Yes, a MAGA hat is a symbol of hate: Domise

2019/01/26 Leave a comment

Good commentary by Andray Domise:

A few years ago, a very close friend of mine was hailing a cab off Spadina street, in downtown Toronto. He, a tall and broad-shouldered Black man, was on his way to a social event with an acquaintance, a blonde white woman. They were both well-dressed for nightlife, which is a normal sight for that neighbourhood on a Friday evening. What was not normal, however, was the gaunt white man approaching them wearing Doc Martens boots, a bomber jacket, and a clean-shaved scalp. My friend registered danger just before the skinhead opened his mouth twice, first to shout “Don’t trust that nigger” at the blonde woman, and again to spit in my friend’s face.

Being a dark-skinned man whose personal experience with hate crime stretches back to his childhood (when he was introduced to that ugly word right after being shot in the head by a white teen armed with a pellet gun), my friend didn’t need to have a conversation to assess the character of the man before the assault happened. He knew right away he’d just encountered a skinhead, a self-ordained social enforcer who believes the human species can be ordered by a racial hierarchy—one which places Black people like us below the cutoff.

If the man hadn’t given the game away with the racial slur, it would be ridiculous to try and convince my friend that was, perhaps, not a hate crime. When a person wearing the visual markers of a neo-Nazi passes every other human being on a busy street without incident, but singles out a Black man and a white woman for violence, there aren’t many questions to be asked.

And yet, supposedly sensible people and media outlets are willing to debase themselves by proposing that the Make America Great Again hat, that bright red beacon of racialized aggrievement, is somehow not a hate symbol. The perennial conversation bubbled to the surface again this week after an altercation between members of the Omaha nation (led by longtime activist Nathan Phillips), and a mob of students from now-infamous Covington Catholic high school.

In a nearly two-hour video shot at the Lincoln Memorial, students wearing MAGA hats shouted at the elders, danced mockingly, and pantomimed tomahawk chops. One of them, Nick Sandmann, made his way to the front of the crowd to stand almost nose-to-nose with Phillips and smirk in his face as the elder drummed and sang the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) song.

By now, nonwhite groups are all too familiar with hate groups and what they’re about. The similarity in their tactics is not an accident. Hate groups typically construct an extremist kinship through shared values, language, and an aesthetic that serves a twofold purpose: to visually signal themselves to allies, and to let their enemies know they intend harm. The skinhead aesthetic—black boots, weathered denim, suspenders, and shaved heads—is one of these. Proud Boys—khakis, beards, and Fred Perry polo shirts—are another.

These aren’t political organizations that happen to attract the occasional radical, or unpolished community groups that happen to have a large platform. There is no driving sociopolitical force behind these movements outside of white nationalist ideology, which is why they’re designated hate groups. And they understand this, which is why they’ve spent so much time lately cultivating an everyman aesthetic. Even David Duke famously tried to rebrand the Klan with a kinder, gentler image before leaving in frustration that the message wasn’t catching on. His movement had long passed beyond plausible deniability of their motives.

We know this, yet when people quite logically connect the people who wear MAGA hats with the white supremacist ideology of Donald Trump, this is considered painting with too broad a brush. The same Donald Trump who egged on violence against Black protesters at his rallies, stereotyped Mexicans as rapists, referred to African and African-descended nations as “shithole countries,” referred to Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” and for years has rattled off a near-endless litany of ad-libbed comments that place him squarely in the white nationalist camp – that is the Donald Trump with which a person openly signals kinship when they put on that garish red hat in public.

So when a restaurant manager refuses to serve a MAGA hat-wearing patron, or Omaha elders confront a crowd of MAGA hat-wearing students to try and diffuse an escalating conflict before it gets out of control, they’re not making assumptions out of whole cloth. Neither is Alyssa Milano, who tweeted “The red MAGA hat is the new white hood.” They’re justifiably responding the way that my friend responded to that skinhead, moments before that skinhead spat in his face, and the way decent people should be expected to respond to those who publicly align themselves with hate movements. If the people who wear the hat feel unfairly maligned, that’s just plain unfortunate for them. Maybe they should examine their politics, and their own hearts.

In other words: if the hood fits, wear it.

Source: Yes, a MAGA hat is a symbol of hate

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Laïcité: des professeurs se posent en censeurs

2019/01/26 Leave a comment

Group think without allowing for discussion of other perspectives. And it should be possible to have respectful discussion of different perspectives:

À quelques semaines du dépôt probable d’un projet de loi sur les signes religieux, la laïcité reste un sujet « explosif » qui divise profondément les enseignants. La professeure Nadia El-Mabrouk, bien connue pour son opposition au port de signes religieux, a été bannie d’un colloque syndical auquel elle avait pourtant été invitée à livrer son point de vue.

Selon ce que Le Devoir a appris, la direction de l’Alliance des professeures et professeurs de Montréal a annulé l’invitation faite à Mme El-Mabrouk après l’éclatement d’une controverse chez les enseignants. La simple présence prévue de la professeure de l’Université de Montréal au colloque de l’Alliance a provoqué un « malaise » au sein de la profession, et même des « commentaires violents » dans un groupe de discussion Facebook.

L’assemblée des délégués du syndicat a voté à la majorité l’annulation de la conférence de Nadia El-Mabrouk sur la laïcité au colloque de l’Alliance, prévu les 18 et 19 février 2019. La professeure a aussi été bannie d’une table ronde sur le féminisme où elle devait prendre part avec la journaliste Pascale Navarro.

Ce colloque, qui célébrera le 100e anniversaire de l’Alliance des professeurs, doit regrouper une quarantaine de conférenciers de renom, dont Françoise David et le Dr Jean-François Chicoine. Ils aborderont une série de thèmes plutôt consensuels, comme l’école de demain, la gestion de classe, les jeux vidéo, le déficit d’attention, et ainsi de suite.

Les deux événements auxquels devait participer Nadia El-Mabrouk ont cependant mis le feu aux poudres. Cette expulsion de la conférencière sur fond de désaccord idéologique soulève la grogne au sein de l’Alliance. Des enseignants dénoncent cette « censure » digne des curés du siècle dernier. D’autres se réjouissent de ne pas être exposés à des idées contraires aux positions officielles du syndicat.

Des sujets « assez sensibles »

« Je vous écris pour vous faire part du malaise que certains profs ont ressenti en recevant le programme du colloque, hier matin, dans leur milieu. En effet, dans le résumé de votre conférence, il est question de sujets assez sensibles chez les profs ; port de signes religieux, cours d’ECR [éthique et culture religieuse], cours à la sexualité, bref, tout cela est assez explosif en ce moment. Nous n’avions évidemment pas prévu que la CAQ serait portée au pouvoir au moment où nous vous avons demandé votre intérêt à participer à ce colloque », indique l’Alliance dans un courriel à Nadia El-Mabrouk daté du 11 décembre 2018.

La présence de la professeure au colloque a été annulée le soir même par l’assemblée des délégués. Le conseil d’administration du syndicat s’est plié à la décision des délégués, même s’il avait recommandé de maintenir la conférence et la table ronde où Nadia El-Mabrouk était invitée.

« Le conseil d’administration a expliqué que cette personne-là avait été choisie même si elle n’avait pas nécessairement les mêmes opinions et orientations que notre organisation syndicale », explique Catherine Renaud, présidente de l’Alliance.

« On n’est pas toujours obligés d’entendre des gens qui pensent comme nous. Ça permet d’échanger et de faire progresser notre réflexion, ajoute-t-elle. On n’a jamais l’unanimité sur des sujets comme ça qui sont polarisants. Il y a des pour et des contre, et pour certains, c’est viscéral. Ce n’est pas différent de ce que pense la population de ces enjeux-là. »

Les syndicats d’enseignants, dont l’Alliance, s’opposent officiellement à l’interdiction du port de signes religieux que le gouvernement Legault a promis d’étendre à la profession enseignante. « On ne veut surtout pas que ces personnes-là soient congédiées non plus », précise Catherine Renaud.

« Censure » syndicale

Luc Charlebois, enseignant de francisation à l’école secondaire Louis-Riel, dans l’est de Montréal, est fâché. Il s’insurge contre ce qu’il considère comme de la « censure ». « La proposition [de retirer l’invitation à la professeure El-Mabrouk] a été amenée sur le plancher à la dernière minute, sans consultation des membres. Il y a un gros problème de démocratie syndicale », dit-il.

La professeure a été officiellement mise au ban à cause de ses positions sur l’identité des genres. Dans une chronique dans La Presse +, elle a déjà dit craindre que les cours d’éducation à la sexualité enseignent « l’idéologie queer ». Elle estime que ce phénomène devient une véritable « religion ». Elle déplore que cette seule mise en garde lui vaille d’être traitée de transphobe.

« Une accusation de transphobie, c’est une attaque à ma réputation. Ces gens n’ont sûrement pas lu mes articles », dit Nadia El-Mabrouk au Devoir.

« La vérité, c’est qu’on me censure. Si ma vie n’est pas en danger en allant au colloque, il n’y a pas de problème à ce que j’y sois. Il y a un débat sur la laïcité qui s’en vient [avec le dépôt promis du projet de loi du gouvernement Legault], et là, on est en train de faire de l’intimidation. Les gens n’osent pas s’exprimer sur les signes religieux par crainte d’être taxés de racisme », dit la professeure d’informatique.

Source: Laïcité: des professeurs se posent en censeurs

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why are we paying people to sue the government? [court challenges program]

2019/01/25 Leave a comment

The group that managed the court challenges program reported to me when I was at Canadian Heritage 2007-8. It was essentially managed as a arms-length G&C program but, like many other Canadian Heritage programs, with considerable assistance by program officers in the preparation of submissions. If I recall correctly, submissions were approved at the official level, unlike multiculturalism which required ministerial signature.

It always was controversial and my tweeting this story provoked considerable reaction, most opposed but not all. Personally, I felt somewhat ambivalent. While I recognized the role that it could play in supporting groups with limited resources to bring these before the courts, it did seem paradoxical to be funding challenges that government lawyers would be obliged to fight.

When the Conservatives cancelled the program, they faced a backlash, in particular by official language minorities, where they had to back track and reinstate that aspect of the program.

But the issue is less the social change and partisan charges made in this article but whether or not such a program does result in a more equal capacity to bring challenges to government policies and laws:

When a Muslim woman decided to challenge the Harper government’s policy forbidding face-coverings during the oath of citizenship, a feminist non-profit group called Women’s Legal Action Fund (LEAF) sought to intervene on her behalf.

When the Harper government cut extended health-care benefits like drugs and dental to refugee claimants, LEAF argued that the change had a “discriminatory effect upon refugee women.”

When homelessness advocates claimed that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being violated unless the government implemented policies to “eliminate homelessness and inadequate housing,” LEAF supported the fight against lawmakers.

This week, LEAF is in court fighting a group of Christian doctors who oppose a policy by their regulator requiring them to refer patients who seek abortions or euthanasia.

There’s nothing wrong with groups of citizens pooling their money to intervene in court cases. That’s healthy in a democracy. But these kinds of activist legal groups shouldn’t be getting taxpayer funding.

Yet that’s what’s happening under the Trudeau government. The new Department of Women and Gender Equality (formerly Status of Women Canada) just awarded LEAF $880,000 to develop a new five-year plan for “strategic litigation.” The project “will undertake a needs assessment with feminist groups and other key stakeholders to identify intersectional gender equality issues that can be effectively addressed through feminist strategic litigation.” It’s a big boost to their budget.

The Liberals have also restored funding to the Court Challenges Program that will hand out grants to groups who claim their human rights or minority language rights have been violated. The committee doling out the money is stacked with prominent left-wing advocates, including former LEAF director and Ottawa law professor Joanne St. Lewis, labour activist and McGill law professor Adelle Blackett, and University of Windsor francophone services proponent Emmanuelle Richez.

Harper had scrapped the program, created in 1978 by Pierre Trudeau, as one of his first acts. John Baird, then president of the Treasury Board, argued that it didn’t make sense for the government to pay people to fight its own laws in court. Indeed, it did not.

So, why are the Liberals eager to use taxpayer dollars to fund these legal challenges?

University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane suggested at the recent Law and Freedom conference in Toronto that Canada has a growing “culture of deference to courts,” in which politicians would rather wait for judges to make law than work to build consensus on controversial issues.

If so, then giving money to lawyers to sue the government is a backdoor way for Liberals to force the policy changes they want without the political risks. Assisted-death is a good example. It was popular with Canadians at large but many Catholics were opposed, which made it difficult for the Liberals to support legalization without risking seats in Quebec … until a successful Charter challenge allowed the Liberals to say that the courts forced their hands.

This type of funding may be particularly concerning to those with strong views on abortion. The Liberals wouldn’t dare legislate a right to abortion but they do like to claim it’s a Charter right. It’s easy to imagine someone seeking to firmly establish abortion as a Charter right through the Court Challenges Program or the newly bolstered LEAF. This type of funding should also concern those who support abortion. If the practice of funding activist legal groups becomes normalized, a future Conservative government could conceivably hand out grants to anti-abortion groups to do their bidding.

Canadians shouldn’t put up with this. If our politicians want social change, they should campaign on making those changes and introduce bills to make it happen. Funding activist groups risks becoming a backdoor way to have politicized lawyers doing their dirty work.

Source: Why are we paying people to sue the government?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with

Asian-centric household goods brands set sights on expansion across Canada

2019/01/25 Leave a comment

Interesting (we also discovered Muji when travelling):

When discount store Oomomo flung open the doors to its first Toronto location in early December, customers lined up well in advance to scoop up everything from low-cost origami paper and shrimp-flavoured chips to vegetable peelers and toothbrushes.

Oomomo’s president Andy Cheng expects the scene will repeat dozens of times as the Vancouver-based purveyor of Japanese goods expands beyond its current four stores in Canada to open about 30 in the country over the next three years.

“We have customers asking us if we can open as many as possible and make it as huge and giant as possible,” he said of the brand that sells mostly Daiso and Seria products for $2, but prices some up to $15. “We are not trying to take over the market, but we want to focus on bringing Oomomo to every major province and city.”

Oomomo is part of a growing group of Asian-centric retailers selling affordable household goods that are expanding in Canada, quickly conjuring up loyal customer bases with big plans to conquer the market in little time.

Miniso — a Chinese discount brand masquerading as a Japanese company — has the most ambitious goal in mind: 500 stores by the end of 2020. Despite a recent court case threatening to force the Canadian operators into bankruptcy over allegations that they fraudulently transferred registered trademark rights to third-party corporations and disposed of inventory, Miniso has already opened 50 stores in Canada since its December 2017 launch in the country.

Muji, whose stores are more fashion-centric and expensive than Miniso but still marketed as affordable, has more pared down expectations. Vice-president Shogo Okazeri said Muji hopes to grow the eight stores it has opened in B.C. and Ontario to 30 by 2025. Okazeri named Alberta and Quebec as target markets for the expansion.

Experts say such rapid growth in the market is being fuelled by Canada’s diverse population and the increasing demand for both innovations and discounts — a hallmark of items produced in Asia, where labour is much cheaper and access to inexpensive manufacturing materials is greater.

“I picked up a couple of things that I hadn’t seen before at Muji that solved a little problem for me because I hadn’t seen anything quite like it,” said Michael LeBlanc, a senior retail adviser at the Retail Council of Canada.

“Canadians love a good value proposition and (at these stores) the price points are right, the assortment is unique and they offer different solutions.”

The expansion of Asian retailers has been no surprise for LeBlanc because he said the country has really transformed itself into a top shopping destination.

Canada welcomed a record 50 new international retailers in 2017 alone and Toronto outranked several U.S. cities to be named North America’s most popular market for international expansion, according to commercial real estate business CBRE Group Inc.

That excitement around Canada came even as retailers’ cross-border expansion into new markets declined by 2.9 per cent from the year before, CBRE said.

Oomomo’s Cheng was keen on starting his company in Canada instead of Asia because of Canada’s multiculturalism. Half of Canada’s foreign-born population hailed from Asia in 2016, according to Statistics Canada.

“We have a lot of Asian population and also a lot of local, Canadian customers that like to learn about the lifestyle of other cultures and how they do little things around the house,” said Cheng.

It’s an observation he shares with Muji’s Shogo Okazeri, who said Muji quickly discovered Canada has “a growing interest for a simple lifestyle and for products without branding, a trend that is found in traditional Japanese culture.”

He also found multiculturalism was playing a large role in retail.

“We didn’t expect that it would have such an impact, but after expanding in Canada, we realized that many people actually knew MUJI because they discovered it when travelling abroad,” he said in an email to The Canadian Press.

“As a result, we have been receiving requests to open stores in various areas we didn’t necessarily think about at first.”

Oomomo has also been seeing demand to expand to new cities and suspects the market can sustain further growth because of the success enjoyed by companies like Dollarama Inc.

However, Cheng is insistent he doesn’t consider Dollarama a competitor because he said both suit different kinds of customers that will shop at both stores.

“When I need something quick I go into a dollar store, but when I am at a store like Oomomo, I spend an hour at the store just to stop and look around at stuff I haven’t seen before.”

He similarly brushed off concerns about rivals including Miniso and Muji.

“I haven’t talked to anyone who after purchasing something from our store said we are not going to go to the other store,” he said. “We are not in direct competition.”

Source: Asian-centric household goods brands set sights on expansion across Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Mexican Asylum Claims Skyrocket Since the Trudeau Government Eliminated Visa for Mexican Nationals

2019/01/25 Leave a comment

The numbers have increased dramatically although without the IRCC background documents, we do not know whether this extent was predicted or not. But there was a clear trade-off between economic and political considerations and maintaining the visa requirement.

The previous Conservative government faced similar pressures from the EU with respect to the visa requirements then in place for Bulgaria and Romania but were defeated before they had to make a similar decision (EU visa standoff strains allies Canada needs to pass trade deal. The Conservative government did drop the visa requirement for Czech nationals facing this pressure. The Liberal government dropped the visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania (only Romania figures in the top 25 asylum claimant countries):

After the Trudeau government changed Canada’s visa rules, the number of Mexican refugee claimants in Canada skyrocketed.

2,445 Mexican visitors to Canada failed to leave and instead applied for refugee status in Canada during the first ten months of 2018, according to new data from Immigration Refugee Citizenship Canada (IRCC) .

The number of Mexican asylum claimants to Canada in on track to rise almost 75% above the previous year’s total, or an 840% increase from 2016’s total.

In July 2016, the Trudeau government removed the visitor visa for Mexicans travelling to Canada —  a visa imposed by the Harper government back in 2009 to end a surge of Mexicans claiming refugee status — despite the fact that the visa significantly reduced the number of asylum claims.

In 2016, the number of Mexican asylum seekers jumped to 260 from 111 the previous year, then surged to 1,515 in 2017, and continued to climb dramatically in 2018, rising to 2,445 claims in the first 10 months.

Number of Annual Asylum Claims from Mexican Nationals

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
7,153 9,454 7,581 1,197 649 321 84 80 111 260 1,515 2,445

Source: Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

“Our Government took a pivotal step towards rebuilding and strengthening our relationship with Mexico, which was damaged considerably under the previous government,” said Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen’s spokesperson Mathieu Genest in an email.

“The visa lift has helped expand trade and business opportunities, increase investment and tourism, and strengthen people-to-people ties that benefit both countries. In 2017 alone, the increase in business travellers and tourists generated more than $600 million in economic benefits for Canada.”

Not everyone shares the Trudeau government’s optimism.

Toronto Immigration lawyer Guidy Mamann pointed out that, “the decision was definitely not consistent with traditional immigration policy.”

“This was completely anticipated by anyone who knows anything about it. It was done for purely political reasons. Mexico is a full participant in NAFTA and didn’t want to feel like the poor cousin of the trio. The cost was anticipated and was undertaken as the ‘cost of doing (international) business,’” said Mamann in an email.

“I would bet that any report by the CBSA (Canadian Border Services Agency) or CIC (the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, now know as Immigration Refugee Citizenship Canada or IRCC) that was requested by the government at that time would have warned of a significant increase in refugees claims,” he said.

Prior to the Harper government’s policy that made it mandatory for Mexicans travelling to Canada to get a travel visa, only a small fraction of the thousands of Mexicans asking for refugee status were deemed by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to be legitimate claimants. In 2008, for instance, Mexico comprised 26% of all asylum claims in Canada.

About 90% of those claims were eventually either rejected or abandoned.

“It would be inappropriate to speculate on asylum claims before the IRB,” said Genest about the low success rate of past Mexican refugee claimants being a concern with the latest spike in claims.

“The IRB is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that operates at arms-length from the government to assess and make decisions on all refugee claims. Each case is evaluated on its own merits, and those with a well-founded fear of persecution are permitted to stay and those who are found to not have a legitimate claim are removed.”

Canada’s asylum system costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

High-skilled immigration remains popular in anti-immigrant nations

2019/01/25 Leave a comment

Not much new but reinforces the point that the benefits of higher skilled immigrants are better understood than lower skilled:
Most of those calling for less immigration overall actually support high-skilled immigration, according to an international survey released this week — a counterpoint to the immigration backlash that has upended politics in the U.S. and other countries.

Why it matters: A majority of people who want to cut immigration levels do not necessarily see all immigrants as threats to their job security, but support bringing in foreign workers for highly technical jobs. As fights over asylum, the border and unauthorized immigration rage, the survey is a reminder that the opposition to immigration isn’t across the board.

The big picture: More than half of respondents from 10 of the 12 nations surveyed by the Pew Research Center said they support high-skilled immigration (Israel and Italy were the exceptions). In the U.S., 78% said they supported high-skilled immigrants.

  • But only two countries had immigrant populations where more than half had attained a college degree — Canada and Australia.
  • The U.S. has the highest number of college-educated immigrants, but they only make up around a third of the total U.S. immigrant population.

Between the lines: Immigrants — high-skilled, low-skilled and even unauthorized — play a crucial role in the American labor force beyond high-skilled jobs. The industries that most depend on unauthorized immigrant workers in the U.S., for example, include agriculture, construction and leisure/hospitality, according to an earlier study by Pew.

  • Immigrant workers could be key in maintaining high economic growth as the U.S. population ages and fertility rates drop.
  • “The Pew study shows the public clearly recognizes the great value high-skilled foreigners bring to America, and the critical role they play in our industries and communities nationwide,” Jeff Lande of the Lande Group, which represents India-based IT companies, told Axios.

Source: High-skilled immigration remains popular in anti-immigrant nations

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Metro Vancouver voters value issues more than ethnicity

2019/01/25 Leave a comment

I would be cautious in drawing parallels between municipal and federal/provincial elections. The former tend to under-represent visible minorities and other minority groups whereas federal and political parties tend to recruit candidates from the larger visible minority or ethnic groups, as well as developing policies to attract minority voters (e.g., the Conservatives Chinese head tax historical recognition program when they first formed the government).

And nobody I know is suggesting that groups vote as a block. However, exit polls do suggest that groups have overall political leanings (e.g., Chinese Canadians lean conservative, Canadian Sikhs Liberal or NDP).

So the reality is more complex than presented here.

Byelection campaigns can be extremely complex events.

Voter turnout tends to be lower than in a regular electoral contest, when all the seats in a particular legislative body are at stake. Potential voters are often disengaged and disenchanted, and the lack of deep media coverage leads to citizens not even knowing that they have a chance to exercise their franchise.

In the case of the federal vote that will take place on February 25 in British Columbia’s Burnaby South constituency, the presence of the leader of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) in the ballot has certainly added some interest. Jagmeet Singh seeks to be the first leader of the main three Canadian federal parties to represent a B.C. riding since Stockwell Day headed the Canadian Alliance.

The Burnaby South byelection was supposed to be an early test of strength for the NDP leader, as well as an indicator of whether the newly created People’s Party would eat into some traditional support for the federal Conservatives.

The race took a wild swing earlier this month, after a poorly worded statement from Liberal candidate Karen Wang was posted to social media platform WeChat and uncovered by the staff at Star Vancouver. In a span of 32 hours, Wang resigned, asked to be reinstated and flirted with a run as an independent. The Liberals have now named former provincial lawmaker Richard T. Lee as their standard bearer.

Wang’s demotion by the Liberal Party has precipitated a much-needed debate on the way political campaigns in Canada operate when it comes to courting so-called “multicultural” voters.  Political consultants charge fortunes pretending to create a magic potion to engage with particular ethnic communities, and messages are crafted to make candidates appear more in touch with voters who immigrated to Canada. This can backfire quickly, as demonstrated in British Columbia by the 2013 “quick wins” scandal.

In elections of all types – municipal, provincial and federal – there is a tendency to make assumptions based on the demographic characteristics of a particular population. These assumptions are usually incorrect.

Just last year, we were treated to illusory media commentary that suggested that being married to a Filipino woman would propel a Vancouver mayoral candidate to victory. The candidate finished in fifth place, as the supposed Filipino constituency that seemed discernible looking at census data never materialized.

In first-past-the-post elections, the futility of this misleading analysis becomes evident. There is more to a community than the origin of its residents. In Richmond, where 53 per cent of residents are of Chinese descent, three Chinese-Canadian candidates garnered 4,794 votes together. Incumbent Mayor Malcolm Brodie was re-elected with 30,452 votes.

The ability of an electoral contender to connect with voters of a particular ethnicity cannot measured by a last name, origin or ability to feature foreign languages in campaign paraphernalia.

A survey I conducted a few weeks before the 2015 federal election showed that voters in Metro Vancouver of East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian descent placed “the candidate’s ethnicity” as the least important motivator for their vote. These “multicultural” voters were moved primarily by two issues: the candidate’s position on issues and the political party they represented.

Contrary to what data-less pundits believe, voters of a particular ethnicity do not cast their ballots as a block. In addition, the efforts of politicians to appear inclusive and mindful do not always move the needle. Last year, 69 per cent of British Columbians said that politicians who show up at ethnic festivals and celebrations are merely pandering for votes and are not truly interested in engaging with people from different backgrounds and cultures.

The proportion of voters who are not amused by public servants suddenly showing interest in ethnic celebrations included 76 per cent of residents of South Asian descent, 70 per cent of Europeans and 62 per cent of East Asians – something to ponder the next time politicians don traditional garb for Vaisakhi.

Regardless of the result in Burnaby South, a conversation about treating “multicultural” voters as a commodity has started. It will be interesting to see if political parties learn from Wang’s demise and work harder on policy development and meaningful community outreach, instead of trying to score points with their last names or birthplaces.

The political climate of the country has evolved to a point where candidates do not need to advertise themselves as “the only [insert ethnicity here] in the race.” Let’s hope that situations like the one that led the Liberals to replace their Burnaby South byelection candidate are the exception – and not the norm – in the next federal campaign.

Source: Metro Vancouver voters value issues more than ethnicity

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Arton Capital Partners With EnterPH, Enticing More Filipinos To Global Citizenship

2019/01/24 Leave a comment

Arton keeps expanding its services and trying to spin its services as “shaping a sustainable and responsible environment.” Who writes this kind of puffery? And does anyone actually believes it?:
“With the growing number of Philippine companies entering business in different parts of the world, we are very honored to work with Arton Capital to empower Filipinos with the flexibility and mobility to become global citizens,” said EnterPH President Atty. Rocky Chan.
The partnership between the two bodes well for future clients, who can expect the best of both worlds. Arton Capital brings its international knowledge and experience to the table, while EnterPH possesses a mastery of the local business landscape.Arton Capital was founded by Armand Arton, who also serves as the company’s president. A visionary entrepreneur and philanthropist, Arton has extensive background serving the specialized needs of high net worth investors around the world. Arton is a staunch ambassador of the global citizen movement, seeking to involve global citizens in shaping a sustainable and responsible environment.

© 2018 Arton Capital. This is not a legal document and is provided for information purposes only. Visa-free travel count is provided by the Passport Index. Cost estimates are for a family of 4 (MA+SP+2DEPs 12-17). Arton Capital is not responsible for any content or information illustrated in this document as market conditions are subject to change without prior notice. 2018-02
© 2018 Arton Capital. This is not a legal document and is provided for information purposes only. Visa-free travel count is provided by the Passport Index. Cost estimates are for a family of 4 (MA+SP+2DEPs 12-17). Arton Capital is not responsible for any content or information illustrated in this document as market conditions are subject to change without prior notice. 2018-02

The Global Citizen Foundation is committed to making a difference by reaching out to children and young people who are in need. They are focusing on education, but also lending a hand and contributing to the next generation of leaders and education policy worldwide.

“We live in the age of global citizens,” said Arton in a TEDx Talks session he gave recently. “As global citizens, the only boundaries we have are the way we see ourselves and the way we see each other.”

Arton Capital takes its leadership position in the global citizenship movement seriously. The company curates the Global Citizen Forum, a platform that brings together visionaries and global leaders.

The company is also a founding member of the Global Investor Immigration Council (GIIC), a group that whose mission is to establish best practices and foster sustainable and responsible industry governance; as well as a co-founder of the Global Citizen Foundation, which aims to contribute to the development of the next generation of leaders and enriching education policies worldwide.

“The place where we were born does not dictate who we are, where we can go, or what we can become. When we limit human mobility, we’re restricting the use of one of the most important growth tools humanity has at its disposal,” said Armand Arton.

Source: Arton Capital Partners With EnterPH, Enticing More Filipinos To Global Citizenship

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with

François Legault veut davantage d’immigrants français

2019/01/24 1 Comment

I wonder whether he realizes that some of these may well be of other ethnicities than French (e.g., from Magreb, where issues around laicité could emerge):

Alors qu’il amorçait sa première visite officielle en France, le premier ministre du Québec a déclaré que, même s’il avait l’intention de réduire les quotas d’immigration, il souhaitait attirer encore plus d’immigrants français au Québec. François Legault a fait cette déclaration au Devoir au premier jour de sa visite en France à l’occasion de laquelle il rencontrera lundi le président, Emmanuel Macron, et le premier ministre, Édouard Philippe.

Pour le premier ministre, il est clair que la réduction des quotas d’immigration ne doit pas nuire à l’immigration en provenance de la France. Au contraire, dit-il. « Actuellement, il y a beaucoup trop d’immigrants au Québec qui ne sont pas qualifiés ou qui ne parlent pas français, dit le premier ministre. Donc, des Français, on en prendrait plus. De même que des Européens. »

François Legault rappelle son « inquiétude » de constater que, l’an dernier, 53 % des immigrants accueillis au Québec ne parlaient pas français. Avec l’immigration française, dit-il, il n’y a généralement ni problème de qualification ni problème de langue. C’est aussi pour recruter du personnel qualifié que l’Union des municipalités du Québec participait la semaine dernière au grand Salon du travail et de la mobilité professionnelle à la grande halle de La Villette à Paris.

On l’aura compris, c’est une visite surtout économique qu’entend mener le premier ministre québécois en France, durant laquelle il doit d’ailleurs rencontrer une douzaine de dirigeants de grandes entreprises françaises afin de les convaincre d’accroître leurs investissements au Québec. Le premier ministre est d’ailleurs accompagné du ministre de l’Économie et de l’Innovation, Pierre Fitzgibbon, ainsi que de la ministre des Relations internationales Nadine Girault.

« Ma priorité est économique, dit-il. Je ne veux rien soustraire [dans la relation France-Québec]. Mais je pense qu’on peut en faire plus en économie en augmentant les exportations. […] Je veux aussi augmenter les investissements des entreprises françaises au Québec, même si je comprends que M. Macron veut le contraire. »

François Legault n’hésite pas à qualifier de « ridicule » le chiffre des exportations québécoises en France, qui ne représente que « trois jours sur une année » comparativement aux exportations en direction des États-Unis. Il dit vouloir « doubler » les échanges économiques. « Il est plus que temps que l’on diversifie nos exportations, dit-il. Nos entreprises n’ont pas le réflexe d’exporter en Europe. Il va falloir changer ça. » Le premier ministre entend notamment augmenter le nombre d’agents commerciaux de la Délégation générale du Québec à Paris. Il compte aussi, en réorganisant Investissement Québec, mieux arrimer le travail de cette agence à celui de la Caisse de dépôt et des délégations à l’étranger.

Entre Matignon et l’Élysée, François Legault se rendra au siège de L’Oréal rencontrer son p.-d.g., Jean-Paul Agon. La multinationale des produits de beauté compte déjà 1474 employés au Québec et une usine à Saint-Laurent. Immédiatement après, il s’entretiendra avec le p.-d.g. du groupe agroalimentaire Fleury Michon, Régis Lebrun, qui emploie 350 personnes à Rigaud. Lundi soir, il mangera avec une demi-douzaine de dirigeants d’entreprises inscrites à la Bourse de Paris, dont David Layani, fondateur du groupe Onepoint, spécialiste de la transformation numérique des entreprises, et Jean-Laurent Bonnafé, directeur général de la grande banque BNP-Paribas.

Le volet politique de cette première visite à l’étranger sera pour sa part plus classique. Lundi midi, François Legault aura un repas privé avec le président Emmanuel Macron. Pour le reste, il rencontrera le premier ministre, Édouard Philippe, et les présidents du Sénat, Gérard Larcher, et de l’Assemblée nationale, Richard Ferrand. Il n’y aura ni conférence de presse commune avec le premier ministre français, ni signature d’ententes, ni non plus de rencontre avec les leaders des partis politiques, comme avaient l’habitude de le faire certains de ses prédécesseurs. « C’est déjà beau que, dans le contexte des gilets jaunes, on nous accorde tout ce temps », dit-on dans l’entourage du premier ministre.

Source: Legault veut davantage d’immigrants français

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Questions and Answers on the Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union

2019/01/24 Leave a comment

Useful reference material on citizenship and investment immigration schemes:

Questions and Answers on the Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union

1. Investor citizenship (“golden passport”) schemes

What are investor citizenship schemes?

Investor citizenship schemes are often referred to as “citizenships for sale” or “golden passports”.  They allow foreigners to be naturalised as a citizen of a country in return for an investment, provided certain criteria are fulfilled. Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Malta operate such schemes, where investors are required to invest between EUR 800,000 to EUR 2 million.

What is the EU’s competence in the area of nationality law?

It is for each Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of its nationality. However, these schemes are of common EU interest since every person holding the nationality of a Member States is at the same time a citizen of the Union. The European Court of Justice has found that, while it is for every Member State to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality, they have to do so with due regard to Union law. Member States must therefore take into account all rules that form part of the EU legal order, including international law, which requires a “genuine connection” between the State in question and the person that is granted citizenship.

The Commission’s report focusses on the naturalisation schemes that are classified as investor citizenship schemes, which are a new form of naturalisation that systematically grant citizenship based on an investment.

What is the problem with investor citizenship schemes?

Investor citizenship schemes create a range of risks for Member States and for the Union as a whole: in particular, security risks, risks of money laundering and corruption and tax evasion.  Such risks are exacerbated by the cross-border rights associated with citizenship of the Union.

The report found that applicants are often granted citizenship without any physical residence in the Member States concerned and without any genuine link to them.  The report also identifiesconcerns that the security checks applied to applicants for investor citizenship may not be robust enough and that Member States do not consult each other on applicants for investor citizenship, and do not inform each other of rejected applicants.  The report found certain grey areas in the application of anti-money laundering legislation, since agencies operating these schemes do not fall under the EU’s anti-money laundering requirements.

In addition, the transparency surrounding investor citizenship schemes is very limited: it is not always clear who applies for these schemes, who obtains the citizenship (and hence EU citizenship) and how the money raised by such schemes is spent.

How can such schemes pose money laundering risks?

The 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive requires financial institutions and other entities (“obliged entities”) in the EU to perform customer due diligence checks. The 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which entered into force on 9 July 2018, introduced an amendment requiring enhanced customer due diligence on nationals from third-countries who apply “for residence rights or citizenship in the Member State in exchange of capital transfers, purchase of property or government bonds, or investment in corporate entities in that Member State”.  Member States must transpose the Directive by 10 January 2020 at the latest and the Commission is working with them to ensure correct full and correct transposition.

Member States also have to ensure that the application of the EU rules on anti-money laundering are not circumvented under investor citizenship or residence schemes: Member States should ensure that funds paid by investor citizenship and investor residence applicants are channelled through bodies that qualify as “obliged entities” under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

In addition, Member States are encouraged to take into account the potential risks of money laundering linked to investor citizenship and residence schemes in their national risk assessments carried out under the EU anti-money laundering rules and take the necessary mitigating measures.

What has the Commission proposed as next steps regarding investor citizenship schemes?

The Commission will set up a group of experts from Member States that will work to address the specific risks posed by investor citizenship schemes.  It will also address the transparency of investor citizenship schemes and of discretionary naturalisation procedures, which permit acquisition of citizenship based on investment.  The group of experts shall put in place procedures for the exchange of information and statistics on such schemes, including the exchange of information concerning applicants whose applications for citizenship have been turned down in one Member State on grounds of posing a security risk.  Finally, the group should develop by the end of 2019 a common set of security checks for investor citizenship schemes, including risk management processes that take into account security, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption.

Is there a link between investor citizenship and residence schemes?

In some cases, investor residence schemes may facilitate the acquisition of citizenship.  In particular, a residence permit acquired by investment can be used under some Member States’ ordinary naturalisation procedures to provide fast-track access to permanent residence and then citizenship. In countries which have both citizenship and residence investor schemes, the investment required for the residence scheme may be taken into consideration to qualify for the investor citizenship scheme.

In addition, both schemes pose similar risks in terms of security, money laundering and tax evasion.

2. Investor residence (“golden visa”) schemes

What are investor residence schemes?

Investor residence schemes – often referred to as “golden visas” – grant a right of residence on a Member States’ territory to third country nationals on the basis of investment in the country.  They are issued at national level, and therefore do not entitle the permit holder to reside outside the issuing Member State. They do entitle the holder, however, to travel freely within the Schengen zone for a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period. Currently, 20 Member States run such schemes: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom.

What is the EU’s competence as regards investor residence schemes?

Residence permits for foreign investors are not regulated at EU level and remain governed by national law. EU law regulates the entry conditions for specific categories of non-EU nationals (for example students and researchers, seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees).

What type of investments are required under these schemes? 

Residence investor schemes have very different features, particularly as regards the nature and amount of investment. Investment amounts can range from EUR 13,500 to over EUR 5 million in the form of capital investment, investment in immovable property, investment in government bonds, or donations to an activity contributing to the public good charity or one-time contributions to the national budget. These options are not mutually exclusive, and some Member States allow for different types of investment and their combination.

What are the main risks of investor residence schemes identified by the Commission?

  •     Security risks: In a Schengen area without internal border controls, it is particularly important to ensure that the commonly agreed security checks are fully implemented, for example through centralised information systems such as: the Schengen Information System (SIS); the Visa Information System (VIS); EURODAC and the newly established Entry/Exist system (EES); and the Electronic Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). Member States must ensure that investor schemes do not undermine and jeopardise these security efforts by allowing them to circumvent these security checks. The Commission’s report has identified both a lack of available information and an important level of discretion in the way Member States approach security checks. For these reasons, the Commission will closely monitor compliance of existing investor residence schemes with EU law to ensure that all obligatory existing border and security checks are systematically and effectively carried out by Member States.
  •     Money laundering: Member States should ensure that funds paid by investor citizenship applicants are assessed according to the EU anti-money laundering rules. This includes enhanced customer due diligence checks on non EU-nationals who apply for residence rights and, as with other higher risk financial transactions or activities, full transparency around the residence schemes to ensure the integrity of funds entering the Union financial system. Member States should also ensure that authorities running investor residence schemes have an obligation to check the origin of funds in investors’ schemes.
  •     Impact on EU law on legal migration: Residence permits obtained by investment but with limited or no required physical presence of the  investor in the Member State in question could have an impact on the application of and rights associated with the EU Long-Term Residence Status. In the absence of an effective monitoring of continuity of residence, investors considered to be residing in a Member State on the basis of a national permit for five years could acquire EU Long Term Resident status and subsequent rights, in particular mobility rights, without fulfilling the actual condition of continuity of residence for five years. This would not be compliant with the Long-Term Residence Directive.
  •     Fast-track to citizenship: Sometimes, a residence permit obtained by investment and without requiring any physical presence may provide fast-track access or a link to permanent residence and then citizenship. In Member States that have both investor citizenship and residence schemes, the investment required for the residence scheme may be taken into consideration to qualify for the investor citizenship scheme.
  •     Tax evasion: There is a risk that the use of investor residence schemes may facilitate abuse as the documentation issued under some of these schemes can make it difficult for financial institutions to correctly identify the legitimate place of tax residence. This is whyMember States should make use of the available tools in the EU framework for administrative cooperation in the context of tax avoidance, in particular for exchange of information.

What has the Commission proposed as next steps regarding investor residence schemes?

The Commission will monitor compliance by Member States with EU law, in particular, with existing EU legal migration and family reunification rules, as well as existing rules regarding the use and implementation of the EU’s migration, border and security information systems.

What are the risks of investor citizenship schemes run by third countries that have a visa-free regime with the EU? How can they be mitigated?

Acquiring the citizenship of a third country, which has visa-free access to the EU for short stays, can permit nationals who require a visa to enter the EU to circumvent the regular Schengen visa procedure and the in-depth assessment of individual migratory and security risks it entails.

However, since April 2017 such risks are mitigated as all travellers, including those that do not require an EU visa, are checked at the EU’s external borders as to whether they fulfil the entry conditions, including by carrying out checks in the Schengen Information System and Member States’ national databases. If there are indications that a traveller could pose a risk to internal security or public policy of any of the Member States, entry could be refused. New information systems such as the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), and the Entry/Exit System (EES) will further contribute to enhancing effective checks of non-EU travellers.

In addition, in March 2017, a revised and strengthened visa suspension mechanism entered into force. It provides for new grounds for the temporary suspension of visa liberalisation, including where the third country in question by its actions – or inaction – is endangering the public policy or internal security of the EU Member States. It applies horizontally to all third countries whose citizens enjoy visa-free access to the Union. The Commission will monitor the impact of investor citizenship schemes implemented by visa-free countries as part of this mechanism.

What will the Commission do to mitigate the risks of investor residence and investor citizenship schemes operated by candidate countries and potential candidates?

In view of the risks inherent in investor citizenship schemes, the Commission will monitor citizenship investor schemes as part of the EU accession process. The countries concerned will be expected to have robust monitoring systems in place, including systems to counter possible security risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption and infiltration of organised crime linked to any such schemes.

What will the Commission do to mitigate the risks of investor residence and investor citizenship schemes?

The Commission will monitor wider issues of compliance with EU law raised by investor citizenship and residence schemes and it will take necessary action as appropriate. For this reason, Member States need to ensure, in particular, that:

  •          All obligatory border and security checks are systematically carried out;
  •          The requirements of the Long-Term Residence Permit Directive and the Family Reunification Directive are properly complied with;
  •          Funds paid by investor citizenship and residence applicants are assessed according to the EU anti-money laundering rules;
  •          In the context of tax avoidance risks, there are tools available in the EU framework for administrative cooperation, in particular for exchange of information.

The Commission will monitor steps taken by Member States to address issues of transparency and governance in managing these schemes. It will establish a group of experts from Member States to improve the transparency, governance and the security of the schemes. That group will be tasked, in particular, with:

  •      Setting up a system of exchange of information and consultation on the numbers of applications received, countries of origin and on the number of citizenships and residence permits granted/rejected by Member States to individuals based on investments;
  •      Developing a common set of security checks for investor citizenship schemes, including specific risk management processes, by the end of 2019.

Finally, concerning third countries setting up similar schemes, which may have security implications for the EU, the Commission will monitor investor citizenship schemes in candidate countries and potential candidates as part of the EU accession process. It will also monitor the impact of such schemes by EU visa-free countries as part of the visa-suspension mechanism.

What are the risks of tax evasion linked to these schemes?

While the underlying study did not look into tax aspects related to investor citizenship and residence schemes, it seems that very few of the schemes include provisions with the explicit purpose of avoiding or evading tax. That said, a risk of potential aggressive tax planning and evasion can be created when individuals partaking in the schemes are abruptly granted new or additional citizenships which may help to obscure the actual tax residence of the individual, leading to the tax rules in their original country to be circumvented. Schemes in countries which do not tax the income, or tax it at a very low rate, carry a greater risk of account holders hiding evidence of the real state of residence and thereby evading tax. In particular, some EU citizens may deliberately evade taxation in their EU State of residence by acquiring citizenship and declaring themselves tax resident in countries where enforcement of certain requirements is less strict than in others. EU financial institutions may  be less familiar with schemes in place outside the EU in order to evaluate their relevance. Documentation issued under some of these schemes may also make it very difficult for financial institutions to identify correctly the legitimate places of tax residence.

What can be done to limit these tax risks?

EU countries that offer investor citizenship and residence schemes are already subject to strict EU transparency rules that came into force in 2014 and which ensure that all Member States exchange information with each other on the financial accounts held by EU citizens from other countries. These transparency rules have in recent years been significantly extended to include a wealth of other information. Most recently, the rules have been supplemented with new reporting provisions for tax intermediaries (factsheet) who offer advice that could lead to tax evasion or fraud. At the same time, EU level networks of fraud investigators have also been strengthened to enable professionals from all Member States to exchange more information and best practices.

However, there are a number of actions could be taken outside of the EU’s tax transparency framework to minimise the risk of tax evasion when it comes to citizen investorship schemes such as considering the issues they raise for tax purposes in the work being carried out by Member States in the Council to reform the Code of Conduct for business taxation and whether the risks posed merit the inclusion of these issues in the criteria on which the EU’s list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions is based.

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-527_en.htm

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →