Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

One of the historic anomalies in Ontario is a publicly funded separate Catholic school system that was part of the initial bargain of Confederation. A recent court decision allows students to opt-out of religious instruction. Tom Walkom of the Star:

The public sphere is inclusive. Religion is not. With religion, you are either in or out. You are either part of a body of believers or you are not.

Some religions, including Christianity, welcome converts. Many preach tolerance toward other faiths.

But in virtually every religion, there is a fundamental distinction between those who accept certain precepts as true and those who do not. And non-believers are — by definition — wrong.

Ontario’s Catholic schools have already found it hard to navigate the tricky path between church orthodoxy and public acceptability, most recently over the issue of gay-straight student clubs.

Thanks to a 1997 court decision, they have managed to retain the right to discriminate in employment. Catholic schools need not hire non-Catholic teachers.

But if they can’t make their students experience even a little bit of Catholicism — if, in order to qualify for government support, they are simply public schools with a dress code — why bother?

Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

Chris Selley in the National Post:

The Progressive Conservatives at least tried to address this bizarre inequality: Leader John Tory proposed extending funding to schools of other religions, and was trounced for his efforts by an electorate that then instantly forgot about the issue. They won’t go down that road again. That the Liberals and New Democrats can live with a single, publicly funded religious school system that considers homosexual acts “objectively disordered,” and buses students to pro-life rallies, only gets more astonishing every year.

One might thank Mr. Erazo for shining some light on this absurdity. But alas, nobody’s paying any attention. You can’t stop Ontario’s march of incoherent progress.

Get on your knees and opt-out

Philippe Couillard is in a secular charter mess of his own: Siddiqui | Toronto Star

While there is merit to Siddiqui’s points, there is a strong current, whether we like it or not, in Quebec that fears the “other.” Bouchard and Taylor recommended their laicisme ouvert in recognition of this reality. Let’s see the detailed proposal before being too critical:

Irony is that the premier-elect stands compromised on the very issue that Quebecers have soundly rejected — defeating not only the PQ government but the charter’s chief architect, Marois, in her own riding, and the five militantly pro-charter women she had backed it (including four Muslim and one Jewish), each full of contradictions and wild conspiracy theories against Muslims and Jews.

Had Couillard taken a principled position, he would now have had the golden opportunity to put an end to all the anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic and anti-Sikh nonsense that has been peddled in the name of secularism.

Another of his mistakes was to accept that hijab equals militancy. He formed a Liberal panel to study “fundamentalism,” including the radicalization of young people. To mitigate the proposal’s Islamophobic undercurrent, he said the panel would also tackle Christian fundamentalists who won’t have their children vaccinated. That’s a matter for public health authorities, as jihadism is for police, to tackle, not politicians pondering basic rights and freedoms.

The premier-elect made it worse Tuesday by elevating his internal party proposal into the broad official quest for consensus on the charter — “to prevent certain manifestations of fundamentalism.”

Philippe Couillard is in a secular charter mess of his own: Siddiqui | Toronto Star.

Don’t Separate ‘Honour Crimes’ From Other Violence Against Women | Amy Awad

Legitimate criticism of the focus on “honour crimes” without any linkage to overall violence against women by Amy Awad of NCCM:

There are thoughtful and effective ways to look at all the facets of violence against women and it can certainly be done without promoting bigotry. For example, in March, the Ottawa Police, the Ottawa Rape Crisis, and Algonquin College partnered to put on a full day event on violence in the name of honour. The event brought together a broad section of Ottawa professionals as well as religious leaders and community activists focused on developing effective community-based strategies in Ottawa for preventing violence in the name of honour.

With thoughtful discussion about definitions, causes, strategies, and yes, choosing the words we use, all participants felt welcome and were able to come up with first steps that can be taken to address these problems. Their concrete proposals included prevention strategies, early intervention and accurate data collection.

Contrast this with Honour Diaries that presents some of the most egregious examples of gendered violence and then almost entirely attributes the problem to Islam. Instead of offering real solutions based on facts, the documentary will very likely result in promulgating fear of the ‘other’ and promote hatred against Muslims who are falsely portrayed as holding the exclusive franchise on this scourge.

A more nuanced approach than Barbara Kay (Suffering caused by honour tell tales that smite the heart) and Margaret Wente (Don’t ignore women’s struggles in the Muslim world).

Don’t Separate ‘Honour Crimes’ From Other Violence Against Women | Amy Awad.

Brandeis University rescinds planned honorary degree to outspoken critic of Islam

The latest polemic around Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Clearly, Brandeis did not do its research and background checks and should have anticipated this controversy. While many of the specific criticisms she makes about aspects of Islamic and related cultural practices are valid, she, like many critics (e.g., Pipes) go too far in painting Islam and Muslims with the same brush, rather than recognizing the diversity within Islam and among Muslims. Just imagine substituting Christian, Jewish or Sikh in any of her quotes below:

She has come under criticism for remarks about Islam. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali was quoted as saying “there is no moderate Islam” and that Islam needed to be defeated.

“Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful,” she said. “It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”

That same year, she told the London Evening Standard that Islam is “the new fascism.”

She also characterized Islam as “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” she was quoted as saying, “It legitimates murder.”

Her selection by Brandeis sparked an outcry by students, faculty, and national advocacy groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“We believe offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites,” the group stated.

An online petition signed by students and other critics condemned Hirsi Ali’s “extreme Islamophobic beliefs.”

Brandeis University rescinds planned honorary degree to outspoken critic of Islam – Metro – The Boston Globe.

Two opinion pieces on opposite sides of the argument, starting with Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, defending the decision made by Brandeis:

Ms. Hirsi Ali’s statements on Islam are not incidental to her activism and her life’s work. They stand at the very center of her concern. It goes without saying that Brandeis blundered by not doing its research before making the announcement and embarrassing everyone involved. Still, the only issue for the critics of Brandeis is whether they affirm Ms. Hirsi Ali’s prejudicial and deeply offensive views on Islam as a violent and fascistic religious tradition. If they do, let them say so. And if they don’t, they should acknowledge that Brandeis was right in the decision it made.

Andrew Sullivan takes a very different take:
The rescinding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not exactly an act of punishment. No one has a right to any such degree and Brandeis is fully within its rights to breach basic manners and fail to do basic research about an honoree’s past work. And Ayaan has indeed said some intemperate and extreme things at times about Islam as a whole. But to judge Ayaan’s enormous body of work and her terrifying, pioneering life as a Somali refugee by a few quotes is, I’m afraid to say, all-too-familiar as an exercise in the public shaming of an intellectual for having provocative ideas. There seems to be an assumption that public speech must seek above all else to be “sensitive” rather than provocative, and must never hurt any feelings rather than tell uncomfortable truths. This is a terrible thing for liberal society as a whole and particularly terrible for a university campus, where freedom of thought should be paramount (although, of course, the hard academic left every day attempts to restrict that freedom).
I am more with Rabbi Yoffie on this. Yes, one should consider the life work and not just selected quotes. However, the quotes are consistent in Hirsi Ali’s overall writing and public remarks, and are central to her arguments against Islam in general, not just particular aspects of Islam.
Find it a bit surprising that Sullivan defends her position when his own views on religion are nuanced thoughtful and reflective, unlike the overly broad brush approach of Hirsi Ali.

Britain Increasingly Invokes Power to Disown Its Citizens

More on the issue of citizenship revocation in the UK and that the House of Lords rejected the proposed amendment that would have allowed revocation in cases where the person would be left stateless. Whether or not one agrees with revocation in terrorism or related cases, the lack of due process and full ministerial discretion (no role for the courts) is of concern. The proposed Canadian version is through the Federal Court; the Minister only has discretion in cases of fraud:

The issue is beginning to stir public debate. A government-sponsored amendment expanding the practice to naturalized citizens who have no other nationality sailed through the House of Commons this year. But on Monday, in a rare act of parliamentary rebellion, the House of Lords rejected the amendment and asked instead for a joint committee of both houses to examine whether the additional powers are necessary. The draft legislation will now return to the House of Commons.

Britain typically strips people of citizenship when they are outside the country. The procedure requires only that the home secretary find that stripping someone of citizenship would be “conducive to the public good,” then sign a deprivation order and send a letter to the person’s last known address. Loss of citizenship is effective immediately. It can be challenged in court, but that is a difficult task in most cases, given the inability of a targeted person to return to Britain for any proceedings.

Britain Increasingly Invokes Power to Disown Its Citizens – NYTimes.com.

Born Canadian? Citizenship of babies born using new fertility methods sometimes unclear

One of the complexities in citizenship policy related to new fertility techniques and the question of a genetic link. Not addressed in the proposed Citizenship Act revisions. While the number of cases is relatively small, they are hard on the families involved but also raise issues as to whether surrogacy should be encouraged in developing countries, where women may be more desperate and vulnerable:

Even the judge who wrote last week’s Federal appeal court’s majority decision said Parliament should consider developing new legislation to address some of the issues.

Under the current law, for instance, a foreign-born baby with non-Canadian parents would automatically become a citizen merely if the sperm or eggs used in assisted reproduction happened to originate from a Canadian donor, suggested Justice Marc Noel.

The current policy requiring a genetic link also creates “an unequal treatment between children of Canadian citizens depending on the manner in which they were conceived,” he wrote.

On the other hand, any child born on Canadian soil is automatically a citizen, even if the parents are not citizens, they used IVF and the sperm and eggs came from donors outside this country, said Michelle Flowerday, a Toronto-based fertility lawyer.

Born Canadian? Citizenship of babies born using new fertility methods sometimes unclear.

Le ministre Kenney appuie le projet de charte de Couillard | Charte de la laïcité

Federal reactions to Premier-elect Couillard’s proposed Chartre de laicité. Minister Kenney focussing on the proposed ban on receiving government services for women wearing the niqab/burqa, other federal leaders expressing general confidence that a reasonable approach will be taken without commenting on the specifics:

«J’ai toujours dit que ce serait inadmissible pour un fonctionnaire fédéral de traiter un client, un citoyen à visage couvert», a déclaré le ministre fédéral du Multiculturalisme.

M. Kenney dit n’avoir jamais entendu parler d’un tel cas au fédéral, mais qu’on lui avait rapporté que des personnes avaient prêté serment de citoyenneté canadienne le visage caché. Il affirme avoir ensuite publié une règle pour interdire cette pratique.

Le ministre de Stephen Harper avait dans le passé été cinglant envers le projet de charte des valeurs québécoises du gouvernement péquiste. Il avait même dit que le fédéral irait devant les tribunaux pour protéger les droits des minorités religieuses si la charte ne respectait pas les droits et libertés des citoyens.

Quant à savoir pourquoi l’interdiction du voile le choquait et non pas celle d’interdire le visage couvert, il a expliqué que l’usage pour les femmes musulmanes de cacher leur visage n’est pas une pratique religieuse, mais bien une «coutume culturelle».

Minister Kenney’s position evolved over time; initially, he appeared to give more weight to religious freedom when the niqab issue was first raised in the 2007-08 Quebec debates on reasonable accommodation (I cover this in chapter 5 of my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism).

Le ministre Kenney appuie le projet de charte de Couillard | Stéphanie Marin | Charte de la laïcité.

Within the PQ, the start of some reflection regarding the Charter, and it will be interesting to see how they position themselves with respect to the upcoming Liberal version, and whether they use that to turn the page on what was a cynical and divisive election strategy:

Le problème qu’a posé la Charte des valeurs en campagne électorale est abordé de front dans un texte rendu public hier par Jean-François Lisée sur son blogue. Hier, le ministre sortant refusait de préciser sa pensée en entrevue; le texte suffit, a-t-il expliqué. Dans son texte, Lisée relève que les stratèges péquistes auraient pu centrer davantage la campagne sur les questions identitaires comme la Charte et la langue. Le projet de charte aurait été mieux accueilli avec un bouquet de mesures favorables à l’immigration. Surtout, la proposition aurait nécessité «un ensemble cohérent et plus attractif».

Accessoirement, comme l’ex-ministre Joseph Facal, Lisée estime aussi qu’il aurait fallu encadrer étroitement la sortie de Janette Bertrand en fin de campagne. Mme Marois, qui a louvoyé et dit que des femmes congédiées pour leur voile obtiendraient de l’aide du gouvernement pour se recaser dans le secteur privé, n’a pas aidé. «Une meilleure gestion, en amont, de la question des congédiements n’aurait certes pas nui non plus», observe Lisée.

Dans l’analyse la plus fine jusqu’ici des causes de la déroute péquiste de lundi, Lisée explique que les stratèges de la campagne péquiste, dont il ne faisait pas partie, prend-il soin de préciser, étaient convaincus que l’entrée en scène de Pierre Karl Péladeau allait attirer des sympathisants caquistes au PQ. Une «présomption raisonnable», observe Lisée.

Les langues se délient au PQ

Will the Fair Elections Act Hurt New Canadians? – New Canadian Media – NCM

Further to the general controversy about Bill C-23, the “Fair Elections Act, the perspective from some of the settlement and related agencies with respect to new Canadians and the removal of vouching or equivalent:

Canadian immigrant service providers are worried that the Conservative government’s proposed election bill will potentially impact the voter participation rate of new Canadians and ethnocultural communities in future elections. Currently, citizens who don’t have proper identification can vote if someone else can vouch for their identity. If the new bill passes, vouching would be banned – a problem for new Canadians who want to vote but may lack proper identification simply because they’re new to the system.

“We know that many folks who tend not to be on the voters list and/or have ID that is deemed to be appropriate are folks who are low income or new to the system,” said Debbie Douglas, executive director of Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), based in Toronto, whose member agencies provide a variety of services for new Canadians, including professional development services, tools to help newcomers learn about Canadian citizenship, and language services. “The fact that they will be showing up to vote and not find their name on the list or have a voter’s card and not have appropriate ID will absolutely disenfranchise them,” she argued.

“Folks tend to vote for those that have their interests at heart and if a large number of new Canadians are disenfranchised or aren’t able to participate, than their interests aren’t able to be represented politically,” she added.

Nothing new compared to the general critique that removal of vouching will disenfranchise some voters that do not have drivers licenses (the one piece of government ID that has both name and address) or who move around more frequently (e.g., students). Not sure how high the number of new Canadians without drivers licenses or other accepted documents (e.g., property tax and utility bills), and likely not an issue for most, but as all the electoral and other experts who have testified, this mocks the government’s commitment to the democratic process.

One last thing. The Minister responsible, Pierre Poilievre, noted how much he tried to follow the Jason Kenney approach to legislation (The Kenney-Poilievre Doctrine – Macleans.ca). He seems to have forgotten a few aspects:

  • Don’t repeat ad nauseam talking points that have either been proven false or do not answer the question or issue. Make the points your own and answer the question;
  • Know when to be flexible and back down (Minister Kenney changed the policy on historical recognition and the Canada Jobs Grant in order to satisfy stakeholders and the provinces respectively); and,
  • Be careful who you attack and how (never a good idea to attack Sheila Fraser, former auditor general, given the public will believe her more than anyone in the government).

For a good general critique of how the Government and Minister is handling the bill, see Andrew Coyne’s Very little ‘fair’ about how Conservatives are pushing controversial Elections Act.

Will the Fair Elections Act Hurt New Canadians? – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Tories chastised for lack of racial diversity in judicial appointments – The Globe and Mail

While the Conservatives have been successful in their outreach to ethnic communities, it would appear much less so in some of the more substantive aspects such as judicial appointments:

In the past five and a half years, the federal government has appointed just three non-white judges, out of nearly 200 first-time judges named to the bench, despite growing numbers of lawyers who are members of racial minorities.

1.5 percent of appointments, and the usual government response that it is “guided foremost by the principles of merit and legal excellence in the appointment of judges and Canada has many candidates that meet these criteria” suggests insensitivity to diversity issues. The Government has been assiduous in appointing a number of senators from ethnic communities as well as having reasonable representation among its caucus. Why the difference in judicial appointments? Does the government wish to say that there are only a handful of qualified candidates among minorities?

Tories chastised for lack of racial diversity in judicial appointments – The Globe and Mail.

In conversation with exiled Conservative Tom Flanagan

Good balanced and reflective interview with Tom Flanagan, former Conservative strategist and thinker, by Paul Wells. While the bulk of the interview is about his controversial remarks about child pornography, worth reading for his general observations on communications and politics. And his quote on Harper is remarkably balanced for someone that Harper cut loose so ruthlessly:

Q: Your book also airs other criticisms of the Conservative party and of the Prime Minister. The falling out between you and Stephen Harper seems to be pretty complete. At one point, you write, “There’s a dark, almost Nixonian, side to the man. He can be suspicious, secretive and vindictive, prone to sudden eruptions of white-hot rage over meaningless trivia, at other times falling into week-long depressions in which he’s incapable of making decisions.” Is that the sort of thing that would disqualify a guy from being prime minister?

A: No, I don’t think so. I tried to be clear that this is one side of a complex person, and he also has many wonderful attributes and I feel proud that he asked me to work for him. I believe I helped him get where he is today. I think he’s obviously intelligent and dedicated and focused and honest; I can’t see him ever taking a bribe, for example. He doesn’t care about money. I worked closely with Stephen for many years and it took a number of years before I started to see the whole picture. At first, I was drawn by the sterling qualities and it was only over time that I started to see this other side. But I do think the tragedy of Harper is that this darker side is undermining what he has achieved, and would like to achieve further. So often now, the issue is about something that comes from this personal side, some kind of judgment that he has made about people that has backfired, or the way he has treated a person, so the focus is now so often being taken off the policy objectives. He’s got some achievements recently that he should be proud of, such as the free trade agreement with the common market and South Korea; being close to balancing the budget. But what are people talking about? Too often they’re talking about Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy, now Dimitri Soudas. So that’s what I see as tragic in the dramatic sense: that he has this difficult side which is now undermining the more positive and creative side.

In conversation with exiled Conservative Tom Flanagan.