Khadr’s release is bittersweet for Canada’s Muslims: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan, in an uncharacteristically harsh judgement of the Government, makes the point about the need for a more inclusive approach:

The release of Mr. Khadr is bittersweet for Canadian Muslims. Many were touched by the young man’s modesty and warmth. His words were genuine – much like his smile. He seemed truly grateful for the freedom so long denied, for the support of so many, for the chance to start his life anew. He expressed remorse for the pain he caused. No hint of bitterness. Only the desire to complete his education, with hopes of entering health care – a field, he noted, rooted in compassion for those in pain. We should all be cautiously optimistic for Mr. Khadr’s reintegration into society.

However, Canadian Muslims have seen this scenario before in the post 9/11 era: A Muslim swept up in the “war on terror,” denied basic rights, tortured and left to rot in legal limbo to be saved only by the noble efforts of human rights activists, ordinary Canadians and our justice system. Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abousfian Abdelrazik were all detained abroad with the aid of our security agencies. Mr. Abdelrazik’s case was particularly vexing. The Harper government repeatedly blocked his return from Sudan (citing him as a “threat”), even after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP cleared his name. A federal judge finally ordered Mr. Abdelrazik’s return. Meanwhile, Canadian Muslims saw the Harper government’s deferential treatment of convicted felons Brenda Martin and Conrad Black. Or, as Mr. Abdelrazik said: “The Canadian government has a racist mind. It is because I am black and Muslim.”

These words were echoed by Mr. Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, when asked why Mr. Khadr was left to languish in Guantanamo: “Mr. Harper is a bigot” and “doesn’t like Muslims.” These words were cathartic. We are the low-hanging fruit in the politics of fear. Omar Khadr is exhibit A; Zunera Ishaq is exhibit B. With an October election, it won’t be surprising to see political machinations at our expense – such as sweeping arrests of suspected terrorists and disparaging remarks against niqabs at voting booths.

Mr. Khadr asked Canadians to “see who I am as a person, not as a name.” It is a wish Canadian Muslims have for their themselves and their children: “Please see me for who I am, not as an object of fear.” An inclusive future lies in the fairness and compassion of Canadians.

Khadr’s release is bittersweet for Canada’s Muslims – The Globe and Mail.

Low acceptance and backlog stifles foreign nanny program

Killing the program by stealth? Not the first time, and politically risking given the size of the Filipino community in Canada (over 600,000):

Ottawa has approved fewer than 10 per cent of requests by potential employers to bring in foreign caregivers under a revised program introduced in December, latest data shows.

To hire a nanny or other caregiver from abroad, an employer needs a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment, a certificate that says there’s a shortage of labour to justify hiring a foreign worker. Employment and Social Development Canada issued only 92 positive LMIAs between last December and March, according to statistics provided under a freedom of information request.

Twenty-two of those were for childcare, 70 for people to provide care for clients with high medical needs. In 2014, prior to changes in the program, the government was issuing 700 to 1,000 per month.

While the federal government has attributed the sharp decrease to a decline in applications, advocates and recruiters said the low acceptance rate, compounded by a backlog in granting permanent residency to qualified caregivers, has essentially “stifled” a program Canadian families desperately need.

“The Tories are secretly shutting out the caregiver program. More women will suffer. The caregiver applicants and the prospective employers both suffer due to the delay and the decreasing number of approved LMIAs,” said Liza Draman, of the Caregivers’ Action Centre in Toronto.

“The government promised caregivers and the Filipino community an end to the massive backlog as a way to win our votes. But instead of ending the backlog or giving caregivers immigration status on landing, the backlog has grown. Their promise is a broken promise, not sincere at all.”

Low acceptance and backlog stifles foreign nanny program | Toronto Star.

Refugee board members’ rulings varied widely in 2014, data suggests

Good and necessary analysis and wonder if the IRB uses this data as a quality control measure. There may be valid reasons for variation, and the sample sizes are relatively small, but generally variation on this scale suggests “automatic thinking” and biases may be playing a role.

The good news is that under the new system and a better selection process for judges, the variation appears to be decreasing:

The data show many decisions by adjudicators fall far below the average rate of acceptance that would be expected based on country of origin, and others far above. And that’s the case in both the old, or “legacy,” system and the new system, which is supposed to be more fair.

As examples, Rehaag pointed to some judges least likely to grant refugee status:

In the legacy system, Edward Robinson (2 claims granted out of 65 total decisions, or 3.1 per cent) and David McBean (1 out of 21 decisions, or 4.8 per cent).

In the new system, Teresa Maziarz (15 of 53 decisions, 28.3 per cent) and Brenda Lloyd (25 of 64 decisions, 39 per cent).

He also pointed to others on the other end of the scale, who granted refugee status in most of the cases they heard:

In the legacy system, Barry Barnes (59 of 77 decisions, 76.6 per cent) and Kevin Fainbloom (53 of 75 decisions, 70.7 per cent).

In the new system Nina Stanwick (35 of 38 decisions, 92.1 per cent) and Rabin Tiwari (104 of 117 decisions, 88.9 per cent).

In a written response, a spokesperson for the IRB noted there are many factors that can cause variations in acceptance rates.

“Each refugee protection claim is unique and is determined by members on its individual merit,” Melissa Anderson wrote.

Anderson cited as factors the region or city in which claimants lived, their ethnicity or nationality, their gender, whether they spent time in a third country without making a refugee claim before coming to Canada, and the evidence they or their lawyer presents to the refugee protection division.

Analysis of data on Immigration and Refugee Board decisions shows a wide variance in outcomes depending on who is hearing a case.

She also noted that the credibility of the claimant can be a key factor in the decision.

Still, immigration lawyers who regularly appear before the board say those factors don’t explain the extreme discrepancies among some decision-makers.

Immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman says he’s always worried if he has to argue a case before certain judges.

Waldman added, that while there is still inconsistency among adjudicators in the new system, he believes the variation is “less extreme” for cases post-2012.

He attributes the change to a new selection process for board members that includes people from outside the IRB.

Refugee board members’ rulings varied widely in 2014, data suggests – Politics – CBC News.

Critics say Fraser Institute letter highlights ‘enormous lack of clarity’ in charity-audit rules | Toronto Star

How the Fraser Institute can maintain this kind of letter by former Ontario Premier Harris is non-partisan defies credibility and common sense:

A fundraising letter written by Fraser Institute senior fellow and former premier Mike Harris criticizing the Ontario government highlights a double standard in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities, critics charge.

The letter takes swipes at the province for lacking a “credible plan” to balance the provincial budget within two years, and goes on to criticize Ontario’s debt and the province’s unemployment rate.

“As my fellow Ontarian you must be outraged — that is why I am writing to you today to help us educate Ontarians about the severity of Ontario’s problems and the potential solutions,” Harris writes.

The letter asks the reader to “join in the pursuit of policies that will re-establish Ontario as the envy of Canada” by financially supporting the Fraser Institute’s new research program.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government aren’t mentioned in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Star.

The letter is drawing criticism because while charities are permitted to engage in political activities as long as they don’t spend more than 10 per cent of their funds doing so, the Fraser Institute claims the Harris letter isn’t political, and that the group doesn’t engage in any political activities.

Critics argue the letter cuts to the heart of the problem they see in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities.

“This is a great example of the enormous lack of clarity in the rules governing charities and inconsistency in the application by the CRA of those rules,” says NDP MP Murray Rankin, his party’s Canada Revenue critic.

“I just want a level playing field where other charities that may not be aligned with the Conservative government are subject to the same rules,” he said, adding the CRA’s rules are “all over the place.’’

Since Jan. 1, 2012, the CRA’s Charities Directorate has completed roughly 2,000 audits of charities through its regular audit program, and identified more than 50 charities for “political activities” audits.

The government budgets $13 million a year for these political “super audits,” as some people refer to them.

Critics charge that charities espousing views that run counter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — including some environmental groups — have been unfairly and disproportionately targeted for the political activity audits.

Charities that have been subjected to these audits say having to pull together the paperwork for the inspections is a daunting process. Several groups have voiced concerns the audits are intended to silence them.

The president of the Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think-tank and registered charity, says “in no way” is the Harris letter political.

“It’s written by a long time senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, Mike Harris. All of the data in the letter is based on Fraser Institute research,” says president Niels Veldhuis, who adds that his organization is non-partisan.

Veldhuis says his organization has been audited by the CRA three times — the last time being in the late 1990s.

Groups that have been audited since 2012, however, say it’s a stretch to say there’s nothing political about Harris’ fundraising letter.

“We would not have it signed by an ex-politician especially with that level of profile as a Conservative politician,” says Bruce Campbell, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a non-partisan research body devoted to social, economic and environmental justice issues.

In order to address the critics, the Government needs to be more transparent on the criteria used and needs a few high profile examples of right-leaning organizations that are being audited.

Given the last time the Fraser Institute was audited was in the late 1990s, perhaps it could volunteer for an audit?

Critics say Fraser Institute letter highlights ‘enormous lack of clarity’ in charity-audit rules | Toronto Star.

Don Cayo: Time for corporate boards to take diversity seriously

More of corporate board diversity (or lack thereof) and the work of Pamela Jeffery of the Canadian Board Diversity Council to change this:

If you, like me, think most big Canadian companies have too few women on their boards of directors, then what should we make of the under-representation of aboriginals and other visible minorities?

The numbers for these two groups are much worse. To compare:

  • Women comprise 50.4 per cent of the Canadian population, or 51 per cent in Metro Vancouver. They hold just eight per cent of the executive positions in Canada’s 500 largest companies, but their representation on boards of directors has inched up and now is 17.1 per cent.
  • Aboriginals comprise 4.3 per cent of Canada’s population, although less than half that in Metro Vancouver. They hold 0.8 per cent of big companies’ board seats — a percentage that has been stalled for years.
  • Other visible minorities comprise 19.1 per cent of the population, but the number is much higher and growing briskly in Metro Vancouver. It had reached 45.2 per cent, mostly people of Asian extraction, by 2011. In 2010, members of this group held 5.3 per cent of big companies’ board appointments, but by 2014 this number had slipped to two per cent.

Pamela Jeffery, the founder of both the Toronto-based Women’s Executive Network and the Canadian Board Diversity Council, is pleased to see at least women making progress — although not enough, in her view, and not at a fast enough rate.

But she has a sinking feeling that women’s successes in getting seats at the boardroom table may come at the expense of aboriginals and other visible minorities. When boards decide to recruit beyond their usual source of new directors — that is, their old boys’ network — the easy way is to find a well-qualified woman and then look no further.

So, to tackle the worst problem first, Jeffery is working with the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business to beat the drum for more aboriginal representation on boards that oversee Canada’s biggest companies. The council has held back-to-back summits, one in Vancouver and one in Calgary, to engage business leaders on the issue.

Jeffrey doesn’t advocate quotas, and neither do I. The problem is that quota-driven recruitment can lead to candidates being selected solely on the basis of their ethnicity, not what they can bring to the table.

But boards undermine their own potential effectiveness when all their members are near clones of each other, with similar backgrounds, experience and attitudes.

Diversity can bring new insights to the table — new ways of looking at under-served markets, whether geographically or demographically distinct from the tried-and-true, as well as ties to new talent pools that a company could tap.

Don Cayo: Time for corporate boards to take diversity seriously.

Rex Murphy: ‘White privilege’ on the march

Rex Murphy, in a typical rant, misses the point entirely and the evidence that “white” or European privilege exists. Yes, some academics and activists take this to ridiculous extremes but that does not mean that it does not exist, and that those of Caucasian origin should not be more mindful of any advantages that they have.

But to use historic examples of how whites suffered through famines and wars while being silent on slavery shows an incredible blindness, as does his silence on more contemporary examples like US police disproportionate shootings of blacks or Toronto police carding:

To even set up white privilege as a category is prima facie racist. It is to reduce the sum of a person, his dignity, his drive, his worth and his soul to the colour of his skin; it is to posit skin colour as the point of departure for all interactions with that person, to found judgments on that skin colour, to draw feverish and deliberately negative conclusions from it.

That such a pseudo-concept even exists, and has full annual academic conferences to elaborate on its tedious fancifulness, and undergraduate courses to inject it into half-formed sensibilities, testifies — one more time — to the modern university’s descent into fatuousness. That any institution which claims to be one of higher learning even allows such trivial exchange offends the dignity of expression, and purporting to offer “instruction” under its banner is just the latest fulfillment of Alexander Pope’s prophetic alarm: A little learning is a dangerous thing. Emphasis on little, very little.

Some universities have become parodies of themselves, shops of petty moral vanity, given to feverish exhibitions of their putative sensitivity and moral preciosity. Hence “trigger warnings” for Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the hysteria over “rape culture” and, as here, activist sideshows masquerading as academic courses. (Exhibit A, from Columbia University’s Spectator: “Ovid’s Metamorphoses is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom.”)

It is to the great shame of modern universities that they have debased themselves to the pursuit of these follies

The obsession of seeing everything in race-coloured terms is itself racist. Anti-racism pursed by zealots transforms itself into the very vice it deplores. This is the cost of identity politics, and its close bedmate, victimology enterprises — the desire to judge, define, represent and indict the individual by the group he or she belongs to. Every human being’s experience in its infinite particularities and potentials transcends category.

It is to the great shame of modern universities that they have debased themselves to the pursuit of these follies, and that they do not cast this cant aside as being hollow, sublimely tendentious and utterly shameful to the idea of, or the aspiration to achieve, an educated mind. Wasn’t Doctor King’s most famous prayer that he hoped to see the day “when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?”

Fatuousness is not limited to universities as Rex demonstrates all too well.

Rex Murphy: ‘White privilege’ on the march

‘Lack of clarity’ over level of UK antisemitism, says new report

A useful note of caution in interpreting the degree of antisemitism in the UK, which likely applies to other countries as well, and the corresponding need for better research and data:

The extent of antisemitism in the UK is hard to gauge because there is a lack of accurate data, according to the Jewish community’s main think tank.

Despite a number of surveys carried out over the years, there remains a “distinct lack of clarity”, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research said in a new report, entitled “Could It Happen Here?”, this week.

Some sources showed that the level of antipathy towards Jews was “comparatively low and stable in the UK, even though other sources demonstrate that 2014 broke all known records for the number of antisemitic incidents.”

Other data suggested that fewer British adults held antisemitic attitudes than French, but that over the previous seven years more antisemitic incidents per head took place in Britain than in France.

During conflicts such as last summer’s Israel-Gaza War, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK is usually three times above the monthly average, JPR said.

Antisemitic incidents usually rise by 30 per cent around the High Holy-Days.

Excluding these two exceptional periods, the number of antisemitic incidents has increased from 35 per month in 2004 to 51 last year, the report found.

“They may well indicate that levels of antisemitism in the UK have climbed over the course of the past decade,” JPR stated.

“However, one cannot rule out an alternative explanation – that the increase shown is due to an increased prevalence among Jews to report incidents in the first place.”

While Islamic extremists clearly pose a threat, the report says that “not enough is known about the extent to which their ideas, even in diluted form, permeate the Muslim population as a whole and whether the danger is growing, declining or stable over time”.

Calling for investment in proper research, JPR says the “Jewish community needs to steer away from knee-jerk reactions and ad hoc research enterprises. Monitoring trends in antisemitism requires more than having ‘being concerned’ or having good intentions.”

The alternative is wasted resources and persistent uncertainty “at the expense of greater clarity and, we believe, greater safety for Jews”.

‘Lack of clarity’ over level of UK antisemitism, says new report | The Jewish Chronicle.

Immigration officers told to pay close attention to Chinese/non-Chinese marriages

Interesting release of the red flags or criteria used to assess the possibility of “marriages of convenience.”

While many of the criteria are relatively neutral, CIC is essentially using racial profiling as a key flag:

Chinese nationals who marry non-Chinese Canadians may be among those likely to be flagged by Citizenship and Immigration Canada as being involved in bogus marriages, documents released under Access to Information reveal.

The documents, dated April 2007, form part of a training manual for immigration officers who assess permanent residence applications for foreign spouses or partners who are already in Canada. Access to information records suggest the criteria were still in place as recently as October 2013. No one from Citizenship and Immigration Canada was able to comment Friday on whether the criteria remains in effect.

Canadians who apply to sponsor a spouse or common-law partner must submit several documents, including a marriage certificate, a questionnaire, proof of divorce if either partner was previously married and evidence the applicant lives with the sponsor. Couples may also submit wedding invitations or photos.

AMONG THE RED FLAGS LISTED:

  • Chinese nationals, often university students, marrying non-Chinese;
  • Photos that don’t include parents or family members, but rather small groups of six to 10 friends;
  • An “uneducated” sponsor, with a low-paying job or on welfare;
  • In wedding photos, the couple doesn’t kiss on the lips;
  • Couples who don’t honeymoon, even for a weekend, “usually because of university and/or no money”
  • There are usually no “diamond” rings;
  • A small number of professionally taken wedding photos;
  • Photos of the couple wearing the same clothes in various locations;
  • Photos of activities together are often taken in the Niagara Falls area, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto.

OTHER FACTORS IMMIGRATION OFFICERS WERE ADVISED TO LOOK AT:

  • Previous relationships of the sponsor and the applicant and the length of time between a divorce and a new relationship
  • Whether Chinese surnames are unusual or common ones such as Wang, Huang, Li or Chen;
  • How much the sponsored spouse has to gain from permanent residence and whether they have taken previous steps to obtain it — a failed refugee claim, for example;
  • The length of time the couple has known one another, and whether they met, cohabited and married within six months
  • Whether there is an age gap of 10 years or more between the partners;
  • Whether there are significant differences in the education levels or ethnic backgrounds of the partners.

Vancouver immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens said he was surprised by some of the instructions. Meurrens obtained the document from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which had previously released it under Access to Information.

“Why Chinese people are singled out I have no idea, and then that they’re training officers to be suspicious of people of lower income and lower education when they get married, I thought that was pretty offensive.”

Immigration officers told to pay close attention to Chinese/non-Chinese marriages.

Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty

Victoria Ferauge, who writes extensively about FATCA and its impact on US expatriates, provides an update on the lawsuit against the Government of Canada’s implementation of FATCA by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS):

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is, in its own weird way, a kind of census.  Among other things, it tells the American government where those it considers to be taxable under US law live and work and raise families.

Having tried and failed miserably at conducting an accurate census of Americans abroad, the American government looked for other ways to find those “US Persons” (a term that includes US residents and Green Card holders, as well as US citizens).  Their method was delegation – an admission of failure in a sense – because FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to do what the US government couldn’t manage to accomplish on its own:  to seek out all US persons in the world: their names, addresses, and account balances.

Those of you who have already been FATCAed, know all too well what that means.  Those of you who have not yet signed a W-9 or had your accounts closed, please don’t feel left out, your time will come.

Americans abroad organizations like AARO, ACA, Democrats abroad and Republicans Overseas are fighting FATCA and you can read about their efforts here.

But I would be remiss if I did not mention other efforts which are equally important.  The one I have been following (and cheering on) is the other lawsuit filed in Canada by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS).

This is a grassroots initiative that pushes back against FATCA in Canada. ADCS argues that the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the United States “violates the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy, and the fundamental rights of all Canadians.”

By signing an agreement to turn over the private information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government (the United States) the Canadian government is violating, they say, the rights of those whom the US is unilaterally claiming as taxable US Persons, but who consider themselves to be Canadians first and foremost.  They reject utterly the idea that another country can simply demand that Canada provide the private information of individuals who have some connection to the United States, however nebulous it may be.

The plaintiffs in the case are two Canadian women “who have never held a U.S. passport or developed any meaningful relationship with the U.S.” but who are, nonetheless, considered to be US citizens by virtue of being born in the US.”  They never consented to that citizenship and see no reason why it should be foisted on them now just because the US says so.

There are citizens in just about every country in the world right now who are in exactly the same position as the two plaintiffs:  people who thought they were “just French” living in France or “just Thai ” living in Thailand.  Many are finding out that they are indeed US Persons when they receive a note from their local banks informing them that they appear to be US citizens under US law.

I could not think of a worse way (or a worse source) for someone to learn that he or she might be a US citizen.  I find this not just shameful on the part of the US, but an extreme and worrisome delegation of sovereign power.  Foreign financial institutions should not be in any way arbiters of US citizenship or status, or be tasked with implementing a US extraterritorial national census of any sort for any purpose whatsoever.

Among the different fronts against FATCA, this is a very worthy effort because it asks a nation-state like Canada to take a stand:  Are these people claimed by the US really Canadian citizens with all the right enumerated in the Charter? Or has the Canadian government downgraded them to semi-citizenship status based on the claims of a foreign power?

Funded entirely by small donors, ADCS has miraculously raised enough money so far to hire very competent legal counsel, and on August 14, 2014 they filed their suit in Canadian Federal Court.  I back them 100% and have contributed even though I am not an “Accidental American” or even a dual.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.

Sex-ed controversy exposes how different religions, cultures fit into Ontario’s mainstream: Cohn

One of the better pieces of commentary on the opposition to Ontario’s sex-ed updating:

Should a minority movement be able to impose its own viewpoint — and veto — on the majority? Thousands of protesting parents withdrew their children from all classes earlier this month to protest future sex education classes, but let’s be clear on what they are demanding — and what they aren’t.
They are not merely trying to keep their kids out of sex-ed classes. They already have the right — rightly or wrongly — to deprive their children of a curriculum that teaches them how to protect themselves from sexual infections.
Anyone can claim an exemption currently. No, what these parents are fighting for is a veto on all other children benefiting from updated sex-ed classes that the protesters might disagree with — even if the majority of Ontarians support a modernized curriculum.
Consider this analogy: In some GTA schools, parents regularly withdraw their children from dance and music classes they deem to be in conflict with their faith. What if those parents demanded that all music and dance classes be banned in our schools?
An absurd notion — it would never happen — yet the latest wave of protests against sex-ed has taken on that character: Not only shall the protesters’ children not be exposed to updated sex-ed classes, neither should anyone else’s.

No matter that the 240-pages of turgid material does not provide masturbation lessons in Grade 6 (it merely offers basic teacher prompts in case kids raise the subject), or that it does not extol anal sex but rather alerts students to the risks. Never mind that the curriculum was assembled after consultations with hundreds of pedagogical experts (and thousands of parents from school councils), and that it mirrors similar updates in places like Alberta.

Sex-ed controversy exposes how different religions, cultures fit into Ontario’s mainstream: Cohn