It’s a good thing there’s guidelines.

The blogs on the socialtech.ca domain got a sort of backwards compliment last night – apparently we were all hacked by some group called the “spy kids” – ooooooh! – who trashed the database and put some crap like “you’ve been owned by the spy kids” – oooooooh! – on the sites. Way to go, spy kids!

The database was backed up and has been restored, so if you posted something yesterday and it’s gone today, it’s not because I deleted it – it’s because it was lost when the spy kids ub3r h4x0rs deleted it.

About a month ago, I had a roaring, beer-fuelled debate at a local pub with several friends. I was in the zone on one of my pet peeve topics, and I think the Carlsberg diluted my message. In the end, I couldn’t convince anyone to see my point of view. Let me try again.

My basic point on multiculturalism has always been that it has been falsely mythologized as a Canadian value. There is scarce data to support any assertion that multiculturalism, as an official policy, or as a lip service, has made Canada a more tolerant society – let alone entrench itself as a core value shared by the nation. I presume there are some tangible benefits to having a national multicultural policy. I know it earmarks a bunch of federal spending for cultural projects in Canada. However, I am wary of arguments that suggest Canadians share multicultural values, and ergo, are more tolerant of ethnic differences.

A few points for clarification: It is worth noting that we do have an immigrant society in Canada (to the extent that Canada has a colonial past and continues to embrace immigration – around 160 000 people a year). As well, it should be said that multiculturalism is a noble principle – I do not presume to be offended by the idea of a tolerant or poly-ethnic society. Lastly, I think we are better off having the space for a dialogue on tolerance, even if it goes nowhere.

My key problem is with multicultural rhetoric. The over inflated claims about Canada being inclusive, a mosaic, or an antithesis to the American melting pot because of multiculturalism – that is all rubbish. Moreover, it is the doublespeak of a Canadian political system that hardly reflects the diversity it claims is so defining of the Canadian experience. It is the uninspiring reason that multiculturalism is not a real tool for change.

Shared multicultural values in Canada are at best a campaign slogan, and at worst a falsely ascribed national mythology. The brainchild of the Trudeau era, multiculturalism has been a lingering part of the Canadian political lexicon for a long time. I’m still not sure what it means. Rather, it has become a watered down term that politicians evoke in order to create a false sense of Canadian unity. This is due, in part, to the long legacy of Liberal Party power in Canada, and this Party’s effort to enforce their own policies as naturally shared Canadian values.

I am blown away by politicians who stand with a straight face and say how inclusive and tolerant of difference Canadians are, and how we are blankly “multicultural.” The term is flung around without any care. I find it a bit sophomoric.

Polling data released in the Globe today shows that 7 out of 10 Canadians (in a sample group of 1000) were in favour of abandoning the current “mosaic” approach to multiculturalism that has long been a defining feature of the nation’s identity. This group responded positively to the statement: “Immigrants should be encouraged to integrate and become part of the broader society rather than maintaining their ethnic identity and cultural differences.”

This following a year (2004) when the top four source countries for immigration were China, India, Philippines, and Pakistan – hardly your garden variety of assimilable newcomers.

The same data shows an overwhelming Canadian preference for European immigrants, citing a further expectation that these immigrants would contribute more to Canadian society than non-European immigrants.

It should be pointed out that this data is similar to the situation all the way back to the end of WW2, and into the era of the post-industrial value shift that characterized the 1970s. A majority of Canadians preferred European immigrants then, and they still do now. A majority of Canadians believed in assimilation then, and they still do now.

So my question is: if multiculturalism is such a defining feature of contemporary Canada – why has it failed to change Canadian attitudes towards non-European immigrants; and why, in an era when most new immigrants are non-European, do a majority of Canadians still prefer assimilation?

Multicultural indeed. Face it – it looks better as a campaign slogan!

I subscribe to an email list from dictionary.com that sends me a new, generally uncommon word each day along with a definition and some example sentences. This helps me learn which words not to use if I want anyone to understand me. Which is helpful because I’ve learned that just because someone doesn’t know what I’m talking about doesn’t mean they won’t pretend like they do. An acute disconnect in personal relationships is created whenever one person leaves a conversation thinking, “Wow, what a great conversation” while the other person leaves thinking, “What?”.

Today’s word is nugatory, which means “Trifling; insignificant; inconsequential.” It’s pronounced NOO-guh-tor-ee, which I think is pretty sweet. In fact, I can’t think of many cases where this word would not go well with dude. “Nugatory, dude!” just rolls off the tongue. Here’s a (made-up) example of how this word could actually be used:

The CN spokesperson introduced himself as JD. “Seriously, that’s my whole name,” he said. “I had it changed.” I asked him to comment on recent events in Wabamun.

“Here’s what you GOT to realize,” he said, tapping his desk with his pencil. “First of all, the amount of carcina…carcino… you know, cancer-causing chemicals, in the lake…” He trailed off. It appeared as though something on the end of his pencil had taken his attention. He peered closely at it and flicked at the eraser.

“Yes?” I prodded him. His head jerked up. He looked surprised to see that I was still there. “Where was I?” he asked. “You were talking about the amount of carcinogenic chemicals in the lake,” I reminded him.

“Oh yeah, that’s right. Yeah, so, there’s really only 80,000 litres or so that are actually IN the lake. I mean, the rest of it has been taken out of the lake by, uh, local residents and uhhhhh, their kids. I mean, what parent in their right minds would let their children touch a chemical that can cause skin cancer? Like, what a bummer for your kids, man!”

“No one knew there was a carcinogenic chemical in the lake until today,” I reminded him.

“Well, yeah, that’s a bummer too, right? I mean, personally, I’m sorry someone didn’t let everyone know about the carcinogenic pole oil a few days ago when the spill first happened, but like, how are we supposed to know what’s ON the train??? Do you know how long these trains are? And I mean, really, the chances of anyone getting cancer from this stuff are totally nugatory, dude.”

Then there’s parsimonious, a word which reminds me, unsurprisingly, of parsley and parsnips, but that actually means “Sparing in expenditure; frugal to excess.” Par-si-MOH-neeeeeeeee-usssss… The word has a niggling, irritating quality that suits it well, even though it does sound like a leafy green. Here’s another example:

I finally caught up to Larry Lucre, the CEO of CN Rail, on the tarmac at Pearson Airport. He was coming down the stairs of his Lear Jet carrying a bulging black briefcase.

“Mr. Lucre,” I called. “Can I have a minute of your time?”

“I don’t know,” he said, looking flustered as he wiped the sweat from his forehead. “Who are you? What do you want?”

“Ever since Canadian National was privatized in 1995, you’ve been laying off employees while increasing the length and weight of your trains. Some people think those polices are related to the environmental disaster that happened in Squamish, BC on August 5. Care to comment?” I asked.

“What you have to realize,” he replied, “is that we care deeply about the environment. And anyone can tell you that humans are bad for the environment. So the first step we took to protect the environment was to lay off people. Secondly, you have to realize that it’s not just the natural environment we have to be concerned with. The business environment we work in is also very important. And when I say ‘very important’, I mean, ‘very, very, VERY important’. In that environment, money is a resource. And it’s a very scarce resource. Very, very, VERY – ”

SPROING! His briefcase burst open. Stacks of $100 bills flew everywhere. “Damnit! Not again!” he exclaimed. “Give me a hand, would ya?”

I started helping him stuff the stacks of money back into the case. “So yeah, like I was saying,” he continued. “Money is VERY scarce here at CN. Here, take a stack for your troubles. Anyway, the business environment we work in calls on us to be parsimonious. Very, very, very parsimonious. Do you have any idea how much it’s going to cost to fix that rail car?”

Another great word is malfeasance, which means “Wrongdoing, misconduct, or misbehavior, especially by a public official.” This is one of those words I already knew but never got the courage to use, which is a shame, because it’s a great word. You can practically hear the slimy, official wrongdoing dripping off this word…mal-FEE-zuhn(t)s. Here we go:

CN has expressed outrage that US investigators have concluded that the fatal Amtrak crash in April 2004 was their fault. We asked CN’s Vice-President of Finance – and Safety, Barbara Parsnip, to comment.

“Assigning blame to us is an act of inspector malfeasance,” she said. “As VP of Finance – and Safety, I have have long recommended to US authorities that people living near our tracks take courses in train-dodging. Amtrak’s failure to ensure that Americans have this training, in addition to the standard Cleaning Up Cancerous Lakes course, can in no way be attributed to us. No further comment.”

So there you have it, three great words you’ll never use, unless you enjoy the smile-and-nod treatment. Enjoy!

Donald Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defense, isn’t pleased with Iran. Apparently, weapons from Iran have been found in Iraq. The weapons are “clearly” and “unambiguously” from Iran, although he did not describe them or say how many have been found during his press conference yesterday.

Iran is being “unhelpful”, according to Rumsfeld: “That’s a big border and it’s notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to cross the border.”

This isn’t just a problem for Iraq, in Rumsfeld’s words:

It’s a problem for the Iraqi government. It’s a problem for the coalition forces. It’s a problem for the international community. And ultimately it’s a problem for Iran.

This past weekend, two more people were killed in shootings in Toronto, the latest in a wave of gun violence that threatens Toronto’s reputation as one of the safest cities in North America. The shootings are attributed to gang violence and enabled by the proliferation of handguns that are being smuggled across the Canada-US border. Premier McGuinty: “I phoned (Toronto Police Chief Bill) Blair last week when this flared up and he told me that easily half of the guns on Toronto streets come from south of the border.”

Mr. Rumsfeld, this is a problem for Toronto. It’s a problem for Canada. And ultimately it’s a problem for the United States. So please solve that problem for us. Or shut the heck up about Iran.

******

It would be negatively nationalistic of me to point out that when it comes to illegal smuggling, America’s biggest problem is Canadian marijuana, designed to make you happy, dopey and hungry, while Canada’s biggest problem is American handguns, designed to kill people. So I won’t.