Multicultural Britain 2.0 Is the Best Answer to Ukip | Malory Nye

2014/06/06 Leave a comment

Interesting commentary on the politics of multiculturalism in the UK by Mallory Nye:

Such a multicultural perspective is not about celebrating diversity, preaching tolerance, or looking to recognise others. It is instead, about acknowledging the diversity of stakeholders in the national debate. It is about the right for people and groups to be different on their own terms, so long as there is also a common ground of identity where all can feel comfortable. It is about acknowledging the challenges of diversity in an attempt to take us beyond the issues of community v. community, identity v. identity, us v. them.

It is about us and us, together with our differences.Any political party that can articulate this sense of acceptance, of a social and national wellbeing in the midst of its diversity, would earn the right to govern, and would indeed find itself with an electoral mandate to do so.

It would be nothing more than helping us to accept the realities of today, rather than falsely promising a return to the long gone days of empire and ethnic homogeneity.

Multicultural Britain 2.0 Is the Best Answer to Ukip: We Need to Learn How to Live at Ease With Our Diversity | Malory Nye.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Front commun contre un «djihad juridique»

2014/06/06 Leave a comment

More on the Dalila Awada case against Louise Mailloux, former PQ candidate, who in her blog wrote that kosher and halal foods were a “conspiracy to enrich rabbis and imams and fund religious wars” (PQ reaps the intolerance it sowed with values charter). Pauline Maurois never dissociated herself from Mme. Mailloux’s commentary (Radical Islam is ‘a risk,’ Marois says, PQ candidate intolerance).

Reminds me of Ezra Levant’s crusade against human rights commissions and court cases, and the concern about the possible chilling effect on free speech:

Pour l’avocat de Mme Mailloux, Me Jean Bernier, la poursuite-bâillon est un recours judiciaire qui vise surtout à « décourager le militantisme ». La poursuite contre Mme Mailloux et ses acolytes militants laïques est la plus récente d’une « série de poursuites stratégiques » ayant pour cible des personnes qui ont participé au débat public, notamment sur le projet de charte de la laïcité, croit-il. « Voici maintenant qu’on veut déplacer un débat essentiellement politique devant les tribunaux. »

Not a great fan of recourse to the Courts in these cases as it is better that this be resolved in the political arena. The defeat of the PQ, its values charter, and Mme. Gouin have more impact.

Front commun contre un «djihad juridique» | Le Devoir.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Suicide bomber killed in Iraq part of wider jihadi base in Calgary

2014/06/06 1 Comment

More on home-grown radicalization, the most recent case being Salman Ashrafi:

Calgary is earning a reputation as a breeding ground for jihadi fighters.

The Muslim convert Damian Clairmont, who later took the name Mustafa al-Gharib, was killed while fighting with Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda-affiliated rebel group in Syria whose membership is made up largely of European, Australian and North American extremists.

Clairmont was also raised in Calgary, as were as many as two dozen other young men who, according to sources, have travelled to Syria to join rebel extremist groups to wage jihad in the last two years…..

“He might have been around certain charismatic preachers in the community that might not have had his best interests in mind,” he added.

It’s a thought shared by Soharwardy, the Calgary imam, who has received death threats for speaking out about this topic, but feels compelled to in order to stop men in his city from killing and dying on jihadi missions abroad.

“It is impossible for me to think the intelligence people do not know who is radicalizing Muslim youth. It is going on undercover; it is going on openly sometimes,” he said.

“The thing is they are recruiting Muslims to go and fight in Syria and getting them killed. It is horrible.… What is the Canadian government doing? Nothing. I mean this guy died, many, many … people died from our country. For what?”

While theoretical, given that both Clairmont and Ashrafi are dead, it is interesting to see how C-24 revocation provisions would apply in each case.

Clairmont was born in Canada and likely had no dual citizenship. Asrafi moved to Canada when he was in Grade 5 or 6, became naturalized but also has Pakistani citizenship.

Clairmont would keep his Canadian citizenship; Ashrafi would lose it even though he spent most of his childhood and early adulthood in Canada.

Easy to understand why most lawyers argue that this kind of different treatment would not be ruled Charter compliant.

Suicide bomber killed in Iraq part of wider jihadi base in Calgary – Canada – CBC News.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with , , ,

Citizenship reform bill has 26,000 opponents, according to B.C. petition – The Globe and Mail

2014/06/05 1 Comment

More opposition to C-24, spearheaded by the legal community:

“The BCCLA [BC Civil Liberties Association] does take the government to court from time to time so when laws are passed like this that are unconstitutional, it’s always something that we think about – whether there’s some kind of legal avenue that we might take,” Mr. Paterson [executive director] said.

“We haven’t made any decisions about that right now.”

The petition was gathered online over the last few weeks. Signatories were from across Canada and elsewhere in the world, said Mr. Paterson, who noted had not done a “scientific evaluation” of the material that would allow him to be more precise on this point.

Petition was mentioned by opposition in C-24 hearings as example that not everyone agreed with the Government’s approach (the Conservatives at times appeared to imply the opposite).

And no surprise that consideration being given to taking the Government to court, given the extensive testimony by virtually all lawyers questioning the constitutionality of a number of provisions, particularly revocation.

Immigration reform bill has 26,000 opponents, according to B.C. petition – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

Judith Maxwell: The government built the ‘Ottawa bubble’ it mocks

2014/06/05 Leave a comment

Judith Maxwell, former Chair of the Economic Council of Canada and the former President of Canadian Policy Research Networks, has it about right:

First, interpretation. The federal government is not the only policy actor in Canada. The other 13 governments taken together are larger and likely have more impact than Ottawa does. Then there are the big cities, the community service agencies, employers, big and small, plus researchers in universities, colleges, think tanks, industry associations etc. No policy choice should be made without seeking input from the people who know the subject, what solutions have been tried, and whether or not they worked.

Instead, public servants are blocked from interacting with stakeholders. No roundtables with all viewpoints represented at the table. No participation in meetings where researchers and stakeholders work through the evidence. No right to publish in-house research from federal policy units. No right to comment on the work of others. If consultations are held, only the “friendly voices” are invited. The bubble was built by the government, designed to keep insiders in and outsiders out. Perversely, in this respect, it has been quite successful.

Second, choosing the best option. The way things work now, the Prime Minister’s Office decides on the preferred policy action and then asks the public service to advise on damage control. This turns the policy-making process upside down. First, you find out works, then you decide.

She had her own run in with the Mulroney government when the ECC published a report that downplayed the economic costs of separation (and led the Mulroney government to close the ECC down in 1992)

Judith Maxwell: The government built the ‘Ottawa bubble’ it mocks | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Government, Public Policy Tagged with ,

One Reason Cross-Cultural Small Talk Is So Tricky – Harvard Business Review

2014/06/05 Leave a comment

A bit simplistic and stereotypical, but there is an element of truth to cross-cultural communications challenges:

A good way to prepare is to ask yourself whether the new culture is a “peach” or a “coconut”. This is a distinction drawn by culture experts Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner. In peach cultures like the USA or Brazil people tend to be friendly (“soft”) with new acquaintances. They smile frequently at strangers, move quickly to first-name usage, share information about themselves, and ask personal questions of those they hardly know. But after a little friendly interaction with a peach, you may suddenly get to the hard shell of the pit where the peach protects his real self and the relationship suddenly stops.

In coconut cultures such Russia and Germany, people are initially more closed off from those they don’t have friendships with. They rarely smile at strangers, ask casual acquaintances personal questions, or offer personal information to those they don’t know intimately. But over time, as coconuts get to know you, they become gradually warmer and friendlier. And while relationships are built up slowly, they also tend to last longer….

So what do you do if, like me, you’re a peach fallen amongst coconuts? Authenticity matters; if you try to be someone you’re not, it never works. So go ahead and smile all you want and share as much information about your family as you like. Just don’t ask personal questions of your counterparts until they bring up the subject themselves.  And for my coconut readers, if your peach counterpart asks how you are doing, shows you photos of their family or even invites you over for a barbecue, don’t take it as an overture to deep friendship or a cloak for some hidden agenda, but as an expression of different cultural norms that you need to adjust to.

One Reason Cross-Cultural Small Talk Is So Tricky – Erin Meyer – Harvard Business Review.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

How a family was built on the basis of forgiveness – The Globe and Mail

2014/06/05 Leave a comment

Powerful family story of forgiveness and reconciliation, in the shadows of Japanese-Canadian wartime internment:

While Mark Sakamoto and his younger brother, Daniel, were still children, their mother became an alcoholic. She left their father. She moved in with a violent man. She drank herself to death in the basement of a skid-row hotel in Medicine Hat while Mr. Sakamoto was in university.

The “gift” from his grandparents was that he brought himself to forgive his mother, to cleanse his heart of the resentment, hurt and sadness he felt toward her.

“I felt that with my daughter when she was born,” Mr. Sakamoto says, “when I was holding Miya, and I was angry because my mum wasn’t there.

“That’s where I started with the link, that my heart was that little daughter’s home, her emotional home, just like my grandparents understood that their heart was their children’s emotional home, and if it was clouded with anger at the Canadian government, at the Japanese forces that captured my grandfather and starved him and beat him, and if they dwelt on those injurious years and passed them on, that would be the real transgression.”

“I didn’t want my daughter to feel what I was feeling,” Mr. Sakamoto says. “And forgiveness is the only escape hatch we have in that regard.”

How a family was built on the basis of forgiveness – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Historical Recognition, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act: On to Third Reading – June 3

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Committee debate on C-24 concluded June 3rd with the Bill approved in its entirety without amendment along party lines.

A large focus of the debate was on revocation (clause 8). Liberals proposed amendments, all rejected:

  • Requiring Minister to hold on independent hearing for revocation fraud, rather than Ministerial discretion;
  • Onus of proof for dual citizenship should be on government, not citizen; and,
  • Full judicial appeal for revocation fraud cases, rather than leave to the Federal Court.

NDP did not table amendments but rather focussed on the principles and approach behind revocation, focussing on how it created two classes of citizenship, and discriminatory treatment between single or dual nationals. Citizenship was not “like a drivers licence,” and was not just a privilege but also a right. Concern was also expressed about judicial processes in foreign jurisdiction and that even a right to another citizenship could mean revocation even if minimal or no connection to that country. Moreover, constitutionality of revocation for dual nationals was very questionable.

Government responded by restating that C-24 had been reviewed by the Minister of Justice and was Charter compliant. He spoke to the equivalence to Canadian crimes but was less specific as to equivalency of judicial processes aside from noting that Minister had power to waive revocation if concerns about foreign justice processes. He said “nobody wants a terrorist as a neighbour” and that we are talking about criminals, not law-abiding citizens. He didn’t know anyone “who wants them to keep citizenship” and that this send a strong message that Canada should not be a haven for terrorists.

Other amendments (all defeated) and opposition included:

  • Clause 9 (Canadian Forces credit): deletion of “intent to reside”;
  • Clause 11 (application suspension): concerns over increased Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause  12 (citizenship judge): changing onus of proof of “intent to reside” provision to Minister from applicants, as well as reducing Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 14 (timelines): concerns expressed regarding the short delay for applicants to prepare their case (30 days);
  • Clause 15 (suspicion of security risks): concerns that innocent people could be affected;
  • Clause 18 (consultants): addition of law students to those permitted to provide consultant services;
  • Clause 19 (offences outside Canada): concerns regarding foreign judicial processes and lack of clarity on how these would be judged to be equivalent or not to Canadian processes;
  • Clause 20 (judicial review with leave): opposition to no longer providing applicants full right of appeal and concerns about Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 31 (transition measures) amendment to grandfather current permanent residents in the system.

The most lively exchange came at the end on the ostensible issue of the proposed title, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

The NDP started off by noting their support for addressing Lost Canadian issues, new penalties for fraud, and greater clarification of the rules around residency. However, some elements were very problematic and weakened citizenship, in particularly, intent to reside, elimination of credit for pre-permanent residency time, and revocation. She challenged again the constitutionality of proposed revocation for dual nationals, noting the testimony of lawyers, as well as the Government’s record before the courts. The NDP’s own consultations indicated considerable opposition, and she cited the recent petition against C-24 with more than 25,000 signatures.

The NDP was extremely frustrated by the process and deplored that the Government had not listened to witnesses (“pourquoi les avoir invités?”). The Government had not accepted any, nor proposed any, amendments. The Government remained “entêtés dans son idéologie.” “C’était ridicule” as citizenship concerned fundamental rights.

The Government responded to what he called a “rant.”. Canadians “gave the government a mandate to govern as a majority.” Canada has changed since the 1977 Citizenship Act. C-24 is a blueprint for improvement, including faster citizenship processing. Every member has constituents complaining about current processing times of 2-3 years. The Bill provides an opportunity to “fix it” by 2015-16. He listed the other improvements: aligning fees to cost of processing, ensuring applicants maintain strong ties to Canada, addressing Lost Canadians, strong penalties for fraud, Crown servants, among others. Canadians did not view revocation as “harsh” and this was in line with other countries (UK).

He closed by stating that “this is a major and significant step forward for Canada. Canadians elected a government with a strong mandate to bring forward legislation that strengthens Canada.”

And with that, the Bill was voted on as a whole, “carried on division” and moves on the third reading.

***

The following clauses were carried without debate: 10 (evidence of citizenship), 13 (obligation to answer truthfully), 16 (GIC security rulings), 17 (not counting time in jail for residency), 21 (delegation of authority). 22 (additional information), 23 (proof of certificates), 24 (certificates of citizenship), 25 (regulations), 26 (regulations – Minister), 27 (sunsetting), 28 (definition document of citizenship), 29 (consultant fines), 30 (limitation period), and 32 through 46 (essentially technical transition provisions).

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

Ottawa to appeal expat voting rights decision

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Further to the Court case on ex-pat voting (Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term), the Government will appeal the decision as expected:

“Non-residents should have a direct and meaningful connection to Canada and to their ridings in order to vote in federal elections,” Pierre Poilievre, minister of state responsible for democratic reform, said in a statement.

“For over two decades, Canada’s policy has limited to five years the length of time someone can be abroad and still vote. That is fair and reasonable.”

Feds appeal decision granting long-term expatriate Canadians voting rights

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Les jeunes et la souveraineté: la génération «Non»

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Pretty amazing poll regarding Quebec youth and lack of support for sovereignty. Sobering for the PQ and Bloc, and seems to confirm their fears that sovereignty is a dream of an older generation:

La firme CROP a sondé 500 personnes âgées de 18 à 24 ans pour le compte de La Presse. Le parti le plus populaire auprès de la jeune génération est le Parti libéral, à 34%. Québec solidaire et la Coalition avenir Québec arrivent ex aequo au deuxième rang, à 22% et 23%. Le PQ ferme la marche avec un maigre 16%.

De même, 69% des répondants auraient voté Non à un référendum sur la souveraineté. À 31%, le Oui «a atteint un plancher», commente Youri Rivest, de la firme CROP. «Quand la souveraineté se situe à moins de 30%, cest très faible.»

Le débat sur lavenir du Québec est «dépassé», croient 65% des jeunes. La même proportion pense que le Québec ne deviendra jamais un pays souverain. Pourtant, 44% des jeunes estiment que le projet est réaliste et 42% trouvent quil suscite l’enthousiasme.

Pas surprenant que les jeunes soient contre la souveraineté, puisquils semblent très attachés au Canada. Les deux tiers des répondants jugent en effet que le fédéralisme canadien comporte plus davantages que dinconvénients pour le Québec. La même proportion croit que les Québécois ont des valeurs communes avec les autres Canadiens. Et 68% affirment quêtre canadien «fait partie» de leur identité.

Les jeunes et la souveraineté: la génération «Non» | Katia Gagnon | Politique québécoise.

Xavier Dolan, the young QC director, also reflected this view, just prior to winning at Cannes:

“Should we win anything at all, I mean I’m from Quebec and Quebec is in Canada … Whatever my political views are or standpoints, I feel like my movie is very Québécois. But it would certainly be an international victory.”…

“For me, it’s not about a country or a province or old dilemmas or wars — that, my generation doesn’t associate with or relate with anymore.”

Don Macpherson: Xavier Dolan gets it right about young Quebecers’ politics

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →