Canada’s citizenship study guide for newcomers is getting an ‘unvarnished’ makeover. Here’s how it’s evolved — from 1947 to today

2021/06/28 Leave a comment

Good overview of the evaluation of the guide as well as some of the key messaging in the forthcoming guide (we will see if roll-out “later this year” survives the expected election call, but clear from spokesperson the guide is ready for release):

For more than seven decades, the federal government has published a citizenship study guide for wannabe Canadians — a booklet that touches on Canada’s history and geography, its political structure and key tenets of what it means to be a good citizen.

The current version, however, hasn’t been updated in more than a decade, drawing criticism for using outdated terminology and leaving out or sanitizing darker moments of Canada’s past, including attempts to forcibly assimilate Indigneous Peoples.

In 2015, one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s “calls to action” included that the information kit for newcomers “reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, including information about the Treaties and the history of residential schools.”

The current guide includes only one paragraph on residential schools.

After years of delay, and in the wake of the recent revelations of hundreds of unmarked graves being found at the site of former residential schools in Kamloops, B.C., and Marieval, Sask., the federal government now says it expects to roll out later this year a revamped study guide that will present a more “honest” portrait of the country’s past and present.

“The new guide will give aspiring Canadians an unvarnished picture of our country’s history, including extensive information (on) its darker moments,” said Alexander Cohen, press secretary for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino.

He said the guide will include a section outlining the government’s attempts to compel Indigenous Peoples to adopt European customs through policies “designed to end Indigenous ways of life, languages and spiritual beliefs.”

“It includes thorough descriptions of the horrors of residential schools, like physical and sexual abuse, and the fact that many children died in residential schools and were buried in unmarked graves,” he said.

“It emphasizes the lasting effect of residential schools on both individuals and Indigenous communities writ-large, stressing that ‘these impacts will continue for generations.’”

The new guide will also touch on the history of slavery in Canada and the Underground Railroad; discrimination against Chinese immigrants through the head tax; the Komagata Maru incident that saw more than 350 South Asian migrants denied entry to Canada; the internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War; the demolition of Africville, a community of Black Canadians in Halifax, in the 1960s; and Canada’s missing and murdered Indigenous women.

It will also include an acknowledgment of the existence of systemic racism and efforts to combat it, as well as new information on a variety of historically under-represented groups, such as Francophones, women, Black Canadians, the LGBTQ2 community and Canadians with disabilities, Cohen said.

People profiled in the guide will include Olivier Le Jeune, one of the first enslaved Africans brought to New France; Boyd Whiskeyjack, board member of the Edmonton 2 Spirit Society; Indigenous leaders such as senators Murray Sinclair and Nora Bernard; prominent feminists, such as aircraft designer Elsie MacGill and Idola Saint-Jean, the Quebec journalist and champion of women’s suffrage; and refugees, such as Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella and Victoria City Coun. Sharmarke Dubow. 

As the government prepares to release the new guide, the Star decided to take a look back at previous iterations to see what sort of language the government has used to represent Canada’s history to newcomers and to define what it meant to be a responsible citizen.

1947

Prior to 1947, people living in Canada were British subjects. But that all changed at the end of the Second World War, when Paul Martin Sr., then a Liberal cabinet minister and secretary of state, visited the Canadian war cemetery in Dieppe, France. It is said that visit inspired him to create legislation that would formally recognize Canadian citizenship.

The first version of the citizenship guide boasts of Canada’s emergence from the war as a “great nation.”

“Her vast resources, her agricultural and industrial capacity, exercise a profound influence on world affairs,” the guide states. “Her people, drawn from every racial group, are welded into a mighty democratic force through their love of freedom, hatred of oppression, and the steadfast determination that the powers of government shall be exercised by and through the people for the common benefit of all.”

Would-be Canadians are told Canada has the distinction of being first in the world in the production of newsprint, nickel, radium, platinum and asbestos. The quality of life in Canada is also said to be one of the highest in the world, due to “substantial” wages for industrial workers and “outstanding” production of consumer goods.

There is a lengthy recitation of the arrival of European settlers but scant mention of their interaction with Indigenous Peoples.

Citizenship applicants are told they must have “adequate knowledge” of English or French or have resided in Canada for 20 years. It is up to a judge to determine what is “adequate.” It is also up to a judge to determine whether an applicant has demonstrated good character.

“The definition of ‘good character’ raises a point involving wide differences of opinion as some judges are more strict than others.” 

1964

The 1964 version of the citizenship guide highlights Canada as a “nation of immigrants.” 

“All have brought with them the traditions of their various countries and cultures. They have settled in Canada, have become a part of it but, at the same time, they have contributed to the cultural diversity which is characteristic of the country,” the guide states.

The guide notes that a “very small part” of the Canadian population is composed of “native Indians and Eskimos” who had been “living here for thousands of years before the first European arrived.” 

“In this sense they are the most truly Canadian of the country’s citizens.”

Despite this acknowledgment, Indigenous people are only briefly mentioned elsewhere in the guide in the context of the fur trade and “violent wars … among the Indian tribes who had allied themselves with either French or British settlers.”

With a population of 19 million, Canada is seeing a decline in agriculture and rapid growth in manufacturing, commerce and urban jobs, would-be Canadians are told. More people are moving to cities and towns. Women are working outside the home more often and “many of those who work are married.”

There is a rather large section devoted to Canada’s cultural expansion. Theatre, opera, music, ballet, painting and other arts are said to be “flourishing.” Summer cottages, camping and motor trips are said to be very popular with many Canadians, as is indoor bowling during winter months.

New citizens are encouraged to not only obey the law, but to advocate for changes to laws if they feel it’s in the public interest to do so. They are also told stay on top of public affairs, including by listening to political discussions on radio and TV, and urged to participate in community affairs by joining local organizations or running for office.

“It may be that by concentrating on his daily work he can best serve the good of the people and the welfare of the nation. This may be true of the mother of a family, the scientist or artist, for example.” 

1975

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Canada, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, formally adopted policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism.

These developments are reflected in the opening pages of the 1975 citizenship guide. 

“Newcomers find it an advantage to learn at least one of these languages for their everyday use in Canada,” the guide states. 

“This does not mean by any means that you have to give up your own culture and traditions, as Canada is also officially a multicultural country. Through the Canadian government’s multicultural policy you can maintain your inherited culture and share it with your fellow-Canadians. In this way, all Canada will be richer, in developing a new identity that is drawn from all parts in the world.”

The guide goes on to define a “good citizen” as someone who has a keen interest in the community, a sense of responsibility for the common good, a respect for law, a respect for the rights of others, keeps up to date on public issues and is willing to share their talent, knowledge and experience to help solve local and national problems.

Besides voting, would-be citizens are encouraged to become engaged citizens by holding public meetings, writing letters to the editor, calling in to radio hotline shows and circulating petitions.

“In Canada such activities are not discouraged or forbidden by the government. Instead they are supported as a wholesome part of the democratic process.”

1995

Pride in the different cultural and ethnic groups that live and work “together in harmony” is emphasized in the opening pages of the 1995 citizenship guide. So is the idea of equality. “We have shown how much we value this idea by having it written into the Constitution as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

For the first time, would-be Canadians are introduced to some of Canada’s symbols, including the beaver, the red-and-white maple leaf flag and the Queen as head of state. 

The guide also devotes a section to the “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.”

“When Europeans arrived in what is now Canada, they began to make agreements, or treaties, with Aboriginal Peoples. The treaty making process meant that Aboriginal people gave up their title to lands in exchange for certain rights and benefits. Most of the agreements included reserving pieces of land to be used only by Aboriginal Peoples. These pieces of land are called ‘reserves,’” the guide states.

“Today, Aboriginal groups and the Canadian government continue to negotiate new agreements for land and the recognition of other rights. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada are working to keep their unique cultures and languages alive. They are trying to regain control over decisions that affect their lives — in other words, to become self-governed. Aboriginal Peoples continue to play an active role in building the future of Canada.”

The guide expands on what it means to be a responsible citizen, urging people to, among other things, “express opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others,” “care for Canada’s heritage” and “eliminate discrimination and injustice.”

2000-2002

At the start of the 21st century, the citizenship guide’s opening pages highlight Canada’s “genius” for compromise and coexistence and for being a peaceful nation.

“Canadian history and traditions have created a country where our values include tolerance and respect for cultural differences, and a commitment to social justice,” the guide states. In the 2002 version, the word “tolerance” is dropped.

A nod is given to the millions of immigrants who have helped build the country. Indigenous people are said to constitute an important part of the country’s population and are described as “working to protect and promote their languages, cultures and traditions and acquire self-government.”

In describing the treaties that granted Indigenous people certain rights and benefits in exchange for giving up title to land, the 2002 version adds that each treaty is “unique and is seen as a solemn promise.”

For the first time, the guide devotes a section to the importance of sustainable development, noting that while economic growth is crucial for the future of Canada, “it cannot come at the expense of the environment.”

The notion of environmental citizenship is introduced. Individuals are encouraged to recycle, carpool and use public transit. The 2002 version tells people they should also conserve energy and water, plant trees and avoid using chemicals.

2009-2012 (the current Discover Canada)

The most recent version of the citizenship guide was produced under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

Newcomers are told they “must” learn about Canada’s history, symbols, democratic institutions and geography. The guide also impresses upon would-be citizens the idea of “shared traditions, identities and values.”

It emphasizes in its opening pages the various responsibilities of new Canadians. 

“Getting a job, taking care of one’s family and working hard in keeping with one’s abilities” are described as “important Canadian values.” Serving on a jury is also highlighted.

Would-be citizens are told that there are different ways to help out in the community, including volunteering for a charity and “encouraging newcomers to integrate.”

Language reinforcing “the equality of women and men” is introduced for the first time.

“In Canada, men and women are equal under the law,” the guide states. “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.”

Serving in the Canadian Forces is said to be a “noble” career choice.

For the first time, the guide touches on how the arrival of European traders, missionaries, soldiers and colonists “changed the native way of life forever.”

“Large numbers of Aboriginals died of European diseases to which they lacked immunity. However, Aboriginals and Europeans formed strong economic and military bonds in the first 200 years of coexistence, which laid the foundations of Canada.”

There is a passing reference to how treaties “were not always fully respected.” A paragraph is devoted to how the government “placed” Indigenous children in residential schools.

“The schools were poorly funded and inflicted hardship on the students; some students were physically abused,” the guide states. “Aboriginal languages and cultural practices were mostly prohibited. In 2008, Ottawa formally apologized to the former students.”

More words are devoted later in the guide to the importance of hockey in Canadian culture.

Would-be citizens are told that after the first Métis uprising, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald established the North West Mounted Police in 1873 to “pacify the West and assist in negotiations with the Indians.” The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are described as “one of Canada’s best-known symbols” that has produced “some of Canada’s most colourful heroes.” (Scholars have in recent years challenged this romanticized version of the force’s historical role, arguing that they were involved in colonial “containment and surveillance” of Indigenous people.)

The guide includes a list of notable Canadians behind great discoveries and inventions.

They are all men.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/06/26/canadas-citizenship-study-guide-for-newcomers-is-getting-an-unvarnished-makeover-heres-how-its-evolved-from-1947-to-today.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=thestar_canada

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Teachers need ongoing anti-Black racism training, not workshops, elective courses, experts say

2021/06/28 Leave a comment

Of note, both the specific context of anti-Black and broader context of anti-racism training in general. Challenge, of course, for teachers to integrate this into the existing curriculum rather than being another add-on along with other demands on their time:

Although her daughters, Savannah and Sahara, are in their first few years of elementary school, Cshandrika Bryan of Ajax, Ont., has already seen a wide range of examples in how the Black experience is reflected inside their classrooms.

At six-year-old Savannah’s former school, Bryan recalled, her teacher included Black voices in everyday lessons and helped guide fellow teaching staff in interactions with Black families.

Source: Teachers need ongoing anti-Black racism training, not workshops, elective courses, experts say

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

Bouchard: Rapports interculturels et tyrannie des minorités

2021/06/28 Leave a comment

Bouchard takes on the rhetoric regarding the “tyranny of minorities” and the divisiveness it creates:

Depuis quelque temps, on peut lire et entendre que la majorité francophone au Québec serait désormais, comme d’autres majorités culturelles, l’otage des minorités. Ces dernières pèseraient indûment sur les choix de l’État et les orientations du débat public. Elles érigeraient des privilèges en droits inaliénables. Elles auraient même instauré un tabou qui empêcherait l’expression d’opinions dissidentes. Le pluralisme serait ainsi devenu un fondamentalisme, une orthodoxie intolérante. En somme, l’ancienne tyrannie de la majorité dont parlait Tocqueville se serait inversée.

Qu’est-ce que le pluralisme ?

En fait, le pluralisme invite essentiellement à reconnaître les mêmes droits à tous les citoyens, quelles que soient leurs origines, leurs croyances, leurs caractéristiques physiques. C’est cela que requiert le respect de la diversité, notamment celle qu’incarnent les immigrants et les membres des minorités. Cette orientation a connu une avancée spectaculaire après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale et son cortège d’horreurs, venant après celui de la guerre de 1914-1918. L’idée s’est alors répandue qu’il fallait protéger la diversité plutôt que la broyer. C’est le même courant d’idées qui a fait avancer la norme de l’égalité entre « races », de l’égalité entre hommes et femmes et de la liberté de croyance. Il a aussi aidé à la reconnaissance de l’homosexualité et des divers genres ou identités sexuelles. Enfin, en rejetant toute forme d’exclusion, il a inspiré une vision plus authentique de la démocratie et de la justice.

L’essor du pluralisme s’est accompagné d’une attention particulière envers les minorités ethnoculturelles, tout particulièrement les immigrants et les minorités. Dans le passé, c’est dans ces catégories sociales que se recrutaient le plus grand nombre de victimes de la part des majorités. L’histoire fourmille d’exemples à l’appui de cet énoncé. Un redressement s’imposait donc et il est en cours, ici comme ailleurs.

Il arrive que des intervenants dénoncent le fait que nos gouvernements (comme ceux d’autres nations d’Occident) n’en auraient que pour les minorités et se soucieraient moins des besoins et des droits de la majorité. D’où les expressions comme « la tyrannie des minorités », « la religion des droits », « l’exclusion des majorités », le « reniement de soi », etc.

Cette nouvelle vision tend à activer les peurs et les stéréotypes racistes déjà présents dans une partie de la population. Elle contribue aussi à banaliser la discrimination, présente ici comme ailleurs. Mais cette vision est-elle conforme à la réalité ?

Ce qui reste à faire

Les faits sont pourtant bien connus : il reste d’importants progrès à faire pour étendre les mêmes droits à tous les citoyens québécois. En ce qui concerne les minorités ethnoculturelles, il subsiste un grand nombre de manquements que chacun est à même de constater. Par exemple : les pratiques persistantes de profilage racial par les forces policières ; une sous-représentation dans l’administration publique due au fait que l’État continue depuis vingt ans à transgresser sa propre loi ; la discrimination dans le logement ; la hausse des propos haineux ; les résistances à des cimetières séparés pour les musulmans, alors qu’ils sont permis à d’autres groupes religieux ; la condition déplorable des femmes immigrantes.

Le discours de la tyrannie des minorités entraîne trois conséquences néfastes pour les minorités : il éveille dans une partie de la population des attitudes hostiles au respect mutuel ; il cause une fracture entre majorité et minorités ; il entrave l’intégration de tous les citoyens.

Bannir le terme « diversité »

Enfin, il arrive que des mots apparemment inoffensifs colportent discrètement un message d’exclusion. C’est ce qui arrive présentement avec l’usage croissant du terme « diversité » pour désigner les membres des minorités. Emprunté à la France, où, sans le dire, il fait surtout référence aux musulmans, je crois que c’est un terme à bannir. D’abord, il donne erronément à entendre que la majorité serait homogène. En plus, il institue une autre manière d’établir une distance,un clivage entre citoyens (entre « nous » et « eux autres »).

L’épouvantail du multiculturalisme

Il reste un autre écueil à écarter, c’est l’épouvantail du multiculturalisme canadien auquel plusieurs se plaisent à identifier le pluralisme. Selon cette conception, le pluralisme ne serait qu’une autre machination fédéraliste pour contraindre le Québec.

En réalité, le pluralisme est une philosophie générale dont on trouve des applications particulières, spécifiques, dans plusieurs modèles de gestion démocratique de la diversité. Le multiculturalisme canadien en est un, tout comme le républicanisme et l’interculturalisme, entre autres. Il est important de distinguer le pluralisme comme horizon commun et les diverses traductions qu’on peut en faire.

Source: Rapports interculturels et tyrannie des minorités

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

In France’s Military, Muslims Find a Tolerance That Is Elusive Elsewhere

2021/06/28 Leave a comment

Of note, a rare success story of integration in France:

Gathered in a small mosque on a French military base in southern Lebanon, six soldiers in uniform stood with their heads bowed as their imam led them in prayer next to a white wall with framed paintings of Quranic verses.

After praying together on a recent Friday, the French soldiers — five men and one woman — returned to their duties on the base, where they had recently celebrated Ramadan, sometimes breaking their fast with Christians. Back home in France, where Islam and its place in society form the fault lines of an increasingly fractured nation, practicing their religion was never this easy, they said.

“The tolerance that we find in the armed forces, we don’t find it outside,” said Second Master Anouar, 31, who enlisted 10 years ago and who, in keeping with French military rules, could be identified only by his first name.

For the past two decades, as France’s Muslim population has sought a greater role in the nation, officials have often tried to restrict Islam’s public presence under an increasingly strict interpretation of French secularism, known as laïcité.

A law aimed at the Muslim veil in 2004 banned the wearing of religious symbols in public schools, and prompted years of anguished debates over France’s treatment of its Muslim population, Europe’s largest. A new law against Islamism by President Emmanuel Macron is expected to strengthen government control over existing mosques and make it harder to build new ones.

But one major institution has gone in the opposite direction: the military.

The armed forces have carved out a place for Islam equal to France’s more established faiths — by hewing to a more liberal interpretation of laïcité. Imams became chaplains in 2005. Mosques have been built on bases in France and across the world, including in Deir Kifa, where some 700 French soldiers help a United Nations force keep peace in southern Lebanon. Halal rations are on offer. Muslim holidays are recognized. Work schedules are adjusted to allow Muslim soldiers to attend Friday Prayer.

The military is one of the institutions that has most successfully integrated Muslims, military officials and outside experts said, adding that it can serve as a model for the rest of France. Some drew parallels to the United States Army, which was ahead of the rest of American society in integrating Black Americans.

In a country where religious expression in government settings is banned — and where public manifestations of Islam are often described as threats to France’s unity, especially after a series of Islamist attacks since 2015 — the uncontested place of Islam in the military can be hard to fathom.

“My father, when I told him there was a Muslim chaplain, didn’t believe me,” said Corporal Lyllia, 22, who attended Friday Prayer wearing a veil.

“He asked me three times if I was sure,” she added. “He thought that a chaplain was necessarily Catholic or Protestant.”

Sergeant Azhar, 29, said he grew up facing discrimination as a Muslim and difficulty practicing his religion when he worked in a restaurant before joining the military. In the army, he said, he could practice his religion without being held in suspicion. Forced to live together, French of all backgrounds know more of one another than in the rest of society, he said.

“In an army, you have all religions, all colors, all origins,” he said. “So that allows for an open-mindedness you don’t find in civilian life.”

At the heart of the matter is laïcité, which separates church and state, and has long served as the bedrock of France’s political system. Enshrined in a 1905 law, laïcité guarantees the equality of all faiths.

But over the years, as Islam became France’s second biggest religion after Roman Catholicism, laïcité has increasingly been interpreted as guaranteeing the absence of religion in public space — so much so that the topic of personal faith is a taboo in the country.

Philippe Portier, a leading historian on laïcité, said there was a tendency in France “to tone down religion in all spheres of social encounter,” especially as officials advocate a stricter interpretation of laïcité to combat Islamism.

By contrast, the military increasingly views religion as essential to its own management, he said.

“Diversity is accepted because diversity will come to form the basis of cohesion,” he said, adding that, contrary to the thinking in many French institutions, the underlying rationale in the military was that “there can’t be cohesion if, at the same time, you don’t make compromises with the beliefs of individuals.”

Military officials said they had been sheltered from the politicization of laïcité that occurs in the rest of society.

“The right approach is to consider laïcité as a principle and not as an ideology,” said Jean-Jacques, the Muslim chaplain in Deir Kifa. When it becomes an ideology, he added, it “inevitably creates inequalities.”

The Rev. Carmine, the Protestant chaplain on the base, said that the army was proof that laïcité works as long as it is not manipulated. “Why do we talk so much about laïcité in recent years in France?” he said. “It’s often to create problems.”

A 2019 French Defense Ministry report on laïcité in the military concluded that freedom of religious expression does not undermine the army’s social cohesion or performance. In contrast to how laïcité has been carried out elsewhere in society, the report promotes “a peaceful laïcité” that can “continue adapting itself to the country’s social realities.”

“The liberal model of laïcité that the military embodies is a laïcité of intelligence, a laïcité of fine-tuning,” said Eric Germain, an adviser on military ethics and religious issues at the ministry, who oversaw the report.

Mr. Germain said the military has been faithful to the 1905 law, which states that to safeguard freedom of worship, chaplaincy services are legitimate in certain enclosed public places, like prisons, hospitals and military facilities. The state has a moral responsibility to provide professionalized religious support to its military, he added.

The integration of Muslims into the military mirrored France’s long and complicated relationship with the Islamic world.

Muslim men from France’s colonial empire served as soldiers as far back as the 1840s, said Elyamine Settoul, an expert on Muslims and the French military at the Paris-based National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts. Early last century, there were fitful attempts to cater to Muslim soldiers’ religious needs, including the appointment of a Muslim chaplain, though for only three years, Mr. Settoul said. After World War II, the independence movement in France’s colonies, coupled with a general mistrust of Islam, put the efforts on hold.

The issue could no longer be ignored in the 1990s, as the end of mandatory military service was announced in 1996, and as the military began huge recruitment efforts in working-class areas. Children of Muslim immigrants from former French colonies became overrepresented, and now Muslims are believed to account for 15 to 20 percent of troops, or two to three times the Muslim share of the total French population.

Unequal treatment of Muslim cohorts fueled “a discourse of victimization in the ranks” and a recourse to identity politics, Mr. Settoul said. The lack of alternatives to meals with pork, which are forbidden in Islam, created “tensions and divides” and even led to fights, he said.

Catholic, Protestant and Jewish chaplains had formally served in the French military since the 1880s. But a century later, there were still no Muslim chaplains to cater to the needs of frontline soldiers, who often had to turn to Catholic chaplains.

A 1990 report commissioned by the Defense Ministry highlighted the risks of internal divisions unless the army gave equal treatment to its Muslim soldiers.

Despite what Mr. Settoul described as a lingering suspicion of Islam, the military incorporated Muslim chaplains in 2005 — around the same time that other parts of French society went the other way, banning the Muslim veil and other religious symbols in public schools. That began a process of integrating Muslims ahead of “the rest of society,” Mr. Settoul said.

In 2019, there were 36 active-duty imams, or about 17 percent of all chaplains. There were also 125 Catholic priests, 34 Protestant pastors and 14 rabbis.

The soldiers at Friday Prayer, ranging from their early 20s to their early 40s, were all children of immigrants. They grew up listening to their parents or grandparents talk of praying in makeshift premises before mosques were built in their cities. Some had mothers or other female relatives who still faced suspicion because they wore veils.

Sergeant Mohamed, 41, enlisted two decades ago, a couple of years before the first Muslim chaplains. He recalled how it had become easier to fully practice his religion in the army. While Muslim soldiers had been given large rooms to gather in and pray, they now had access to mosques.

In the army, Sgt. Mohamed said he could take a paid day off on Eid al-Fitr, the celebration marking the end of Ramadan.

“My father worked for 35 years, and every boss deducted eight hours of work,” he said, adding that his father, who immigrated from Algeria four decades ago, never imagined that his children would be able to practice their religion in the army. “In 40 years, there’s been amazing progress after all.”

Perhaps more than anything, the integration of Islam amounted to a recognition of his place in the army, Sgt. Mohamed said.

“The fuel of the soldier is recognition,” he said. “And when there is recognition of our faith, it’s as though you’re filling up our tanks.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/world/europe/in-frances-military-muslims-find-a-tolerance-that-is-elusive-elsewhere.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Germany passes new #citizenship law for descendants of Nazi victims

2021/06/28 Leave a comment

Of note:

German lawmakers have approved changes that will make it easier for descendants of those who fled Nazi persecution to obtain citizenship.

Under German law, people stripped of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds can have it restored, and so can their descendants.

But legal loopholes had prevented many people from benefiting.

Campaigners say the move allow many to reconnect with their German heritage, particularly in the Jewish community.

“We acknowledge the work that the German people have undertaken to honour the memory of those lost and those who suffered in the [Holocaust],” said Felix Couchman, chair of the Article 116 Exclusions Group, which has been lobbying on the issue for years.

“These measures have been necessary stepping stones to rebuilding trust,” he added.

While Germany’s post-war constitution allows citizenship to be restored, the lack of a legal framework meant many people had their applications rejected.

Some were denied because their ancestors had taken another nationality before their citizenship was revoked.

For others it was because they were born to a German mother, but not a German father. Until a change to the law in 1953, German citizenship could only be passed on paternally.

A legal decree was passed in 2019 to help close these loopholes. Now that it has passed the lower house of Germany’s Bundestag, with a large majority, prospective applicants will have a firmer legal footing for their appeal.

The law does also cover those who were directly deprived of their citizenship but, given the passage of time, descendants will be the main beneficiaries.

The new law also bars the naturalisation of people convicted of racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic acts.

“This is not just about putting things right, it is about apologising in profound shame,” said Interior Minister Horst Seehofer in March, when the government passed the draft law.

“It is a huge fortune for our country if people want to become German, despite the fact that we took everything from their ancestors.”

The move comes as neighbouring Poland comes under the spotlight for a draft law which critics say would make it harder for Jews to recover property seized by Nazi occupiers during World War Two.

The bill, passed by Poland’s lower parliamentary house on Thursday, has been condemned by the US and Israel.

Source: Germany passes new citizenship law for descendants of Nazi victims

Filed under Citizenship, Holocaust, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Norman: I am a Canadian citizen. Why can’t my son be a Canadian citizen, too?

2021/06/26 Leave a comment

The first generation limit was introduced given the complexity of administering the previous previsions requiring transmission of citizenship, as well as the Lebanese evacuation of 2006 where many Canadian citizens were found to have little or no connection to Canada yet expected Canadian taxpayers to pay for their evacuation.

Norman clearly has deep and meaningful connections to Canada. However, the same is not true for many other expatriates as I analysed a number of years ago when looking at expatriate voting rights: What should expatriates’ voting rights be? – Policy Options).

But Norman overstates the case given that her child, an American citizen, enjoys visa-free travel to and from Canada, and is more likely to be able to benefit from the various temporary and permanent resident pathways than others given language skills and familiarity with North American habits and culture.

And the raising of citizenship revocation is a red herring as the provision has been repealed and is irrelevant in any case to the generation limit.

Recently, I finally began the process of preparing my infant son’s Canadian citizenship application ahead of his first birthday. We are hoping to finally travel from the United States to see his Canadian grandmother for the first time later this summer, and I thought that having Canadian identification for both of us would ensure an easier border crossing amid COVID-19 restrictions. Only in preparing the application did I learn that I will not be able to pass my Canadian citizenship to him.

My mother was born in Canada, as was her mother, but I was born in the United States. As a baby she made sure to promptly apply by mail for my Canadian citizenship, and I still have a national identity card with my pudgy nine-month-old face on it. At the time, my Canadian citizenship – earned via descent – was not yet of a lesser quality.

When I was a child, my mother took steps to cultivate my love and pride for Canada. We spent summers in Canada with my grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. We saw the view from the CN Tower in Toronto, we took a train through the Rockies from Calgary to Vancouver, and we saw orcas swimming in the Georgia Strait. My mother rightfully taught us to frown upon anything but pure maple syrup, and I faithfully learned the words to O Canada. By my high-school years, I embraced my Canadian identity fiercely, proudly reminding friends that I was Canadian as well as American at every opportunity. I studied French in high school rather than the more obvious choice of Spanish given our location in southern California, and after my first year of university I spent a summer working in British Columbia, absolutely enamoured with the province’s natural beauty.

But it wasn’t until I was 23 that I fully embraced my Canadian citizenship. When it came time to apply for a master’s degree, I was accepted to study public policy at the University of Toronto, a city that I fell in love with. I was able to see my family in Ontario on weekends and holidays, and when I finished my degree, my citizenship allowed me to easily stay and work in Toronto for several research institutes and civil society organizations.

Eventually, I came back to the U.S. for my Ph.D., having been told I would have an easier time returning to Canada to find work after graduation with an American doctorate. Conversely, while I was able to secure a two-year postdoctoral fellowship at the University of British Columbia, the only long-term jobs I was offered were in the United States. And by virtue of remaining in the United States for employment – and by giving birth to my son here – I am unable to pass on my Canadian citizenship to him.

In 2009 the Harper government passed an amendment that prevented Canadian citizens who were themselves not born in Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also not born in Canada. This was part of a larger trajectory of limiting access to naturalized citizenship and privileging Canadians without dual citizenship. In 2015, Bill C-24 came into effect under the Harper government. The most controversial aspect of this act was that it allowed the government to potentially strip dual-citizen Canadians of their nationality should they be found guilty of terrorism, fraud, treason or serving in a foreign army – among other reasons – but the act did not apply the same standards to citizens born in Canada. As such, rights groups such as Amnesty International argued that the act discriminates against foreign-born Canadians and creates a hierarchical model of Canadian citizenship. Predictably, the act has and will continue to disproportionately affect brown and black naturalized Canadians who – whether by necessity or choice – live outside of Canada for educational or employment opportunities or because of family obligations at the time their children are born.

Supporters of the Harper government’s move toward a narrower naturalization and dual citizenship law focused on the idea that the citizenship should not be seen as a commodity. Chris Alexander, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the time Bill C-24 was proposed, proclaimed in 2014, “Canadians value their citizenship. They understand it applies to us who live here and who are connected to Canada. It’s not for sale, it’s not free and it’s not without any obligations.”

For my son, this issue is not about the “value” of Canadian citizenship. And as far as passports go, he is equally as privileged with an American passport as he would be with a Canadian one. What I mourn is the lack of a connection to Canada that citizenship by descent entails. We will visit his grandmother in B.C., and I will introduce him to his family in Ontario. I’ll even find ways of passing on cultural cues and traditions, but he will never have the promise or ease of living and working in Canada himself and fostering his own connections to the country, as I did.

I may currently live in the U.S., but I file Canadian taxes, I visit regularly – pandemic aside – and I maintain strong connections with my Canadian family, friends and colleagues. Interestingly, during the House of Commons committee debates prior to the adoption of the 2009 amendment, the committee considered allowing the transmission of citizenship by descent to children born abroad to a Canadian parent, provided that the Canadian parent resided in Canada for a period of time before the child was born. Instead, the government argued that doing so would be too complicated and opted for “one simple transparent rule” that removed the possibility of citizenship by descent for the second generation.

Original:

Even though I would have personally benefited from a modification that allowed naturalized Canadian parents who had lived in Canada to pass on their citizenship, this would not have resolved the underlying flaw of the 2009 amendment. The bottom-line is that allowing some Canadian citizens – those born in Canada – the ability to transmit their nationality while denying others – Canadians by descent and naturalized Canadians – from doing so creates an unequal, hierarchical model that ultimately tarnishes what it means to be Canadian.

Corrected copy: (to her credit, Norman made the change when I pointed it out)

Even though I would have personally benefited from a modification that allowed Canadians by descent who had lived in Canada to pass on their citizenship, this would not have resolved the underlying flaw of the 2009 amendment. The bottom-line is that allowing some Canadian citizens – those born in Canada – the ability to transmit their nationality while denying others – Canadians by descent – from doing so creates an unequal, hierarchical model that ultimately tarnishes what it means to be Canadian.

My inability to pass along my citizenship is a loss for my son and a loss for Canada, especially at a time when the birth rate is at a record low and the government is scrambling to find ways of increasing immigration. Citizenship has the potential to act as an instrument of inclusion rather than exclusion. With all the government’s fanfare about the strength of multiculturalism, it certainty seems like an apt time to revisit the trajectory of using citizenship to exclude, rather than expanding and celebrating dual nationals who want to share their Canadian citizenship with their children.

Kelsey P. Norman is a Fellow for the Middle East and Director of the Women’s Rights, Human Rights & Refugees program at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. She is the author of Reluctant Reception: Migration, Refugees and Governance in the Middle East and North Africa.

Source: I am a Canadian citizen. Why can’t my son be a Canadian citizen, too?

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

KUTTY: Islamophobia an ever-present danger in Canada

2021/06/26 Leave a comment

Of note, Kutty’s valid critique of Fatah’s column (There is no Islamophobia in Canada), including the examples of the “blame the victim” as applied to Jews, women, and Blacks. However, by focussing only on the violent extremists of Daesh, he understates the impact of non-violent extremist attitudes within different religious groups:

Reading Tarek Fatah’s recent diatribe, There is no Islamophobia in Canada, was a surreal experience.

A few adjectives quickly came to mind but, “subtle,” “nuanced,” “thoughtful,” and “honest” were not among them.

“Superficial,” “reductionist,” “misleading,” and “incendiary” came to the fore.

The thrust of the piece was that Muslims are to blame for a peaceful multigenerational Muslim family mowed down with a truck and killed while out for a Sunday stroll.

The rationale behind this “blame the victim” argument is that hatred of, or violence against, Muslims is pervasive because of Muslims.

If Muslims are encountering challenges “everywhere,” the argument goes, then it must be the Muslim faith or behaviour that is provoking this hatred.

To appreciate the mendacity of this argument, substitute any other targeted group or community.

Anti-Semitism growing? It must be something about the Jews.

Is sexual assault rampant? It’s because of how women dress and behave.

The police profile Blacks? It’s their fault as well.

Those arguments do not pass the smell test, and neither does the argument about Muslims and Islamophobia.

Islamophobia exists and is on the increase because demonizing, dehumanizing, and otherizing Muslims is acceptable and can be disseminated with impunity, as in the article in question.

Is there Islamophobia in Canada? The perpetrator of the London, Ontario killings allegedly targeted the family specifically for their faith.

The Quebec City shooter was enthralled with Islamophobic figures like Le Pen and Trump.

In the lead-up to the London murders, Muslim women reported a spike in attacks against them, and less than a year ago, the caretaker of a Toronto mosque was killed by a man whose social media featured Neo-Nazi posts as reported by the Sun.

Islamophobic violence has now taken the lives of at least 11 Canadian Muslims in the last four years.

Yet, according to Fatah, there is no Islamophobia in Canada.

The article pathetically attempts to “show” that the Qur’an teaches Muslims hate by selectively citing, out of context, an interpretation of verses from the Qur’an.

Yet, the Afzaals were known in their community as devout Muslims.

They were mosque-goers, almost never missing a prayer in congregation.

At their funeral, the Imam shared that the family were Syeds — descendants of Prophet Muhammad.

Their life was an embodiment of their faith. And what did that embodiment of faith look like?

According to the London Free Press, Salman Afzaal was a “caring physiotherapist” who worked at several nursing homes.

The administrator of Ritz Lutheran Villa described him as “deeply committed to his elderly patients” and “kind and caring … well respected and always had a smile and positive outlook.”

Madiha, studying for her PhD in Engineering at Western, was loved and respected by her colleagues.

As a professor of Islamic law, I am stumped searching for the hate incitement Fatah claims.

On the contrary, the Qur’an, like any text, is subject to interpretation.

It continues to inspire the vast majority of its readers to do good in the world and to search for peace.

That was the experience of Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar; Cat Stevens and Arnoud van Doorn; Sinead O’Connor and Dave Chappelle.

Thousands of people continue to come into Islam precisely because they feel that sense of peace on reading the Qur’an.

Conversely, like extremists of other ideologies, Daesh recruits are ignorant haters who abuse Islam for their own political and nefarious purposes.

But none of this matters to Fatah, who has rarely penned a positive word about the Canadian Muslim community since his opportunist flip.

His subsequent track record is one of misrepresentation, selective quoting, and over-generalizations and only justifies and incites hate against Muslims.

It is bigotry. For the Sun to publish it is, at best callous and at worst reckless.

Source: KUTTY: Islamophobia an ever-present danger in Canada

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Fadden: Canada needs a national inquiry into its handling of COVID-19

2021/06/26 Leave a comment

Fully agree this is needed. And hopefully, the results and recommendations will lead to action, in the short and medium term, unlike the forgetfulness following the SARS enquiries:

As COVID-19 case counts continue to decline and Canada looks optimistically ahead to our future after pandemic restrictions are lifted, it may be time to also start looking back – specifically, at how this country handled the pandemic and how we should organize ourselves to deal with the next major disruptive event. The only way this can be done comprehensively and objectively is through the establishment of a public inquiry with national scope and freedom from political interference.

Two points can be made in favour of such an inquiry. The first is that it is indisputable that the pandemic could have been better handled. We were not properly prepared and many of the decisions taken from the very beginning were the wrong ones, or were at least not explained nearly as clearly as they might have been. The expiry of much of our national stockpile of personal protective equipment and the confusing initial advice on the wearing of masks are just two examples. A careful examination of the reasons for these types of mistakes could help us avoid repeating them in the future.

The second point underlying the need for an inquiry is the worldwide consensus that serious disruptive events will continue to occur and are likely to grow in intensity and variety. Other pandemics, flooding, fires or migration are the most obvious and likely. To fail to better prepare for such events will border on criminal, and proper planning requires a clear understanding of how the management of past events can be improved upon.

There are a number of ways to review our management of the current pandemic, but nothing short of a nationally oriented public inquiry established by – but not beholden to – the federal government will do. Internal reviews by the public service would be too narrow and they would be undertaken by the very institutions whose activities and advice need to be reviewed. Review by Parliament would fall prey to the excessive partisanship that seems to govern relations within our various legislatures. Auditors general will have a contribution to make to our understanding of what happened, but they are limited to their respective jurisdictions and have little if any ability to consider activity in the private sector and in civil society.

The COVID-19 crisis is unquestionably a national and international challenge that paid little attention to borders, and as such the inquiry must be structured to allow for a review of all aspects of how Canada fared. Three issues should be of particular focus.

The first is the need to consider to what extent Canada should ensure that certain essential goods be available, no matter what. This is not a matter for governments alone; it requires the participation of the business sector and the provinces.

The second issue is one of personal freedoms. We live in a country of rights and responsibilities, and that balance always needs to be carefully calibrated. The question of whether an individual’s right to refuse public health advice supersedes government efforts to ensure the greater good needs at least some measure of resolution.

The third issue involves the roles and responsibilities of the numerous levels of government within Canada, as well as the roles of other countries and of international institutions. The management of interprovincial and international borders is perhaps the most obvious example of something in this area that needs to be probed. The broad distribution of responsibility and action to deal with COVID-19 may or may not have been essentially correct. Either way, it needs an objective review to determine if any adjustments are necessary for the future.

A process like this could also help us recognize and fortify our strong points. The objective of an inquiry is not to assume bad faith or assign blame, but rather to look into what was done and how, with a view to proposing corrective action. Any inquiry must recognize what went well. In this respect, the relatively positive response of the public to instructions and the general level of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments (as evidenced by many First Minister virtual meetings) need mention.

Given the number of deaths Canada has seen throughout this pandemic, the enormous social and economic adjustments Canadians have made, and the unprecedented cost to taxpayers, this country needs a credible, practical and comprehensive look at how we can be better prepared for the next pandemic. A public inquiry established by the federal government, but independent of it, is the only practical vehicle to accomplish this. It needs to be set up before the next election to prevent its work from becoming a matter of partisan debate. Now is not too soon to get started.

Richard Fadden is a former national security adviser to the prime minister. He was director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from 2009 to 2013 and served as deputy minister of national defence from 2013 to 2015.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-needs-a-national-inquiry-into-its-handling-of-covid-19/

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Beaman: The problem with Canada’s delusions of inclusivity and multiculturalism

2021/06/26 2 Comments

While I agree with Beaman on the need to “to contextualise them [anti-Muslim hate] within broader patterns of inequality, discrimination and violence against a wide range of groups, including Indigenous people, Black people and other people of colour.” To which I would add, antisemitism, anti-LGBTQ, women, along with the intersectional dimensions.

And I would argue that the situation is not as bleak as described, and that there has been progress over the years, albeit slow:

On Sunday 6 June, while out for an evening stroll in London, Ontario, the Afzaal family, Salman Afzaal (aged 46), his wife Madiha Salman (44), their 15-year-old daughter Yumna, nine-year-old son Fayez and Mr. Afzaal’s 74-year-old mother Talat were run over by a 20-year-old male driving a pickup truck.

The whole family was killed except for Fayez. The driver has been chargedwith terrorism and four counts of first-degree murder. Police have saidthat the attack is likely deliberate and the family were targeted because they were Muslim.

This attack is not an isolated incident in Canada.

Last year, on the evening of 12 September, 58-year-old Mohamed-Aslim Zafis was stabbed to death outside the International Muslim Organization mosque in Toronto. On 29 January 2017, a shooting at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City left six men dead. After the province of Quebec passed Bill 21 in 2019, banning the wearing of religious symbols by public school teachers and civil servants, among others, incidents of harassment and discrimination against Muslim women increased.

Despite a pervasive image of Canada and Canadians as inclusive, diverse and multicultural, there is an alternative Canadian reality that includes violence, hatred and discrimination against minority groups, including Muslims.

Multiculturalism is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is religious freedom and protection from discrimination based on religion and ethnicity. Thus, there are structural legal protections in place that help promote inclusion and diversity, which are currently at the core of Canadian domestic and foreign policy.

‘Currently’ because only a few years ago the federal government under then prime minister Stephen Harper went to court in an attempt to banZunera Ishaq from wearing her niqab during the ceremony to become a Canadian citizen (the government lost).

The same Conservative government promised during the 2015 election to establish a “barbaric cultural practices” hotline. The question is why, despite the Charter and strong programmes of multiculturalism, inclusion and diversity, does Islamophobia in Canada persist and even seem to be growing? The short answer is that the social imaginary, or the way people think about the collective ‘us’, has not been redefined in inclusive ways.

Who is ‘us’?

In her response to the murders of 51 Muslims during Friday prayers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on 15 March 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern noted that many of those who were affected “may even be refugees here. They have chosen to make New Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us.”

Hateful acts impact those immediately involved, their communities and all of us

Ardern’s comment gets to the heart of the matter: Who is ‘us’? In addition to legal and policy promises of inclusion, acknowledgement of diversity and recognition of multiculturalism, an inclusive conceptualisation of ‘us’ in civil society is essential.

In contrast, there is ample evidence that a significant number of Canadians hold a narrower view of who belongs to ‘us’. A 2017 poll into religious trends in the country revealed that Islam is viewed unfavourably by almost half of all Canadians (46%), and that less than 35% of respondents (32% in Quebec, 34% in the rest of Canada) view Islam favourably.

In 2017, when Bill M-103, a non-binding motion to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, was introduced to parliament by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, a poll found that a third of Canadians believed that the bill was a “threat to Canadians’ freedom of speech”.

Some 42% of respondents said they would vote against the bill, while 55% believed that anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination were “overblown” by politicians and the media. The motion was passed by a significant margin, 201-91.

Real equality

In my recent book ‘The Transition of Religion to Culture in Law and Public Discourse’, I explore through legal cases the transformation of majoritarian Christian religious practices and symbols into ‘culture’ in Canada, France and the United States.

For example, the use of prayers and religious symbols such as crosses and crucifixes in government and public spaces are generally seen as being integral to ‘our’ culture and heritage. Narratives of ‘universality’ (‘this is important or relevant to all of us’), minimization of harm (‘this doesn’t really hurt anyone’), and invocation of ‘our values’ are all part of the process by which religion is reconfigured as culture.

I argue in the book that this phenomenon is a strategy aimed at preserving a narrow conceptualisation of ‘us’ that excludes minority groups, who are ‘imagined’ out of Canada’s history and culture. The defence of potentially alienating practices and symbols traps us in a hierarchical holding pattern.

If we Canadians are to live well together, these must be renegotiated in a manner that recognises all parties to the conversation as equals, and in some instances as being in need of redress for past wrongs. And ‘they’ must be included in the social imaginary of ‘us’.

“Islamophobia will continue to exist until Canada dismantles its other oppressive systems. While there is still anti-Blackness, there will still be Islamophobia. While there is still anti-Indigenous racism, there will still be Islamophobia. Under white supremacy, there will always be Islamophobia,”said Maryam Azzam, a Muslim student at Ryerson (‘X’) University in Toronto. She was speaking after the attack on the Afzaal family.

While it is important to name Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism as distinct phenomena, it is also important to contextualise them within broader patterns of inequality, discrimination and violence against a wide range of groups, including Indigenous people, Black people and other people of colour.

Hateful acts impact those immediately involved, their communities and all of us. They result in fear, powerlessness and alienation. They undermine civil society, create hierarchies of belonging (‘us’ versus ‘them’) and impact the exercise of freedoms.

It is vital that in the new diversity that is emerging in Canada and in a complex future, equality must be conceptualised not only as a legal principle, but as something that people enact in day to day life – as ‘deep equality’. This is not mere tolerance or accommodation, but a robust understanding of the inherent dignity and worth of each of us in the project of living well together.

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/global-extremes/the-problem-with-canadas-delusions-of-inclusivity-and-multiculturalism/

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with

How to Get Hassle-Free Canadian Birthright Citizenship

2021/06/26 2 Comments

The latest example I have seen of marketing birth tourism services in Canada:

Getting Canadian citizenship for children brings many benefits. From avoiding international tuition fees when a child gets to university age, to easing immigration concerns, Canadian birthright can be advantageous. The opportunity to live and work in the Canadian economy is also something that could be an ideal solution once children reach adulthood and want to make the most of their skills. Accessing one of the world’s most advanced healthcare systems when needed will also provide sound peace of mind.

Despite the benefits of doing so, many people are put off attempting to get Canadian birthright citizenship for their children for fear of acting illegally, or just because of bureaucratic red tape involved. The reality is that with the right help, it is completely legal to do so, and experts can navigate the process on an individual’s behalf.

“Birthright Citizenship Canada are experts in our field, and we do everything we can to make the process as smooth as possible”, a spokesman for the Concord, ON-based childbirth support organization commented. “By commissioning us to work on your family’s project you will know that everything is taken care of. This includes the paperwork, travel arrangements to and from Canada, and all the legal and medical help that will be required along the way”.

“One of the main aspects that discourages people from seeking to obtain birthright citizenship for their children is the processes involved. Obtaining documents such as temporary residence visas can be a daunting prospect for people not familiar with Canadian procedures. Our team are skilled in such matters, and can allow you to concentrate on enjoying your new arrival.”

The Canadian Citizenship Act made it legal to get citizenship for a baby born in Canada to foreign parents. In fact in simple terms, the act states that citizenship is available to all children born within the country. Even still, the perception of complexity and bureaucracy discourages many people.

“To ease peoples’ concerns about complexity and legalities, we combine everything into ‘birth packages’. These bundle in everything from transport and accommodation arrangements to healthcare and paperwork. Our experts handle multiple files on a daily basis. As a result, they know how to get things done, and where the potential bottlenecks are. Not only that, but they take the time to communicate with the customer at every step of the way.”

Birthright Citizenship Canada’s role involves being the go-between to navigate different stakeholders from the start of the process. Only when the family leaves the country again with a Canadian citizenship passport does the project conclude.

“Our job is all about removing pain points and hassle”, the spokesman continued. “We even do our best to save our customers some money where we possibly can. For example, we advise people to have pre-natal testing carried out prior to traveling to Canada. Doing this in their country of origin is almost always cheaper, and this way it is already organized before touching down in Canada. We also have different packages available depending on peoples’ budgets and requirements.”

About Birthright Citizenship Canada

Birthright Citizenship Canada are experts in childbirth support. The Toronto-based consultants specialize in obtaining citizenship for non-residents’ children born on Canadian territory. By offering packaged services covering legal, medical and administrative requirements, Birthright Citizenship Canada aim to take the stress and hassle out of the process. This allows people to focus on the birth of their child.

Media Contact
Company Name: Birthright Citizenship Canada
Contact Person: Media Relations
Email: Send Email
Phone: +1-647-646-5437
Address:7250 Keele Street, Unit 425
City: Toronto
State: Ontario L4K 1Z8
Country: Canada
Website: https://birthrightcanada.com/

Source: How to Get Hassle-Free Canadian Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →