Have you read that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that rock promoter Bruce Allen didn't violate ethical codes during a commentary where he said that immigrants should "shut up and fit in" or go home? If you haven't heard of the controversy yet, then I should also mention the irony: Bruce Allen is part of the ceremonies planning committee of the 2010 Olympics... In other words, he's planning one of the biggest multi-cultural events that Vancouver will ever broadcast to the world... yet he publicly states that immigrants should either "assimilate" or leave?

Here's his comment in its entirety:
"I'm Bruce Allen. This is CKNW and this is your "Reality Check". If I didn't know any better it would seem there's been a lot of immigrant bashing going on in the past few months. A month ago, the Sikh community was all up in arms over Passport Canada, refusing to issue passports to three Sikh kids because they were wearing religious headgear for the photos. The children were wearing those handkerchiefs which are knotted at the top of the head to keep their hair intact. That incident came on the heels of an immigration plan that was in the works, to have Sikhs with the surname Singh or Khan to change those names, so as to avoid administrative mistakes. Too many Singhs, too many Khans - that was the problem. And now we've got a controversy over the fact that Elections Canada has said that it's all right to have Burqa-covered Muslim women vote in elections when it's very clear that voters have to be able to be identified when going to the polls. All of these issues join the list that contains the turban-wearing Mounties problem and the one where the motorcycle rider was angry that he had to wear the helmet - as it was impossible to get it on over his turban. This is all very simple. We have laws in this country. They are spelled out and they're easy to get a hold of. If you're immigrating to this country and you don't like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here. But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in. We are a democracy, but it seems, more and more, that we are being pilloried by special interest groups that just want to make special rules for themselves. This is easy to solve: these are the rules, there is the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it. We don't need you here. You have another place to go: it's called home. See ya. I'm Bruce Allen and this is the Giant CKNW Newstalk 980."

I wondered where his "freedom of speech" played a part in. Because although his comments go against the ethics of many human-right philosophers, such as Schmidt and Young, (but not the ethics of the Canadian Broadcast Standards apparently) freedom of speech has a tendency to make ethical lines fuzzy for me. As much as I'm for freedom of speech, I think hate speech should still be highly scrutinized. But regardless of freedom of speech, the real question is not about whether he should have the right to say what he did, but whether Bruce Allen is an ideal candidate for a worldwide multi-cultural event hosted by Canada (a country that openly celebrates diversity among immigrants as oppose to requiring them to assimilate).

Bruce Allen's statements are not only a narrow-minded perspective on a broad issue, but they also try to simplify the complexity of diversification, multiculturalism and racial tolerance into a black and white issue. Instead, the complexity of the issue should have been outlined in his commentary, with the different levels of racial oppression that go beyond the paradigm represented. The very act of trying to use a quick-fix generalization that produces only two choices on polar extremes,"fit in" or "go home," exemplifies the intolerant and offensive demeanor of his statements. Because it exempts the sensitivity and negotiation that multiculturalism requires.

Before I go on, I have to not only acknowledge that he apologized for certain things he said but that even with those apologies there is still racism behind the point he was trying to make during his apology. He never apologized for his "point" and that's the part that I consider racist. Despite giving Allen's comments a second chance and incorporating his apology Allen's logic should be taken seriously for it's racial tension, marginalization, and manipulation of power dynamics, whether consciously done or not.

Bruce Allen proposed: "You cannot be assimilated if you sit there all the time defending your right to bring in your culture, all your stuff, and disregard ours." The first question that should arise from analyzing this statement is even if what Allen claims is true, should ethnic minorities want to "assimilate" in the first place? Allen's belief is that defending one's cultural right is a form of preventing one from being “assimilated.” He is assuming that his idea is the cultural norm and what is "universal" among Canadian-belief (despite the Canadian government's constant declaration of being multicultural). One should also note that when he states no one can disregard "our" culture, he positions his culture as the dominant one in a multicultural society. Here, as in other parts of his speech, Bruce Allen tries to close the dialogue on multiculturalism by claiming that one hasn't the right to disregard his culture yet that he has the right to disregard theirs. He not only positions his idea of culture as the dominant one but he also excludes the possibility for a balance discourse between the two cultures.

Is Allen's culture even the dominant one?
To help put things into perspective, one should consider Allen's description about himself as a "product of immigrants" in his second broadcast. As an immigrant, how would his culture come off to certain natives who already have their own practice? Does his culture "assimilate" with the native procedures?

My point is, that the way to solve the problems Allen has is not by inflating the problem into a binary of choices, such as “stay” or “leave.” The important thing to bring about is dialogue, conversation and education. If there’s one thing that holds any value in Bruce Allen’s comments, it’s his very last one where he states: “The only good thing coming out of this is <incomprehensible> ? dialogue. People are talking. Many are talking to me and I have learned a great deal.” Great progress Allen, but this brings me back to my original point: Should Canada still have someone who is only now scratching the surface on racial-dialogue as part of the committee welcoming foreign people to the 2010 Olympics? Wouldn't it hurt Canada's highly advertised image of being a "mosaic" of different cultures when a member of their committee is broadcasting the opposite view?