HEATHER MALLICK:
The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?
CBC News Viewpoint | June 16, 2006 | More from Heather Mallick
Heather Mallick has worked as a reporter, copy editor and book review editor at various Toronto newspapers and most recently wrote a column called As If for the Globe and Mail. She has won National Newspaper Awards for both Critical Writing and Feature Writing. Heather writes a political column for the New York Times Syndication Service that runs internationally. Her first book, Pearls in Vinegar, based on an ancient Japanese form of diary, was published by Penguin in 2004. She is currently writing a collection of essays for Knopf Canada, tentatively titled "Cake or Death: The Excruciating Choices of Everyday Life".
I must admit that when I wrote an internationally syndicated column on Canada's arrest of 17 alleged terrorists this month, I did something I rarely do: I held back. I didn't want to tell other nations about commentary from Canada's media that I think is fuelling racism.
This was partly to protect Canada's reputation from distortion — we are not a racist country even if some columns appear to represent Canada in this way. But it was also because the world isn't interested in Canada, a reputedly dull, nice country. I didn't think anyone would have the faintest interest in a handful of ill-read nasties.
But the great British journalist Robert Fisk noticed and, on June 10, he wrote in The Independent, one of the world's finest newspapers, a column headlined "How racism has invaded Canada: What is the term 'brown-skinned' doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily?"
Good question, Mr. Fisk.
Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail:
"The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.
The Globe and Mail is known, rightly, as a civilized paper. Many readers were horrified (a few were pleased) as the Globe letters page showed the next day.
'Some things … you can never forgive'
But I had other problems. I had just read a biography by the British publisher Carmen Callil that began with the suicide of her psychoanalyst Anne Darquier, a brilliant woman devoted to her patients. As Callil was knocking on her doctor's door, Darquier was dead on the floor. She left no note. At one time she had said to Callil: "There are some things and some people you can never forgive."
It's possible that two weeks before her death she visited her father. He was Louis Darquier, one of France's most successful turncoats. An enthusiastic Nazi, he was the one who forced all Vichy Jews to wear a yellow star. He played a large part in Vichy's contribution of 77,000 Jews to the death camps. I can barely tolerate reading of this, such is my grief. He made children wear that star. It was this lifelong knowledge about her father that Anne Darquier, the kindest of women, could not live with.
Fresh from her story, I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:
The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.
Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.
Fisk noted that the accused were described as "Canadian-born" and that there is a subtle difference between this and "Canadian" even when they describe the same person. Thus, they are Canadian-born (Muslim) as opposed to Canadian (the rest of us), wrote Fisk.
On that same Globe front page, an eyewitness in a news story was quoted as describing two "brown-skinned young men" who had rented the unit next to him. I have never heard these words used this way in a Canadian paper. Most of the world is brown-skinned, most of Toronto's citizens are brown-skinned. No one points this out ever but now apparently we must beware the brown-skinned.
Is 'brown-skinned' now part of our idiom?
Fisk interviewed Jonathan Kay of the National Post, seeking his opinion of describing people as "brown-skinned." To my infinite sorrow, Kay responded: "These things are heavily idiomatic in the sense that, you know, 40 years ago, we would have said 'coloured.' "
At this point, I briefly considered driving a spoon into my heart, Kay not being available. People in Britain and worldwide are now reading that "brown-skinned" is part of the Canadian idiom.
So now the world thinks we talk this way. But we don't. I don't know if Kay is Canadian or Canadian-born. I don't care to know. I do not wish to know his religion, since I don't wish to know anyone's religion. That is their concern. We don't do that here. That is why we get along. That is one of the many reasons Canada is a good place to live. Paul Darquier wouldn't like it here.
Fisk's column ends in heartbreak. He shared his flight from Calgary to Ottawa with Tim Goddard and his remaining family. Beneath them in the cargo hold was the body of Tim's daughter, Nichola, the first woman soldier to die in action in the Afghanistan war.
Goddard's photo only made page 6 in the Post. On the front page, the Post ran a picture of a British Muslim "who may have links to Canada."
I guess he might have links to any brown-skinned person here. Or "coloured," as we used to say as we approached our centennial year of 1967, according to Kay.
The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists. I am disgusted by the suggestion it does. There are some things and some people you can never forgive.
LETTERS:
Heather makes an excellent point about the tone and choice of vocabulary used by many of the newspaper articles written about the accused 'Terrorists'. I do think, however, when she is considering whether or not it is appropriate to call someone Canadian, or Canadian-Born, she should take a moment and ask: "what are the people in question calling themselves?"
I'll bet many of the accused call themselves either Muslim-Canadians, or Iranian-Canadians (or some other country of origin). So it stands to question: where do their loyalties lie? and how should that effect the way in which we describe them?
—Matthew Cochrane | Oromocto, N.B.
The irony with this article is that Ms Mallick claims that we are not a
racist country, and is therefore shocked - and justifiably appalled - at some
of the language being used in the media at the moment.
The fact is that, as
a brown-skinned person, every single time I see hysterical, over generalizing
comments like Ms. Blatchford's in the newspaper I get scared. I get scared
because I remember being singled out on numerous occasions, growing up in
Calgary, by racist comments and actions.
I am only now beginning to realize
how the deep seated shame and fear from being 'singled out' has followed me
throughout me life. I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't understand the
subtlety of "Otherness" to understand the long lasting and incapacitating
effects that racism has on people.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that
the Canadian media - still lacking substantial diversity in it's news rooms -
would use the language they use, and angle their stories the way they do.
Rather than hysterical, broad generalizations, it is perhaps more important
to realize the psychological effects of being made to feel constantly as
though you don't belong to the country you were born in.
It may also be
important to note the substantial number of studies that discuss the way
media stereotyping effects minority identity formation and the ability of
minorities to 'fit in.' This could be the 'clue' you are looking for if you
are genuinely interested in trying to figure out why all us 'brown-skinned'
people have 'suddenly' gone crazy.
—Munisha Tumato
Heather Mallick’s column suggests that stating basic facts about the Toronto terrorism suspects will fuel racism in Canada. Canadians deserve more credit than this.
We are quite capable of hearing all that is known about these suspects without judging others with anything in common with them. More importantly, the column trivializes the threat that terrorism poses to this open and tolerant nation.
Surely prevaricating government officials and journalists who engage in moral posturing when difficult facts are revealed only increase the harmful effects of this threat. Or does Mallick, the self-appointed guardian of Canada's international reputation, doubt that Canadians deserve to know where the suspects learned their apparent ideology of hatred and violence?
Truth and trust are the bedrocks of a free and open society. The Canadian public must be able to trust that our authorities will tell us the whole truth and the authorities must in turn trust the Canadian public to handle that truth appropriately.
When we fail to tell ourselves the truth out of a misguided desire to filter out uncomfortable information, trust crumbles and our free and open society becomes less so.
—Judith Molyneaux | Thamesville, Ont.
Heather Mallick misses one very important point. Like most secular Canadians she makes the assumption that the religious beliefs of devout followers of a religion are “bolted on” to their personality and their lifestyle.
Put another way, the popular Western view is that religious belief is only somewhat incidental to what people are and, therefore, it is discriminatory to identify them with their belief. While this assumption may be valid for most pseudo-Christian Canadians, it is definitely not true for the majority of those who follow Islam.
For these people (and to their credit) their religious belief and commitment is so central to their self-identification, that it is totally inappropriate for others, including journalists, to try to perform some kind of politically correct surgery when describing such individuals.
Their morals, their activities, their political beliefs, their lifestyles and, indeed, the very core of their beings are driven by their religious beliefs. Their first and foremost life priority is in Islam, not in being Canadian or any other nationality. Being Canadian is only incidental to them and, therefore, the term “Canadian born” is appropriate.
Unfortunately, some Muslims have decided that it is their duty and their honour to defend Islam by inflicting violence and death on the very society that has accepted them. These people would almost certainly demand that they be identified as Muslims as a point of pride and, in a strange way, it would be discriminatory to fail to do so.
Remember, they are not ready to commit suicide and to kill innocent people as a matter of politics, economics or some wild philosophical theory. They do it for and in the name of Islam not in the name of Canada.
—B. Kelley | Ont.
Thank you Heather for writing this. Keep up the truth telling.
—Gail Hourigan | Kelowna, B.C.
"The Canada being described in this way is not the Canada I know exists. I
am disgusted by the suggestion it does. There are some things and some
people you can never forgive".
I have to ask if Ms. Mallick is now going to commit suicide? or that Ms.
Blatchford should? or someone?
Ms. Mallick needs to understand that Canadian soldiers, both dead and alive
and some gravely injured, are fighting to stop the spread of ISLAMIST
terrorism and attacks, not only in Afghanistan, but at a global level.
Ask
them who the enemy is. And some of those "enemy" ARE "Canadian born".
That's a fact. But Ms. Mallick seems to think that Canada must take a
homogenized or utopian (meaning "an imaginary place") position on all
things.
Just assimilate, let's not notice or acknowledge our differences
and let's just "all get along". According to Ms. Mallick we must not note
facts at all. We must simply close our eyes and pretend that it is all
good. Or something.
—Brenda M. Montgomery | Canadian and Canadian Born
I would just like to say thank you and bravo.
I don't believe this is the kind of country we live in either, and you are bang on when you say that words have the ability to fuel this kind of racism.
I've lived in Toronto, have the privilege of having many Muslim friends, and am frankly rather personally insulted when words like 'brown-skinned' and 'Canadian-born' slip into our characterization of fellow citizens in the media.
—Christopher Phillips | Edmonton
Thank you, Heather, for a trenchant and honest column. We need more writers like you. I'm sharing your column with as many friends as possible.
—Abby Schwarz | Vancouver
Thank goodness there is someone such as yourself to point out these word tricks to us. You know, often we scan the paper articles and the words only skim across our mind instead of going deep down.
You are so right about your point of view and I applaud you.
—J Bellis
It's unfortunate that terrorists currently happen to fall into the Muslim category, but it's a fact that's undeniable. I'm amazed that liberal journalists find it necessary to continuously chastise, correct and remind the rest of us that not all Muslims are terrorists. I'm confident that we understand this.
On the other hand, when searching for suicide bombers, should we be observing brightly clothed, merry-making Trinidadians or beer-swilling complacent Germans, or should we be vigilant of the category that is most likely to contain a murderous aberration.
Thanks Mallick, but give us some credit. Canadians are mature enough as a heterogeneous society to understand that most Muslims are acceptable. Let's not allow political correctness to stand in the way of prudent action under extreme circumstances.
—Mark Petri | Toronto
Great piece. Thank you! Words indeed can spread hate, and I agree that the sort of words quoted in your article do not represent the views of the great majority of Canadians.
I have only one thing to add: words are linked to ideologies, and our newspapers are not without their ideological orientations. The Globe but especially the National Post, for instance, on the whole have long had a pro-Iraeli, anti-Muslim orientation.
Their reporting on the Middle East needs to be read with this in mind. What is needed, therefore, is not only watchdogs flagging grossly inappropriate comments in the media, but also dispassionate media experts teaching the rest of Canada to read and view the media with open eyes.
—Michel Desjardins | Waterloo
I think Ms Mallick is overreacting. However, overreacting appears to be the order of the day among journalists whenever Canada's misguided multicultural sensibilities are challenged. Our politically correct media is always behind the curve on these things in it's constant struggle to maintain our artificially imposed multicultural utopia.
A few years ago, no one would ever have suggested that the Jamaican community has a problem with crime or single motherhood. In fact anyone who did was vilified in the media as a racist. These days it's commonly discussed in the press.
Nowadays it's frowned upon to suggest that the Muslim community has a problem with fanatics and terrorists in their midst. A few years from now it will likely be a common topic of conversation.
Ms Mallick is a dinosaur. The days of chicken-little journalists running around at the least little provocation screaming about the collapse of civilization have passed. Yes Heather, the alleged terrorists were all Muslims and 'gasp' have brown skin. And guess what? Some of us unwashed Canadian rabble can actually acknowledge these realities without distrusting every brown skinned Muslim in Canada.
We don't need you to protect us from ourselves Heather. Just trust us a bit more. Let us tell the truth as we see it and try not to fly off into a tizzy every time you hear something that conflicts with your excessively sensitive nature.
—Ron Laffin | Toronto
Heather Mallick seems utterly shocked that some reporters just tell it like it is without any PC spin whatsoever. Well-known Canadian journalist Christie Blatchford did exactly what good journalists should do when they detect hypocrisy: they expose it.
Ms. Blatchford wasn't going to sit back and let Canadian government bureaucrats pretend the 17 men charged with plotting a terrorist attack against Canada came from a "diverse cross-section of Canadian society" when nothing could have been further from the truth!
—Greg Westfall | Waterloo, Ont.
While I agree with your ideals and your take on the examples of "biased" writings you excerpted , I feel your article is histrionically strident. You just may, even as a well-respected journalist, be out of touch with the reality of feeling on the street.
Being righteously indignant does nothing to solve the problems at hand as one is merely employing politically correct standards, which can, in fact, submerge (sweep it under the carpet of denial?) the problem and reduce or eliminate the urgency of solution.
The fact that the "17" are all from related groups is a problem - a relatively new problem for us. Even other Muslims agree it's a problem. Lets learn about the problem. Let's not deny its existence by self-righteously spouting pious platitudes.
—David Constable | Nanoose Bay, B.C.
I am disappointed in the lack of editorial oversight that led to the publishing of Heather Mallick's viewpoint article dating June 16, 2006.
She rails against usage of the term "Canadian-born" and claims that it was used to distinguish from "Canadian", but this interpretation is obviously incorrect and CBC editorial staff should have caught this. Saying someone is "Canadian-born" distinguishes them not from Canadians, but from immigrants.
Knowing whether these accused terrorists were born in Canada or if they were immigrants is important information as we Canadians assess what the terrorist plot means for our country.
If they were all immigrants, perhaps this could mean that we need to look into our immigrant screening process -- yet since this was not the case we know that we have a cultural problem that is made in Canada.
For an informed society we need to know details so we can assess the world around us and the country we live in. CBC viewpoint ought not to be a sounding board for people who want to bury their heads in the sand because the news makes them feel politically incorrect.
—Ryan Thiessen | Vancouver
I actually thought that Christie Blatchford got it right in her original article in the Globe, and I commend her for having the guts to say it; political correctness be damned.
The guys that were ( OK allegedly) planning to blow up Parliament and behead Stephen Harper did not have names like Tony, Heather, Christie or for that matter, Aaron. If saying this as bluntly as Christie Blatchford did pains Heather Mallick's Canadian sensibilities, that's an unfortunate truth, but a truth that had to be told.
Freedom of Speech sometimes means you have to say the things that others are afraid to say, even if those things happen to be true.
—Tony Wilson | Vancouver
Her critique of Christie Blatchford's stereotyping of Muslims is absolutely on the mark. It pains me to think that this narrow-minded view of a diverse group of people might reflect the opinion of the majority of Canadians, as is suggested by the "brown-skinned" anecdote reported later in the column.
On the other hand, I believe Ms. Mallick and Robert Fisk miss the point of the term "Canadian-born". In my opinion, the use of the term is intended to indicate that the people so labelled are Canadians by birth as opposed to naturalized citizens.
The implications of this interpretation are that the alleged terrorists are not immigrants but native Canadians, and that the alleged threat to our national security originates at least in part from within the country.
I realize that this is not a novel argument, but it may be one that the Canadian government wishes to use when discussing with their American counterparts our porous borders and lax immigration policies.
—Ross Tyner | Armstrong, B.C.
Well, Heather, it is interesting that you would sooner drive a spoon in Jonathan Kay's heart than hear the term "brown-skinned". That says it all, doesn't it?
—Valerie Bauld | Amhesrt, N.S.
I'm always inspired by and grateful to Heather Mallick for her columns. She's brave, articulate, passionate and her intelligence and ability to follow the dots and be informed by the writing of others motivates me to read authors I've never heard of.
I too am very alarmed by the emerging racism against the Muslim community occurring in Canada. I'm not so naive as to believe that some Canadians aren't racist but for as long as I can remember most of them have thankfully kept their views to themselves although we have seen the tragic trashing of spaces held sacred by the Jewish community.
It's possible that others among us have remained silent because most Canadians, including the press, wouldn't tolerate Muslim bashing. Now with our newspapers using language that is, in my view, racist, permission has been granted, the field is open and should any violence be done to the Muslim community, the Canadian Press will bear significant responsibility.
Language is a very powerful tool - it tells us who we are and what we can aspire to. All of us need to use it very carefully.
—Sasha McInnes | Victoria
I am afraid Heather Mallick deludes herself. It is a liberal speciality.
The viewpoints she objects to are easily pricked here in Western Canada. They are resting barely beneath the surface , hiding behind sealed lips or foreign languages.
—Mark Cleminson
Mallick's whimpering left-liberal article on race and the media nearly drove me to tears, either with sympathy for the migrants in Canada who are treated better than they would be anywhere on earth, or for the hopelessness of the Canadian liberal left.
Those people are so racist that they think that all foreign/coloured/minority etc people are ashamed of what they are and do not want to be identified as what they in fact are, such as Muslim, coloured or any other kind of minority.
Why on earth do some folks take offence at being referred to exactly as what they in fact are? Are you ashamed of what you are? Does the truth hurt you? Try acting like a Canadian and you will surely be treated like one.
—D Muyers | Saskatoon
When does politically correctness become the enemy of reality?
I am proud of my Canadian tolerance. I have close friends from a multitude of ethnic communities, I have a Filipino wife.
And guess what? I disagree with the idealist tone of your article. I am frustrated by this over-the-top political correctness that does not deal with the global reality.
The Wahabi Sect, who's fundamentalist teaching are responsible for much of the violence throughout North Africa and the human tragedies in Sudan and Iraq, are the enemy of Western Civilization.
If I was to suggest that they should be declared a terrorist group and should be barred from immigrating to Canada am I politically incorrect? Am I a racist? Am I not Canadian enough for you?
I am neither of these! I am a realist.
People like you dupe the Canadian public into inaction. Must we blindly wait for innocent Canadian blood to be spilt before we stand up and speak out.
I do not accept your sanctimonious, politically correct condemnation that I am not Canadian enough for you!
—Grant Brown | Baghdad, Iraq
^TOP
|
|
 |
MENU |
|
|
ABOUT VIEWPOINT: |
Viewpoint is CBC.ca's place for informed opinion and commentary. Our goal is to provide a range of informed perspectives from around the world and here at home on issues of interest to Canadians. All material published in the Viewpoint section is subject to CBC’s journalistic policy, standards and practices.
Writing for Viewpoint
We accept queries from people with significant expertise in their field and previous writing experience. We are interested in domestic and international contributions. We do not accept unsolicited finished pieces.
If you want to contribute to Viewpoint, please send your query to letters@cbc.ca with VIEWPOINT in the subject line and please include three samples of your published work. Columns are typically 800 words in length and focus on timely issues, events or personal stories with wide appeal. Please familiarize yourself with our content before submitting your ideas. Only those accepted will be contacted.
|
|
FEEDBACK: |
|
|
MORE: |
|
|
|