Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea

Encouraging:

The Burmese government has so far disclaimed any responsibility for the fate of the thousands of Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea. But now the spokesman for the National League for Democracy, Burma’s most important opposition party, has demanded a long-term solution to the problem: giving them citizenship.

In an interview with The Independent, U Nyan Win said: “The problem needs to be solved by the law. The law needs to be amended. After one or two generations [of residence] they should have the right to be citizens.”

The statement was a bold break with the NLD’s usual ultra-cautious approach to an issue regarded as highly inflammatory in this Buddhist-majority country – Buddhists constitute 85 per cent of the population – in which atavistic fears of Muslim domination have been whipped up by chauvinistic Buddhist preachers.

Speaking to AFP earlier, he said: “If [the Rohingya] are not accepted as citizens, they cannot just be sent onto rivers. They can’t be pushed out to sea. They are humans. I just see them as humans who are entitled to human rights.”

Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea – Asia – World – The Independent.

Why Islam doesn’t need a reformation | Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan on the intellectual laziness of those who call for an Islamic reformation and the uncomfortable facts behind Luther’s reformation:

The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation of sorts, in the sense of a stripping of cultural accretions and a process of supposed “purification”. And it didn’t produce a tolerant, pluralistic, multifaith utopia, a Scandinavia-on-the-Euphrates. Instead, it produced … the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Wasn’t reform exactly what was offered to the masses of the Hijaz by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the mid-18th century itinerant preacher who allied with the House of Saud? He offered an austere Islam cleansed of what he believed to be innovations, which eschewed centuries of mainstream scholarship and commentary, and rejected the authority of the traditional ulema, or religious authorities.

Some might argue that if anyone deserves the title of a Muslim Luther, it is Ibn Abdul Wahhab who, in the eyes of his critics, combined Luther’s puritanism with the German monk’s antipathy towards the Jews. Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s controversial stance on Muslim theology, writes his biographer Michael Crawford, “made him condemn much of the Islam of his own time” and led to him being dismissed as a heretic by his own family.

Don’t get me wrong. Reforms are of course needed across the crisis-ridden Muslim-majority world: political, socio-economic and, yes, religious too. Muslims need to rediscover their own heritage of pluralism, tolerance and mutual respect – embodied in, say, the Prophet’s letter to the monks of St Catherine’s monastery, or the “convivencia” (or co-existence) of medieval Muslim Spain.

If we are to fight extremism we must bring people together, not silence and ban them

What they don’t need are lazy calls for an Islamic reformation from non-Muslims and ex-Muslims, the repetition of which merely illustrates how shallow and simplistic, how ahistorical and even anti-historical, some of the west’s leading commentators are on this issue. It is much easier for them, it seems, to reduce the complex debate over violent extremism to a series of cliches, slogans and soundbites, rather than examining root causes or historical trends; easier still to champion the most extreme and bigoted critics of Islam while ignoring the voices of mainstream Muslim scholars, academics and activists.

Hirsi Ali, for instance, was treated to a series of encomiums and softball questions in her blizzard of US media interviews, from the New York Times to Fox News. (“A hero of our time,” read one gushing headline on Politico.) Frustratingly, only comedian Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, was willing to point out to Hirsi Ali that her reformist hero wanted a “purer form of Christianity” and helped create “a hundred years of violence and mayhem”.

With apologies to Luther, if anyone wants to do the same to the religion of Islam today, it is Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who claims to rape and pillage in the name of a “purer form” of Islam – and who isn’t, incidentally, a fan of the Jews either. Those who cry so simplistically, and not a little inanely, for an Islamic reformation, should be careful what they wish for.

Why Islam doesn’t need a reformation | Mehdi Hasan | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com

Assume similar pattern likely exists for Canadian immigrants who decide to return to their country of origin:

No overall statistics are available for how many people return to their native countries to retire, but consultants, real estate agents and others who help immigrants make the journey say the numbers are increasing.

They leave for many reasons: They worked in menial jobs in the United States and can afford a much higher standard of living in their native countries; they want to be around their relatives as they age for emotional and practical reasons; the spouses they immigrated with or married in the United States have died or they have divorced.

Federico Mejia, the general manager of Su Vivienda Internacional, a consulting and international real estate company catering to Colombians, said his business had doubled in the last decade.

“An increasing number want to go back to Colombia to retire,” Mr. Mejia said. Demographics is one reason. One of the big waves of Colombian immigrants hit American shores in the 1970s, so most are reaching retirement age.

Also, Colombia, like some other Latin American countries, has become more economically and politically stable in recent years, so it is a more appealing place to return to. And, like many immigrants, Colombians feel a deep emotional pull.

But the economics should not be underestimated. Alfredo Padilla, director of Expresito Carga, a shipping business in New York that specializes in working with returning immigrants, said that in the last five or six years, an increasing number of retirees were moving back to Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

On an income that can barely sustain one person in New York, “you can live like a king in Ecuador,” Mr. Padilla said.

That is because people not only have the money they have saved, but if they have paid into the Social Security system while working in the United States, they can continue to receive payments abroad. But some exceptions apply, so it is wise to check the Social Security website.

While Social Security is portable, those returning to their home country will not be eligible for Medicare, which can be a major disadvantage, Mr. Rigor said. Medicare is generally not available outside the United States and its territories, even for American citizens who have paid into the system.

“People want to be covered by the benefits they accrue,” said Mr. Rigor, who moved to the United States from the Philippines in 1982. The Center for Medicare Portability, a nonprofit research organization,lobbies to get Medicare laws changed so Americans living overseas can receive benefits.

For some, however, losing Medicare is more than offset by their native country’s health care system. Janet Todosychuk, 59, returned to Vancouver, British Columbia, last month after living in Los Angeles for 35 years. A divorce prompted the move, but the fact that most health care is almost free in Canada has been a huge relief, Ms. Todosychuk said.

“I was paying $615 a month for health insurance,” in Los Angeles, she said. “It was definitely a factor in moving.”

Paul Kurucz, an instructor of marketing at Vancouver Island University, runs a website for returning Canadian natives. It started as a hobby, and although much of the information is free, he now offers a planner and guide for $25.

He said about 50 people a year inquire about returning to Canada to retire — mostly Canadians who immigrated to the United States but some who left for other countries.

Having relatives in Canada is probably the No.1 reason older people want to return, he said, but health care is the second. And the third is fear about the future of Social Security and their retirement income if they stay in the United States into old age.

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com.

ICYMI: Beware of the Muslim Brotherhood, expert warns

US security expert on the Muslim Brotherhood activities and strategies in North America and the narrative used that he argues prepares the ground for violent extremism:

Authorities should be concerned about the unseen hand of the Muslim Brotherhood gripping sections of Canada’s diverse Muslim community, says a U.S. security expert.

The movement has planted its revivalist interpretation of Islam, political ideology and activism among some Muslims here and sees itself as a minder and broker between them and the rest of society, Lorenzo Vidino, who specializes in Islamism and political violence, told the Senate’s national security committee recently.

“They basically aim to be the gatekeepers to Muslim communities, that whenever politicians, governments or the media try to get the Muslim voice, if there were such a thing, they would go through them, sort of the self‑appointed leaders of Muslim communities,” he said.

Vidino is director of the program on extremism at George Washington University and author of The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (Columbia University Press, 2010). He sees no direct links to terrorism among the group’s western supporters. In fact, some work to prevent violent radicalization, he said.

“It would be an analytical mistake to lump them, as some do, with al-Qaida or ISIL. These are not organizations that plan attacks in the West, and actually in many cases they do condemn them.”

The problem is more indirect, Vidino said. “Generally speaking, the movement has not abandoned violence as a tool to advance its agenda.” Tactically, it doesn’t pursue violence, “but it’s not heartfelt,” he said.

“They have this narrative where they lump together foreign policy issues with issues like cartoons and so on as part of a big narrative that proves this point that the West hates Muslims and Islam. It’s that mainstreaming of this narrative which is very much the staircase to violent radicalization and the brotherhood does mainstream that. It provides somewhat of a fertile environment.

“That kind of narrative in the mind a 16- or 18-year-old is extremely dangerous, because violence is justified when Muslims are under attack. If it’s OK in Gaza and Afghanistan, why is it not OK in the West, where you’re also telling me that Islam is under attack?”

…. To start, there is no group calling itself the “Muslim Brotherhood” in North America. Instead, a few hundred sophisticated, politically savvy and well-funded supporters in Canada have over the past 50 years created vocal and visible organizations that represent a very small part of the Muslim community. They exert a disproportional influence over mosques, schools and spaces where Muslims come together, said Vidino.

While they don’t take orders from any Arab capital, they “are part of an informal network where you have strong links based on personal and financial connections, and at the end of the day what matters the most: ideology. They all embrace a certain world view.”

Groups sometimes go to great lengths to sever or hide such ties, Vidino told the committee. He said they include the Muslim Association of Canada and what used to be called CAIR-CAN, now the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

Another group he identified is The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy – Canada, IRFAN. Its charitable status was revoked after the government alleged the organization sent almost $15 million to groups affiliated with the Palestinian terror outfit Hamas between 2005 and 2009. IRFAN has since been listed as a banned terrorist organization in Canada.

Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the NCCM, said Vidino is misinformed.

“The NCCM is an independent, non-partisan and non-profit grassroots Canadian civil liberties and advocacy organization with a public track record spanning 15 years,” said Gardee. “The NCCM is not a religious group and does not and has never had any affiliations, links, ideological or of any other kind, with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other overseas group.”

Beware of the Muslim Brotherhood, expert warns | Ottawa Citizen.

Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Savoie

More on the inappropriate use by Employment Minister Poilievre use of government video services for partisan purposes (taking a lead from the PM’s 24/7 videos).

Should there be a change in government, there will likely be questions regarding whether or not deputies and senior officials provided any advice on the ethics of such advertising, particularly in the pre-writ period. There is also a risk that an incoming government may choose to emulate this approach rather than limiting it.

While Savoie is right that not all responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the Clerk and that all executives have a role in questioning such practices, the Clerk and deputies need to set the tone and provide space for other executives to challenge such requests:

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre’s taxpayer-funded video to promote the Conservatives’ universal childcare benefit shows the traditional line between politics and the public service is a “no man’s land” where there are no rules, says a leading public administration expert.

Donald Savoie, a Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at Université de Moncton, said the online video “smacked” of partisanship to which public servants should have been “hyper-sensitive” coming only four months before a federal election.

“If anyone should know and be sensitive to the partisan line that should not be crossed, it’s the public service,” said Savoie. “They should not get involved in initiatives or measures that can viewed by Canadians, or opposition politicians, as partisan. They are guardians of the public interest, not the political interest.”

But Savoie said the rules and boundaries that once separated politicians and bureaucrats, and the workings of politics and administration have been “thrown out the window” — setting the stage for a creeping politicization of the public service.

There are still rules like those laid down in the communication policy and values-and-ethics code that are supposed to ensure that public servants don’t stray into partisan territory. And the department argued that it followed government policies in making the video.

But Savoie argues codes and policies don’t fill the void of rules that guided the traditional bargain between Canada’s non-partisan public servants and politicians. As a result, public servants don’t know what their roles are anymore in policy-making, operations or communications.

“No values and ethics code can paper over this no man’s land. The minister should have basic respect for public service, and senior public servants should have it too. It takes two to have a bargain. That old bargain is gone and we are searching for a new one,” said Savoie.

“So what’s the role of the public service in contemporary government? We haven’t defined the new rules. All we have are values and ethics and they have no teeth. We absolutely need a frank and open discussion on the role of the public service in policy making, operations and communications.”

Academics have for years warned that the traditional role of the public service was radically shifting as power gathered at the centre in the Prime Minister’s Office and its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.

That shift has accelerated by rapidly changing technology, the 24-hour news cycle, and governments obsessed with managing the message.

But critics argue that nothing has strained the neutrality of public servants like the Conservatives’ highly centralized and partisan approach to government communications.

Liberal MP David McGuinty argued that Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette, who heads the public service, should justify how public servants could work on what he called Poilievre’s “taxpayer-funded vanity video.”

The video was produced by department funds, and public servants were called in on a Sunday to work on it, including filming Poilievre glad-handing constituents.

But Savoie questions why the clerk should be on the hook when every public servant has been immersed in the values-and-ethics code.

“Don’t point the finger at the clerk,” said Savoie. “If you are an EX-1 or above you should know the importance of the value-and-ethics code and when you see a red flag like this a few months before a general election, live by it. You should be asking if this is appropriate. Values and ethics code covers everybody, not just the clerk.”

But Savoie said Poilievre, as a minister, should have known better.

“Ministers have a responsibility to back off and respect the line and realize what’s in the public interest and what’s in their own interest. It’s not all on the shoulder of the public service — the ministers shouldn’t be making inappropriate demands.”

Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Expert | Ottawa Citizen.

Let non-citizens vote in municipal elections: Editorial | Toronto Star

I don’t agree with The Star’s position.

Citizenship take-up should be encouraged and municipal voting for non-citizens may result in less incentive to become citizens. I have never seen any convincing evidence that municipal voting for Permanent Residents will significantly increase voter participation and visible minority representation.

The revisions to the Citizenship Act along with previous changes, making it harder for some visible minorities to become citizens, and with an overall decline in citizenship uptake, do however weaken the case against allowing non-citizen municipal voting:

Toronto Mayor John Tory doesn’t want people who aren’t Canadian citizens to vote in municipal elections. It’s a reasonable stand, but he should change his mind.

We did.

In 2005 the Star was firmly opposed to giving non-citizens the right to cast a municipal ballot, arguing that this was a well-intentioned proposal that would unfortunately dilute the privilege of citizenship.

Tory expressed similar sentiments this past week at a Ryerson City Building Institute forum organized to explore ways of bridging urban divides. Giving non-citizens the vote was suggested as a way to open up the democratic process and help more visible minority candidates win elected office.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie and Ajax Mayor Steve Parish welcomed the idea. But the Star’s David Rider reports that Tory expressed reservations, including doubt that this change could actually boost the diversity of municipal councils.

As far as getting more minority people elected, the reform is at least worth a try. Not much else has worked so far. But even beyond that, change is a matter of fairness. On this ground alone, the right to vote in municipal elections should be extended to all permanent residents — citizens and non-citizens alike.

It’s estimated that more than a quarter-million newcomers live, work and play in Toronto. They volunteer in support of local causes, send their children to local schools, pay local taxes, and support local businesses. Yet they’re barred from the ballot box, denying them a say in how this city is run, because they’re not Canadian citizens.

At least 40 other countries allow non-citizens to vote at the municipal level, and it’s time Toronto did too. The province would need to amend the Municipal Elections Act to bring this about and it would be a big help if Toronto’s mayor were a firm advocate of change.

Citizenship would remain a privilege associated with voting in federal and provincial elections. This would still be something special. It makes sense to set a lower requirement for voting at the municipal level, where the issues aren’t national security or foreign policy concerns but more mundane matters such as garbage collection, water bills, transit fares and whether the Gardiner Expressway is torn down.

Non-citizens have become a vital component of Canada’s largest city, helping to make it one of the most diverse places in the world. These people should no longer be written off on Election Day.

Let non-citizens vote in municipal elections: Editorial | Toronto Star.

Half a century of terrifying Canada: Before jihadists, other extremists carried out hundreds of attacks

A good reminder that violent extremism is more common, and with more varied motives (e.g., various religions, Quebec separatism), than the current focus on Islam-inspired extremism:

The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia shot a Turkish diplomat in Ottawa in 1982. Neo-Nazi skinheads beat a man to death with baseball bats in Montreal in 1992, believing he was gay. A Vancouver doctor who performed abortions was shot in his kitchen in 1994.

These are some of the attacks catalogued in a first-of-its-kind database of Canadian terrorism launched at Carleton University last week. Available online to researchers, policy makers and the public, the inventory was created to promote a more scientific understanding of Canada’s experience with terrorism.

Described by its creators as “the largest collection of incidents involving terrorism or violent extremism in Canada that’s ever been compiled,” it will be analyzed for years to come, but it already has something to say about the past half-century of Canadian terror: there has been a lot of it committed by a lot of different groups.

“Canada has had much more terrorism than most Canadians are familiar with,” says project leader James O. Ellis, a research affiliate at the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, based at the University of British Columbia.

“I think I’ve also been surprised at the diversity from which violence has come.”

The 1,815 incidents, which caused 450 deaths, were carried out by religious groups, ethnic groups, separatists, leftists, rightists, supremacists, environmentalists and anarchists. Ellis said the “cosmopolitan, diversified demography of Canada is reflected in the variety of violence that’s occurred here.”

The Canadian Incident Database, online at extremism.ca, was put together in a year-and-a-half by a team from UBC, Simon Fraser University, Carleton University, the University of Waterloo and the Université de Montreal, with funding from Public Safety Canada and Defence Research and Development Canada.

Half a century of terrifying Canada: Before jihadists, other extremists carried out hundreds of attacks

Database link (which unfortunately does not allow searching by motivation/reason):

extremism.ca

Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star

Pretty skimpy on the details, given the range of changes implemented by the Conservative government.

We may see more precision when the electoral platforms are released, however the tone is markedly different:

Immigration policy under the Conservative party’s watch has changed substantially, with many rules and regulations making it harder for refugees and immigrants to make Canada their home.

The Tories’ tough-on-immigration stance has won over some ethnic groups; others are less than keen. Critics in Parliament have argued vigorously against the changes. But the Tories argue that their changes have saved taxpayers money, streamlined processes, cut waiting times and stopped “bogus” refugees. A spokesman for the Minister of Immigration Chris Alexander said he wasn’t available to talk to the Star to discuss the changes or what lies ahead.

But according to University of Toronto’s assistant political science professor Erin Tolley, immigration rarely makes it as a central election issue because it “has the potential to alienate.”

But this time around both the Liberal and the NDP say they are going to make immigration policy part of the election conversation.

Key points:

NDP:

  • family reunification emphasis
  • loosening of citizenship language test requirements
  • more welcoming approach to refugees

Liberals:

  • Restore pre-Permanent Residence time 50 percent credit for citizenship
  • Repeal intent to reside provision
  • Reduce overall processing times
  • Commit to larger number of refugees, strengthen due process
  • Not assume “every second person is a criminal”

Interesting that revocation not mentioned.

Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star.

Keeping faith: The changing face of religion in Canada

Just as immigration is driving population growth, it is driving growth in some religions:

University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald W. Bibby has spent several decades surveying Canadians about their attitudes on faith.

He isn’t optimistic about a Protestant turnaround anytime soon.

“The United Church, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians and the Lutherans were all being fed with these wonderful immigration pipelines for an awfully long time with people coming from Europe.”

“What’s happened,” says Bibby, “is those pipelines have been shut down.  And the reality is unless those groups do some proselytizing, they are going to continue to decline rapidly as far as numbers.”

Proselytizing — not to mention their often livelier church services — may have helped some Evangelical Christians buck that downward trend.

The Angus Reid survey, which Bibby co-designed, suggests roughly 12 per cent of Canadians are members of an Evangelical group, and unlike other Protestant groups, that percentage has kept relatively constant with population growth.

Catholics, as well as non-traditional religions in Canada, such as Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists, have fared far better than Protestants in terms of overall numbers.

Roughly, one in five immigrants — particularly those from the Philippines and South America — come to Canada and bring their Catholic faith with them.

“No question the whole religious scene in Canada has been lit up a lot by immigration,” says Bibby.

So, in spite of an overall drift away from organized religion, he notes there are some religious hot spots.

Keeping faith: The changing face of religion in Canada – Canada – CBC News.

How a change of heart led to a backlash from the ‘Church of Nasty’ | Michael Coren

Michael Coren on the backlash against his leaving the Catholic Church and becoming more liberal in his social views. Well worth reading:

It’s been an interesting two weeks. I was fired from three regular columns in Catholic magazines, had a dozen speeches cancelled and was then subjected to a repugnant storm of tweets, Facebook comments, emails, newspaper articles and radio broadcasts where it was alleged that I am unfaithful to my wife, am willing to do anything for money, am a liar and a fraud, a “secret Jew,” that my eldest daughter is gay and I am going directly to hell. As I say, an interesting two weeks.

The reason for all this probably seems disarmingly banal and for many people absurdly irrelevant. At the beginning of May it was made public that a year ago I left the Roman Catholic Church and began to worship as an Anglican. More specifically, from being a public and media champion of social conservatism I gradually came to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, more liberal politics and a rejection of the conservative Christianity that had characterized my opinions and persona for more than a decade. I’d won the RTNDA Broadcasting Award for a major radio debate where I opposed equal marriage, I was the author of the bestselling book Why Catholics Are Right, I was Michael Coren, for God’s sake — certainly not someone who would ever appear in the pages of the Toronto Star!

The change was to a large extent triggered by the gay issue. I couldn’t accept that homosexual relationships were, as the Roman Catholic Church insists on proclaiming, disordered and sinful. Once a single brick in the wall was removed the entire structure began to fall.

I refused to base my entire world view and theology, as so many active Catholics do, around abortion, contraception and sex rather than love, justice and forgiveness. Frankly, it was tearing me apart. I wanted to extend the circle of love rather than stand at the corners of a square and repel outsiders. So I quietly and privately drifted over to an Anglican Church that while still working out its own position on many social issues, is far more progressive, open, relevant and willing to admit reality.

But social media being what it is I was “outed” by some far-right bloggers and the gates of media hell opened roaring wide. Thus the comments above. Actually, my daughter lives with her long-term boyfriend in Paris, not that her sexuality matters to me and shouldn’t to anyone else. I am far too ugly to cheat on my wife and we’re very much in love. My dad was Jewish but I’m not and never have been really, secret or otherwise. I’m boringly honest and have never defrauded anyone. I’ve lost a substantial amount of money through lost work because of all this, so if financial gain is the purpose I’m pretty dumb. As for going to hell, I suppose that’s still open to question.

But on a serious note, why? Why would the religious and political change of what is at best a mid-level Canadian journalist and broadcaster cause such visceral anger and aggression in so many people? Their disappointment is understandable, of course, but that they would troll my children’s Facebook pages and make up lies about my family says something far greater and more worrying about contemporary religion and politics and in particular the conservative right.

Over the years I have been attacked by various people in various camps, but I have never witnessed such an organized, personal and unkind campaign — all from men and women who claim to follow the Prince of Peace, a Messiah who preached turning the other cheek, empathy and endless light. I’m trying to forgive because as a Christian I’m in the forgiving business. But I tell you in all honesty, it’s hard.

…If any single characteristic dominates the mindset and ideology of such people it is fear. They have built themselves a hobbit-hole of seclusion, a bunker of protection against the outside world. Nor can this simply be blamed on their age because some of the fiercest and cruellest of them are fairly young. The fear is a result of their socialization, their mingling of church and state and their desire for a cause in an era they see as corrupt and immoral.
I don’t see that corruption and immorality. I see the same challenges, the same greatness and the same brokenness that has always been. But here’s the paradox: while Canada may be less explicitly Christian than ever before, it has arguably become in its sense of equality, fairness and downright decency more Christian than ever. Perhaps that’s why my new friends are so angry with me, with Canada and with pretty much everything.
As for me, in spite of, or perhaps even because of, all this I’ve never felt deeper and more content in my faith and never happier to be a Canadian. As I say, it’s been an interesting two weeks.

How a change of heart led to a backlash from the ‘Church of Nasty’ | Toronto Star.