Too soon to put Canadian price tag on Trump’s immigration overhaul: officials

Useful questioning of the Minister and officials, and reasonable responses to an evolving situation:

The Liberal government is examining whether the fallout from U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration will require more cash to be spent north of the border.

But both immigration officials and the federal minister told a House of Commons committee that right now, there’s no new money.

Departmental officials say Trump’s executive orders are too new for them to be able to estimate how much they could cost Canada and in what ways.

The Immigration and Refugee Board, however, has been saying for months that a rise in the number of asylum claims is already straining its resources and it has put in a pitch for more cash.

Board officials had been hoping to get an answer in Wednesday’s federal budget but Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen wouldn’t commit Monday to new funds.

He says the fact that claims have been rising at the IRB since 2015 is proof the problem goes beyond the so-called Trump effect.

The board did receive about $4.5-million to deal with an expected increase in claims from Mexican nationals following a government decision to lift visas for Mexicans last December.

Those numbers are already up over last year – 241 Mexicans lodged asylum claims in all of 2016 and 156 have already done so in 2017.

Many anticipate the U.S. president’s executive orders curtailing immigration from certain countries, scaling back refugee admissions and speeding up deportations could push the numbers of people seeking asylum in Canada higher.

Hussen and his officials were pressed Monday by the NDP’s immigration critic Jenny Kwan on whether any more money has been earmarked yet to deal with the potential fallout.

The executive orders are too new and the money currently being requested from Parliament deals with already identified needs, said Daniel Mills, an assistant deputy minister in the Immigration Department.

“We haven’t yet estimated the amount that we will need,” he said in French.

What might be needed next is under review at least in one area.

“The IRB is already facing a number of pressures and recent events will only give rise to further pressures,” Richard Wex, an associate deputy minister in the department, told the committee.

“This matter is under active consideration by the government.”

Hussen tried to bolster the case at committee that the so-called Trump effect isn’t to blame for the rise in claims.

Of the 143 people who’ve who crossed illegally into Manitoba to make an asylum claim in 2017, he said only about 50 had U.S. visas, 97 per cent had been the U.S. less than two months and had not filed an asylum claim there.

“It puts into context the claim made by many that this is as a result of the U.S. administration,” he said.

“In fact, the rise in asylum claims through the border . . . there’s been a small and steady increase since 2015, most of 2016. This is definitely not specific to the incoming U.S. administration.”

Another element that could complicate the IRB’s caseload is the upcoming plan to lift the visa requirement people coming from Romania and Bulgaria. Romania in particular was a large source of asylum claims in Canada prior to a visa requirement being imposed and the decision to phase-out the visa later this year is likely to lead to a renewed increase in asylum claims.

No money has been earmarked yet for the IRB to deal with that.

Source: Too soon to put Canadian price tag on Trump’s immigration overhaul: officials – The Globe and Mail

Why so many Canadian universities know so little about their own racial diversity

Census data allows one to analyse university graduation rates by visible minority and ethnic origin, and first and second generation immigrants are more educated than non-immigrants, although there are variations among groups as shown in the above chart.

However, this is not at the individual university level, where it may help identify issues and gaps:

Many Canadian universities proudly promote the diversity and inclusiveness of their communities, but a CBC News investigation has found that most can’t provide data about how their students identify racially.

As part of an investigation of race and racial discrimination at Canadian universities, CBC News discovered that most of the country’s largest institutions have an incomplete picture of the racial diversity within their student populations, with more than 60 schools saying they don’t collect the data.

Experts, human rights advocates and recently the government of Ontario have endorsed the collection of race-based data as a means of uncovering inequality and better understanding the needs of racialized groups. Racialized is a term used to describe people who identify as being part of a visible minority.

Vettivelu

Ryerson University student Renee Vettivelu says she would have no problem indicating on a school survey how she identifies racially. (CBC News)

“Personally I wouldn’t mind sharing my background and my identity, I’m quite comfortable with it, proud of it,” said Renee Vettivelu, a second-year aerospace engineering student at Ryerson University in Toronto.

She’s Tamil-Canadian and says her parents helped to foster her appreciation for her culture through community events and Saturdays spent at Tamil school.

Ryerson is one of many schools that couldn’t provide details about how members of its student community identify, but it recently confirmed it intends to start gathering this data from students.

“I think that there’s a lot that Ryerson would be able to do if they had that knowledge,” said Vettivelu. She says counselling services for racialized students and financial support for cultural groups and events are examples of where more data would make a difference.

Dua

York University professor Enakshi Dua says universities have been reluctant to collect race-based data from students. (CBC News)

Enakshi Dua, a professor in York University’s gender, feminist and women’s studies department, agrees.

“We need to collect data to have an understanding of how accessible our universities are and where there are barriers and hurdles,” Dua said.

Dua has worked on equity issues in the university environment for more than 15 years and says universities haven’t been receptive to calls to collect information about race.

No clear picture of student diversity

Over the past five months, CBC News asked 76 universities from across the country to provide a breakdown of their student populations by race. While some gave more detail than others, most schools couldn’t provide much information about the diversity of their students.

Some universities pointed to data from third-party surveys that target specific groups like first- or senior-year undergraduates. Other schools provided information in broader categories like “visible minority,” or only offered information about specific groups such as black or Indigenous students.

In all, 63 universities said they couldn’t answer the question on racial demographics because they don’t ask students to provide information about their racial identity. In many cases, data about Indigenous students is already available to universities.

Benefits of collecting data

“If you want to really serve the population, I think you first need to know who’s in your student body,” said Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. “And not just at an eyeballing it sort of way, actually understanding in a much more discrete way.”

She says it isn’t just students who benefit from data collection, but the institutions themselves because they can track the effectiveness of their programs.

“Many of these universities have anti-racism departments or diversity offices. Well, are they able to actually track how students feel about their experience based on, you know, data?”

Mandhane

Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says race-based data can help universities address racial discrimination. (CBC News)

Mandhane says the need for more race-based data goes beyond higher education into sectors like policing and child welfare, even though it’s rare for institutions to collect it.

She suspects some universities are still concerned about addressing the uncomfortable topic of race. “If I collect the data and it reveals that you know this many per cent of my students are black, what does that mean? What does that require me to do?” she said.

Concerns about collecting race data

The 63 schools that said they don’t collect race data include larger institutions like York University and the University of British Columbia, along with smaller schools like Huron University College in London, Ont., Cape Breton University and the University of Prince Edward Island.

Concordia University in Montreal was up front about why it doesn’t ask students for race information: “In Quebec, this is not an option and it is considered illegal to ask.”

Source: Why so many Canadian universities know so little about their own racial diversity – Canada – CBC News

Canada’s M-103 debacle is a trial balloon for something much bigger | Furey

Sun Media continues to fan the flames. And not sure that the Conservatives are that keen, Kellie Leitch and Steven Blaney excepted, are that keen on maintaining a high focus (Patrick Brown, leader of Ontario PC, in his acceptance of the comparable motion – “hate is hate” – said it well):

“There will be no Shariah law in Ontario,” Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty said in 2005.

He was announcing that religious arbitration decisions would no longer be backed up by Ontario courts.

“There will be one law for all Ontarians.”

We made the right choice then. But a lot has changed in the years since. Would we do the same now?

This is the undercurrent of the fight now playing out over Canada’s so-called anti-Islamophobia motion, M-103. The motion itself is fairly benign, its only actionable item being the call for a committee study.

The bigger problem is this whole exercise is about getting a Western liberal democracy to grant recognition to weaponized language used around the world by Islamists to shore up their intolerant political agenda.

While to ill-informed social justice warriors, rejecting Islamophobia just means the common sense courtesy of not ripping off a woman’s hijab in the grocery store, that’s not what it means for many millions of people across the Muslim world.

A quarter of the countries in the world have some form of anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws, many of which are fuelled by a broad definition of Islamophobia. For too many of their citizens, opposing Islamophobia means locking up contrarian bloggers or cartoonists who draw the prophet. This is what we’re at risk of normalizing.

The motion was previously slated for second reading in April but is now set to appear in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The scheduling change means the fallout from M-103 will be drowned out by the federal budget, which will be tabled on Wednesday.

Clearly, the Liberals are no longer so keen on giving this the limelight. No wonder. They thought they’d set a trap for the Conservatives but instead fell into it themselves.

Motion sponsor Liberal MP Iqra Khalid has shied away from most media requests. When Conservative MPs such as Erin O’Toole proposed modest amendments to get consensus, Khalid declined and revealed the prime minister’s office was calling the shots.

Then Canadians saw right through her exercise of reading the thousands of mean messages she’d been sent. They know full well that hateful threats are wrong but also know two wrongs don’t make a right.

While those of us in the press criticizing the motion were, at first, few, more have come on board. CBC journalists Terry Milewski and Neil Macdonald have recently asked smart questions about it.

Meanwhile, multi-faith and ethnically diverse protests have cropped up across the country. And on Monday, a new group called Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms gave a press conference against the motion on Parliament Hill.

The strongest moment was when a gay Muslim man who gave his name as Yusuf took to the microphone to explain “we would like to open our religion to criticism – to find our weaknesses and strengths.”

Yusuf’s referring to the Islamic reformation, a process people both in and out of the faith argue is needed to drag this growing monotheism into modernity. Will the Liberals help or hinder making progress on one of the defining issues of our time?

This matters. The time to get it right is now.

An Environics poll from last year revealed Canadian Muslims are becoming more observant and more likely to embrace patriarchy and homophobia. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute survey from 2011 found 62% of Canadian Muslims backed some form of Shariah law. And Statistics Canada found the Muslim population recently doubled over 10 years, crossing 1 million persons in 2011.

We may not see it now, but this motion is a trial balloon for the main event – likely a future debate that will resemble what Ontario had in 2005. But this one will be much bigger.

Source: Canada’s M-103 debacle is a trial balloon for something much bigger | Furey | Co

Bureaucrats assess impacts of policies on women — but results kept secret

Indeed. There should be a way to shed some light on the gender-based analysis involved without violating Cabinet confidentiality:

Canada committed to using gender-based analysis in 1995, as part of ratifying the UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, but the auditor general concluded last year that relatively few departments and agencies were using it, or that they were doing so in an incomplete and inconsistent way.

That is changing. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is said to have pushed for more rigorous gender-based analysis around the cabinet table. Finance Minister Bill Morneau pledged to put the 2017 federal budget through the same process and publish the results.

The finance department plays a special role in gender-based analysis.

It puts many of its own policies through the process, but it also reviews the gender-based analysis done by other departments on any budget proposals before they can go to Morneau.

Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office, the other two central agencies, perform a similar “challenge function.” A template for the new due diligence document that must now be submitted with every memorandum to cabinet shows proposals must include a summary of findings from a gender-based analysis.

This is where the newly declassified memo comes in.

The report from the status of women committee had recommended all three central agencies “produce annual reports on the challenge function they play in promoting the application of (gender-based analysis).” It also recommended they share these reports with a commissioner for gender equality — another recommendation from the report.

This is what the part of the memo regarding the limits of transparency — contained in a heavily redacted section titled “considerations” — was responding to.

New Democrat MP Sheila Malcolmson, vice-chair of the status of women committee, said people need to know what questions the government is asking itself.

“We heard a lot of evidence that there is no transparency on the challenge function and nobody was able to really point to any examples of where legislation or a funding decision had been turned back at the cabinet level because they hadn’t done the (gender-based analysis) test,” Malcolmson said.

It is especially important for the finance department to find a way to shed more light on their decisions, said Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu, who chairs the committee.

“They are the ones putting money to programs that may adversely affect women if not done well,” she said.

There is a sign the finance department is looking for a better way.

The government’s official response to the committee report, tabled in the House last October, included this line: “All central agencies will explore ways to better communicate publicly the role and value-added of their challenge function with respect to (gender-based analysis.)”

Jack Aubry, a spokesman for the finance department, referred to this line when asked about the memo, but said he could not give any more details.

Isabella Bakker, a political scientist at York University who has done research on gender budgeting, said the finance department should be able to find some balance. “They could develop some kind of internal measure that would get around the issue of secrecy, but would at least give a broad indication of what they were doing.”

Dutch voters deliver a treat: Sears

Will share with some of my Dutch friends but interesting analysis of the results and possible implications for Canada:

The headline across the continent this week was, “Europe Breathes a Sigh of Relief.” Common sense and the ‘centrist’ Dutch prime minister had survived. But drill down just a little and a different picture emerges. Yes, conservative Mark Rute did survive, but he lost 25 per cent of his caucus. The biggest loser was the Dutch Labour party, which lost 75 per cent of its MPs.

The real winner, however, despite the media hysteria pre-election day was not Geert Wilders, who won only five new seats. It was the Green Left party, which tripled its caucus, D66, a liberal party, and the Christian Democrats, traditional progressive conservatives. Together these three doubled their size in the new Parliament.

What is the voters’ message to this complex collection of pizza slice parties? It’s very clear.

Those who indulged anti-immigrant, racist dog-whistle politics and more austerity — including PM Rute — were punished. Those who supported the EU, economic stimulus and a Holland open to immigration and the world were winners. Greasy Geert was the outlier for only the bewildered and angry.

This is a powerful message for progressive politicians. The giant of Dutch progressive politics, the Labour party, was decimated, after supporting austerity and flirting with anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Greens, in Holland as elsewhere, may be economically incoherent, but voters rewarded their toughness on austerity and immigrant bashing.

Of course, progressive politicians should never patronize the anger of working class white voters as “deplorable.” Their anger is well-founded and demands a response. But, no, those same politicians should never slime up to racist populists as a survival strategy. As my socialist grandmother used to say to right-drifting New Democrats, “There are two more believable capitalist parties than us, why would you think copying them will fool anyone?”

Wilders — a man who equates the Qur’an with Mein Kampf — is a long time former staffer in Rute’s party. His populist costume conceals a traditional conservative ideology. Why would any thoughtful progressive try to compete with his current poisonous politics by imitating him?

The great Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor observes that no one is borne racist, we learn it. Taylor cautions that each of us is genetically wired to be susceptible to a fear of “the other,” given the right fear-mongering baits. We have built a broad social consensus for an open, tolerant society here, but it is fragile. It can be fatally undermined by enough angry voices in hard times. This is what makes the dog-whistle racism of some Canadian Conservatives so despicable.

As Taylor puts it, each society has the ability to swing from a dark place to a sunnier plateau — and back again. Working in Egypt during the Tahrir Spring, my young Yemeni female colleagues sighed sadly, as they recalled pictures of their bathing-suited mothers playing soccer with their male friends on the beach in 1960s Aden. Many Arab nations have travelled toward openness and freedom and then slid back again.

Taylor reminds us that from the revolution in 1789 to the late 1950s France was the most welcoming and socially inclusive society in Western Europe, where thousands of Russians, Poles, Asians and North African refugees had fled. What Changed? The Algerian War, in part, and a quiescent leadership elite that first tolerated and then promoted racial division, exclusion and hate.

The real roots of populist anger — rising inequality and falling incomes, rising barriers to the newly arrived and those starting out, and falling standards of living for a new generation — must be addressed boldly and creatively. But let’s drop the flirtation with racist politics in doing so.

Imagine a different, more courageous response …

A pioneer such as Conservative leadership candidate Deepak Obhrai celebrating his success, his qualification to lead and, yes, his difference. Would it not be a proud Canadian moment, if Obhrai delivered a thundering endorsement of anti-racist, pro-immigrant politics — a strong Progressive Conservative tradition — and then got a standing ovation from party members?

Or imagine New Democrat Jagmeet Singh, speaking in French to a crowd at the Quebec City mosque, delivering a ringing denunciation of the racial, religious and ethnic provocateurs, and having the crowd — including niqab-clad women and pur laine Quebecers — rise to their feet.

Let’s hope the Conservatives have learned the lesson of their niqab humiliation and that they have the wisdom to smack down those who would play dangerous games with the hard-won harmony and social cohesion we have built.

And let’s ensure that any Canadian progressive tempted to play footsy with racism understands the certainty of their political humiliation.

Source: Dutch voters deliver a treat: Sears | Toronto Star

Multiculturalism will only work if all Australians sign up, Coalition’s first policy statement says – ABC News

A shift towards more explicit integration messaging, not unlike that occurred under former Minister Kenney starting in 2007:

The Federal Government’s first policy statement on multiculturalism declares it a “success” but says every Australian must sign up to shared values and mutual obligations.

Releasing Multicultural Australia: United, Strong, Successful (Australian Government’s Multicultural Statement) today, Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs Zed Seselja said the Coalition had put its stamp on the “unifying” statement, which is also the first since 2011.

The son of Croatian migrants, Senator Seselja acknowledged there were some people who were “very anti” the idea of multiculturalism but said he believed most Australians supported the policy.

“Overwhelmingly it has been a success and I want to see that continue. But we need to bring the community with us and the way we do that is by reaffirming the fundamental values of our nation,” he told the ABC.

The statement emphasises that Australians are bonded by the “shared values” of respect, freedom and equality and adds the “fundamental rights of every individual” cannot be broken.

It also addresses growing concerns about the threat of global terrorism, and the need for social cohesion, by declaring that every Australian is expected to obey the nation’s laws and support its democratic processes.

“Underpinning a diverse and harmonious Australia is the security of our nation,” the statement says.

Coalition MPs including George Christensen have questioned the benefits of multiculturalism and used the rise of violent extremism overseas to push for greater restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

Labor’s multicultural statement, released by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2011, focused primarily on fairness and inclusion; the Coalition’s version places a stronger emphasis on national security in a time of greater global uncertainty.

The statement promotes the principle of mutual respect and mutual obligations and states the Government “continues denouncing racial hatred and discrimination as incompatible with Australian society”.

But Senator Seselja denied this was at odds with a push within the Coalition to change the contentious section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, saying the latter was a debate about where to draw the line in terms of free speech.

“There is no contradiction whatsoever,” he said.

Multiculturalism was conceived as a policy in Australia in the 1970s, replacing the previous approaches of assimilation and integration.

Source: Multiculturalism will only work if all Australians sign up, Coalition’s first policy statement says – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Liberals urged to scrap 19th century rule that requires laws be printed in books

Although I, like most people, never consult these hard copies, I think it these are important to have as an official and archival record.

As for the specifications, these can and should be updated, but again any new specifications should be archival quality:

An obscure statute dating from Confederation has Parliament frozen in time, forcing the government to print every new law on old-fashioned paper.

Bureaucrats want to ditch those rules, end the costly printing and make digital versions the new standard — but the Liberal government has yet to decide whether to break with tradition.

At issue is the Publication of Statutes Act, conceived in the 19th century, which requires the Queen’s Printer to publish new laws passed by Parliament in an annual compendium that must be printed on quality paper.

The legislation has never been overhauled. Although Justice Canada publishes the laws online as well, the digital versions aren’t considered official.

Each year, the Queen’s Printer — now part of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) — must print and distribute about 250 hardcover copies of the annual statutes, destined for a select group of judges, legal libraries and other locations.

The total cost is estimated at about $100,000, including $40,000 worth of printing and distribution through a private firm.

The format is meticulously spelled out in a regulation that helps keep printing costs high:

“The annual Statutes of Canada shall be printed on Number 1 Opaque Litho Book according to Canadian Government Specifications Board Standard 9-GP-29, Grade 2, Type 1, (except moisture content) or equivalent in white colour, English finish, and the basic weight shall be 100 pounds per 1,000 sheets 25 inches by 38 inches.”

The detailed specifications continue for three more paragraphs.

Deputy minister makes the case

Last May, a senior official at PSPC pressed the new minister, Judy Foote, to fix the problem, according to a briefing note obtained by CBC News.

“The requirement to print the Annual Statutes predates modern electronic communications (some provisions have not been amended since the 19th century) and does not foster the timely and efficient access to federal legislation for Canadians,” deputy minister Marie Lemay said.

Lemay called for the repeal of the regulation, and amendments to the Publication of Statutes Act and other laws to haul Parliament into the digital era. The process would require formal notices, legal drafting and the backing of Parliament, and would take months.

But Foote’s spokesperson said rookie members of Parliament need to be updated on the issue before the government decides whether to scrap the printing requirement.

Regulations governing the printing of Statutes of Canada

A regulation spells out in minute detail just how the annual Statutes of Canada are to appear in book form. (CBC)

“As the Annual Statutes contain important information for elected members and many MPs are in their first term, Minister Foote, in consultation with the deputy minister, has determined that the department will formally consult with MPs and senators before making any changes to the delivery format,” press secretary Jessica Turner said in an email.

But Lemay had specifically cautioned against delay in her briefing note last spring.

“It is important to proceed … as soon as possible,” she wrote. “On January 1, 2016, Justice Canada changed the layout of its laws and regulations. They are now incompatible with the format of the Annual Statutes as required.”

“Consequently, it will be impossible to print the 2016 Statutes.”

Source: Liberals urged to scrap 19th century rule that requires laws be printed in books – Politics – CBC News

Les ultraorthodoxes font leurs devoirs

Slow process getting to this point but the change appears to be accepted and in some cases, welcomed within the community:

Las de devoir se battre avec Québec chaque année pour le renouvellement de leur permis, plusieurs écoles juives ultraorthodoxes se sont finalement résolues à faire accréditer leurs professeurs qui enseignaient jusqu’alors sans brevet. Une première vague de professeurs s’apprêtent à obtenir leur diplôme du programme de formation des maîtres de l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick. Une expérience qui porte des fruits, comme a pu le constater Le Devoir.

« C’est un petit miracle, résume le directeur général du Centre Bronfman de l’éducation juive, Shimshon Hamerman, en entrevue au DevoirTraditionnellement, les communautés ultraorthodoxes ne suivent pas les études laïques […]. Mais les conseils d’administration des écoles ont compris qu’ils ne pourraient pas avoir de permis — et certainement pas un permis à long terme — si leurs professeurs n’avaient pas le brevet. Ils voulaient vraiment respecter la loi. »

Par l’entremise du Centre Bronfman, les directeurs d’écoles des communautés juives ultraorthodoxes ont contacté différentes universités québécoises. Mais selon leurs dires, il était difficile d’obtenir la flexibilité requise pour ce projet, car les élèves travaillent déjà comme professeurs à temps plein dans les différentes écoles associées à leur communauté religieuse.

Shashana R., Sarah Klein et Chana Biegeleisen suivent une formation de l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick pour obtenir leur brevet en enseignement.

Ils se sont donc tournés vers l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick, qui offre un programme de baccalauréat en enseignement adapté aux horaires des participants. Depuis quatre ans, une fin de semaine par mois, un professeur est dépêché à Montréal pour offrir une formation intensive. Des périodes d’enseignement sont aussi prévues pendant les vacances estivales et autres congés scolaires. Les soirs et les fins de semaine, les étudiants bénéficient de formations en ligne. Ils devraient obtenir leur diplôme en juin prochain.

« Ça coûte beaucoup plus cher que s’ils étudiaient dans une université locale, mais c’est la preuve de leur engagement à vouloir se conformer aux exigences ministérielles, plaide M. Hamerman. Les professeurs payent de leur poche pour obtenir cette formation qui leur donne accès au brevet d’enseignement de Québec en vertu d’une entente de reconnaissance mutuelle entre les gouvernements du Québec et du Nouveau-Brunswick. »

Former les professeurs

Dans un petit local surchauffé du Centre des enseignants de la Torah Umesorah, sur l’avenue du Parc, une trentaine d’élèves tentent de répondre à la leçon du jour : « Quel est le rôle de l’éducation ? » Les femmes, majoritaires, sont assises à l’avant. Certaines bercent leurs nouveau-nés tout en prenant des notes. « Elle peut rester tant qu’elle n’est pas tannante », blague la maman d’un poupon de neuf semaines. Les hommes restent en retrait derrière une bibliothèque qui fait office de paravent virtuel.

Photo: Jacques Nadeau Le DevoirUne classe d’élèves au travail

« Les parents sont de plus en plus exigeants quant à l’éducation laïque que reçoivent leurs enfants, alors il faut que je sois à la hauteur de leurs attentes », explique en entrevue Avrohom Biegeleisen, qui enseigne depuis 12 ans à la Yeshiva Gedola. Sa femme, Chana, professeure et mère de 10 enfants, suit également la formation. « Ça m’aide beaucoup, notamment dans la façon d’organiser mes cours. »

Professeure à l’école des filles de la communauté Skyer, Perel Brewer affirme que cela demande beaucoup d’efforts, mais que ça en vaut la peine : « Ce qui est génial, c’est que je n’ai pas besoin d’attendre quatre ans pour mettre en application les enseignements. Ce que j’apprends ici aujourd’hui, je peux l’appliquer dès demain dans ma classe. »

Sarah Klein, qui enseigne également à la Yeshiva Gedola, ne s’en cache pas : elle est une « meilleure professeure » depuis qu’elle suit le programme de formation des maîtres. Elle bénéficie d’une « tolérance » du ministère de l’Éducation, mais elle sait que son brevet va faire une « grande différence » aux yeux de Québec. La jeune femme s’y connaît en matière d’exigences gouvernementales. Le matin, elle enseigne aux enfants de la maternelle et l’après-midi, elle travaille à des tâches cléricales, qui consistent en grande partie à remplir des formulaires pour le gouvernement en vue du renouvellement du permis.

Source: Les ultraorthodoxes font leurs devoirs | Le Devoir

ICYMI: Will Saudi King’s Indonesia Visit Change Face of Islam? – The Atlantic

More on the worrisome aspects of Saudi Arabia:

When Saudi Arabia’s King Salman landed in Indonesia on Wednesday, he became the first Saudi monarch to visit the world’s largest Muslim-majority country since 1970. Officials in Jakarta had hoped the visit would help them strengthen business ties and secure $25 billion in resource investments. That’s largely been a bust—as of Thursday, the kingdom has agreed to just one new deal, for a relatively paltry $1 billion.

But Saudi Arabia has, for decades, been making investments of a different sort—those aimed at influencing Indonesian culture and religion. The king’s current visit is the apex of that methodical campaign, and “has the potential to accelerate the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s cultural resources in Indonesia,” according to Chris Chaplin, a researcher at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asia. “In fact, given the size of his entourage, I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be a flurry of networking activity amongst Indonesian alumni of Saudi universities.”

“The advent of Salafism in Indonesia is part of Saudi Arabia’s global project to spread its brand of Islam throughout the Muslim world,” said Din Wahid, an expert on Indonesian Salafism at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) in Jakarta.

Salaf is Arabic for “forebear,” and Salafism is a Sunni movement that advocates a return to the Islamic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and his contemporaries. It arose in reaction to 18th-century European colonialism in the Middle East, but it took particular root in Saudi Arabia in the hands of the influential preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Al-Wahhab’s alliance with the House of Saud in 1744 cemented Wahhabism as the spiritual backbone of the Saudi Arabian state. And in the 20th century, Saudi Arabia, which had become fabulously oil-rich, started to invest its considerable resources in propagating its ideology abroad.The heart of Indonesian Salafism is the Institute for the Study of Islam and Arabic (LIPIA), a completely Saudi-funded university in South Jakarta whose campus was abuzz the day before the king’s visit.“It’s really great that our two countries are becoming closer,” said one student who, like most of the other male students at LIPIA, had a wispy beard and wore cropped pants, per hadith verses stating that covering one’s ankles connotes arrogance. “I’ve been reading all the news about the royal visit. I hope to further my own studies in Saudi Arabia, God willing.”

LIPIA’s doors opened in 1980. Its ostensible purpose is to spread the Arabic language, and there’s not a word of the country’s official language, Bahasa Indonesia, on its campus—not a bathroom sign, not a library book. Tuition at LIPIA is free for all its 3,500 students. Music is considered bid’ah, an unnecessary innovation, and is prohibited, along with television and loud laughter. Men and women do not interact; classes of male students attend live lectures on one floor while female students watch the same lecture, live-streamed, on a separate floor.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs accredited LIPIA in 2015, which bodes well for the university’s push to open four more branches across the archipelago. Hammed al-Sultan, head of LIPIA’s Arabic language department, was confident that the satellite campuses would open by the fall of this year. But they will need their own green lights from the ministry, which has voiced concerns about whether they will uphold moderate Islam and Indonesia’s state philosophy of Pancasila, which enshrines religious tolerance.

When I asked whether LIPIA Jakarta already does this, al-Sultan said, “Pancasila … sorry, what is that again?” A LIPIA representative acting as our translator quickly briefed him on it. Al-Sultan said, “Yes, our integration of Pancasila is in progress, since it was a requirement for our accreditation two years ago.”

Muhammad Adlin Sila of the Ministry of Religious Affairs was more frank. “We are concerned about some alumni from LIPIA who are big fans of khilafah [the caliphate of the Islamic State].”

Ulil-Abshar Abdalla, a LIPIA alumnus who now runs the Liberal Islam Network, said he found the university’s theological climate oppressive when he attended in the early 1990s. “Theology, which is a mandatory subject there, is only taught by committed Wahhabis, and I really think their ideology is antithetical to traditional Indonesian Islam, which is usually syncretic and relaxed,” he explained.

Source: Will Saudi King’s Indonesia Visit Change Face of Islam? – The Atlantic

Internal review questions number of diplomatic passports

Valid review initiated by the Conservative government, given the incremental and somewhat ad hoc evolution of the diplomatic and special passport policy.

The article assumes that all diplomatic and special passports issued to public servants are for Global Affairs employees. Employees of other departments at embassies and consulates abroad (e.g., IRCC being the largest) are also issued these kinds of passports:

Federal officials are raising questions about whether Canada should be issuing so many diplomatic passports each year, including some to retired officials who perform no diplomacy.

The problem arises from “unclear, inconsistent or outdated eligibility provisions,” according to an internal document from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), which runs the passport program.

A formal review of the program began in 2015, under the Conservative government, and continues today under the Liberals, with a set of clearer rules expected by next year.

Progress has been slow, partly because of “sensitivities surrounding eligibility for diplomatic passports,” says an accompanying slide show, marked “secret.”

The briefing says “high-profile stakeholders” might be “resistant to the perception” of no longer being eligible.

“Some stakeholders also view their diplomatic or special passport as a symbol of prestige or a guarantee of certain immunities or privileges abroad.”

CBC News obtained details of the review through a request under the Access to Information Act.

About 9,500 diplomatic passports, with their distinctive red covers, are in circulation, though only about 7,000 are held by employees of Global Affairs Canada, the department in charge of Canada’s embassies, high commissions and missions abroad. Some 2,800 new ones are issued each year.

The rest are held by a broad range of others, including spouses or children of former prime ministers or of former governors general.

Outdated rules

The current rules were set in 1956 by the federal cabinet under the Diplomatic and Special Passports Order, which has not been substantially updated in more than 60 years.

In the meantime, eligibility has been gradually expanded through a long series of so-called ministerial instructions. There are now more than 50 such instructions; many no longer relevant or consistent with other rules.

Adding further complexity are so-called special passports, which have green covers and are issued largely to National Defence employees for work overseas.

About 45,000 special passports are in circulation, some held by retired officials who no longer work in government — such as former lieutenant governors, former heads of missions, and Privy Councillors who have long since withdrawn from public life.

Some 9,850 special passports are issued each year, including to MPs, senators, premiers and speakers of legislative assemblies.

The passport program collected $3.5 million in fees to issue diplomatic and special passports in 2014-15, more than enough to cover operating costs of $2.3 million. But most of those fees — $225 per passport — are paid indirectly by taxpayers, with departments such as National Defence and Global Affairs picking up the bills.

And some diplomatic passports are issued without charge to former prime ministers, former governors general, former ministers of foreign affairs, former lieutenant governors and others, including their spouses.

The latest review follows an earlier examination of the program ordered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in October 2010.

Earlier that year there were two incidents in which an MP and a former cabinet minister separately used their green passports for personal travel to Mexico, and were turned back by Mexican officials in a politically motivated visa dispute with Canada.

Canadian standard passport and special passport

The review is also examining the numbers of special passports, with a green cover, being issued each year, about 9,850. Most go to National Defence employees and military members, but some go to provincial officials and others as a courtesy. (cic.gc.ca)

No immunity

The Minister of Foreign Affairs issued instructions for the proper use of such passports in 2011.

“There were occasional, isolated cases of the misuse of the special and diplomatic passport,” said IRCC spokesperson Faith St-John.

Among the rules: holders of such passports cannot use them for travelling on personal business, but must instead carry the standard blue-cover personal passport familiar to most Canadians. (The few exceptions to this rule include the prime minister, the Governor General, cabinet ministers and diplomats posted abroad.)

Source: Internal review questions number of diplomatic passports – Politics – CBC News