Pre-Law Review | 2018
Sarazin: Can you give us some specific examples of the Supreme Court rulings you think have been particularly impactful? Prof. Narain: Those that have been particularly impactful are [Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys] decision, and even the [R. v. N.S.] decision holds out some home for minorities, particularly with the dissent of Justice Abella. Harvey: Do you think that multicultural law and feminist law are compatible with one another, or are they in opposition? If so, how can we reconcile them? Prof. Narain: I think that it is wrong to see them as in opposition. I think that they can be perfectly compatible, however, we need to understand what feminism means, and what expanding women’s equality rights means. It does not mean that to expand women’s equality rights comes at the expanse of group rights. It is quite possible to have both; they are not
10
incompatible. Harvey: What about, for instance, in cultures that have deeply entrenched patriarchal customs? Prof. Narain: I think that the starting point is wrong; the premise of focusing on cultural difference is wrong. If you ask any racialized minority woman, they are interested pretty much in the same things that “mainstream” women are, such as getting their kids through school, getting a job, access to healthcare, access to justice. I think that we need to focus on structural inequalities and structural systemic disadvantage. Of course it is important to give expression to peoples’ cultural differences, but as a state we need to focus on more than just that, otherwise multiculturalism is just about everyone having a special clothes day or special food day, and we forget about things like racial profiling. We forget about access to health care, about terrible high school drop-out rates, alcohol-