Todd: High migration might trim wages … in some places, in some jobs

2017/11/21 Leave a comment

Valid notes of caution by the economists cited:

University of B.C. economists Craig Riddell and David Green, and Carleton University’s Christopher Worswick, caution both boosters and critics of high in-migration to temper their rhetoric.

The economists could have been referring to Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, who on Nov. 1 pushed up immigration levels while showcasing a prosperous newcomer family.

“Our ambitious plan,” Hussen said, “will benefit all Canadians because immigration contributes to our economic growth and keeps our country competitive in a global economy.”

The federal Liberals’ target for immigrants in 2020 is 340,000, which is a 36 per cent jump from 250,000 in 2014.

Without publicizing it, Ottawa has also sharply increased the number of temporary workers. The number of non-permanent residents in Canada last year, 891,000, was more than twice the total in 2006. 

More than 330,000 of them are international students. Another 55,000 are temporary foreign workers, while 289,000 are “international mobility” workers.

Metro Vancouver gets almost 30,000 immigrants each year, in addition to being home to 130,000 non-permanent residents, mostly international students (who also get work visas).

The economists focused on immigration rates, not necessarily temporary workers, in concluding that “increased immigration inflows have small impacts on wages and employment in the medium to long run.”

The UBC economists, however, caution that “immigration cannot be relied upon as a source of higher per capita incomes.”

In a major article in Policy Options, the three economists warn “it is important not to get distracted by individual stories of successful immigrant entrepreneurs. They certainly do exist, but that is not really relevant.”

The economists challenge the immigration minister’s claim that increasing immigration rates “will help us ease the great challenges of the coming years, such as … labour shortages linked to Canada’s aging population.”

It’s not possible to replace the aging baby-boomers, the economists say. “The results are definitive: Immigration is not a means to substantially alter Canada’s age structure and impending increase in the dependence ratio. Inflows of immigrants are just too varied in their age structure.”

Similarly, SFU’s Wu Qiyan says bringing new people to Canada’s major cities is a “double-edged sword.”

At one level, Wu said, an influx of newcomers into Toronto and Vancouver can “create less job opportunities for locals,” while raising rents and housing costs.

On the other hand, Wu said, more people “can also create more opportunities,” by increasing consumers and businesses.

UBC economist Thomas Lemieux said the question of whether more immigrants and temporary residents reduce wages is one of the most controversial in his field, particularly in light of rising nativist movements in the U.S., Europe and Quebec.

Lemieux’s own research focuses on how immigrants themselves fare in Canada’s labour market, with the general conclusion being they’re doing worse financially than in the 1990s.

Newcomers from Europe “tend to do much better” than those from India and other South Asian countries, Lemieux said, “even while there are fewer and fewer coming from Europe.”

Virtually every labour economist says the Canadian public and prospective immigrants deserve more research into, and more robust discussion of, the links among immigration, non-permanent workers, economics and wages.

With Canadian politicians making the country a unique global experiment in mass migration, few issues call out for more investigation.

via Todd: High migration might trim wages … in some places, in some jobs | Vancouver Sun

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Ottawa’s new immigration targets: Good for special interests: Collacott

2017/11/21 Leave a comment

Martin Collacott outlines the case against increased immigration. While I disagree with a number of the arguments he used, I do agree with his conclusion that Canada needs “a comprehensive, balanced and informed discussion on what kind of immigration policy can best serve the interests of Canadians overall:”

The government’s rationale for increasing immigration levels is based on a number of other false premises.

One is the claim that Canada needs to bring in large numbers of workers from outside the country when in fact we aren’t facing major labour shortages that only immigration or temporary foreign workers can mitigate. Although gaps in the availability of labour will almost certainly occur from time to time and in various parts of the country, most of these can be dealt with domestically by allowing wages to increase. Research indicates that we should only have to resort to bringing in workers from abroad (either permanent or temporary) on relatively rare occasions since Canada already has the human, as well as educational and training, resources required to meet most of its labour needs.

Related to this is the myth propagated by the government that immigration is necessary to provide workers needed to pay the taxes required to fund services for the growing percentage of older Canadians. While there is no question that Canada is facing a number of problems related to having a larger proportion of seniors, it has been demonstrated definitively that immigration doesn’t provide any sort of practical solution to these problems since immigrants grow old like everyone else and have a negligible impact on the average age of Canadians. We would have to bring in hundreds of millions of immigrants for this to change.

Yet another area of concern should be the environmental impact of a large population increase both within Canada and globally when one considers the much larger ecological footprint newcomers will have here than in the countries most come from.

The Liberal government nevertheless plans to increase immigration levels substantially in the next three years. Some provincial governments welcome this as a way to counter population stagnation and decline. The fact is, however, that in regions where this is a problem it’s happening largely because of a lack of economic opportunities that results in workers moving to other parts of Canada. While more than a few newcomers avail themselves of the chance to get into Canada through welcoming provincial immigration programs, many waste no time in moving on to already overcrowded cities such as Toronto and Vancouver in their quest for employment.

Most residents of these cities, moreover, aren’t enthusiastic about the large-scale influx. While those who have owned real estate for some time obviously benefit from an increase in property values, most younger buyers in these cities are priced-out of a market driven by a rapidly growing population and money flowing in from abroad. Expensive housing brought about to a large extent by high levels of immigration could well be a factor in the decision of many couples to have fewer children.

Clearly the government’s new plan will not work in the interests of most Canadians and particularly those who live in big cities that attract large numbers of immigrants. The immigration targets serve in particular the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, which hopes that most newcomers will vote for it. Related to this is the recent legislation that has lowered and cheapened citizenship requirements. The NDP isn’t far behind in advocating policies designed to attract immigrant support rather than benefit Canadians in general, while the Conservatives for their part have had relatively little to say about major problems associated with the plan.

The main beneficiaries apart from the Liberals will be those who profit economically such as the real estate industry, employers seeking a larger supply of cheap labour and immigrant communities looking to enlarge their size and influence as well as receive increased funding for settlement programs. The principal losers will be Canadian taxpayers and workers in general.

While Canada has benefited at times in the past from large-scale immigration, the present isn’t one of them. What the country needs today is a comprehensive, balanced and informed discussion on what kind of immigration policy can best serve the interests of Canadians overall. It isn’t likely to get this from the current government.

via Ottawa’s new immigration targets: Good for special interests | Vancouver Sun

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Douglas Todd: Who decides the land is ‘sacred’?

2017/11/20 Leave a comment

Todd on the Ktunaxa/Jumbo Glacier case:

Ktunaxa elder Chris Luke Sr. lives in B.C.’s Purcell Mountains, about 1,000 kilometres east of Vancouver. He doesn’t speak English and he knows how to keep his silence.

Still, Luke is a powerful man.

For eight years, the elder’s religious vision has seized the attention of Canada’s top courts, demanding the focus of hundreds of lawyers, judges, civil servants and politicians.

Their work became necessary because Luke said he had an epiphany in 2004 — which he did not reveal to his people until 2009 ­— that the grizzly bears that inhabit a large chunk of public land in the Purcells are sacred, divine protectors.

As a result, Luke’s small tribal group entered into years of hard political negotiations with the B.C. government, which turned into a precedent-setting court case against developers of a ski resort called Jumbo Glacier.

The case, which Luke and his people lost this month in the Supreme Court of Canada, not only raised profound questions about Canada’s commitment to protect religious freedom, it opened a bigger cans of worms. It highlighted philosophical, ethical, anthropological and religious issues.

Four of the broad questions from Luke’s case are: Who decides what is “sacred?” Are religious beliefs static? Is Indigenous spirituality monolithic? Do aboriginals consistently respect the land?

In the case, known as “Ktunaxa Nation versus British Columbia,” the elder was put forward as the sole source of religious truth.

“The record is clear that the Ktunaxa (believe) only certain members of the community, knowledge-keepers, possess information about spiritual values, and that only Mr. Luke could speak to these matters,” wrote the judges.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed the Ktunaxa were “sincere” in following Luke’s vision of the “Grizzly Bear Spirit.” But the judges noted the Ktunaxa had believed for less than a decade that the grizzly territory they call Qat’muk was of utmost spiritual significance.

The judges concluded timing didn’t matter, though. “Whether this belief is ancient or recent plays no part in our analysis. The Charter protects all sincere religious beliefs and practices, old or new.”

In other words, Canadian courts are obliged to take seriously almost anybody who convinces their followers that land in B.C., or anywhere, is absolutely sacred.

Theoretically, Luke could have been a New Age guru from, say, Los Angeles, who persuaded a group to “sincerely” believe parts of Saskatchewan, or Mississauga, were untouchable. The potential is high for arbitrariness.

Even though the Ktunaxa lost their case, two of nine Supreme Court judges (and many aboriginals and their supporters) believe the majority made a mistake in one of the reasons they refused to stop the ski development for religious reasons.

In general, I tend not to champion giant ski resorts, nor shopping malls nor casinos, whether on public, private or Aboriginal land. Like many Canadians, I also strongly support reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous populations, along with the treaty process.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed the Ktunaxa were ‘sincere’ in following their elder’s vision of the ‘Grizzly Bear Spirit.’ But the judges noted the Ktunaxa had believed for less than a decade that the grizzly territory in the Purcell Mountains was of utmost spiritual significance. Determining ‘sacredness’ is subjective, and the courts justifiably don’t want to take a stand on it.

But, with the Ktunaxa case, it’s hard not to think the majority of judges were more reality-based than the dissenters.

One of the flaws in the Ktunaxa lawyers’ arguments was in the definition of sacred. Who decides what is sacred? And what rights does that give those who claim it?

The court concluded understandings of “sacred” are subjective. In a pluralistic society, one person’s sacred is another person’s profane.

So, instead of legally protecting a physical place or object that some claim sacred, the only thing Canada’s courts rightly felt justified in guarding is religious expression (which includes giving Sikhs the right to carry kirpans, or ceremonial knives).

Beyond the legal angles, which are many, the Ktunaxa case also brings up many broad religious issues, including about whether faiths are static.

Though many think religions such as Christianity or Islam are set in stone when they’re founded, many other believe they change over time. The Ktunaxa case inadvertently confirmed how a group’s theology can dramatically evolve, since the court found no evidence they believed in the “Grizzly Bear Spirit” before contact with Europeans.

The case also touches on the question: Are Canadian Indigenous beliefs monolithic?

The two dissenting judges seemed to assume so, with Judge Michael Moldaver saying things such as, “There is an inextricable link between spirituality and land in Indigenous religious traditions.”

But no judge mentioned the wide religious diversity among Canada’s 1.7 million Indigenous people, including that two of three are Christian. That includes many Ktunaxa.

Dream Catchers: How Mainstream America Discovered Native Spirituality, by Philip Jenkins, is one of many books describing how eclectic and syncretistic Indigenous spirituality has been, including in the way such things as smudging rituals have been loosely borrowed and adapted.

We cannot assume religious uniformity among Indigenous people or anyone else, even though the dissenting judge appeared to do so — somewhat naively, romantically.

Canadian scholar Rod Preece’s Animals and Nature has detailed hundreds of ways North American Indigenous people have through the centuries mistreated the land and animals.

That includes the way Prairie natives killed thousands of buffalo at a time, wasting their meat, sometimes just taking their tongues. It also entails recent events, such as the Inuit hunter on his snowmobile who chased 162 wolves to their deaths and B.C. aboriginals joining non-Aboriginals in overfishing.

North American aboriginals often ambivalent approach to nature also suggests itself when tribal groups erect unsightly billboards and casinos on what is supposedly “sacred” land, along with huge commercial developments, such as the new Tsawwassen mall.

Such troublesome realities, however, didn’t stop Judge Moldaver from playing the role of a religion expert when he insisted Aboriginals are unique in their firm belief physical things are sacred.

That’s unlike those who follow “Judeo-Christian faiths,” Moldaver claimed, “where the divine is considered to be supernatural.”

Thousands of religion scholars would disagree with the judge’s generalization. They might cite the Christian theology of “incarnation,” which teaches God is embedded in every natural thing, not to mention the commitment of Jews and Muslims to their holy lands.

Moldaver’s awkward attempts at theology serve as a reminder of why Canadian courts have decided never to rule on what is religiously “orthodox.”

To be fair, the dissenting judge was trying in his way to further the valuable process of reconciliation with Canada’s aboriginals.

But the majority of judges went ahead and actually did so: By clarifying that ostensibly political claims about who controls public land cannot be made on religious grounds.

via Douglas Todd: Who decides the land is ‘sacred’? | Vancouver Sun

Filed under Aboriginal, Religion Tagged with , ,

Does Canadian federalism amplify policy clashes?

2017/11/20 Leave a comment

Interesting analysis by Érick Lachapelle, Éric Montpetit, and Simon Kiss of how values may play a more important part than regions on a number of policy issues:

Another example comes from the recent debate over the restriction of religious symbols, which is often interpreted in Canada as an issue that pits ardently secular Quebec against English Canada. But examining new data from over 5,000 Canadians interviewed from across the federation, we find that Quebec is not that distinct when it comes to this issue.

As indicated by the relatively flat slopes in the left panel of Figure 2, egalitarian values do not appear to shape public opinion on religious dress as much as one might expect. This finding probably reflects the tension that exists between egalitarian predispositions toward framing this issue as one of gender equality on the one hand, or of protecting minority rights, on the other. Meanwhile, we find that a greater predisposition toward legal rigorist values is associated with greater support for restricting religious symbols across all regions. In fact, the strongest support for restricting religious symbols is not found in Quebec, but rather among legal rigorists living on the Prairies, and to a lesser extent, in Ontario and British Columbia.

On a range of other issues, from abortion to foreign policy, we find remarkably similar patterns across regions — the same values explain the same contentious policy disagreements across Canada, which suggests that a weak form of regionalism best characterizes policy disagreements in the federation. Moreover, compared to other explanatory factors, we find that values explain a considerable amount more of observed differences in the preferences of Canadians. This holds in models that control for age, gender, religion and partisan affiliation, which account for much less of the overall variation in policy preferences.

The upshot is that there may be a tendency to exaggerate the role of regions as the primary source of policy disagreement in Canada. Our paper thus highlights three main implications for thinking about policy disagreements, and how they might be surpassed.

Regional differences might be overcome through carefully reframing issues in ways that mobilize the value predispositions present in all regions.

Those who seek support for policies may wish to develop regionally sensitive communications strategies, notably to appeal to a region’s dominant value orientation or to appeal to values that have been overlooked in specific regions by policy-makers in the past.
Provincial policy-makers may find it beneficial to exchange with their counterparts in other provinces when developing policies and strategies. This may enhance their capacity to frame proposals in ways that appeal to specific sets of values and to build cross-regional support.

To be sure, policy disagreements are a legitimate part of any well-functioning democracy. However, when they become too entrenched, or are exaggerated by the media, they may be distinctly unhelpful when it comes to developing policy solutions to complex problems. Although regional differences cannot be ignored, our research suggests that paying greater attention to values has much to offer in terms of better interpreting policy disagreements, and that appealing to shared values may actually attenuate regional clashes over policy. This may, in turn, enhance the quality of public debate in Canada, as well as the legitimacy of public policies and programs.

via Does Canadian federalism amplify policy clashes?

Filed under Other Tagged with , , ,

‘More girls, fewer skinheads’: Poland’s far right wrestles with changing image| The Guardian

2017/11/20 Leave a comment

Different take than seen elsewhere:

The presence of Islamophobic, homophobic, antisemitic and white supremacist chants and banners at last weekend’s March of Independence in Warsaw raised fears about the rise of the far right in Poland.

But interviews with nationalist and far-right leaders and their opponents reveal a more nuanced picture of a relatively marginal movement wrestling with its public image while hoping to seize the opportunities afforded to it by the success of the ruling rightwing Law and Justice party (PiS) and popular opposition to immigration from Muslim-majority countries.

Far-right insiders described a movement that has changed substantially in recent years – “more girls, fewer skinheads,” said one – with a marked increase in middle-aged and highly educated recruits. “A decade ago if you saw us in a bar you would know we were from the far right, but if you saw us now you would have no idea,” said one insider.

One factor in this change, they noted, was the influence on Polish society of young people returning from working in countries such as Britain. “So many young people travelled to work in western countries, and then came back and told their friends and families what was going on in western Europe,” said Krzysztof Bosak, of the ultra-nationalist organisation National Movement.

“They told them about the process of exchange of population, by which people of European origin are replaced by people from Africa and Asia, and about Islamisation.”

Aleks Szczerbiak, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex, said: “It was long assumed that young Poles would come to the west and become more secular, multicultural and liberal, and that they would re-export those things back to Poland. But instead their experience of the west seems to have reinforced their social conservatism and traditionalism in many ways.”

The march’s organisers included the National-Radical Camp (ONR), the successor to a pre-war Polish fascist movement; All-Polish Youth, a far-right youth organisation that has run social media campaigns condemned as racist; and the National Movement.

Despite their involvement, and the participation in the march of even more hardline white supremacist groups such as the National-Socialist Congress and the so-called Szturmowcy (Stormtroopers), the march also attracted thousands of people with little to no affiliation to nationalist or far-right groups.

To the march’s defenders, including the Polish National Foundation, a body with strong ties to Law and Justice that was set up by the government last year to “promote Poland abroad”, the international media’s focus on racist slogans and banners amounted to “slandering the good name of Poland and an insult to the Polish people”.

“Waving the white-red national flags, the supporters of Poland’s independence, veterans, Warsaw’s inhabitants and visiting guests all marched together. As in the past, a large percentage of the 60,000-strong crowd were families with children,” read a statement from the foundation, which described some of the media coverage as a “defamation”.

Critics argued that the presence of people with a range of political views at last weekend’s march was precisely the problem, because it amounted to a tacit acceptance of far-right extremism. “They may not all identify as nationalists, but they are being united by the language of nationalism” said Rafal Pankowski, a professor at Collegium Civitas in Warsaw and director of the Never Again association, an anti-racism campaign group.

“The fact there were families with children there doesn’t mean the march was OK, it means there is something wrong when people think there’s no problem with bringing their children to a far-right rally.”

Speaking to the Guardian, nationalist and far-right leaders distanced themselves from charges of racism, insisting their movements were dedicated to the preservation of Polish-Catholic culture and moral values, and not white supremacy.

“Faith is very important to us, the Catholic religion is part of Polish national identity,” said Bosak, who served as an MP between 2005 and 2007. “We want Catholic morality and the social teachings of the church to be the base for the state policy, for the law, for a new constitution.”

Tomasz Kalinowski, a spokesman for the ONR, said: “We have much more in common with Cardinal Robert Sarah, an African conservative traditionalist Catholic from Guinea, than we do with a pro-EU, liberal, secular politician like Emmanuel Macron or a Polish Bolshevik like Feliks Dzerzhinsky.”

Observers argue it is hostility towards perceived western models of multiculturalism that binds the far right to the anti-immigrant populism represented by the ruling Law and Justice party – an alliance consummated each year by the March for Independence.

“The problem is not that there is a huge amount of support for far-right movements, the problem is that there is a lack of distinction between the conservative right and the far right, and that is very dangerous in a democratic society,” said Pankowski.

Seen this way, the March for Independence signals not a surge in support for far-right movements but the seeping of far-right ideas into Polish mainstream discourse. The far right is not leading from the front but being left behind.

“The far right is not able to build a party, an institution, that can get even 2% of public support, said Slawomir Sierakowski, of Krytyka Polityczna, a left-leaning thinktank. “The march is a sign of frustration, an alibi for their weakness, their opportunity to get some attention once a year. Without the media, they would be nothing.”

via ‘More girls, fewer skinheads’: Poland’s far right wrestles with changing image | World news | The Guardian

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Citizens with immigrant backgrounds lagging behind in Germany – Daily Sabah

2017/11/20 Leave a comment

Some good background into:

A report by the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), which conducts regular studies on ‘integration,’ has found that the divergence between immigrant-born and native Germans in key areas, such as education, the labor market and income, have mostly remained unchanged since 2005.

The study on education was conducted on young adults aged 18 to 25.

Those without a high school diploma, of an immigrant background, were 10.6 percent of the sample in 2005 and 12.1 percent in 2016.

By contrast, native Germans of that age group without a high school diploma were 4 percent in 2005 and 3.6 percent in 2016.

Regarding the labor market for people aged 15 to 64, things are somewhat different.

Unemployment has been steadily declining in Germany since the early 2000s.

Native German unemployment in 2005 was at 9.8 percent while non-natives were at a 17.9 percent. By contrast, these numbers came down to 3.4 and 7.1 percent respectively.

The numbers regarding income, however, have also remained very steady. The so-called “working poor” are a share of workers across many professions, and the percentage their group occupies has remained stagnant since 2005 as well, for both non-native and native Germans.

Native Germans at risk of poverty were about 6 percent of the working population in 2005 and rose slightly to 6.2 percent in 2016, while those of immigrant backgrounds were at 13.8 percent and decreased by 2 decimal points by last year.

There’s an area of improvement as well.

The proportion of both native Germans and those of an immigrant background of 25-to under-35-year-olds with a university degree has all but equalized in the country.

About 17 percent of native Germans of that age group held university degrees in 2005, with people of an immigrant background lagging behind at 13.9 percent. Their share of university degree holders, however, has increased substantially since 2015.

By 2016, however, both native Germans and non-natives held degrees at an equal 26.1 percent.

Germany has seen a massive influx of people of African and Middle Eastern decent over the past two years. Exact numbers are not known, since hundreds of thousands of those who arrived since 2015 have gone off the grid, but it is estimated that nearly 2 million people got in.

A total of 18.6 million people with foreign roots live in Germany. A lot of them are of Turkish decent, descendants of guest workers who decided to stay in Germany after they were invited in the 1950s and 1960s.

Nearly a quarter of the country, 22.5 percent, are reported to have an “immigrant background” according to Destatis.

via Citizens with immigrant backgrounds lagging behind in Germany – Daily Sabah

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Jordan Peterson and the big mistake of university censors: Maher

2017/11/20 Leave a comment

One of the better commentaries:

Unfortunately, it is time for people outside the academy to stand up for the free speech rights of Jordan Peterson, the irritating University of Toronto psychology professor who has become a star by producing tedious YouTube videos complaining about people trying to silence him.

Peterson, who is wrong about almost everything, is right when he says, over and over again, that he has a fundamental right to speak. The well-meaning people who try to silence him are making a big mistake, and need to listen to people outside the ivory tower.

On Nov. 1, Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, showed first year Communications Studies students a video clip from TVO’s Agenda, in which Peterson debated the use of non-gender-binary pronouns with another professor.

The classroom discussion must have upset a student, because Shepherd was censured by faculty and diversity and equity officials, who said she was “transphobic” and had created “a toxic climate.”

Shepherd is afraid that the university may fire her.

“Universities are no longer places where one can engage with controversial ideas,” she told the Waterloo Record. “They are echo chambers for left-wing ideology.”

Shepherd is right and the scolds at the university need to stop their censorious ways, not least because they are playing Peterson’s game.

Peterson, who makes tens of thousands of dollars a month fund-raising online, became famous in basements around the world when he spoke out against a University of Toronto policy requiring professors to use non-traditional pronouns like “ze” to address non-gender-binary students.

He argues that the university shouldn’t force him to use language he doesn’t like—misusing the plural, for goodness sake—and that his academic freedom is imperiled by the social justice warriors running the universities.

I think he’s wrong. Professors should do what they can for students who fall outside traditional gender categories, who have a much tougher life than powerful straight white men like Peterson. If that means that professors need to spend a little effort wrapping their tongues around new words, too bad.

I think it’s difficult for many straight, cisgendered people to deal with trans people because thinking about gender identity threatens their own identity in some way, and it’s lazy and selfish for them to refuse to deal with their own issues. Because gender is so emotional, young trans people face huge challenges being accepted, which is a matter of survival.

Peterson is the very picture of white straight male privilege, griping about being told what to do by people that were once subordinate to people like him, ignoring the pressing needs of people who need to be accepted if they are to survive.

For that reason, though, he is performing a valuable function. When society changes, as it is changing now, thankfully, in the way it treats trans people, we need to have a debate about it. To have a debate, someone has to be right and someone else—Peterson, in this case—has to be wrong.

What is worrying is that universities are trying to stop the debate from taking place.

Activists, who are right to demand that society treat trans people with respect, are wrong to think that that respect should extend to silencing those who disagree with them.

This seems to be half the point of a lot of left wing campus activism in the 21st century: trying to prevent people you disagree with from speaking. It is mistake, because it plays into the hands of the troll army of hateful troglodytes who lose every argument so long as you don’t try to force them into silence.

I get it when the people you disagree with are actual Nazis, like Richard Spencer, and I can see why exuberant young people aren’t always scrupulous about the distinction between showing up to oppose a speaker they dislike, which is healthy, and trying to stop that person from speaking, which is not.

But there is something sick-making about the growing bureaucratization of safe spaces, the culture of human resources departments imposing itself on campus, the idea that the universities must protect students from being confronted by uncomfortable ideas.

You can’t learn to think without debating. Learning to think doesn’t mean having your head stuffed full of whatever orthodoxy the profs have settled on this week, because you can be sure that will change, and then what will you do? Go back to school for re-education?

Learning to think means learning to entertain opposing ideas, defend your views and discard the ones you can’t defend.

There is no room for compromise on this, and that means there’s going to have to be a nasty fight with well-meaning but mistaken censors.

Campus activists have weaponized fragility, imposing the safety culture of the elementary school where it does not belong.

An earlier generation of activists made gains by forcing society to confront their reality. They said Black is Beautiful, or We’re here! We’re Queer! Get used to it! Today’s activists seem to invest a lot of energy in prosecuting micro-aggressions, preventing offence, imposing orthodoxy.

There’s something disturbing about this, beyond its implications for free speech. As a society, we are becoming increasingly risk-averse, embracing safety as the highest value, wrapping our children in bubble wrap, helmets securely strapped to their chins, safe from sexism, transphobia, bullying and peanuts.

It’s hard to speak out against any of it. Helmets are a good idea. Transphobia is bad. Peanuts are life-threatening for some kids.

But the world is not an elementary school, and we’re not doing students any favours by pretending that they can go through their lives without ever having their feelings hurt.

via Jordan Peterson and the big mistake of university censors – Macleans.ca

Filed under gender, Other Tagged with , ,

Law society’s Statement of Principles may be useless, but it does not compel speech

2017/11/18 Leave a comment

The counter arguments, well articulated, by Alice Woolley:

The Law Society of Ontario’s requirement that its licensees create a Statement of Principles acknowledging their “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” has outraged many, but none more than this paper’s opinion writers. Bruce Pardy, Conrad Black, Jonathan Kay, Christie Blatchford and the editorial board as a whole have condemned its “egregious foray into compelled speech,” its North Korean-style requirement of “adherence to specific beliefs,” and its “virtue-signaling kabuki.”

And so I enter the lion’s den. I do so not to support compelling speech or belief. Nor to argue that the law society’s current initiative is useful or lawful. My goal is more modest. Simply put, the critics rest their argument on a particular interpretation of the law society’s requirement: that it asks lawyers to affirm their belief in equality, diversity and inclusion. That interpretation is wrong.

The argument that the law society compels speech turns, first, on its “acknowledgement” requirement, and, second, on its requirement that lawyers “promote” equality. Provided that this duty exists, however, no meaningful incursion on speech or belief follows from being required to acknowledge its existence. As an active member of the Law Society of Alberta and its outspoken critic, I have many duties that I think are stupid—overbroad or too narrow, poorly expressed or badly enforced. But I still have them, and can be required to acknowledge them as a condition of my license.

Law societies require such acknowledgements for good reason, particularly as they move toward compliance regulation. In compliance regulation, law societies alert lawyers to their duties (such as avoiding conflicts and maintaining confidentiality), make them explicitly acknowledge that the duties exist, and require them to develop systems to ensure compliance.

Evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that compliance regulation produces better lawyer conduct than the existing reactive disciplinary model. The law society’s requirement that lawyers acknowledge the duty to promote equality is thus not some bonkers PC foray into compelled speech; it is rather part of a larger effort to increase the effectiveness of lawyer regulation.

And as for “promote,” why assume that the law society means “state your belief in equality,” rather than “do something to advance equality, diversity and inclusiveness (no matter how insincerely or reluctantly)”? Even I can’t believe the law society would be dumb enough to think equality can be progressed merely by enthusiastic lawyer statements.

Surely the goal is to get lawyers to do something about inequality

Merriam-Webster (online) defines “promote” as: 1) “to contribute to the growth or prosperity of;” b) “to help bring (something, such as an enterprise) into being; c) to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting.” Generally speaking, therefore, “promote” means to do something, not to say or believe something. It can mean to say something, but that’s the less common usage, and there’s no particular reason to assume it’s what the law society meant here. As law society bencher Malcolm Mercer said during the discussion of this initiative at Convocation (the law society’s governing body): “All of this is… to ensure that within our workplaces people are hired fairly, promoted fairly, advanced fairly, treated fairly with a desired outcome of diversity and inclusion.”

To be fair, critics’ compelled speech argument is in large part the law society’s fault. In its explanatory materials, it stated that the intention of the statement is “to demonstrate a personal valuing of equality, diversity and inclusion.” It is understandable that this would lead people to see the law society as making lawyers personally value something—that’s what it says!

But those explanatory materials were not the product of Convocation. They have no legal force. They can (and should!) be revised. They do not change the ordinary meaning of “promote” to a less common one. Notably, the materials go on to list sample principles all of which relate to lawyer conduct: not discriminating, not harassing, abiding by workplace human rights policies and providing service to clients consistently with human rights law. The document as a whole emphasizes what lawyers ought to do, not what they ought to say and believe.

I am no mindless supporter of the law society’s efforts here. Their impact can be debated, and the legal basis for the duty to “promote” has not been sufficiently explained. On the other hand, evaluation of the law society’s initiative should be based on what it is, not what it isn’t. What it is is a good faith effort to get lawyers to do the work necessary to decrease inequality in the legal profession. That inequality has been well documented. It does real harm to those who suffer from it, and to the profession’s claim that it is working for the rule of law and justice.

The required Statement of Principles is one of a number of steps being taken by the law society to redress inequality. Speaking personally, until I can look out at my first-year students, and not believe that the students who are white and privileged have a material advantage in getting law firm jobs, and until I cannot believe that students of colour will suffer stereotyping and disadvantage, all in the name of a firm’s pursuit of “fit,” I will not rush to condemn law society efforts to encourage lawyers to change that reality—or, at least, I will try to interpret their efforts accurately and fairly.

via Law society’s Statement of Principles may be useless, but it does not compel speech | National Post

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Why Indigenous Languages Should Be Taught Alongside French and English

2017/11/18 Leave a comment

Chelsea Vowel makes the case (the practicalities will be a challenge):

There are constitutional protections and billions of dollars of funding for Canada’s two official languages, but what of the languages of the original peoples on these lands? I’m not suggesting that all 70 Indigenous languages be made mandatory and offered in every corner of this country. Instead, we need to be looking at supporting these languages where they exist, on the lands whence they originate. In Iqaluit, that would be Inuktitut, while in Halifax it would be Mi’kmaq. Each province and territory should pass an Official Languages Act recognizing the Indigenous languages that originate in those areas, and bolster this recognition with funding to ensure language transmission continues in schools, workplaces, and government. Incentivizing second-language learning in an Indigenous language could be done by hiring speakers in daycares, schools, and public service positions.

It often feels as though we are being asked to justify the continuing existence of our languages to a Canadian audience who may not value them. I believe we need to remind Canada that Indigenous languages are an Aboriginal right, enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution, as well as an inherent right — to speak and pass on our languages — that is recognized internationally by the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada has officially adopted. What we need now is an implementation of those rights, supported with adequate funding.

Everyone stands to gain. Embedded within our languages are cultural concepts that have the potential to give all Canadians a deeper understanding of our place in relation to the world around us. Our languages have been systematically devalued for generations out of a misplaced sense of their inferiority. Yet many of the concepts currently being explored by Western medicine, environmentalism, and the humanities are foundational within Indigenous cultures and languages. Holistic health and teachings, understandings of interconnectedness with human and non-human beings, and ways of being in good relation with one another are all described in our various Indigenous languages.

Public perception has a powerful impact on policy, and when Canadians are told that Indigenous languages are on the rise, this obscures just how desperate the situation is. Twenty-four of the Indigenous languages listed in the census have less than 200 speakers each, and if what we truly need are highly fluent speakers, then even these numbers are likely inflated. Even among the so-called robust languages — Cree, Inuktitut, and Ojibway — language loss is speeding up.

We can and must start planning to offer these languages alongside English and French throughout the country. Don’t let a rosy reading of the statistics lull you into a false sense of security. In 10 years, we will once again count the number of speakers of Indigenous languages in Canada. Without immediate, robust, and heartfelt intervention, language decline will be irreversible. As someone who has fought hard to access and reclaim her own Cree language, I am asking Canadians to recognize that we are at a tipping point. Please, support us, and come learn with us.

via Why Indigenous Languages Should Be Taught Alongside French and English – Chatelaine

Filed under Aboriginal Tagged with , ,

A quarter of Canadians think religious diversity is a bad thing

2017/11/18 Leave a comment

Not much new here:

Canadians are divided over whether religious diversity is healthy for the country, but they consider Islam in particular to be a negative force, a new poll has found.

In the survey, conducted the same week Quebec adopted a law prohibiting niqab-wearing women from receiving government services, 26 per cent of respondents said increasing religious diversity is a good thing while 23 per cent said it is bad. Nearly half — 44 per cent — said diversity brings a mix of good and bad; the remaining seven per cent were unsure.

When the pollsters sought respondents’ views on particular religious groups, anti-Islam sentiment stood out. Forty-six per cent of the people polled said Islam is damaging Canada compared with 13 per cent who said it is beneficial. The others either did not know (20 per cent) or said it has no real impact (21 per cent.)

The Angus Reid Institute, which conducted the poll in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, said the results are in keeping with “a well documented pattern” in recent years. “Namely, if Islam is involved, a significant segment of Canadians will react negatively,” the institute said in its analysis of the numbers.

The only other religion with an overall negative score was Sikhism, with 22 per cent calling it damaging and 13 per cent beneficial. Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelical Christianity and Judaism all had overall positive ratings.

Angus Reid, the founder and president of the institute, said he found it disheartening that Canadians are not more committed to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A slight majority — 55 per cent — of respondents said freedom of religion makes Canada a better country, while 14 per cent said the freedom makes Canada worse and 21 per cent it has no impact.

“I think the low number of Canadians who celebrate the fact that we have religious freedom is very troubling and really speaks to the forces of secularization that are at work in Canadian society,” Reid said in an interview.

He sees in the results a “potential for intolerance” toward the faithful, especially adherents of minority religions. Asked whether various groups’ influence was growing or shrinking in Canada, respondents identified Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism as growing. Canada’s more established religious groups were all seen to have a shrinking influence.

The poll is part of Faith in Canada 150, a multi-faith initiative of the think tank Cardus to highlight the role religion has played historically and continues to play in Canada.

I don’t think the people answering this poll are answering from the consequence of day-to-day experience. I think what we’re talking about is a public narrative

Ray Pennings, executive vice-president of Cardus, noted that roughly three per cent of Canadians are Muslim and less than two per cent are Sikh, so the chances of a poll respondent having a Muslim or Sikh neighbor are slim.

“I don’t think the people answering this poll are answering from the consequence of day-to-day experience. I think what we’re talking about is a public narrative,” he said.

He said it is telling that the two groups seen negatively are also those with visible religious symbols such as the hijab and turban. “Is it a discomfort with the particulars of their faith? Or is it a discomfort with the fact that they’re different than us?”

The poll asked about cases where religious practice intersects with the public sphere. There was solid opposition to the niqab — a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the entire face except the eyes. Forty-nine per cent of respondents said a woman in a niqab should be prohibited from visiting a government office and 29 per cent said she should be discouraged but tolerated. Twenty-two per cent said the woman should be welcomed.

There was greater tolerance for the idea of opening a council meeting with a non-denominational prayer to God — just 25 per cent said the practice should be prohibited. Opinion was divided on whether organized religions should continue to receive special tax consideration, with 55 per cent saying yes and 45 per cent saying no.

The same split — 55 per cent yes and 45 per cent no — emerged on the question of whether a religiously affiliated nursing home should be able to refuse the practice of physician-assisted death.

via A quarter of Canadians think religious diversity is a bad thing | National Post

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →