Member of Parliament Kellie Leitch of Canada’s Conservative party proposed screening new immigrants for “anti-Canadian values” earlier in September through an email survey sent out by her campaign, resulting in expected attacks on what exactly Leitch means when she says “anti-Canadian.”
This is typical of Leitch’s dog-whistle politics, as she attempts to appeal to “old stock” Canadians—that is, those who may harbour feelings of “concern” towards the immigrant community, otherwise known as badly-disguised Islamophobia.
This is not the first time Leitch has targeted the Muslim community. During the federal election campaign in 2015, Leitch promoted a hotline to protect women from “barbaric cultural practices,” such as arranged marriages. She promptly apologized for this on national television just as she embarked on her run for the Conservative leadership campaign.
However, Leitch’s attacks on the Canadian Muslim community are not the only thing that is concerning about her policy. It also shows a willingness to determine what are or are not Canada’s values on behalf of its citizens.
This is problematic, as many of Leitch’s own values are not inherently Canadian. Leitch is openly anti-abortion, and as such it is likely that Canadians who support her would also support organizations such as the Institute of Canadian Values and Campaign Life Coalition. Both of these are anti-LGBT rights, anti-sex education, and also anti-abortion rights. Are these values not “anti-Canadian”?
Conservative Canadians voted for patriotism as the first most important Canadian value, and tolerance was voted as least important, according to a Forum Research poll in the Toronto Star. It’s clear who Leitch is appealing to with this policy.
The same poll also revealed that 29 per cent of Canadians believe the state has a role in telling women what they can or cannot wear, and 38 per cent believe we are allowing too many immigrants into Canada. Given the sensitive situation surrounding Syrian refugees arriving in Canada and the reality that many Syrians are Muslim, these questions are meant to imply an obvious target. As cleverly worded as they are, their generalization is meant to entice one’s most controversial feelings.
Through this, Leitch is employing a “vetting” technique in immigrant politics similar to the likes of Donald Trump, albeit not as extreme.
The same “barbaric cultural practices” and decision to wear the niqab fought by Leitch in 2015 are choices made consensually by many women. In Leitch’s supposed attempts to liberate women, she actually did the opposite by restricting their ability to make decisions for themselves. Now, Leitch is set up to make the same mistake again when it comes to Canadian values. What is more anti-Canadian, to be of a foreign faith or to legally condemn other beliefs?
Leitch’s screening process brings up difficult questions. Can Leitch truly decide for all Canadians what this nation’s values are? Can Canada’s population of approximately 35 million people agree on a unanimous definition of what constitutes anti-Canadian values?
Whatever the answers to those questions may be, this form of screening insinuates such an ardent racism that this practice in and of itself must be seen as anti-Canadian.
