INCLUSION - Brotherhood of St. Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/1796/1/Social... · 2015. 9. 16. · social inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot

Anver Saloojee

W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E S

PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL INCLUSION

Social Inclusion,Anti-Racism

and Democratic Citizenship

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 3

Professor Saloojee teaches in the Department of Politics and School of Public Administration,Ryerson University, Toronto. He is a Board member of the Laidlaw Foundation, on the Executive Committee

of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and Chair of its Equity Committee.


Anver Saloojee



Copyright © 2003 The Laidlaw Foundation

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of theLaidlaw Foundation.

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Saloojee, Anver, 1951-Social inclusion, anti-racism and democratic citizenship / Anver Saloojee.

(Working paper series Perspectives on social inclusion)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-9731957-1-1

1. Race discrimination. 2. Social integration. 3. Multiculturalism. 4. Social integration--Government policy. I. Laidlaw Foundation II. Title.III. Series: Perspectives on social inclusion working paper series.

FC105 M8 S23 2003 305.8 C2003-900438-4 F1035.A1S23 2003

The Laidlaw Foundation365 Bloor Street East, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3L4Tel.: (416) 964-3614 Fax: (416) 975-1428

PresidentPaul Zarnke

Executive DirectorNathan Gilbert

Editing and LayoutIs five Communications

This paper is part of the Laidlaw Foundation’s Working Paper Series, Perspectives on SocialInclusion. The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French and English can be down-

loaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion or ordered from [email protected]: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries (Taxes do not apply and shipment included).


iii

Table of Contents

About the Laidlaw Foundation..................................................................v

Foreword..............................................................................................vii

Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship...............................1

Introduction..........................................................................................1

Racism as Social Exclusion........................................................................2

Social Inclusion and Democratic Citizenship: Understanding the

Limits of Multiculturalism........................................................................9

Public Policy Approaches That Make Social Inclusion Real...........................14

Conclusions.........................................................................................18

Endnotes.............................................................................................19

Bibliography.........................................................................................20

iv


v

About the Laidlaw Foundation

The Laidlaw Foundation is a private, public-interest foundation that uses its human and financialresources in innovative ways to strengthen civic engagement and social cohesion. The Foundationuses its capital to better the environments and fulfill the capacities of children and youth, to enhancethe opportunities for human development and creativity and to sustain healthy communities andecosystems.

The Foundation supports a diverse portfolio of innovative and often unconventional projects in threeprogram areas: in the arts, in the environment and improving the life prospects for children, youthand families.

Working for social inclusion is a theme that underlies much of the Foundation’s activities. The keywords in the Foundation’s mission — human development, sustainable communities and ecosystems— imply that achievement will rely on the enhancement of capacity and capability. Not only is socialinclusion being developed as an emerging funding stream, it is an embedded Laidlaw Foundationvalue, both structurally and programmatically.

Nathan GilbertExecutive Director

For more information about the Laidlaw Foundation please contact us at:

The Laidlaw FoundationTel: 416 964-3614Fax: 416 975-1428Email: [email protected]

vi


vii

Foreword:

The context for social inclus ion

The Laidlaw Foundation’sPerspective on Social Inclusion

Children have risen to the top of gov-ernment agendas at various times overthe past decade, only to fall again

whenever there is an economic downturn, abudget deficit, a federal-provincial relationscrisis or, most recently, a concern over terror-ism and national security. While there havebeen important achievements in public policyin the past 5 to 10 years, there has not been asustained government commitment to childrennor a significant improvement in the well-being of children and families. In fact, inmany areas, children and families have lostground and social exclusion is emerging as amajor issue in Canada. Examples abound andinclude these facts.

• the over-representation of racial minorityfamilies and children among those livingin poverty in large cities, and the denialof access to many services by immigrantand refugee families;

• the 43% increase in the number of chil-dren in poverty in Canada since 1989,the 130% increase in the number of chil-dren in homeless shelters in Toronto, aswell as the persistence of one of the high-est youth incarceration rates amongCommonwealth countries;

• the exclusion of children with disabilitiesfrom public policy frameworks (e.g. theNational Children’s Agenda), from defi-nitions of ‘healthy’ child developmentand, all too often, from community life.

These situations provide the context forthe Laidlaw Foundation’s interest in socialinclusion. The Foundation’s Children’s Agendaprogram first began exploring social inclusionin 2000 as a way to re-focus child and familypolicy by:

• re-framing the debate about poverty, vul-nerability and the well-being of childrenin order to highlight the social dimen-sions of poverty (i.e. the inability to par-ticipate fully in the community)

• linking poverty and economic vulnerabil-ity with other sources of exclusion suchas racism, disability, rejection of differ-ence and historic oppression

• finding common ground among thoseconcerned about the well-being of fami-lies with children to help generate greaterpublic and political will to act.

The Foundation commissioned a series ofworking papers to examine social inclusionfrom a number of perspectives. Although theauthors approach the topic from differentstarting points and emphasize different aspectsof exclusion and inclusion, there are importantcommon threads and conclusions. The work-ing papers draw attention to the new realitiesand new understandings that must be broughtto bear on the development of social policyand the creation of a just and healthy society.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

viii

These are:

• Whether the source of exclusion is pover-ty, racism, fear of differences or lack ofpolitical clout, the consequences are thesame: a lack of recognition and accept-ance; powerlessness and ‘voicelessness’;economic vulnerability; and, diminishedlife experiences and limited life prospects.For society as a whole, the social exclusionof individuals and groups can become amajor threat to social cohesion and eco-nomic prosperity.

• A rights-based approach is inadequate toaddress the personal and systemic exclu-sions experienced by children and adults.People with disabilities are leading the wayin calling for approaches based on socialinclusion and valued recognition to deliverwhat human rights claims alone cannot.

• Diversity and difference, whether on thebasis of race, disability, religion, culture orgender, must be recognized and valued.

The ‘one size fits all approach’ is no longeracceptable and has never been effective inadvancing the well-being of children andfamilies.

• Public policy must be more closely linkedto the lived experiences of children andfamilies, both in terms of the actual pro-grams and in terms of the process forarriving at those policies and programs.This is one of the reasons for the growingfocus on cities and communities, as placeswhere inclusion and exclusion happen.

• Universal programs and policies that serveall children and families generally providea stronger foundation for improving well-being than residual, targeted or segregatedapproaches. The research and anecdotalevidence for this claim is mounting fromthe education, child development andpopulation health sectors.

Understanding social inclus ion

Social exclusion emerged as an importantpolicy concept in Europe in the 1980s inresponse to the growing social divides

that resulted from new labour market condi-tions and the inadequacy of existing social wel-fare provisions to meet the changing needs ofmore diverse populations. Social inclusion isnot, however, just a response to exclusion.

Although many of the working papers usesocial exclusion as the starting point for theirdiscussions, they share with us the view thatsocial inclusion has value on its own as both aprocess and a goal. Social inclusion is aboutmaking sure that all children and adults areable to participate as valued, respected and

contributing members of society. It is, there-fore, a normative (value based) concept - a wayof raising the bar and understanding where wewant to be and how to get there.

Social inclusion reflects a proactive,human development approach to social well-being that calls for more than the removal ofbarriers or risks. It requires investments andaction to bring about the conditions for inclu-sion, as the population health and internation-al human development movements have taughtus.

Recognizing the importance of differenceand diversity has become central to new under-


ix

standings of identity at both a national andcommunity level. Social inclusion goes onestep further: it calls for a validation and recog-nition of diversity as well as a recognition ofthe commonality of lived experiences and theshared aspirations among people, particularlyevident among families with children.

This strongly suggests that social inclu-sion extends beyond bringing the ‘outsiders’in, or notions of the periphery versus the cen-tre. It is about closing physical, social andeconomic distances separating people, ratherthan only about eliminating boundaries orbarriers between us and them.

The cornerstones of social inclus ion

The working papers process revealed thatsocial inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot be reduced

to only one dimension or meaning. The work-ing papers, together with several other initia-tives the Foundation sponsored as part of itsexploration of social inclusion , have helped usto identify five critical dimensions, or corner-stones, of social inclusion:

Valued recognition– Conferring recognitionand respect on individuals and groups. Thisincludes recognizing the differences in chil-dren’s development and, therefore, not equat-ing disability with pathology; supporting com-munity schools that are sensitive to culturaland gender differences; and extending thenotion to recognizing common worth throughuniversal programs such as health care.

Human development – Nurturing the talents,skills, capacities and choices of children andadults to live a life they value and to make acontribution both they and others find worth-while. Examples include: learning and devel-opmental opportunities for all children andadults; community child care and recreationprograms for children that are growth-promot-ing and challenging rather than merelycustodial.

Involvement and engagement – Having theright and the necessary support to make/beinvolved in decisions affecting oneself, familyand community, and to be engaged in commu-nity life. Examples include: youth engagementand control of services for youth; parentalinput into school curriculum or placementdecisions affecting their child; citizen engage-ment in municipal policy decisions; and politi-cal participation.

Proximity – Sharing physical and socialspaces to provide opportunities for interac-tions, if desired, and to reduce social distancesbetween people. This includes shared publicspaces such as parks and libraries; mixedincome neighbourhoods and housing; andintegrated schools and classrooms.

Material well being – Having the materialresources to allow children and their parents toparticipate fully in community life. Thisincludes being safely and securely housed andhaving an adequate income.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

x

Next s teps: Bui lding inclus ive c i t ies and communit ies

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank the following for their contribution and commitment to the working papers serieson social inclusion: the authors, without whom there would be no working papers; Karen Swift,Frank Stark, Nancy Matthews, Jennifer Keck, Daniel Drache and the forty external reviewers ofpapers, all of whom provided critical feedback and expert advice at various stages during the editorialprocess; the members of the Advisory Committee, Children’s Agenda Program, Nathan Gilbert,Executive Director, and the Board of Directors, Laidlaw Foundation for their support, interest andcritical comments; and Larisa Farafontova, Eva-Marie Dolhai, and Richard Wazana, for theirperseverance and skillful assistance at critical stages in the process.

Over the next three years, the Children’sAgenda program of the LaidlawFoundation will focus on Building

inclusive cities and communities. The impor-tance of cities and communities is becomingincreasingly recognized because the well-beingof children and families is closely tied to wherethey live, the quality of their neighbourhoodsand cities, and the ‘social commons’ where peo-ple interact and share experiences.

The Laidlaw Foundation’s vision of asocially inclusive society is grounded in aninternational movement that aims to advancethe well-being of people by improving thehealth of cities and communities. Realizingthis vision is a long-term project to ensure thatall members of society participate as equallyvalued and respected citizens. It is an agendabased on the premise that for our society to bejust, healthy and secure, it requires the inclu-sion of all.

Christa FreilerChildren’s Agenda Program CoordinatorLaidlaw Foundation

Paul ZarnkePresident and Former Chair, Children’s Agenda Advisory Committee Laidlaw Foundation

This series is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Jennifer Keck who died on June 12, 2002

after a long battle with cancer.

Jennifer was a key member of the editorial committee,an insightful and passionate reviewer of the working papers,

and an unwavering advocate forsocial justice and the social inclusion of all people.



xii

Introduct ion


1

Social Inclusion, Anti-Racismand Democratic Citizenship

The utility of the concept social inclu-sion will depend on the extent anddegree to which it successfully deals

with social exclusion and the extent to which itpromotes social cohesion in a society that isfractured along numerous fault lines. JohnVeit-Wilson distinguishes between weak ver-sions of the social exclusion discourse whichfocus on changing the excluded and integrat-ing them into society, and stronger versions ofthe discourse which focus on power relationsbetween the excluded and those doing theexcluding (Veit-Wilson 1998, 45). Similarly itis important to distinguish between weak andstrong versions of the social inclusion dis-course. The former focus simply on integrationof the excluded (via a state commitment tomulticulturalism), while the latter take a struc-tural approach that focuses on historicalprocesses that continually reproduce oppres-sion, discrimination and exclusion. Strongapproaches to the social inclusion discoursetherefore are intimately concerned with rights,citizenship and restructured relations betweenracialized communities and the institutions ofthe dominant society. The focus is on valuedrecognition and valued participation by thoseexcluded from full participation in society andthe benefits of society.

Those who recognize the salience ofsocial exclusion as an explanatory tool need tobe cognizant of one possible unintended con-sequence of the analysis – the re-victimization

and marginalization of the excluded.Individuals and groups who are excluded onthe basis of race (or other socially constructedcriteria) need to be included both in the dis-cussions about their social conditions of exis-tence and in the debate about the eradicationof exclusion. The various manifestations ofracism as important expressions of social exclu-sion need to be tabled before there can be ameaningful and constructive discussion ofsocial inclusion. Thus for social inclusion tomatter, for it to resonate, it must provide spacefor a discussion of oppression and discrimina-tion. Social inclusion has to take its rightfulplace not along a continuum (from exclusionto inclusion), but as emerging out of a thor-ough analysis of exclusion. It has to simultane-ously transcend the limits of essentialism,1 cri-tique hierarchies of oppression and promote atransformative agenda that links together thevarious, often disparate struggles againstoppression, inequality and injustice. And theglue that would bind these social movementstogether is a kind of inclusion that would leadto the creation of a more just and equitablesociety. In this conceptualization, social inclu-sion can provide a coherent critique of themultiple forms of social injustices and the con-comitant institutional policies and practices.The first section of this paper will explore therelationship between social exclusion and racialexclusion and identify and locate racism as aform of social exclusion. The second section ofthe paper will assess state responses to racism

2

Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship

in the form of multiculturalism and identifythe limits and shortcomings of multicultural-ism as public policy using the lens of socialinclusion and the notion of democratic citizen-ship. The third section of the paper will arguethat a discourse on social inclusion is morecompelling than one on exclusion preciselybecause it posits a radical alternative to racial

exclusion and is a viable political and publicpolicy response to the multiple manifestationsof exclusion. This section will also identifyboth the public policy implications of a com-mitment to anti-racist social inclusion and thebuilding blocks necessary to creating an inclu-sive society from an anti-racist perspective.

Racism as Social Exclus ion

In this section the following argument willbe constructed: simply put, racism is aform of social exclusion, and racial discrim-

ination in all its forms and manifestations isthe process by which that exclusion occurs.2 Inorder to fully unpack this argument, it is nec-essary to first analyze how the term “socialexclusion” is used in contemporary discourseand then link it to a broader discussion ofracism, racial discrimination and racializedpoverty.

Walker and Walker define social exclusionas “… a comprehensive formulation, whichrefers to the dynamic process of being shutout, fully or partially, from any of the social,economic, political or cultural systems whichdetermine the social integration of a person ina society. Social exclusion may therefore beseen as the denial (non-realization) of the civil,political and social rights of citizenship”(Walker and Walker 1997, 8). Gore notes thatsocial exclusion has come to refer to the“process of social disintegration”, a “rupture” inthe relationship between the individual andsociety which resulted from structural changesin the economy and seriously impeded themobility and integration into the labour mar-ket of younger workers and created long-termunemployment for unskilled workers andimmigrant workers. This in turn has resultedin increased social problems and a tearing ofthe social fabric – increased homelessness,

increased social tensions and periodic violence.Social exclusion as rupture is linked to Silver’ssolidarity paradigm – one of three paradigmsshe uses to link exclusion, citizenship andsocial integration (Silver 1995, 62).

For many, including Walker and Walker,the opposite of exclusion is integration - intothe labour market or more generally into abroader conception of citizenship with aninterlocking set of reciprocal rights and obliga-tions (Byrne 1999, 2; Gore 1995, 2). By 1989,the European Economic Community (EEC)began to link social exclusion with inadequaterealization of social rights. In 1990 theEuropean Observatory on National Policies forCombating Social Exclusion was established tolook at “the basic rights of citizenship to abasic standard of living and to participation inmajor social and economic opportunities insociety” (Room as cited in Gore 1995, 2).Room notes that while poverty is focused on“distributional issues”, notions of social exclu-sion “… focus primarily on relational issues, inother words inadequate social participation,lack of social integration and lack of power”(Room 1995, 5). The link between socialexclusion and citizenship then hinges for exam-ple, on the degree to which individuals fromracialized and marginalized communitiesencounter structural and systemic barriers andare denied or restricted from participating insociety. Duffy similarly notes that social exclu-


3

sion refers to “the inability to participate effec-tively in economic, social, political and culturallife, and, in some characterizations, alienationand distance from the mainstream society”(Duffy, cited by Barry 1998, 2).

This concept of social exclusion is highlycompelling because it speaks the language ofoppression and enables the marginalized andthe victimized to give voice and expression tothe way in which they experience globalization,the way in which they experience market forcesand the way in which they experience liberaldemocratic society. The concept of social exclu-sion resonates with many including those who(i) are denied access to the valued goods andservices in society because of their race, gender,religion, disability, etc.; (ii) lack adequateresources to be effective, contributing membersof society; and (iii) are not recognized as fulland equal participants in society. The roots ofexclusion are deep, historical and indeed arecontinually reproduced in both old and newways in contemporary society (Freiler 2001,13). David Byrne argues that in the post-industrial developed world, “exclusion is a cru-cial contemporary form of exploitation, and …indeed there is nothing new about it” (Byrne1999, 57). For him the battle against exclusionis a “battle against exploitation” (Byrne 1999,57). This is reductionist for it asserts the pri-macy of class without looking at other forms ofoppression and the related forms of exclusionsand marginalization. The struggle against classexploitation is not coterminous with the strug-gles against racial oppression and racial dis-crimination. What is required is a subtle, morenuanced approach that understands the speci-ficity of racism as a form of social exclusionand does not subsume it under the guise ofexploitation.

Without undertaking an analysis of the“political economy of exclusion”, the attractionof the current discourse is that it focuses atten-tion on social exclusion as failure to integrate

into the labour market. But the contemporarydiscourse on social exclusion is too narrowlyfocused on poverty and integration into thepaid labour market, and it potentially obscuresa bigger debate about exploitation and theextent to which racism creates a dual labourmarket that leads to the super-exploitation ofworkers of colour. Within the European arenathis could include a more systematic analysis ofthe super-exploitation of “guest workers” andthe concomitant denial of certain rights. In theNorth American arena this could include ananalysis of the way in which formal accredita-tion processes restrict access to certain tradesand professions for newcomers to Canada. Itcould also include an analysis of the way inwhich the delays associated with seeking asy-lum in Canada create an underground econo-my in which asylum seekers end up working atlow-paid, marginalized and insecure jobs.Broadening out the analysis of social exclusionto include the discourse on racism and con-versely broadening out the concept of socialinclusion to embrace an anti-racism discoursethen both requires an analysis of race andracism in contemporary society.

Race is usually associated with somaticdifferences (such as skin colour) that distin-guish the various groups which comprise thehuman species.3 The concept of race is a socialconstruct that has no empirical grounding andno scientific merit (Cox 1948; Banton 1979;Anderson and Freideres 1981: Dreidger 1989).Racism is both an ideology and a set of prac-tices. As an ideology racism seeks to both legit-imate the inequality faced by racialized groupsand proclaim the superiority of the racial groupthat constitutes the status quo.4 Racism alsoconsists of a set of mechanisms to ensure socio-political domination over a racial group (orgroups). And racism involves discriminatorypractices which work to constantly exclude,marginalize and disadvantage the subordinateracialized groups and reproduce the power,

4


privilege and domination of the superordinateracialized group (Elliott and Fleras 1992, 335;Saloojee 1996, 2). Here it is also important toidentify another term that is used in this paper– “racialization” which refers to the process ofattributing meaning to somatic differences.5

The process of attaching meaning or significa-tion leads to policies and practices of exclusionand inclusion whereby “…collective identitiesare produced and social inequalities are struc-tured” (Kalbach and Kalbach 2000, 29).

The United Nations has provided anexceptionally well thought out, all-encompass-ing definition of racial discrimination:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial dis-crimination" shall mean any distinction,exclusion, restriction or preference based onrace, colour, descent, or national or ethnicorigin which has the purpose or effect ofnullifying or impairing the recognition,enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing,of human rights and fundamental freedomsin the political, economic, social, cultural orany other field of public life (UnitedNations, International Convention on theElimination of all Forms of RacialDiscrimination 1965, Article 1).

From this vantage point, racial discrimi-nation is undoubtedly a form of social exclu-sion, albeit one that has race as a social con-struct, at the heart of exclusion. Its roots andmanifestations however are different whencompared to other forms of exclusion. Racismis unequal access to rights, it is unequal assessto the valued goods and services in society, it isabout unequal access to the labour market andit extends to all fields of public life. It is aboutincomplete citizenship, undervalued rights,undervalued recognition and undervalued par-ticipation. The study of structured racialinequality, discrimination, rights and privilegeshinges on a recognition that in Canadian socie-ty, women, racialized individuals and commu-

nities, persons with disabilities and FirstNations Aboriginal people who enter thelabour market, enter the educational system,and seek goods and services (among otherthings) will face a structure of opportunitiesthat are mediated by their race, gender, disabil-ity, etc. Precisely because of the existence ofdiscrimination and barriers, all people inCanadian society do not start from the samespot, and do not compete on an equal footingwith each other.

The study of racial inequality and racialdiscrimination is a study of racialization – howhuman differences are structured, imbued withmeaning, continually reproduced and used todeny people access to the valued goods andservices in society. Structured racial exclusion isthe process by which individuals from the domi-nant white racialized group in society are betterpositioned (than are individuals from subordinateracialized and marginalized minority groups) tosecure a greater share of society’s valued goods,services, rewards and privileges and to use thesebenefits to reinforce their control over rightsopportunities and privileges in society. Throughthis process. racial inequality and unequalaccess to the valued goods and services in socie-ty are structured and continually reproduced.

Racial inequality and discrimination areboth the product and the confirmation ofpower imbalances in society; as well, they are afunction of structural constraints that are root-ed in the fabric of society. These structuralconstraints operate in such a way as to disad-vantage members of racialized minority com-munities as they access the labour market andas they seek to advance within organizations.Race, ethnic and gender differences andinequalities persist in spite of the widely heldassumption that the operation of market forcesis blind to these differences between andamong humans. The market has been unableto equitably distribute resources, goods and


5

services in a society where inequality and dis-crimination are structurally embedded.Equality in society as well as in the workplacehas proved to be very difficult to achieve.

Racial discrimination is manifested at theindividual, institutional, structural and sys-temic levels. It can result from ill will or evilmotive; it can be blatant and result from delib-erate differential treatment or denial of access,or it can result from apparently neutral policiesand practices that, regardless of intent, haveadverse impacts on racialized individuals andcommunities. This latter concept of systemicdiscrimination has been repeatedly tested inhuman rights cases in Canada. Justice BerthaWilson while on the Supreme Court ofCanada wrote: “I would say then that the dis-crimination may be described as a distinction,whether intentional or not but based ongrounds relating to personal characteristics ofthe individual or group, which has the effect ofimposing burdens, obligations, or disadvan-tages on such individual or group not imposedupon others, or which withholds or limitsaccess to organizations, benefits, and advan-tages available to other members of society”(Cited by Agocs et al. 1992, 118).

She went on to clarify:

In determining whether there is discrimina-tion on grounds relating to the personalcharacteristics of the individual or group, itis important to look not only at theimpugned legislation which has created adistinction that violates the right to equalitybut also to the larger social, political andlegal context. McIntyre J. emphasized inAndrews:

“For as has been said, a bad law will not besaved merely because it operates equallyupon those to whom it has application.Nor will a law necessarily be bad because itmakes distinctions.”

Accordingly, it is only by examining thelarger context that a court can determinewhether differential treatment results ininequality or whether, contrariwise, itwould be identical treatment which wouldin the particular context result in inequalityor foster disadvantage. A finding that thereis discrimination will, I think, in most butperhaps not all cases necessarily entail asearch for disadvantage that exists apartfrom and independent of the particularlegal distinction being challenged (Cited byAgocs et al. 1992, 118).

Given the multidimensionality of racismand the multiple manifestations of racial dis-crimination, providing precise measures of andexplicitly quantifying racism has proved prob-lematic (Henry et al. 1995, 49). The indicatorsof racism and the measures of racism areimportant as they have significant policy andpractice implications. These measures are alsocomplicated by the importance manyresearchers have rightly attached to the inter-section of race, gender, class, disability, etc.Over the years there has developed an extensivebody of research which has documented theextent and pervasiveness of racial discrimina-tion in Canadian society. This research seeks tomeasure racism through a variety of mecha-nisms, including a study of attitudinal polls,analyzing human rights commission reports,assessing the relationship between race andeconomic variables (rates of employment, ratesof unemployment, distribution across occupa-tional categories, distribution across incomecategories, etc.), the intersection of race andpoverty and race and educational attainment.The challenge of measuring racial discrimina-tion is that it is extremely difficult to measureintentionality, thus the earlier distinctionsbetween intention and effects are critical.Measures of racial discrimination invariablyfocus on the effects of the discriminatoryactions not on the intentions of the perpetra-

6


tors. While this paper is not about detailing theresearch on the multiple forms of racism asexclusion, it will nonetheless very briefly sum-marize recent research that looks at racism andlabour participation and racism and poverty.The measures of racism as it is manifested inlabour force participation include measuring:

• Rates of employment;

• Rates of unemployment;

• Income differentials;

• Employment segregation.

One of the most pervasive myths is thatsince members of racialized groups are foundin the workforce there is no widespread dis-crimination to their entry into the labour force.Once they enter the labour force, the argumentgoes, they encounter the “glass ceiling”, aninvisible barrier which prohibits their upwardmobility within the workplace\organizationalhierarchy. It is argued that members of racial-ized groups progress only up to a certain pointbeyond which advancement is difficult. Sincethey encounter a “glass ceiling”, they can seethe upper echelons of the hierarchy but cannotdetect the barriers which prevent their attain-ing those positions. The assumptions embed-ded in the “glass ceiling theory” are (i) thatmembers of racialized groups do gain entry tothe active labour force, they are hired, they dohave a foot in the door; (ii) once hired there ismovement up the hierarchy to a certain point;(iii) their retention rate is not a significanthuman resources problem.

Contrary to these assumptions, the preva-lence of prejudice and discrimination in societyat large guarantees that many members ofracialized minority groups encounter the “steeldoor” before the glass ceiling. It is the gate-keepers of the steel doors who bar or facilitateentry to employment. Members of racializedminority groups first encounter prejudice anddiscrimination in the pre-employment stage

and then once in, face other forms of discrimi-nation at the workplace itself. Thus it isimportant to separate the two levels of discrim-ination and disadvantage that they face – thefirst level is in access to employment opportu-nities and the second level is within organiza-tions after they have secured employment. Atthe first level, access to employment disadvan-tage is manifested in a number of areas – dif-ferential unemployment and labour force par-ticipation rates compared to white able-bodiedmales, and occupational ghettoization. Forthose who do secure employment the indices ofdisadvantage would include, income levels,occupational clustering and ghettoization,upward mobility and promotion rates, distribu-tion across the organizational employmenthierarchy, rates of retention (staff turnoverrates) and experiences of harassment.6

While members of racialized minoritygroups experience disadvantage and barriers inseeking employment as well as after securingemployment, it is important to recognize thatthese disadvantages are the result of both directintentional discrimination, and systemic dis-crimination. When the so-called gatekeepersexercise power to reinforce their prejudices andstereotypical views to the disadvantage of desig-nated group members, then discrimination hasoccurred. When people are denied access toemployment or employment opportunities,when they work in a poisoned work environ-ment, when their advancement within theorganization is hindered because of their statusas members of racialized groups, then it is clearthey are excluded and disadvantaged, and thatdiscrimination has occurred. Recent reportssuggest that members of racialized minoritygroups experience lower rates of employment –66 per cent compared to 75 per cent for non-racialized minorities (CRRF 2000, 18; Grace-Edward Galabuzi 2000). Concomitantly theyexperience higher rates of unemployment –based on the 1996 Census data, men in racial-


7

ized groups had a 13.2 per cent unemploymentrate compared to 9.9 per cent for men in gen-eral, while women in racialized groups had anunemployment rate of 15.3 per cent comparedto 9.4 per cent for other women (CRRF 2000,19). There is also strong evidence of a labourmarket, which is split into two primary seg-ments. One is well paying, has a wide distri-bution of occupations, relatively high rates ofunionization and reasonably good workingconditions and high rates of employment. Theother is characterized by less favourable rates ofpay, types of work and working conditions, lit-tle job security and low rates of unionizationand higher rates of unemployment. This splitintersects with race to create a split labour mar-ket that is highly stratified by race and by gen-der. This is a situation where workers fromracialized groups are over-represented in low-end jobs and under- represented in highly paidemployment. 7

The split labour market along with otherfactors translates into significant income dis-parities between racialized group members andother Canadians. In 1998 racialized Canadiansearned an average of $14,507 compared to$20,517 for non-racialized Canadians. Thiswas tantamount to a 28 per cent gap in medi-an income before taxes and a 25 per cent gapin median income after taxes. Andrew Jacksonmade an important distinction between racial-ized Canadians born in Canada and those whowere foreign born. Analyzing Statistics Canadadata from 1995, Jackson found that membersof racialized groups who were immigrants andwho were fully employed for over a year wereearning $32,000 per year compared to$38,000 for their Canadian counterparts(Jackson 2001, 7). More recently Jeffrey Reitzassessed 1996 Census data and concluded thatimmigrant workers in Canada lost $15 billionin earnings because of a “brain waste” – thediscounting and undervaluing of both the edu-cation, professional training and the experience

of immigrants prior to coming to Canada.Underutilizing the skills of skilled immigrantscost them $2.4 billion in lost wages, whileundervaluing their skills (by paying them lessthan their Canadian born counterparts) costimmigrant workers $12.6 billion. Also, whiteimmigrants reported less pay inequities thanimmigrants of colour (Gorrie 2002, A23).

Just over ten years ago, the OntarioMinistry of Citizenship released its report onthe need for employment equity in Ontario. Inassessing the data at that point, the Ministryconcluded that entrants to the labour forcefrom racialized groups faced a number of barri-ers to employment including:

• Blatantly overt discriminatory hiring poli-cies;

• Job requirements that have nothing to dowith what is needed to perform the job;

• An unfair assessment of qualifications andwork experience from abroad;

• Invisible barriers such as biases, stereotyp-ing and discrimination based on a per-son’s colour, rather than an assessment ofa person based on his/her actual skills orperformance;

• The vicious cycle of lower expectationsleading to lower achievement;

• A hostile/poisoned work environmentcaused by racial jokes, abusive slurs and,on occasion, physical abuse (Office of theEmployment Equity Commissioner,Ministry of Citizenship 1991, 9).

The barriers which create unequal accessto the labour market, the glass ceiling which sig-nificantly inhibits promotion to higher skilledbetter paying jobs and the reality of a splitlabour market over-determined by race all con-tribute to another significant phenomenon – theracialization of poverty. The data are very stark: 8

8


• The 1996 Census revealed an overallpoverty rate in Canada of 21per cent(pre- tax LICO measure). For membersof racialized groups (70 per cent of whomwere foreign born) the poverty rate was38 per cent. For those who immigratedto Canada prior to 1986 the rate was lessthan 20 per cent, for the post-1986 to1990 group the rate was 35 per cent andfor those who arrived between 1991 and1996 the poverty rate was 52 per cent.

• Family poverty rates demonstrate a simi-lar pattern – 19 per cent for racializedgroups and 10.4 per cent for non-racial-ized groups.

• Poverty among children from racializedgroups is 45 per cent compared to 26 percent for all children living in Canada.

• In Canada’s urban centres as a wholeracialized group members account for 21per cent of the population and 33 percent of the urban poor. The CanadianCouncil on Social Development foundthat in Vancouver, Markham, RichmondHill, Toronto and Mississauga over 50 percent of the poor are racialized groupmembers.

• The Ornstein Report on Ethno-RacialInequality in Toronto found that“African, Black and Caribbean ethno-racial groups” experience much morepoverty and have family incomes signifi-cantly below the Toronto average. Thepercentages of families with incomesbelow the LICO is 47.6 per cent, 48.7per cent and 40.5 per cent respectively.For groups from Africa, the situation ismuch more devastating. The figures forEthiopians, Ghanaians, Somalis and“other African nations” are 69.7 per cent,87.3 per cent, 62.7 per cent and 52.2 percent. Ornstein also found that 28.7 per

cent of Indian families and over 50 percent of the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, SriLankan and Tamil families were belowthe poverty line. For Central Americansand South Americans the figures were51.6 per cent and 40.2 per cent respec-tively (Ornstein 2000, 112-115).

• Approximately 40 per cent of foreignborn members of racialized groups whohad less than a high school educationwere among the poorest 20 per cent ofCanadians.

• Twenty per cent of foreign born membersof racialized groups with a university edu-cation were also found in the group ofthe poorest 20 per cent of Canadians.

• The Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment found that despite theeconomic recovery of the 1990s povertyamong recent immigrants as a group(75 per cent of whom are members ofracialized minorities), was 27 per cent in1998 compared to 13 per cent among therest of the Canadian population.“Unfortunately, the situation of recentimmigrants compared to other Canadianshas worsened considerably” the reportconcluded (Carey 2002, A1).

Just being in the labour force and seekingemployment therefore is not enough for mem-bers of racialized groups. Often they encounterprejudice and discrimination which deny thememployment opportunities or deny them accessto skilled and more highly valued employment.The results of these attitudes and structuralbarriers are that they face the prospect of high-er unemployment rates, occupational ghet-toization, lower earning power, higher rates ofimpoverishment and if they repeatedlyencounter discriminatory barriers they eventu-ally give up seeking employment entirely.Thus, the intersection of race and poverty


9

requires a systematic discussion of “racializedpoverty”. The intersection of labour marketexclusion and race requires a systematic discus-sion of racial exclusion which exacerbates thegeneral effects of exclusion. Labour marketinclusion therefore is not the only answer topoverty eradication, nor is it the only answerto labour market exclusion which results fromracial discrimination.

Clearly, exclusion in general and racialexclusion in particular, result in economic,social, political and cultural disadvantage.Those who are included have access to valued

goods and services in society while those whoare excluded do not. In turn, those who aredisadvantaged, marginalized and “othered” insociety do not have access to valued goods andservices and are consequently excluded. Thereis therefore a mutually reinforcing relationshipbetween exclusion and disadvantage and it isnecessary to both unpack that relationship andto address each of its multiple manifestationsin order to break what I would call the“vicious cycle of exclusion and disadvantage”.The answer to this lies within a political strug-gle which embraces an inclusionary solidaritymovement.

Social Inclus ion and Democrat ic C i t izenship: Understanding theL imits of Mult icul tural i sm

Identity formation and social cohesion ofracialized communities and immigrantcommunities is a complex response to

many factors. Their respective citizenshipclaims are intimately linked to making equalityclaims and to ensuring their rights and free-doms enshrined in the Charter are not eroded.In a country like Canada, these citizenshipclaims are in no small measure mediated by thehistories of immigrants in the sending coun-tries, the state in the host country and its mul-ticultural practices, and they are also mediatedby the reality of discrimination and exclusion.Discrimination undermines citizenship anderodes a person’s ability to develop his/her tal-ents and capacities. This dual mediation isreflected in the two phases of multiculturalismin Canada. Through an official policy of multi-culturalism, the state in Canada has attemptedto deal with racial discrimination and signifi-cantly determine the nature of state/minorityrelations within a liberal tradition that pro-motes equality and encourages group socialcohesion and social inclusion.

In the narrow sense, citizenship is exclu-sionary. It is about who is a citizen of a nationstate and what bundle of rights that citizen canexercise. It is about what that citizen is enti-tled to as a member of the nation state. In therealm of formal equality, the laws, the constitu-tions and the human rights codes proclaim theequality of all citizens. In this realm, it is justthat citizens should be equally entitled to cer-tain rights typically associated with a democra-cy – the right to vote, to freedom of associa-tion, freedom of religion, etc.

Social inclusion forces the discoursebeyond the realm of formal equality and intothe realm of substantive equality which is char-acterized by challenges to discrimination,exclusion and inequality. Social inclusionbegins from the premise that it is democraticcitizenship that is at risk when a society fails todevelop the talents and capacities of all itsmembers. The move to social inclusion is erod-ed when the rights of minorities are notrespected and accommodated and minoritiesfeel “othered”. For social inclusion, there is no

10


contradiction between democratic citizenshipand differentiated citizenship (where peoplecan hold dual and even multiple loyalties).Democratic citizenship is about valued partici-pation, valued recognition and belonging. At aminimum, it is characterized by:

• All the political rights associated with for-mal equality;

• A right to equality and a right to be freefrom discrimination;

• An intimate relationship between theindividual and the community;

• Reciprocal relationship of rights and obli-gations;

• Barrier free access, a sense of belongingand not being “othered” and marginal-ized;

• A commitment on the part of the state toensure that all members of society haveequal access to developing their talentsand capacities; and

• Providing all members of society with theresources to exercise democratic citizen-ship.

It was the Abella report that advanced thenotion that equality does not mean samenessand that equality means that we have to treatdifferences differently. This is the necessaryminimum precondition for achieving socialinclusion. The Supreme Court of Canada hasnoted that minority rights do not erode demo-cratic citizenship, rather “the accommodationof differences is the essence of true equality”(Cited by Kymlicka and Norman 1999, 33).

Accommodating differences and eliminat-ing barriers to equality of opportunity are thehallmarks of social inclusion. The latter, how-ever, ought not to be confused with socialcohesion because multiple forms of exclusion

can exist in a socially cohesive society.Nonetheless, important questions persist: cohe-sion around what vision and inclusion to what?Are we talking about assimilation? Is this a newway of managing state minority relations? Isthis “Anglo conformity” or even “multicultural-ism” in a new guise? As Kymlicka and Normanpoint out there have been major disputes bothabout the legitimacy of assimilation as a way ofeliminating differences, and about multicultur-alism as the official recognition of differences(Kymlicka and Norman 1999, 14-16).

In Canada, the first phase of multicultur-alism was a response to the recommendationsof the 1970 final report of the RoyalCommission on Bilingualism andBiculturalism. Prime Minister Pierre ElliottTrudeau called this phase “multicultural in abilingual framework” (Statement by the PrimeMinister in the House of Commons, 8 October1971). In this phase, the state encouraged eth-nic groups to preserve their distinct ethnic cul-tures by funding a range of initiatives to pre-serve their language and culture. In this phasemulticulturalism was not seen in strictly politi-cal terms, it was a reflexive response to thegrowing ethnic diversity of Canadian cities. Inthe second phase multiculturalism was accord-ed a protected place in the CanadianConstitution and as such it began to informthe discourse on national identity in a newway.

In the first phase, the Canadian statethrough its multicultural policies encouragedgroup social cohesion (preservation of cultureand language). Retention of cultural, linguisticand religious differences in a multiculturalsociety is important in celebrating differences.However this iteration of the discourse quicklyreached its limit. It was becoming readilyapparent to many marginalized communitiesin Canada that while they were developinginternal social cohesion they were, at a broader


11

level, consigned to the margins and excludedfrom the centres of decision making. Minorityculture was not seen as part of the mainstreamculture. Further, a backlash against celebratingdifference was appearing on the political hori-zon. The dominant discourse was being framedaround issues of national unity and whetherunity could be forged through promoting dif-ferences. It was not being framed around thechallenges of social inclusion.

The recognition of the absence of socialinclusion, coupled with the reality of exclusionand discrimination, prompted a reflexive, orwhat Castells calls a “defensive” assertion ofidentity, among these marginalized communi-ties (Castells 1997). The assertion of an identi-ty against discrimination and exclusion in turncreates a politics of inclusion and social cohe-sion that is no longer rooted simply in thedesire to hold on to that which is unique.Rather, the politics of inclusion cuts acrossinter-group and intra-group identity andbuilds a movement of solidarity capable ofchallenging the dominant discourse. This issimilar to Giddens’ notion of “dialogic democ-racy” based on a mutual respect, a sharedunderstanding of the effects of exclusion andmarginalization and the emergence of solidari-ty: “Dialogic democracy…concerns furtheringof cultural cosmopolitanism and is a primebuilding block of that connection of autonomyand solidarity…dialogic democracy encouragesthe democratization of democracy within thesphere of the liberal-democratic polity”(Giddens 1994, 112). The growth of the mul-ticultural society, therefore, is producing theconditions for the emergence of a new sense ofsocial inclusion, what David Held calls a “cos-mopolitan democracy” that recognizes differ-ences, respects differences and which argues forsubstantive equality and not just formal equali-ty (Held 1995, 226-231).

The old policy of multiculturalism wassimply incapable of responding to a set of

issues which were now intensely political. InCanada, ethno-racial communities were shift-ing their focus from “song and dance” to anassessment of their rightful place in a demo-cratic society that espoused the ideals of equali-ty. In the highest law of the land, the constitu-tion, gave constitutional recognition to thevalue of multiculturalism. By 1987, theParliamentary Standing Committee onMulticulturalism stated that the old policy was“floundering” and needed “clear direction”(Government of Canada, Standing Committeeon Multiculturalism 1987).

The core issues that preoccupied racial-ized communities now included issues ofpower, access, equity, participation, removal ofdiscriminatory barriers, institutional accommo-dation and anti-racism. The clear directionthat the Parliamentary Standing Committee onMulticulturalism called for came in the formof the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. With thepassage of the legislation, multiculturalismcame to occupy a position of considerable sig-nificance in the debate on Canada’s nationalidentity. This position of importance was firstopenly acknowledged in the Canadian consti-tution, where in the Charter of Rights andFreedoms, multiculturalism is constitutionallyentrenched. According to Section 27 of theCharter, “This Charter shall be interpreted in amanner consistent with the preservation andenhancement of the multicultural heritage ofCanadians”. The continued politicization ofmulticulturalism with the passage of theMulticulturalism Act elevated multiculturalismfrom a celebration of diversity to the heart ofCanada’s nation building project. The federalgovernment sought to delicately balance anumber of critical issues, namely, diversity andsocial cohesion, minority rights and majorityrights, cultural identity and citizenship andcultural pluralism, inclusion and equality. Thegovernment developed a public policy on mul-ticulturalism that committed it to three pri-

12


mary activities. First, recognizing and promot-ing the understanding that multiculturalism isa fundamental characteristic of Canadian socie-ty. Second, eliminating barriers to full andequitable participation faced by members ofminority communities in all spheres ofCanadian society. Third, ensuring that all indi-viduals receive equal treatment and equal pro-tection of the law, while respecting and valuingtheir diversity.

Advocates within minority communitiesargue that minority rights are a natural exten-sion of and perfectly consistent with liberaldemocratic rights. On the other hand, criticsargue that the promotion of minority rightsdetracts from building “common citizenship”and goes a considerable distance in erodingwhat Kymlicka and Norman call “democraticcitizenship” (Kymlicka and Norman 2000, 10).Bibby, a critic of multiculturalism, argues thatthe policy has not led to increased tolerance;rather it has led to increased fragmentation,hyphenation and insularity. Multiculturalism,he notes, has resulted in the production of“individual mosaic fragments” (Bibby 1990,14-15). For Glazer, the politicization of minor-ity rights elevates ethnicity as a defining vari-able in public life and is inherently divisive(Glazer 1983, 227-228). Kymlicka andNorman summarize the arguments of the crit-ics as follows:

“A more moderate (and more plausible) ver-sion states that while minority rights maynot lead to civil war, they will erode theability of citizens to fulfil their responsibili-ties as democratic citizens - e.g. by weaken-ing citizens’ ability to communicate, trust,and feel solidarity across group differences.As so, even if a particular minority rightspolicy is not itself unjust, examined in isola-tion, the trend towards, increased salience ofethnicity will erode the norms and practicesof responsible citizenship, and so reduce the

overall functioning of the state” (Kymlickaand Norman 2000, 10).

They go on to suggest that the argumentabout whether multiculturalism, which pro-motes a heightened “salience of ethnicity”, isfundamentally divisive because it detracts fromdemocratic citizenship and erodes social cohe-sion has to be assessed in specific contexts andcannot be assessed in the abstract. For them,these arguments turn on four ideas: citizenshipstatus, citizenship identity, citizenship activityand citizenship cohesion (Kymlicka andNorman 2000, 31).

What the critics of multiculturalism, anti-racism and employment equity policies fail toappreciate is the significant power and privilegeenjoyed by the majority and denied othersbecause of their race, disability or gender.Weinfeld concludes that “…the ideals behindthe rhetoric of multiculturalism have not beenattained…Canadian native people and othernon-whites continue to be victimized, a factreflected in economic inequality or in patternsof social exclusion, abuse, and degradation”(Weinfeld 1981, 69). It is the pervasiveness ofprejudice directed at disadvantaged groups andthe widespread existence of discrimination thathave contributed to the fragmentation,hyphenation and insularity in the urban envi-ronment.

The two iterations of multiculturalism inCanada also point to the failure of state spon-sored actions to deal with social inclusion. Dayis more critical: “I would suggest that integra-tion within multiculturalism in a bilingualframework is best seen as a creative reproduc-tion of the colonial method of strategic simula-tion of assimilation to the Other, and not as anovercoming or breaking with this past” (Day2000, 197). The modern nation-state, Daynotes, “simulated its unity and dissimulated itsmultiplicity”. The post-modern multiculturalCanadian state however “dissimulates its unity


13

and simulates a multiplicity” (Day 2000, 205).

The multicultural society is now the sitewhere ethno-racial communities are contestingthe ideas of identity, citizenship and cohesionand inclusion. They are struggling to havetheir identities recognized alongside the domi-nant culture. Charles Taylor argues that therefusal to recognize minority rights can be seenas a “form of repression” and he points to theimportance of the “links between recognitionand identity” (Taylor 1992, 50). The strugglefor recognition is inherently a political struggleagainst the dominant discourse. It is the stateand the dominant discourse that is in the posi-tion of conferring “recognition” and therebyaffirming both their legitimacy and their posi-tions of pre-eminence. The current policy ofmulticulturalism is one where “… the statedoes not recognize the value or equality of‘communities’ rather it merely recognizes their‘existence’ (Day 2000, 198).

Multiculturalism, even in its second itera-tion as recognition, has not lead to “valuedrecognition”, “valued participation” andincreased equality for minority groups. It hasnot overturned the pre-eminent position of theEnglish and the French in Canadian society.Rather, it preserves national and linguisticduality and the “… Other Ethnic Groups [are]arranged in a complex ever changing hierar-chy” (Day 2000, 198). It has not promotedsocial inclusion and thus what is required is amore proactive policy that accommodates theneeds of minority communities and createsconditions under which they can develop theirtalents and capacities and in which they canbecome valued and respected and contributingmembers of society. Such a proactive policycan only enhance their attachment to a com-mon identity. Rather than being corrosive itcan be binding. Kymlicka and Norman howev-er are less definitive: “In sum, whether we areconcerned with citizenship status, virtue orcohesion, the relationship between minority

rights and citizenship is more complicatedthan it might initially appear. We see legiti-mate worries about the potential impact oncitizenship, but also countervailing argumentsshowing that some minority rights can actuallyenhance citizenship” (Kymlicka and Norman2000, 40).

Has decades of state commitment tomulticulturalism enhanced citizenship and ledto social inclusion in Canada’s most multicul-tural and multiracial city? In 1999 the City ofToronto, released a report that suggested thatidentity formation and social cohesion in thecity was being eroded by the exclusion andmarginalization experienced by many immi-grant groups. “If the situation [of under-repre-sentation in decision making] is not addressed,as well as the incidents of hate activity and dis-criminatory practices and prejudicial attitudesthat unfortunately continue to plague our cityit can only lead to a growing sense of frustra-tion (City of Toronto 1998). Discrimination,prejudice, exclusion, marginalization in anostensibly multicultural, multiracial city formsthe context in which the search for identityand social cohesion is experienced.Representation and participation are public insti-tutions and civic life is critical to the developmentof social cohesion but they constitute only oneimportant indicator of social inclusion.

Unlike multiculturalism which stagnatesat incomplete and highly contested integra-tion, social inclusion is precisely about thedemocratization of democracy. By developing anew way of approaching old problems, bypositing a radically different conception of citi-zenship and community, by arguing for newmeasures of accountability, by providing theimpetus for the emergence of new modes ofevaluations of public policies, by arguing forincreased representation and participation bymarginalized groups and above all by encour-aging the development of skills, talents andcapacities of all, social inclusion will democra-

14


tize democracy. The growth of the multicultur-al, multiracial nation therefore is producing theconditions for the emergence of a new sense of

social inclusion that recognizes differences,respects differences and that argues for substan-tive equality and not just formal equality.

Publ ic Pol icy Approaches That Make Social Inclus ion Real

The structural processes of racial exclu-sion engendered among racialized com-munities the struggle for legitimacy and

“place claiming”. This is the dawn of a newtype of politics. For example, the struggle byracialized communities for the redistribution ofpower and resources takes a non-class specificdimension. And herein lays the political valueof social inclusion. It posits the radical alterna-tive to exclusion and is a viable politicalresponse to exclusion. The value of social inclu-sion is that it is fully capable of meeting thegreatest challenges posed by diversity - to buildon the traditions of equality espoused in liber-alism and to move to the incorporation of theideals of anti-racism and anti-discrimination ascore ideals exemplifying national values. Socialinclusion is capable of this because it is aboutrespect for differences and it is about theremoval of barriers to effective and equitableparticipation in all spheres of public life. Andit is about more than this, it is about engagingin inclusive practices, it is about continuousevaluations of institutions, laws, policies andpractices to ensure that they promote socialinclusion. Thus it is about evaluation for thepurpose of public accountability.

The politics of social inclusion is aboutan inclusive democracy that places issues ofsocial justice at the heart of the urban question.Democracy is the locus of citizenship and it isessential to recognize that the very definition ofthe public sphere and citizenship in the urbanenvironment is contested by racialized minoritygroups. There is no single public sphere, nosingle acceptable notion of citizenship and nosingle notion of social cohesion. There are

instead multiple spheres and spaces in whichhistorically marginalized groups develop theirown sense of cohesion to contest oppression,discrimination and exclusion – where theyposit a different understanding of space, citi-zenship and social cohesion. In positing thisdifferent and alternate understanding, they arechallenging the dominant discourse and accen-tuating the politics of difference that putsissues of inequality and social justice at theheart of a reclaimed social inclusion. When his-torically marginalized groups contest notions ofrights and conceptions of citizenship they aresimultaneously seeking an alternative. And thealternative is about much more than simply theremoval of barriers to their participation asequals free from discrimination. The alternativeis about inclusion as valued participants in asociety that is committed to the eradication ofdiscrimination and disadvantage in all its formsand manifestations.

Benick and Saloojee defined an inclusivelearning environment as one that “fosters thefull personal, academic and professional devel-opment of all students. It is one that is free ofharassment and discrimination … it is aboutrespecting students and valuing them as part-ners…” (Benick and Saloojee 1996, 2). Despiteits narrow focus, this definition comes close toFreiler’s notion of social inclusion as a processthat encourages the development of talents,skills and capacities necessary for children andyouth to participate in the social and economicmainstream of community life (Freiler 2001, 8-10). What makes a discourse on social inclu-sion more compelling than one on exclusion isthe following:


15

• Social inclusion is the political responseto racial exclusion. Most analyses ofracism for example, focus on the removalof systemic barriers to effective participa-tion and focus on equality of opportuni-ty. Social inclusion is about more thanthe removal of barriers, it is about a com-prehensive vision that includes all. It isabout valued recognition and valued par-ticipation in the struggle for an inclusivesociety.

• Social inclusion is proactive. It is aboutanti-discrimination. It is not about thepassive protection of rights; rather, it isabout the active intervention to promoterights. It confers responsibility on thestate to adopt and enforce policies thatwill ensure social inclusion of all mem-bers of society (not just formal citizens,or consumers, or taxpayers, or clients). Italso demands that the agencies of thestate be proactive in advancing an anti-racist, inclusive vision of society.

• Social inclusion promotes solidarity.Individuals, organizations and communi-ties from diverse backgrounds can cometogether on the basis of a common pur-pose and engage in an inclusionary poli-tics, directed at the creation of inclusivecommunities, cities and an inclusive soci-ety.

• Social inclusion, by virtue of the fact thatit is both a process and an outcome, canhold governments and institutionsaccountable for their policies. The yard-stick by which to measure good govern-ment therefore becomes the extent towhich it advances the well-being of themost vulnerable and the most marginal-ized in society.

• Social inclusion is about advocacy andtransformation. It is about the political

struggle and the political will to removebarriers to full and equitable participationin society by all, and in particular bymembers of racialized communities.Furthermore, the vision of social inclu-sion is a positive vision that binds its pro-ponents and adherents to action.

• Social inclusion is embracing. It posits anotion of democratic citizenship asopposed to formal citizenship.Democratic citizens possess rights andentitlements by virtue of their being apart of the polity, not by virtue of theirformal status (as immigrants, refugees, orcitizens).

Social inclusion is about social cohesionplus, it is about citizenship plus, it is about theremoval of barriers plus, it is anti-essentialistplus, it is about rights and responsibilities plus,it is about accommodation of differences plus,it is about democracy plus, it is about a newway of thinking about the problems of injus-tice, inequalities and exclusion. It is the combi-nation of the various pluses that make the dis-course on social inclusion so incredibly excit-ing. Within this context a commitment toanti-racist social inclusion has a number ofpublic policy implications.

First, there has to be a renewed commit-ment at the federal, provincial and municipallevels to employment equity. An employmentcreation strategy in the absence of a proactivepolicy to bring down barriers to employmentand advancement for members of racializedminority communities is insufficient. An eco-nomic strategy that promotes economic growthand increased employment is a necessary butinsufficient condition to promote inclusion.Strategies directed at labour market integrationhave to be accompanied by strategies to bringdown barriers to labour market participationand advancement by members of racializedminority communities.

16


Second, the reach and scope of theemployment equity policies have to extendbeyond the public and para-public sectors anddeep into the private sector. Concomitant withthis reach there has to be greater enforcementof equity legislation and greater accountabilityby public and private organizations for theirpolicies and practices. There are many impor-tant strategies that organizations can pursue toboth eliminate barriers to effective participa-tion by members of racialized communitiesand create inclusive anti-discrimination organi-zations.

Third, federal and provincial govern-ments need to strengthen human rights com-missions. These commissions play vital inves-tigative and mediation functions. However,given their limited resources they do not vigor-ously pursue their public education functions.Human rights commissions need to be moreproactive in promoting human rights and notsimply be passive recipients of complaintswhich they then investigate.

Fourth, the federal government andprovincial governments need to urgently devel-op a national strategy in concert with universi-ties, colleges and professional accreditationbodies to deal with the issue of foreign creden-tials, foreign training and foreign experience.Studies are now commenting on the “brainwaste” in Canada as a result of the significantunderutilization of the skills and experience offoreign trained and educated professionals.Further, the systemic barriers associated withvetting the education, training and experienceof foreign trained professionals (the vast major-ity of whom are from racialized minority com-munities) affects their employability, theirearning capacity and their upward mobility.

Fifth, municipal governments as demo-cratically elected governments, as employers, asservice providers and as the most readily acces-sible level of government have very important

roles to play including:

• Making the representation of elected offi-cials and the participation by diverse com-munities more inclusive and representative.

• Pursuing an employment equity policy, acontract compliance policy and an inclusivepurchasing policy.

• Identifying and bringing down barriersfaced by members of racialized communitiesseeking to access municipal services.Municipal governments can promote inclu-sive policies by enhancing communicationwith racialized minority communities, pro-viding racially and culturally sensitive pro-grams, addressing the funding imbalancesbetween mainstream organizations andorganizations representing the interests ofracialized minority communities andengaging in meaningful consultation withmembers and organizations from racializedminority communities on the range of issuesaffecting their lives – not just on issues ofequity and racism.

• Directly confronting the challenges asso-ciated with racialized poverty, and becom-ing a champion of the poor and the racial-ized poor. Municipal governments need tovociferously argue with the federal govern-ment and with provincial governments todrastically strengthen Canada’s social safetynet, increase social expenditure in educa-tion, child care and health care andincrease the availability of affordable andaccessible housing. As the Campaign 2000report to the United Nations’ special sessionon children noted, “Racialized families areover represented in poor neighbourhoodswhere the quality of living conditions andaccess to social programs including childcare, health, education and recreation arecompromised.” The report concluded: “Theerosion of Canada’s social safety net has had


17

a particularly negative impact on thosefamilies that have historically experiencedexclusion and disadvantage in society”(Campaign 2000, 2002, 9).

Sixth, all levels of government need topromote and strengthen community organiza-tions representing the interests of diverse com-munities. Promoting and strengthening organi-zations in civil society results in stronger politi-cal participation and a greater sense of belong-ing. Community involvement and engagementis an essential component of building inclusivecommunities and societies. These organizationsbecome the eyes and ears of inclusion and theycan monitor initiatives designed to eradicateracism and promote inclusion. These organiza-tions need to be well funded and given a placeof legitimacy in the policy process.

Seventh, all levels of government need tobe proactive in promoting democratic citizen-ship, which as was noted above, is about val-ued participation, valued recognition andbelonging. This entails providing all membersof society with the resources to exercise demo-cratic citizenship; actively promoting all thepolitical rights associated with formal equality;promoting equality and freedom from discrim-ination; promoting barrier free access toemployment and services and committingresources to ensure that all members of societyhave equal access to developing their talentsand capacities. The latter requires governmentsto invest in social infrastructure, particularly inpublic education. Strengthening the bonds ofcivic engagement and democratic citizenshiprequires that society invest in children. It isthrough our publicly funded education systemthat we can collectively develop the talents andcapacities of all. It is through the vehicle ofpublic education that we can promote thevirtue of respect and the appreciation of differ-ences. A publicly funded education system thatis strong, affordable and accessible is not only

essential to developing the talents and capaci-ties of all, it an essential prerequisite for creat-ing inclusive communities and cities.

Implementing these policy initiatives isone of the most important ways in whichsocial inclusion can become real. Their imple-mentation is essential to the realization of aninclusive society. From an anti-racist perspec-tive then, an inclusive society is one that at aminimum:

• Develops the talents and capacities of allits members;

• Strives to close social distances and pro-mote physical proximity;

• Eradicates all forms of poverty includingracialized poverty;

• Promotes democratic citizenship;

• Promotes inclusive participation in allwalks of public life by members of racial-ized communities;

• Strengthens organizations in civil societythat represent the interests of historicallydisadvantaged communities, and mean-ingfully engages them in the public poli-cy process;

• Is proactive about promoting equalityrights and ensuring that members ofracialized communities are not disadvan-taged because of their race;

• Consciously eschews a hierarchy ofoppression and rights;

• Actively combats individual and systemicracial discrimination;

• Actively promotes and accommodatesethno-racial diversity;

• Eradicates the racially split labour mar-ket;

18


• Eliminates barriers to labour market par-ticipation by members of racialized com-munities;

• Eliminates the glass ceiling that negativelyimpacts on the employment mobility ofmembers of racialized communities;

• Actively promotes and achieves equitablehiring practices and “equal pay for workof equal value”;

• Ensures that members of racialized com-munities are equitably represented in thedecision making centres in the social, eco-nomic, political and all other walks ofpublic life;

• Values the participation of and providesvalued recognition to members of racial-ized communities.

The commitment to creating an inclusivesociety is essentially a political commitment toindividual, institutional, organizational, legaland systemic change. It must begin with arecognition of the multiple forms of racial dis-crimination and it must be a political commit-ment to the eradication of racial discrimina-tion. It has to be cognizant of the need for fullparticipation (in decision making and in mobi-lization) by members and groups from racial-ized communities – participation that is equi-table, recognized and valued. Progress towardsanti-racist social inclusion can only be nour-ished by political will and the political mobi-lization of the broadest possible coalition ofcounter hegemonic forces.

Conclus ion

The intersection of an anti-oppressiondiscourse with social inclusion as aprocess and an outcome is an incredi-

bly powerful impetus to social change andpolitical solidarity. It presents a radical alterna-tive to the dominant discourse that is steepedin liberal notions of formal equality and itsconcomitant commitment to multiculturalism.In the context of accommodating differencesand promoting heterogeneous social cohesionthere is space for the state to intervene toensure equality of opportunity. Social inclusioninvolves a societal commitment to equality ofopportunity which ensures that all members ofsociety are provided with the opportunity todevelop their talents and capacities and securevalued goods and services free from discrimina-tion. In the urban environment, this requires afundamental movement from tolerating diversecultures to recognizing and respecting them.

Social inclusion is fully capable of both recog-nizing the politics of difference and transcend-ing its narrow confines precisely because itembraces an inclusive vision, which suggeststhat a common purpose and shared communi-ty can be achieved through inter-group solidar-ity. Coalition politics comprised of groupsrepresenting the interests of the historically dis-advantaged is now producing the conditionsfor the vision of social inclusion to beembraced more readily. There has never been abetter time to embrace the concept of socialinclusion than now. September 11, 2001 hasdemonstrated to us the fragility of a nationbuilt on tolerance. Canada will be a muchstronger country if we embrace social inclusionas a transformative tool and as a normativeideal.


19

Endnotes1 Essentialism refers to the way in which the complex identities of groups of people are reduced to

one primary characteristic and individual difference are either ignored or denied – for example,the signifier, the primary characteristic that defines individual members of racialized communi-ties, is the colour of their skin (see as well notes 3-5).

2 The roots of exclusion are deep, historical and are continually reproduced in both old and newways in contemporary society – see Freiler (2001) who has identified multiple and varied sourcesof exclusion.

3 There is considerable debate about the analytical status of the concept “race”. Does the use of theterm even as a social construct reinforce the very notion it seeks to debunk – namely thathumans are divided into a number of “races” each of which can be characterized by certain physi-cal features and cultural practices? Is it necessary then to jettison the concept entirely and speakof racialization as the process of signification that attaches meanings to somatic differences?

4 It is important to distinguish between racism on the one hand, and bias and prejudice on theother. Bias refers to an opinion; a preference arrived at subjectively and without reasonable scien-tific proof, it can be explicit or implicit, intentional or unintentional. Racial prejudice involves“racializing” groups of people and prejudging them based on a set of biases and stereotypes thatare inaccurate and unscientific. It is attitudinal, and can lead to racial discrimination.

5 Members of racialized minority communities are individuals who because of the colour of theirskin encounter barriers and discrimination resulting in social inequality and unequal access tovalued goods and services.

6 For details on racial discrimination and labour market participation see Ontario Human RightsCommission 1983; Henry and Ginzberg 1985; Billingsley and Musynzski 1985; Canadian CivilLiberties, Toronto Star, 21 January 1991; Hou and Balakrishnan 1996; Frank 1997; Li 1998;The Canadian Race Relations Foundation 2000; Grace-Edward Galabuzi 2001.

7 See Ontario Human Rights Commission 1983; Henry and Ginzberg 1985; Billingingsley andMusynzski 1985; Canadian Civil Liberties, Toronto Star, 21 January 1991; Hou andBalakrishnan 1996; Frank 1997; Li 1998; The Canadian Race Relations Foundation 2000;Grace-Edward Galabuzi 2001; Ornstein 2000; Canadian Council on Social Development 2002.

8 As of the beginning of June 2002, data from the 2001 Census have not been made public andconsequently have not been incorporated into the paper.

9 For more details, see Jackson 2001; Grace-Edward Galabuzi 2000; Ornstein 2000.

20


Bibl iographyAbella, Rosalie Silberman. 1987. Employment Equity - Implications for Industrial Relations. Kingston:Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s University.

Agocs, C. et al. 1992. Employment Equity. Toronto: Prentice Hall Canada.

Anderson, A., and J. Freideres, Ethnicity in Canada: Theoretical Perspectives. Toronto: Butterworths.

Banton, M. The Idea of Race. London: Tavistock Publications.

Barata, P. 2000. Social Exclusion: A Review of the Literature. Background Paper prepared for theLaidlaw Foundation, Toronto.

Barry, M. 1998. Social Exclusion and Social Work: An Introduction. In Social Exclusion and SocialWork, edited by M. Barry, and C. Hallett. Dorset: Russel House Publishing Ltd.

Benick, G., and A. Saloojee. 1996. Introduction to Creating Inclusive Post-Secondary LearningEnvironment. Toronto.

Bhinder v. Canadian National Railways (1981), 2 C.H.R.R.D.\546 at D\S 9991.

Bibby, R. Mosaic Madness, The Potential and Poverty of Canadian Life. Toronto: Stoddart.

Billingsley, B., and L. Musynzski. 1985. No Discrimination Here. Toronto: Urban Alliance on RaceRelations.

Bonacich, E. 1972. A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labour Market. American SociologicalReview 37:547-559.

Byrne, D. 1999. Social Exclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Campaign 2000. 2002. Putting Promises into Action: A Report on the Decade of the Child and FamilyPoverty in Canada. Toronto: Campaign 2000.

Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. 1993. Attitudes Towards Race and Ethnic Relations.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation. 2000. Unequal Access: A Canadian Profile of Racial Differencesin Education, Employment and Income. Canada: Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Carey, E. 2002. Jobs Tougher to Find for Recent Immigrants. Toronto Star. 26 February.

Castells, M. 1978. City Class and Power. London: The Macmillan Press.

———. 1979. The Urban Question: a Marxist Approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.

———. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

———. 1997. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

City of Toronto. 1998. Diversity Our Strength, Access and Equity Our Goal. On the Web Sitehttp://www.city.toronto.on.ca/accessandequity/exec_sum.htm.


21

C.N.R. v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) ,[1987] 1 S.C.R.1114.

Cox, O. 1948. Caste, Class and Race. New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc.

Dreidger, L. 1989. The Ethnic Factor : Identity in Diversity. Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson.

Ebersold, S. 1998. Exclusion and Disability. Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. On the Web Sitehttp//www.oecd.org/els/edu/ceri/conf220299.html.

Employment and Immigration Canada. 1989. Immigration to Canada: Issues for Discussion.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 1995. Public WelfareServices and Social Exclusion: The Development of Consumer Oriented Initiatives in the European Union.Dublin: The Foundation.

Frank, J. 1997. Indicators of Social Inequality in Canada: Women, Aboriginal People and VisibleMinorities. In Social Inequality in Canada, edited by A. Frizzell, and J. Pammett. Ottawa: CarletonUniversity Press.

Fleras, A., and L.J. Elliott. 1999. Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic, and AboriginalDynamics in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn Bacon Canada.

Fleras, A., and L.J. Elliott. 1992. Multiculturalism in Canada: The Challenge of Diversity. Toronto:Oxford.

Fraser, N. 1996. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually ExistingDemocracies. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by C. Calhoun. Cambridge Mass.: MITPress.

Freiler, C. 2001. What Needs to Change?: Social Inclusion as a Focus of Well Being for Children, Familiesand Communities – A Draft Paper Concept. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.

Giddens, A. 1994. Beyond Left and Right. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gore, C. 1995. Introduction, Markets and Citizenship. In Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality Responses.Geneva: ILO Publications.

Galabuzi, Grace-Edward. 2000. Canada’s Creeping Economic Apartheid. Canada: Canadian RaceRelations Foundation.

Gorrie, P. 2002. Discrimination Costly. Toronto Star, 20 March 20, A23.

Harvey, D. 1976. Social Justice and the City. London: Edwin Arnold.

———. 1989. The Conditions of Post Modernism. Oxford: Blackwell.

———. 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance.Cambridge: Polity

22


Henry, F. et al. 1995. The Colour of Democracy. Toronto: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Henry, F., and E. Ginsberg. 1985. Who Gets the Work? A Test of Racial Discrimination in Employment.Toronto: The Social Planning Council of Toronto.

Holston, J. 1995. Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship. Planning Theory (Special Issue): 35-52.

Hou, F., and T.R. Balakrishnan. 1996. The Integration of Visible Minorities in ContemporaryCanadian Society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 21(3): 307-326.

Jackson, A. 2001. Poverty and Racism. Perception 24 (4): 6-7.

Kymlicka, W., and W. Norman. 2000. Citizenship in Culturally Diverse Societies: Issues, Contextsand Concepts. In Citizenship in Divided Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Li, P. 1998. The Market Value and Social Value of Race. In Racism and Social Inequality in Canada:Concepts, Controversies and Strategies of Resistance, edited by V. Satzewich. Toronto: ThompsonEducational Publishing, Inc.

Levitas, R. 1996. The Concept of Social Exclusion and the New Durkheimian Hegemony. CriticalSocial Policy 16 (1): 5-20.

Mansbridge, J. 2000. What Does a Representative Do? Descriptive Representation in CommunicativeSettings of Distrust, Uncrystallized Interests, and Historically Denigrated Status. In Kymlicka andNorman, op. cit.

Ministry of Citizenship. 1989. A Theoretical Context for Employment Equity. Toronto.

Novick, M. 2001. Social Inclusion: The Foundation of a National Policy Agenda. The Laidlaw andCanadian Council on Social Development Conference: “A New Way of Thinking? Towards A Visionof Social Inclusion”, November, Ottawa.

Office of the Employment Equity Commissioner. 1991. Working Towards Equality. Toronto:Ministry of Citizenship, Government of Ontario.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 1983. The Experience of Visible Minorities in the Work World: theCase of MBA Graduates. Ontario: Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Ornstein, M. 2000. Ethno-Racial Inequality in Toronto: Analysis of the 1996 Census. Toronto: City ofToronto.

Phillips, A. 1999. Which Equalities Matter? Cambridge: Polity.

Rodgers, G. 1995. What is Special about a “Social Exclusion” Approach? In Rodgers et al., op. cit.

Room, G. 1995. Poverty and Social Exclusion: The European Agenda for Policy and Research. InBeyond the Threshold: the Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Saloojee, A. 1996. Issues in Equity and Human Rights: A Distance Education Workbook. Toronto:Ryerson University.


23

Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis. West Sussex: John Wiley & Son.

Saunders, P. 1981. Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Hutchinson.

Smith, E., and Andrew Jackson. 2002. Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? The Labour MarketExperiences and Incomes of Recent Immigrants, 1995 to 1998. Ottawa: CCSD.

Toronto Star. 1993. 24 February.

———. 1994. 21 March.

———. 1994. 22 March.

———. 1999. 7 June.

Trudeau, Pierre Elliott. 1971. Statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. 8October.

United Nations. 1965. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination. New York: United Nations.

Veit-Wilson, J. 1998. Setting Adequacy Standards. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Walker, A., and C. Walker, eds. 1997. Britain Divided: The Growth of Social Exclusion in the 1980sand 1990s. London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Walker, R. Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe. In Britain Divided: The Growth of SocialExclusion in the 1980s and 1990s, edited by A. Walker, and C. Walker. London: Child Poverty ActionGroup.

Weinfeld, M. 1981. Canada. In Protection of Ethnic Minorities, edited by R.G. Wirsing. New York:Pergamon Press.

24


PUBLISHED IN 2002-2003

Clyde Hertzman — Leave No Child Behind! Social Exclusion and ChildDevelopment

Dow Marmur — Ethical Reflections on Social Inclusion

Andrew Jackson and Does Work Include Children? The Effects of the LabourKatherine Scott — Market on Family Income, Time, and Stress

Michael Bach — Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Re-thinking the ChildRights Agenda

Martha Friendly and Social inclusion for Canadian Children through Donna Lero — Early Childhood Education and Care

Meg Luxton — Feminist Perspectives on Social Inclusion andChildren’s Well-Being

Terry Wotherspoon — The Dynamics of Social Inclusion: Public Educationand Aboriginal People in Canada

Peter Donnelly andJay Coakley — The Role of Recreation in Promoting Social Inclusion

Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington — Poverty, Inequality, and Social Inclusion

Catherine Frazee — Thumbs Up! Inclusion, Rights and Equality asExperienced by Youth with Disabilities

Anver Saloojee — Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and DemocraticCitizenship

Ratna Omidvar and Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in CanadaTed Richmond —

PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INCLUSION W O R K I N G

P A P E RS E R I E S

The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French andEnglish can be downloaded from the Laidlaw Foundation’s

web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda/Working Paper Series on Social Inclusion

orordered from [email protected]

Price: $11.00 full paper; $6.00 Summaries(Taxes do not apply and shipment included).

Documents

INCLUSION - Brotherhood of St. Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/1796/1/Social... · 2015. 9. 16. · social inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot