I recently attended a gala evening at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. For anyone who has not yet visited the CMHR, I encour-age you to visit what is quickly becoming a showcase for Winnipeg and the pride of all Manitobans and Canadians. While the dollars spent on this landmark may be a subject for debate, it truly is a beautiful space that contains great disp-lays and activities around the struggles, successes, and failures of mankind. My proverbial and literal long walk on the numerous ramps connecting the galleries gave me time to reflect—and work off a large number of calories from dinner.
In light of the recent discussions and press around the Syrian refugees, it was interesting to see Canada’s response to the many refugee situations in the previous century. While we have much to be proud of, a few decisions in our history produce much regret.
In the late 1930s, as Germany encouraged the departure of the Jewish populace, the nations of the world struggled with the idea of allowing significant immigration. While the campaign of National Socialism in Germany was reaching its height, even Canada deemed large-scale Jewish immigration too risky, not just from a security stand-point, but on the basis of its upset of the social fabric. The window of opportunity closed for the Jews and other persecuted minorities as the world tipped to self-preser-vation, and with the exception of the Dominican Republic, all nations refused to accept them in large numbers. History now shows that when this window closed in 1939, more than a million people lost their lives.
While the current refugee crisis has sparked debate, often heated, we must learn from the past. And while government policy is more open than in the pre-war discussions, the social attitudes and underlying fabric may not have changed as much. During the pre-war period, anti-Semitism was both openly discussed and generally accepted. While most would now see the error in this thinking, the advantage was the openness, the proverbial devil-you-know, allowing for transparent debate and discussion.
Perhaps we are in a more dangerous place now. Browsing through the plethora of social media and “news” sites on the web, it can become quite concerning. Stories abound of criminal and/or immoral activities of new immigrants or Muslims in general. Most of them do not appear to have a factual basis, and many come from sources of hearsay. For every story and position you read, a quick search can find a conflicting story disputing the claims.
Yes, we must be cautious. We must be vigilant in our screening of individuals who strive to enter our country. But we must also be cautious of our attitudes towards them as they do arrive. Will they change the social fabric of the communities they enter? Yes, they will, and bluntly said, likely in both good and bad ways—as every new group entering our great nation always has.
The arrival of the Lord Selkirk settlers (or perhaps they should more rightly be called what they were: refugees) signalled the beginning of the Canadian West as an agricultural breadbasket for the nation and the world. Yet this caused considerable conflict with the existing First Nations and Metis traders. The Mennonite settlers (also refugees) of 1874 brought additional expertise and value to agricultural exploits, yet they required concessions on the policies of military service and the homesteading act. All groups bring value and expect some consideration, a true quid pro quo arrangement.
Was the situation that much different in those days than it is now? The fabric of the Canadian identity always has been, and always will be, tied to multiculturalism. From the beginning of a dominion carved from the distinct Anglophone Upper Canada and Francophone Lower Canada, we have embraced parts of every group, requiring adaptation rather than assim-ilation. We should be cautious to ensure that baseless fears and prejudices do not stand in the way of the continued
development of our great nation.
