Lederman: What a former principal’s suicide tells us about what our workplaces owe us

Good balanced take on the Bilkszto/TDSB/Kojo Institute case.

So many bad things can happen at work. Among the worst is being subjected to racist treatment. Harassment of any sort is up there too. The workplace should be a safe space. The lucky among us think of our jobs as a vocation, and our place of employment as a sort of second home.

Another one of the worst things that can happen at work is being wrongly accused of being a racist. Such an accusation – even if it is challenged, disproved, dismissed – is a scarlet R that can be career-ending. Perhaps even life-ending, as we have learned with the tragic case of former Toronto District School Board principal Richard Bilkszto.

Mr. Bilkszto, according to a statement released by his lawyer, died by suicide this month at the age of 60. Earlier this year, he had filed a lawsuit against the TDSB (which has not been tested in court) alleging he was bullied and harassed during anti-racism training sessions in the spring of 2021 conducted by an outside consultant, KOJO Institute founder Kike Ojo-Thompson. This happened after Mr. Bilkszto – who used to teach in Buffalo – challenged the workshop leader’s statement that Canada was more racist than the U.S., according to the statement of claim.

Mr. Bilkszto said it would have done “an incredible disservice to our learners” to return to the classroom the next day and teach that Canada “was just as bad as the United States.”

The Toronto Star reports that this comparison was not initiated by Ms. Ojo-Thompson, but by other participants. And that her comment was a personal one about the racism she had experienced in Canada versus her time in the U.S.

Mr. Bilkszto’s lawsuit alleges that he was implicitly referred to as a racist and white supremacist, and that senior TDSB staff did not stop the harassment.

The Minister of Education is now investigating. Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board previously found that the facilitator’s conduct was “abusive, egregious and vexatious, and rises to the level of workplace harassment and bullying.”

Of course, suicide is a complex matter. It is impossible for an observer to know exactly why Mr. Bilkszto ended his life. We don’t know about other possible factors, or whether this incident was directly responsible.

His lawyer, Lisa Bildy, says it was. “Unfortunately, the stress and effects of these incidents continued to plague Richard,” her July 20 statement read. “Last week he succumbed to this distress.”

The Ontario Principals’ Council said it was “deeply saddened and disturbed” by Mr. Bilkszto’s death: “Employers have an obligation to provide a safe working environment and to protect their staff from bullying and harassment.” That did not appear to happen for Mr. Bilkszto. And you can bet that it’s not happening for other people wrongly accused in other workplaces, in organizations that are themselves terrified to be labelled as racist.

Employers have an obligation to fairly investigate, to not make an example of someone without evidence, and to offer support for people who have suffered as victims of discrimination or harassment, as well as those accused. Rather than being automatically shunned by their peers and bosses, the accused should also be considered during this difficult process; they may require mental health support. Charged with being racist bullies, they themselves might be victims of bullying.

Mr. Bilkszto appears to have done the right thing: he spoke up, informed by his many years as an educator and what he had seen with his own eyes. I believe he had an obligation to express this view, for the learners, as he put it.

His experience is not encouraging for others with something to contribute in a workshop, particularly on the understandably sensitive issue of race.

Beyond the absolute tragedy of Richard Bilkszto, there is another potential victim here: diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training. You can already see the outrage brewing: not only are these sessions not worthwhile, they could be dangerous, detractors are saying, using this heartbreaking story as evidence.

This week, Ms. Bildy tweeted: “Many people have silently endured woke struggle sessions in the workplace, and it has felt like an assault on their conscience and humanity. It’s certainly not helping race relations in this country. Time to stop walking on eggshells and find a more unifying approach.”

I sat in briefly on a DEI workshop this week, one focused on Indigenous issues. It was run by a facilitator who was smart, sensitive and serious. The information was hard to take at times, as it should be. And it was eye-opening, as it should be.

DEI training, when done right, is essential. As for Ms. Bildy’s “woke struggle sessions” charge: We need to be awake to the struggles that Black, Indigenous and people of colour people face – experiences that some of us white people have the privilege of not having personally endured.

What’s not okay is if participants are shamed, especially well-meaning people who are doing their best. And trying to make a sincere point – a valid one, according to the lawsuit.

Richard Bilkszto deserved better. We all do.

Source: What a former principal’s suicide tells us about what our workplaces owe us

54% of African student visa applications denied by the US

Comparable differences to Canada and likely most OECD countries. Advocacy and interest based report:

African students who apply to study at universities and colleges in the United States experience the highest visa refusal rates of all international students applying to study in the US with more than half of all applicants rejected in 2022.

The refusal rate of 54% of student visas in 2022 is up from 44% in 2015, according to a report titled The Interview of a Lifetime: An analysis of visa denials and international student flows to the US, from the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and Shorelight, two US advocacy groups that promote policies in support of immigrant students.

While the refusal rate for African students applying for visas is higher than for students belonging to other geographical categories of visa applicants, it is roughly in line with an across-the-board rise in refusal rates, which suggests that the United States is becoming a less welcoming place to foreign students.

By 2030, just seven years from now, young Africans are expected to constitute 42% of the world’s youth population, and by 2050 are expected to number 1.1 billion.

The trends outlined in The Interview of a Lifetime suggest that the United States is poised to lose out in the competition for students – just at the time that the American colleges and universities will be in the grips of what demographers call the ‘demographic cliff’, the drop each year of some 500,000 students from the cohort born following the 2008 financial crisis – note the report’s authors, Dr Rajika Bhandari and Jill Welch, both senior advisers to the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and Shorelight’s leading managers, Shelley Landry, a senior director of government affairs, and Hilary O’Haire, the executive director of analytics.

Rejection rate on the rise

According to the report, since 2018, the total number of students from Africa enrolled in American colleges and universities has grown from 47,251 to 49,308. Over that same period, however, the rejection rate has grown six percentage points, from 48% to 54%. As a result some 92,051 potentially qualified African students were denied a visa. The authors of The Interview of a Lifetime describe them as 92,051 ‘Missed Opportunity Students’.

In technical terms, these prospective African students failed to qualify for the F-1 Visa. The F-1 Visa category allows foreign students to enter and study full-time in institutions that are certified by the US government and is mandatory for immigrant international students.

Negative public narrative towards immigrants

The report contains evidence that American immigration officials are becoming more apt to refuse student visas overall. Between 2021 and 2022, for example, the refusal rate for South Americans rose from 20% to 30%, while the rise in numbers of Australians and Pacific islanders being denied study visas rose even more starkly: from 8% to about 25%. Rejection rates from Europe and North America (which includes Mexico) have also risen but by only a few percentage points.

Although the report has not identified the specific African countries of origin whose students were heavily affected by the visa denials, the researchers found that since 2018 refusal rates have consistently been higher for Western and Central Africa than for Eastern and Southern Africa.

In 2021, for example, the refusal rate for Western and Central Africa was 57% and 64%, respectively, while for Eastern and Southern Africa the rates were 43% and 10%. Last year, the rates for Western and Central Africa were 71% and 61%; for Eastern and Southern Africa the rates were 48% and 16%, respectively.

“But when Southern Africa is removed from the equation, the visa denial rate jumps to 57%, suggesting that most of the denials were concentrated in other parts of Africa,” noted the report.

At least in terms of approving foreign student visas from Africa, as University World News reported last June, the situation in Canada is much the same. Refugees and Citizenship Canada rejected 59% of the visa applications from English-speaking Africans and 74% from French-speaking Africans seeking to study in Canada’s colleges and universities.

But the question remains as to the reasons behind African students being denied opportunities to study in the US universities compared to their peers from the rest of the world. The report, however, suggested that it might be a reflection of emerging US national policies that are fuelled by a negative public narrative toward immigrants.

While President Joe Biden’s administration is significantly more open to immigration than was that of former US president Donald J Trump, the tenor of the American debate over immigration has not moved much from when Trump described Haiti, El Salvador and African states as “shithole countries”.

Yesterday, for example, the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed the Visa Overstay Enforcement Act of 2023 which imposes new penalties, including fines and/or prison terms of six months on individuals who overstay their visas.

Last June, 31 Republican lawmakers in Washington backed a group of workers in the high-tech industry who are suing the Federal government over changes the administration made to the F-1 visa program that would allow foreign students to remain in the country and work for up to three years after they graduate.

The problem with interviews

Emmanuel Smadja, the chief executive officer and co-founder of MPOWER Financing, a Washington DC-based company that provides educational loans to international students, says the visa denial problem may be systemic.

First-hand accounts from African students suggest that they face challenges securing visa interviews and according to the report, some are having to jump through hoops just to travel to other countries at considerable expense. Outside South Africa, most US visa interviews for students in Sub-Saharan Africa are mainly held in Accra, Lagos and Nairobi.

In their analysis, the authors of the report faulted some of the grounds that are used by the US consular officials to deny African student visas.

The report cited lapses such as students being ill-prepared for the visa interview or failure to demonstrate a strong connection with the US. A few tense minutes of a visa interview should not be used to determine their academic future, as too often African students encounter challenges securing visa interview slots.

Doubts about funding

Drawing insights from MPOWER, Bhandari’s team noted that many African students, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa, were denied visas even when they are qualified and have funding.

The report highlights the issue of 3,000 students from Sub-Saharan Africa that were accepted for graduate studies at a top US university last year but only 60% were granted visas despite being admitted and having secured the necessary funding.

Further, there are indicators that African students were denied visas for not demonstrating that they had sufficient funds to support their studies in the US. Concerns had also been raised about fraud but the Presidents’ Alliance, a coalition of 450 US university leaders, had been quoted pointing out that in most cases, African students are the victims, but not the perpetrators of the fraud.

In an interview with The PIE News, Farook Lalji of Kenya-based Koala Education Consultants said that “applying for a university abroad means paying visa fees, a deposit to the university, paying for a medical and other related costs” and that the “fear of being denied a visa after all that is a factor in people falling for fake schemes that come with an alleged guarantee of getting a visa”.

He advised students to make sure they were dealing with licensed agents. “If you must deal with a briefcase or suspicious agent, then do not pay until the job is done, just like it happens with other things in life. In this case do not pay until you have obtained all the information about the university and have obtained all necessary documents,” he warned prospective students.

On the issue of visa denial for lack of adequate funds, Bhandari and associates noted that discussion forums of groups that serve African international students are rife with worries about students who have met every admissions and financial requirement and are seemingly well-prepared for the high-stakes visa interviews but are nonetheless denied visas.

Presidents and vice-chancellors concerned

American university presidents and vice-chancellors are concerned by the high rates of visa denials and share perceptions that it is harder for students in certain countries to acquire a visa than in other countries.

“Some higher education officials reported that students from some African nations, for example, are more likely to receive a student visa when applying in a non-African country, such as Australia, to study in the US,” stated the report.

Is a shift in policy possible?

Unfortunately, whereas visa data and enrolment datasets point to current demands for a US education by students from African countries, the report says there are no indicators as to whether the US visa policy will shift in favour of such students in the near future.

Aware of Africa’s emerging demographic trends, some countries such as France and China, are aggressively recruiting African students, while the interest shown by US university presidents and vice-chancellors are being frustrated by visa denials.

In that context, Bhandari and associates raised the issue as to whether the US is missing out on top academic talent from Africa.

Quoting Rebecca Winthrop, the director of the Center for University Education at the Brookings Institution, the Washington-based think tank that conducts research analysis on education and public policy issues, the study team noted that the growth in the world’s labour market will in the years ahead be in Africa.

“As other parts of the world begin to age, Africa will grow its population and today’s children will be the talent tomorrow’s global companies will be recruiting,” stated the report.

In its vision of more recruitment of African students into US universities and colleges, the Presidents’ Alliance and Shorelight are urging the US authorities to issue new guidelines that would reduce visa denials for African students.

For instance, they are recommending that competency in English should not be a reason for refusing a visa to a foreign student who wants to attend for instance a low-level institution, or a community college in the US.

“Consular officers should leave questions of academic choice and qualifications to be decided between the student and the institution, instead focusing on evaluating whether the student meets entry requirements,” stated the report.

The argument is that denial of a visa should not occur based on English-language competency, as it is the purview of the universities and colleges to evaluate language proficiency and to provide English-language training programmes if necessary.

The report criticised visa denials based on the inability to provide proof of multiple years of funding, given that in the US many students and their families pay for their education as they go on with their studies.

“Proof of funding for the entire duration of the academic programme is not reasonable and should not be a requirement for a visa,” stated the report.

Consular officers should ‘stop speculating’

Further, the report recommends that post-graduation work interests should also not be grounds for visa denial. The issue is that, despite the updated US foreign affairs manual that makes it clear that consular officers should stop speculating about international students’ intentions in the future but instead evaluate their intent at the moment of the interview, many African students continue to be denied a visa because of that outdated clause.

The report says clear guidelines should be issued on how to evaluate international student visa applications for forcibly displaced students from their countries’ of origin, not only in the case of the African students, or their counterparts from the Global South, but throughout the world.

Amid efforts to get rid of perceptions of discrimination, the Presidents’ Alliance and Shorelight are urging the US government to provide transparent and clear information to students about visa denials.

“The issue is that when prospective students are denied visas, they are often left to guess what aspects of their application may have led to the denial,” stated the report.

The two bodies have also urged the US Congress to modernise immigration law and, more specifically, to expand the criteria on how to reduce visa denials, taking into account that the US domestic demographic trends and workforce shifts point to the need for an inclusive approach to attract diverse global talent.

But despite such robust appeals, it is not clear as to whether the negative public narrative toward immigrants is about to change in favour of students from Africa.

Source: 54% of African student visa applications denied by the US

Sun Editorial: How to create a crisis in housing

Sun nails it more directly but avoids the option of freezing or reducing levels:

Hello, newly minted Housing Minister Sean Fraser and congratulations on your promotion. Ditto Marc Miller, also recently arrived in the Immigration portfolio after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s seismic shuffle this week.

The left hand of Immigration seems to be unaware of what the right hand of Housing is doing. So shake hands and start working together.

The Trudeau government has what it calls an “ambitious” target of bringing in 465,000 new permanent residents in 2023, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025.

According to its National Housing Strategy, the federal government is committed to building, “up to 160,000 new affordable homes” over the next 10 years.

You don’t have to be a math genius to see the problem. The government is committed to bringing in 1.4 million people over the next three years and has a plan to build only 160,000 new homes. That leaves approximately 1.2 million newcomers looking for homes. Certainly, the private sector will fill many gaps – if they’re allowed to.

We already have a housing crisis, with people under-housed or homeless and those who can’t afford a mortgage in this over-inflated economy the government has created.

No one is arguing that this country shouldn’t bring in newcomers. Canada was built on immigration. It’s our economic lifeblood. But the numbers have to add up. And these don’t.

Fraser said recently he would, “urge caution to anyone who believes the answer to our housing challenges is to close the door on newcomers.”

Fair enough. Now show us your logical and practical plan to house them.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently turned down Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow’s reasonable request for more federal funding to help deal with a massive influx of asylum seekers who were living on the streets.

Freeland set an adversarial tone for every big city. The federal government will bring in hundreds of thousands of newcomers to this country, dump them on cities, shortchange those communities and tell them to deal with it.

It’s not just housing. Where’s the funding for new schools, community centres and healthcare? The government is creating a crisis.

Trudeau needs to put his money where his mouth is – and fund those newcomers before they, too, are living on the streets.

Source: EDITORIAL: How to create a crisis in housing

For minister Sean Fraser, immigration and housing are more than just numbers games

Of note. The blatant hypocrisy of Minister Fraser of proposing to make the citizenship oath self-administered while stating:

“On Canada Day, new citizens from nine different countries took their oaths at a Blue Jays game. I had my daughter with me—a seven-year-old hugging a bunch of new Canadians, pure joy on their faces. Thousands of people were cheering. The near-universal reaction was to welcome.”

Oblivious to the contradiction… as well as immigration levels, his old portfolio, and housing availability and affordability, his new portfolio:

On the off chance you overhear a Canadian bragging, it’s usually to say that this is the greatest country in the world. It might violate our national modesty policy to add that we’re now also one of the most desirable, but the data’s there: in 2022, we welcomed close to a million newcomers (a record) and, a year prior, unseated the U.S. as the number-one destination for international workers. People want to come to Canada, and Canada really wants them here.

In June, staring down the ongoing labour shortage, the federal government announced a revamped federal express-entry system, complete with shiny new expedited pathways to permanent residency for U.S. H-1B visa holders and immigrants with sought-after expertise in fields like health care, tech and, crucially, the trades. Prior to a surprise cabinet shuffle by the Prime Minister in late July, the man responsible for delivering on the government’s ambitious target—500,000 immigrants annually by 2025—was Sean Fraser, then the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship.

Fraser, a trained lawyer and loyal Nova Scotian, spent his whole life watching talent flee his home province for more promising opportunities elsewhere. His old office is facing a backlog 800,000 applications deep—not to mention newly urgent questions about Canada’s affordability, thanks in part to our bonkers real estate market. Those same questions follow Fraser into his new role as minister of housing, infrastructure and communities. When Maclean’s spoke with him in the weeks leading up to his new appointment, Fraser was convinced that Canada is the place to be, warts and all.

According to Statistics Canada’s “population clock,” Canada hit 40 million people just before 3 p.m. EST on Friday, June 16. Where were you when you heard the news?

I think I saw it on social media at some point; I wasn’t tracking it. My mind is on whether people get reunited with families and whether businesses can access workers.

So no plaque? No balloons?

I hate to disappoint. We did have a cake for my two-year-old’s birthday yesterday. He’s getting too big too quickly.

You’re 39; I’m 35. I don’t know about you, but I’ve cited the 30 million–ish factoid as long as I’ve been alive. Is it hard to wrap your head around this new milestone?

Looking back at my earliest citizenship ceremonies, my speeches often included something like, “There’s not one way to be Canadian, but 38 million different ways.” I’ve had to shift that. But Canada’s been ascending the ranks of countries people most want to move to for economic opportunities. The U.S. and Germany used to take the top two spots. It’s not a race, though.

Immigration may not be a race, but your office is banking on many, many more people becoming permanent residents. Like, 500,000 more, every year.

People have to be careful when trying to understand those numbers. It’s not uncommon for half of the “new” permanent residents in the annual count to have already been here as temporary ones—some are temporary foreign workers or international students. Last year, we added 437,000 permanent residents. We’re looking at a gradual increase to 500,000 by 2025.

More than ever, the immigration conversation centres on labour—or how Canada will replace the huge wave of retiring workers. You recently introduced a category-specific entry strategy, with preference given to workers in specific industries, like health care. How does this approach differ from the old one?

We need to respond to the skills gaps resulting from the changing economy and retiring workers. (For what it’s worth, 50 years ago, there were seven workers for every retiree in this country. In Atlantic Canada, where I am, it’s now closer to two.) The federal express-entry system scores applicants based on factors like education and language skills. The new parameters also take the highest-scoring applicants in in-demand sectors—more doctors, more homebuilders and more tech workers.

Back in June, you unveiled the country’s first-ever tech talent strategy—its actual name—to create a steady pipeline of American-dwelling H-1B visa holders to Canada. Are you attempting a reverse brain-drain?

The move wasn’t driven by little-brother syndrome. It was a real-time response to layoffs at some U.S. tech giants. If you’re on an H-1B visa and you lose your job, you either have to find a new one or leave within 60 days. Some of those workers might want to stay in the North American market. We’d be happy to have them.

You’re also courting digital nomads—people whose jobs allow them to work from anywhere in the world. What’s your elevator pitch when people ask, “Why work from Canada when you could work from home?”

Come here for up to six months to test drive Canada while still working for a foreign employer. If you receive a valid job offer from a company here, you can apply for a work permit. The real value proposition, though, is the chance to become one of us. Don’t underestimate how powerful that is. People born to Canadian parents sometimes take our daily rewards for granted: being able to go to the doctor when you get sick and earning a meaningful income if you work hard and have skills to offer.

Bringing people to Canada en masse isn’t a success unto itself; they need to be able to thrive when they get here. Many citizens and permanent residents are without family doctors, they’re being crushed by housing prices—even groceries. It’s not actually as simple as “hard work pays off” anymore.

You have to look at the counterfactual if you’re going to say it’ll be more difficult for newcomers and citizens to thrive in this country if you add more people.

That’s not what I’m saying.

When I was an MP candidate in 2015, the biggest controversies in my province were the closures of River John Elementary School and the mental health unit at Aberdeen Hospital, one of the largest regional hospitals in northern Nova Scotia. One psychiatrist left and it became too unsafe to operate the entire unit. Look at a local machine shop that hires foreign workers, and you’ll realize that the job of every tradesperson on the floor can depend on a linchpin employee. Before we get into what we need to do to accommodate those arriving in Canada, we should recognize the drastic consequences our communities will suffer if we adopt a negative approach toward newcomers. So, with that giant preamble out of the way—

I’m going to interrupt you here. I realize that, with these new targets, you’re specifically looking for, say, construction professionals to build the houses people need to live in, which will increase overall affordability.

I can tell you that, 365 days a year, I will choose the problem of having to rapidly build more houses because so many people want to move to my community over losing schools and hospitals because so many people are leaving.

Fair, but it’s not an either-or. Righting the housing market will take time. Immigrants are arriving now in a system that already has massive cracks in it.

We’ve woken up to the fact that we need to use our immigration policies to help solve some of our social challenges rather than exacerbate them. Yes, we’re bringing in homebuilders, but we’ve also got new regional strategies, like the new Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot, which would spread people out more evenly, so they don’t all land in Ontario.

And the settlement services?

Generally speaking, there’s federally funded language training and employment assistance. Other services will go as far as to help you open a bank account or sign your kids up for soccer. There is no silver bullet, but the good news is, when you look at the children of newcomers, their outcomes are more or less on par with kids whose parents were born here.

I appreciate that this is a highly complex long game, but in Toronto, where I live, city officials have been dealing with a 500 per cent increase in the number of asylum seekers in the shelter system. I can’t count how many stories I’ve read about trained doctors driving Ubers. Immigration detainees, some of whom may not present a meaningful risk to public safety, are languishing in provincial jails. This is also Canada.

These issues need to be addressed. We’re not used to receiving this many asylum claims or irregular border crossings, which was a real challenge at Roxham Road. One of the men who delivered food for my son’s birthday was a dentist trying to get qualified to practise in Nova Scotia. It frustrates me. Each of those problems requires a unique solution. We’re also going to do what, I think, most serves Canada’s long-term interests: embrace ambitious immigration in targeted areas to meet the needs of the economy.

Do you ever think that having an impenetrable gratitude mindset stops Canadians from grappling with serious systemic issues?

I’m not going to tell you that Canada is perfect—not by a long shot. When I speak at citizenship ceremonies, I often talk about the Charter values that bind us, but also the times that we fell short of them. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prevented Chinese people from coming here—many of whom already had loved ones here who helped to build Canada. Still, many countries can’t openly confront their challenges because they’re not a liberal democracy. We are. Looking at the other side of the coin, there’s a lot to be grateful for.

Apparently, your office now uses “advanced analytics” to lower processing times. Is AI deciding who gets in and who stays out?

Let me be clear: an officer, a human being, makes the final decisions in all cases. I will add that, during the pandemic, we digitized most of our paper files. We didn’t raise a “Mission accomplished!” banner, but people were excited.

Isn’t technology great?

Yeah, when it works.

Where does the Fraser clan hail from?

We fled Scotland during the Highland Clearances 250 years ago and washed up on the shores of Nova Scotia 10 minutes from New Glasgow, where I live now. My parents are in Merigomish, which has a couple hundred people, eight of whom are related to me. It’s the kind of place where we come out of the woods to go hunting, to put things in perspective.

I also heard you play the bagpipes—a part of your heritage.

Thanks to my grandfather. He was born in Canada but very much a classic grumpy old Scotsman. Come hell or high water, I was going to play the pipes.

Have you really mastered any tunes? If you’re not good at the bagpipes, uh…

They’re beautiful when somebody’s playing them well. I can play most of the traditional tunes, like “Sleepy Maggie.” I once played a New Year’s Eve show with an AC/DC tribute band. I did the bagpipe part of “It’s a Long Way to the Top.”

Now for a bit of Maclean’s history: we used to have an award called Parliamentarians of the Year. In 2021, you were a finalist for Best Orator, alongside Alain Therrien of the Bloc Québécois and Pierre Poilievre. You won.

I enjoyed the back-and-forth that I had with Pierre. I wouldn’t be surprised if, for a while, I took more questions from him than any other member of the House of Commons. Anyway, it’s nice to be recognized for your contributions.

Speaking of, at a televised event back in May, you were introduced as “Mr. Sexy” by Hedy Fry, a fellow Liberal MP. Is this an official title? Is there some kind of internal ranking everyday Canadians aren’t aware of?

God bless Hedy—I think she made that up on the spot. So no official award. My friends are having more fun with that than they ought to. I fear it may stick.

Did the Prime Minister get express entry into this competition?

When you’re up close, the guy looks like a movie star. I hope that, whatever his appearance, people will remember his government for the problems it solved and the people it helped.

Well, most of us would rather be more valued for our brains than our looks.

That’s right.

Are there any citizenship ceremonies that stand out to you as especially poignant?

On Canada Day, new citizens from nine different countries took their oaths at a Blue Jays game. I had my daughter with me—a seven-year-old hugging a bunch of new Canadians, pure joy on their faces. Thousands of people were cheering. The near-universal reaction was to welcome.

Source: For minister Sean Fraser, immigration and housing are more than just numbers games

Ragbag: Did I just become a citizen of a country [USA] that doesn’t want me? [power of citizenship ceremonies]

Reminder of the various paths people take and the questions they have when taking up citizenship (likely more of an issue for those on the left who tend more to over-think). But a nice vignette on the USA citizenship ceremony and what it signified to those taking the oath.

While DG Citizenship and Multiculturalism, had an opportunity to witness a US citizenship ceremony; while different from the Canadian ceremony in some details, the overall message of inclusion and belonging was the same. Hard to imagine the USA doing away with the in person oath unlike the unthinking politicians and officials in Canada:

When the news that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of doing away with race-conscious college admissions, I was on a plane, traveling to Texas to be sworn in as an American citizen. By the time we landed, my texts and social media feeds were consumed by the ruling. While other passengers hopped out of their seats to grab overhead bags, I sat stunned. Was I really going to go through with raising my right hand to swear that, should the law require it, I would bear arms to protect a country that keeps telling me it’s not sure if it wants to protect me? 

Let me back up. For the last 29 years, I’ve resided in the U.S. — as a student, an arts administrator, a curator, a writer, and most recently, a business owner. I’ve lived in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Austin. I have been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1994, but Montreal has always felt like home to me.

Some of my life’s biggest changes have happened during this time. I became a parent. I got married. (In that order.) I was quite comfortable with my permanent resident status — much like the comfort that comes with a non-committal relationship, which I know a lot about. But after nearly three decades, I am no longer comfortable not having a vote in the country where I am raising a child and growing a business. I’m no longer comfortable not having a say in how my body, my child, the people I work with, my friends, neighbors and family are cared for.

Why has it taken me nearly 30 years to make this decision? The most honest answer is that I don’t know if I feel safe here. Because I am a Black queer woman. Because I have been detained by U.S. Border Control. Because an immigration officer once told me that Americans lynch Canadians. Because guns. Because a growing scarcity mindset has made it harder for people to be kind to each other. But the decision to become an American citizen moves beyond me— anchored to the belief that after nearly three decades, it is my responsibility and privilege to shape a country for the people who I care for, and for those who care for me. This belief let me begin the citizenship process.

Along the way, my resolve in this belief would continue to be tested, along with my fears about living in this country.

* * *

Six months after completing an online questionnaire that asked questions like Have you EVER been a habitual drunkard? I was invited to an in-person interview. When the officer, seemingly making small talk, asked, “Aren’t you moving the wrong way? Do you not like free Canadian health care?”

A trap! I thought, laughing nervously. “Well, these things are complicated,” I said, trying my hand at witty banter. But he stayed quiet.

I aced my verbal exam by answering six questions in a row correctly. Some were easy: What is the ocean on the West Coast of the United States? Others were a little trickier: What is the supreme law of the land? And after I was asked —  twice— “If the law requires it, are you willing to bear arms on behalf of the United States?” I was invited to return the following week for a swearing-in ceremony. 

I flew back east to my husband and child who were visiting family in New Jersey, before returning to Texas by myself. While still on the plane, I learned of the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the far-reaching impacts of systemic racism. The announcement continued to test my fears and my resolve. But I got off the plane to pick up a rental car to make the hour-and-a-half drive to San Antonio, where I would be sworn in.

My drive in the rental — a red pickup truck — gave me plenty of time to think about how I got to this point. I drove with the windows down. From time to time, I checked my rearview mirror.

* * *

My parents emigrated from Trinidad to Montreal in the 1960s. Because Trinidad was still a crown colony at the time, my father actually entered Canada on a British passport. As a child, the fact that my parents left where they were from, for somewhere new, was such a non-thing — in line with the experiences of many of my friends’ parents, who’d come from Italy, China, Ukraine, Portugal. (And that was just on our block.) I simply believed that moving away was something you do when you grow up. Even my name is evidence of the role moving away plays in my family’s history. Lise is a common French-Canadian — not French — name. And Ragbir is a common Indo-Caribbean — not Indian — name. Both names allude to the far-reaching and ongoing impact of colonialism as we give power to borders and trust a fiction that has shaped histories and lives.

“Hello everyone! Are you all ready to become American citizens today?”

In the 1980s, as Quebec politics increasingly shaped the provincial economy, my parents applied for Permanent Resident status in the U.S., in an effort to keep their options open. Like many West Indians, their siblings had dispersed across the globe, with many ending up in the U.S. — New York, specifically. Throughout grade school, I can’t remember a summer, Easter, or Canadian Thanksgiving when we didn’t pack the car to make the seven-hour drive from Sherbrooke Street to Flatbush Avenue via I-87.

In high school, I started making the trip without my parents, to visit cousins and see shows by artists like The Pharcyde, De La Soul and KRS One. As such, New York became the backdrop to my coming of age. New York wasn’t like Montreal. At parties in Brooklyn, I wasn’t the only Black person. Standing in line at Gloria’s roti shop, I wasn’t the only kid with Trini parents. So when my parents were approved for permanent resident status after waiting nearly 15 years, I jumped at the chance to move south. Within months, my parents let their status wane. They never took up residency and remain in Canada to this day.

* * *

On the drive from Austin to San Antonio, I saw a range of bumper stickers that continued to test my fear and resolve: “Country girls don’t retreat, they reload.” “Dump Joe and the Hoe.” “I’ll keep my guns, freedom, and money. You keep the change.”

My seatbelt felt tight as I drove.

In a strip mall in the San Antonio suburbs, people meandered through the parking lot of an immigration office carrying official-looking envelopes and little American flags. The majority of us in attendance were people of color, as were the immigration officers who were patient, and I daresay, joyful.

After being herded through a metal detector, I was asked to hand over my green card. “You’re taking it? Like, for good?”

“That’s right. You don’t need it anymore,” the officer said with a smile. I didn’t tell him I’ve been carrying my green card with me every day since 2015. Without it, I felt vulnerable, even as I made my way to the ceremony room.

Inside, nervous-looking people were taking selfies, or reading the letter from the President that we each found on our seats. I did neither.

I walked into the Texas heat carrying my little American flag. People looked at me as though I’d just won a prize.

“Hello everyone! Are you all ready to become American citizens today?” asked a cheerful man from the podium. He looked to be my age. Dark hair. Olive skin. He identified himself as a supervisor. The room full of people nodded as if on cue, and I felt like I was the only one having mixed feelings.

He ran through a list of dos and don’ts. (Do raise your right hand when told. Don’t record anything.) He’d obviously done this about a million times and clearly loved it. His enthusiasm was infectious.

He led us in a rehearsal of the oath. Then, perhaps sensing the collective anxiety, he coaxed a room full of about-to-be Americans into doing the wave, like we were at a baseball game or a Beyoncé concert. We had to do it twice because the first time we messed up. You know, nerves. But by the time we were done, everyone was laughing and smiling at each other and we felt like we were in this wild thing together. He didn’t miss a beat — he launched straight into the ceremony.

“Can you all please raise your right hand?” The words were a blur, but I said “I do” at the right time and the woman next to me bounced up and down, her blonde bob swinging above the straps on her summer dress. She went to hug me, but my face said, That was nice and all, but please don’t.

One by one our names were called to receive our naturalization certificate. When the supervisor handed me mine I thanked him and said, “You were really good. You made that so pleasant and easy. And you were just so kind.”

“Well, thank you,” he said. “I try.”

I walked into the Texas heat carrying my little American flag. People looked at me as though I’d just won a prize. I didn’t have the urge to hug strangers out of sheer joy, so part of me felt like a fraud. Another part of me, however, was proud —I’d moved through my fear to stand on this side. I did this thing that people have died for. I did this thing that gave me an extra coat of armor — for better or worse.

Around me, families cheered and cried and hugged and laughed. I choked down the knot in my throat and made my way through the crowded lot. In my truck, I locked the doors, placed my certificate and flag on the passenger seat and took a snapshot to send to family and friends, most of whom knew about my mixed feelings. One friend suggested I listen to Jimi Hendrix’s version of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which I did, on repeat. The rendition is perfect dissonance: a balance of hope and frustration and beauty and pain. The certificate and flag sat in the passenger seat while I drove back to Austin.

* * *

I have always believed that my parents’ choice to leave the island of Trinidad for the island of Montreal had a very matter-of-fact, straightforward quality to it. And maybe it was that way for them. In fact, for millions of people, leaving where you’re from is what you do. In 2020, it was estimated that more than 280 million around the world left their place of birth — because it was expected of them, or it was necessary, or they had no choice.

But officially leaving wasn’t straightforward for me. The decision to become a U.S. citizen wasn’t like the decision my parents made. Yes, the world is different now. For one, Trinidadians no longer have automatic British passports like my father did. But change doesn’t end there.

In addition to the blow to Affirmative Action, in the same week, the Supreme Court shot down President Biden’s proposal to forgive student debt and ruled that businesses are allowed to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. In one week, we saw how much this country is changing — and how far we need to go.

In a recent conversation with my parents, my mother said that while she understands why I did it, she struggles with the idea that I became a citizen of a country where some of the laws seem unjust. My father, on the other hand, said that if he could, he would do exactly what I did. “I think the U.S. is through a rough time—maybe like growing pains—but they will get back

This is not an argument for, or against, becoming an American citizen. I know this is a privilege that many have lost their lives trying to attain.

He added that when he left Trinidad in the ’60s, he had initially planned to go back some day. “I didn’t want to stay in Canada,” he said. “For decades, Trinidad was my home. But now Montreal feels more like home.”

I wonder if the same thing will happen to me. Maybe, like him, it will take time.

Before I’m told to go back to where I came from, let me be clear: This is not an argument for, or against, becoming an American citizen. I know this is a privilege that many have lost their lives trying to attain. I know that my citizenship lets me move about the world with an ease unknown to billions of people. I know that legally, my citizenship lets me voice my opinion without risk. But with the Supreme Court rulings that we’ve seen in the last year, for someone like me — even with all the privilege that comes with being an American — the decision to dig deeper into this country is complex, even as I stand on this side of my fear, equipped with all the privileges that come with being an American.

When I got home, I read the letter from President Biden. In addition to acknowledging the courage it takes to start a life in a new country, the letter declares that America is a nation of possibilitiesand that the country has flourished because of immigrants.But I was most struck by this line: “Thank you for choosing us and for believing that America is worthy of your aspirations.”

Maybe one day the world won’t have borders, education will be available to everyone, and regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age or ability, we will all be treated equally. But until then, I raised my right hand and took an oath to protect this country because I want to believe that my voice will add to the chorus of change. Because I want to believe that as we move forward, we can all be protected. I don’t know how long this will take, or even if it’s possible. But as a new American citizen inspired by an immigration supervisor, I have to try.

Lise Ragbir writes about race, immigration, arts and culture, and relationships. She was born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, and now makes her home in Austin, Texas.

Source: Did I just become a citizen of a country that doesn’t want me?

Globe editorial: The Trudeau cabinet doesn’t need new faces. It needs new ideas

Immigration money quote from editorial (Globe going all in on immigration given series of articles and commentary):

Fixing this will require a change of philosophy. The Liberals need to ask themselves whether bringing the population equivalent of 5½ Reginas into the country over three years is the best idea during a period of sagging labour productivity and a widespread housing shortage.

Full devastating editorial:

ernment.

Source: Globe editorial: The Trudeau cabinet doesn’t need new faces. It needs new ideas

Keller: It’s time for Canada to take its foot off the immigration gas pedal

Indeed as I and others have been arguing for some time with respect to Temporary Foreign Workers and productivity, along with a more serious discussion regarding immigration policy and programs:

The guy who cut my hair last week taught me something about the Temporary Foreign Worker program: It’s even looser than I thought.

Fixing that, and a number of other things that aren’t quite right about the immigration system, comes down to the Trudeau government. So, don’t hold your breath.

After Sean Fraser was shuffled from Immigration Minister to Housing Minister on Wednesday, he said Canada can’t “close the door on newcomers.” As if that’s what the government’s critics are calling for. Is it possible for Canadians to discuss a serious economic issue, seriously? Or is polarizing name-calling all that our politics has left?

The Liberals have a habit of crafting marketing strategies before policies, and then having policies become hostage to the talking points. Immigration is such a case. We’re about to find out whether the Liberals can make a course correction, or whether they’ll double down on the polarizing talking points, attacking suggestions for reform as so much xenophobia.

The Liberals have raised Canada’s immigration targets, year after year, while also making it ever easier for businesses to recruit low-wage, not-so-temporary temporary foreign workers, and schools to enroll hundreds of thousands of overseas students – many of whom sought student visas in part for the chance to become low-wage, not-so-temporary temporary foreign workers.

One of the negative consequences is that the national housing squeeze has been made worse, with a big jump in postpandemic arrivals pushing high prices higher and low vacancy rates lower. It’s not political. It’s just arithmetic.

The Liberals could fix things – not by stopping immigration but by scaling it back, and making it more targeted to highly skilled economic immigrants. The latter is supposed to be the core mission of our immigration system. Returning to that common-sense approach would benefit Canadians and the economy.

And now, back to my neighbourhood barbershop. The place was empty when I walked in on a Friday afternoon, so I dropped into a chair and started chatting with the barber. He spoke excellent English with a Spanish accent, and I asked where he was from.

“Mexico,” he said.

How long had he been in Canada?

“One year and seven months.”

Why did he come to Canada?

“I looked online for jobs, found one I wanted and applied.”

Temporary Foreign Worker program?

“Yes.”

He gave me a good haircut (as good as can be when the subject has little more than half a head of hair) and a better insight into one part of the immigration system.

It’s perfectly reasonable for Canada to have a system for filling temporary gaps for highly skilled labour. That’s what the TFW program is supposed to do.

But that’s mostly not what it’s doing. Instead, it’s offering low-pay, low-skill and low-productivity employers a way to recruit overseas, at low cost, rather than having to search harder at home, or offer higher wages, or invest in technology and training to increase efficiency.

The government of Canada’s TFW Job Bank has around 10,000 postings from employers searching for a temporary foreign worker. Most jobs offer a salary of less than $40,000. Nearly all pay less than $60,000, which is below the Canadian average.

There are, for example, 17 employers looking for barbers, from Edmonton to Hamilton to Montreal, with pay starting at $15 an hour.

There are also some high-wage jobs. A Vancouver health care provider is looking for five family physicians, at a salary of $300,000 to $350,000. A veterinary clinic is offering up to $190,000 for an emergency vet. eBay Canada in Toronto is seeking a software engineer, at a salary of $160,000 to $180,000.

But the TFW database is mostly low-wage work.

Home Hardware in Woodstock, Ont., is seeking two cashiers at $16.55 an hour. A Mac’s Convenience in Edmonton is looking for one cashier at $15 an hour. City Avenue Market in Port Coquitlam, B.C., needs a cashier, at $17 an hour.

A Tim Hortons in Sherbrooke, Que., wants seven “assistant waiter/waitress,” at $15.25 an hour. Western Pizza in Regina has four vacancies for servers, at $14 an hour.

All of those low-wage jobs, along with most others I looked at, were listed as full-time and permanent. These aren’t temporary positions, even though that’s what the TFW program is notionally about.

And I haven’t touched on the larger but more opaque group of foreign workers: those who come on a student visa, work at low-wage service jobs, and then use Canadian educational credentials plus Canadian work experience in hopes of landing permanent residency in the country.

If everyone on that path was a graduate in engineering, computer science or other highly paid fields, the system would make sense. But a large share of the visa students are not.

As I wrote earlier this week, our plans to use the various immigration streams to raise GDP per capita are being undermined by too heavy a focus on filling low-wage, low-skill jobs.

We can make our immigration system better. But first, we need an honest conversation about what our immigration system aims to do. And what’s not working.

Source: Opinion: It’s time for Canada to take its foot off the immigration gas …

Letters to Globe Editor on the Change to Self-Administered Citizenship Oath

Of note, letters in response to the Globe’s excellent editorial, What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony. Opportunity for Minister Miller to make his mark and reverse this counter-productive proposal:

Stand on guard

Re “Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath” (July 21): As is often the case, the bottom line is an influential factor for discouraging prospective Canadian citizens from having in-person swearing-in ceremonies, although the government prefers to highlight the speeding up of the procedure.

The government also wants to spare employees from having to take unpaid leave to attend. This should not be an issue. If voters in a national election are allotted three paid hours to do their duty, the same should be the law for citizenship ceremonies.

How underwhelming to sit at one’s computer, alone, after all the work entailed to pass the test, no one with whom to celebrate. Where is the government’s sense of occasion?

Ann Sullivan Peterborough, Ont.


I am appalled by the idea that our citizenship ceremonies should be reduced to a click on one’s computer.

I became a citizen at the age of 26. It was a proud event. I was born in a country where such things are important and respected, just like the flag.

There, the flag was treated with great respect and only hoisted for special days or events, then taken down at sundown. It really bothers me to see a row of faded Canadian flags at a car lot, a car with two flags to protest whatever or a homeowner proudly hoisting a flag, but only to see it faded and torn years later.

Another national symbol going down the drain. I am a proud Canadian. It hurts.

Vince Devries Ladysmith, B.C.


I became a naturalized Canadian many decades ago.

Because I was already a British subject, I swore an oath in a bureaucrat’s office, signed documents and I was done. As time went on and I attended friends’ public ceremonies, I developed a strong feeling of having been shorted.

A public ceremony, I think, would have made me feel more Canadian more quickly.

R. A. Halliday Saskatoon


My memory worsens by the day. But, although it happened decades ago, I will never forget my citizenship ceremony.

I recall the interesting mix of people who were there that sunny day in Vancouver. There was the smile and raised eyebrow of the citizenship judge when, feeling flustered, I told her that Canada Day was July 4. Immediately knowing my mistake, I said sorry. I became a Canadian.

As a retired university teacher, I know that nothing compares with the in-person experience. If that is true for birthdays and weddings, it is equally true for the life-changing event of becoming a citizen.

Richard Harris Hamilton


I arrived in Canada in 1968. Immediately after the required five years of residency, I applied for citizenship.

I remember my ceremony well. In those days, we were each given a Bible on which to swear allegiance to the Queen. It was the New Testament, and being Jewish I was not able to swear on it.

I asked if there was an Old Testament, and there began a good deal of searching. I was about to stop them, I would just affirm, but then a copy was placed into my hands.

With great pride and a swelled heart, I pledged my fealty to my new country and liege.

Michael Gilbert Toronto

Source: Trudeau’s cabinet shuffle plus other letters, July 28

A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

The alternative reflexive perspective but one that discounts the assessment by the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board). And just as Paradkar can state “government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited,” the same can often be said for DEI consultants and activists:

One man’s fatal mental health crisis has been co-opted by political opportunists and turned into an attack on anti-racism training while also, chillingly, targeting one Black woman.

Former Toronto school principal Richard Bilkszto, 60, ended his life July 13. Suicide is a horrendous loss, no ifs, no buts. It’s terrible to contemplate the mental torture that leads to that decision and terrible to experience its crushing aftermath.

While experts say suicides are rarely caused by single factors, the man’s lawyer linked his death to a 10-minute interaction two years ago at a mandatory Toronto school board training run by the highly respected Kike Ojo-Thompson of the KOJO Institute, and her subsequent reference to that interaction.

His lawyer, Lisa Bildy, said in a tweet, “He experienced an affront to that stellar reputation” at that workshop and “succumbed to his distress.”

The predictable backlash from the right rested its moral might on two claims:

  • a statement of claim after Bilkszto filed a civil lawsuit against the TDSB in April for not defending him in that workshop; and
  • the opinion of an insurance case manager at the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) that allowed Bilkszto to file a claim for mental stress injury in August 2021. The case manager wrote that Ojo-Thompson’s conduct “was abusive, egregious and vexatious, and rises to the level of workplace harassment and bullying.”

This was not a finding based on a credible investigation, but government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited. In a statement on the KOJO website Thursday evening, Ojo-Thompson, who has done training at the Star previously, said she only heard about the lawsuit through media enquiries. “Additionally, KOJO was not part of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) insurance claim adjudication.”

At issue, based on news reports, were two statements. One, Ojo-Thompson challenging a beloved Canadian myth by stating “Canada is more racist than the United States” and, two, “reacting with vitriol” when the former principal objected as well as “humiliating” him by calling him a “white supremacist” and a “resistor.”

The Star obtained a copy of the recording of the two sessions in question from a source who was present at the meetings. Based on it:

Ojo-Thompson never said: “Canada is more racist than the United States.”

She never called Bilkszto a “white supremacist and resistor.”

The recordings reveal for the first time a fuller picture of the conversation and disagreement that has been cherry-picked, shorn off context and nuance, and presented by those with an agenda to villainize diversity initiatives.

They show that the Canada-U.S. comparisons — although perfectly legitimate — were not initiated by Ojo-Thompson but were repeatedly brought up by participants in the “questions, comments, aha-s” that she invites.

For instance, one white TDSB leader says reflectively: “We as Canadians like to say we’re not as bad as our neighbours to the south and we need to stop.” Another leader brings up an example of a Black person from the U.S. moving to Canada “in hopes of a better future for her two sons,” and says “she was furious with me. She said, ‘I thought it was better up here. … I cannot believe it’s worse.’”

In response, Ojo-Thompson leans on her personal experience as a Black woman to say: “I felt more normalized as a Black woman there than I do here. We’re invisibilized from the cultural fabric of this nation. Canada has never reckoned with its anti-Black history,” and, “I lived in the South. And I’m saying this factually without any hiccup. The racism we experience is far worse here than there.”

There is a vast difference between a Black woman comparing her personal experiences of racism in two countries and a blanket statement that one is worse than the other.

About 10 minutes before the session ends, Bilkszto speaks for the first time. He says he spent a lot of time in the U.S. and, “I invite everyone here to do some research and look at things like education and look how you think about a system we have in Ontario where every student is funded equally. But go to United States, they’re funded based on their tax base.”

Ojo-Thompson replies: “What you’re saying is not untrue, but … all I’m saying is that the Jane and Finch kids are not having the same experience as the Forest Hill kids. They’re just not. And that’s despite our equal laws.”

Bilkszto responds by adding: “We have a health-care system here where everyone has access to health care. It is not the same way in the United States. So to sit here and say, in all honesty, we’re talking about facts and figures and to walk into the classroom tomorrow and say Canada is just as bad as the United States, I think we’re doing an incredible disservice to our learners.”

That’s not a help-me-understand question typically posed by workshop participants to trainers. That’s a man saying to a woman, an expert on anti-racism, at the end of a session that is replete with history, data, experience and nuance, that she’s flat-out wrong.

Ojo-Thompson points out a fallacy in his argument. “What I’m finding interesting is that this is in the middle of this COVID disaster, where the inequities in this fair and equal health care system have been properly shown to all of us.”

She then pivots to the principle of the point behind his original challenge of her experience of racism as a Black woman in Canada versus the U.S.

“So we’re here to talk about anti-Black racism, but you in your whiteness think that you can tell me what’s really going on for Black people? Like, is that what you’re doing? Because I think that’s what you’re doing, but I’m not sure. So I’m going to leave you space to tell me what you’re doing right now.”

Anti-racism training sessions are by definition challenging discussions. In every session, Ojo-Thompson references the normalcy of emotions coming up and the importance of accepting them rather than going into flight or freeze defensive postures.

At in-person sessions, defensiveness comes across in the body language, in whether an attendee is participating or avoiding engaging, in whether they choose to cry (you’ll be surprised). You can also tell by the tone of the questions.

Since this was a Zoom session, Ojo-Thompson made a note about that last point. She noted that there were people in the session who were Black, well-informed, well-educated. “Part of this work is listening to Black people,” she says. “Remember, as white people. There’s a whole bunch going on that isn’t your personal experience. … You will never know it to be so. So your job in this work as white people is to believe. And if what you want is clarification, ask for that. Truly. Not with a foot in the: ‘Yeah, but I’m going to tell you how you’re wrong.’ It’s the: ‘Help me understand further, please, because I actually don’t know.’”

She concludes by calling it “a profound and an appropriate teachable moment.”

That was 10 minutes done. Disagreement? Yes. Bullying and harassment? Not seeing it.

At a subsequent meeting the next week, Ojo-Thompson began by revisiting the concept of resistance that she mentioned even before the interaction with Bilkszto and how resistance upholds white supremacy. “I want to open by going back to the concept of resistance,” which “is going to be the most transformational, because we don’t talk enough about the many, many responses to the work, what they look like.”

Soon after she says, “One of the ways that white supremacy is upheld, protected, reproduced, upkept, defended is through resistance.”

Then she references the interaction with Bilkszto from the previous week, saying, “who would have thought my luck would show up so well last week that we got perfect evidence of a wonderful example of resistance that you all got to bear witness to. So we’re going to talk about it, because it doesn’t get better than this.”

This is Ojo-Thompson, doing the hard job of managing a zoom session with 199 people, training leaders on not just the presumptions that lead to discriminations but also how to recognize the resistance to it. This cannot be considered shaming Bilkszto by calling him “a resistor.” Nor is suggesting upholding white supremacy the same as calling someone a white supremacist.

In the previous session, before Bilkszto spoke, Ojo-Thompson had pointed out how one doesn’t even having to be white to uphold white supremacy, that there are “all kinds of kickbacks and rewards” for upholding white supremacy and “you see all kinds of non-white people, for example, attempting to uphold the values of white supremacy, even among Indigenous people, Black people.”

The far-right media ecosystem — organizations and commentators — quickly plumbed the depths of opportunism after Bilkszto ended his life and turned it into an international firestorm.

They martyred Bilkszto to their cause of villainizing diversity, equity and inclusion work and made a target of Ojo-Thompson not just by framing her as a bully but by suggesting her words drove him to suicide. They splashed her face across stories, sometimes multiple times in one story.

The malice spread, and in short order Ontario announced a review of these allegations with a view to “reform professional training.”

On Thursday, the TDSB said it launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bilksztoszto’s death.

Consider this: On the one hand, reams of data that show racism maims and kills. That the system of white supremacy has caused an epidemic of suicides among Indigenous peoples. That the risk of suicide among LGBTQ2+ people is rising.

On the other hand, an isolated tragedy, contentiously linked to a conversation the anti-anti-racists don’t want to have.

Guess which of the two the system comes down on.

If Canadians want to do nothing about our racism, then let’s be open about it. Otherwise, we better believe Black women. Protect Black women.

Source: A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much, Juneau: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel

Significant contrast:

On the day Israel’s Knesset passed the Reasonableness Standard Law — a frontal assault on the independence of its judiciary — something strange and wondrous happened among America’s fractious Jews: they agreed, broadly speaking, that the law is a mistake and said so.

The chorus of disapproval came not just from progressive Jews but organizations representing mainstream Jews, and some conservative ones, too. The American Jewish Committee issued a statement expressing “profound disappointment” and lamenting that the new law was “pushed through unilaterally by the governing coalition,” causing “discord” in Israel and “straining the vital relationship” with the diaspora.

The committee argued that “dramatic changes” to the judicial system should come from “a deliberative and inclusive process” respecting checks and balances, minority rights and judicial independence. Other mainstream U.S. organizations echoed the criticism. The Anti–Defamation League said the law “could weaken Israeli democracy and harm Israel’s founding principles.” The Jewish Federations of North America was “extremely disappointed” the law had been passed “without a process of consensus,” despite “serious disagreement across Israeli society” amid strenuous efforts to forge “a compromise.”

Pointedly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, among the most stalwart pro-Israeli organizations, did not comment. But Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel committee within the Democratic Party, said it was “a serious mistake” for Israel to ignore the protests of “the majority of its citizens …”

This displeasure of the Jewish establishment, though not as strong as in other quarters, shows an evolution among American Jews. Criticizing Israel was once heretical among these groups. No longer.

None of these organizations is as angry as many among this country’s 5.8 million Jews, who are increasingly skeptical of Israel. A growing number think it’s time that President Joe Biden lean heavily on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his old, unreconstructed adversary. “Bibi” has fallen in with the hard right on judicial reform, from settlers who want to annex the West Bank to orthodox Jews who want to enshrine exemption from military service.

Biden has issued appeals but no threats. He never raises, for example, the $3.8 billion U.S. in assistance Israel receives annually from the United States. Interestingly, Israel, a wealthy country more secure than ever, no longer needs the money. Still, it is seen as untouchable.

While Jews in Britain, Australia and other countries have joined those here in opposition, it’s entirely different in Canada, an unserious country, where only progressives see the danger.

“This is a dark day,” declared Joe Roberts, chair of JSpaceCanada. “I cannot begin to explain how gutted I am.” He and others worry about an emasculated court that can no longer protect the rights of Palestinians, migrant workers, women and the LGBTQ+ community in Israel against an oppressive government.

The New Israel Fund of Canada has issued an urgent appeal. “Today we need you more than ever,” said executive director Ben Murane. “We will never back down.”

Astoundingly, though, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the “advocacy agent” that “represents the diverse perspectives and concerns of more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians,” there was not a peep of protest. Maybe it missed the news.

Then again, the director of CIJA’s office in Jerusalem is David Weinberg, who supported the judicial reforms in a published commentary. These are his personal views, CIJA insists. But it’s likely they are equally those of CIJA’s unelected and unaccountable executive, especially CEO Shimon Fogel. He knows that these are not those of Canadian Jews but hasn’t the courage to say so.

It raises the question: Why doesn’t CIJA stop hiding and come out and support the reforms? At least that would be honourable. For its part, the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto issued yet another purée of platitudes. It is concerned that Israelis are divided and hopes for “compromise.” What we need is more dialogue, it urges, finding solace in earnestness and ambiguity.

Oh. Lord. As Israel’s Supreme Court prepares to hear petitions on the new law — which may well spark an unprecedented constitutional crisis there this autumn — behold, once again, the sad silence of Canada’s Jewish establishment.

Source: Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much

Thomas Juneau asking a needed question:

This week, the Israeli parliament approved a controversial law that constrains the Supreme Court’s ability to provide judicial oversight of government actions. According to many critics, this is only the first step in a plan by the coalition government led by Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu to concentrate power in the executive branch. The Netanyahu government, which includes Jewish supremacists and is the most extreme in the country’s history, has also taken steps, and will likely take additional ones, toward Israel’s further annexation of the West Bank.

This raises difficult questions for Canada: should we stand by as the assault on democratic norms and Palestinian rights continues? The easy answer would be to muddle along, perhaps offering timid condemnation. The status quo, however, is increasingly unsustainable.

Like its allies, Canada’s position is to support the two-state solution, according to which Israel and an eventual Palestinian state would co-exist. Yet it is now difficult to see how this outcome can be achieved. On the Israeli side, intransigent governments have expanded settlements in the West Bank, largely closing the door on a viable Palestinian state. The road has been further blocked by the fragmentation of the Palestinian leadership, with the incompetent Palestinian Authority barely governing in the West Bank and the extremist Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip with an iron fist. In the meantime, the status quo is deeply unfair to Palestinians and destabilizing for the region.

The case can certainly be made that maintaining the fiction of the two-state solution is the least bad approach given the absence of viable alternatives. It is one thing to recognize that the two-state solution is dead; it is another to come up with a better, realistic alternative. Moreover, proponents of the status quo argue that Israel is and should remain a close friend. This is partly valid: There is no serious proposal to jettison the partnership, which indeed is beneficial for Canada. To their discredit, some supporters of the status quo far too easily launch accusations of antisemitism in response to criticism of Israeli policies. This is dishonest and stifles constructive and necessary debate. The question here is not to reject Israel’s right to exist, but to criticize some of its policies and ask whether Canada’s current approach is optimal.

The broader objectives of Canada’s foreign policy matter. It is inevitable that Canada’s focus on the Middle East will diminish. Ottawa simply has other priorities: The most important one, and one which could come under severe strain in the near future, remains the management of its relations with the United States. In addition, Canada needs to boost its presence in Asia, while the war in Ukraine shows the necessity of continuing its contributions to transatlantic security. The remaining bandwidth, for the Middle East and other areas, will shrink.

In this context, Canada should publicly state that it refuses to deal with the more extremist ministers in the Netanyahu government. It should vocally express its opposition to the proposed reforms and freeze or reduce co-operation with Israel on some issues. Ottawa should also boost its support for Palestinian civil society and increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority to reform itself and organize fresh elections. More concretely, Canada should evaluate whether its longstanding mission to train Palestinian security forces should continue since doing so entrenches the status quo by allowing Israel to delegate to the Palestinian Authority the day-to-day administration of the occupation in the West Bank. Ottawa should also suspend its policy of almost systematically voting with Israel at the United Nations General Assembly on resolutions dealing with the conflict.

Given its marginal influence when it acts alone, Canada should also engage in serious conversations with like-minded allies and partners, including through the Group of Seven, about options to change the status quo in relations with Israel and the Palestinians. Canada’s partnership with Israel has been premised on shared values, and with Israel’s government now dominated by extremist elements who are undermining the two-state solution, we can’t keep acting like it’s business as usual.

Source: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel