Dad rules when sex ed collides with religion: Adams

Michael Adams on how patriarchy is a proxy for conservative views:

If conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants mark the high and low ends of the patriarchy spectrum, non-Christians (8.8 per cent of Canadians) are in the middle. On average, 30 per cent of these Canadians believe father must be master. For Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus, our sample is too small to analyze. Muslims, who now make up 3.2 per cent of the population, score high on deference to Dad (58 per cent) but they haven’t cornered the market on patriarchy: Canadian-born Muslims are outscored slightly by foreign-born conservative Protestants.

For the time being, Canada and its progressive social mores – a willingness to question dad, religious leaders, and tradition; and a willingness to respect individuals’ self-determination, sexual and otherwise – enjoy the assent of the majority. This majority includes the non-religious, members of mainline Christian denominations, substantial proportions of non-Christian religious groups, and even progressive members of more conservative religious groups (Christian and non-Christian).

The minority who feel stronger attachment to traditional authority will make their distress about this mainstream permissiveness known, as they have in Ontario. Whether their children will be persuaded by their parents or by the wider culture remains to be seen – but if trends in my generation of Catholics and in past waves of second-generation immigrants are any indication, most of those kids will give Dad a hug and then go their own way. Still, the year 2050 will likely find at least some of them marching in front of some legislature, protesting against the latest assault on religious patriarchy.

  Dad rules when ex ed collides with religion – The Globe and Mail.

Nashville sets the U.S. bar for welcoming immigrants

Good profile on Nashville’s approach to increased diversity, a welcome antidote to so much of the political rhetoric about immigration in the US:

Nashville brands itself as one of America’s most welcoming cities, but had residents made a different choice during a referendum in 2009, it could have been known as something else.

“It was definitely a turning point,” says Tara Lentz, the program director at Conexión Américas, a non-profit organization that helps Latinos.

The referendum asked: should English be the one and only language of the city government, no translations allowed? Those against the idea said it was anti-immigrant and would tarnish the city’s reputation. They breathed a sigh of relief when a majority voted No.

“Nashville made a decision to become a welcoming city at that point,” said Lentz. “It would be crazy now in 2015 to think about Nashville having that kind of referendum — which is great to be able to say six years later.”

A lot of work was done in the last six years to ensure that immigrants not only feel welcome, but are integrated. People who work in immigrant services give credit to Mayor Karl Dean, who has overseen a host of new initiatives to help new arrivals navigate the school system, government services and community centres that offer English lessons.

In a recent interview in his office, Dean said the referendum was a “moment of clarity” about what direction the city was going to go in, and that Nashvillians chose to embrace diversity rather than reject it.

He said he’s personally put so much effort into integrating immigrants because, “It’s just the right thing to do.”

“I do think that great cities, cities that do well, are going to be diverse cities,” Dean says. “Those are the cities that are going to have the energy, the exchange of ideas, different people working together.”

The mayor acknowledged that not everyone agrees with his approach but he thinks there is a solid consensus that Nashville wants to “make people feel like they belong here.”

So, do they?

“No problems at all, everything was very good, very smooth,” said Kamal Hasan, who came to Nashville in 2000 to join the growing Kurdish community, and now owns a grocery store selling food from around the world.

Nashville sets the U.S. bar for welcoming immigrants – World – CBC News.

In Pam Geller’s World, Everybody Jihads – The Daily Beast

For those who want more background on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s views on Islam:

This sordid episode is typical of the way Geller and her comrade-in-arms Spencer, co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, conduct their misnamed “anti-jihadist” battle. It is also a good example of why the two are no heroes for free speech. No, Geller did not “provoke” the terror attack in Garland, as a number of pundits (and even the New York Times editorial board) have deplorably suggested; her cartoon contest is not the moral equivalent of the attack, and she does not need to apologize for the exercise of her First Amendment rights or for the terrorists’ actions. She does, however, have to answer for a lengthy record of peddling anti-Muslim hysteria, targeting Muslims’ First Amendment right to worship, smearing innocent people as jihadists, and even excusing the slaughter of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.  We cannot allow terrorists to curb our speech; but we also cannot allow them to turn hatemongers into heroes.

Whatever valid concerns Geller, Spencer, and their allies may raise about political Islamism wind up being eclipsed by the fact that they not only conflate Islamist radicalism with all Islam but make disturbingly little distinction between criticism of Islam and hostility toward Muslims.

In a contentious interview with CNN host Alisyn Camerota Monday, Geller indignantly denied that she paints Islam “with a broad brush,” declaring that she is “anti-jihad” and “anti-sharia.” But for the most part, she and Spencer make almost no secret that they regard radical Islam as indistinguishable from Islam itself.

Spencer, a prolific author who has a degree in religious studies and whose tone is more judicious than Geller’s, does not quite state outright that non-extremist Islam is impossible. Nonetheless, he calls Islamic reform “quixotic” and “virtually inconceivable,” and sweepingly describes the faith of “millions” of Muslim immigrants in the West as “absolutely incompatible with Western society.” When America’s first Muslim congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) chose to use a Quran in his swearing-in ceremony, Spencer flatly stated that “no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur’an.” His 2005 best-seller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), has such chapter titles as “Islamic Law: Lie, Steal and Kill.”

Critics accuse Spencer of cherry-picking and distortions. While these charges often come from sources with biases of their own, there is no doubt that his account of Islamic history is blatantly one-sided. Thus, he tries to rebut the “PC myth” that Jews in the Middle Ages fared better under Islamic rule than in Christian Europe by quoting from a 13th Century papal bull that affirmed the rights accorded to Jews—but fails to mention the many expulsions of Jewish communities from European countries and glosses over crusader massacres of Jews.

When Spencer writes about moderate Muslims, it is invariably to disparage them as deluded, insincere, or irrelevant. His targets include reformist Muslims who are strongly critical of radical Islamism and have themselves been accused of being Islamophobic shills: Jasser, self-styled “Muslim refusenik” Irshad Manji, Sufi Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz. They also include Kurdish fighters battling the Islamic State: last October, a Spencer post on his site, JihadWatch, reported a Kurdish woman’s suicide bomb attack on ISIS troops in a besieged town under the jeering headline, “Kurdish Muslima carries out moderate jihad/martyrdom suicide attack against the Islamic State,” and sneered at the idea that “the foes of the Islamic State are all moderate.”

But treating Islam as a monolith, denying the possibility of reform, and demonizing Muslims en masse is not the answer. If Christianity and Judaism could transcend their scriptural and theological baggage once used to justify fanaticism and oppression, there is no reason to believe that Islam cannot do the same. Spencer has argued that Islamic reform has no theological foundation, but he ignores the work of such 20th Century thinkers as Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, who made the case for the abrogation of the Quran’s later, harsher texts by the earlier, more peaceful ones (rather than vice versa). Today, there are Muslim scholars who champion a revision of Islamic orthodoxy on everything from women’s rights to religious freedom. In 2004, over 2,500 Muslim academics from 23 countries signed a petition to the United Nations condemning “Sheikhs of terror” who use Islamic scriptures as justification for political violence.

This is why, while we must stand by Geller as a victim of an outrageous attack on fundamental speech rights, it would be a tragic mistake to treat her or Spencer as leaders in the fight against the radical ideology that has been called Islamism or Islamofascism.

In his 2011 response to their attacks, Jasser warned that “Geller’s and Spencer’s genre is headed in only one direction—declaring an ideological war against one-fourth of the world’s population and expecting to neutralize the Islamist threat by asking Muslims to renounce their faith.” It is, perhaps literally, a dead end.

In Pam Geller’s World, Everybody Jihads – The Daily Beast.

How afraid should we be of Islamic State? 

Good piece by Mitch Potter in the Star regarding the over-blown hyping of the  threat and risks of ISIS:

Yet even here, some researchers doubt those risks match up with the warnings, given that the number of Canadians known to have joined ISIS is barely enough to mount a decent hockey game.

“The Islamic State is a threat to Canada — but it is wildly overblown,” says Amarnath Amarasingam, a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada postdoctoral fellow who co-directs a study of Canadian foreign fighters at the University of Waterloo.

“By our count, there are about 60 Canadians who went to fight, of which 15 are already dead. And not all are with the Islamic State — some are fighting for the Kurds, some are fighting for the Free Syrian Army, for nationalist reasons, not as global jihadists who would present a threat to Canada.”

A similar low-threat assessment for Europe emerged this week in a research paper for Holland’s Clingendael Institute of International Relations, which concluded that, “although concerns have run high following the recent attacks in Paris, the threat of violence carried out by foreign fighters to Europe, while present, is largely overstated.”

Co-author Daniel Byman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, goes further in his assessment, emphasizing that while Europe must provide “ongoing resources to security and intelligence services to keep the threat low,” it should also “avoid reactive policies such as systematic prosecution and imprisonment of returnees.

“Some returnees must be imprisoned immediately and others monitored, but governments should also channel resources towards community-led programs emphasizing the rehabilitation and reintegration of returned fighters,” Byman writes.

In the Canadian context, it is difficult to imagine the general public embracing such a nuanced approach when the government itself, with more than a little help from the media, is sounding the direst of warnings. But that too is addressed in the Clingendael recommendations, which urge governments to “take care not to overstate the threat of foreign fighters and take steps to reassure citizens that the risk is real but limited.”

To the University of Waterloo’s Amarasingam, that’s the missing piece in Ottawa’s approach to the problem: we get all the warnings, minus the reassurance.

“I understand what the government and CSIS and the RCMP are trying to do,” says Amarasingam. “They want to ensure that in the unlikely event that Canada ever experiences an attack like 9/11, it won’t tear apart the fabric of our society and have us turn on each other.

“They want to plant the seed of possibility in our consciousness to prepare us. But when you raise those warnings — when you say ‘We’re not a multicultural haven immune from this; we are at risk’ — you also need to temper that message and provide the context that the risk of that kind of attack on the streets of Toronto is actually quite low.

“That’s a key piece that Canadians aren’t getting. And the consequence is that the fear is ramped up out of proportion to the actual risk.”

via How afraid should we be of Islamic State? | Toronto Star.

A half-century of progress and black America’s still burning: Saunders

Doug Saunders on the endemic problem of racism and studies that show the impact of deprived neighbourhoods on outcomes:

The answer is found in the cities and towns where these explosions of violence and deprivation are taking place: Once an institution (a city, a police force, a school system, an economy) is set up to create a racial divide, it will continue to do so, regardless who’s running it, unless there’s a dramatic intervention.

Too many Americans don’t see these institutions, but only their victims, who then get blamed for the outcomes: It has become popular again on the North American right to claim, in pseudo-scholarly language, that “that’s just how they are” – that African-American culture, or families, must be to blame (even though culture and family structures are always consequences, not causes, of larger ills).

This view has been decisively disproven this month in a vast and expensive study by economists Raj Chetty, Lawrence Katz and their colleagues at Harvard University, in which thousands of randomly selected low-income (mainly black) families were given vouchers in the nineties to move out of deprived neighbourhoods (and thousands more stayed put as control groups).

The results, a generation later, found that poor, crime-addled families prone to intergenerational poverty and broken homes become, within a generation of leaving their context, prosperous, educated and marriage-prone families, with outcomes similar to those of average Americans.

The Obama administration has attempted the sort of big interventions (such as the ones of the sixties and nineties) that are needed turn around this trajectory of inequality. The post-2008 stimulus and the “Obamacare” medicare system have stopped the rise in inequality and poverty. But many large urban-policy and education programs have been blocked by a recalcitrant U.S. Congress. It might take flames from the cities, as it did 50 years ago, to provoke a change.

A half-century of progress and black America’s still burning – The Globe and Mail.

Meet Robert Shillman, the Tech Mogul Who Funds Pamela Geller’s Anti-Islam Push

Only in America. If the same vitriol was directed to Christians or Jews, Shillman might not be so certain of his free speech justification:

Shillman said he remains a director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose Jihad Watch website helped organize the cartoon event in a Dallas suburb with activist Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks what it describes as extremist groups, has called the Freedom Center’s founder, the right-wing commentator David Horowitz, “the godfather of the anti-Muslim Movement.” The Freedom Center says it “combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values.”

The SPLC also calls Geller’s AFDI a hate group because of the way it talks about and depicts Muslims.

Horowitz, in an email, called Shillman “an American hero” who is entirely transparent in his agenda. Horowitz also said the SPLC couldn’t produce one statement of his own that was anti-Muslim.

Geller did not return messages seeking comment.

…As founder of Natick, Massachusetts-based Cognex, which makes machine vision products that help automate manufacturing, Shillman says he is more outspoken than a typical U.S. corporate leader. “Most CEOs are hired guns and their future depends on what their boards think of them. I don’t give a f—-.”

The Freedom Center, whose P.O. Box address is in Sherman Oaks, California, runs several blogs and websites, including the online FrontPage Magazine and Jihad Watch. Shillman has funded four fellowships for journalists who have have worked on the FrontPage, which is the center’s online journal for news and political commentary. He declined to comment when asked if he helped pay for the cartoon contest.

Meet Robert Shillman, the Tech Mogul Who Funds Pamela Geller’s Anti-Islam Push – News – Forward.com.

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers

Welcome reaffirmation of the value of immigration, leading to citizenship, rather than more temporary status.

However, a bit ironic, given that some of the changes to the citizenship program are leading to a greater share of some visible minority groups who are likely to remain permanent residents, unable to attain citizenship with the full panoply of rights that entails.

Harper said his government wants to make sure that immigrants were not filling jobs that Canadians could do.

“Just as importantly, we’re making sure that when people come to this country to work and to work long-term, they have the ability to move towards being permanent citizens of this country,” he said.

“This country is not going to have a policy, as long as I’m prime minister, where we will have a permanent underclass of … people who are so-called temporary, but here forever, with no rights of citizenship and no rights of mobility.

“That is not the Canadian way we do immigration. So we’re going to make sure that program does not drift in that direction,” he said.

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers – Politics – CBC News.

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté

This week in Montreal.

She unveiled her face however when making the oath which reflects a certain willingness to compromise, even if the niqab still sends an overall signal of separation, not integration:

Latin American présence d’une candidate citoyenne vêtue d’un tel voile intégral est rarissime, selon une source gouvernementale.

La toute nouvelle citoyenne canadienne a toutefois respecté les règles en vigueur et s’est découvert le visage pendant quelques instants, le temps de prêter serment.

Certaines personnes dans l’audience ont ressenti un malaise face à la présence du niqab, ce voile intégral qui n’est percé que d’une étroite fente pour permettre la vision. Mais aucun esclandre n’est venu troubler la cérémonie, qui s’est tenue mercredi matin.

La femme était accompagnée d’un homme et de deux enfants. La cérémonie, tenue mercredi dernier au Centre hellénique de Montréal de Côte-des-Neiges, réunissait plus d’une centaine de personnes. Les individus sur le point de devenir citoyens canadiens étaient tour à tour appelés à l’avant de la salle pour prêter serment à la reine et au Canada.

«Ce sont des cas très, très, très rares, a indiqué une source gouvernementale. C’est minime, sur le nombre de cérémonies qui se tiennent.»

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté | Philippe Teisceira-Lessard | National.

Backward Bill Passed, but Vietnamese-Canadians Move Forward – New Canadian Media

The contrary view to the Government’s support for one section of the Vietnamese Canadian community, by Dai Trang Nguyen:

Bill S-219 does not add anything good to the community, and it will continue to divide it. How backward that the bill still has a we-were-victims mentality rather than focusing on moving forward. Furthermore, this bill is an obstacle for Canadians who work in sectors or are interested in promoting Canada’s Global Markets Action Plan, International Education Strategy, or aid effectiveness agenda in Vietnam.

Let’s put Bill S-219 in an international context. After the Vietnam War ended in 1975, the US normalized relations with Vietnam in 1995. In 2015, the US is ready to build a better relationship with the government of Vietnam. A recent US policy prohibits the flying of the old Saigon flag and singing the old national anthem on federal property.

To the opposite, Canada decided to be friendlier with the old Saigon group, at the risk of upsetting a partner of more than just trade, and the minister of defence has draped the old Saigon symbol around his shoulders at Vietnamese events.

April 30 as a dark day is the view of only a few thousand South Vietnamese who lost their power and privileges. On the other hand, April 30 is North-South reunification day for ordinary Vietnamese-Canadians, including many refugees who arrived in 1979-80 and over 100,000 economic immigrants who landed after 1981, who longed for peace and prosperity.

We agree that the experience of 60,000 boat people from Vietnam and the generosity of Canadian people in accepting them should be acknowledged as part of Canadian history. Refugees would want to remember the date when they are accepted and land in a safe place. The appropriate date of commemoration is July 27 when the first flight landed in Toronto in 1979, and the title should be along the line of an appreciation of Canada by Vietnamese refugees.

What would happen if fictitious governments that no longer exist–such as the old Saigon regime–continue to be recognized in Canadian legislation?

Canadians who are interested in freedom and democracy might want to take a look at our community. The few thousand South Vietnamese who fled in 1975 seek to impose their old Saigon political view on the refugees and immigrants who came later. All other voices are suppressed using threats of red-baiting. Members who are not outspoken about their anti-communist view or who have any contact with the government of Vietnam are singled out and labelled “communist.”

But because of Bill S-219, many members who have put up with this old group for so long, now for the first time in 40 years, have mobilized among themselves and become active in their political life.

On April 30, we will celebrate our own journey to freedom day as we understand it. We understand that even in a democratic country like Canada, the Senate can deny opposing views to be heard; that our community has been imposed a political view by a small group for 40 years.

But after 40 years, our journey has reached a critical point to achieve the freedom we look for. We will celebrate this day as the day when we feel free to have our own views, despite the Conservative government’s attempt to take the side of the old Saigon group with this vote-grabbing bill.

Backward Bill Passed, but Vietnamese-Canadians Move Forward – New Canadian Media.

ICYMI: Glenn Gould inspires Apple workers today just as he did Steve Jobs

Not surprising. Good professors find models and metaphors for the values they wish to impart:

When it comes to obsessively meticulous attention to detail, it seems Apple employees could learn something from Glenn Gould.

At the company’s internal Apple University — a somewhat secretive institution by reputation — professor Joshua Cohen delivers three-hour seminars on the late, great Canadian pianist to classes of 15 students.

Those pupils typically occupy “senior leadership positions” at the tech giant, says Cohen in a recent telephone interview.

“The conversations we have are conversations about the human qualities that Gould has that are important for doing something that’s really extraordinary — in the way that his musical performance was extraordinary,” Cohen says.

“That craft-person’s attention to detail is an important focus of the conversation about him. And it strongly resonates with people here.”

Cohen, a longtime faculty member at MIT who received his PhD in philosophy from Harvard, focuses much of his attention on Gould’s 1955 debut recording “Bach: The Goldberg Variations.”

At the time, it was rarely recorded and considered to be a preposterously demanding piece of music.

But the then-22-year-old Gould attacked it with characteristic doggedness and brazen self-assurance.

Cohen’s presentation at Apple University touches on Gould’s belief in music’s “ethical importance,” part of what fuelled his lofty ambition. He re-recorded certain arias for his debut over and over and over, in search of perfection.

The infamously eccentric Gould could be stubborn, a personality trait that seems to strike a chord with Apple decision-makers.

“It’s his willingness to be unreasonable — meaning, not to worry about the conventional ways of playing things, and to have a strength of conviction about there being a right way to do them,” Cohen says.

One might be tempted to draw parallels between Gould and exacting Apple visionary Steve Jobs.

The late Jobs was, in fact, a fan, and told biographer Walter Isaacson that he was fond of comparing Gould’s original 1955 recording of the “Goldberg Variations” to the second edition he issued just before his death in 1981.

“They’re like night and day,” Jobs was quoted as saying in “Steve Jobs.”

“The first is an exuberant, young, brilliant piece, played so fast it’s a revelation. The later one is so much more sparse and stark. You sense a very deep soul who’s been through a lot in life. It’s deeper and wiser.”

Which did Jobs prefer?

“Gould liked the later version much better. I used to like the earlier, exuberant one,” Jobs said. “But now I can see where he was coming from.”

I often find myself writing on my Macbook listening to Gould, as his music helps me focus.

Glenn Gould inspires Apple workers today just as he did Steve Jobs – Business – CBC News.