The Sons of Russian Spies Want Their Canadian Citizenship Back | Time

2015/10/09 Leave a comment

Interesting case and curious to see how the court rules:

The sons of two Russian spies are insisting that the Canadian government has wrongfully stripped them of their Canadian citizenships after their parents’ true identities were discovered and the family was deported to Russia.

Alexander and Timothy Vavilov, 21 and 25 respectively, were both born in Toronto, Canada, but were stripped of their citizenship after their parents, Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, were discovered as “deep cover” Russian spies in the U.S., according to Canadian tabloid newspaper, the Toronto Star.

The Vavilovs insist that they knew nothing of their parents’ spying and have taken the Canadian government to court to have their citizenship certificates reinstated. Alexander is now studying in Europe while his brother, Timothy, works in finance in Asia.

The Canadian government says that they don’t have to reinstate their citizenships as their parents worked for a foreign government while in Canada, even though the couple denied that they did any spying while in the country.

The Vavilovs’ lawyer, Hadayt Nazami, told the Star that “punishing children for the deeds of their parents is morally and legally wrong.”

Bezrukov and Vavilova came to Canada to develop “legends” to facilitate their spying endeavors in the U.S. There, they adopted the identities of two dead Canadians, Donald Heathfield and Tracey Ann Foley, according to the Star.

After leaving Canada, they moved to France and eventually settled in the U.S., where they began carrying out many of their spying duties, the Star reports.

To the shock of their allegedly unknowing children, the couple was arrested by FBI agents on June 27, 2010, at their Cambridge, Mass., home as a part of a crackdown on Russian spies in the U.S. The family was eventually sent back to Russia in a spy swap agreement with the U.S.

“It is not fair to punish us for something we have nothing to do with. We have done nothing wrong,” Alexander told the Star. “Whether or not the government decides to reissue my citizenship, I will always be Canadian at heart.”

Source: The Sons of Russian Spies Want Their Canadian Citizenship Back | TIME

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Fifty years in Canada, and now I feel like a second-class citizen: Sheema Khan

2015/10/08 1 Comment

Speaks for itself:

“Too broken to write,” I told my editor, after the onslaught of Conservative announcements. The niqab was condemned. Citizenship was revoked for convicted terrorists with dual citizenship. Canadians were reminded of “barbaric cultural practices,” and the federal government’s preference for mainly non-Muslim Syrian refugees was reiterated. Make no mistake: This divisive strategy is meant to prey upon fear and prejudice.

Last May, I wrote that Canadian Muslims “are the low-hanging fruit in the politics of fear. Omar Khadr is exhibit A; Zunera Ishaq is exhibit B. With an October election, it won’t be surprising to see political machinations at our expense.” Yet the sheer brazenness of the Conservatives leaves one speechless; a 2.0 version of Quebec’s “charter of values” is being used to win votes on the backs of a vulnerable minority. The government’s open hostility has given licence to bigots to vent xenophobia. A pregnant Muslim woman is assaulted in Montreal. A niqab-wearing woman is attacked while shopping with her daughters in Toronto. Mosques are taking precautions. Identifiable Muslim women feel a little less safe, and Muslim youth face difficult questions about identity and acceptance.

Don’t expect Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to call for calm; this cynical strategy seems to be working. What does this say about us, and our commitment to a just society?

December will mark 50 years since I arrived from India as a toddler. In Montreal, I experienced the fear of terrorism during the 1970 FLQ crisis and horror after the massacre of 14 women one dark December evening in 1989. My first voting experience was momentous, for I helped to keep the country together in the 1980 Quebec referendum. I did the same during the nail-biter of 1995. Along the way, I never felt any discrimination, any sense of being second-class.

Quebec and Canada allowed me to thrive. I remember the pride I felt when my Harvard University professors told me that Canadian graduate students were the best-prepared – a testament to our excellent undergraduate institutions. And the love I felt for my compatriots during the massive 1995 pro-Canada rally in Montreal. It reminded me of the hajj – a sea of individuals from near and far, united in their love for a noble ideal. Differences melted into a shared vision of the future.

However, the mood changed in Quebec after then-premier Jacques Parizeau’s “money and the ethnic vote” comment the night of the 1995 referendum. For the first time, I was told to “go back home,” while walking my eight-month-old daughter in a stroller. When I moved to Ottawa, a man, proudly brandishing his Canadian Legion jacket, told me the same. Then came the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although there were a few more incidents, I never feared for myself or my children. On the contrary – friends, neighbours and complete strangers renewed my faith in the basic decency of Canadians.

Now, things feel different. I never imagined that the federal government would use its hefty weight to vilify Muslims. Never in 50 years have I felt so vulnerable. For the first time, I wonder if my children will have the opportunity to thrive as I did. One is a budding environmental scientist; one has entrepreneurial goals; the youngest dreams of playing soccer alongside Kadeisha Buchanan. But the Conservative message is: You are Muslim, you are the “other,” you can’t be trusted and you will never belong.

Thankfully, other political leaders have stepped up; Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair, Elizabeth May, the Quebec legislature, among others, have denounced the politics of fear, and reiterated the Canadian value of inclusion. We need more people to stand together against all forms of bigotry, whether it’s against Muslims today, or aboriginals every day.

By all means, let’s respectfully discuss our differences, while weaving a tapestry of shared experiences toward a more inclusive country. Our hearts, like the land, are wide enough to mend broken spirits. As the late NDP leader Jack Layton reminded us so eloquently: “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

Source: Fifty years in Canada, and now I feel like a second-class citizen – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Muslim women sound off on ‘stupid’ niqab debate

2015/10/08 1 Comment

CCMW does good work in research, engagement and participation:

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women held an event Sunday in Toronto to hand out awards and discuss concerns in their communities. There was also an opportunity for debate between political parties on where they stand on issues affecting Muslim women in Canada.

But the debate continued to focus on wedge issues rather than major themes affecting all Canadians. That did not sit well with some Muslim women, who say the topic is “just a way to gain votes” ahead of the Oct. 19 election.

“Right now, the federal government is talking about women and [the] niqab, which is not an issue, even for Muslims,” said Zarqa Nawaz, the creator of Little Mosque on the Prairie.

“We’re in a recession, what is the plan to go forward? Those are the things I want to talk about. Not about women in [the] niqab and why she can’t sing the national anthem with her face covered. That’s just stupid.”

Shaheen Ashraf says there’s a negative stigma associated with Muslim garb, which hinders employment opportunities for Muslim women. (CBC)

Maryam Dadabyoy, community relations officer for the National Council on Canadian Muslims, appeared annoyed with the niqab conversation. She says the federal government should be inclusive of all Canadians.

“It’s an issue that won’t go away and it’s not even that important,” Dadabyoy said.

“We need to see a government that just makes us feel more a part of the community and not being ostracized,” she continued. “Not very many women do wear [the] niqab, but it’s being thrown in everyone’s face.”

Muslim women say they feel ‘demonized’

Shaheen Ashraf sits on the national board of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, which hosted the event. She lives in Montreal and says the hotly-debated topic is being heard in her province even though it doesn’t affect her community.

“The whole niqab issue is not an issue for us,” Ashraf said. Instead, she’d like candidates to focus on how Muslim dress affects their ability to move forward in society.

“If you are wearing a scarf, or, for instance, the niqab, you’re not going to get a job. Your credentials don’t count. [Employers] think that if you have a scarf, you don’t have a brain.”

Ashraf states firmly that Muslim women have the right to choose how they dress, just as any other Canadian.

“[Muslim women] feel like they’re being demonized,” Nawaz said.

The upcoming election should be an opportunity for Muslim women to have their real issues heard, the women say.

Source: Muslim women sound off on ‘stupid’ niqab debate – Toronto – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Citizenship leads immigrants to integrate, not the other way around: Swiss Study

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Interesting analysis of Swiss citizenship and the link to political integration:

When they surveyed these immigrants a decade later, they found that those whose applications were only just approved had significantly higher political integration than those who had only just failed. These people had increased political knowledge, were more likely to feel that they had a political voice, and were more likely to participate in politics through actions like voting, contacting politicians, or donating to political parties. This was consistent even for immigrants from different countries.

Because the survey was conducted in 2011-2014, which was a decade or more since the last citizenship votes in Switzerland, the researchers suggest that the results are picking up on genuine, long-term changes. It’s possible that immigrants might have a spike in their political participation after a successful application, but a temporary change is unlikely to have continued for a decade or more, they argue.

One important question to consider is whether the process in Switzerland has some characteristics that are likely to be different from other countries. For instance, perhaps something about gaining citizenship as a result of a vote by other citizens is really the catalyst for political participation rather than the citizenship itself. It’s possible that an immigrant who receives a positive vote on such a personally important matter might place more trust in the system and engage with it more than an immigrant who receives a negative vote.

Another potential objection to this study is that the researchers are wrong to assume that borderline cases are really all that similar. For the experiment to work, it has to be assumed that immigrants whose applications just failed by a hair’s breadth, and those who just passed, are the same in all important respects. When the researchers looked at characteristics like education levels, country of origin, or how long they’d lived in Switzerland, they did look the same. However, it could be the case that there were important details the researchers missed that actually made all the difference in political integration.

Given that social and political integration of immigrants is often something that policies explicitly aim to encourage, this is important information. Although a natural experiment like this would be difficult to find in other countries, future research will need to confirm whether the same effect seems to be consistent in different countries with different immigration procedures.

Source: Citizenship leads immigrants to integrate, not the other way around | Ars Technica

Filed under Citizenship, Integration Tagged with

The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements: Neil MacDonald

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Another good summary of the play on identity politics:

Instead of economic issues and the timeless election slogan of jobs, jobs, jobs, the drumbeat today seems to be Muslims, Muslims, Muslims.

It’s not quite that explicit, of course. Using that sort of language wouldn’t be “politically correct,” to borrow a Conservative attack phrase.

Rather, the language is more suggestive.

Just last week, we were reminded by the immigration minister, standing beside the minister responsible for the status of women, that Canada now has something called the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, and that if re-elected, the government would establish an RCMP task force, and a “tip line” for Canadians who wish to call the Mounties to denounce someone, a neighbour, it was suggested, for engaging in a barbaric cultural practice.

This fearsomely titled law is actually just a few amendments to the Immigration Act and Criminal code that outlaw a few things that are mostly already against the law in Canada — polygamy, forcing children into arranged marriages, and so-called honour killings, otherwise known as murder.

But the phrase “barbaric cultural practices” invokes so much more, especially as “barbaric” is not a legal descriptor, it’s an emotive.

The mind of the beholder

Barbarism, of course, is in the mind of the beholder.

To some people, it is barbaric to pierce a baby’s ears or slice off the skin on the end of an infant’s penis, or even what the Christian ritual of communion symbolizes.

Almost certainly, though, the title of this new law was designed to invoke other, more foreign horrors: female genital mutilation, or all the stoning, flogging, amputating and executing contained in the ferociously harsh interpretations of religious law now associated in the public mind with Islam.

What’s more, at the same time as the government was reminding Canadians of its new barbarity law, it was also stripping citizenship from people convicted of extremism. All, so far, have been Muslims.

The government says stripping of citizenship will be restricted to “terrorists and traitors.” But then both those words are just as pliable as “barbaric.”

There have been no reports that the government is considering stripping citizenship from the Sikh bomb-maker convicted in the 1985 Air India bombing — the worst act of political violence in Canadian history — or any of the surviving FLQ members convicted after the October Crisis.

None of the above is a Muslim.

Even when the government has responded to public pressure to allow in more of the miserable wretches streaming out of Syria, Stephen Harper has repeatedly emphasized that they are coming from a “terrorist war zone,” and that Canada must select “the most vulnerable” refugees, which has widely been taken as code for “Christians.”

Then of course there are the two Muslim women who, alone in all of modern Canadian history, insisted on taking a citizenship oath while wearing a niqab (a word most Canadians had probably never heard of before this election).

The Federal Court of Appeals says they were within their rights. And yet, in the nativist ether of this particular election, Canadians are effectively being asked to decide if they are a threat to our way of life.

Muslim, Muslim, Muslim …

‘Canadian values’

A corollary to all this is the suggestion that there are two sorts of Canadians: those who stand consistently and unswervingly with Israel, and those who stand against the Jewish state, most probably with its (Muslim) enemies.

Harper has suggested that criticism of Israel is a mask for anti-Semitism.

And just last week, a Conservative candidate in Winnipeg, Joyce Bateman, chose to answer a question on the economy by listing Liberal candidates whose support for Israel she deemed insufficient.

She ticked off names, arriving finally at Andew Leslie, a decorated former Canadian lieutenant-general who commanded the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan

She was booed, but remained unapologetic for rhyming off her party’s talking points.

“It is a choice between standing up for Canadian values in a dangerous world, or returning to the days of going along to get along,” she said.

Political journalists, working under the stricter dictates of moral equivalence imposed during election campaigns, refer to this kind of talk as “identity politics.”

Being under the same strictures myself, I can’t really go much further. But it does sound an awful lot like the Barack-Obama-is-a-Muslim-who-hates-Israel stuff I heard so much when I covered American campaigns.

Just out of curiosity, I called the RCMP’s media relations department to ask about this new task force and what sort of barbaric cultural practices would merit a call to the Mounties.

The officer who answered said that if, say, an honour killing is taking place next door, it’d be best to dial 911 and tell the local police.

Otherwise, the force said in an email about 20 minutes later: “It would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment on a political announcement.”

“A political announcement.” What a dry, refreshing description.

Source: The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab

2015/10/07 Leave a comment

Pretty clear that a large part of the motivation for the appeal is political and to keep issue prominent, given the weak legal case (lack of Ministerial authority to implement administratively):

Regulations have banned wearing of face veils at citizenship ceremonies, but Ishaq challenged the rule and won in Federal Court. On Sept. 18, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in a quick ruling from the bench. The federal government had sought a stay of the ruling and said it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I am pleased that the courts have reaffirmed my right to citizenship and to vote,” said Ishaq in a written statement issued to CBC News through the law firm of Waldman & Associates.

“I am disappointed with the government’s focus on my individual case when there is so much more that merits the attention of Canadians at this time,” Ishaq said. “I’m also disappointed that Mr. Harper continually twists the facts of my case for his gain.

“I wish to confirm that I will be identified without my veil for the purposes of the ceremony. This has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with my right  — and the right of all Canadians — to think, believe and dress without government interference,” she said.

Before reciting the oath, would-be Canadians are required to provide multiple proofs of identity. Those who wear face coverings must remove them before the ceremony in private before a citizenship official.

Ishaq is one of two women who have refused to unveil before taking the citizenship oath since the Conservatives introduced the policy directive in 2011.

Conservatives ‘disappointed’

Conservative Party spokesman Chris McCluskey told CBC News in an email, “We are disappointed in the court’s decision, especially as we were waiting on the Supreme Court to hear our appeal.

“We have committed to rectifying this matter going forward by introducing legislation that will require one to show their face while swearing the oath of citizenship. Legislation will be introduced within the first 100 days of a re-elected Conservative government.”

“At this point, the Federal Court of Appeal has made a clear statement that there’s no basis to grant them a stay, that they upheld their previous ruling that this case has nothing to do with the niqab,” said Lorne Waldman, Ishaq’s lawyer, in a telephone interview with CBC News.

“It’s an issue from the rule of law, and the minister acted illegally in creating a policy that went contrary to the legislation, and that’s what this case is about.”

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration must formally invite Ishaq to attend a ceremony. Several are scheduled in Ontario between now and the Oct. 19 election.

Source: Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Citizenship: getting the balance right | hilltimes.com

2015/10/06 Leave a comment

My piece in The Hill Times regarding transition advice should there be a change in government (entire article given paywall):

With a federal election upon us and a possible change of government, what are the policy changes an incoming government may wish to consider, and which policies may it wish to keep?

The Conservative Government made “citizenship harder to get and easier to lose.” Residency, knowledge and language were all tightened (with reduced administrative discretion to waive language requirements and an exhaustive residency questionnaire introduced), fees more than quintupled, credit for pre-Permanent Resident time was ended, and citizenship revocation was made easier.

Some of these changes were overdue and needed. Any new government should maintain the tougher residency requirements (particularly the requirement to be physically present). Similarly, administrative measures to ensure integrity (rotating test questions, more consistent language assessment, filing Canadian tax returns) or improving efficiency (abandoning incomplete applications, simplified one-stop decision-making model) are sound and enhance the meaningfulness of Canadian citizenship.

However, a new government would likely seek to overturn other changes, based upon testimony during the 2014 Citizenship Act hearings and campaign commitments.

An early symbolic signal would be to reduce the $530 fee back to $300 (the $100 fee of almost 20 years ago being unrealistic), with consideration for hardship cases (e.g., refugees). A second change would be to abandon any current revocation cases for dual nationals before the courts, and announce the government’s intent not to launch any further cases.

The writing of a new citizenship guide that offers a more balanced interpretation of Canadian history, society and government could be achieved administratively. Ideally, this would build upon some of the strong points of Discover Canada (e.g., emphasis on history, role of the Crown and democratic institutions, military, rights and responsibilities, Quebec context), balanced with greater emphasis on social history, rights of women, Charter equality rights, arts and culture, and a reduced Monarchist flavour, along with more inclusive language. This should be accompanied by revising material handed out during citizenship ceremonies, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, other changes could only be achieved through legislation. These include abolishing the “intent to reside” provision (requiring applicants to declare that they will continue to reside in Canada) given possible ambiguities in interpretation, restoring pre-Permanent Resident time credit towards citizenship residency requirements for some groups (e.g., international students), abolish testing 14-17 year-olds for knowledge and language given they would have been in the school system, restoring the Governor-in-Council role for revocation in cases of fraud or misrepresentation rather than only the Minister (or at least provide for oral hearings), and removing the revocation provision for dual nationals convicted of terror or treason, given that it creates two classes of citizenship and is likely unconstitutional.

In addition, any incoming government (and the public servants advising them) need to reflect on the government machinery and organizational weaknesses of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. While CIC is organized to deliver stable levels of new immigrants (about 250,000 annually), the citizenship program has been subject to recurring backlogs (over 300,000 in 2013), delays and uneven delivery (the number of new citizens has fluctuated between 113,000 and 263,000). While some reflects political direction, some is intrinsic to citizenship being a secondary priority, with less resources and management attention.

An external review of CIC’s management structure (shift from a functional to business-line model?) and governance needs to be done to ensure stronger management and oversight of citizenship.

Service standards of one-year for citizenship acquisition with regular public reporting are needed.

Apart from the question of whether an incoming government will appoint a strong minister (history suggests that Minister Kenney was an exception), there is also the question of whether citizenship will be a priority in relation to immigration and refugee policy.

Whatever changes a new government chooses to pursue, comprehensive public consultations and a willingness to entertain opposition suggestions (and in the case of legislation, amendments) should be an essential part of building consensus and ongoing support for whatever approach an incoming government pursues.

Previous governments made citizenship too easy to get and too hard to lose. The Conservative government redressed that imbalance. Hopefully, a new government will be able to achieve a new balance, maintaining the increased integrity bequeathed to them, but making needed adjustments to reinforce a more inclusive and welcoming approach to citizenship.

Source: Citizenship: getting the balance right | hilltimes.com (behind paywall)

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

A Tory blend of burqa-bashing and sex-education protests: Cohn

2015/10/06 Leave a comment

Martin Regg Cohn on the odd alliances at play and how he perceives Canada has changed:

Welcome to Canada, a country of diversity that imagines itself a beacon of multiculturalism, a bulwark of secularism, and a bastion of pluralism (which means, by the way, freedom for and from religion).

Now, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is lifting the veil on the phobias still lurking beneath our vaunted tradition of tolerance. Who knew so many of us could get so hot and bothered about burqas and whipped into such a frenzy about homosexuality and sexuality?

When I returned to Canada a decade ago, after 11 years abroad as a foreign correspondent, I never fathomed that niqabs — a misplaced symbol of Islamist fundamentalism that I encountered overseas — would one day distract voters in a federal campaign.

And when I took over the Ontario politics column four years ago, I never imagined that dogmatic religious conservatism — the intolerance and inwardness I’d left behind abroad — would make a comeback in my home province.

Some days I feel like I’m still stuck in the Middle East watching Palestinians and Israelis at war with one another — or worse, turning on themselves: The baiting, the poking, the code language.

Overseas, it’s fear and loathing. Here at home, it’s smear and goading.

Sex-education protests and burqa-bashing are crossover issues. Like cross-dressing, they can be curious fetishes and phobias.

The fight against sex-education makes for strange bedfellows, for it is the flip side of the battle over the burqa. A vocal fringe within our Muslim minority — many of them clad, it’s worth noting here, in niqabs or hijabs — has made common cause with social conservatives protesting against the provincial sex-education curriculum.

It’s a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But with friends like that, who needs enemies?

Oddly for anti-sex-ed Muslim parents, their allies in intolerance of gays are in some cases Conservatives stumping on the campaign trail by stirring up mistrust of Muslims who wear the niqab (which tends to drag down all Muslims).

It’s a teachable moment for any Canadian tempted to join in burqa-bashing: Tolerance is a two-way street.

Not every single parent who has reservations about the provincial sex-education curriculum is homophobic. But if you read the work of the Star’s education reporters, Kristin Rushowy and Louise Brown, it’s hard to ignore the homophobic impulses driving many of the protest organizers — rallying religious newcomers by preying on prejudices they may have carried over from their homelands, where homosexuality equals criminality.

People who defend the right to wear a niqab in public (while requiring them to identify themselves when necessary) aren’t pro-burqa, as NDP Leader Tom Mulcair argued in Friday’s French-language debate, any more than people who are pro-choice are “pro” abortion. Their position is more a variation on the Voltarian dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

One can disapprove of the niqab without disenfranchising women of citizenship and voting rights. But as a wedge issue, the burqa is unbeatable.

It presses our buttons, offends our sense of openness, makes it hard to connect with our interlocutor. Hence Harper’s undisguised glee in stirring up public mistrust of Muslims who cover up, and wounding his political opponents in the process.

Today the niqab. Tomorrow the hijab?

Will those armchair religious scholars who argue that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam (they are almost certainly right) next turn their sights on Canada’s ultra-orthodox Jews, the Hassidic (putatively pious) who persist in wearing black hats and silk stockings in public because they believe it an essential tenet of the faith (most Jews would disagree)? Shall we judge them next, stripping them of their garb as others did only a few decades ago?

Ah, but black hats and kippah and kirpans do not offend us as niqabs now do, you say? Recall that they were both proscribed in a proposed Quebec law banning religious symbols just a couple of years ago — so spare me the niceties on niqabs.

As for those who oppose an updated sex-education curriculum — the campaigning Conservatives having mischievously transposed a provincial responsibility to the federal polity — beware your bedfellows. All those Conservative candidates who tempt you into intolerance will lead you astray one day soon. Doubtless after voting day.

 Source: A Tory blend of burqa-bashing and sex-education protests: Cohn | Toronto Star

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Book Launch 13 October Reminder

2015/10/06 Leave a comment

A reminder for those of you in Toronto, Ryerson’s  Centre for Immigration and Settlement and the Global Diversity Exchange are hosting my book launch, one week from today, Tuesday October 13th at 11 am.

Poster below:

Griffith Ryerson GDX flyer

Griffith Ryerson GDX flyer

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Conservatives crank up values clash by taking aim at ‘barbaric cultural practices’

2015/10/05 Leave a comment

Interesting that just two short years ago, Minister Kenney was accusing the Parti québécois of wedge and identity politics, and demonstrating  strong and principled opposition to the proposed Charter of Values:

“When Quebecers begin to actually contemplate the idea that provincial bureaucrats might be getting out a tape-measure to measure the size of people’s crosses, to see whether or not their earring is too obviously religious — this gets to a point of almost Monty Python-esque absurdity,” he said.
“And I don’t think the majority of Quebecers support will support that kind of overbearing application of power.”
Kenney noted that just a few decades ago, most of Quebec’s schools and hospitals were largely run by nuns “wearing headscarves and crosses.
“That’s the tradition of Quebec itself and I think it’s something that should be respected,” he said.
Earlier this week, Kenney said he will ask the Department of Justice to review the values charter if it becomes law in Quebec, to see if it violates the constitutional protection around freedom of religion in Canada.
Asked why Ottawa is wading into Quebec politics, Kenney said the federal government is prepared to mount a legal challenge against the plan because it’s a “clear effort to violate what are undeniably fundamental and universal rights, like freedom of religion.”
Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has said she is “very proud of the charter,” and is looking forward to a debate on it.
“I think we need to set clear guidelines for how we live together,” she told reporters on Wednesday.
But Kenney said such guidelines are counterproductive to creating a harmonious Canada.
“At the end of the day, integration outcomes depend on immigration inputs and if you want people to become a part of your society and fully participate in it, then you have to create a space (and) send a message that people are welcoming (and) including.”

Jason Kenney calls Quebec’s values charter ‘Monty Pythonesque

But he did support the requirement for citizens to show their faces when receiving government services:

He said that there “is an expectation that newcomers should make an effort to integrate successfully into Canadian society,” while adding that governments have “to be welcoming and to create equality of opportunity.” Mr. Kenney added that it is reasonable, as proposed in the charter, to call on all citizens to “show their faces” during interactions with the government.

Conservatives vow to challenge Quebec charter, should it pass

Today, the tone is different, and the Conservatives, as so many observers have noted, are aggressively playing the identity cart and the politics of fear. The latest summary of the culture wars and wedge politics of the Conservatives:

If it wasn’t clear already, the culture war is definitely on now  and the pollsters say it’s working,

With the polls moving the Conservatives’ way and sensing that a majority could yet be in sight, the Tory campaign is pressing hard on the hot button of identity politics, promising a new RCMP “tip line” to enable Canadians to report “barbaric cultural practices” such as sexual slavery or so-called honour killings.

On CBC News Network’s Power & Politics, Liberal pundit Amanda Alvaro fumed that this was a “barbaric political practice” by the Conservatives.

A good line, but, hey, could two more weeks of cultural combat put the Conservatives over the top? Somebody seems to think so.

Even as two of his colleagues were promising the new tip line, Calgary Conservative Jason Kenney launched a fresh attack on the wearing of a niqab, or face veil, which he called “medieval” and “tribal.”

While he was at it, Kenney blasted the Liberals and the NDP — again — for opposing the revocation of citizenship for convicted terrorists.

Do we need a tip line?

Of course, Canadians can already call police to report any crime, at any time. It’s hard to see how calling a different number will make much difference. Besides that, the urgent need for a special tip line does not seem to have gripped the Conservatives during their 10 years in office — only now, in the final days of an election campaign.

One thing the tip line does, though, is enable them to keep talking about an issue that seems to be firing up the troops.

The Conservatives’ emphasis on the defence of what they call “Canadian values” is credited by pollsters with a significant uptick in their support, particularly in Quebec.

And it’s not a risky strategy: a poll done by the Privy Council Office in March of this year, paid for by taxpayers, found 82 per cent of Canadians in support of the Conservatives’ bid to ban the wearing of a niqab at citizenship ceremonies. In Quebec, that number was even higher — 93 per cent.

“We need to stand up for our values,” said Conservative candidate Chris Alexander, who is in a tight race for re-election in the Ontario riding of Ajax.

“We need to do that in citizenship ceremonies. We need to do that to protect women and girls from forced marriage and other barbaric practices.”

Joining him was Kellie Leitch, the Conservative candidate in Simcoe-Grey, who said the tip line would mean that “citizens and victims can call with information about incidents of barbaric cultural practices here in Canada.”

She did not say what, if anything, prevents Canadians from doing that now.

However, she did say there would also be a new RCMP task force to enforce the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which received royal assent in June. In addition, she promised a $12-million fund, over four years, to assist overseas aid groups to stop forced marriages of girls and young women in conflict zones.

“The Conservative government is not afraid to defend Canadian values and to be clear that these practices have no place in Canadian society,” said Leitch.

Kenney takes on the ‘medieval’ niqab

Kenney, simultaneously, was in Halifax to tout the Conservatives’ naval shipbuilding project. When asked about the niqab, though, he seized the chance — and denied that he was in any way demonizing Muslims.

“I think it’s completely wrong-headed to associate the niqab with Islam,” Kenney said.

“The niqab reflects a medieval tribal custom that reflects a misogynistic view of women.”

Kenney is correct that the vast majority of Muslim women, in Canada and worldwide, do not wear a veil and do not see it as a religious requirement. On the other hand, it just happens that those who wear it tend to be Muslims.

A new passport?

But, details, details. They don’t seem likely to interfere with the Conservative strategy. Kenney pressed on, repeating his attacks on those who differ with the cancellation of citizenship for Canadian convicted terrorists.

Kenney referred to the case of Farah Mohamed Shirdon, from Calgary, who was videotaped burning his Canadian passport while fighting with ISIS in June 2014.

“Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair,” said Kenney, “think that if that fellow shows up at one of our embassies, we should issue him a new passport and welcome him back to Canada.”

Both the Liberal and NDP leaders have said terrorists who are Canadian citizens should be in jail. But Tom Mulcair, well aware of the erosion of his poll numbers in Quebec, seemed to want to change the subject when he appeared for a pre-debate interview on City-TV in Montreal.

Mulcair said he would counter the Conservative tactics “by making sure that we don’t let Stephen Harper hide behind the niqab.”

When the host asked, “Well, let’s talk about the niqab,” Mulcair responded, “Well, let’s talk about his balance sheet — about what he’s done to Canada.”

But the Conservatives do want to talk about the niqab. And passports. And barbaric cultural practices. And, if a majority is possible, they’re not going to stop.

Read more of this post

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →