Dog-Eating and Multiculturalism

I'm reading a book on immigration and the Canadian Economy called Who Gets In by Daniel Stoffman. I came across a really funny part where he quickly dispels any notion that Canada is a Multicultural Society, in the sense of cultural relativism:

Canadian dog lovers, if they really believed in multiculturalism, would respect the right of other cultures to be different. They could be faithful to their own culture by steering clear of restaurants with poodles on the menu. So why can't the Chinese and Korean parts of the Canadian mosaic fully express their culinary cultures? Because all hell would break loose. Dog lovers are passionate and uncompromising. Politicians can yak all they want about multiculturalism, they would say, but this is Canada and nobody had better eat any dogs. Korean-style dog restaurants would need armed guards.

I really enjoy this example, because it cuts right to the core of what multiculturalism is not. A country can not expect to have an official policy of cultural relativism and, at the same time, expect to survive for very long. This dog-eating example really shows how what are seen as the cultural values of the nation are imposed upon everyone - to create a sense of national identity I suppose! I think multiculturalism is more of an approach to politics than a policy. In the course of nation building, if the government of Canada is asked to evaluate a cultural commodity that isn't in conflict with any Canadian values, then it is retained and celebrated as a manifestation of our 'Multiculturalism'. Other cultural commodities, such as eating dog for dinner, get relegated to the annals of that which is unacceptable in Canada.

Canada: multicultural, or just like any other nation?

Ethnically,

- Inkhorn