Tweet
DIASPORA POLITICS INEVITABLE IN NATION OF IMMIGRANTS
By Haroon Siddiqui
Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/articl e/801811--siddiqui-diaspora-politics-inevitable-in -nation-of-immigrants
April 29 2010
Canada
>From the prevalent negative public discourse on immigrants, one would
think that we want immigration but not immigrants. That obviously
cannot be. Similarly, we cannot have immigrants without their
religions, cultures, customs and memories, political or otherwise.
Yet we keep peddling the myth that immigrants ought to develop amnesia
the moment they land here and cast aside their old country baggage.
Few ever did. Fewer still will, given our global village.
In the past, some immigrants did keep a tactical silence. But even
they nurtured and passed along their heritage to their children.
Witness the attachment of third- and fourth-generation Ukrainian
Canadians to Ukraine. Or the campaign by Armenian Canadians to
have the Turkish killing of Armenians 100 years ago acknowledged as
genocide. Greek Canadians objected to independence for Macedonia. Sikh
Canadians voiced anger about goings-on in India. Tamil Canadians
complained about the Sinhalese war on the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Less noisily, Bangladeshi Canadians have been protesting the
presence in Canada of one of the alleged murderers of the founding
father of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and his family. They
were assassinated in 1975 in Dhaka in a military coup. After a
much-delayed trial, five former soldiers were hanged in January. Six
others convicted are at large. One, Nur Chowdhury, lives in Toronto,
his refugee claim rejected.
Bangladesh wants him extradited. A few dozen Bangladeshi Canadians
marched on Parliament Hill last month demanding that he be deported.
But Canadian policy prohibits sending anyone to a country where he may
face capital punishment. Adding poignancy to the diplomatic request
is that it comes from Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the
slain leader. She survived the slaughter because she happened to be
out of the country at the time.
Diaspora politics is not confined to immigrants. Witness the Jewish
community's advocacy for Israel -- trying to ban books, plays and
conferences critical of Israel, as well as pressuring governments,
universities and media to muzzle criticism.
It's the most active lobbying in Canada on behalf of a foreign country
or people. Nothing illegal about it, as a group of Canadians exercises
its rights peacefully, even if at times to justify Israeli wars. The
effort is also the most successful, given the Harper government's
almost unquestioning support for Israel, in contrast with the Obama
administration, which has decided that some Israeli actions run
counter to American interests.
Canada being a microcosm of the world, it's only natural that foreign
issues have become domestic issues. Sometimes, they transcend ethnic
communities.
The war on Iraq, initially opposed by Arab Canadians, was vehemently
opposed by a majority of Canadians. The Afghan war is obviously not
just an Afghan Canadian issue. Iranian Canadian protests about the
stolen election in Iran have had resonance among Canadians.
How to distinguish between what's acceptable diaspora politics and what
is not? The primary dividing line has been between the peaceful and
the violent, the lawful and the unlawful. Another has been the Canadian
national interest, which should not be held hostage to any group.
Public opinion plays a role. Some foreign causes are seen as more
legitimate than others. That's why groups try to make their cause sound
worthy of support. Some are better at media manipulation and political
organizing, while the less sophisticated and the less powerful take
to the streets. The latter are mostly the newer minorities.
It is these groups that are routinely admonished to "respect our
customs," "conform to our way of life," and "adopt Canadian values."
What those might be beyond the rule of law is rarely defined.
What do we mean when we hector someone to "be Canadian"? Play hockey?
At least watch it, preferably on a couch with a beer in hand? Or,
in Quebec, eat poutine and listen to Céline Dion? What else? If one
can't catalogue it all, how can we implement it?
Values are forever evolving and are best absorbed voluntarily. So we
have to be conscious that the admonition "Be Canadian" is not a club
that we can use on those we don't like.
By Haroon Siddiqui
Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/articl e/801811--siddiqui-diaspora-politics-inevitable-in -nation-of-immigrants
April 29 2010
Canada
>From the prevalent negative public discourse on immigrants, one would
think that we want immigration but not immigrants. That obviously
cannot be. Similarly, we cannot have immigrants without their
religions, cultures, customs and memories, political or otherwise.
Yet we keep peddling the myth that immigrants ought to develop amnesia
the moment they land here and cast aside their old country baggage.
Few ever did. Fewer still will, given our global village.
In the past, some immigrants did keep a tactical silence. But even
they nurtured and passed along their heritage to their children.
Witness the attachment of third- and fourth-generation Ukrainian
Canadians to Ukraine. Or the campaign by Armenian Canadians to
have the Turkish killing of Armenians 100 years ago acknowledged as
genocide. Greek Canadians objected to independence for Macedonia. Sikh
Canadians voiced anger about goings-on in India. Tamil Canadians
complained about the Sinhalese war on the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Less noisily, Bangladeshi Canadians have been protesting the
presence in Canada of one of the alleged murderers of the founding
father of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and his family. They
were assassinated in 1975 in Dhaka in a military coup. After a
much-delayed trial, five former soldiers were hanged in January. Six
others convicted are at large. One, Nur Chowdhury, lives in Toronto,
his refugee claim rejected.
Bangladesh wants him extradited. A few dozen Bangladeshi Canadians
marched on Parliament Hill last month demanding that he be deported.
But Canadian policy prohibits sending anyone to a country where he may
face capital punishment. Adding poignancy to the diplomatic request
is that it comes from Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the
slain leader. She survived the slaughter because she happened to be
out of the country at the time.
Diaspora politics is not confined to immigrants. Witness the Jewish
community's advocacy for Israel -- trying to ban books, plays and
conferences critical of Israel, as well as pressuring governments,
universities and media to muzzle criticism.
It's the most active lobbying in Canada on behalf of a foreign country
or people. Nothing illegal about it, as a group of Canadians exercises
its rights peacefully, even if at times to justify Israeli wars. The
effort is also the most successful, given the Harper government's
almost unquestioning support for Israel, in contrast with the Obama
administration, which has decided that some Israeli actions run
counter to American interests.
Canada being a microcosm of the world, it's only natural that foreign
issues have become domestic issues. Sometimes, they transcend ethnic
communities.
The war on Iraq, initially opposed by Arab Canadians, was vehemently
opposed by a majority of Canadians. The Afghan war is obviously not
just an Afghan Canadian issue. Iranian Canadian protests about the
stolen election in Iran have had resonance among Canadians.
How to distinguish between what's acceptable diaspora politics and what
is not? The primary dividing line has been between the peaceful and
the violent, the lawful and the unlawful. Another has been the Canadian
national interest, which should not be held hostage to any group.
Public opinion plays a role. Some foreign causes are seen as more
legitimate than others. That's why groups try to make their cause sound
worthy of support. Some are better at media manipulation and political
organizing, while the less sophisticated and the less powerful take
to the streets. The latter are mostly the newer minorities.
It is these groups that are routinely admonished to "respect our
customs," "conform to our way of life," and "adopt Canadian values."
What those might be beyond the rule of law is rarely defined.
What do we mean when we hector someone to "be Canadian"? Play hockey?
At least watch it, preferably on a couch with a beer in hand? Or,
in Quebec, eat poutine and listen to Céline Dion? What else? If one
can't catalogue it all, how can we implement it?
Values are forever evolving and are best absorbed voluntarily. So we
have to be conscious that the admonition "Be Canadian" is not a club
that we can use on those we don't like.