Why Ontario should steer clear of East Asia’s identity politics

2017/02/14 Leave a comment

Diaspora politics in action.

While I would disagree that Japan has come to terms with its wartime atrocities (sharp contrast to Germany), Welch’s concern regarding the divisiveness of this proposal is valid (just as the Canadian Vietnamese community was split over Bill S-219 – Backward Bill Passed, but Vietnamese-Canadians Move Forward – New Canadian Media):

In recent years, China has fanned the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment, partly for instrumental reasons (an external enemy enhances national cohesion and regime legitimacy), and partly because many Chinese honestly believe that Japan is nostalgic for its imperial, militarist past, and continues to pose a latent threat to the mainland. It is hardly surprising that they do. Their government keeps telling them so. Chinese citizens are fed a steady diet of anti-Japanese propaganda in the press and in the form of late-night television dramas depicting the heroic struggle of Chinese soldiers against barbaric wartime Japanese invaders. The Nanjing Massacre figures heavily in these anti-Japanese narratives.

In fact, the government of Japan has long ago—and many times—acknowledged and repented of the country’s imperial sins. Only a handful of arch-nationalist cranks refuse to do so, and they speak only for themselves. Today, Japan is among the least militarist countries in the world. Most Japanese today see their own government as the primary source of their wartime suffering. Since 1945, Japan has been a responsible and constructive member of the international community.

One finds ample evidence of lack of empathy in Japan as well, where China’s anti-Japanese propaganda is seen as part of a larger geopolitical project to impose Beijing’s hegemony. With few exceptions, Japanese fail to appreciate the extent to which anti-Japanese sentiment in China can be attributed to a combination of ignorance and regime insecurity. But the Japanese government does not respond by demonizing China. Instead, it calls for greater cooperation and communication on issues of mutual interest, while hedging its bets through more-or-less-standard balance-of-power politics.

These two efforts to single out the Nanjing Massacre for commemoration effectively endorse and encourage Chinese misperceptions of Japan. They ask the people of Ontario and the people of Toronto to inflame and take sides in a dangerous clash of national egos. They work against, not for, stability in East Asia. This is not the Canadian way. Canadians are peacemakers and bridge-builders, not pawns in others’ domestic and geopolitical games.

At the same time, and at least as importantly, these two efforts threaten to undermine harmony here at home. More than 100,000 Ontarians have roots in Japan, and more than 700,000 have roots in China. Nothing good can come from fanning the flames ethnic hatred—except, perhaps, for cynical politicians who care only about the relative number of their constituents in their districts with Chinese or Japanese ancestry.

Finally, these measures are dangerous precedents. By taking sides in one case, Queen’s Park and Toronto City Council would effectively invite others to do the same. Ontario, in general, and Toronto, in particular, have more diverse populations than anywhere else in the world. There are not enough days in the calendar to commemorate every historical atrocity that drives an ethno-nationalist grievance.

Let us hope that our politicians see the wisdom of avoiding this particular minefield before the damage is done. No one could possibly object to commemorating the innocent victims of war; but if we are to do so, let us make the commemoration inclusive, in true Canadian fashion, rather than divisive.

Source: Why Ontario should steer clear of East Asia’s identity politics – The Hill Times – The Hill Times

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

A glance at birthright citizenship regulations across Europe | US News

2017/02/14 Leave a comment

Useful if partial comparison:

As voters in Switzerland are deciding Sunday whether to make it easier for “third-generation foreigners” to get the country’s citizenship [passed], here’s a glance at how other countries across Europe are handling citizenship and birthright issues for immigrants of the first, second or third generation.

Different from the United States, where every child born on American soil automatically becomes an American citizen regardless of his or her parents’ nationality, being born in Switzerland doesn’t mean automatically mean becoming Swiss, a situation echoed in a few other European nations.

Germany:

Children of parents with foreign passports receive German citizenship at birth if one parent has lived in Germany for at least eight years and has unlimited residency status. The children also get to keep their parents’ citizenship. At age 21, they are supposed to choose one of the two nationalities. However, the obligation to give away one passport has in recent years been watered down by new regulations and there are a lot of exceptions to the rule meaning more and more children of foreign parents continue to keep their dual citizenships after their 21st birthday.

United Kingdom:

A child born in the United Kingdom is automatically a British citizen only if one parent is a citizen of, or settled in, the U.K.

A U.K.-born child without a parent who fits the bill can become a British citizen later — either if they live in Britain till they are 10; or if either parent becomes legally settled in Britain.

Italy:

Those born in Italy can ask, when they turn 18, to become an Italian citizen if they have continued to live in Italy since birth. The request must be formally made before the 19th birthday. It’s usually a straightforward process for these young people.

France:

All children born in France of foreign parents automatically gain French citizenship at the age of 18, if they live in France and have lived here for five years since the age of 11.

Greece:

In Greece there is no birthright citizenship. So if a child of foreign parents is born here, it doesn’t give them the right to Greek citizenship.

Czech Republic:

Birthright citizenship is only given to foreign children born in the Czech Republic if the parents are considered stateless or if one of the parents has a residency permit for a period longer than 90 days.

Spain:

Citizenship is automatically granted to children born in Spain who have at least one Spanish parent. If neither parent is a Spanish citizen, children born in Spain to legal residents can obtain citizenship after one year.

Source: A glance at birthright citizenship regulations across Europe | World News | US News

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

How the word ‘terrorism’ lost its meaning: Neil Macdonald

2017/02/13 Leave a comment

More good commentary from Macdonald:

What appears to have qualified those attacks for inclusion on the Trump list was the fact that the attackers, Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, had converted from their birth religion to Islam.

Similarly, Trump’s list did not include Dylann Roof, the young white supremacist who, in the summer of 2015, pulled out a gun in a black church in Atlanta and began killing. Roof was a practising Christian, a member of an evangelical Lutheran congregation. Reportedly, he sat and argued about scriptural issues with congregants at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church before murdering nine of them.

Still, like Bissonnette, Roof was not labelled a terrorist by law enforcement authorities, or charged as such. He was certainly not called a “radical Christian terrorist” or “white supremacist terrorist.” Those are phrases the mainstream media rarely find pronounceable.

The FBI even went to far as to say Roof’s killings were “not a political act.”

If that sounds outrageously hypocritical, that’s because it is. (Go ahead and imagine the official reaction had Roof or Bissonnette been Muslims).

Western concept of ‘terrorism’

But it’s perfectly consonant with the Western concept of “terrorism,” which is itself a form of hypocrisy deeply embedded in the American and Canadian psyches.

Terrorism is political invective, nothing more. It’s a great favourite of demagogues, widely accepted by audiences, and is almost always applied exclusively to the other, never to ourselves.

Take the Irish Republican Army. The IRA was an exclusively Roman Catholic organization, and had no problem killing civilians to advance its agenda. The British government characterized the IRA and all its offshoots as terrorists, but did not for decades apply the label to the equally murderous Protestant “loyalist” paramilitaries.

IRA flag Irish Republican Army Gerry Adams

The State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups has never included the IRA. (Paul McErlane/Reuters)

Some Irish Catholics in Canada and the United States, though, tended to regard the IRA’s behaviour as understandable, if not excusable. They preferred not to label it as terrorism, never mind “Christian terrorism,” even though the Troubles were all about a schism in Christianity, something like the violent Sunni/Shia fissure in the Middle East. Almost certainly because of domestic American sentiment, the U.S. State Department’s long list of designated terrorist groups has never named the IRA

Because the terrorist is always the other.

While working for CBC in Israel, I once searched the database of the Jerusalem Post for uses of the word “terror,” “terrorist” and “terrorism.”

There were thousands over the course of several years, all of them relating to Palestinians or other Arabs.

The newspaper had another term for Jewish settlers who targeted and killed Palestinian civilians: “Jewish extremists.”  Most mainstream Israeli journalists have just as hard a time with the phrase “Jewish terrorist” as Western media do with “Christian terrorist.”

Those two words simply seem a contradiction in terms to many Jews, although, to give the Israeli justice system credit for at least some consistency, authorities there have charged Jewish Israelis with terrorism-related offences.

Until the 9/11 attacks, there was at least an attempt in the West to define terrorism: the deliberate targeting of civilians by non-government players to advance a political agenda.

By that definition, of course, Alexandre Bissonnette, if convicted, and Dylann Roof would qualify.

War on Terror

But once America began its “War on Terror,” the word was stretched and adapted to mean anything Washington wanted it to mean, and the U.S. media fell obediently into line.

Any attack on any U.S. soldier anywhere became terror, even attacks by people whose country had been invaded.

Groups such as the Shining Path in Peru, or Kurdish ultranationalist groups, or fringe Irish diehards, or Tamil extremists, are relegated to trivial regional annoyances. The predations of militants or governments America approves of are overlooked or ignored.

Today, the word terrorism is so objectively meaningless that the only sensible definition is: “Violence we disapprove of.”

Source: How the word ‘terrorism’ lost its meaning: Neil Macdonald – CBC News | Opinion

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with ,

Pre-clearance bill would give U.S. border agents in Canada new powers

2017/02/13 Leave a comment

Signed and agreed to under different times. Concerns under Trump administration valid but unlikely to impede implementation. However, ongoing monitoring needed:

U.S. border guards would get new powers to question, search and even detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil under a bill proposed by the Liberal government.

Legal experts say Bill C-23, introduced by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, and likely to pass in the current sitting of Parliament, could also erode the standing of Canadian permanent residents by threatening their automatic right to enter Canada.

The bill would enshrine in law a reciprocal agreement for customs and immigration pre-clearance signed by the governments of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in 2015. Both houses of Congress passed the U.S. version of the bill in December.

Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer in Calgary, says C-23 takes away an important right found in the existing law.

“A Canadian going to the U.S. through a pre-clearance area [on Canadian soil] can say: ‘I don’t like the way [an interview is] going and I’ve chosen not to visit your country.’ And they can just turn around and walk out.

“Under the new proposed bill, they wouldn’t be able to walk out. They can be held and forced to answer questions, first to identify themselves, which is not so offensive, but secondly, to explain the reasons for leaving, and to explain their reasons for wanting to withdraw,” said Greene, who is national chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.

“And that’s the part we think could be really offensive and goes too far.”

Pre-clearance allows Canadian visitors to the U.S. to clear U.S. Customs and Immigration while still in Canada at a Canadian port of departure.

Eight Canadian airports offer pre-clearance, and it will expand to two more later this year. They also exist at the Port of Vancouver, at Vancouver’s train station and on some B.C.-Washington ferry routes. Later this year, pre-clearance is expected to be introduced at Montreal’s train station for Amtrak’s Montreal-New York City route.

Howard Greenberg, a Toronto immigration lawyer who has chaired the immigration law committees at the Canadian Bar Association and the International Bar Association, says the law raises the prospect of a Canadian being arrested simply for deciding he or she has had enough with a certain line of questioning.

“At some point, it may change from a situation where you’re simply responding to a question, to a situation where you’re failing to respond to a direction of an officer. So the ambiguity is somewhat dangerous for the traveller.”

Unreasonable delay

A spokesman for Public Safety Canada said C-23 limits how far a U.S. agent can go in questioning a traveller.

“The change is that once a traveller indicates their wish to withdraw, pre-clearance officers would be authorized to exercise certain authorities, such as question the traveller as to their identity and reason for withdrawing,” Scott Bardsley told CBC News.

“This authority is provided in order protect the integrity of the border but can only be exercised to the extent that doing so would not unreasonably delay the traveller.”

But Greene said the bill fails to define what constitutes an “unreasonable delay.”

“What’s reasonable for them may be a very long interrogation. Whereas for the individual it may be, ‘I’ll tell you why I don’t want to answer any more questions and then I’m leaving.’ Well, the problem is, if that person tries to leave, then they can be charged with failing to co-operate, which under this bill is an offence they can be arrested for, and then charged and given a federal record.”

Physical searches

Under the existing law, a strip search can only be conducted by a Canadian officer, though a U.S. officer can be present. Greene points out C-23 says if a Canadian officer is unavailable or unwilling, the U.S. officer can conduct the search.

“So you could have a circumstance where the Canadian officer says, ‘No I don’t think a search is warranted here. I’m not willing to do it.’ But the U.S. officer just says, ‘Fine, we’re going to do it anyway.'”

Source: Pre-clearance bill would give U.S. border agents in Canada new powers – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Security Tagged with ,

Dramatic increase in people having Canadian citizenship revoked since Trudeau elected

2017/02/13 Leave a comment

Not a new story – see McCallum doesn’t want to let fraudsters ‘off the hook’ through moratorium on citizenship revocation.

The increase in numbers reflects largely the results of investigations initiated under the previous government, combined with the removal of previous procedural protections (recourse to Federal Court).

citizenship-data-slides-2015-026

IRCC Data Number of Investigations

But encouraging that a procedural protections fix looks likely judging by comments by Senator Omidvar on the eve of C6 committee hearings:

Josh Paterson, executive director of the association, told the National Post an assurance of due process should’ve been part of Bill C-6. “People readily grasp that when you take away someone’s citizenship, they ought to be entitled to a hearing if they want one.”

Paterson said he has been talking to senators about amendments. So has NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who tried amending the bill in a House of Commons committee but had her amendments ruled out of scope.

“It was frankly astounding to me that (the Liberal government) neglected to fix that critical part in the bill,” she said. “Virtually all of the witnesses came forward to say that we need to restore due process.”

The Senate sponsor of Bill C-6, independent senator Ratna Omidvar, confirmed there are plans to table such amendments in the Senate, likely at third reading.

“Everyone was open to an amendment,” she said in an interview, adding she’s “fairly positive” it will prove uncontroversial, since the argument for due process “would win over any ideological argument.”

Former immigration minister John McCallum had told senators in October he would “certainly welcome” the amendment, and told the Commons he believed “people should have a right to a proper appeal.” Bernie Derible, director of communications for new minister Ahmed Hussen, said “it would not be appropriate” for the minister to comment while the Senate deliberates.

Saying the bill’s passage is long overdue, Omidvar predicted things could wrap up in March. But its passage through the Senate will come with controversy, especially as Tory senators are expected to assert their belief that citizenship should still be revoked from convicted criminals.

It’s a sentiment shared by many. More than half of Canadians, 53 per cent, would rather have kept Bill C-24 as-is, according to an Angus Reid Institute poll from March 2016, which questioned 1,492 people and had a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

In a speech to the chamber in December, Conservative Daniel Lang noted measures in Bill C-24 have already been used to revoke citizenship from several people — part of the “Toronto 18” — who were involved in Toronto terror plots in 2006.

“Dual national Canadian terrorists are not like every other Canadian, and they don’t deserve the same rights and privileges as every other citizen,” Lang argued. “Why do you think that perpetrating an act of terrorism is of less gravity than someone who commits a fraudulent act by signing a false affidavit?”

Explaining increases in citizenship revocation, Caron said immigration workers have been prioritizing “the most serious cases such as those involving serious criminality or organized fraud.” Examples include assuming a fraudulent identity, producing doctored documents to conceal criminality, or falsifying residence records.

Since November 2015, 14 people have had citizenship revoked for hiding crimes they committed while they were permanent residents of Canada, and another five had citizenship revoked for hiding crimes committed before they immigrated.

In the former case, if their citizenship is revoked, people revert back to being foreign nationals, while in the latter case, people revert back to being permanent residents.

Revocation doesn’t necessarily result in a deportation order, but depending on the situation, the Canada Border Services Agency sometimes takes “enforcement action such as removal,” according to papers submitted to parliament.

A document tabled in response to a question on the order paper says an additional 100 people, at least, had their citizenship applications rejected due to misrepresentation between November 2015 and November 2016.

Source: Dramatic increase in people having Canadian citizenship revoked since Trudeau elected | National Post

Filed under C-6, Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Is Trump’s refugee crackdown threat pushing asylum seekers into Canada?

2017/02/13 Leave a comment

is_trumps_refugee_crackdown_threat_pushing_asylum_seekers_into_canada____toronto_starNumbers still relatively small but significant increase:

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, only those asylum seekers who have family already living in Canada or those who have already been refused refugee status in the United States will be considered for asylum if they show up at Canadian land border posts.

But those who cross illegally are exploiting a loophole in the law — the conditions of the Safe Third Country Agreement do not apply to people who are already in Canada when they make a claim for asylum.

The Canada Border Service Agency will not reveal how many asylum seekers are crossing into Canada illegally. But overall, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people seeking asylum in recent months.

In 2016, there were 2,529 asylum claims made at Quebec’s land border crossings, according to statistics from the agency. That figure averages out to 211 claimants each month.

But the numbers started to climb dramatically this fall. There were 289 refugee claimants in October, 369 in November and 591 in December.

Montreal immigration lawyer Éric Taillefer said his caseload of refugee claimants began to increase noticeably in December.

“Before I had one from time to time and now in December and early January there have been many,” he said, adding that most of his clients are from coming from Eritrea, Iraq and Libya.

“These are people who have fears of returning to their country of origin,” said Handfield.

Most of his clients are people who were already living in the United States, but others obtain tourist visas to travel to the U.S. and use that as the entry point for their trek to Canada. Despite American fears about border security since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Handfield said it remains easier to obtain the necessary permissions to enter the U.S. than those required to enter Canada.

Source: Is Trump’s refugee crackdown threat pushing asylum seekers into Canada? | Toronto Star

Filed under Refugees Tagged with ,

Storm of reaction to news Syrian refugee charged with sex assaults

2017/02/13 Leave a comment

Good commentary by David Tait of Carleton University on how the media should and should not report on cases like this:

Reports that a man accused of sexual assaults on six Edmonton teenage girls was a Syrian refugee have ignited a firestorm of reaction, from anti-immigration diatribes to criticism about how the media dealt with the story.

Groups that work with refugees in the city have been inundated with calls and texts over the past 24 hours, some from people calling for an end to the refugee program and others from refugees themselves apologizing on behalf of their community.

Erick Ambtman, executive director of the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers, said his organization received a message on Twitter from a white supremacist group that included a picture of a Syrian refugee, asking the centre to confirm whether the photo was the same man accused of the crimes.

“It may be just to scare us or to unnerve people,” Ambtman said.

“But around my office that’s what’s happening. People are starting to get really nervous, and the [English] language students are starting to get really nervous.

“And the Syrian students are apologizing for somebody who they don’t even know, because he’s got the same country of origin as they do.

“It’s really spiralling into a really ugly place.”

Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, 39, was arrested Saturday and charged with six counts of sexual assault and six counts of sexual interference after six teenage girls, all younger than 16, told police they were inappropriately touched while swimming at the West Edmonton Mall water park.

…When the media reports stories like this one, decisions about what information is relevant have to be made on a case-by-case basis and sometimes on a day-by-day basis, said David Tait, a professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University who has taught ethics courses at the journalism school.

“Journalists have to sort of go and look at a situation not from the standpoint of, ‘Is there public appetite for this information? Do people want to know it?’ But, ‘Is that detail relevant at this stage to this story?’

“And that’s a very difficult thing to determine as a journalist, because you also have to be careful that you’re not making your judgment for some sort of social engineering purpose.

“To say, ‘Oh I don’t want to make these sorts of people look bad’ or ‘I don’t want to make these sorts of people look good.’ You shouldn’t make your journalistic judgments based on how you want people to think about something, because that’s not the journalistic mission.”

‘Our job is to report what’s going on’

Tait said in this case, while reporting immediately after the arrest was made public, he would have questioned whether details about the accused’s background were relevant.

“My question would be, would we have run additional background details about this person if they were a gay man? A gun owner? If they were Jewish? If they were a fundamentalist Christian? If they were a recent arrival from the United States? If they were any number of other identifiers?”

It’s the responsibility of journalists to try to determine what the public needs to know to understand the story. Once the public has the information, people will make their own choices about what’s relevant to them, he said.

Some will seize on information that confirms their own views about the world and overlook other aspects of the story.

“Our job is to report what’s going on out there in the world,” he said.

The story about the water park allegation, Tait said, “is a classic example of where people these days are rushing to grab details, to use individual facts as weapons instead of looking at those details and saying, ‘How does this fit into my developing understanding of the world?'”

Ambtman said Soleiman came to Canada in January 2016 with his wife and six children, aged one to 13 years. The family was assisted by the Mennonite Centre.

Some commenters are exploiting the fact that a Syrian refugee has been charged with a crime, he said.

“They’re exploiting what’s happened to these girls to say something about immigration, and it’s just a really ugly thing to do. It’s been pretty awful to bear witness to.”

It will be up to the justice system to determine the facts of the case and, if a crime has been committed, punish the person responsible, he said.

“To make this about immigration is just absurd. What has happened is there has been a sexual assault at West Edmonton Mall and six girls are going to be traumatized likely for the rest of their lives because of a crime that somebody perpetrated on them. To me, that’s the concern.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Michelle Rempel demands more from politics—on both the left and right

2017/02/11 Leave a comment

Impressive and thoughtful speech delivered at a McGill Institute for the Study of Canada event regarding immigration and Canadian exceptionalism:

During the 2015 campaign, I thought all political parties, my party included, acted shamefully on the issue of immigration, because we used the Syrian refugee crisis as a political wedge in a political campaign, and that was wrong. The response to the Syrian refugee crisis became a campaign issue of one-upmanship on numbers, rather than talking about people as human beings. “Who’s going to bring in more?” When the question should have been: “How do we do it in a way that achieves social license in the country in an expeditious way that shows compassion and addresses the situation, and how do we support the integration of people when we come to Canada, such that we build social license for more refugees in the future, and ensure that refugees that come to Canada have a better experience here than where they came from?” That is not a politically sexy conversation, because it’s easier to say, “I’m going to bring in 25,000 and you’re going to bring 15, ergo you’re racist and I’m more awesome.” Not helpful. Also not helpful is to frame the issue of gender isolation in new Canadian women in the term of a tip line.

And what happened out of all that? Where we are today is we had a parliamentary study that looked at the response to the Syrian refugee initiative, and we had Syrian refugees come in front of a parliamentary committee and said: “I’m in a hotel room that’s infected by bed bugs, and my wife can’t go out and learn English because she’s got five kids. How are we going to have any hope to do anything well here?”

It’s not an adequate response to say, “It’s a nation-building project and the provinces are responsible for it,” when I have a school board come to parliamentary committee and say, “We’ve absorbed in our one city the equivalent of a full elementary school of refugees this year, they have needs that we need to address and need to be compassionate to because they’ve been in a war zone for years and their education has been disrupted, and we received no new funding for it. So in a political campaign for any political stripe to say it’s fully costed when there is no plan … not helpful. Not exceptional.

The thought that populist rhetoric can’t happen in Canada is shocking. The reality is that there has been a narrative that has arisen where you have groups of people who feel that their voices aren’t being heard, and it’s easy through 140 characters and short visual soundbites and memes to say it’s someone else’s fault. And in Canada, that’s still here. But the reality is there’s no “them” and “us” anymore. That’s not how the globe operates. We are so interconnected, be it through trade, or simply the reality of understanding our humanity through Twitter, through YouTube. You can see the destruction in Aleppo. To have that narrative be used in political discourse is disgusting and wrong, and oversimplified.

We all have to demand better. Demanding better for someone who’s a centrist like myself has been a very unpopular position. Because it means there’s no real home for me as a politician on some days. But it’s where we all need to be. There’s many other examples of how Canada in public policy has sort of politicized the system—they might not be as firecracker or high-profile as the barbaric cultural practices tip line. It’s things like lifting a visa requirement on a country without a formal review for some unquantified economic benefit. It’s policy around immigration that is politically motivated that is unquantifed and unsubstantiated—and both parties are guilty of this—that diminishes the public confidence that immigration is a good thing, and we are unexceptional in that, especially in Parliament.

Why should we all be listening to these sorts of things with an open mind? It’s because if we don’t do that, I’m really deeply concerned as a legislator about the peace of humanity right now, and that’s not hyperbole. When I see nationalist parties rise and gain seats in European Parliament, we should be very concerned. When I see the level of nationalist rhetoric that is acceptable among people that are pretty educated and smart people, that’s cause for concern. When I see protectionism and the thickening of borders as a populist public policy response in a globalized economy, we should all be concerned.

The way forward is to ensure we have a public policy dialogue that is not alt-right or far-left. It has to be in the middle and we have to focus not on values, but on programming and outcomes that enable what we vision exceptionalism to be. Things like: where is the smart conversation around the burqa? Where’s that safe space? I don’t wear one—women who wear one, where’s their voice on this? And why don’t we talk about the fact there are equally as many other religious groups who use dress as a control for women? So rather than judging them and shaming them, how do we reach out to them, and give them hope? The fact that we can’t even talk about that—I find as a politician, for me as a camera, even saying that is a risk. I’ve done something terribly egregious, by bringing up both sides of that argument. But if we can’t have this argument, how can we ever reduce issues like Islamophobia? The fact that we can’t have a discussion because we’re so polarized is why we need to acknowledge that we’re not exceptional.

You, as the thought leaders on this? It can’t be 140 characters “You’re a racist; you’re a socialist. You’re conservative; you’re Liberal. Your party sucked; your party sucked.” Come on. If we are truly exceptional, we have to show the world we’re better than that. And I’ll be honest with you, after 18 months of banging my head in both my own party and in the House of Commons against the Liberals, you’ve got to help me out too.

Where we are as a country, for us to be having a conference on how exceptional we are and how much better we are than the United States and we’re welcome to refugees is such a disservice to the fact that we’ve got a long way to go.

For all of you, from the bottom of my heart: let’s try to be smarter about this. And let’s demand better from our leaders.

Source: Michelle Rempel demands more from politics—on both the left and right

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with

A week of kindness, then identity politics as usual in Quebec

2017/02/11 Leave a comment

Good piece by Yves Boisvert – how quickly old patterns reassert themselves:

In the aftermath of the Quebec City mosque killings, one would think the political debate around secularism and identity would be kinder and more reasonable. Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard was widely congratulated for his dignified behaviour, his call for unity, and for refusing to point fingers at political opponents or media who irresponsibly played identity politics over the past few years.

Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée appeared with Mr. Couillard and admitted some wrongs. Yes, he went too far last fall when he said a provincial debate was needed on the wearing of burkas in Quebec, suggesting you could hide an assault rifle under clothing of that sort. He already had admitted in the past that the infamous so-called “Quebec Charter of Values” promoted by his government had “poisoned” the debate on secularism in Quebec.

It would, however, take a full-time job to track the fast-evolving thinking of Mr. Lisée on the matter. After losing power, he repudiated the bill banning religious signs for public servants. Just a few months before, as a minister in the PQ government, Mr. Lisée wrote an op-ed in The New York Times pretending Quebec was having a “Jefferson moment,” in its pursuit of secularism.

But politics, like gravity, adheres to inescapable laws. After a week of political kindness and introspection, Mr. Couillard tried to put the other parties on the defensive, by “reaching out” to them for quick approval of Bill 62, “an Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality.” The small bill, an 18-section piece of legislation, states that members of public bodies have to exercise their functions “with face uncovered.” This would also apply to citizens seeking public services. An accommodation can be made except for identification or security matters.

The bill also offers a vague framework for religious accommodations, be it for employees or school children. It should respect gender equality and other basic principles.

The bill does not go far enough for the main opposition parties, who pretend the legislation should settle once and for all every case of religious accommodation that comes up in the future. The perception that Quebec is under pressure for an incredible number of demands from religious minorities (read: Muslims) is persistent. But, a Commission of inquiry by two prominent intellectuals, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, concluded in 2008 that no such crisis exists. But the PQ, since its identity shift, has worked hard to cultivate the myth.

Not as hard, though, as François Legault, the nationalist-but-not-sovereigntist leader of the Coalition Avenir Québec. If we are to believe Mr. Legault, religious compromise risks diluting Quebec’s identity, which is why Mr. Legault last summer was so concerned about the province’s so-called burkini problem.

Still, Mr. Legault offered to drop his demand that a ban on religious signs for teachers be included in the bill. He asks, as the PQ, that the Bouchard-Taylor recommendations be included, namely a ban on religious signs for officers of the law – judges, police officers, prison guards, prosecutors.

“Let’s legislate on what we agree on,” Mr. Couillard said, not willing to strip any theoretical (for now) law officer of their rights to please the opposition.

Meanwhile, left-wing Québec solidaire accuses the Premier of “systemic racism” because only 2 per cent of job appointments by the Executive Council are visible minorities.

And, the shock-media commentators are back on track, playing down the very idea that Islamophobia exists in Quebec.

The worst case of hate crime against Muslims in the country’s history has yet to inspire a more profound and painful conversation.

Source: A week of kindness, then identity politics as usual in Quebec – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Liberal MP’s anti-Islamophobia motion set for debate next week

2017/02/11 Leave a comment

Hate Crimes Comparison.004

Statistics Canada Annual Police Reported Hate Crimes

Canada already has hate speech laws (unlike south of the border) and tracks police reported hate crimes (although StatsCan stopped writing its analysis of the data).

While I favour tracking, analyzing and messaging that covers all forms of racism, prejudice and discrimination, community specific messaging can be part of raising awareness, addressing concerns and reassuring communities. The previous government paid particular attention to antisemitism given the concerns of Canadian Jews.

My reading of the motion is that it has an appropriate focus on data collection and analysis, places Islamophobia within the broader context of racism and discrimination. with the resulting policy recommendations to be developed within that context by Canadian Heritage:

Members of Parliament will debate a motion to condemn Islamophobia and track incidents of hate crime against Muslims in the House of Commons next week.

Motion 103 was tabled by Mississauga, Ont., Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid last fall, but will be discussed in the  aftermath of last month’s mass shooting at a Quebec City mosque. It calls on government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

The text of the motion also asks the government to:

  • Recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.
  • Request the heritage committee study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.
  • Collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities and present findings within 240 calendar days.

The motion, scheduled for one hour of debate on Wednesday, has generated a backlash online, with petitions garnering thousands of signatures opposing the motion.

Some critics have mischaracterized M-103 as a “bill” or a “law” rather than an non-binding motion.

Some have warned that Canada is moving towards criminalizing Islamophobia or even to the implementation of Islamic law, called Shariah, in Canada.

Khalid declined requests for an interview from CBC News.

When she tabled the motion on Dec. 5, 2016, she described her experience as a “young, brown, Muslim, Canadian woman.”

“When I moved to Canada in the 1990s, a young girl trying to make this nation my home, some kids in school would yell as they pushed me, ‘Go home, you Muslim’ — but I was home. I am among thousands of Muslims who have been victimized because of hate and fear,” she said.

“I am a proud Canadian among hundreds and thousands of others who will not tolerate hate based on religion or skin colour. I rise today with my fellow Canadians to reject and condemn Islamophobia.”

E-petition condemning Islamophobia

On the same day Khalid tabled her motion, an e-petition with nearly 70,000 signatures was tabled that called on the House of Commons to join the signatories in recognizing that “extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post and contributor to The Rebel Media, worries about the potential impact on freedom of expression and special protections for a single religious group.

“There are a lot of countries in Europe where criticism of Islam, even if not entrenched in law as a hate crime, are being interpreted by police and law enforcement, social workers — the whole spectrum of the state apparatus. They have been internalized by those within the public service as wrong, and if not criminal then absolutely morally wrong, and therefore Muslims are a group that must be protected from this very offensive speech,” she said in an interview with CBC.

Kay said anti-hate speech laws have traditionally targeted human beings, not ideas. She questioned the need to single out Islamophobia, and argued there are more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims in Canada.

Hate crimes in Canada

According to Statistics Canada, in 2013 there were 326 police-reported hate crimes motivated by hatred of a religion or religious group, about 28 per cent of all hate crimes.

Those targeting Jewish populations were the most frequently reported, accounting for 56 per cent of religious hate crimes in 2013, according to the most recent data available. There were 181 hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish religion reported by police in 2013, compared to 65 crimes motivated by hatred against the Muslim religion.

In her report and a video for The Rebel website, Kay said blasphemy laws conceived according to Shariah law could creep into Canada.

She said that could have a chilling effect on free speech and ultimately mean some of her columns could be deemed Islamophobic and subject to penalties.

“I’m worried. All Canadians should be worried,” she wrote.

Push for broader discussion

B.C. Conservative MP Dianne Watts said she supports the motion but wants a broader discussion about how to end any act of hate or discrimination based on race or religion.

“We just look at what happened at the mosque in Quebec and it’s such a horrible thing to have happen in Canada because that’s not who we are, that’s not what we’re about and we have to do everything we possibly can as legislators and as a community to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.

Source: Liberal MP’s anti-Islamophobia motion set for debate next week – Politics – CBC News

Motion text: Motion M-103

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism, Religion Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →