Brunner: Making immigrants into settlers: settler colonial common sense in Canadian citizenship guides

One of the rare examinations of the language and approach across different citizenship guides (Nora Sobel did an earlier analysis). This analysis also covers the evolution of the guides but fails to acknowledge IMO the reality that any such guide will invariably present a somewhat sanitized version of our history, and a guide that presents an overly “black armband” of Canadian history would never be accepted by any serious political party and by the vast majority of old and new stock Canadians. The last para of their conclusion partially acknowledges that reality.

Whether the current government releases its version of Discover Canada, first announced five ministers ago, remains to be seen. My guess is not, given other priorities and a weak Minister:

In federal citizenship guides, settler colonialism is never named; the foundational structure of the Indian Act is omitted; references to reserves appear as decontextualized descriptions; and residential schools are minimized in ways that individualize harm. Treaties are absent until 1995 and, when introduced, are framed through a transactional logic that naturalizes settler title and casts Indigenous rights as historical accommodations rather than living, nation-to-nation obligations. Land is repeatedly depicted through frontier and extractive imaginaries, while Indigenous relations to land are relegated to culture or history.

In the context of ongoing settler colonial dispossession, education alone cannot serve as the ‘key condition for reconciliation’ (Chatterjee 2018, 3). State-produced citizenship guides in settler colonial contexts will not escape settler logics, nor can a revised narrative‘undo’ settlerism. Yet these texts still matter. They can either deepen so-called consensus and reinforce settler ignorance, or create openings for interruption.

As Chickasaw scholar Jodi Byrd (2011) writes, ‘settler, native, and arrivant [must] each acknowledge their own positions within empire and then reconceptualize space and history to make visible what imperialism. has sought to obscure’ (xxx). Within settler states, even this more modest demand – for truth rather than structural transformation – remains politically fraught. Citizenship guides operate within an apparatus designed to stabilize, rather than interrupt, settler colonial authority; yet they nonetheless constitute one of the few official sites through which prospective citizens encounter state-sanctioned narratives of belonging. At minimum, such texts could invite immigrants – differently positioned within racial hierarchies and imperial histories – to confront citizenship not as an untroubled inheritance, but as a relationship constituted through ongoing colonial conditions and responsibilities. While this falls far short of dismantling settler colonialism, it gestures toward a refusal of innocence, historical amnesia, and citizenship as a completed project.

Source: Making immigrants into settlers: settler colonial common sense in Canadian citizenship guides

ICYMI – Snow: CBC’s progressive bias revealed: What 6 years of corrections by the public broadcaster show

Appreciate this data-based approach. Interesting finding and also interesting that political party bias only formed about five percent of total:

…The data can help us understand the subjects where the CBC most frequently issues corrections, especially when it comes to the broadcaster leaning in a consistent ideological direction. CBC has often been accused of ideological bias against both the Conservative Party and conservatives more broadly. As such, I sought to determine how often partisanship or ideology appeared in CBC’s corrections.

In total, only 10 of the 209 correction notices involved Liberals or Conservatives, or liberalism or conservatism more broadly. Two were minor technical corrections for which partisanship or ideology was incidental. Of the remaining eight, two concerned Liberals and six concerned conservatives. Strikingly, all eight errors ran in the same political direction.

One of the two Liberal-related corrections involved a prematurely celebratory headline that initially declaredCanada was “finally getting” a national food program when the Liberal government had merely announced one it hoped to introduce later that year. The other put words in the mouth of a prominent Conservative when a CBC fact-check video falsely said that former Conservative cabinet minister Stockwell Day and others had blamed the Liberal government for changes to Poilievre’s riding boundaries. The source material contained no such accusation. CBC’s correctionomitted that context, leaving Day unnamed and admitting only that the video had wrongly said “some” blamed the Liberal government.

The remaining six corrections followed the same pattern: all involved reporting that portrayed conservatives unfavourably. The errors were as follows:

  • Reporting that Conservative officials had physically pushed the assistant of floor-crossing MP Chris D’Entremont, when they had pushed open a door.
  • Imprecisely linking alleged pressure by India on Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner to her decision to leave Patrick Brown’s leadership campaign, without initially noting that she denied being pressured.
  • Challenging a Conservative housing affordability video using average mortgage costs, even though the claim was based on median income and total homeownership costs.
  • Quoting a professor’s distorted characterization of Charlie Kirk’s remarks about black women and gay people, without describing what Kirk had actually said.
  • Publishing quotes from a Facebook post by Conservative MP Rachael Harder in a way CBC later called “potentially misleading” with insufficient context.
  • As noted above, publishing a story from an election worker that generalized hateful attitudes to conservative parties and voters more broadly.

Most of the corrections were modest, and, taken together, eight cases hardly prove systemic bias. But the political tilt of the reporting was uniform: one error favoured the Liberals, and the other seven portrayed conservatives unfavourably….

Source: CBC’s progressive bias revealed: What 6 years of corrections by the public broadcaster show

ICYMI – Urback: The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom

Agree:

…To be clear: This directive does not affect how members of the CAF can pray and worship on their own time. The policy also explicitly carves out exceptions for funerals, recognizing that a funeral is considered to be “family-led event that honours the family’s wishes.” It also notes that chaplains are not restricted “during private conservations (counselling), within faith-specific gatherings, or in their spiritual roles.” The new restriction is only when chaplains are speaking at public military ceremonies, where they are acting as representatives of the CAF (and thus the government), and not simply as faith leaders. 

The change is thus less an “attack on freedom of religion” of the individual than it is a move to further secularize the government. That is a good thing; religious freedom in a democracy should mean the ability to practice one’s spiritual beliefs as desired, as well as freedom from religion imposed by the government and by others. In other words, people should be able to pray and observe however they want, as long as it does not meaningfully affect others. …

Another way the CAF could have attempted to achieve religious neutrality (or greater religious neutrality) would have been to mimic what political organizations do in the U.S. Democratic and Republican conventions, for example, are opened or closed with prayers from a variety of faith leaders, including priests, imams, rabbis and so on. But this method would have inevitably left out one or more faith groups, and would also have turned public CAF ceremonies into extended prayer sessions that force members to entertain religious practice that has nothing to do with their service. Removing public religious expression is the better alternative, especially since it imposes no restriction on members’ private prayers. It is hardly the egregious affront to religious freedom that Conservatives are making it out to be, but rather, a sensible (if still a bit incoherent) step for a secular government.

Source: The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom

ICYMI: Une action collective accusant l’Université McGill d’avoir toléré de l’antisémitisme autorisée

When institutions fail, court challenges expected:

La Cour supérieure du Québec vient de donner le feu vert à une action collective intentée contre l’Université McGill. La poursuite allègue que, depuis l’attaque du Hamas en Israël le 7 octobre 2023, les étudiants juifs y ont subi du harcèlement de toutes sortes et qu’il régnait sur son campus montréalais un climat toxique et insécurisant.

Selon la demande en justice, l’Université a failli à ses obligations de protéger ses étudiants juifs et de leur assurer un environnement propice à leur éducation. Il est donc réclamé en leur nom une réduction de leurs droits de scolarité ainsi que cinq millions de dollars en dommages punitifs.

Selon la décision rendue cette semaine par la juge Dominique Poulin, cette action collective mérite d’être entendue.

Les faits allégués dans la procédure — plus particulièrement ceux concernant les discours antisémites et antisionistes tenus sur le campus universitaire — sont préoccupants et permettent de montrer que l’action a des chances de succès au terme d’un procès, écrit la magistrate.

La réplique musclée d’Israël aux événements d’octobre 2023 et ses bombardements sans relâche sur la bande de Gaza ont mené à de nombreuses manifestations en 2023 et en 2024 sur le campus de l’Université McGill, ainsi qu’à l’installation d’un campement propalestinien….

Source: Une action collective accusant l’Université McGill d’avoir toléré de l’antisémitisme autorisée

The Superior Court of Quebec has just given the green light to a class action brought against McGill University. The lawsuit alleges that, since the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, Jewish students have suffered harassment of all kinds and that a toxic and insecure climate reigned on its Montreal campus.

According to the lawsuit, the University has failed in its obligations to protect its Jewish students and provide them with an environment conducive to their education. It is therefore claimed on their behalf a reduction in their tuition fees as well as five million dollars in punitive damages.

According to the decision rendered this week by Judge Dominique Poulin, this class action deserves to be heard.

The facts alleged in the proceedings – especially those concerning anti-Semitic and anti-Sionist speeches held on the university campus – are worrying and show that the action has a chance of success at the end of a trial, writes the magistrate.

Israel’s muscular response to the events of October 2023 and its relentless bombing of the Gaza Strip led to numerous demonstrations in 2023 and 2024 on the McGill University campus, as well as the installation of a pro-Palestinian camp….

ICYMI – Geist: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Understandably, this report has received considerable coverage and commentary. One of the better commentaries IMO:

…The report itself stops short of formal recommendations, concluding instead that academic leadership must take greater responsibility and that the findings should be used immediately by leadership in higher education institutions to examine their policies and practices. The recommendations came separately from the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA), a non-partisan group of more than 400 Jewish and non-Jewish academics from 54 institutions of which I am a member, which released ten recommendations alongside the report. The list will sound familiar to anyone who has followed this issue: applying existing policies to protect students targeted for any aspect of their Jewish identity including Zionism, institutional neutrality policies that apply across the institution, adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism together with the Canadian Handbook, a centralized and transparent incident reporting system with annual campus climate assessments, and a special advisor on antisemitism on every campus.

What has been missing is not knowledge of what to do, but the will to do it. Indeed, the release carries its own illustration of the problem: the survey was commissioned by former Special Envoy Deborah Lyons before the government eliminated her role, leaving the government to release the most comprehensive evidence yet of a systemic antisemitism problem on campus just months after creating a leadership void that has yet to be filled and a new anti-hate council that has yet to act.

I have been an academic for nearly 30 years, working in an environment where inclusion and safe spaces for all students to be their best were unquestioned priorities. Backed by a supportive University president, dean, and advisor on antisemitism, I still believe that to be the case. But this survey confirms that the vast majority of Jewish students encounter antisemitism on campus. If this were any other group — 95% of Indigenous students reporting discrimination or 70% of BIPOC students reporting mental health harm — this would be viewed as a major crisis requiring immediate action. But when 95% of Jewish students report encountering antisemitism, 70% report harm to their mental health, a majority hide their identity, and students report threats of violence and Holocaust denial, the response from some quarters is to ignore or take issue with the survey data.

The bottom line is that hundreds of Jewish students from campuses across the country report antisemitic conduct on campus that is stunning in scope and harm. Every university president in Canada should be investigating how much of the data reflects their own campus experience and committing to change through the NECA recommendations. Every faculty member should be examining whether the discriminatory conduct occurs in their class. And every faculty and student union should be working to fully protect their Jewish members. Years of willingness to tolerate or excuse the antisemitic reality – a Jewish exception – suggests this is unlikely to happen. But now no one can say they didn’t know what was happening.

Source: Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis: National Survey Finds Antisemitism Nearly Everywhere and University Responses Nowhere

Colby Cosh: Supreme Court to decide which comes first — Crown oath or Sikh faith

Commentary more nuanced than the header:

…Over the remainder of the 19th century, the great hero of world atheism, Charles Bradlaugh, fought successfully in England for the principle that oaths could be replaced by “affirmations,” allowing unbelievers a loophole into political life and all secular professions. This option is in fact available under the Alberta Legal Profession Act, and was given to Wirring, but the difference in wording between “swear” and “affirm” didn’t seem to assuage his religious feelings. The core problem seems to be the notion of “allegiance,” but at common law all citizens were understood to owe allegiance to the sovereign, as part of a reciprocal obligation, whether we like it or not. Maybe this is some of the meat left on the bone that the Supreme Court apparently hopes to gnaw; I don’t know that anyone expected them to give leave to an appeal of Wirringat all.

Source: Colby Cosh: Supreme Court to decide which comes first — Crown oath or Sikh faith

Lederman: The delay for a Palestinian theatre artist’s visa is a shame

Indeed:

…The Cultch attracted protests earlier this year for mounting Soldiers of Tomorrow, written and performed by Israeli-Canadian Itai Erdal who served in the IDF (and is strongly opposed to the Israeli occupation). Ms. Redfern stood her ground then, and she’s moving heaven and Earth now to bring The Horse of Jenin to Canada. She understands the important role art can play in understanding human catastrophes. 

This moment demands this kind of theatre, whether you agree with the artist or not. Any concern that this play about a boy and a sculpture will serve as some sort of Trojan horse for a political message would be absurd. That message is everywhere, anyway. Canadian audiences should be able to hear it from, well, the horse’s mouth. 

Source: The delay for a Palestinian theatre artist’s visa is a shame

Khan: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

As we do in the face of antisemitism and other forms of hate:

…Local communities can play a key role in strengthening social cohesion. This was demonstrated by the good people of Clarington, who came together at a town hall to support the harassed Muslim family, and stand firmly against fear-mongering. 

Human connection is a powerful currency in this more isolated digital age, as we can learn we share much in common. Our hearts, like this land, are expansive enough to offer comfort and solidarity in the face of hatred. The Clarington approach can serve as a blueprint for strengthening communities across Canada against Islamophobia, antisemitism, and hate in general.

Source: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

Le Devoir Éditorial | Vivre ensemble, c’est tout

Good editorial:

…C’est devenu un objet d’étude en soi, avec la montée en force des médiations interculturelles, ici et ailleurs. La grande université californienne de Berkeley s’est même dotée d’un indice d’inclusivité qui lui permet de mesurer nos progrès, d’identifier les bonnes pratiques comme les mauvaises, celles qui crispent les sociétés et les divisent. Le Canada s’y classe au 15e rang, en sandwich entre l’Allemagne et le Danemark. Tout au sommet, on trouve la Nouvelle-Zélande, le Portugal et les Pays-Bas.

Ses chercheurs observent la constante suivante : l’agitation, les remous et les contre-courants feront toujours partie de la vie en collectivité. Comme il ne sert à rien de s’acharner à vouloir dompter une rivière agitée pour en faire un long fleuve tranquille, il leur apparaît plus utile de jeter des ponts sur son dos afin que tous puissent y faire leur chemin et mettre leurs histoires en commun.

En d’autres mots, l’accord parfait n’adviendra pas et n’a même jamais existé. Il faut définir les valeurs communes qui nous lient et bâtir à partir d’elles, et non contre celles qui nous divisent. Les prochaines années s’annoncent politiquement, économiquement, climatiquement et humainement instables. C’est à ce défi immense mais ô combien prometteur que nous voudrions voir nos partis politiques s’atteler en prévision de la prochaine campagne.

Il est vrai qu’aller vers l’autre est exigeant. Cela vient avec des inconforts, des doutes, des incompréhensions, des appréhensions, voire de l’insécurité. Cet « inconfort interculturel », s’il est bien attesté, n’est heureusement pas éternel, nous enseigne la professeure agrégée de psychologie Marina M. Doucerain. Il a même « tendance à s’estomper à mesure que les gens accumulent les interactions interculturelles ».

Comme c’est en forgeant qu’on devient forgeron, la science nous enseigne ainsi que c’est en multipliant les contacts avec les autres qu’on devient… humains. Voilà une riche leçon pour qui veut passer d’un « imaginaire défensif » à un « imaginaire contributif », pour reprendre l’habile formule du professeur émérite Khadiyatoulah Fall parue récemment dans Le Devoir.

C’est aussi l’occasion de revisiter la pensée du regretté sociologue et philosophe Edgar Morin, pour qui la polarisation restera toujours le symptôme d’une « pensée mutilée » qui réduit le monde à des oppositions binaires. Face à cette fragmentation, il oppose la finesse d’une pensée complexe exigeant de relier les contraires plutôt que de les séparer. « Nous avons trop bien appris à séparer, observe-t-il. Il vaut mieux apprendre à relier. Relier, c’est-à-dire pas seulement établir bout à bout une connexion, mais établir une connexion qui se fasse en boucle. »

Travailler à relier, n’est-ce pas là le début d’une promesse électorale porteuse d’avenir ?

Source: Éditorial | Vivre ensemble, c’est tout

… It has become an object of study in itself, with the rise of intercultural mediations, here and elsewhere. The major California University of Berkeley has even acquired an inclusiveness index that allows it to measure our progress, to identify good and bad practices, those that tense and divide societies. Canada ranks 15th, sandwiched between Germany and Denmark. At the very top, we find New Zealand, Portugal and the Netherlands.

Its researchers observe the following constant: agitation, turmoil and counter-currents will always be part of community life. Since it is useless to insist on wanting to tame a rough river to make it a long quiet river, it seems more useful to them to throw bridges on his back so that everyone can make their way there and share their stories.

In other words, the perfect agreement will not happen and has never even existed. We must define the common values that bond us and build from them, and not against those that divide us. The next few years promise to be politically, economically, climatically and humanly unstable. It is to this immense but very promising challenge that we would like to see our political parties tackle in anticipation of the next campaign.

It is true that going to the other is demanding. This comes with discomfort, doubts, misunderstandings, apprehensions, even insecurity. This “intercultural discomfort”, if it is well attested, is fortunately not eternal, teaches us associate professor of psychology Marina M. Doucerain. It even “tends to fade as people accumulate intercultural interactions”.

As it is by forging that we become a forge, science teaches us that it is by multiplying contacts with others that we become… human. This is a rich lesson for those who want to move from a “defensive imaginary” to a “contributory imaginary”, to use the skillful formula of Professor Emeritus Khadiyatoulah Fall recently published in Le Devoir.

It is also an opportunity to revisit the thought of the late sociologist and philosopher Edgar Morin, for whom polarization will always remain the symptom of a “mutilated thought” that reduces the world to binary oppositions. Faced with this fragmentation, he opposes the finesse of a complex thought demanding to connect the opposites rather than to separate them. “We have learned too well to separate,” he observes. It is better to learn to connect. Link, i.e. not only establish an end-to-end connection, but establish a connection that is made in a loop. ”

Working to connect, isn’t this the beginning of an electoral promise with a future?

Trump’s Déjà-Vu Moment on Birthright Citizenship

More political posturing and material for the courts:

…Yesterday, Trump attempted to do some of the same things via new executive orders. One is intended to deny automatic citizenship to children born to people living in the United States while working for a foreign government and children of people declared to be terrorists or adversaries of the U.S. It would also deny citizenship to people born in U.S. territories if Congress passes a proposed lawallowing that, creating a new group of stateless people. The second order is intended to prevent the practice of “birth tourism,” in which people visiting the United States on tourist visas give birth to babies who are then U.S. citizens.

Legal experts and advocates say the orders are unconstitutional, and they are certain to be challenged in court. Trump’s loss at the Supreme Court seems to make these orders a long shot. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the Court, “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” satisfy the relevant conditions and thus “under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

The language in the orders about “alien enemies” is another likely area for dispute, not because anyone is eager to welcome the children of bona fide adversaries but because this administration has made absurd claims about illegal immigration constituting an “invasion,” which makes no sense on its face and has been rejected by federal judges.

Trump’s announcement of the orders at the White House yesterday was full of fabrications, exaggerations, and lies. Trump claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment “was meant for the babies of slaves. It was—it was right after—one week or two weeks after the Civil War ended.” In fact, it passed three years later, in 1868. The presidential adviser Stephen Miller echoed the same idea, saying that the amendment “had no other meaning and purpose outside of that, and that’s been clear, obviously, since the day that it was passed.” When a politician uses the word obviously—like frankly—that’s a good sign that what follows will be neither obvious nor true. If this had been obvious since 1868, the U.S. wouldn’t have acted otherwise for more than a century, and the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of the administration….

Source: Trump’s Déjà-Vu Moment on Birthright Citizenship