Mélanie Joly: révolutionner la fonction publique pour freiner l’érosion du français

2021/04/07 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see the details and how this understandable push will be balanced with efforts to increase representation at senior levels of Indigenous peoples and visible minorities:

Aux prises avec une fonction publique qui ne respecte « pas toujours » la Loi sur les langues officielles et un réseau diplomatique anglicisé, la ministre Mélanie Joly dit avoir donné un « coup de barre » et montré une« volonté politique claire » pour freiner l’érosion du français dans la machine fédérale, au pays et dans le monde. Passées plutôt inaperçues lors du dépôt de son « document de réforme » sur le français, des propositions spécifiques au secteur public pourraient, si elles se réalisent, créer une petite révolution au sein du gouvernement.

« Les gens savent très bien qu’il y a une culture qui fait en sorte que, normalement, quand une personne parle anglais autour de la table et qui ne parle pas français, tout le monde s’ajuste », dit la ministre Mélanie Joly pour illustrer des problèmes bien ancrés dans la culture de l’administration publique. En entretien téléphonique avec Le Devoir, celle qui a hérité du portefeuille des langues officielles fin 2019 dit vouloir envoyer un message aux fonctionnaires : cette culture doit changer.

Lors du dépôt, en février, de son « document de réforme », que la ministre appelle parfois son « livre blanc », le gros de l’attention médiatique a été consacré au fait que le gouvernement libéral exprime son désir d’utiliser désormais la Loi sur les langues officielles pour protéger le français aussi auQuébec, et non seulement comme langue minoritaire dans le reste du pays. Cela, pour atteindre une « égalité réelle » entre le français et l’anglais d’un océan à l’autre.

Or, de nombreux passages du document de 30 pages laissent entrevoir un changement assez radical dans la manière dont les deux langues sont appelées à être mises sur un pied d’égalité au sein des bureaux du gouvernement fédéral, dont presque la moitié des employés francophones des régions bilingues disent qu’ils se sentent mal à l’aise de s’exprimer en français. De grandes sections sont aussi consacrées à l’importance du rôle du français dans la conduite de la diplomatie canadienne dans le monde, après qu’une enquête du Devoir eut révélée que la haute direction d’Affaires mondiale Canada est constituée essentiellement d’anglophones faisant accéder d’autres anglophones aux postes les plus importants.

Exigence du français

Selon la vision de la ministre Joly, le gouvernement doit abolir le double standard des exigences linguistiques entre, d’une part, les francophones desquels on exige une excellente maîtrise de l’anglais écrit pour accéder à des postes de gestion et, d’autre part, les anglophones pour qui un français simplement fonctionnel peut très bien faire l’affaire. Pour ce faire, les exigences linguistiques sont appelées à être rehaussées, et plus de formation doit être offerte pour mettre à niveau les fonctionnaires. « Il faut aussi une bonne maîtrise du français écrit [en plus de la bonne maîtrise de l’anglais]. C’est ça, l’idée. C’est ça, le réel bilinguisme », explique Mélanie Joly.

Encore faut-il assurer un suivi auprès des différentes branches administratives du gouvernement fédéral. « Le problème qu’on avait, c’est que c’était une loi [sur les langues officielles] qui n’était pas toujours respectée », dit la ministre. Puisqu’ils sont isolés chacun dans leur coin, les ministères ont pris la mauvaise habitude de ne pas prendre toujours au sérieux leurs obligations en matière de langues officielles, a-t-elle constaté, rapports administratifs à l’appui. « C’est comme si, chaque fois, il fallait que j’appelle mes collègues pour savoir s’ils avaient fait le suivi, ou [comme si] l’équipe et moi voyions dans leurs propositions qu’il y avait des choses quine fonctionnaient pas au niveau des langues officielles », se rappelle-t-elle.

Dans sa nouvelle version, promise d’ici la fin de l’année 2021, la Loi sur les langues officielles devrait bénéficier non seulement d’un commissaire qui aura plus de pouvoirs pour faire appliquer ses recommandations, mais aussi d’une « unité » au sein du Conseil du Trésor qui aura pour mission de faire respecter la loi auprès de tous les employés.

« Il faut être capable de trouver une façon pour que, lorsqu’on est francophone, on puisse exercer notre travail en français au sein de notre fonction publique », fait valoir Mélanie Joly. Se basant sur les grands progrès réalisés au cours des 50 dernières années pour rendre l’État fédéral bilingue, alors qu’il peinait autrefois à donner des services en français, la ministre Joly croit que son document de travail donne un « coup de barre » à l’administration, lui indiquant les orientations du prochain chantier visant à l’égalité au sein des employés.

« Maintenant, on sait que le système n’est pas parfait, et on peut bâtir à partir de nos acquis pour nous assurer qu’il n’y a pas d’érosion du français au sein de notre fonction publique, alors que ce sont de nouvelles générations de fonctionnaires qui rejoignent les rangs des ministères et qu’elles ont eu accès à des cours d’immersion en français [au Canada anglais]. »

Dans le reste du monde

Le 18 mars dernier, les quatre sous-ministres d’Affaires mondiales Canada ont conjointement signé une lettre, envoyée à tous les employés, qui réaffirme que « le bilinguisme fait partie intégrante du Canada » et que l’organisation « a le rôle unique de représenter les intérêts et les valeurs du pays sur la scène internationale dans les deux langues officielles ».

« Nous incitons tous les employés à utiliser davantage le français et nous demandons à tous les gestionnaires de donner l’exemple dans leurs propres communications », peut-on lire dans le courriel obtenu par Le Devoir. Il ne s’agit pas d’un hasard. La conduite de la diplomatie en français est explicitée à de nombreuses reprises dans le document de réforme que la ministre Joly a présenté en février. « Ça a des impacts et c’est normal que notre fonction publique réagisse. Elle voit venir [les changements] et elle s’adapte parce qu’on a dit qu’on allait déposer un projet de loi », indique la ministre.

Tout en faisant le constat d’« une migration vers l’anglais pour tout le monde, pour tous les peuples », Mélanie Joly souhaite essentiellement tirer profit du caractère bilingue du Canada dans les relations avec les autres pays, ainsi que contribuer davantage aux instances internationales qui en font la promotion, comme l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF).

« On est dans un monde où, essentiellement, on a tout avantage à développer des accords de libre-échange, des ententes culturelles, à créer des ponts entre les nations. Si on ne le fait pas, d’autres vont le faire. Donc, pourquoi ne pas utiliser nos racines, ce qui nous unit comme francophonie ? »

Mélanie Joly précise que les nombreux éléments abordés dans son document de réforme ne se retrouveront pas nécessairement tous dans la nouvelle Loi sur les langues officielles promise par le gouvernement Trudeau, qu’ils pourraient prendre d’autres formes. Par exemple, le souhait de donner un coup de pouce à la vie en français dans la capitale, Ottawa, sera plutôt traduit par des aides financières. Il est également toujours trop tôt pour savoir si le droit de travailler en français dans les entreprises privées de compétence fédérale au Québec sera inclus au projet de loi ou s’il fera partie d’une éventuelle réforme du Code canadien du travail. Un groupe d’experts mandaté pour se pencher sur la question doit remettre ses conclusions le 8 mai.

Source: Mélanie Joly: révolutionner la fonction publique pour freiner l’érosion du français

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

GPHIN: Top scientists propose moving pandemic warning system outside government

2021/04/07 Leave a comment

Understand and share the concerns, but I would prefer to address these and related problems at PHAC identified by media coverage and the recent OAG report.

The WHO also had its issues, relying too much on Chinese government information (or lack thereof).

But hopefully this initiative will increase government focus and attention that COVID has brought to current weaknesses:

A group of top scientists concerned about the decline of the federal pandemic early warning system in the years before COVID-19 emerged have proposed relocating the operation to a university where it can work independently of government.

The proposal is aimed at restoring the Global Public Health Intelligence Network to its former status as an internationally respected pandemic surveillance system. Documents outlining the plan were submitted to an independent panel in Ottawa that is reviewing the system’s future.

According to the documents, GPHIN would work with the World Health Organization and be based at the University of Ottawa’s Bruyère Research Institute. The university and the WHO back the idea, says the proposal, which was reviewed by The Globe and Mail.

“We propose the creation of a Canadian-based WHO collaborating centre for global health intelligence,” the proposal states. Such a move “would provide a new, stable and cost-effective environment for the future management of GPHIN.

“GPHIN must be guaranteed freedom from government influence or interference. To achieve independence of any future government influence, bias or interference, GPHIN must be situated outside of government.”

A Globe and Mail investigation last year found that GPHIN’s capabilities had been allowed to erode over the past decade as priorities within the government changed, and senior officials in the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) sought to deploy its resources elsewhere.

Some of the core functions of the system, which provided crucial intelligence before and during the 2003 SARS crisis and 2009 H1N1 outbreak, were silenced in 2018 and 2019. With no pandemic threats apparent, management in the department sought to shift resources to areas that didn’t involve outbreak surveillance.

The proposal to partner with the WHO is being led by Ron St. John, a former top federal epidemiologist who helped create GPHIN in the 1990s, and other current and former top federal scientists. If it succeeds, the operation would run as a non-profit, funded in part by the federal government, and also able to seek science and technology grants from other sources, which it currently cannot do.

That new funding would be used to rebuild GPHIN’s operations and expand the system’s technical capabilities, taking some of the financial burden off the government, the documents say. GPHIN’s annual budget is around $3-million, and federal documents show it lacked the resources needed to update or grow its surveillance capacity, particularly as the system was allowed to erode.

The proposal argues that the environment needed to properly run the pandemic early warning system no longer exists inside Public Health, due to a drain of scientific and medical expertise over the past decade.

“Meeting these principles and operational conditions is not possible within the current managerial environment that exists in PHAC,” the document states. “We cannot wait for these changes to happen, as waiting will result in irreversible degradation of GPHIN and further depriving users within the global public health surveillance community of an essential tool to detect and monitor public health threats.”

WHO collaborating centres around the world are a way for member countries to contribute resources to the WHO by offering skills or technology they have. The Bruyère Research Institute is already home to one such collaborating centre, which focuses on technology used to track global health equity.

At one time, GPHIN provided the WHO with as much as 20 per cent of its epidemiological intelligence, according to Ottawa’s records. The proposal documents say GPHIN would remain one of Canada’s key contributions to the WHO, with the government providing funding for the system’s analysts to work.

Health Minister Patty Hajdu ordered an independent review in September of how PHAC handled the system after a Globe investigation last summer detailed many of the problems.

A report by the Auditor-General of Canada issued two weeks ago also found that the federal government did not use the pandemic early warning system appropriately in the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, and that GPHIN failed to issue alerts. This contributed a series of faulty risk assessments as the virus began to spread around the world.

The independent review is expected to issue its final report in May, and the government won’t comment on its progress.

This is not the first time the idea of a WHO collaborating centre has been proposed for GPHIN. The proposal documents say the WHO has supported the idea since the SARS crisis, and has held talks on the subject six times, but those negotiations never came to fruition.

In 2005, talks were put on hold amid management changes inside Public Health. In 2009, similar discussions were halted due to the H1N1 outbreak. In 2012, another proposal was frozen during the Harper government’s deficit reduction plan. Similarly, talks in 2013, 2017, and 2018 never progressed due to internal restructuring in the Public Health Agency that resulted in management changes, and no further steps were taken.

The push to rebuild GPHIN comes at a time when other countries have identified the need to build their own early warning systems to help the international community detect major threats early and better contain outbreaks. The U.K. government and the Biden administration in the United States have signalled plans to bolster such capacities in recent months. An independent review examining the WHO’s pandemic preparedness is also expected to highlight the importance of such systems in its final report, expected this spring.

The epidemiologists behind the proposal say they want to restore Canada’s leadership in pandemic early warning and detection.

“GPHIN has achieved world-wide recognition as a rapid provider of accurate information regarding a variety of global events of public health importance,” the proposal says. “Future versions of GPHIN must build on and maintain this pre-eminent position. It’s Canadian origin and Canadian support during its lifetime is recognized and should be retained.”

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-top-scientists-propose-moving-pandemic-warning-system-outside/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Morning%20Update&utm_content=2021-4-6_7&utm_term=Morning%20Update:%20Top%20scientists%20propose%20moving%20pandemic%20warning%20system%20outside%20government&utm_campaign=newsletter&cu_id=%2BTx9qGuxCF9REU6kNldjGJtpVUGIVB3Y

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Akyol: It Is Time To Revive The Islamic Enlightenment

2021/04/07 1 Comment

Akyol’s commentary always relevant and interesting:

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram… Beheadings, terrorist attacks, massacres in the name of Islam… Do these grim episodes show that there is something wrong in the Muslim world today?

In the West, there are two popular answers to this question, which are diametrically opposite: The first is that these terrorists reveal “the true face of Islam,” which is a hopelessly violent and intolerant religion. The second answer is that, quite the contrary, these terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam,” which is only a religion of peace, while all troubles are created by socio‐​economic problems or foreign interventions.

As a Muslim myself who has been struggling with issues of freedom, human rights, and tolerance in the contemporary world of Islam, I believe both answers are wrong.

The first answer is wrong—and awfully unfair—because terrorists acting in the name of Islam are extremely marginal among the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, most of which are peaceful people with normal lives. So, those terrorists are “extremists” indeed.

However, the second answer is also wrong, because the terrorists in question have something to do with Islam: they are referring to certain verdicts in Islamic jurisprudence—the interpretation of the Sharia—only by taking them to new heights.

Look at how ISIS justifies massacring Shiites: by declaring them “apostates.” In return, mainstream Islamic authorities condemn ISIS, by typically saying, “No, you can’t declare fellow Muslims apostates.” But most of these authorities don’t say that no apostate should ever be targeted—because they still believe in the authoritativeness of a dubious narration from the Prophet Muhammad: “Whomever leaves his religion, kill him.”

Or look at how Al Qaeda justifies killing “blasphemers”—people such as Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. They rely on medieval Islamic jurists who defined sabb al‐​rasul, or “insulting the prophet,” as a capital crime. In return, mainstream Islamic authorities oppose Al Qaeda, typically by saying, “No you can’t punish blasphemy on a vigilante basis, especially in a non‐​Muslim county.” That is helpful, but most of these mainstream authorities still see blasphemy as a capital crime. Hence they do not oppose the harsh blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many other Muslim‐​majority countries.

Here is the underlying problem that modern‐​day Muslims need to frankly face: Islam, as a religion, found political power right at its birth. Therefore, most early Muslims did not see anything wrong with using coercive power to advance their faith—just as their contemporaries, such as the Byzantines or the Sassanids, were also doing. This coercive power included military conquests; a political order based on the supremacy of Muslims over non‐​Muslims; the enforcement of piety; and the violent suppression of blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy.

None of these were shocking in the pre‐​modern world, when Islam in fact often seemed to be a more lenient religion than Christianity, whose own marriage with power was reflected in the horrors of the Crusades or the tortures of the Inquisition. No wonder, in that pre‐​modern world, many Jews fled from Christendom to the Muslim Ottoman Empire to find safety and freedom.

Yet the world has changed dramatically in the past few centuries, with the rise of liberal democracies and universal human rights. Christianity—and Judaism—adopted to these modern values, by revising some of their illiberal doctrines. But Islamic jurisprudence, and the mindset beneath, has not changed much.

Therefore, mainstream Islam indeed needs that much‐​discussed transformation: a major reform. The right analogy in Western history is not the Protestant Reformation, though, which has been often referenced, but only inappropriately.

The right analogy is the Enlightenment, in particular the kind of Enlightenment advocated by John Locke, who offered a new interpretation of Christianity—not a rejection of it—to save it from its own centuries‐​old marriage with coercive power.

In fact, this has been realized since the 19th century—in the late Ottoman Empire, Arab World, and India—by self‐​declared “Islamic liberals.” Their efforts led to liberal constitutions, feminist reforms, and religious reinterpretations. Recently, British historian Christopher de Bellaigue has summarized these significant efforts as the “Islamic Enlightenment.”

Yet this very drive provoked “Islam’s counter‐​Enlightenment,” spearheaded by a wide range of Salafis, Islamists, and rigid conservatives. (The terrorists mentioned above represent their most extreme fringe.)

My new book, Reopening Muslim Minds: A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance, is meant to be an intervention into this big crisis of Islam. It aims to revive and advance the Islamic Enlightenment, by presenting a comprehensive argument for it—and, perhaps more importantly, by dismantling the theological roadblock that obstructs it.

The main challenge is simple, but also a big one: Can Islam give up coercive power? Can it be a religion that proposes its truth claims, but does not imposethem?

Many Muslims, who are happy to live in free societies or aspire for them, already say “yes.”

Yet there are others who emphatically say “no.”

Their zealotry threatens the future of liberty. It also threatens the future Muslim societies, and, in fact, the future of the Islamic faith—my faith—as well.

Hence I wrote this book to show why they are wrong, and why there is a better way to understand Islam.

A way where faith is reconciled with reason, expressed in freedom, and crowned with tolerance.

Source: It Is Time To Revive The Islamic Enlightenment

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with

Canada must formally apologize for its historic role in the enslavement of Africans in this country and acknowledge the contributions of Black Canadians

2021/04/06 Leave a comment

From one of the more prominent plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit against the Canadian government for past and current discrimination.

Question the need for a separate category under the Employment Equity Act for Black Canadians, given that the disaggregated data already includes Black Canadians, and government employment equity reports are now including that data.

And, as I have written elsewhere, disaggregated government employment and public service survey data highlights the similarities and differences between the different visible minority groups (https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=48735&action=edit), with some groups being comparable to Black Canadians, others doing better.

Hopefully, the federally regulated sectors will start to collect comparable disaggregated data, as agree this would be helpful. But it should be collected for all visible minority groups, not just Black Canadians:

American civil rights activist James Baldwin once asked, “how much time do you want for your ‘progress.’ ” Canadian Black politicians, leaders, professors, civil rights activists, and associations have for years called upon Canada to formally apologize for its role in the enslavement of Africans in this country. This long-awaited apology would bring about acknowledgment, recognition, and much-needed healing of the effects of slavery still reflected in the treatment and the experiences of Black Canadians. Canada’s long overdue apology for the treatment of the No. 2 Construction Battalion and recognition of Emancipation Day are not enough.

For too long, Black Canadians have been fighting anti-Black racism symptoms by calling for changes in the criminal justice system, employment, housing, and education sectors. We have also been calling for changes in the same organizations that are meant to bring about equality, specifically amendments to the Employment Equity Act (EEA) to establish a category for Black Canadians, as well as to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which is more often than not dismissive of anti-Black racism. As of March 2021, more than 600 former and current Black public service employees are suing the federal government over the unjust practice of Black employee exclusion due to systemic discrimination dating back from the 1970s. More than 12,000 Canadians have signed a petition calling on Justin Trudeau and the Government of Canada to end systemic discrimination and Black employee exclusion within the federal public service.

Black Canadians lack capital power and political representation; thus, our calls for change are dismissed and our demands shoved for another day, promises of change are never realized. The Canadian government itself practices discrimination against Black Canadians and is thus unwilling to force change. In addition to the above mentioned lawsuit by Black government of Canada employees, Canada has officially apologized to several indigenous peoples, apologized over the Chinese head tax, and for sending Japanese-Canadians to internment camps during the Second World War. The government has also rightly apologized for its discrimination, criminalization, and the injustices endured by the Canadian LGBTQ community members. Yet, Black Canadians are still awaiting such turning points and are disheartened to repeatedly ask a prime minister who himself repeatedly wore a Black face and contributed to our dehumanization. So, long as the Canadian government discriminates, it cannot in good faith and with the same breath implement equal rights and progress.

In a 2019 survey, the Canada Race Relations Foundation found that Black Canadians and Indigenous peoples are the most likely groups to report racial discrimination experiences, and they are also the groups widely understood by others to experience such treatment.

The government is aware of the pervasive nature of anti-Black racism in Canada. In 2017, the federal government invited the United Nations Human Rights Council working group of experts on people of African descent to examine the legal, institutional and policy framework and measures taken to prevent racial discrimination and related intolerance faced by Black Canadians. While acknowledging Canada’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, the UN expressed deep concern about Black Canadians’ human rights situation.

It noted that Black Canadians faced disproportionately high unemployment rates and forced to take low-paying jobs with little security and poor prospects when working. The UN cited the multiple and intersectional forms of racism at play against Black Canadian women who make 37 per cent less than white men, and 15 per cent are less than white women, with over one in four living below the Canadian poverty line. The UN working group recommendations included that Canada recognizes Black Canadians as a distinct group who continue to make profound economic, political, cultural and spiritual contributions to Canada. Additionally, it proposed a mandatory nationwide policy on collecting data disaggregated by race and other identities to determine if and when racial disparities exist for Black Canadians. Furthermore, it remarked that the category of “visible minority” obscures the degrees of disparities in Black Canadians’ treatment and specific human rights concerns.

In January 2018, Canada officially recognized the UN International Decade for People of African Descent, stipulating that the international community acknowledges that people of African descent represent a distinct group whose human rights must be promoted and protected. It also calls for adoption or strengthening of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and ensuring its effective implementation.

Amid COVID-19, Statistics Canada indicated that the pandemic had hard-hit Canada’s Black population (approximately one million people aged 15 to 69). Data revealed that in the three months ending in January 2021, the unemployment rate among Black Canadians (13.1 per cent) was about 70 per cent higher than that among non-visible minority Canadians (7.7 per cent). Additionally, almost one-third of employed Black women (31.7 per cent) worked in health care and social assistance in January 2021, bearing the brunt of response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Groundbreaking research by the Edmonton-based African Canadian Civic Engagement Council and Innovative Research Group unveiled how COVID-19 is disproportionately impacting the health and finances of Black Canadians. It showed that Black communities are experiencing layoffs, reduced work hours, and reduced household incomes at higher rates. Fifty-six percent of Black respondents said their job, or the job of someone they knew, had been affected, compared with the national average of 46 per cent.

The government’s ongoing initiatives and resources to address systemic racism and anti-Black racism in Canadian institutions and the privately regulated sectors are welcomed. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Bardish Chagger, minister of diversity and inclusion and youth, acknowledge that racism is one of the root causes of social and economic gaps for Indigenous peoples. The more recent 2021 Privy Council call to action to deputy ministers, heads of separate agencies, and heads of federal agencies to reflect deeply on the unjust treatment of Black people and other racialized groups and Indigenous peoples is helpful. It is encouraging that the Privy Council statements distinctly recognized and named Black Canadians in its call to eradicate systemic racism and appropriately used the words racialized communities rather than visible minorities and Indigenous Canadians, rather than aboriginal peoples. This is in stark contrast to the outdated federal legalization meant to eradicate systemic racism and take positive measures towards employment equity in the federal government and federally regulated private sectors, namely the EEA. The Federal Black Employee Caucus (FBEC), established in 2018 to support efforts to address issues faced by Black federal public servants, is also a positive development in the governments’ efforts towards engaging Black employees and learning about their first-hand experiences with systemic racism as it relates to barriers to career to advancements.

The Employment Equity Act requires that federal jurisdiction employers take proactive measures to measure progress on the programs it puts in place. The Public Service Commission (PSC) collects and analyzes hiring, promotion, selection process, survey response and other data for these designated groups. In its January of 2021 audit report on employment equity representation in recruitment, the Commission found that the representation rate of visible minority groups declined at the organizational screening and assessment stages. Of the visible minority sub-groups examined in the audit, Black candidates experienced a more significant drop in representation than other visible minority groups, both at the organizational screening stage and at the assessment stage. Additionally, according to the Federal Black Employee Caucus (FBEC), Black people encounter more significant challenges and obstacles than their mainstream counterparts in their efforts to be recruited and promoted in the federal public service.  The FBEC further state that Black federal employees report above-average levels of harassment and discrimination and are over-represented in the lower ranks. They note ongoing marginalization and underemployment affect the health of some Black employees and force others to leave the public service and that current and former diversity initiatives aren’t solving the problem. The FBEC called on the government to collect disaggregated data on the experiences of the Black public servant and noted that the currently visible minority category masks the representation, recruitment and advancement challenges of Black people. The collection and analysis of disaggregated data have also been made by Liberal MP Greg Fergus, the Canadian caucus of Black Parliamentarians’ chair.

Where is the political will for real change?

In a missed opportunity, in November of 2020, the government passed amendments to the Employment Equity Regulations under the EEA and introduced new pay transparency requirements that came into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Had there been a prioritization of anti-Black systemic racism and its painful impact on the Canadian Black populations, indeed, the government could have enacted the above recommendations.

As former senator Donald Oliver outlined, the legislation can be amended in two weeks, should the government so wills. As such, the minister of labour is encouraged to consider the Canadian Black population as a separate and distinct group within the EEA and take immediate steps to collect disaggregated data along racial and intersectional identities to understand African Canadians’ experiences in the labour market and associated human rights concerns. Future amendments to the Act should also include a robust accountability model akin to the Canadian Official Languages Act. Under OLA the duty of each federal institution to take positive measures is enforceable. This means that the public and the commissioner of official languages may seek court remedies if they feel that the duty under Part VII of the act has not been met.

Profound demands for justice have been enlisted following the tragic murder of George Floyd, which sparks international demands for justice, and equality including in Canada. This will continue until measurable progress is achieved and history shall keep recording. With COVID-19’s devastating impact on Black Canadians, their families, children, and communities, the time to act and take measurable action is now.

Huda Mukbil is a national security expert and a former senior intelligence officer with Canadian Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Source: https://hilltimes.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a90bfb63c26a30f02131a677b&id=64bcc7c44b&e=685e94e554

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

UK Home Office: new deportation law may discriminate against ethnic minorities

2021/04/06 1 Comment

Of note:

The Home Office has admitted that a new immigration rule to criminalise and deport migrant rough sleepers may discriminate against ethnic minorities, including Asian women who have survived domestic violence.

An internal document outlines the department’s analysis of how the new power – which prompted widespread outrage when it came into force four months ago – would also indirectly affect at-risk groups, including people with disabilities.

The eight-page equality impact assessment, obtained by Liberty Investigates, accepts the potential of the rule to indirectly discriminate on the grounds of race, since some factors leading to homelessness disproportionately affect people from particular ethnicities. “The main reason Asian women give for being homeless is because of domestic violence,” the assessment states.

Source: Home Office: new deportation law may discriminate against ethnic minorities

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Algeria withdraws law stripping citizenship to opponents abroad, big loss for regime hardliners

2021/04/06 Leave a comment

Of note:

The Algerian regime backed away from issuing a controversial law that would have stripped political opponents abroad of their Algerian nationality. he draft law was presented Wednesday, 3 March by the ultra-hardliner Justice Minister Belkacem Zeghmati at the Government’s meeting. On Sunday, 4 April, the attempt by extremist nationalists in government has failed and is now considered definitely buried.

The Zeghmati proposed law generated hostile reactions, prompting President Tebboune to announce on Sunday in a TV interview that “There has been misunderstanding and as such, the draft bill was withdrawn.”  Tebboune has also acknowledged that “the bill would have threatened social and national cohesion, as well as state security.”

At the heart of the now-defunct bill is the Algerian regime’s efforts to eliminate any form of opposition, in particular among Algerian opponents abroad. Many such opponents are extremely vocal critics of the regime with hundreds of thousands of online followers.  The Algerian regime has been working extremely hard to discredit any voice that stands with the Hirak pro-democracy movement. In 2019, the regime, headed by the late General Gaid Salah, attempted to divide Algerians along ethnic lines, by demonizing the Amazigh people. The effort has failed miserably. This year, the government’s political police are seeking to create divisions in the Hirak by pitting secularists against Islamist opponents, in particular a group known as the Rachad Movement, who have been the principal targets of the Zeghamati law. It is also going after secular activists, with recent articles in pro-regime press attacking the likes of secular human rights lawyer, Mustafa Bouchachi and many others. Opposition parties are also facing turmoil, with the Algerian political police attempting to create major divisions as in the FFS and the Workers Party.

In response, the Hirak movement remains unimpressed. The latest Friday’s rallies were the biggest to date this year, with almost all cities contributing with their anti-government marches. Slogans used during those marches included references against the military and its notorious intelligence agencies. Protesters have been chanting slogas accusing the military of being “traitors.”

The withdrawal of the Zeghmati law is clearly a major defeat for the hardliners in the regime. However, we expect this faction to remain active in preventing any democratic progress in Algeria

Source: Algeria withdraws law stripping citizenship to opponents abroad, big loss for regime hardliners

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Un Français qui a échoué à un test de français pour immigrer au Québec dénonce un processus «trop sélectif»

2021/04/06 Leave a comment

Not aware of similar circumstances with English test but anecdotally I have heard immigrants with advanced English knowledge have bristled at having to pay for testing to become citizens:

Yohan Flaman est français et a fait toute sa scolarité en français. Arrivé au Québec en 2018, il a pourtant échoué à une partie du test de français pour obtenir sa résidence permanente. Il dénonce « un processus beaucoup trop sélectif », trop cher et « contre-productif », symptomatique selon lui des autres cafouillages récents du système d’immigration dans la province.

« Sincèrement, on dirait que c’est un examen qui est fait pour être raté », lance-t-il aujourd’hui après avoir réussi le test à son deuxième essai et déposé sa demande de résidence permanente. « Je m’étais dit que c’était dans la poche, mais les consignes sont tellement longues et certaines questions sont tirées par les cheveux. » Chaque section du test est également minutée de manière très serrée, ajoute-t-il.

Pour être sélectionné comme immigrant permanent à travers le Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ), un candidat doit en effet démontrer sa maîtrise du français. Il y a plusieurs façons de le faire : en ayant une scolarité de trois ans en français de niveau équivalent au secondaire, en prouvant la réussite d’un cours de francisation de niveau 7 ou encore en passant l’un des tests reconnus par le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI).

Pressé par le temps

Le niveau 7 (sur un total de 12) est considéré par le MIFI comme un niveau intermédiaire. Il implique de pouvoir communiquer à l’oral dans des situations partiellement prévisibles à propos de besoins courants. Quant au test, le niveau à atteindre est « B2 », soit intermédiaire avancé, ce qui implique de pouvoir donner « des avis argumentés » et de converser ou de comprendre un discours « de façon claire et détaillée ».

La section mesurant la compréhension orale du français a particulièrement donné du fil à retordre à Yohan Flaman : il faut répondre à 60 questions en 40 minutes (y compris les consignes données à l’oral), ce qui équivaut à moins de 40 secondes par question. « Je n’imagine pas combien ça peut être difficile pour quelqu’un qui apprend le français en plus de son travail à temps plein, dit-il. Je comprends qu’il faut un minimum, mais la barre est trop haute. »

L’homme de 39 ans se porte ainsi à la défense d’autres collègues qui ne sont pas francophones. Si même un Français peut échouer, alors le Québec se met clairement « les bâtons dans les roues », dit-il. Il va sans dire qu’un échec à ce test, qui coûte 240 $, a un effet domino sur le reste du dossier.

Maintenant que sa demande est déposée, M. Flaman n’est tout de même pas au bout de ses peines. Le Devoir révélait la semaine dernière qu’il faut actuellement compter entre 27 et 33 mois pour obtenir sa résidence permanente. « Beaucoup d’amis et de collègues sont dégoûtés et retournent en France », raconte celui qui admet avoir lui-même songé à repartir avec sa femme québécoise.

Il déplore surtout le fait de n’avoir « aucun interlocuteur » pour faire le suivi de son dossier d’immigration. « La seule chose que l’agent d’immigration peut te dire, c’est que ton dossier est en traitement. Toi, tu as juste le droit de fermer ta gueule », laisse-t-il tomber.

Une question délicate

Le jeune homme met au défi les Québécois d’essayer de passer ce genre d’épreuve, tout en soulignant l’ironie que ces tests soient envoyés en France pour être corrigés. Les deux entités qui administrent la passation de ces examens sont en effet enregistrées de l’autre côté de l’océan, soit France Éducation internationale et la Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris.

Camionneur de longue distance depuis son arrivée avec un permis de travail temporaire, Yohan Flaman fait régulièrement des voyages du Centre-du-Québec vers les États-Unis. « Je me débrouille en anglais et, même si c’est parfois limité, l’important est de se comprendre », explique-t-il.

Comme plusieurs autres travailleurs temporaires, il considère donc que de nombreux secteurs d’emploi ne nécessitent pas une connaissance aussi élevée du français pour fonctionner et s’intégrer.

En effet, Le Devoir rapportait jeudi que plusieurs travailleurs temporaires et associations d’employeurs demandent à Québec d’assouplir les exigences de français pour certains programmes d’immigration économique dans la province. « Ce n’est vraiment pas l’ouvrage qui manque », dit M. Flaman.

La protection du français fait l’objet d’un large consensus au Québec, mais les emplois occupés par les travailleurs temporaires ne nécessitent pas toujours un français avancé. « C’est presque tabou. Selon moi, c’est une forme d’aveuglement puisque les Québécois eux-mêmes tombent vite dans l’anglais dans certains milieux de travail », observe quant à lui Stephan Reichhold, directeur de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes.

Dans le cas où des immigrants temporaires ne parviendraient pas au niveau 7 en français, seul le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration a le pouvoir de contourner cette règle.

Pour l’instant, seul un programme pilote pour les travailleurs en intelligence artificielle qui gagnent plus de 100 000 $ par année permet de déroger à cette règle du français.

Source: Un Français qui a échoué à un test de français pour immigrer au Québec dénonce un processus «trop sélectif»

English version below:

If someone from France can fail Quebec’s French test for immigrants, how hard is it for a non-francophone to pass?

Yohan Flaman, 39, a truck driver from Limoges, France, who came to Quebec in 2018 under the Quebec Experience Program, wasn’t too nervous about taking the French test set by the department of Immigration, Francization and Integration.

Source: Immigrant from France fails Quebec’s French test for newcomers

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

@JohnIbbitson: Canadians need to form a consensus on long-term #immigration policy [but what should that consensus be?]

2021/04/05 Leave a comment

John Ibbitson follows on this previous article, Politics It’s time for Canada to focus on expanding our population, highlighting former PM Mulroney’s call for increased immigration and a Canadian population around 100m by the turn of the century and the need for a white paper to help build the arguments to get us there.

However, before we get too caught up in the advocacy by the Century Initiative, the Business Council of Canada and the Globe and Mail, we should step back and ask some fundamental questions a white paper should ask beyond the basic demographic arguments:

  • Does more immigration increase or decrease inequality?
  • In the immediate post-COVID period, should immigration increase given what we know from previous downturns regarding how the most recent immigrants suffer short and some longer-term scarring?
  • How should we factor in the lower-paid “essential workers” and will increased immigration improve their working conditions or not?
  • Longer-term, what are the more likely affects of automation and AI on the labour market and the need for skilled and semi-skilled workers?
  • How realistic is it to improve settlement of immigrants outside of our major cities and regions given past and current experience?
  • Will Canada realistically invest in the needed public and private infrastructure needed to accommodate such growth, again given past and current experience?
  • Will Canada be able to do so in a manner that respects our current and likely future climate change commitments?
  • Will Indigenous peoples accept increased immigration and the focus on newcomers compared to their concerns?
  • Will the greater imbalance between immigration to Quebec and the rest of Canada place further pressures on the federation?

A white paper that largely replicates the group think of the Century Initiative and related players would be a disservice to Canadians, rather than the needed more thoughtful and balanced discussions:

Though progressives and conservatives in the United States disagree on practically everything, they do agree that Canada has a better immigration system.

But as a new paper in the magazine American Affairs points out, they think this only because neither side fully understands how the Canadian system works.

Right-wing Americans praise Canada’s ability to police its borders while focusing on economic migrants who can make an immediate contribution. No less an authority than Donald Trump declared, when he was president: “I think we should have merit-based immigration like they have in Canada” so that “we have people coming in that have a good track record.”

But American conservatives would be less impressed if they realized that Canada protects its border through a dense skein of rules and regulations, a so-called bureaucratic border wall.

The left, on the other hand, celebrates Canada’s robust commitment to diversity through immigration. But they would be appalled to learn that those same bureaucratic rules – such as requiring that all employees provide a social insurance number – make it virtually impossible for undocumented workers to live in this country, and that our system limits diversity by favouring immigrants from more-developed regions, such as South and East Asia, over less developed regions, including parts of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

“Each side sees only what it wants to see, emphasizing those aspects of Canada’s system that align with their ideological predispositions, while excluding the others,” wrote Michael Cuenco, a Canadian writer based in Calgary.

“The most vocal elements of the Right and the Left are like the blind men grasping at different parts of an elephant. No one has bothered to offer to either side an honest description of the whole.”

Both the left and the right in the U.S. might be even more nonplussed were they to learn that former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney has joined a growing chorus calling for Canada to more than double its population to 100 million by 2100.

They might not understand that what truly distinguishes the Canadian immigration system from the American is that Canada’s reflects decades of increasing ideological convergence on immigration policy, even as America becomes ever-more polarized.

The question for Canadians is whether we are willing to converge on future immigration targets in the same way we have in the past.

Progressive Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker first declared that immigration should be colour-blind. Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal government converted that principle into the points system. Liberal Pierre Trudeau married immigration to multiculturalism, while Mr. Mulroney tripled the intake. Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin converted a system that favoured the family-class category into one that favoured economic-class applicants, while Conservative Stephen Harper and Liberal Justin Trudeau further refined and expanded the program.

If future Liberal and Conservative governments were to choose to, say, (a) convert the temporary target of more than 400,000 immigrants a year recently established to overcome the cutbacks imposed by the pandemic into a permanent target; b) gradually move toward 500,000 a year over the course of this decade and c) reassess Canada’s needs as the population approaches 50 million at mid-century, that would be nothing out of keeping with the past six decades of immigration policy, which saw Canada’s population more than double from 18 million in 1960 to 38 million today.

Whether we want that future is something else. Proponents of population growth must convince skeptics that Canada can more than double in numbers while still meeting commitments on global warming, that cities can grow in population without increasing sprawl, that creativity and productivity require a young, dynamic populace.

But we need to remember: We got where we are by agreeing we should grow robustly, and that it didn’t matter where people came from, as long as they shared the values that ground the nation. That’s what brought the Irish and the Germans and the Ukrainians here in the 19th century, what brought the Italians and Portuguese and Greeks here after the war, what brought the Vietnamese boat people here and people from Somalia and Lebanon, the Hong Kongers and then Mainlanders and new arrivals from French West Africa and Haiti, the Sikhs and Hindus from India and the Sri Lankans and Filipinos and …

A hundred million? Why stop?

Source: Canadians need to form a consensus on long-term immigration policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Fears that international student intake will keep falling

2021/04/05 Leave a comment

Not much new but nevertheless worth reading:

Canada suffered a year-on-year drop of between 20% and 30% in international student enrolment between the 2019-20 academic year and the 2020-21 academic year because of the COVID crisis.

The absence of 65,000 international students is already affecting local economies, university budgets and research in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

But university and college administrators, and non-governmental organisations involved with bringing international students to Canada are concerned that travel rules introduced in February 2021 to restrict the spread of COVID-19 will further depress the numbers of international students coming to Canada, both this spring and in September.  

Since this February, international flights to Canada can land only in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, and travellers have been required to be quarantined at designated hotels.  

According to Denise Amyot, president and CEO of Colleges and Institutes Canada, these new regulations have disproportionately impacted colleges and universities in smaller cities and rural and remote areas because students must serve the entirety of their quarantine at the government-approved hotels.  

“There’s no designated airport in Atlantic Canada,” she notes. International students destined for universities in this region must first quarantine in a hotel at one of the hubs at a cost of CA$2,000 (US$1,600).

“This is very costly, especially for an international student,” Amyot says.  

In addition, once the student travels to their destination university in, say, Halifax, Nova Scotia, or Quebec City, they will have to quarantine again. While the final tallies are not in, Amyot says, because of these two layers of quarantine, we are seeing a large number of deferrals for the spring, summer and upcoming fall intakes.

International students whose universities are near one of the designated airports must quarantine in the government-approved hotels for at least three days, the period it normally takes to receive COVID-19 test results. If they test negative, and if their school has a plan approved by the local health authority and the federal government, the student can be taken to a quarantine centre on his or her school’s campus.  

In an effort to lessen the financial burden on international students, the University of Waterloo in southwestern Ontario picks up the cost for days four through to 14 for students who quarantine on its main campus in Kitchener, Ontario. 

“The cost,” says University of Waterloo Associate Vice Provost Chris Read, “is about CA$2,000 and includes transportation from the airport, accommodation and food”. This programme explains why the university’s year-over-year enrolment of international students has remained stable at 8,861 in 2020-21 compared with 8,897 the year before. 

Concerns about international students’ mental health has prompted the University of Calgary to include a Zoom-based buddy system in its quarantine programme. The buddies are not counsellors, says Dean and Vice-Provost Dr Robin Yates, but are peer volunteers, “a friendly face who will keep them company”.

For its part, in addition to providing quarantine space in its dormitories, the University of Toronto has established a CA$9.1 million (US$7.2 million) fund to help international students pay for the period of time they have to quarantine in a hotel.

The financial impact resulting from the absence of international students is being felt across the country and is affecting the bottom line of universities and colleges, according to Professor Robert Falconer of the University of Calgary School of Public Policy.

“Across the country, with a few exceptions, universities are relying more and more on international students as a primary source of revenue. British Columbia is most exposed with over 50% of its tuition revenue coming from international students,” he says. 

The differential rates charged to international students varies, but, Falconer told University World News, “it is quite significant”. At Falconer’s university, tuition and fees for international students in the sciences is CA$8,000 (US$6,400) a year, while it is CA$3,000 for domestic students. 

The figure is even greater at the University of Waterloo. Tuition fees for domestic students enrolled in graduate studies in architecture are CA$10,900 as compared to CA$59,700 (US$47,600) for international students. In the faculties of applied health sciences and art, the tuition fees for each group are CA$7,700 and CA$40,900, respectively. 

According to Yates of the University of Calgary, the differential paid by international students is vital. “It helps institutions to be able to offer programmes, especially smaller institutions, that they would not have been able to afford otherwise, either because the schools did not have enough money or enough domestic students to be able to offer that programme.”

Marco Mendicino, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, could not have been blunter. “If we didn’t have international students, we would have a gaping hole in our economy. They contribute CA$21 billion [US$16.7 billion] to the Canadian economy as compared to CA$19 billion contributed by the automotive industry,” he says.

“This contribution might not be noticed in larger centres, but in small university towns like the University of Lethbridge [Alberta] or in Thunder Bay [Lakehead University], Ontario, they have a large impact through renting homes and buying goods and services,” says Falconer. 

Threat to STEM programmes

Falconer, Yates, Amyot and the other experts University World Newsinterviewed were especially concerned with how the decline in the number of international graduate students threatens Canada’s STEM programmes.

Of the 2,000 international graduate students at the University of Calgary, some 400 have requested deferrals and have remained in their home countries.  

According to Yates, about 200 are studying remotely. In his immunology lab, Yates told University World News that while certain tasks, such as data analysis, can be done remotely for a month or two, at some point you have to go back into the lab to generate more data.  

“Graduate students comprise a significant part of the workforce doing meaningful research that is pushing the research agenda forward for Canada. Anywhere between 20% and 80% of any given research group is composed of graduate students and on average a little more than one third of these students are international graduate students.”

Yates’ University of Calgary colleague, Falconer, is concerned that the brain drain in the STEM fields will hobble Canada’s post-COVID recovery. 

“The OECD countries are considering what a post-COVID industrial policy, and research and development policy looks like. We have to consider [whether without these students] we even have the staffing and personnel industrial base to facilitate a post-COVID industrial economy?” he asks.

To the question, especially in a pandemic, of why Canadian taxpayers should be funding graduate schools that educate international students, Yates answered: “To drive research agendas and move our research forward, we need the best and brightest from across the globe. The taxpayers deserve when they spend millions of dollars on research that that money be spent in the best way possible. And that is to get the best people here into Canada.”

It is important, Yates adds, that people understand that the pure or applied research that international graduate students undertake in labs like his undergirded the creation of the vaccines against COVID-19.  

“The PhDs that come out of these programmes are making and designing these vaccines. The workforces that are in AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer are sourced from graduate programmes and these include international students,” he says.

Corridor kept open

Minister Mendicino, Falconer and Amyot each emphasised that unlike similar countries such as Australia, Canada has kept the corridor for international students open because of the long-term importance of international students to the country.  

At present 25% of Canadians are older than 65, which means that for each retired person there are fewer than three working and paying into the social insurance system and taxes.  

“Canada needs immigration. We need people to decide to live here because we have such a low [1.5] fertility rate,” says Amyot.  

“Despite the challenges of the pandemic,” says Mendicino, “we have kept the international programme open, and we have improved it.” 

The four improvements, Mendicino explained to University World News, amount to a ladder, at the top of which international students can apply for permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship.  

The first improvement allowed international students to start their studies online in their home country. 

The second changed the international students’ work permits to give them the right to work in fields other than their course of study. 

The third was keeping open the corridor, which required planning with universities and colleges, and, negotiating agreements with the provinces; this last always a fraught activity in the fractious Canadian federation. 

The fourth improvement provides additional work permit flexibility to postgraduate students so as not to penalise them for starting their programmes online. Once they have graduated and found jobs, thousands of (former) international students apply for permanent residency.

“What I see as minister is an opportunity to broaden and accelerate the pathways that not only allow international students to come and study but also to stay in Canada and build the next chapter of their lives in Canada,” says Mendicino, who himself is the child of Italian immigrants.

Source: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post-nl.php?story=20210402091353306

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

UK: Ten previous inquiries expose the real problem with the Race Commission’s findings

2021/04/05 Leave a comment

As all too often happens with inquiries:

Amid Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, Boris Johnson promised a Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. Announced in a Telegraph column(where else?) about Winston Churchill (who else?), it was clear even then that this was a weak response to a widespread problem.

The Commission’s remit was vague (with its sights on “inequality across the UK, not just that affecting the BAME community”), and those eventually charged with it had previously expressed reservations about the existence of institutional racism.

Yet the main problem was that previous inquiries, many set up by past governments using official data, had already exposed the racial disparities in the areas under the Commission’s remit: education, work, policing and health.

The information is already out there, but the recommendations from those reports have not been taken up. Last June, when the Commission was announced, I counted 375 recommendations to the government in ten different inquiries – from the 1999 Macpherson Report following the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, to 2020’s Lessons Learned review into the Windrush scandal – which are yet to be implemented.

As my colleague Ailbhe Rea points out, the latest Commission’s findings were carefully briefed ahead of publication to achieve headlines suggesting institutional racism is “no longer” a problem in Britain.

The pre-publication stories focused on celebrations of Britain as a “beacon” of successful multiculturalism to Europe and the rest of the world, scepticism of the use of “institutional racism”, and success stories among certain ethnic minority pupils in educational attainment.

While there are clearly nuggets for the “war on woke” brigade to get their teeth into – the description of slavery as “not only being about profit and suffering” springs to mind – there are also recommendations that echo findings of aforementioned reviews.

For example, the 2017 Lammy Review into discrimination in the criminal justice systemanalysed disproportionate use of stop and search on black people, citing Northamptonshire Police Force’s enhanced scrutiny of the practice as a favourable case study. The Race Commission recommends greater scrutiny of the practice through body-worn video footage, with officers who have their cameras off providing a written reason to the individual who was stopped as well as their supervising officer (and “misconduct procedures” for serious instances of misuse).

Many of the Race Commission’s recommendations contradict its own headlines and implicitly accept the existence of systemic racism: the application of the Equality Act to potentially discriminatory “algorithmic decision-making” is just one example.

There are also proposals that run against the “war on woke” narrative. For example, the development of a pilot to divert offences of low-level Class B drug possession – which disproportionately affect ethnic minority young people – into public health solutions.

Yet the evidence-heavy, action-light history of reviews into British racism suggests these may be patchily enacted or left to exist only on paper – forever buried beneath headline-hungry right-wing virtue signalling.

Anoosh Chakelian is the New Statesman’s Britain editor.

Source: Ten previous inquiries expose the real problem with the Race Commission’s findings

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →