without alienating a huge portion of the country. Moreover, there are obvious benefits from multiculturalism that Canada enjoys like tolerance, economic benefits from the migration, etc. Thus, it should be improved, not abandoned. 

To conclude, as multiculturalism has blurred the line between external conflicts and internal affairs, the Secret Service and society overall must start acknowledging many of them as domestic and take proactive measures to provide all Canadians with security and the absence of national and international humiliations. 

1.  Sarah Wayland V. “Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 5, no. 1 (1997): 55. ↩︎
2.  Margaret Adsett and Shannon Stettner. The International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1295–98 ↩︎
3.  Howard Palmer. “Mosaic versus Melting Pot?: Immigration and Ethnicity in Canada and the United States.” International Journal 31, no. 3 (1976): 523–528 ↩︎