Voile intégral: Couillard confiant de pouvoir légiférer malgré l’approche d’Ottawa

Federal citizenship case reflected fact that Minister did not have the authority under the Citizenship Act to prohibit the niqab, not the fundamental question of whether banning the niqab would be in conformity with the Charter.

Quebec law may result in that more fundamental challenge:

Le premier ministre Philippe Couillard a maintenu que les assises juridiques du Québec sont solides pour interdire le port du voile intégral au moment de voter et dans les services publics, malgré la décision d’Ottawa de l’autoriser pendant les cérémonies de citoyenneté et lors de scrutins.

Lors d’une conférence de presse en compagnie du premier ministre Justin Trudeau, vendredi, M. Couillard a reconnu que son gouvernement approche la question du port du voile sous un angle différent de son homologue.

M. Couillard a déclaré que cette différence ne remet pas en question les fondements juridiques sur lesquels Québec s’appuie.

« On est persuadés que l’approche qu’on choisit est tout à fait conforme avec les lois du pays, en incluant les chartes, on est très attentifs à cette question-là », a-t-il dit.

Selon le premier ministre québécois, il n’est pas nécessaire de faire l’unanimité à ce sujet, qui a occupé une place importante dans la dernière campagne fédérale.

« On aborde la question d’angles différents mais avec la même préoccupation, a-t-il dit. Moi-même j’ai fait une campagne complète sur les droits et libertés des gens et c’est un enjeu important pour moi. »

Après avoir été élu il y a près de deux mois, M. Trudeau a retiré l’appel déposé par le gouvernement conservateur devant la Cour suprême du Canada, dans la cause entourant le port du niqab aux cérémonies de citoyenneté.

Par ailleurs, en 2007, les conservateurs s’étaient engagés à interdire le vote à visage couvert, mais ils avaient fait marche arrière en février 2014, au moment de réformer la loi électorale.

Plusieurs citoyens ont choisi de protester contre l’absence de balises en se présentant le visage masqué de diverses façons au moment du scrutin fédéral d’octobre dernier.

Alors que le vote à visage couvert est interdit au Québec depuis huit ans, le gouvernement de M. Couillard a déposé un projet de loi qui fixerait la même obligation lors de la prestation de services publics.

« Le cas du visage voilé va au-delà de cette question, au-delà de la question religieuse, a-t-il dit vendredi. C’est une question d’image de la femme dans une société, du message qu’on envoie aux gens. (…) Pour le Québec et dans l’histoire du Québec dans l’état actuel de nos valeurs communes, je pense que c’est un geste qu’il faut faire et qu’on va poursuivre. »

M. Couillard a affirmé que M. Trudeau et lui sont malgré tout d’accord « sur les grands enjeux, sur les grands principes ».

« Il n’est pas interdit qu’il y ait des éléments où on a des approches différentes, a-t-il dit. Il ne faut pas rechercher l’unanimité et la constance à tout prix. »

M. Trudeau a insisté sur la place du débat sur les symboles religieux dans les dernières campagnes électorales québécoise et fédérale.

« Nous nous situons dans cette lignée de refuser la politique qui divise ou qui vise à faire peur aux gens, a-t-il dit. On a tous deux gagné des élections dans les dernières années en étant raisonnables et ouverts dans le respect des droits. »

Source: Voile intégral: Couillard confiant de pouvoir légiférer malgré l’approche d’Ottawa | Alexandre Robillard | Politique québécoise

Liberals promise to bring back refugee health benefits cut by Conservatives

No surprise, in platform and mandate letters, reversing a mean and nasty policy, one ultimately that would cost society more in the long-run:

The federal Liberals say they are poised to restore refugee health benefits trimmed by the previous Conservative government.

Health Minister Jane Philpott says an announcement will come very soon to reverse the cuts to refugee health care and, in the meantime, the needs of Syrian newcomers will be covered.

Prior to 2012, anyone awaiting a refugee status decision had their health care costs — including dental, eye care and medications — paid for by the federal government until their application was decided and provincial health coverage kicked in.

But in June that year, the Conservative government drastically scaled back the available coverage.

The Conservatives launched a challenge to a Federal Court ruling that found the changes they had made to the health-care system for refugee claimants were unconstitutional.

They also reinstated some of the benefits, though not all, to comply with the court ruling.

Source: Liberals promise to bring back refugee health benefits cut by Conservatives

First large group of Syrian refugees on government plane arrive in Canada: Diversity and Inclusion language

Consistent welcoming and inclusive language:

The first large group of Syrian refugees coming to Canada by government aircraft arrived in Toronto late Thursday night, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on hand to welcome them at a temporary processing centre at Pearson International Airport.

Trudeau was joined by the ministers of immigration, health and defence, as well as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, local mayors and opposition immigration critics.

“They step off the plane as refugees, but they walk out of this terminal as permanent residents of Canada with social insurance numbers, with health cards and with an opportunity to become full Canadians,” Trudeau said.

“This is something that we are able to do in this country because we define a Canadian not by a skin colour or a language or a religion or a background, but by a shared set of values, aspirations, hopes and dreams that not just Canadians but people around the world share.”

All of the Syrians on board are sponsored by private groups, many of whom had filed the necessary paperwork months ago in order to bring in some of the estimated 4.3 million Syrians displaced by the ongoing civil war in that country.

More than 400 refugees have already arrived on commercial flights since the Liberals took office on Nov. 4.

Just before the aircraft arrived, the prime minister thanked the staff and volunteers helping to process and welcome the 163 refugees.

“How you will receive these people tonight will be something they will remember for the rest of their lives, but also I know something that you will remember for the rest of your lives,” Trudeau said.

“So I thank you deeply for being a part of this because this matters. Tonight matters, not just for Canada but for the world.”

Source: First large group of Syrian refugees on government plane arrive in Canada – Macleans.ca

Unmuzzle the ambassador of religious freedom, Conservatives tell Dion

My sense is that Andrew Bennett’s time is up.

Open question whether they fold back the function into the Human Rights Division or keep it as a stand-alone division (6 FTEs). Arguments can be made for both approaches:

With Donald Trump calling earlier this week for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the country’s representatives can “figure out what’s going on”, it seemed like a great opportunity for Canada’s ambassador of religious freedom to say…something.

It is his mandate, after all, to “promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.”

But since the Liberals were elected in October, Andrew Bennett has been suspiciously quiet, leading many to speculate Canada’s first ambassador of religious freedom could also be its last.

Though Bennett, who was appointed to the Harper government-created position in February 2013, released a statement on the International Day for Tolerance in mid November, Global Affairs Canada has turned down requests from multiple media outlets for interviews.

“I will have to politely decline your interview request with Ambassador Bennett at this time,” Global Affairs spokesperson John Babcock told iPolitics in an emailed statement right around that time.

“I will say that the promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada’s constructive leadership in the world. Freedom of religion or belief, including the ability to worship in peace and security, is a universal human right in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Toronto Star was told during the campaign that he’d be available after the election, and CTV‘s Don Martin lashed out on Twitter this week after being declined yet another interview request with Bennett.

In Question Period on Wednesday, Conservative MP Garnett Genuis sought clarification from the government, echoing the familiar Liberal jab at the Conservatives’ muzzling of federal government scientists.

“Mr. Speaker, members of the media are telling us that they have been unable to get hold of the ambassador for religious freedom since the new government was sworn in. The ambassador has previously been a highly effective advocate internationally, earning widespread acclaim and achieving substantial results. At a time when religious minorities are more vulnerable than ever before, why is the ambassador being muzzled?”

Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion responded, “Mr. Speaker, that is quite rich coming from this party. We do not muzzle officials at all. They did. They did it all over the place. We will fight to protect the right of freedom of religion, and all freedoms will be protected as much as possible by this government.”

Unmuzzle the ambassador of religious freedom, Conservatives tell Dion

As More Israelis Go Vegan, Their Military Adjusts Its Menu : The Salt : NPR

Interesting example of reasonable accommodation and responding to demographic trends:

After the war, Yuval, 27, realized there were likely thousands of other vegan soldiers who were suffering from inadequate nutrition. About 5 percent of Israel’s population is vegan, among the highest rates in the world. In a nation where military service is compulsory for most people, this means ever more vegans in uniform.

So Yuval drafted a letter to the army requesting more vegan meals, more nutritionally balanced food without animal products, vegan options for prepared sandwiches, and less bureaucracy in recognizing a soldier as vegan. The note included suggestions, such as adding hummus and soy milk to breakfast, quinoa to lunch and avocado to sandwiches.

“This letter is not a demand or hint for easing of the military service,” the note read. “To the contrary, this letter aims to create equal rights and opportunities to allow for the vegan soldier to maintain a lifestyle that will enable him to perform every task assigned to him and to serve the country the best he can, whether in compulsory, career or reserve service.”

The Israeli military, it turns out, was surprisingly eager to help. A military spokesman tells The Salt that vegans serve in all capacities, including as combat soldiers. Vegan soldiers wear wool-free berets and leather-free boots, and they get an additional stipend to supplement their food, the military says.

What’s more, the Israel Defense Forces “is currently working on creating a complete meal plan for vegan soldiers who serve on closed bases,” the spokesman tells us via email. Soldiers will get extra plant-based products for breakfast and lunch, “as well as supplementary vitamin packs to ensure that the soldiers receive all the necessary nutrients.”

The army follows a number of other Israeli institutions to accommodate vegans.

In November 2014, the cafeteria for the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, began offering two to three vegan options daily, with extras on Mondays, according to spokesman Tal Vider.

And in 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that his residence would also commit to “Meatless Mondays” — though a spokesman in Netanyahu’s office could not confirm whether the program was ongoing.

According to Israeli media reports, veganism is on the rise among Arab citizens of Israel as well.

Even Domino’s Israel has joined in, serving more than half a million vegan pizzas in 2014.

Yuval says the army has indeed changed in the past year, in no small part because of efforts like his. There are more vegan options at lunch, but he says there is still more to be done for breakfast, dinner and sandwiches.

In Israel, the fierce embrace of veganism has not been without controversy. Among the vegans in Israel are the founders of the radical 269 movement, whose members stage publicity stunts — including branding themselves, leaving severed cattle heads in public places, and “liberating” animals from farms. The Hebrew-subtitled version of an incendiary speech by U.S. animal rights activist Gary Yourofsky, who compares the meat and dairy industries to the Holocaust, has received more than 1 million views. Yourofsky raised eyebrows for speaking at an Israeli settlement during a visit in 2013.

“I don’t care about Jews or Palestinians, or their stupid, childish battle over a piece of Godforsaken land in the desert,” Yourofsky told +972 Magazine at the time. “I care about animals.”

While many vegans do comply with Israel’s near-universal draft for Jewish citizens, some say serving in the Israeli army violates the same morals that drove them to avoid eating animal products.

Haggai Matar, a vegan and a journalist in Tel Aviv, spent two years in prison as punishment for refusing the draft in 2002. He said he did not understand vegans who participated in what he sees as Israel’s abuse of Palestinian rights.

“It’s absurd that combat soldiers can feel very bad about hurting animals, but they have no problem to drop bombs on Gaza and kill hundreds of people,” he says.

Matar, 31, says military prison had few vegan options, but his parents brought him soy chocolate milk, and he and other vegan prisoners were often allowed access to the prison kitchen.

Law professor Aeyal Gross of Tel Aviv University warned in 2013, in the liberal Israeli daily Haaretz, against “veganwashing,” or using Israel’s vegan-friendly face as a mask to cover up what he sees as human rights violations.

Yuval, the soldier who pushed for vegan food in the army, says not all vegans are pacifists.

“We are fighting terror organizations,” he says. “I believe that the vegan reform in the IDF is paving the way for an even more moral army.”

Source: As More Israelis Go Vegan, Their Military Adjusts Its Menu : The Salt : NPR

Egan: Algonquin’s money-losing Saudi campus raises ethical questions

Valid questions:

Why does the world go nuts when the University of Ottawa student federation cancels a yoga class – for lack of cultural sensitivity – but no one bats an eye when Algonquin College opens a men-only campus in Saudi Arabia, only to lose $1 million in public money in one year?

Algonquin, the city’s leading college with 20,000 students, has a mission statement that details its core values. One of them is “integrity,” described thusly: “We believe in trust, honestly and fairness in all relationships and transactions.”

Another is “respect,” put this way: “We value the dignity and uniqueness of the individual. We value the equity and diversity in our community.”

How you square those values in a country with a human rights record like Saudi Arabia is a mystery. It has been said — and written — that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne would not only be barred from attending Algonquin’s campus in Jazan, she could well be arrested for being open about her sexuality. If she tried driving a car to class, Lord knows what would happen.

(This is not histrionics: public floggings and beheadings are common in a country with so-called religious police. It hardly helps when you visit the Human Rights Watch website and the first story on Saudi Arabia is: “Poet Sentenced to Death for Apostasy.”)

Nonetheless, a couple of the Wynne ministries were only too eager to announce this great adventure in international education in 2013.

The optics are terrible, frankly, gender inequality being one of many sore points.

The college said this planned “revenue generator” was important at a time of reduced funding, presumably from the Ontario treasury. At capacity, annual revenue in Jazan was to peak at more than $25 million.

Well, does this not have a “sell-your-soul” feel to it? It’s OK if it makes money? Setting aside that whopper, the bottom-line predictions turned out to be wrong.

The campus lost $983,000 in 2014/15 and the estimate for the current year is a modest profit of $232,000, followed by projected profits of $2 million and $3.6 million. Well, we shall see. It might be the moment to point out Algonquin’s operating deficit for 2016/17 is projected to be near the $5-million mark.

This can probably be parsed eight ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is easy to find. This is a public institution. It is not a for-profit corporation. It needs to think pretty hard about gambling with the public’s money, with an eye on profit, to provide a service to citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

The people of Ontario — is it not so — are subsidizing oil sheiks?

The arguments are not lost on the school. It produced a strategic plan in 2014 that discussed the human rights records in countries where Algonquin does or might collaborate.

“Algonquin believes that education is a powerful, effective force for positive change in any country,” it reads.

“For these reasons, while some feel Algonquin should not partner with countries that do not offer the same human rights protections as Canada, the College is convinced that working with those genuinely invested in change can yield beneficial outcomes. Saudi Arabia and China, for example, are investing heavily in education and have explicit policies encouraging their educational institutions to partner with those in the west.”

It is also worth asking whether the Saudi deal could have been structured so that Ontario taxpayers were protected. Instead, the college is paid on a performance-based model that takes into account things like attendance and graduation rates.

Wonderful if students stay in school. Not so good if they drop out, or flunk, which they did in alarming numbers in 2013-14: of the 600 students in the English foundation program, only 20 per cent completed the year.

Things are improving, however. This year, the school has 800 students, including 200 in actual diploma programs. So, perhaps, financially, the corner has been turned.

This hardly solves the conflict in values. Institutions of higher learning should be places where ideas — even crazy ones about yoga — can be expressed without fear of reprisal. Hard to imagine this is the case at Algonquin’s Saudi campus, where students are learning how to be accountants and “truck and coach technicians.”

Source: Egan: Algonquin’s money-losing Saudi campus raises ethical questions | Ottawa Citizen

Americans Can’t Pass the U.S. Citizenship Test

Not surprising and there would be similar results in Canada, particularly given the Canadian test is more onerous and that immigrants study for the test:

One of the biggest parts of the application process for becoming a U.S. citizen is passing the naturalization test, a prueba covering pivotal history and government facts that only 1-in-3 Americans can pass.

To highlight just how ridiculous this crucial test is, the funny journos at the Flama put together a video of U.S. citizens being asked some of the questions that American hopefuls have to answer correctly.

Questions like “when was the Constitution written,” “how many voting members does the House of Representatives have” and “who said, ‘give me liberty or give me death'” had these americanos scratching their heads. And these are just a handful of the 100 preguntas immigrants can be asked.

One exam-taker came up with a brilliant plan after failing the test miserably: “There should be a good person test to become an American. Like are you human? Do you care about other people? That’s what we need. People shouldn’t have to answer this shit,” he said.

Despite many Americans’ inability to pass the naturalization test, 91 percent of immigrants are successful.

The point of the video, though, couldn’t be any more clearer: Naturalization test answers give little indications as to whether someone would be a so-called “good” citizen, and we probably shouldn’t be forcing immigrants to memorize random U.S. facts that their neighbors won’t even know.

Don’t forget to watch the hilarious video above.

Source: Americans Can’t Pass the U.S. Citizenship Test

Charlie Hebdo Editor: Europe’s Problem Is Racism, Not Islamophobia | TIME

Deceased Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier on the need to focus on racism, and the risks of focusing on Islamophobia. Valid arguments, that will likely provoke some debate.

In Canadian context, the previous government’s almost exclusive focus on antisemitism meant broader anti-racism initiatives and programming were neglected. Expect some of this to change with the Liberal government as part of its diversity and inclusion agenda, although likely with a mix of broader messaging and programming and specific community focus (i.e., antisemitism, anti-Muslim):

Minority pressure group activists who seek to impose the concept of “Islamophobia” on judicial and political authorities have only one goal: to persuade the victims of racism to proclaim themselves Muslim. Forgive me, but the fact that racists may also be Islamophobic is essentially incidental. They are racists first, and merely use Islam to target their intended victim: the foreigner or person of foreign extraction. By taking only the racist’s Islamophobia into account, we minimize the danger of his racism. Yesterday’s anti-racism activist is turning into the salesman of a highly specialized commodity: a niche form of discrimination.

The fight against racism is a fight against all forms of racism; but what is the fight against Islamophobia against? Is it against criticizing a religion or against abhorring its practitioners because they are of foreign descent? Racists have a field day when we debate whether it is racist to say the Koran is a useless rag. If tomorrow the Muslims of France were to convert to Catholicism or renounce all religion, it wouldn’t make the least bit of difference to the racists—they would continue to hold these foreigners or French citizens of foreign descent responsible for every affliction.

Okay, so Mouloud and Gérard are Muslims. Mouloud is of North African extraction and comes from a Muslim family; Gérard is of European origin and comes from a Catholic family. Gérard has converted to Islam. Both are trying to rent the same apartment. Assuming they have similar incomes, which of the two Muslims is more likely to get the apartment? The Arab-looking fellow or the white guy? It’s not the Muslim who will be turned away; it’s the Arab. The fact that the Arab bears no outward sign of belonging to the Muslim faith changes nothing. Yet what does the anti-Islamophobia activist do? He charges religious discrimination instead of decrying racism….

Social discrimination, while the subject of much less debate than religious discrimination because it is manifested more insidiously and discreetly, is nevertheless far more predominant in France. Managers choose their future employees less on the basis of their religious membership, true or supposed, than, for instance, on their place of residence. Between the Mouloud who lives in upscale Neuilly-sur-Seine and the Mouloud who lives in the down-at-heel banlieue of Argenteuil, which of the two, assuming they are of equal competence, is more likely to get the job? Yet who ever talks about this kind of discrimination? People are massively discriminated against based on their social class, but since a large proportion of the poor—whom no one wants hanging around their place of work, their neighborhood, or their building—is made up of people of foreign descent and, among these, a great many of Muslim origin, the Islamic activist will claim that the problem is Islamophobia.

Source: Charlie Hebdo Editor: Europe’s Problem Is Racism, Not Islamophobia | TIME

Inside Justin Trudeau’s ‘turbo-Zen’ army: Wells

My favourite quote from this good overview of the Liberal government’s ambitious agenda and working methods. Well worth reading in its entirety:

(Muscle memory is turning out to be a constant challenge for the Trudeau crew as they work with the federal public service to implement their stacked agenda, after Stephen Harper spent a decade trying to dampen bureaucratic enthusiasm. In meetings on refugee resettlement, the Trudeau adviser said, “It became clear early on that [bureaucrats’] overriding objective was not to get yelled at. We had to say, ‘Guys, that’s not how we’re going to work.’ ”)

And this quote on tone:

But much of the tone comes from the Prime Minister himself. In early group conversations in the Langevin Block where the government’s top political staffers and bureaucratic advisers work, Trudeau has often been the one who cuts conversations about the day’s worries short and reminds others to consider the long-term goal, people familiar with those meetings said.

“He’s got 320 campaign promises, and four years to deliver them, and he really wants to ensure they don’t get off track,” the longtime observer said. And so participants describe a peculiar characteristic of the Trudeau government in its early days: despite the rush to deliver on commitments and the early hiccups of botched plans or unforeseen catastrophe, the general atmosphere has been one of eerie calm. Turbo schedule, Zen attitude.

“Totally Zen about headlines,” the Trudeau adviser said. “How do you think we survived the last six months?”

The longtime observer confirmed the self-diagnosis. “If the nanny thing had happened to Harper, his PMO’s reaction would have been, ‘Who do we shoot?’ ”

And on implementation of the longer-term view:

But the long-range focus is not merely a matter of Trudeau’s personal style. It is baked into the design of his government. “Right from the get-go there was a keen desire to make sure we focused on results and pacing of delivery,” Peter Harder, a former deputy minister who ran Trudeau’s transition team, said in an interview. The most visible sign of this is the most important cabinet committee. Under previous governments it would have been called “priorities and planning.” Under Trudeau it’s called “agenda and results.” Its goal is to relentlessly track progress against targets to make sure the government delivers on its agenda items. “It’s never been done before,” Harder said. “Our cabinet committees [in previous governments] have always been focused on incoming events, not on stocks of results.” The agenda and results membership list includes three ministers who are often named among Trudeau’s closest personal confidants: House leader Dominic LeBlanc, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains.

Source: Inside Justin Trudeau’s ‘turbo-Zen’ army – Macleans.ca

How Billionaire Techies Hope To Reshape The US Immigration Debate : NPR

Needed antidote to much of the rhetoric in the US, and a natural for the tech industry given their need for talent:

The immigration-reform advocacy group founded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — FWD.us (pronounced “forward U.S.”) — and funded by fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs including Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer — is rolling out a plan for the 2016 election that will include “substantial” investments in battleground states.

This primary campaign season, the immigration conversation has been dominated by hard-line rhetoric about border walls, mass deportations and birthright citizenship, and now Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration ban. FWD.us says it’s trying to refocus the conversation on comprehensive immigration reform.

“We are making the case over the next year that immigration reform needs to be something that gets done right away under the next presidency,” said
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us. “That starts with making clear the awful and absurd policies of mass deportation that we’re hearing.”

FWD.us won’t be targeting a particular candidate. But with a focus on mass deportations, it’s clear one immediate target for these tech billionaires is a fellow billionaire — Donald Trump, and the immigration rhetoric his campaign has sparked this primary season.

“The stakes are incredibly high,” said Schulte. “Embracing this mass deportation agenda is absolutely toxic.”

Schulte said the rules of the game have changed since the 2014 midterms, and this election cycle, there’s a whole new side to the immigration debate.

FWD.us would not disclose its spending plans, but it is considered the most well-funded immigration reform group in the country.

In 2013 and 2014, FWD.us spent $10 million on digital, radio, tv and cable advertising, according to a spokesman with the group. Schulte said the group intends to spend similar amounts of money this election cycle. Records indicate it also spent $1.3 million on lobbying activities in 2013 and 2014.

“One role that FWD.us did is put a big voice out there on TV, with a serious amount of money behind it, to fill a void that otherwise exists on the campaign airwaves,” said Elizabeth Wilner, who tracks campaign ads with the research firm Kantar Media. “It’s not typical of something we’ve seen in the past,” she added. “It’s only fairly recently that business has made it their business to take a side.”

The group’s current mission this election season does not focus on huge ad expenditures; instead, FWD.us is working on voter education through research, engagement and polling, with just one lofty goal in Schulte’s words: “Pass immigration reform right out of the gate under the next president, plain and simple.”

FWD.us launched in 2013 with a splash (and an estimated $50 million). It was considered an ambitious big-money venture with the potential to legitimately move the dial on comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

“In a knowledge economy, the most important resources are the talented people we educate and attract to our country,” Zuckerberg wrote in an op-ed announcing the group. “A knowledge economy can scale further, create better jobs and provide a higher quality of living for everyone in our nation.”

Source: How Billionaire Techies Hope To Reshape The Immigration Debate : NPR