Turkey’s Century of Denial About an Armenian Genocide – NYTimes.com

Good piece on the ongoing denial by Turkey of the Armenian genocide which recently had its 100th anniversary this year, marked in particular by the Pope’s labelling itself as such and more Turkish denial:

“The Armenian diaspora is trying to instill hatred against Turkey through a worldwide campaign on genocide claims ahead of the centennial anniversary of 1915,” Mr. Erdogan said recently. “If we examine what our nation had to go through over the past 100 to 150 years, we would find far more suffering than what the Armenians went through.”

In a country defined by its divisions, between the secular and the religious, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, the legacy of the Armenian genocide is a unifying issue for Turks. A recent poll conducted by the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, an Istanbul research organization, found that only 9 percent of Turks thought the government should label the atrocities a genocide and apologize for them.

Turkey’s ossified position, so at odds with the historical scholarship, is a legacy of how the Turkish republic was established after World War I. Under its founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, society here underwent a process of Turkification: a feat of social engineering based on an erasure of the past and the denial of a multi-ethnic history. The Armenian massacres were wiped from the country’s history, only to emerge for ordinary Turks in the 1970s after an Armenian terrorist campaign against Turkish diplomats.

Even now, Turkish textbooks describe the Armenians as traitors, call the Armenian genocide a lie and say that the Ottoman Turks took “necessary measures” to counter Armenian separatism. A room at the Istanbul Military Museum is devoted to the suffering of Muslims at the hands of Armenian militants.

Turkey’s Century of Denial About an Armenian Genocide – NYTimes.com.

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings and selected commentary

Lot’s of coverage of the SCC decision on regarding prayer city council meetings, starting with the basics:

In 2008, city officials initially changed the prayer to one it deemed more neutral and delayed the opening of council by two minutes to allow citizens a window to return follow the reciting.

The Supreme Court said Canadian society has evolved and given rise to a “concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”

“The state must instead remain neutral in this regard,” the judgment said.

“This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.

“When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”

The City of Ottawa quickly reacts with a sensible approach: a minute of silence and reflection:

In Ottawa, Mayor Jim Watson replaced the prayer with a moment of silence — even though he said the prayer councillors have been reciting for years was non-denominational.

“I always thought that our prayer was very respectful of all religions and cultures. But the court has ruled and we’ll take the ruling seriously. The alternative I believe would make some sense is to offer, as we did today, a moment of personal reflection and people can pray themselves personally and privately,” Watson said.

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings – Montreal – CBC News.

Best commentary seen to date:

The Court didn’t bite. It lacked evidence of the circumstances and purpose of the Commons prayer, Justice Gascon argued, and besides, it might be covered by parliamentary privilege. That might save it from the judiciary; it shouldn’t save it from Canadians’ scrutiny. While Maurice Duplessis’ crucifix still looms over the speaker’s chair in Quebec City, the National Assembly abandoned its introductory prayer nearly 40 years ago in favour of a moment of reflection — one in which members and others can gather courage and inspiration from whichever sources, earthly or otherwise, they choose. That’s an idea worth reflecting on.

National Post Editorial: The separation of prayer and council

But perhaps the part of the judgment that will be read most carefully by justice officials and their political masters is the section that spells out that a neutral public space is not one that obliterates religious diversity.

In paragraph 74 of the judgment, and almost as an aside from its core narrative, Justice Clément Gascon writes: “I note that a neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of private players in that space. Neutrality is required of institutions and the state, not individuals.”

He adds for good measure: “. . . a secular state does not — and cannot — interfere with the beliefs or practices of a religious group unless they conflict with or harm overriding public interests.”

That amounts to a red light flashing in the face of any government contemplating — as Quebec recently did — the imposition of a secular dress code on its public sector employees.

It also suggests that the federal government, should it want the court to give its ban on face-covering niqabs at citizenship oath ceremonies a green light, may have to come up with a pretty compelling demonstration of the “overriding public interest” served by such a measure.

Canadian legislators will have to pay attention to Supreme Court’s prayer ruling: Hébert

One-fifth of New Canadians arrive with no money: report

Interesting survey by Pollara (BMO sponsored) on immigrant savings and spendings:

Immigrants arrive in Canada with an average of $47,000 in savings – but are left with less than half of that once they get initially settled, says a new BMO Wealth Management report.

And about one-fifth, or 19 per cent, come with no money at all, finds the study being released Wednesday.

“It can be incredibly stressful – financially and otherwise – to pick up, move to another country, and begin the process of creating a new life for yourself, so it’s great to see that new Canadians do have a bit of a nest egg remaining,” said Julie Barker-Merz, president of BMO InvestorLine.

After all the initial expenses associated with getting settled — including moving costs, flights, food, clothing and shelter for their family — immigrants are left with an average of $20,000, says the inaugural study Making the Financial Transition.

It found new Canadians spend their remaining money to save for various things, including retirement at 53 per cent, their children’s education at 49 per cent, large purchases like a home or a car at 44 per cent and a trip at 36 per cent.

Two-thirds send an average of $2,300 back home to friends or family, with 17 per cent doing so monthly and one-quarter sending money a few times a year, says the report examining a variety of financial issues for those who have moved to Canada less than 10 years ago.

Immigrants face numerous challenges when arriving to their new country, including lack of familiarity with the financial system combined with language barriers, Barker-Merz said.

“What will be critical is to make sure they make their remaining money work for them by acquainting themselves with the basics of saving and investing in their new environment,” she noted.

All banks compete actively for this business.

One-fifth of New Canadians arrive with no money: report | Toronto Star.

Ed Miliband vows to tackle ‘scourge’ of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

From the British election campaign and the common messaging re antisemitism and Islamophobia:

The Labour leader said “huge advances” in equality had been made “but the work is not yet done” as he addressed an audience of Labour supporters in Leicester.

Black young people are twice as likely to be jobless while long-term unemployment has rocketed by nearly 50% under the coalition, according to Labour.

“We are a long way from the equality we need as a country,” Mr Miliband said during the event at the City’s Peepul Centre.

“We are going to look at every aspect of the way government works. We are going to have a race equality strategy for every part of the way government works and we are going to look at those barriers and we are going to break them down.”

He added: “We need to confront the scourge of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia head on with strong action on hate crimes.

“For the first time ever we are going to make sure that when people commit hate crimes they are clearly marked on the criminal records of those who commit them. And, tough new sentencing guidelines which ensure aggravated criminal offences based on hate crime are properly dealt with by the courts.”

The party is fielding 52 black and minority ethnic candidates at the General Election.

Ed Miliband vows to tackle ‘scourge’ of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – Jewish News.

Immigrant parents might be at greater risk of stillborn births, Ontario study suggests

Interesting study and like many, while pointing out patterns, suggests areas for further research and understanding of the various factors involved:

Nearly three million babies are born every year without any signs of life, a phenomenon that remains poorly understood by medical science. But a new study by Ontario researchers suggests that some parents who are immigrants might be at greater risk of having a stillborn birth.

The paper, published Tuesday by the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, found a “significantly higher risk of stillbirth” among first-generation immigrant parents in Ontario — especially when both mom and dad were born in the same country where stillbirth rates are high.

Analyzing the top 20 countries from which couples immigrate to Ontario, researchers found parents from Nigeria, Portugal, Jamaica and Guyana had the greatest risk of stillbirth compared to Canadian-born couples. Parents born in China, the Philippines and Afghanistan had a slightly lower risk than Canadian couples.

“We’re trying to ask in the Canadian setting, where we have extreme diversity, whether there’s a difference between immigrants and non-immigrants in the risk of stillbirths,” said senior author, Dr. Joel Ray, a clinician scientist with St. Michael’s Hospital.

Ray hypothesized that certain immigrant couples could share genetic factors or environmental exposures that give them a higher risk of stillbirth. But he emphasized his study was still preliminary and there is no reason for foreign-born parents to be alarmed. More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn and “fortunately, stillbirths are rare and are still largely predicted by unknown factors rather than the origin of the couples.”

David Savitz, a professor of epidemiology, obstetrics and gynecology at Brown University, also cautioned that ethnicity alone cannot be blamed for stillbirths. Rather, it should be treated as a “marker” for some other factor, like economic status, which could be elevating the risk.

“(This paper) provides clues, and they can be very useful ones, but it’s a very early stage,” said Savitz, who was not involved with this study.

Immigrant parents might be at greater risk of stillborn births, Ontario study suggests | Toronto Star.

Michael Bliss: What the West’s long struggle with communism tells us about the battle with Islamic terrorism

Michael Bliss on some of the lessons of history in combatting communism as applied to ISIS, and the need for appropriate caution:

As a historian I have all sorts of skepticism about simplistic notions that history repeats itself or that the lessons of history are easy to discern and apply, but I do believe that the experiences we have had in the past have to be drawn upon as we consider options for dealing with recognizably similar problems in the present and future. Surely the success of ISIL in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has real parallels with the coming to power of Bolshevism in Russia in 1917. Surely the history of the struggle against Communism in the 20th century supplies us with some markers for dealing with the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century.

One “lesson” from this past is to be careful not to underestimate the strength and appeal of a radical, messianic movement with deep cultural roots. Like Bolshevism, ISIL has immediately become engaged in a hugely complicated, multi-faceted set of local wars as it tries to consolidate its power. Like Bolshevism it is utterly and appallingly ruthless in its cold-blooded determination to create what it calls the new caliphate. And, also like Bolshevism, the ideology of apocalyptic revolution is proving to be a kind of magnet for true believers everywhere, who make pilgrimages to ISIL territory to fight for their great cause. This should not surprise us. Nor should we be surprised that ISIL-spawned or affiliated Islamic fundamentalist movements are active in many other countries, and might well succeed in taking power in other failed states, ranging from Libya and Yemen through, most worrisomely, Nigeria, and perhaps Afghanistan and even Pakistan. We are dealing at one and the same time with a territorially-based mini-state leading a boundariless international movement.

Given this situation, it’s perhaps no wonder that a coalition of the enemies of ISIL quickly formed and became active in trying to degrade and destroy it. Here the haunting danger is of a repetition of the failed Allied intervention in the Russian Revolution, a destructive fiasco characterized by our almost complete ignorance of a far-off area of the world, strategic incoherence in the face of social collapse and revolution, and the West’s naive habit of claiming moral high ground.

So far, the signs seem to be that we in the West are again stumbling blindfolded into a vastly complex and chaotic situation with only simplistic, confused and uninformed ideas of our objectives and interests. As with the Allied interventions in Siberia, in which Canada played a significant role in the hope of showing off its potential as a young nation, and actually only showed an almost pathetic naivité, there is a distinct possibility that in the short, medium, and long terms we will succeed only in making things worse.

Admittedly, the situation is changing so quickly that it’s quickly becoming almost impossible to keep track of it — particularly as the chaos in Yemen seems to be forcing moderate Islam to become militarily engaged for the sake of its own survival. There is a real danger that the situation might evolve into a great civil war been Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Generally, it’s probably wise to be cautious in situations in which it might seem like a good idea for the West to wage war against Islamic fundamentalism. We should remember how enthusiastic anti-Communists tended to overreach themselves, from the Korean peninsula through the Bay of Pigs and into the swamps of Vietnam. Already the West has stumbled dreadfully in Afghanistan and in the unbelievably disastrous American invasion of Iraq. With our NATO partners we Canadians were enthusiastically complicit in what we now realize was also a disastrous demolition of order, perhaps even of civilization, in Libya. And yet we still listen to voices urging us to do it all over again, and have just begun airstrikes in Syria without legal justification.

Here at home, jihadist terrorism poses about the same minimal threat to Canada as the international Communist movement did after 1917. We have to think seriously about issues of internal security, but we have to see them in perspective.

Globally, however, the problem is real. Given the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism to even a minuscule fraction of more than a billion Muslims, it is hard to believe that jihadism will be a passing movement, even if it does happen that ISIL is crushed. It’s at least as likely that it will continue to strengthen and spread, take hold of other countries and possibly become caught up in horrendously catastrophic wars and revolution. The prospect is very scary, and almost anything could happen. In fact in some ways Islamic fundamentalism is more alarming than Communist fundamentalism or the other totalitarian movement we had to defeat, Nazi fascism, because its religiously-rooted glorification of suicide makes terrorism, even nuclear terrorism, more feasible.

The West’s long-term strategy against the spectre of Communism was twofold. Militarily the West learned that containment of Communist expansionism was more likely to succeed than futile attempts at conquest. Thanks to the reciprocal restraint that the Communists themselves learned to adopt, for many years there was tacit co-existence between the two great ideological camps, odious as this prospect was to the true believers on both sides.

During periods of coexistence, both sides had to address the root cause of most forms of social disorder, which is people’s inchoate but powerful desire for a better life. As the 20th century wound on, utopian Communism proved corrupt and unworkable in daily life, materialistic capitalism proved flexible and productive, and the Red threat to the economic and social systems of our societies waned and then imploded on itself. As the title of a famous anthology by former Communists put it, theirs had been the god that failed. But, to slightly change the metaphor, it had been a social experiment that probably had to be tried.

I’ve made here an extended argument hinging on an analogy between revolutionary Communism and revolutionary Islamic fundamentalism, and of course it has many limits. But if nothing else our history with the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the rise of ISIL in 2014 underlines the importance of our realizing how much we need to know about cultures and regions of the world that are profoundly foreign to ours. And how we need to think clearly and carefully about power, its uses, both at home and abroad, and its limitations. Good intentions — the best intentions — are never enough. Understanding the limits of our knowledge, understanding context and contingency, knowing how hard and chancy it is to impose our will on the future, is at least a starting point.

Michael Bliss: What the West’s long struggle with communism tells us about the battle with Islamic terrorism

Why Western girls move to Middle East to marry ISIL fighters — and what life’s really like when they get there

More on women recruits to ISIS and their motivations and experience in an interview with Joana Cook of King’s College, London:

I would note that women joining extremist groups is nothing new, and the motivations to join have had some similar themes. Women played roles in everything from the Red Brigades in Germany, to the KKK in the U.S., sometimes motivated by their partners to join, but also to engage in the “community.” Themes such as excitement and a sense of adventure, and gaining a sense of independence are cross-cutting. In the case of women going to Syria and Iraq, there were specific initiatives that aimed to promote these marriages, for example opening a marriage bureau in al-Bab for women looking for a husband, or sending the newlywed couples on honeymoons. Similar to how some male fighters have decided to travel abroad, you will see women who are already established in these locations urging other women to come, glorifying the lifestyle and the roles of the men who are fighting (brave, devout, etc.). Increasing imagery of families and children also normalize and motivate some, as can a sense of “sisterhood” for when you arrive.

ISIL have limited the roles that women can take in the public sphere. Their roles have been largely restricted to the private sphere and “support” such as cooking, cleaning, supporting the families and education in the home (for example, how to raise a jihadi). As they are unable to move around freely without an escort, their communication with the outside world may be lessened (example: not being able to go to Internet cafés) and I think this is one of the reasons you don’t hear more about how horrible life there can be. There have been cases of severe sexual violence in some of these marriages, and also women whose husbands are killed fighting, leaving them with small children and unable to support themselves and in very dangerous circumstances. There were examples of unique roles coming out of Raqqa where women were acting as “police units” enforcing ISIL’s strict interpretation of Islam, also engaging in punishing women they found who went afoul of this. Other groups who had previously banned women from fighting roles, such as Hamas and al-Qaida, did change this policy over time for tactical reasons — that is, add an element of surprise. I hope that this does not prove the case.

Why Western girls move to Middle East to marry ISIL fighters — and what life’s really like when they get there.

What conservatives really care about

Interesting perspective by Sunstein of Jonathan Haidt’s assessment of the similarities and differences between the values of  liberals and conservatives:

In his later work, Haidt has rightly emphasized a sixth moral foundation, one that conservatives and liberals both respect, but that they understand differently: liberty. He finds that conservatives are more likely to emphasize the right to be let alone, while liberals emphasize the rights of vulnerable groups, such as racial minorities, whose freedom requires (in their view) government support. Nonetheless, the biggest and most consistent partisan differences involve loyalty, authority and sanctity.

Haidt’s central claim is that across partisan lines, people often fail to understand one another, because a moral concern that strongly motivates one group may be obscure or unintelligible to another. Democrats are wrong to be puzzled when rural and working-class Americans turn out to favor Republicans. There is no puzzle here, because Republicans are more likely to speak to their deepest moral commitments.

These claims are arresting, but it’s not clear that they are entirely right. Insofar as liberals focus on the environment, they are often motivated by ideas about the sanctity of nature. More than conservatives, liberals appear disgusted by cigarette smoking. Nor are they indifferent to loyalty: If a civil rights leader publicly opposed affirmative action, or if a prominent Democrat broke with the party on health care or climate change, many liberals would feel a sense of betrayal. Conservatives may be more likely to emphasize loyalty in the abstract, but in concrete cases, everyone cares about that virtue.

That said, Haidt’s general conclusions are founded on evidence, not speculation, and he has compiled a mountain of evidence to support his conclusions. There’s a big lesson here for those who aspire to public office, including the White House: If they neglect the values of loyalty, authority and sanctity, they’re not going to speak to the moral commitments of a large segment of the American electorate.

Suspect this also holds true for Canada.

What conservatives really care about

Why Toronto’s police board caved on carding — and why the battle isn’t over: James | Toronto Star

More on the Toronto Police carding compromise and the ongoing debate (see earlier Toronto Police’s carding reform is built on a good foundation):

But the compromise, brokered by a retired judge, leaves them untouched, prompting critics to charge that Mukherjee has sold out.

After a year of back-and-forth, Blair’s position has not moved, Mukherjee said. Blair feels that to define what is a “public safety reason” for carding is to limit the police. The board’s vote has no effect if the chief does not interpret the vote by writing operational commands that the rank and file must follow.

Meanwhile, community pressure has mounted as complaints pointed to statistics that showed black and brown citizens were four times more likely to be carded than whites.

“We were getting nowhere,” said Mukherjee. “There was a standoff. We were at an impasse.”

Mukherjee said the board, the civilian authority over the force, had only one option, other than compromise: charge the chief with insubordination.

When the board failed to do that last September, the moment passed. To try that in January, a few months before Blair was set to retire, would have been suicidal.

“If the board declared the chief insubordinate, then the matter would go to a tribunal and it would be stuck there for several years, with the carding matter remaining unresolved.

“I’m a practical man. Nobody wants to go to war with the chief.”

So, Mukherjee concluded he would accept an approach that, he says, achieves 90 per cent of the goal — and pursue the rest under a new chief that could be announced as early as Friday. Blair retires at the end of the month.

Mukherjee says he understands the disappointment and the criticism of citizens who’ve clamored for reforms and were on the verge of receiving them when the police board approved the new carding procedures last year.

He admits the board understands that the proposal mediated by retired judge Warren Winkler is “very different from the 2014 proposal.”

But full reforms were not going to happen under Blair, who was prepared to go only so far.

On Thursday, the board could make a few tweaks on three items, to signal it is listening to concerns.

New rules might say police “shall” (not, may) give citizens a business card following carding interactions. Secondly, if a citizen asks the police for clarity on whether they are being detained or are free to leave and not answer questions, the police must provide that information. And the chief is to provide clear criteria for eliminating historical data in police files.

Still, “the ground has shifted. The board and the new chief will take us to the next level,” he says.

Mukherjee, 69, has been on the board for 10 years. His term ends a year from now, and he won’t seek reappointment. This is his last year as chair, ending in December. His successor is expected to come from a city of Toronto appointee, to be named in the coming months, who replaces Andy Pringle, a board member whose term ended last November.

Distrust started building among police watchers following a flurry of changes on a board that had finally developed solidarity around policing reforms.

In quick succession, John Tory was elected mayor and took a seat on the board. Tory replaced Councillors Michael Thompson and Frances Nunziata with Shelley Carroll  and Chin Lee. Former councillor Mike Del Grande left city hall for the school board. The entire board dynamic changed. And, before long, carding reforms developed over two years were set aside with a compromise that critics say gutted the proposal.

At the last police board meeting April 2, where the compromise position was panned by every citizen and group appearing before the board, one speaker wondered if Mukherjee had been kidnapped, zapped, and had a brain transplant.

“I haven’t been zapped, no.”

“The new chief needs some breathing room. To drop the carding bombshell at his door, essentially untouched and without any progress, would be crippling, he said.

Mukherjee said he and the board faced a “practical dilemma.” In trying to accomplish “one of the most significant things the Toronto Police Services Board will do,” the board ran into a brick wall, with no palatable options.

Why Toronto’s police board caved on carding — and why the battle isn’t over: James | Toronto Star.

Losing our religion? Two thirds of people still claim to be religious

The latest survey on religion in the World by WIN/Gallup. In addition to the largely familiar geographic contrasts, the increased religiosity of younger people is of interest:

The relationship between gender, age, income, education and people ́s religiosity reveals interesting trends. Younger people (those under 34) tend to be more religious (about 66% as against about 60% for the other age groups). Those without what is considered an education are the most religious (80%) but religious people are a majority in all educational levels.

Income appears to exert a greater influence – among those with a medium high and high income, where less than 50% say they are religious, against 70% of those with low, medium low and medium income. Likewise, the number of convinced atheists is as high as 22% and 25% among people with medium high and high income but only 6% and 5% among people with low and medium low-income.

World Religions: WIN/Gallup International