Premier Legault ups pressure on Trudeau to deliver on immigration power promise

2024/04/27 Leave a comment

So it goes:

Premier François Legault is calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to make good on a commitment to turn over more powers over immigration to Quebec.

And Legault said he does not share Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre’s Plamondon’s gloomy forecast of Quebec’s future in the Canadian federation. He questioned the PQ’s leader’s credentials noting “not so long ago Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon was not even a nationalist.”

“I respect the opinion of Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon but I disagree,” Legault said at a news conference following an announcement that the government will create a new national museum of history in the Quebec capital.

“I still think that we can manage, with the federal government, to get more power to better defend our identity.”

He then went on to remind Trudeau of commitments he made at a March 14 meeting in Montreal. Legault said Trudeau was open to finding solutions to the growing number of temporary immigrants in Quebec — they now number 560,000 — which are heavily taxing Quebec’s health, education and housing systems.

It was after that meeting that Legault said Trudeau was open to discussing the addition of immigration visas on more countries, such as was done recently to make it more difficult for workers from Mexico to come to Canada.

The prime minister expressed openness to discussing the idea of giving Quebec a say on the admission of temporary workers and that some be refused when they seek to renew their permits to work here, Legault said. The premier added Trudeau said he would entertain new rules ensuring more of the workers speak French.

“It doesn’t make sense to have 560,000 temporary immigrants, it doesn’t make sense,” Legault said Thursday, turning up the heat on Trudeau. “We do not have the welcoming capacity plus 180,000 asylum seekers. Mr. Trudeau said he would look at different ways to transfer power or have a pre-approval by the Quebec government.

“He promised me a new meeting before June 30 so I will wait and see the situation, but right now I’m a bit scared about the situation. It’s important that Mr. Trudeau makes a concrete gesture to reduce this number.”

Legault, who has made his encounters with the media scarce in the last few weeks, responded as well to a speech St-Pierre Plamondon delivered at a party council meeting April 14 in Drummondville.

St-Pierre Plamondon painted a gloomy picture of Quebec’s future in Canada, accusing the federal government and Trudeau of cooking up a plan to erase Quebec. He said the only solution to save Quebec’s language and culture is a referendum on independence, which he promised to hold should he form a government in 2026.

On Thursday, Legault responded by noting St-Pierre Plamondon has changed his views many times. He noted St-Pierre Plamondon has said that nationalism is not necessarily the solution and the PQ’s approach to selling sovereignty was “childish,” because it believes the reason Quebecers are not overwhelmingly in favour of independence is because the movement has not explained its ideas enough.

“He’s the one who started quoting my past statements,” Legault said Thursday defending his attacks. “What we need to remember is that not very long ago Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon was not even a nationalist. He found being a nationalist was not a good idea.”

Source: Premier Legault ups pressure on Trudeau to deliver on immigration power promise

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Paul: You’ve Been Wronged. That Doesn’t Make You Right.

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

Increasing common thread in commentary these days on the “Oppression Olympics:”

We are living in a golden age of aggrievement. No matter who you are or what your politics, whatever your ethnic origin, economic circumstance, family history or mental health status, chances are you have ample reason to be ticked off.

If you’re on the left, you have been oppressed, denied, marginalized, silenced, erased, pained, underrepresented, underresourced, traumatized, harmed and hurt. If you’re on the right, you’ve been ignored, overlooked, demeaned, underestimated, shouted down, maligned, caricatured and despised; in Trumpspeak: wronged and betrayed.

Plenty of the dissatisfaction is justified. But not all. What was Jan. 6 at heart but a gigantic tantrum by those who felt they’d been cheated and would take back their due, by whatever means necessary?

People have always fought over unequal access to scarce resources. Yet never has our culture made the claiming of complaint such an animating force, a near compulsory zero-sum game in which every party feels as if it’s been uniquely abused. Nor has the urge to leverage powerlessness as a form of power felt quite so universal — more pervasive on the left, if considerably more threatening on the right.

Against this backdrop, reading Frank Bruni’s new book, “The Age of Grievance,” is one sad nod and head shake after another. Building on the concept of the oppression Olympics, “the idea that people occupying different rungs of privilege or victimization can’t possibly grasp life elsewhere on the ladder,” which he first described in a 2017 column, Bruni, now a contributing writer for Times Opinion, shows how that mind-set has been baked into everything from elementary school to government institutions. Tending to our respective fiefs, Bruni writes, is “to privilege the private over the public, to gaze inward rather than outward, and that’s not a great facilitator of common cause, common ground, compromise.”

Consider its reflection in just one phenomenon: “progressive stacking,” a method by which an assumed hierarchy of privilege is inverted so that the most marginalized voices are given precedence. Perhaps worthy in theory. But who is making these determinations and according to which set of assumptions? Think of the sticky moral quandaries: Who is more oppressed, an older, disabled white veteran or a young, gay Latino man? A transgender woman who lived for five decades as a man or a 16-year-old girl? What does it mean that vying for the top position involves proving how hard off and vulnerable you are?

Individuals as well as tribes, ethnic groups and nations are divvied up into simplistic binaries: colonizer vs. colonized, oppressor vs. oppressed, privileged and not. On college campuses and in nonprofit organizations, in workplaces and in public institutions, people can determine, perform and weaponize their grievance, knowing they can appeal to the administration, to human resources or to online court where they will be rewarded with attention, if not substantive improvement in actual circumstance.

The aggrieved take to social media where those looking to be offended are fed at the trough. Bruni refers to those who let you know that some representative of a wronged party is under threat the “indignity sentries of Twitter.” Ready to stir the pot, let the indignation begin and may the loudest complainer win!

But goading people into a constant sense of alarmism distracts from actual wrongdoing in the world. Turning complex tragedies into simple contests between who ticks more boxes rarely clarifies the situation. In San Francisco, when a Black Hispanic female district attorney chose not to file charges against the Black Walgreens security guard who shot Banko Brown, a Black, homeless transgender man who was accused of shoplifting, the entire episode was read not only as a crime and a referendum on arming security guards but also as a human rights crisis, simultaneously anti-trans, anti-homeless and racist.

In Brooklyn, when a man presumed to be homeless and mentally ill reportedly killed a golden retriever and the police did not immediately arrest him, the dog owner’s fears and efforts by some in the community to get the police to respond were read as racist vigilantism. The ensuing finger-pointing, name-calling and outrage did nothing to address the problems of homelessness, public safety or mental health.

The compulsion to find offense everywhere leaves us endlessly stewing. Whatever your politics, it assumes and feeds a narrative that stretches expansively from the acutely personal to the grandly political — from me and mine to you and the other, from us vs. them to good vs. evil. And as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff warned in their book, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” the calculus is that if you’re hurt or upset, your feelings must be validated. You can see this reductive mind-set in action in protest after protest across America as a contest plays out between Jews and Palestinians over who has been historically more oppressed and should therefore have the upper hand now.

But as Ricky Gervais says, “Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right.” Being oppressed doesn’t necessarily make you good, any more than “might is right.” Having been victimized doesn’t give you a pass.

If it felt like any of the persecution grandstanding led to progress, we might wanly allow grievance culture to march on. Instead, as one undergraduate noted in the Harvard Political Review, “In pitting subjugated groups against one another, the Oppression Olympics not only reduce the store of resources to which groups and movements have access, but also breed intersectional bitterness that facilitates further injustice.” Rewarding a victim-centric worldview, which we do from the classroom to the workplace to our political institutions, only sows more divisiveness and fatalism. It seems to satisfy no one, and people are more outraged than ever. Even those who hate Tucker Carlson become Tucker Carlson.

The acrimony has only intensified in the past few years. The battlefield keeps widening. What begins as a threat often descends into protests, riots and physical violence. It’s difficult for anyone to wade through all of this without feeling wronged in one way or another. But it wrongs us all. And if we continue to mistake grievance for righteousness, we only set ourselves up for more of the same.

Source: You’ve Been Wronged. That Doesn’t Make You Right.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

Lubomyr was one of my interlocutors when negotiating the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund and was the more activist of the three so not totally surprising to see this controversy:

The largest library association in the world has pulled an award for a book co-edited by a Royal Military College professor over concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators and war criminals.

In late January, the American Library Association honoured the book, Enemy Archives, edited by Royal Military College professor Lubomyr Luciuk and Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Viatrovych, on its list of the best historical materials for 2022 and 2023.

But the book has been criticized by a Jewish organization and Holocaust scholars who have raised concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators in Ukraine during the Second World War.

The association has now retracted the award and is investigating how the book came to be honoured in the first place.

“We apologize for the harm caused by the work’s initial inclusion on the list,” Jean Hodges, director of communications for the library association, said in a statement.

“The committee will be reviewing the award manual and procedures,” she added.

Luciuk, in an email to this newspaper, noted the library association’s decision was “perplexing” and added that journalists should read the book lest they “misrepresent” it.

Viatrovych did not respond to requests for comment.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which promotes Holocaust education, welcomed the decision by the American Library Association.

“It is very disappointing to see that some are willing to use this moment of great public support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression as an opportunity to re-write Ukrainian history, and specifically to whitewash the involvement of Ukrainian nationals in the commission of genocide against Ukrainian Jewry,” said Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, senior director for policy and advocacy at the center. “This book got a platform it never deserved given the outright misinformation it contains, and we are glad to see this problem being rectified as institutions take a closer look at the book and its dangerous and outrageous claims.”

Enemy Archives: Soviet Counterinsurgency Operations and the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement – Selections from the Secret Police Archives discusses the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists as well as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Some Ukrainians see those who belonged to those organizations as heroes who fought against the Soviets.

Some Holocaust scholars, Jewish organizations, and the Polish government have labelled those individuals as Nazi collaborators who were involved in the murders of up to 100,000 Poles and Jews.

The National Post published an excerpt from Enemy Archives on Feb. 9, 2023, prompting criticism from the news agency, the Jewish News Syndicate, as well as the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Rob Roberts, editor-in-chief of the National Post, told the Jewish News Syndicate at the time that “the excerpt included a paragraph disputing the view that the Second World War era Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists were Nazi collaborators. However, we recognize that this collaboration has been established by prior scholarship.”

Luciuk told JNS that “the so-called ‘Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’ should read the book. They obviously haven’t.”

McGill-Queens University Press, which published the book, stated that Enemy Archives was rigorously examined before being released. “The path of Ukrainian nationalism, and its intersections with Jewish history over the past century, is often challenging and difficult to reconcile, with significant impacts on current political events in the region,” noted Lisa Quinn, executive director of McGill‐Queen’s University Press. “There are inherent yet necessary risks in this area of study, and to participating in the contentious academic and public debates about how to tell these histories to advance understanding of both the past and present.”

Per Anders Rudling, a professor at Lund University in Sweden who has extensively studied the issue of Nazi collaborators, issued a statement about the book, noting “I am frankly surprised McGill Queen’s Press (would) lend itself to this form of memory activism.”

National Defence sent an email noting the views expressed are entirely those of Luciuk and his co-authors and the professor has the right of academic freedom.

Supporters of the book have focused much of their anger on Ukrainian-Jewish writer Lev Golinkin, who they blame for the American Library Association’s decision to pull the award.

Golinkin wrote an April 10 article in the U.S. publication, The Nation, arguing the book was whitewashing Nazi collaborators.

The Council of the Ukrainian Library Association and another related group launched an appeal of the American Library Association’s decision. They claimed Golinkin, who has taken part in protests against Russia, is pushing pro-Russian propaganda.

Viatrovych also shared a social media response in which a Ukrainian pointed out that Golinkin is a Jew and a parasite.

That same account also accused another Ukrainian Jew, who has spoken out about the history of Nazi collaborators, of being a parasite.

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler referred to Jews as parasites to justify their destruction.

Source: Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

Filed under Historical Recognition, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

More of an explainer than advocacy although notes the difficulty of separating out halal mortgages from other banking products and, for the purists, of obtaining a halal mortgage from a non-halal financial situation:

Le nouveau budget fédéral a annoncé des mesures visant à améliorer l’accès à la propriété. Parmi les mesures annoncées figure l’option d’offrir aux consommateurs intéressés de confession musulmane des produits financiers parallèles comme les prêts hypothécaires dits « halal ». Le document du budget n’a pas offert plus de détails à ce propos, laissant la porte ouverte à des interprétations multiples. Nous proposons dans ce qui suit de répondre à des questions d’importance sur le sujet, que ce soit pour le consommateur ou pour les institutions financières et les organismes de réglementation provinciaux et fédéral.

Qu’entend-on par hypothèque « halal » ?

Il s’agit d’un contrat d’hypothèque « spécial » dans la mesure où ses dispositions sont conformes aux préceptes et à la doctrine de la religion musulmane. Le principe de base est que l’institution financière émettrice du prêt hypothécaire ne doit pas facturer explicitement de l’intérêt (ou l’usure) parce qu’il s’agit d’une pratique qui n’est pas permise par l’islam. La doctrine explique que l’interdiction de la pratique de l’usure vise à protéger les gens qui se trouvent dans le besoin d’emprunter de l’argent parce que cela empirerait leur situation financière et les maintiendrait dans la pauvreté.

Il importe de mentionner que même si la pratique de l’intérêt n’est pas permise, la structure du prêt « halal » est construite de façon que les institutions financières puissent quand même faire de l’argent. Par exemple, la formule dite « Ijara » est équivalente à un contrat de location-achat où l’emprunteur paierait des mensualités équivalentes à un loyer jusqu’à paiement complet du prix de la propriété. Ou encore la formule « Musharaka », selon laquelle l’emprunteur gagne progressivement un pourcentage de la propriété à mesure qu’il effectue ses paiements. Il y a également une formule connue sous le nom « Murabaha », où l’emprunteur achète la propriété à un prix majoré dès le départ, puis paie des mensualités pour rembourser cette somme majorée.

Dans tous les cas mentionnés ci-haut, les paiements seront du même ordre que ceux d’un prêt hypothécaire traditionnel, avec un petit supplément qui reflète le coût engagé par l’institution financière pour offrir ce type « spécial » de produits financiers. C’est comme consommer bio ou végétalien ou écolo : ça coûte un peu plus cher que consommer de façon classique. Au fond, le consommateur accepte de payer une prime pour satisfaire ses préférences, qu’elles soient gastronomiques ou écologiques ou religieuses.

Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral a-t-il choisi précisément ce type de produits financiers pour l’inclure dans son budget ?

Une partie des musulmans du Canada seraient certainement bien disposés à payer un peu plus cher pour avoir une hypothèque halal. Plus le marché des produits financiers est compétitif, moins cher il sera. Ce type de produits financiers est surtout important pour les musulmans pratiquants, puisqu’ils sont plus orthodoxes dans la pratique de leur foi. Ceux-ci représenteraient moins de 1 % de la population canadienne.

Dans ce sens, l’effet de cette disposition sur le marché de l’immobilier, sur la rentabilité bancaire et sur l’accès à la propriété serait plutôt mineur. Par ailleurs, ces produits visant plutôt la faction pratiquante des musulmans du Canada, cela permettrait de les intégrer au système bancaire canadien, dont les opérations sont assujetties au suivi et à la surveillance des autorités réglementaires pertinentes (BSIF et CANAFE au niveau fédéral, en plus des organismes provinciaux).

L’intégration financière est importante pour les organismes de réglementation puisqu’elle augmente la transparence des transactions effectuées par les différents opérateurs financiers. Si une partie de la population n’a pas accès aux services financiers sur un certain marché, le marché canadien dans notre cas, elle tendra à aller chercher un autre marché qui la servira. Les marchés de la finance islamique dans les pays de l’Asie du Sud-Est ainsi qu’au Moyen-Orient sont prolifiques et offrent des services financiers conformes à la charia.

C’est précisément ce genre de scénarios où des consommateurs canadiens sont servis par des marchés hors Canada que les organismes de réglementation essaient d’éviter.

Qu’est-ce que cette nouvelle disposition dans le budget implique, une fois implantée ?

Des coûts, des coûts et des coûts !

Les institutions financières devront se doter de l’infrastructure technologique pour intégrer ces produits dans leurs systèmes. Elles devront aussi se doter de l’expertise juridique et financière pour pouvoir servir cette clientèle. La facture sera vraisemblablement refilée aux clients.

Les organismes de réglementation devront également se doter de ressources ayant l’expertise en la matière afin de pouvoir exercer efficacement leurs mandats de surveillance. Un aspect essentiel dans les produits financiers islamiques est le partage du risque entre le prêteur et l’emprunteur (« profit and loss sharing).

Cette dimension a des implications sur le risque pris par les institutions financières et, par ricochet, sur leurs niveaux de capitalisation, qui demanderaient à être rajustés pour tenir compte du risque lié à ces produits nouveaux. Les coûts engagés par les organismes de réglementation sont d’habitude refilés aux institutions financières afin que les contribuables n’en héritent pas. Les institutions financières les refileront aux consommateurs en fonction des produits financiers offerts à leurs clients.

En somme, comment peut-on évaluer cette initiative énoncée dans le budget fédéral ?

Sur le plan politique, elle envoie certes un signal attrayant à la population de confession musulmane, indépendamment de son intention d’avoir (ou pas) une hypothèque halal. L’initiative serait perçue comme un signe de considération envers les musulmans canadiens, surtout dans le contexte global où le Canada avait offert son soutien à Israël dans le conflit qui a suivi l’attaque perpétrée par le Hamas en octobre. Il s’agit ainsi d’une tentative habile de se racheter auprès de la communauté musulmane, qui se sentirait plutôt trahie par la politique étrangère canadienne plutôt pro-israélienne.

Par ailleurs, sur les plans économique et financier, l’incidence est mineure puisque la population visée par cette disposition du budget ne représente pas plus de 1 % du marché des prêts hypothécaires.

Enfin, il faut dire que l’approche adoptée par le gouvernement fédéral est un peu hâtive, ce qui explique les limites de l’initiative. En fait, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire, si l’on se fie à la doctrine, par une banque non islamique. C’est comme faire un ragoût avec de la viande halal et non halal mélangée : le tout combiné n’est évidemment plus halal. Ensuite, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire sans l’ouverture d’un compte chèques ou d’un compte d’épargne. Ces comptes seraient-ils halal ? Il faudra donc créer ces produits au même titre que les hypothèques halal.

En outre, tout compte d’une institution financière canadienne est protégé par le système d’assurance-dépôts du Canada (ou l’équivalent provincial). Le fait est que l’assurance est un concept non halal, ce qui implique qu’il faudrait créer l’équivalent islamique (appelé « takaful »).

Tout cela pour dire que l’initiative des hypothèques halal proposée par le fédéral n’est que la pointe de l’iceberg de tout un système, et que pour qu’un consommateur pratiquant accepte d’y adhérer (toujours selon la doctrine du texte coranique), il faudra lui proposer le « combo » halal : il n’acceptera pas un produit islamique par-ci et d’autres non islamiques par-là.

Source: Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Lewis: The Left Needs to Handle Its Antisemitism Problem—NOW

2024/04/25 Leave a comment

Yes:

In recent days, we have witnessed chaos on and around the Columbia University campus, as threats against Jewish students have created an intolerable and combustible atmosphere.

A woman attempting to hide her identity held up a sign with an arrow pointing toward pro-Israel students that read “Al-Qasam’s Next Target,” a reference to Hamas’ military wing. Other protesters told students, “Go back to Europe. Go back to Poland.”

Another protester shouted, “The 7th of October is going to be every day for you,” in reference to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Others sang a chant, which included the words, “We support Hamas’ fight!” and “Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!” An Arab-Israeli journalist was allegedly assaulted by agitators. These are just a few of the alleged threats and assaults that have been documented on or near this campus.

While protests of all kinds are often marred by fringe actors—doing and saying terrible things that don’t represent the views of the larger group—it’s difficult to watch the videos and not conclude that there is blatant antisemitism at play among at least some of these pro-Palestinian protesters. Even if they’re a minority of the larger movement, what we’re seeing on and around the campus of one of the most hallowed institutions of higher education in America are not merely peaceful calls for a ceasefire or more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

There’s rank antisemitism, full stop, and it needs to be dealt with immediately.

One obvious step is for prominent Americans who have advocated for Palestinians in Gaza to forcefully condemn this behavior. Today.

If you are a prominent progressive influencer, pundit, or elected official (looking at you, Squad members), this is the time for you to go on the record and say that the antisemitic “fringe” of this movement—ostensibly in support of Palestinian rights and an end to the war in Gaza—does not speak for the larger group.

As it happens, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)—an outspoken critic of Israel whose daughter was one of the students arrested last week at Columbia—doesn’t seem too interested in rooting out the bigots that share her passion for the cause. Frankly, she’s not even interested in admitting they exist.

Rep. Omar on Monday tweeted, “Throughout history, protests were co-opted and made to look bad so police and public leaders would shut them down. That’s what we are seeing now at Columbia University. The Columbia protesters have made clear their demands and want their school not to be complacent in the ongoing Genocide in Gaza. Public officials and media making this about anything else are inflaming the situation and need to bring calmness and sanity back.”

That’s a lot of words to perform a Jedi Mind Trick: “These aren’t the antisemites you’re looking for.” (By contrast, Columbia Law Students for Palestine, to their credit, condemned the antisemitic incidents.)

Trust me when I say this matters. When racists on the right voiced repugnant ideas, some of us on the center-right stood up and condemned it. We did so because it was morally correct and because we hoped to prevent evil actors from co-opting and discrediting the conservative cause. Sadly, it was too little, too late.

The good news for mainstream Democrats is that these radical attitudes have not yet seized control of your political party. President Joe Biden, for example, has condemned the protests. There is still time to do the right thing.

But take it from me, parties can be hijacked more quickly than you can imagine. In four short years, the GOP went from Mitt Romney as the standard bearer to Donald Trump. You’ve got to identify it and uproot the cancer before it metastasizes. Because once it spreads, it’s too late.

If you’re still not sure this is a hill to die on, just imagine what you would think if such vicious antisemitism was coming from the right instead of the left. (Remember Charlottesville?)

Yes, there are some people who are looking to grab a short, out-of-context viral clip to make your entire movement look bad. Yes, some of these videos show events that happened on Columbia’s campus, while some took place outside the campus on a public street, where non-students were among the protesters.

But there are more than a few “bad apples” to deduce that the far left has an antisemitism problem. And honest brokers among that political tribe ought to be principled and courageous enough to admit it. Even if it’s only two or three people out of a hundred, it’s time to forcefully condemn it. Just say, “You don’t speak for us!”

This is your problem. This is your mess. Clean up your movement, before it’s too late.

Source: The Left Needs to Handle Its Antisemitism Problem—NOW

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

McWhorter: I’m a Columbia Professor. The Protests on My Campus Are Not Justice.

2024/04/25 Leave a comment

Valid contrast if similar protests were against other groups or issues:

Last Thursday, in the music humanities class I teach at Columbia University, two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage. His most famous piece is “4’33”,” which directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that period of time.

I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon, because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway, but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building. Lately that noise has been almost continuous during the day and into the evening, including lusty chanting of “From the river to the sea.” Two students in my class are Israeli; three others to my knowledge are American Jews. I couldn’t see making them sit and listen to this as if it were background music.

I thought about what would have happened if protesters were instead chanting anti-Black slogans, or even something like “D.E.I. has got to die,” to the same “Sound Off” tune that “From the river to the sea” has been adapted to. They would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence. I’d wager that most of the student protesters against the Gaza War would view them that way, in fact. Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel’s very existence are nevertheless permissible?

Although I know many Jewish people will disagree with me, I don’t think that Jew-hatred is as much the reason for this sentiment as opposition to Zionism and the war on Gaza. I know some of the protesters, including a couple who were taken to jail last week, and I find it very hard to imagine that they are antisemitic. Yes, there can be a fine line between questioning Israel’s right to exist and questioning Jewish people’s right to exist. And yes, some of the rhetoric amid the protests crosses it.

Conversations I have had with people heatedly opposed to the war in Gaza, signage and writings on social media and elsewhere, and anti-Israel and generally hard-leftist comments that I have heard for decades on campuses place these confrontations within a larger battle against power structures — here in the form of what they call colonialism and genocide — and against whiteness. The idea is that Jewish students and faculty should be able to tolerate all of this because they are white.

I understand this to a point. Pro-Palestinian rallies and events, of which there have been many here over the years, are not in and of themselves hostile to Jewish students, faculty and staff members. Disagreement will not always be a juice and cookies affair. However, the relentless assault of this current protest — daily, loud, louder, into the night and using ever-angrier rhetoric — is beyond what anyone should be expected to bear up under regardless of their whiteness, privilege or power.

Social media discussion has been claiming that the protests are peaceful. They are, some of the time; it varies by location and day — generally what goes on within the campus gates is somewhat less strident than what happens just outside them. But relatively constant are the drumbeats — people will differ on how peaceful that sound can ever be, just as they will differ on the nature of antisemitism. What I do know is that even the most peaceful of protests would be treated as outrages if they were interpreted as, say, anti-Black — even if the message were coded, as in a bunch of people quietly holding up MAGA signs or wearing T-shirts saying “All Lives Matter.”

And besides, calling all this peaceful stretches the use of the word rather implausibly. It’s an odd kind of peace when a local rabbi urges Jewish students to go home as soon as possible, when an Arab-Israeli activist is roughed up on Broadway, when the angry chanting becomes so constant that you almost start not to hear it and it starts to feel normal to see posters and clothing portraying Hamas as heroes. The other night I watched a dad coming from the protest with his little girl, giving a good hard few final snaps on the drum he was carrying, nodding at her in crisp salute, percussing his perspective into her little mind. This is not peaceful.

I understand that the protesters and their fellow travelers feel that all of this is the proper response, social justice on the march. They have been told that righteousness means placing the battle against whiteness and its power front and center, contesting the abuse of power by any means necessary. And I myself think the war on Gaza is no longer constructive or even coherent.

However, the issues are complex, in ways that this uncompromising brand of power-battling is ill suited to address. Legitimate questions remain about the definition of genocide, about the extent of a nation’s right to defend itself and about the justice of partition (which has not historically been limited to Palestine). There is a reason many consider the Israel-Palestine conflict the most morally challenging in the modern world.

When I was at Rutgers in the mid-1980s, the protests were against investment in South Africa’s apartheid regime. There were similarities with the Columbia protests now: A large group of students established an encampment site right in front of the Rutgers student center on College Avenue, where dozens slept every night for several weeks. Among the largely white crowd, participation was a badge of civic commitment. There was chanting, along with the street theater inevitable, and perhaps even necessary, to effective protest — one guy even laid down in the middle of College Avenue to block traffic, taking a page from the Vietnam protests.

I don’t recall South Africans on campus feeling personally targeted, but the bigger difference was that though the protesters sought to make their point at high volume, over a long period and sometimes even rudely, they did not seek to all but shut down campus life.

On Monday night, Columbia announced that classes would be hybrid until the end of the semester, in the interest of student safety. I presume that the protesters will continue throughout the two main days of graduation, besmirching one of the most special days of thousands of graduates’ lives in the name of calling down the “imperialist” war abroad.

Today’s protesters don’t hate Israel’s government any more than yesterday’s hated South Africa’s. But they have pursued their goals with a markedly different tenor — in part because of the single-mindedness of antiracist academic culture and in part because of the influence of iPhones and social media, which inherently encourage a more heightened degree of performance. It is part of the warp and woof of today’s protests that they are being recorded from many angles for the world to see. One speaks up.

But these changes in moral history and technology can hardly be expected to comfort Jewish students in the here and now. What began as intelligent protest has become, in its uncompromising fury and its ceaselessness, a form of abuse.

Source: I’m a Columbia Professor. The Protests on My Campus Are Not Justice.

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Salman Rushdie Weighs In on Death Threats Against Taylor Swift Critic

2024/04/25 Leave a comment

Worth reading. Money quote: People have to stop having such thin skins.”:

Jon Stewart seemed a bit sheepish when he asked famed author Salman Rushdie, a victim of murder attempts on account of his novel Satanic Verses, to weigh in on Paste’s byline-less Taylor Swift critique this week on The Daily Show, after the site chose to publish their scathing review of the singer’s latest album anonymously due to death threats sent to the writer of their previous Swift critique.

Rushdie was violently attacked and stabbed 15 times in 2022 while giving a lecture in western New York. The acclaimed author was 75 at the time and narrowly escaped with his life. His assailant was motivated by an order for Rushdie’s death by Iran’s leader in the 1980s, who deemed Rushdie’s novel Satanic Verses blasphemous. That assailant later admitted to only reading “a couple pages” of the novel before attacking him.

After experiencing the violence someone can be driven to based even on the smallest tidbit of information, Rushdie seemed to Stewart a good person to ask about our current climate, in which a music critic has to publish their work without their name. As Paste stated at the time, “We care more about the safety of our staff than a name attached to an article.”

“There was a critic—and this is gonna sound like a joke—a critic of Taylor Swift’s new music album, The Tortured Poets Department, they had to remove the critic’s name from the critique because of death threats,” Stewart told Rushdie on The Daily Show Monday night.

“Because he didn’t like the record?” Rushdie asked in disbelief.

“Everybody’s so angry right now, that nobody can listen or talk to anybody else,” he added. “Everybody’s an expert, everybody’s got an opinion, and hostility. The level of anger is crazy right now.”

Rushdie said that though he doesn’t have the “answer to the world’s problems,” he has a few theories about why people seem to be resorting to violence more often over the simplest of disagreements—such as whether Swift’s album was good or bad. “People have always disagreed and people have always said, ‘You can’t say that, you’ve got to say this.’ That’s not new,” he said.

“What’s happened [now] is the temperature has risen,” Rushdie continued. “What’s new is the volume and the heat—so what do we do about taking down the volume and taking down the heat, that’s the question.”

The writer added that the level of violence and anger we’re seeing now has to do with a society in which “we’re all very easily offended,” adding, “People have to stop having such thin skins.”

“What’s more is we also believe that being offended is a sufficient reason for attacking something—but actually, everything offends somebody, always,” Rushdie said, adding that the future under this kind of thinking doesn’t look good because, “If you go down that road, then we can’t talk to each other anymore.”

He also gave Stewart an update on how life has been since the attack on his life nearly two years ago. “It did certainly have an impact [on me],” he said. “I actually got my life back really, I’ve been living in New York City for 25 years,” after those initial 80s death threats. “For 23 years it was fine. I was doing everything that writers do, book tours, lectures,” he said, “It was a shock when this thing out of a quarter of a century ago, more than that, 30 years ago, sort of came out of a crowd at me.”

Despite the incident’s impact, Rushdie said, “It’s now been around 20 months [ago], I feel like I’m pretty much back to myself I think.”

Source: Salman Rushdie Weighs In on Death Threats Against Taylor Swift Critic

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Employers boost recruitment of temporary foreign workers, despite softer labour market

2024/04/25 Leave a comment

Of note (should decline given recent government changes):

Canadian companies ramped up their recruitment of temporary foreign workers last year, even as the labour market softened and the unemployment rate drifted higher.

During the last quarter of 2023, employers were approved to fill more than 81,000 positions through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, according to figures shared by the federal government with The Globe and Mail. It was easily the largest quarter for approvals since Ottawa made several employer-friendly changes to the program in the spring of 2022.

For the year, employers were approved to fill roughly 240,000 job vacancies, an increase of 7.5 per cent from 2022 – and more than double what was permitted in 2018.

The federal government is now trying to clamp down on temporary migration to the country with various changes that include tighter restrictions on the TFW program. Immigration Minister Marc Miller has said that Canadian companies have become “addicted” to temporary foreign labour….

Source: Employers boost recruitment of temporary foreign workers, despite softer labour market

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

What Was Revealed When British Officials Calculated How Much a Colonial Subject’s Life Was Worth

2024/04/25 Leave a comment

A reminder:

One hundred and five years ago, in April 1919, Mani Ram, a middle-aged dental surgeon, frantically ran to one of his son’s favorite play areas. His son, Madan Mohan, enjoyed playing at Jallianwalla Bagh, an empty plot of land in the center of Amritsar, Punjab, but had not come home. Mani Ram was worried because British officer General Reginald Dyer had just ordered his troops to cordon off Jallianwalla Bagh and open fire on all Indian subjects without warning. His officers fired 1,650 bullets at Indians, killing and injuring hundreds, including children at play.

Mani Ram found his son’s lifeless body, among hundreds of others at Jallianwalla Bagh, and carried it home.

Two years later, Mani Ram filed a claim with the imperial government for compensation for the loss of his son. The colonial government had long provided compensation payments to European families when their property was destroyed, or family members were injured or killed. For example, the British government compensated British Loyalists after the American Revolution, British enslavers after the abolition of slavery, and British subjects in India after a large wave of rebellions in 1857.

But 1921 was likely the first and only large-scale compensation for Indian families under British imperial control. British officials were adamant that the payments did not set a precedent and were eager to make them discreetly, burying the procedure, at times, in misclassified files in the archive. These files across London, Delhi, and Chandigarh show a deep racialized and gendered disparity in the value attributed to Indian and European lives, as well as the care distributed to their surviving family members or maimed subjects making such claims. Today, practices of compensation and reparations are still sorted through similar legal structures that echo those very racial disparities.

Dyer’s instruction to shoot Indians at Jallianwalla Bagh was not the only form of imperial violence Indian subjects experienced in 1919. In the early months of 1919, Indians had assembled to protest draconian British policies such as the Rowlatt Act, which granted British officials emergency powers to detain Indian subjects indefinitely without any opportunity for judicial review. In protest, some Indians resorted to attacking the colonial government’s infrastructure, such as railway lines, telegraph wires, and local banks.

British officials responded with great force. They caned, flogged, and detained Indian men and male children without warrant. British officials also declared martial law and opened fire on protesting Indians in Delhi, Bombay, Lahore, Amritsar, Kasur, and Gujrat. British pilots also air bombed parts of Gujranwala.

In the aftermath of the violence, local district magistrates utilized their discretion to allocate ₹523,571 to widows and children of five Europeans who lost their lives in Amritsar and Kasur, as well as to Europeans who were injured, shocked, or attacked during the protests. The compensation funds came from taxes and indemnities leveraged on Indians rather than British funds.

In stark contrast, state officials “distribut[ed] quietly” a sum of ₹14,050 to a handful of Indian subjects “through confidential enquiries,” fearing they should offer at least some reprieve for Indian subjects. Imperial officials hoped that this covert distribution of payments would discourage new requests and limit any precedents for compensation for state violence in the future. Most Indian families who suffered death or injury received no compensation. Those few families who did receive payment received low sums, far less than their European counterparts, and had to rebuild their lives with few resources.

The racial disparity in payments reflected the significant difference in the value placed on a European life compared to that of an Indian, with the former being valued at almost 200 times higher.

Facing global criticism for the violence in 1919, British officials in London instructed the central government in Delhi to investigate the actions of its British officers against Indians while simultaneously guaranteeing amnesty for all imperial officers. In 1920, a committee, mandated by the India Office and Government of India, delivered its final report on the wide array of violence used against Indian subjects. The committee’s four European members justified the widespread violence and brutal tactics employed by British officers in Punjab, while its three Indian members fervently disagreed.

The Government of India argued that its officers were legally permitted to use violence in all situations, including whipping, caning, forced crawling, and indefinite detainment, with only two exceptions. The first exception was Jallianwalla Bagh, where Dyer had ordered troops to fire on the gathering of Indians. The second exception was Gujranwala, a Punjabi locality where British pilots dropped bombs on colonial subjects from planes without warning.

Over the following months, Indian legislators became aware of the significant difference in compensation payments between Indians and Europeans in 1919. They demanded equal compensation for Indian families, political reforms, and an official statement of regret from the British government.

While British officials refused to issue a statement or implement substantial political reforms, they reluctantly approved limited compensation for Indians. However, they restricted the scope and amount of these payments. The decision was driven more by concerns for political stability in colonial India and Punjab than by any commitment to racial equality or justice.

Over the next two years, the Government of India and Punjab worked together to establish a compensation process for Punjabi families who had lost family members or were maimed at Jallianwalla Bagh and Gujranwala. Although the government encouraged families to come forward and file claims, many hesitated due to fears that the compensation process was merely a ploy by the imperial government to target the family members of Indians who were involved in the protests during the early months of 1919.

To determine the value of a person’s life, the Compensation Committee was instructed to utilize a method similar to actuarial science. This involved considering the individual’s annual income or projected income, as well as their life expectancy. After deducting one share for the deceased individual, the remaining payment was divided among his dependents. This process was much more limited in its scope compared to the compensation claims of European subjects in 1919.

The colonial government initially failed to include provisions for Indian women and children, believing their lives had little to no economic impact or worth to the livelihoods of families. Officials eventually agreed to assign a fixed nominal amount to account for their lives. In contrast, calculations for European women in 1919 not only considered life expectancy and annual income, but also took into account nearly all injuries and trauma they experienced.

The formal process of compensation implemented by the imperial government sometimes exacerbated the trauma experienced by Indian subjects. The Compensation Committee asked Mani Ram what the value of his 10-year-old son was. Mani Ram testified that his son was an intelligent student with ambitions that could have led him to achieve any position within the government, even that of a governor. The details of the subsequent conversation between colonial officials and Mani Ram are unknown, but we know that Mani Ram pleaded with the government not to “add insult to injury.”

The allocation given to Indians reflected the significant racial inequality that the imperial government placed on the value of its subjects’ lives. After completing their work, the Viceroy’s Council provided ₹226,000 to over 700 Indian individuals as compensation for the excessive violence inflicted by the colonial government in 1919. This sum, supported through funds collected from indemnities, fines, and taxes imposed on Indians, was less than half of what was distributed among almost a dozen European subjects.

This history, carefully uncovered from governmental records, provides us with a deeper understanding of the past, particularly how legal procedures and bureaucratic systems supported British imperial rule and marginalized the value of Indian claims and lives. But this history is also significant in our present time, as it sheds light on modern practices of compensation as demands for restitution, reparations, and reparative justice, continue.

Hardeep Dhillon is an educator and historian at the University of Pennsylvania. She recently authored “Imperial Violence, Law, and Compensation in the Age of Empire, 1919–1922,” which is open access to all readers through The Historical Journal.

Source: What Was Revealed When British Officials Calculated How Much a Colonial Subject’s Life Was Worth

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Ibbitson: The Liberal’s immigration policies have accomplished the opposite of what was intended 

2024/04/24 Leave a comment

Indeed, how ironic (and irresponsible):

…Maybe the next budget will dedicate itself to improving productivity growth by cutting back on immigration. Nothing would surprise anymore.

There is a final irony to all of this. Since the days of the Laurier government in the late 1800s, the Liberal Party has been the party that supported immigration and that immigrants supported.

But an online survey in December by Leger of 2,104 adults who arrived in Canada within the past 10 years (margin of error within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20) found that four-in-10 newcomers believe Canada brings in too many immigrants.

The Conservatives are now as popular as the Liberals with newcomers. There would be a certain irony if the Liberal Party’s wide-open immigration policies caused immigrant voters to contribute to its defeat.

Source: The Liberal’s immigration policies have accomplished the opposite of what was intended

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →