What has Canada wrought? "David Warren"
The thought came full circle this last week, when I learned that our legal Raj is now prepared to grant Sharia law to their Muslim constituency. In civil disputes between Muslims in Canada, the parties may soon appeal to a Darul-Qada (judicial tribunal), where an Ulama will adjudicate, making a Koran-based judgement that will in turn become enforceable by our secular courts (unless overruled). And it is all presented as a natural thing, a further development of multiculturalism in our "evolving society".
Multiculturalism
It is interesting that "multiculturalism" was the British conqueror's method of ruling in India and elsewhere. It made perfect sense in the old British Empire. A remarkably small number of British soldiers and administrators established themselves at the top of a social pyramid on a subcontinent seething with several hundred million souls, belonging to an extraordinary variety of races, colours, and creeds. The British notoriously, but instinctively, shuffled the interests of one group against another, while reshuffling themselves constantly back to the top.
Yet in both thought and action they kept themselves aloof from "the natives". They were able to perform this ritual dance -- it required inventive costumes, too, and all kinds of ceremonial pomposities -- with less than one-tenth of the number of troops that the French required to hold down underpopulated Algeria. They were even hated less, when they left.
Of course, no dance can be continued forever, and eventually the British had to quit India, as eventually their progressive Anglophonic emulators may have to quit Canada. "Multiculturalism" remains a viable policy only as long as no one calls the bluff. But in the meantime the policy keeps a growing disorder superficially in order.
And while it lasts, it can be spectacularly impressive. The principle is, We rule, and They -- "the lesser breeds without the law" -- may get on with their little lives and breedings. We will intervene in their internal affairs only when they do something inconvenient to us, such as mutiny. The big test came in 1857, when the rulers realized the full cost of a minor administrative miscalculation.
A rather similar, though to my mind less genteel, version of this multicultural policy was developed by the Afrikaaner ruling class that emerged in South Africa, under the name of "apartheid". This was the rough, frontier version, in which the proponents were actually planning to stay, and their pragmatic settlements policy degenerated into an ideology.
Through the accident of my upbringing, I am more familiar with the Indian case. Against the official multicultural procedures were pitted the Christian missionaries, determined to put an end to things like suttee (widow-burning), and honour-killings, and caste slavery, and so much else that didn't look right to the inquiring Christian mind. The missionaries, going boldly into the field, created complications for the Raj, by messing in where officialdom was certain they did not belong.
For while the more seasoned agents of ye John Company might have been perfectly aware of "quaint local customs", they were not even slightly mortified by them. Rather than trying to suppress what could be viewed as barbaric cultural solecisms, they looked upon them relativistically, as entertaining anecdotes to trade among themselves.
The contest of wills is similar in Canada today, though we came by our multiculturalism in the opposite way from the British Indian experience.
The British found all the variety of India ready-provided; whereas they had found Canada nearly empty, when they arrived here. Outside of Quebec, a distinctive British North American society was shaped and formed, into which new arrivals were assimilated. Only later did they -- or now, we -- turn what has been indelicately called an "immigration hose" on the product of our labours. Our Liberal Party discovered that by importing various exotic immigrant groups, and discouraging them from assimilating, they could create dependants -- pools from which to harvest reliable Liberal votes.
The formula, once again, is, "We rule, and They" ... can do pretty much anything they want, so long as it is compatible with, "We rule". Master wouldn't dream of intervening unless something is done that might undermine his place at the top, in which case all this cultural relativism goes quickly through a window.
The British rulers of India were appallingly post-Christian. They hated the missionaries not only because the missionaries did things inconvenient to the Raj, but also because they were "believers" -- a class of persons for whom "unbelievers" can have nothing but contempt. When you put yourself above everything, as the management of multiculturalism requires, you lose all your own religious sense of involvement. This is because all the spiritual questions that normally animate at least some part of a human soul must be externalized. At most you "referee" between groups, and your own "objectivity" is assured by your freedom from commitment to a religion, or a culture, or to anything except yourself.
The Anglican Church, which with a few impressive exceptions served Englishmen not natives (though it sometimes also escaped into the society through their servants), provided, for the most part, a pure social club for the ruling class. I caught a glimpse of such a church in my childhood in Lahore, which offered the quickest possible Sunday service, followed by a long and leisurely coffee clatch. It was the social club where the remaining "white folk" met on their day off. I sometimes think India was the place where the Mass was transformed into Sunday Brunch.
Whereas the powerless Catholics went building schools and missions and gener ally after the souls of all the native people. So that after a couple of centuries of British Anglican rule, far more of the Christians in India were Catholic. And so that even the vast numbers who were never converted were nevertheless touched by the Christian faith, to the alteration of many of their ancient customs -- even before the late twentieth century hit India as the Bollywood Express.
Same in Canada, though perhaps it has happened here the other way around. There probably is not a single Christian "believer" in Canada, regardless of confession, who embraces the multicultural policy. And it explains why we believer types get socially surrounded, in the traditional churches, by persons who are neither progressive nor white. Whereas, across the street in the progressive congregations, a diminishing number of Canada's old Grit Raj, of almost purely wonderbread complexion, play at things like "gay marriage".
The thought came full circle this last week, when I learned that our legal Raj is now prepared to grant Sharia law to their Muslim constituency. In civil disputes between Muslims in Canada, the parties may soon appeal to a Darul-Qada (judicial tribunal), where an Ulama will adjudicate, making a Koran-based judgement that will in turn become enforceable by our secular courts (unless overruled). And it is all presented as a natural thing, a further development of multiculturalism in our "evolving society".
Rule Britannia!
© David Warren
davidwarrenonline.com |
