Islam and the issue of parental rights

Of interest:

There’s a religion angle to pretty much every news event that happens these days. That’s one of the reasons why the Free Press continues to report about religion, even when most other daily papers in Canada have given it up.

This includes the 1 Million March for Children, which found thousands of Canadians rallying against what they see as inappropriate teaching about gender and sexuality in schools.

As it turns out, the key person behind the March was Kamel El-Cheikh, an Ottawa businessperson whose parents emigrated from Lebanon. El-Cheikh identifies as Muslim. His children attend a private Islamic school.

I watched a couple of interviews with him on conservative media to learn more about how his faith might be influencing his views on this topic.

In those interviews, El-Cheikh indicated he’d been watching this issue for a decade or more. He became active after a student was suspended from a Catholic school in Renfrew, Ont., last November for organizing a student walkout to protest biological males from accessing a women’s washroom.

That incident led him to explore what he called “the indoctrination” and “compulsion” that goes on in schools over sexual orientation and gender.

As a Muslim, he said, he wants to be kind and respect other views. But, he added, “when compulsion came into the country, that’s when we said it was getting out of hand.”

When asked if Canadian Muslims are being influenced on this issue by far-right Christian groups in the U.S., El-Cheikh said no. That notion, he said, was “disrespectful” and “demeaning” to Muslims in Canada, suggesting they are “gullible and naïve” and that they need Americans to tell “us what to think.”

And yet, while not using any of the far-right Christian nationalist rhetoric that is common in the U.S., El-Cheikh did use terms familiar to that movement — things like “the fabric of Canada is changing,” that we need to “get back to what Canada stood for,” and that he wants it to be “one nation under God.”

El-Cheikh spoke highly of diversity in Canada. But, he added, “diversity doesn’t just mean your sexual orientation. It also means straight families, that’s diversity too, Muslim and Christian.”

He emphasized he wasn’t opposed to adults deciding about their sexual orientation, noting he has had gay bosses and employees. “Who am I to judge?” he asked. “If you want to be gay or a drag queen, go ahead. The problem is if it involves kids.”

He also opposes things like being told to accept gender neutral pronouns, things that he said infringe on his beliefs. Doing so, he said, “is forbidden in my faith.”

El-Cheikh acknowledged that Christian groups have been active in this area for some time, and that Canadian Muslims “are late to the dance.” Muslims, he said, were “silent, we didn’t want to be rude or offend.” That silence, he added, was “taken for weakness.”

But now it has come to the point where “we had to say something about what is happening today,” he said, adding Muslims in Canada are “going to be active at all levels” on this issue as school trustees and in “every organization that involves our children.”

He disputed the notion, promoted by some Canadian Muslims, that Islam is not in conflict with homosexuality. That idea, he said, is “blasphemy.” Islam, he said, “is opposed” to homosexuality. “You can’t practise the faith and do that.”

At no point did El-Cheikh claim to represent any official Muslim group. Two Islamic organizations, the Muslim Association of Canada and the Canadian Council of Imams, did issue a joint statement saying they were not involved in the organization of or endorsed the marches.

They did add, however, that “Canada is regrettably moving in a direction where advocates of sexual and gender ethics contrary to Islamic faith are going beyond their limits by imposing their worldview on our children.”

Muslims aren’t the only religious group involved in this issue; Christian organizations like Canada Family Action and Action4Canada also are calling for enhanced parental rights and the elimination of gender and sexuality education in schools.

What to take away from this?

First, although El-Cheikh identifies as a Muslim, he doesn’t represent all Muslims in Canada — just as someone who is Christian who takes a strong stand on an issue doesn’t represent all members of that faith.

Second, it appears that people from religions other than Christianity are exercising their rights to express themselves about this issue. This likely won’t be the last time we hear from some Muslims about this.

Finally, the march and this issue has brought together right-wing Christians and Muslims in a single cause — who saw that coming? These two groups ordinarily don’t mix. I wonder where that might go in the future?

But one thing you can count on; the Free Press will continue to monitor it.

Source: Islam and the issue of parental rights – Winnipeg Free Press – Winnipeg Free Press

Tribal Judge Rules in Favor of Citizenship for Descendants of Creek Slaves

Of note:

A judge for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma ruled that descendants of Black people who were enslaved by the tribe are eligible for tribal citizenship, nullifying a change to the tribe’s Constitution that had expelled Black members from the nation 44 years ago.

Judge Denette Mouser of the tribe’s District Court ruled on Wednesday in favor of two descendants of tribal slaves, known today as Freedmen, who had applied for citizenship in the Muscogee Nation but were denied because of their ancestry.

Judge Mouser reversed those decisions and ordered the tribe to reconsider the applications of the two plaintiffs, Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy, with the understanding that applicants with Black tribal ancestors are eligible for citizenship.

Geri Wisner, the attorney general for the Muscogee Nation, said in a statement that the tribe would appeal the decision to the nation’s Supreme Court, adding that the tribal Constitution “makes no provisions for citizenship for non-Creek individuals.”

The decision was a significant victory for Freedmen, who have been embroiled in a long political and legal battle to be recognized as tribal citizens.

Native American tribes in Oklahoma and the federal government have in recent years changed policies that discriminated against Freedmen, following a public pressure campaign by advocates, tribal officials and members of Congress. The Cherokee Nation in 2021 eliminated language from its Constitution that limited the rights of Freedmen in the tribe. And the Indian Health Service began providing care to Freedmen in the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma later that year.

In the Civil War era, many tribes in Oklahoma allied themselves with the Confederacy and fought to preserve the institution of slavery. After the war, a series of treaties in 1866 between the federal government and five tribes in Oklahoma — including the Muscogee Nation — abolished slavery and granted their former slaves “all the rights” of citizens in the tribal nations.

At the center of the dispute over tribal citizenship is a federal census of Native American tribes compiled in the early 1900s that divided members by race into Black and non-Black tribal rolls, respectively known as the Freedmen and “by blood” rolls.

In the 1970s, the principal chief of the Muscogee Nation at the time, Claude Cox, expressed fear that “blood” citizens of the nation would be outnumbered by Black citizens. At a meeting of the tribe’s National Council in 1977, he said that “full-bloods” had “lost control” of the tribe and that the nation needed “a Constitution that will keep the Creek Indian in control.”

Source: Tribal Judge Rules in Favor of Citizenship for Descendants of Creek Slaves – The New York Times

How Corporate America Kept Its Diversity Promise: It Actually Did

Of note (and despite the reduction of DEI staff):

Mass protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd in 2020 led to a flurry of company promises, both specific and vague, to hire and promote more Black people and others from underrepresented groups.

Overall job growth in 2021 included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.

The biggest shifts happened in less-senior job categories. White people held fewer of those roles in 2021 than they did in 2020, whereas thousands of people of color were added to the ranks. But the trend continued up the job ladder in top, high-paid jobs, too: Companies increased their racial diversity among executives, managers and professionals.

“Those are astounding percentages,” said David Larcker, the director of the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford University. Read the full analysis.

Source: How Corporate America Kept Its Diversity Promise: A Week of Big … – Bloomberg

Racicot: J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones 

Quebec commentary on whether there is systemic discrimination or systemic racism. In some ways, more of a semantic distinction although systemic racism is arguably a deeper form of discrimination. But its use may contribute to greater polarization and may distract from addressing concrete issues as Racicot argues:

Dans ses deux derniers textes au Devoir, le pédiatre urgentiste et professeur à l’Université McGill Samir Shaheen-Hussain utilise l’expression « racisme systémique ». Ce faisant, il épouse la vision des chefs autochtones qui en font abondamment usage.

Or, il est important de rappeler que le juge à la retraite Jacques Viens, encore dans son récent témoignage devant la commission parlementaire sur le projet de loi 32 sur la sécurisation culturelle, a continué de s’en tenir à la notion de discrimination systémique et non à celle de racisme systémique, comme ce dernier l’avait prudemment mais rigoureusement fait dans le rapport de sa commission, en 2019.

Lors de son témoignage de la semaine dernière, le ministre responsable des Relations avec les Premières Nations et les Inuit, Ian Lafrenière, a rappelé l’importance des mots. Il a donc tenté d’obtenir du juge Viens un éclaircissement, à mon avis essentiel, sur son utilisation des expressions « discrimination systémique » et « racisme systémique ». Le juge n’y a pas répondu directement. Pourquoi ? Je ne sais pas. Il appelle plutôt le gouvernement du Québec à reconnaître « dès maintenant la discrimination systémique et le Principe de Joyce », a-t-il dit en visioconférence. Que comprendre de cette réponse sibylline ?

Essentiellement, j’y lis son refus du terme « racisme ». En effet, s’il était d’accord avec le diagnostic de racisme, il n’aurait eu qu’à inciter le gouvernement à reconnaître le Principe de Joyce, puisque ce dernier pose le constat de racisme comme prémisse… mais il a pris soin de préciser la discrimination systémique ET le Principe de Joyce.

La question ne se pose pas que sur le plan de la sémantique. Comme ne le serait pas, en cour de justice, un effort de choisir entre les termes « homicide involontaire » et « meurtre prémédité ». Les deux se distinguent par l’intention de l’accusé. L’effet est le même. Mais la justice demande de faire une distinction des intentions pour juger de la culpabilité et des mesures correctives à imposer.

C’est là toute la problématique engendrée par l’exigence des Attikameks que leur texte soit intégralement adopté comme condition préalable. Reconnaissons-le, la commission Viens l’a clairement exposé et conclu, les systèmes de santé, de justice et autres du gouvernement peuvent engendrer de la discrimination envers les Autochtones. Par exemple lorsque des lois destinées à protéger la langue commune du Québec ont pour effet indésirable de priver des communautés autochtones éloignées d’accès à des professionnels incapables de parler français. Reconnaissons tout de même qu’il y a alors discrimination systémique, mais pas racisme systémique.

Pour les Québécois soucieux de leur identité et fiers de leur histoire et de leur société, le fait qu’on affirme que leurs gouvernements successifs ont mis sur pied et entretiennent un système fondé sur une intention raciste est une insulte et une injure. Pour plusieurs, cette accusation injuste produit une colère qui ne peut que conduire à un blocage dans la résolution du problème dans le sens recherché par les six piliers du Principe de Joyce et par les 142 appels à l’action de la commission Viens.

J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones d’admettre que l’accusation de racisme à l’endroit du Québec est inappropriée et de modifier leur texte en conséquence. Ça ne pourra qu’aider à débloquer et à faire avancer les actions correctives concrètes, efficaces et durables réclamées par le juge Viens.

Source: J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

Douglas Todd: Hindu Canadians are distressed and politicians need to take heed

Of note. Also need to acknowledge the likely impact of PM Modi and his hindutva ideology as a likely contributing factor. But absolutely, a challenge for all parties to navigate these communities and the related diaspora politics.

And its Omer Aziz who recently raised the alarrm;

A man has been arrested for vandalizing two large Hindu temples in Surrey, say RCMP.

The suspect and his accomplices are accused of plastering the Hindu places of worship with yellow-red posters. The posters call for a separate Sikh homeland in India and declare that Indian diplomats in Canada are “wanted” for the June 18 “assassination” of Khalistani activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

These acts of intimidation at the Laxmi Narayan and Bhameshwari temples are only the latest strikes at more than a dozen Hindu sanctuaries across Canada. Indian consulates in Toronto and Vancouver have also been targeted.

And in a recent video, the head of the powerful secessionist group Sikhs for Justice, angrily tells all Hindus to leave Canada.

It is tragic that tensions are intensifying between two of Canada’s largest diaspora groups, the 772,000 Sikh population and the faster-growing Hindu population, which now numbers 828,000.

The escalations are occurring despite neither religious group being at all monolithic. Indeed, over the decades there have been countless examples of harmonious Sikh-Hindu relations across Canada.

And it must be noted that many Sikhs do not support activists’ aggressive, sometimes violent, push for an independent homeland in the Punjab called Khalistan.

However, the summer murder of Nijjar, a gurdwara leader in Surrey, reverberates with the sectarian divisions that also surfaced in this country in 2021. That’s when Sikhs in Canada were instrumental in leading the mass protests against attempts by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, to reform farming markets.

Canadian politicians, ever-focused on how to woo large ethnic voting groups, are being forced to try to figure out how to navigate increasingly volatile and complex divisions between the country’s Sikh and Hindu populations, who are concentrated in key ridings in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took a high-stakes political gamble, internationally and domestically, on Sept. 18 when he announced there are “credible allegations” that agents of the government of India had a hand in the slaying of Nijjar, whom India has accused of being a terrorist, including conspiring to murder a Hindu priest.

India has vociferously denounced Trudeau’s statement.

Nijjar’s lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who is frequently quoted in Canada’s mainstream media as the head of Khalistan referendums in Toronto and Vancouver, is among the most vociferous in spreading anti-India, anti-Hindu accusations.

It is Pannun who declared: “Indo Canadian Hindus, you have repudiated your allegiance to Canada. Your destination is India. Leave Canada. Go to India.”

Omer Haziz, who served as a foreign policy director in the government of Justin Trudeau, wrote on the weekend that most Canadian politicians, and Liberals in particular, will not take a position on any international issue, especially regarding Sikhs, until they have pored over every local electoral implication.

“What I saw in government was how Canada’s ethnic domestic battles were distorting our long-term foreign policy priorities, and politicians … were pandering in lowest-common-denominator ways in B.C. and Ontario suburbs, and playing up ethnic grievances to win votes,” Haziz wrote.

“Canadian Sikhs have kept the issue of Sikh justice on the agenda by continually advocating and pressuring politicians,” Haziz said. “The Sikh issue has an enlarged influence on our bilateral relations with India … Mr. Trudeau did not want to lose the Sikh vote to Jagmeet Singh.” Singh, a Sikh, leads the NDP.

As Haziz confirms, Sikhs are famous for their political activism. Their clout is especially manifested through their ability to employ gurdwaras to sway voters to their chosen candidates in a party’s local nomination battles. Despite representing 2.1 per cent of the population, Sikhs have a much greater proportion of MPs and provincial MLAs in elected office.

But members of India’s majority religion, Hindus, who now make up 2.3 per cent of Canadians, are increasingly becoming more bold in Canadian business, education, media and politics.

That’s one of the reasons Ontario Liberal MP Chandra Arya recently stressed the “real fear” that Hindus in Canada feel after the video emerged of the Sikhs for Justice leader warning them to leave the country.

“The risk of ethnic and sectarian bloodshed is real,” said Arya, who has been vilified by Khalistanis for speaking out. He has been joined, nevertheless, by Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman in denouncing rising “Hinduphobia.”

While the Liberal and Conservative parties also angle for Sikh votes, social media commenters point to Jagmeet Singh’s ability six years ago to draw up to 90 per cent of his political donations from the Punjabi-Sikh community, mostly in Brampton, Surrey and Mississauga.

The political tide appears to be shifting.

More Canadians of Hindu background are getting into politics. And given the high concentration of Hindus in urban Ontario (575,000 people), former immigration department director Andrew Griffith has data showing that, while many ridings in Brampton, Mississauga and elsewhere are made up of 20 to 50 per cent of voters who are Sikh, another 15 to 25 per cent are now Hindus.

Meanwhile, there are 81,000 Hindus in B.C. (and 78,000 in Alberta). Sikhs in B.C. number 290,000. While Sikhs comprise anywhere from 20 to 50 per cent of voters in several ridings in Surrey, North Delta and Abbotsford, the Hindu share of voters has steadily expanded into the eight per cent range in the same ridings.

With the number of Hindus in Canada now growing faster through immigration than the number of Sikhs, politicians will feel the need to become far more sophisticated about the complex realities of both religious groups, and others, if they want to appeal to their interests, fears and dreams.

Source: Douglas Todd: Hindu Canadians are distressed and politicians need to take heed

Colby Cosh: Multiculturalism takes some well-deserved criticism

As noted earlier, largely a repeat of 2011 criticisms in UK, France and Germany. Not a particularly insightful column and noteworthy that UK PM Sunak has already walked away from Braverman’s speech:

The concept of multiculturalism, whether you like it or not, is of acknowledged Canadian origin. So perhaps we should all flinch a little when it is grumblingly condemned by European leaders — an increasingly common phenomenon that may have reached a new pinnacle on Tuesday.

Suella Braverman, the United Kingdom’s Conservative home secretary, appeared at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Enterprise Institute to deliver a resounding critique of the postwar framework for refugee protection and of the “misguided” and “toxic” multiculturalism doctrine that has bent it out of shape.

Braverman’s speech is meeting with an orgy of denunciation among British liberals and celebrities. On the other hand, the inevitable fate of the speech is to be laughed off by anti-immigration critics who have heard British and European politicians warn for decades that humanitarianism cannot be a suicide pact for Old World nation-states — without ever doing anything much themselves to change migration policy.

In Braverman’s account, European countries devised the United Nations Refugee Convention largely to sort out the continent’s own affairs in the aftermath of the Second World War. Refugees are defined in the text as those with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted,” but the treaty is now interpreted so as to permit ill-disguised economic migration, to encourage unlawful and risky crossings of seas and borders, and to facilitate prolonged shopping by migrants among desirable destination countries.

The result, for better or worse, is that refugee protections are now potentially available to nigh on a billion people, creating a “promissory note that the West cannot fulfill.” (Or, as French President Emmanuel Macron put it a few days ago, “We (Europeans) cannot accommodate all the misery in the world.”) Braverman enumerates four critiques of a period in which “there has been more migration to the U.K. and Europe … than in all the time that went before.”

The first is the conservative “civic” argument: integration of newcomers to a nation-state is desirable, but it takes time, and is bound to take even more time in places where a ruling philosophy of multiculturalism discourages complete assimilation and homogenizing patriotism. (This is a critique likely to land on deaf ears in Canada, where multiculturalism is popularly regarded as successful — but, then, Canada isn’t really a classic nation-state, and it doesn’t exist within walking or sailing distance of hundreds of millions of much poorer people.)

Braverman adds the “practical” argument that state services and housing markets can’t adapt quickly to mass uncontrolled immigration by asylum-seekers; the “national security” argument that some asylum-seekers are threats to public order, the public treasury and public safety; and the “democratic” argument that domestic voters almost everywhere in the West strongly favour, but rarely receive, tight control of national borders.

I’m not sure whether this enumerated list is the best way for Europeans to think about their immigration problems, but Braverman’s four points all deserve to be considered, even here in the original fastness of multiculturalism.

It’s certainly not a coincidence that the list format seems designed for future political campaigning: the U.K. Conservatives are still headed for an epic electoral disaster, and Braverman is obviously lining herself up to be a potential successor to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

In any event, the critics seem determined to ignore the actual content of Braverman’s argument in favour of unsubtle ad hominem, asking how a half-Tamil, half-Goan child of (thoroughly legal 1960s) immigrants can possibly harbour such terrible views. The awkward implication is that only pur laine Brits are entitled to critique British immigration policy — or, in practice, that nobody at all is.

Source: Colby Cosh: Multiculturalism takes some well-deserved criticism

Nicolas: Faux dilemmes [intersectionality, LGBTQ+, visible and religious minorities]

Nuanced discussion of the issues:

Depuis les manifestations anti-LGBTQ+ de la semaine dernière, on entend à plusieurs micros et sous maintes plumes que « la gauche s’entre-déchire », que les « intersectionnelles » ne savent plus où donner de la tête, et autres clichés semblables.

Pourquoi ? Parce que le mouvement pancanadien qui s’est mobilisé contre l’inclusion des réalités — et donc des enfants — trans et non binaires dans les écoles au Canada s’est coalisé autour de complotistes auxquels la pandémie nous avait habitués, de militants d’extrême droite, de chrétiens fondamentalistes et d’ultraconservateurs musulmans. Les caméras, sans surprise, ont capté avec plus d’insistance les visages des manifestants musulmans. Depuis, on se dit en se frottant les mains : entre les personnes trans et les femmes voilées, la « gauche inclusive » fait enfin face à ses contradictions !

Sauf que non, désolée pour vous. Je ne peux que parler pour moi-même, qui suis engagée contre l’islamophobie comme contre la transphobie : je ne sens pas mon univers de sens s’écrouler.

Par contre, le commentaire me fait dire que bien des gens qui lancent des pointes aux mouvements sociaux peinent encore à comprendre leur logique la plus élémentaire.

On saisit d’abord encore mal ce que ça veut dire, défendre les droits de la personne. C’est là un engagement qui dépasse largement la logique de « ma gang contre ta gang ». Ça veut dire que je crois que toutes les femmes devraient être libres de porter ou de ne pas porter ce qu’elles veulent — même les femmes qui méprisent une partie de ce que je suis, moi.

Ça veut dire défendre le droit de toutes les personnes LGBTQ+ de vivre leur orientation sexuelle et leur identité de genre — y compris celles qui reproduisent le racisme dans la culture queer. Ça veut dire que même si un homme noir a déjà fait des commentaires ou posé des gestes profondément misogynes par le passé, je ne veux pas qu’il se fasse tabasser par la police. Ça veut dire que j’utilise ma visibilité sur la scène pancanadienne pour sensibiliser mon audience au bilinguisme et au droit de tous les francophones du pays de vivre leur vie pleinement dans leur langue maternelle — y compris ceux qui contribuent au racisme. Ça veut dire, en gros, que je souhaite que tout le monde, même les gens qui me manquent de respect, ait accès au respect et à la dignité.

En théorie, tout cela est bien noble. Dans la pratique, les choses peuvent rapidement devenir complexes. Le travail d’organisation dans les mouvements sociaux, c’est faire face au quotidien à cette complexité. Dans les relations interpersonnelles et la construction des liens de confiance, comme dans la négociation des messages clés qui permettent de faire coalition. Cette complexité ne surprend donc personne ayant quelque expérience de terrain en mobilisation.

Cette même complexité donne aussi parfois du fil à retordre aux juristes qui doivent tracer la ligne lorsque les libertés des uns entrent en conflit avec les droits des autres. Quand la liberté d’expression ou d’association d’un groupe menace la sécurité — ou simplement la dignité — d’un autre, il faut qu’une ligne soit tracée. On ne s’entend pas toujours sur l’endroit où elle devrait l’être, mais la ligne témoigne au moins toujours d’une recherche plus ou moins adroite d’équilibre.

Plus on a l’habitude sociale et politique de la complexité, plus on se sentira outillés pour agir justement dans ce type de situation. On comprend que, souvent, on est face à de faux dilemmes. Plutôt qu’hésiter entre deux options qui ne conviennent pas à tous, on est tout à fait capables, avec un peu de volonté, d’en imaginer une troisième.

Il y a des personnes queers, traumatisées par la violence qu’elles ont subie au sein de leur propre communauté religieuse, qui se mettent à mépriser toutes les formes de foi et à étaler leurs préjugés contre tous les croyants du monde. Il y en a d’autres qui ont trouvé dans la spiritualité un vocabulaire pour nommer leur identité et leur rapport au monde, et une communauté pour les épauler dans leur recherche de sens. Il y a aussi des personnes très croyantes qui justifient par la foi des valeurs patriarcales, sexistes, homophobes et transphobes, qu’on peut tout aussi bien entretenir en étant athée. Il y en a d’autres qui puisent dans leur foi une compassion, une recherche de justice et un souci des plus vulnérables qui les mèneront vers une tout autre vision du monde.

C’est pourquoi ni la chrétienté, ni l’islam, ni aucune communauté de croyants ne sont des monolithes que l’on peut caricaturer aisément.

Si l’on veut bien comprendre les liens entre religion et diversité sexuelle, on a tout avantage à écouter les personnes queers qui sont elles-mêmes croyantes. Pour ce faire, il faudrait au moins arrêter de prétendre qu’elles n’existent pas. On ne peut les honorer dans tout ce qu’elles sont à moins d’imaginer une société où la liberté de conscience, l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre sont toutes également respectées. Du moment qu’on est à l’aise avec la complexité, les conversations difficiles mais nécessaires, la recherche de solutions et l’écoute aussi, surtout, je ne vois pas pourquoi ce serait impossible.

Si cet optimisme me vient aussi aisément, c’est grâce aux années que j’ai passées dans les mouvements sociaux. On peut y voir comment des alliés de circonstance, à force de vivre des moments forts ensemble, finissent par bâtir des liens de confiance nécessaires aux discussions qui permettent de faire reculer les angles morts qu’on a tous — mais absolument tous — lorsqu’on décide de s’engager socialement. À force de défendre les droits des uns et des autres sans attente de réciprocité, les militants finissent par voir une compréhension mutuelle s’installer, doucement.

Si on ne reprend pas le rythme des mobilisations progressistes bientôt, d’ailleurs, c’est à la droite de la droite que cette magie des liens de solidarité et de confiance construits dans l’action politique s’opérera.

Anthropologue, Emilie Nicolas est chroniqueuse au Devoir et à Libération. Elle anime le balado Détours pour Canadaland.

Source: Faux dilemmes

Rota debacle renews calls to examine history, including war crime records

Needed:

Canada could revisit calls to declassify documents about the presence of Nazi war criminals in the country, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said Wednesday, as the fallout continued over Parliament’s recognition last week of a man who fought for the Nazis.

“Canada has a really dark history with Nazis in Canada,” Miller said, heading into the weekly Liberal caucus meeting.

“There was a point in our history where it was easier to get (into Canada) as a Nazi than it was as a Jewish person. I think that’s a history we have to reconcile.”

Many Jewish organizations in Canada say doing that requires a public airing of information, and that means all the records Canada has about the presence of war criminals must be opened up.

“I think part of the problem here is that the records are closed,” said B’nai Brith senior lawyer David Matas in an interview.

“You can’t remember the past unless you know the past, and you can’t know the past unless you get the records.”

B’nai Brith Canada and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center both reiterated their long-standing calls this week for the government to make public all records about the admittance of former Nazi soldiers.

That includes the entirety of a 1986 report from a public commission on war criminals, which is often referred to as the Deschênes Commission for the judge who led it.

The report has never been fully released, including an appendix with the names of 240 alleged Nazi war criminals who might be living in Canada that the report recommended Canada investigate.

“It’s now time for Ottawa to not only release the unredacted files related to the Deschênes Commission, but to also address the stark reality that there are still former Nazis with blood on their hands living in Canada,” said Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center President Michael Levitt.

Matas noted that in June, a House of Commons committee studying Canada’s access-to-information system recommended all historical documents be released in full after 25 years.

He said implementing that recommendation would fulfil the desire to see Canada’s war criminal records.

Currently, records can be released 20 years after someone’s death. But Matas said that rule doesn’t apply in this case, because information about people who died can’t be accessed unless their names are available.

He said it’s not that every person named in the records is guilty, but that a justice system relies on openness, and you can’t have justice without transparency, whether you’re guilty or innocent.

There is also little to no information publicly available about what follow-up was done to investigate alleged war criminals named in the Deschênes report, or bring any of them to justice.

All of this comes after what some have called the most embarrassing international debacle in Canadian history.

On Friday, during an official visit by Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the House of Commons Speaker pointed to a guest in the gallery he identified as a war hero.

Parliamentarians and dignitaries who were present gave two standing ovations to a 98-year-old Ukrainian Canadian war veteran without knowing or understanding that the unit he fought with was formed by Nazi Germany to fight against the Soviet Union.

Speaker Anthony Rota, who said he did not know about Yaroslav Hunka’s background, apologized for making an egregious mistake inviting him to Parliament. He announced Tuesday that he would resign from the role.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued an apology on behalf of Canada and all parliamentarians for the debacle.

University of Alberta professor John-Paul Himka pointed out that nobody seemed to immediately understand how Hunka’s military history implied he would have fought with the Germans.

That’s because of a great lack of understanding of history, even among elected MPs, he said.

“I mean, this man was introduced as somebody who fought the Russians during World War II. Who was fighting the Russians during World War II? It was the Germans,” he said.

Matas concurred.

“I mean if Rota didn’t know about this whole issue and he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, you can imagine how widespread the ignorance is,” he said.

Still, said Matas, the uproar has rejuvenated the discussion about exposing that history, including all the records.

“This is on the radar, now, I think,” he said. “They’re paying attention to it.”

Miller said he has read the Deschênes report twice since this all happened, and encouraged all Canadians to do so.

He also said he knows there are many people demanding the release of the records, and it is something the government “could possibly examine again.”

But he said because he doesn’t know exactly what is contained in the documents, he doesn’t yet want to say if he backs their full release.

“But again, in a country like Canada that has not only a difficult history with Nazis in Canada, but also one of the most important diaspora of Jewish people, including some of the largest proportions of Holocaust survivors, impunity is absolutely not an option,” he said.

Mental Health Minister Ya’ara Saks, whose York Centre riding in Toronto has about one-fifth of its population identifying as Jewish, said Canada should look at what it can do to help provide answers and closure to Jewish Canadians.

She said opening the records is something to be looked at.

Source: Rota debacle renews calls to examine history, including war crime records

Braverman: Multiculturalism has ‘failed’ and threatens security – The Independent

Seems like a rinse and repeat from former PM Cameron comments in 2011 along with leaders of France and Germany. The Canadian variant has always stressed integration and participation as objectives, along with removing barriers:

Caricature of multiculturalism as properly understood is a variant of civic integration that balances identities and accommodation within a national context.

Suella Braverman has declared that multiculturalism has “failed” in Europeand threatens social cohesion in the nation state.

The Home Secretary, giving a speech on migration in the United States, said a “misguided dogma of multiculturalism” has allowed people to come to the UK with the aim of “undermining the stability and threatening the security of society”.

Setting out the “civic argument” against illegal migration, Ms Braverman said: “Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.

“Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it. They could be in the society but not of the society.

“And, in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of society.”

She said “the consequence of that failure” are evident “on the streets of cities all over Europe,” pointing to clashes in Leicester as an example.

Migration to the UK and Europe in the last 25 years “has been too much, too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion”, she said.

“If cultural change is too rapid and too big, then what was already there is diluted. Eventually it will disappear.”

It “does not make one anti-immigrant” to say that the nation state must be protected, Ms Braverman added.

The senior Cabinet minister, a child of migrants from Mauritius and Kenya working under a Hindu Prime Minister, said: “It is no betrayal of my parents’ story to say that immigration must be controlled.”

She contrasted her parents migrating to the UK “lawfully” with those who “are coming here gaming the system”.

Source: Braverman: Multiculturalism has ‘failed’ and threatens security – The Independent