The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved: Canada is a systemically racist country

Episode Date: June 24, 2021

The murder of four Muslim Canadians in London, Ontario; the discovery of a mass grave containing the remains of 215 children at a former residential school in BC; a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, Asians, and Jews across the country. As Canadians are confronted by racially-motivated attacks, both past and present, many have come to believe that these are not unique events. Racism in Canada, they argue, is embedded into our culture, our institutions, our media, and indeed the very fabric of our day-to-day lives. Sweeping reform in government, laws, and education must be undertaken to address the country's systemic racism and make Canada a safe place for all of its citizens. Others disagree with this assessment. While Canada's history has indeed featured institutionalized racism towards different groups, most notably towards its indigenous communities, the country has made remarkable progress in acknowledging its diversity and celebrating its differences. One-off hate crimes do not represent the majority of Canadians and their attitudes towards marginalized and racialized communities. As Canada's high rates of immigration attest, the country has won a global reputation as a welcoming home for all – regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality. To claim Canada is systemically racist is a gross mischaracterization that ignores the country's success as pluralistic democracy and undermines social cohesion. Arguing for the motion is Shree Paradkar, columnist and internal ombud, Toronto Star, Atkinson Fellow in Public Policy 2018-2019. Arguing against the motion is Rupa Subramanya, National Post colmnist and distinguished fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation. QUOTES: SHREE PARADKAR “History is not something that's a story that happened in the past, and that was magically resolved into some sort of equality today” RUPA SUBRAMANYA “We as Canadians continuously are working towards becoming more tolerant, inclusive, and welcoming to all people. This is a sign of a society moving in the right direction” Sources: CTV, Toronto Star, CITY News, CBC The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ The Munk Debates podcast is produced by Antica, Canada's largest private audio production company - https://www.anticaproductions.com/   Executive Producer: Stuart Coxe, CEO Antica Productions Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch Associate Producer: Abhi RahejaBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are options, and that's why we need to take this opportunity seriously. Probably you can prevent global warming unless China is part of the solution. This is not normal male behavior. This is predatory behavior. We don't know how bad this bug is. We don't know what this bug does. All of that was thrown away in those 8 minutes and 46 seconds, and that's the moment that I became an abolitionist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Welcome to the Mug Debates. Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day

to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved, Canada is a systemically racist country. The developing story out of British Columbia, a First Nation says the remains of more than 200 children have been located, buried on the side of a former residential school. In fact, the largest residential school. We begin in London, Ontario tonight, where a memorial grows for a Muslim family struck and killed in what police say was a targeted crime motivated by hate. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith.

Well, as Canadians are confronted by racially motivated attacks from the streets of London, Ontario, to the discovery of hundreds of unmarked graves of young children at a residential school in British Columbia, many have come to believe that these are not unique or isolated events. The reality is our Canada is a place of racism, of violence, of genocide of indigenous people, and our Canada is a place where Muslims aren't safe. Racism, they argue, is systemic. It is embedded in Canadian culture, in Canadian institutions, and in Canadian media. And just like in the United States, racism is woven into the very fabric of,

daily life in Canada. Sweeping reforms must be implemented to make the country an inclusive place for all of its citizens. Yet some Canadians are pushing back against this assessment. Thank God that we're different than the United States and we don't have the systemic, deep roots they have had for years. I'm proud to be Canadian. I'm proud to be the Premier of Ontario. And I know Canadians just won't tolerate it. That's Ontario's Premier Doug Ford. Opponents of the argument that Canada is a systemically racist country argue that while the nation has featured institutionalized racism towards different groups in the past,

and today, remarkable progress is being made on diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism. One-off hate crimes do not represent. the attitudes of the vast majority of Canadians towards marginalized and racialized communities. Canada they maintain is a welcoming place for all, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality. On this installment of the monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, Canada is a systemically racist country. Arguing for the motion is Shuri Paradkar. She's a race and gender calmist at the Toronto. Star, as well as the paper's internal ombudsman. Arguing against the motion is Rupa Subramanya.

She is a national post columnist and distinguished fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation. Cherie, Rupa, welcome to the Mug Debates. Hi. Hi, Roger. Very much looking forward to today's debate. Our resolution today, be it resolved, Canada is a systemically racist country, has been a feature of national debate over the last period of time. We are in a matter of a week or so going to be celebrating our national holiday Canada Day. So this is a good opportunity to kind of reflect on the state of our nation

as it comes to how we think about Canada and whether we are in fact a tolerant society. So to have the opportunity to connect with the two of you who have very different views and perspectives on this issue informed by your own experiences is really a pleasure indeed. So I thank you on behalf of the Monk Debates community for being part of this conversation. As I mentioned, our resolution simple to the point, be it resolved, Canada is a systemically racist country. Sheree, you're going to be arguing in favor of the motion, so I'm going to put two minutes on the clock and turn the program over to you. Thanks, Rudyard, and thanks for having me. I'd like to begin by saying that there are certain statements that people find soothing. You know, that's those who have never experienced racism

or those who experience it lightly, but still benefit from the system of white supremacy. And the statements go something like this. Canada is a nation of nice and polite people. Canada is an epitome of multiculturalism. And yes, we have a few things that we've done that are wrong in the past, but that was in the past. We are essentially a force of good. And we are a benevolent project. And when these statements come from immigrants and refugees, they are doubly soothing. In fact, gratitude is the only statement that is allowed or the only sentiment that's allowed to refugees and immigrants because any critique is viewed as ingratitude. So this kind of a box, you know, one that fetters people's expressions, is an integral feature

in all oppressions. These exist all around the world. But the oppression that's prominent in Canada is systemic racism. And I like to divide our understanding of systemic racism into two parts. One, does it exist? And two, what do we do about it? My position that Canada is systemically racist is founded on a mountain of evidence. You know, it's anecdotal, statistical, visual, analytical. But I believe that the position that Canada is not systemically racist is based on assumptions and feelings such as fear or it's motivated by profit because denial is extremely insulting to black and First Nations, Inoui and Méti people who have suffered criminal and genocidal acts of race-based violence committed against them. You know, people who've been

tortured, they've been terrorized for centuries and they continue to suffer today. And I think denial also serves a valuable function to the project of white supremacist. You know, because every time the conversation seems like it's moving towards, what do we do about it? Denial pulls us back to that first part. Does it exist? And as long as we keep arguing about this point, does it really exist, then that denial means we need no change, we need no reflection, we need no accountability. And denial becomes complicity. We were at this point after last summer's protests for Black Lives when people such as Quebec Premier,

Francois LeGo said that there was no systemic racism in Quebec. I'm happy to note that since then, there has been a fundamental shift in Canadians' understanding of systemic racism. You framed today's discussion as a civil conversation, but I want to note that for those who are most impacted by racism, this is not just a conversation or an abstract level discussion. It's a topic about life and death, their life, their death. and the barriers that the system puts up to their success.

At some point in today's discussion, I would also like to be given an opportunity to quickly explain what systemic racism is, but I'll leave it at that for now. No, absolutely, Shari. Let's do that. In fact, it's going to be one of my first questions to you both. Let's ensure that we're arguing on the same terms and if we can, the same understanding.

So Rupa, you're up with your opening statement. You're arguing against our motion today, be it resolved. Canada is a systemically racist. country. A couple minutes on the clock for you to Precy's your opening arguments for us. Thank you, Rudyard. And thanks to the Monk Debates for inviting me to take part in this very important debate. In all humility, I'm arguing against the resolution, not because I believe racism does not exist in Canada, but because I do not believe it crosses the threshold to be called

systemic racism. If anything, we're moving in the opposite direction and becoming a more inclusive society. So do you want to know what systemic racism looks like? Let's look at apartheid South Africa, where a system of laws and rules limited where black people could live and the occupations they could engage in, whom they could marry and denied them the right to elect their government. Racism was essentially baked into their constitution and laws. That was a system rigged to benefit the white person. Or look at segregation America, where blacks were forced to ride at the back of the bus. And Jim Crow laws essentially disenfranchised them.

Now let's look at Canada of today. Is this what you see? Do we have anything like this in Canada? I'd say no. Look at our parliament populated by people of all races, religions and backgrounds. Look at our provincial legislatures. Look at the media.

Look at the talking heads on TV. Our opinion makers. And all the experts who've guided public policy making during COVID. They're overwhelmingly people of color, They're Hindu Canadians, Muslim Canadians, black Canadians, Asian Canadians, new immigrants, as well as people born here. And also, may I say that the two people debating, arguing on opposite sides of the debate today, were both women of color and we both achieved some success in Canada and were debating racism in Canada.

And that, I believe, that in itself is evidence against the resolution. All of this tells me that despite individual incidents of racism, which most certainly exists in Canada, including the horrific tragedy in London a few weeks ago, Canada is not systemically racist and beyond redemption. We have problems, sure, and I believe we're acknowledging these problems and working on fixing them. And this is why you should agree with me and oppose the resolution. Thank you. Thank you, Rupa. Terrific opening statements. Now a chance for rebuttal. So this is your opportunity both to kind of reflect on what you've just heard. Give us a sense of your counterarguments. Shari, another couple of minutes on the clock for you to do just that.

Okay. I would say Canada is very much founded on apartheid. In fact, Canada's apartheid even inspired Germany's Hitler in terms of how we treat our indigenous people, in terms of the fact that we were founded on the idea of exploitation and then theft of land. And we've always had, you know, the example. example that was brought up was South Africa and where black people can only live in certain quarters. Well, that was very much the experience in Canada, too. We've had segregation,

you know, in the U.S. that was mentioned, but we have had segregation of schools in Canada, the last segregated school in Ontario closed down in 1965. And let me tell you, desegregation of schools did not automatically mean integration of schools either, but that's a different topic. And in terms of representation, if we talk about the media, the media is more than the media is more than 90% white. So we don't have that kind of representation. We don't have, you know, yes, we have in the liberal government, we've had more people of color in positions of visibility. But if you look at the bureaucrats, if you look at the back office, even in the current government, no, it's not at all representative. If you look at city halls, if you look at, you know, state

level legislatures, yes, you have some people who are visibly minority, but a few examples, doesn't negate a whole system of racism. You know, and Obama being a black president of the United States is not proof that there is no racism in the United States. He is an exception, not the rule. So I think it's really important to not valorize individual achievements as anything more than individual. Many individuals succeed despite the circumstances.

And I think it's really important to underline what is that despite. And as for, you know, Rupa and I are both, as she rightly said, women of color. I'm guessing, you know, immigrants to this country. But we are not the worst sufferers of racism in this country. We, too, benefit from the system of white supremacy to a certain extent. But it's black people and its First Nations Inui and Nathi people who are the worst sufferers. And that is what this discussion is about.

It's not about personal experiences. It's about a system. Thank you. So, Rupa, your opportunity now for a rebuttal of your own. You can reflect on Shri's opening statement or what she's just said. Thanks, Radiard. So quickly, I believe Shri is setting up a straw man. No one's sensible or honest can deny that racism exists in Canada. I'm not denying that racism exists in Canada. But let's keep in mind what systemic racism looks like. It's a system of racism that's baked into the country's institutions, the constitution, the laws. And even data doesn't support what she's been saying. If you look at a 2016 Statistics Canada report on black Canadians, for example, they're roughly on par on education and employment similar to other communities in Canada. And also, we cannot look at Canada today as Canada in 1867.

Canada has evolved considerably since then. I believe Canada has even involved in the last two decades that I've been here. And also we're not debating whether Canada was racist at its founding. We're debating whether Canada in 2021 is systemically racist. And I also want to say that she seems to think there's a utopian world that exists where there is no racism and discrimination. And I believe that world doesn't exist. It never has.

Thank you, Rupa. My opportunity now to join the debate and excellent opening statements, setting out the arguments prone con, very nicely here. So, Shri, to pick up where you left off, I want to come to both of you just quickly for a sense of what your definition of systemic racism is. I mean, I went to the Webster's dictionary, as we all do, the Miriam Webster, and they define systemic as, quote, relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part. Now, that doesn't get us all the way to an answer, but I'd really like both of you, your views on what does systemic mean in the context of racism and Canada.

Thanks, Adieu. Just before I get to how I understand systemic racism, I want to push back against that data a little bit. The unemployment rate for black women and men in Toronto is about one and a half times higher than the rate for, you know, when and women of the rest of the population. This is according to the 2016 census. We see similar suspension rates, expulsion rates for black children in high schools. We see being stopped by police for no apparent reason, far more likely to be arrested, charged, shot. So there is plenty of data that shows that there is racism.

And I am talking about this century. I'm not talking about 1867. And it's also sad to think that equality would be considered utopian. I'm not looking for utopia where everybody is happy and wearing garlands of flowers. I'm just talking about equality of opportunity. Systemic racism to me looks like this. All of us, all of us, absorb centuries of messages of whom we consider superior,

whom we consider inferior, whom we consider good-looking, whom we consider capable, whom criminal, whom credible. This individual mindset that we all have influences action. So who gets punished at school, who gets put into child welfare, who gets stopped by police, who gets jobs, who gets a loan, who gets a home, who gets thrown in prison.

And the individual mindset also informs policy, which leads to discriminatory laws. So to me, this intersection of individual bias with institutional policies and societal structures creates a system that is embedded with discrimination and sometimes so toxic that it can be lethal. So by systems, I mean the education system, the criminal justice system, the health care system, institutions, whether they are private corporations or crown corporations such as children's aid. That is systemic discrimination. And when it is founded on the idea that Europeans are inherently advanced and superior, it turns into systemic racism. Thank you, Shuri. So similar opportunity for you, Rupa, to define systemic, how, what is that?

You've given the example of South Africa. Let's hear a bit more from you on the kind of levels and parameters that you would put around that word in the context of understanding Canada and understanding racism in the country today. Thanks, Rodier. So systemic racism, I believe, is a system of racism that is built into a country's laws, institutions, constitutions, etc. So if you go by that definition, I would say that Canada was systemically racist towards indigenous people. in 1867. But let's look at Canada of today. We have the Charter of Rights. We have human rights commissions. We have affirmative, aggressive affirmative action codes. And we have institutions that deal with racism. We have a justice system. We have a free media that reports incidents of

racism and highlights it and perpetrators are brought to justice. And I'd like to push back a little bit on what she referred to about Toronto. So Toronto is not the whole country. If you look at the 2016 Stats Canada report that I mentioned earlier, just a quick example. So among the non-immigrant population, 18% of black men had a bachelor's degree or higher in 2016 compared to 31% of black women, a similar situation in the rest of the population. So a higher percentage of black women have a university degree or higher than black men. Is this racism? Would you say this is racism? Obviously not. So raw data needs to be interpreted very carefully because it can lead you as straight causal inferences based on such raw data without controlling for important differences are problematic. Isn't true more black Canadians live in a low-income situation of the population as a whole? But then can you conclude thereby that this is because of systemic racism?

No, for example, consider a study which compares the percentages of highly educated white men with university and above, but those with high school or less. And you'd find a similar disparity. But here the obvious reason is differences in educational attainment, not race. So any meaningful statistical analysis, I believe, to determine if their systemic racism has to control for differences such as age, gender, educational attainment, work experience, etc. Thank you, Rupa. So Shuri, maybe to come back on that point, I'd like the, I think the audience would appreciate your thoughts on that, that a lot of what we see in society are people's personal decisions, people making choices. And then when we aggregate those choices together, we have to be careful about what that data actually says about society. Why would you reject that argument? Because it's correct that data should be correctly interpreted. When we talk about, we talk about, you know, why Toronto and not Canada, it's, you know, we're talking about daytime about black people specifically in Toronto because this is where the highest population of

black people live. And it's a good metric to see how, what the black experience is here, which would be far more diffused if we look at it across the country. First of all, let's start with the education system because we're talking about graduation rates. Right from school system, black people, boys and girls, are disqualified from entering university because of the streaming system. So you are sent into the academic, not the academic, but the applied courses and you are streamed out of university. Those who persist and still make it may do some post-graduation, post-secondary graduation. And then in school as well, black people and black children and indigenous children are the highest disproportionately

represented among the suspension rates, expulsion rates. So you go through all that. You experience all of that and you still make it to university and now it comes time for a job. Well, we have enough data in Canada across Canada to show that if you have a name that sounds white versus a name that sounds black in your resume, the former has a 50% higher chance of getting a job. So now you have a barrier at employment. And once you're employed, then we see a lot of entry level people. There was a report recently or two years ago on corporate Canada that showed that no, you have entry-level people in corporations, but not at middle and then senior levels. It starts to drop off. And of course, some of this can be personal responsibility. I'm sure there are people who don't take

every opportunity that come their way. But now we're talking about barriers that have come up through the education system alone. Add to this housing barriers, which means they're living in overcrowded homes, add to this policing barriers, which comes from being criminalized. You know, even we know data that black people with no criminal history are likely to be three times more likely to be arrested with a small amount of cannabis than were white people. And black people were also more likely to be detained without bail. So now we're putting an added barriers at every level. And then we are saying, but weren't you pulling yourself up by the bootstack? That's the suggestion. Right? Like there's a personal responsibility angle. So yes, everybody must take personal

responsibilities, but the opportunity to do so has to be the same, and it is not. That's why I reject the argument that data shows that overall they're all doing fine, and it's just a, you know, people who are as individuals not doing their bit. Hi, Monk podcast listeners, Rudyard Griffith here, your host and moderator. A big thank you to all of our listeners. We've achieved an important milestone. One million downloads in 18 short months since we started the Monk Debates podcast. That's a testament to you, our listeners, appetite for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. Please write a review about the Monk Debates podcast in your podcast store. Like us on social media, spread the word

about civil and substantive debate via this pod. Thanks again for all your support and for helping us achieve this important milestone, a million downloads in 18 months. Now, back to our program. So, Rupa, a similar question for you, which is, you know, I think there's a preponderance of evidence to show that in Canada there's a lot of racialization of poverty. That people who are black and brown are more likely to experience periods of poverty in their lives and for longer durations than other groups. So just some, you know, big simple fact like that. Doesn't that suggest to you that there are certain systemic, forces at work in society that are leading to that outcome because the studies are not showing

that white people are experiencing, you know, rates of extended poverty for periods that are equivalent to non-white groups. So, Rudyard, I, we have to look at social pathologies at work in some of these situations and other differences. Social pathologies such as single-parent homes, domestic violence, addiction issues, etc. Let's look at Asian Canadians and South Asian Canadians. They're among the most successful people in Canada and in the U.S. for that matter. And they're prominent in every profession that I can think of. If you look at education, for example, let's look at economics and STEM programs. You'll see a disproportionately large number of South Asian and Asian Canadians. Does that mean there's systemic discrimination in their

favor in these fields. Likewise, if you look at the arts programs in Canada, like literature and philosophy, they're overwhelmingly dominated by old stock white Canadians. Does this mean there is systemic discrimination? Obviously not in both cases. And I think this reflects a difference in choice, the choice that you mentioned earlier. And we can speculate on the reasons, but doesn't make for systemic discrimination in my opinion. I'll give you my own personal example. I live in Ottawa. I've applied for more jobs than I can count in Ottawa. I have had no success. Is that because of racism?

I've never made that assumption. More likely it's because my French is not as fluent as employers, especially the federal government are looking for. Is that unfair? Yes, because I speak several other languages other than English. Maybe, but then I remind myself that I chose to come to Canada and settle in Ottawa, where the main employer is the federal government. And a certain level of bilingualism is mandated.

As tempting as it would be to say that this is because of racism, this would be giving myself an easy out. This is simply not true. I don't think it's fair to portray people of color as victims. And also, we can't just cherry pick data when it's not going our way. We can't just cherry pick the data that we want to use. And I'm going by the hard facts, by the Stats Canada report, and unemployment rates for the country as a whole between black. Canadians and the rest of the population, these indicators are not diverging. They're actually converging. So there have been improvements. I do believe we're moving in the right direction.

And it's still a work in progress. I would be alarmed if these indicators were all diverging and outcomes were worsening over the years. But I see the opposite in the data. So Sheree, let's, Rupa brings up an interesting phrase there, which is, you know, a work in progress. So people listening might say, look, we're not systemically racist in Canada because we can point to a legacy of progress. People would argue that there has been the emancipation of various groups in societies, the extension of rights. I mean, let's move away from, you know, material indicators of relative incomes or educational attainment, just simply to individual freedoms that people enjoy universally regardless of race, ethnicity or background.

Sheree, let's hear a little bit from you, maybe why you're skeptical that the argument that, yes, progress is happening is one that, you know, should make us feel less anxious about the potential for Canada to be a systemically racist society. So I think who's us, you know,

and at whose rate is this progress going? And who is comfortable with that rate of progress? I'm okay. I'm not the oppressed person in this country. But for black people and for indigenous people and anybody else who is oppressed, I would say that, no, we are not going at a fast rate. Perhaps we are no longer lynching people on trees, but is that a measure of progress? Now, I know it's a little bit hard, you know, just using that as an example. But I want to say that history is not something that's a story that happened in the past and that was magically resolved into some sort of equality today.

right? There's nothing inexorable about equality. It has to be worked on. So if we think of residential schools, and the last of which incidentally closed in 1997, so not that far in the past, but anyway, we might say that, okay, look, we've progressed. We no longer have residential schools. So we've changed a few laws and we've changed a few policies. But how were those attitudes changed? The disdain for the guardians of this land still persists. And if attitudes are the same, then the laws and policies function the same as before. They just shape-shift into more politically acceptable ways or into ways that offer plausible deniability.

Because today, we don't have residential schools, but Canada still removes indigenous children from their families at rates that are among the highest in the developed world. There are three times as many indigenous children in care today than there were in residential schools at their peak. And in fact, Canada is fighting First Nations children in foster care in court, denying them compensation and denying non-status kids access to health care. So I'm also very wary of bringing in this myth of the model minority of Asians and East Asians. Because first of all, I want to acknowledge that for South Asians to be able to immigrate here, it came on the backs of a lot of black.

activism with the civil rights movement in the in the US and then it you know the the ideas filtered up north as well thank you shir you know rupa one of the kind of glaring um symbols right now of state institutionalized racism in canada is is bill 21 in quebec that um that um has the quebec government effectively banning persons who exhibit any kind of religious identity in their dress, in their presentation from holding employment with a public service, holding public office. So a woman with a hijab effectively can no longer be a teacher in Quebec in 2021. So, I mean, how would you square something like that, which just seems so demonstrably unfair

and prejudicial against certain minority groups in this country with a narrative of progress that this country is becoming less, not more racist? It certainly doesn't seem the case with Bill 21 in Quebec. So right here, what's happening in Quebec, they're following the French Laicite model, right? And it doesn't just apply to the hijab. It applies to religious garbs of all kinds, including Roman Catholics who wear the crucifix. So I'm not sure why we're just singling out Muslim women wearing hijabs here. It applies to everybody.

But quickly, I want to just push back a little bit. on what Sri said earlier on indigenous people. Look, we've had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which acknowledged cultural genocide. That's an important step. Land claims are going through the court system. There's affirmative action. Universities are now taking diversity very seriously. I just don't get it when people ventriloquise people of color. It's a little problematic, don't you think? And no one says that history doesn't exist or it's just disappeared. And the picture that Shri paints is really bleak and it doesn't match reality or the data for that matter. And again, no one said Asian Canadians or South Asian Canadians were a modeled minority.

You know, I just simply don't agree with the bleak picture that Shree paints. Thank you, Rupa. We're starting to move towards closing statements. But Shri, I want to pick up on one of Rupa's earlier interjections towards the beginning of this debate, which is effectively, if Canada is systemically racist, then what country is not systemically racist? In other words, does the very phrase and charge lose its resonance and meaning

because all societies presumably have institutional biases? So Canada, in effect, is really how different than any other nation, anywhere, that anyone might exist in and face different barriers to their full realization as a human being. Do you have a rebuttal to that argument? No, I agree. You know, how different is Canada? It's not.

There are oppressions around the world, different oppressions. They may not be racism. Thanks to globalization and colonialism, they may be influenced by racism. But, for instance, where Rupa and I come from, there's casteism, which is not originated or has any relationship. in its origins to white supremacy. So there are oppressions around the world. The trouble is that we believe we are a force of good and a benevolent project. There's not going to ever be complete equality in terms of how people view each other.

There's not going to be a society where people don't have certain prejudices against each other. But we are talking about systemically applying them. We're talking about systemic barriers, you know, to hiring and to retention. and to promotions and to, you know, housing and, you know, in the criminal justice system. So how different is Canada? Well, if Canada is no different, why then do we constantly want this pat on our back that we are, you know, nice and kind people and that we are the world's peacekeepers? You know, why is it that children in our school are not taught non-European history, for instance?

You know, why are they told on Memorial Day about how, you know, how Canada is such a force of good in the world and we've, you know, lost people. And we don't acknowledge all the, you know, in the photos that flash up in school arenas, we don't acknowledge indigenous soldiers, black soldiers, Sikh soldiers, you know, and it's very much a white-centric system. Right. So if we believe we are just like anybody else, then we should be more inclusive with all of those visions, but we are not. So Rupa, let's have your reply to that. that the issue really here is the hypocrisy.

It's not that other societies are maybe more fair, more just, or more equal. It's that in Canada, we have a myth, and the myth is powerful. It's strong. It's a myth of diversity and our supposed world-leading, world-beating status as a multicultural, diverse society,

yet we bear with us the same, you know, intransigent or tractable systemic barriers to people reaching their full potential as anyone else. We just don't have the courage to admit it. So, Reggaard, I'm not sure why this is why you would consider this a myth. I mean, just take a look at this world value survey. Less than 5% of Canadians surveyed said yes to the question. Would you be uncomfortable living next to a person of a different race? Just less than 5%.

and Canada was at the top of the league tables. Let me just, you know, also mention to you that a lot of immigrants who've come to this country have already been racialized before even coming to Canada or even before meeting a white person. I certainly was. I lived in India in the Middle East and I've faced all kinds of discrimination. In the Middle East, I was discriminated against because I was not Muslim and I was not Arab. and in India there's an obsession with fair skin, and I was seen as a dark-skinned Indian kid,

and so there were deep prejudices, and these prejudices can be very vicious. So I'm not sure why you would say that this is a myth. I think this is a country that is work in progress. It's acknowledged that there are problems of racism in the country. There are individual incidents of racism. We acknowledge that there's work to do, and I said we have institutions and laws,

is in place that will address these problems, unlike most countries in the world, unlike most countries that immigrants come from, by the way. And so this is still a work in progress. It's a country that is evolving. As I mentioned earlier, it's a country that has evolved quite a bit even since the time I've been here. And that's been a little more than two decades ago. And I'm heartened to see that Canada is moving in the right direction.

Thank you, Rupa. Shari, I want to come back to you just on one final thing. As I mentioned off the top of the show in the next week. to 10 days, we'll be gearing up for our big national holiday, Canada Day. This is a time of year for our American listeners where we celebrate something very similar to the 4th of July, a lot of pomp and circumstance and celebration of the past. Sheree, how are you going to be thinking about Canada Day this year? That's a really good question. I have been thinking about it a lot. personally, I'm grateful, you know, in Canada for the opportunities I've had, the physical space,

the incredible beauty of the land, the relationships I form, the job I have, the freedom I have to advocate for rights, and the relative social openness to criticism, right? Yes, I do face my share of white supremacists, overt white supremacists, but that's, you know, that's to be expected, I think. Now, how do people like me reconcile with the cost that it took Canada to get here and the cost that it continues to take there? Because it's coming out of the suffering of certain groups of people. And as an optimist, I usually mark Canada Day, not for what it is, but what it really has the potential to be. This year, though, with the discovery of the mass graves at Ticamloops Residential School in British Columbia, an estimated 250 children, it's become really clear that what July 1st celebrates is colonization, oppression, genocide, because we still have the blood of these children on our hands. We still have First Nations who don't have access to clean drinking water.

And, you know, I can't look away from the fact that every single treaty that indigenous peoples have signed to share this land with settlers across the ocean has been broken. So, sure, I'll take the start holiday because I need a break, but it won't be a day of celebration or doing fireworks. I don't know. This year, we might wear orange t-shirts instead. Thank you, Sheree. So, Rupa, we're going to move to closing statements. So an opportunity for you to wrap up your key arguments. Two minutes on the clock.

Please, give us your summing up. Thanks, Roger. So from Sri, you've heard arguments in favor of the resolution that Canada is systemically racist and that people of color are doing worse than everyone else where she points to individual incidents of racism, claiming that this represents systemic racism. But please ask yourselves, what is our point of comparison?

Are we comparing, Canada to a utopian world in which there is no racism and there is no discrimination of any kind. Sadly, such a place does not exist anywhere on planet Earth and never has. And I believe that's an unfair test. The question you must ask yourself is whether Canada has the institutions and rules to prevent, if possible, or if not punish racism or other forms of discrimination when they occur. And I think the answer is yes. We have robust laws. that prohibit discrimination. We have affirmative action codes. The provinces have human rights commissions. And we have a free media that exposes incidents of racism and that perpetrators are

brought to justice. I believe Canada is one of the most tolerant countries in the world. And the world value survey, which I mentioned earlier, settles that for me. The truth is, in many countries where immigrants to Canada come from, including where I come from, my country of origin India, the level of racism is much higher by orders of magnitude. And let's also remember, racism can manifest itself as caste discrimination, as often happens in India. Many immigrants to Canada, including myself, were racialized long before we came here, as I mentioned earlier. So by any reasonable standard and not some unrealistic and utopian standard, systemic racism does not exist in Canada. And we as Canadians continuously are working towards

becoming more tolerant, inclusive, and welcoming to all people. I think this is a sign of a society moving in the right direction. It's progressing or not regressing. And that is why I think you should agree with me and oppose this resolution, which I think unfairly tarnishes Canada and Canadians as systemically racist. This is certainly not the Canada I came to as a student more than two decades ago, where I was warmly welcomed by everyone in the country I now cherish as a home. And I believe this is not the Canada you would recognize either.

So I think you must oppose the resolution. Thank you, Rupa. Now we're going to go to Shari for the final word in our debate, be it resolved. Canada is a systemically racist country. Shari, you've been arguing in favor of the motion. Bring this debate to a close for us. Thank you. If Canada is, as a society, is progressing, let it be known that it's on the backs

of advocacy on the back of a lot of sacrifice, a lot of sophisticated analysis and study and activism of black and indigenous people. One thing I'd like to ask our listeners is to not consider unconscious bias when they're thinking of this conversation, but to reflect on any ideas that they have that are not examined. Because the question I have is that if we all agree that racist violence is evil, and I like to believe that we all agree with that, then why is it still happening? And that's because I can see that we don't agree what constitutes bigotry, and therefore we don't recognize it. We are deeply conditioned to accept that people have a place in the social pecking order, that, you know, it is arranged in Canada and in the

US, artificially around upholding whiteness, maleness, able-bodied, and heterogeneity at the center, and everything else is measured as a deviance from that center. So ultimately, I would like our listeners to understand that criticism of Canada is a call for human rights for all. It's about not shunning away from uncomfortable truths, and it's about affording every single one of us a chance at a dignified life. Shari, thank you for that closing statement, and thank you both Rupa and Shari for being part of this debate. You know, discussing issues of race are never easy. These are often conversations that become very divisive and challenging for people to connect with. But I think today we've shown the possibility

for civil and substantive conversation on a difficult, pressing national debate. So on behalf of our community, thank you both, Sherea, for coming on the monk debates today. Thank you for having us. Thank you for happiness, Roger. Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Shari, and Rupa for a terrific and thoughtful debate. They certainly gave me a lot to think about. I'm sure you've got some questions, feedback, and reflections. Please share them with us by email at podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debateswithan S.com. Here's a note from Edward about our recent debate on the origins of COVID-19. The strong measure is taken by. by the Chinese government to suppress information, makes it hard to dismiss the theory that COVID-19 has a human-engineered component,

and it may have escaped from some institution in China, whether it's the virology lab in Wuhan or somewhere else is irrelevant. Thanks, Edward. A reminder that our members-only podcast, which comes out every Friday, is yours to listen to at any time as a perk of our free basic membership.

You can access that membership at monkdebates.com forward slash membership. The Monk Debates podcast is that special place for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. Thank you for letting your support to our mission to bring back the art of public debate

one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are produced by Antica Productions and supported by the Monk Foundation. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gurwitz are the producers. Api Rahaja is the associate producer. The Monk Debate podcast is mixed by Kieran Lynch. The president of Antica Productions is Stuart Cox.

Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.