On the other laws: don't have a strict opinion as it could be argued one way or another do to both realism and game balance.
On multiculturalism specifically:
I strongly disagree.
The Ottoman empire was indeed very tolerant. It was after all the ground stone of it's imagery (we are ottomans, not the Turkish peasants of Anatolia don't remember now which Sultan).
Still, it was tolerant in a medieval / renaissance meaning of the world, not in the more Victorian / modern meaning. Of course we will not treat a greek worse than a Turk or a serb. You are all slaves/citizens to the empire after all. But it was still a "parralel" society (I forgot the right academic word). Armenians were between Armenians, Greeks between Greeks... You had the Jewish neighbourhood and the Christian one etc. So it was multicultural... But not in the sense of what the game I think wants to mean.
Let's also not forget that the ottoman state, exactly in that period, was becoming more and more Turkish and less and less ottoman. Due to nationalism.
So maybe, I could agree with
@Al-Khalidi that the ottomans should start with multiculturalism, if it was added to the tanzimats that you need to pass... Maybe racial segregation at least ? To not become unrecognised. While at the same time having a Journal Entry whoo would change some IGs. Like I could imagine blessing the ottomans with a devout pro multiculturalism (making it also harder to abolish) that will then align with more "racist" devouts after the law change (the last one more game balance in mind than history).
So this way it would kind of represent softly that the ottomans were in between fully embracing ottomanism, or nationalism (it's after all the "young Turks" era...).
