Police in schools has long been a topic of debate. In Alberta, at least, the students have spoken

2023/09/04 Leave a comment

Good example of serious research and examination of the evidence of the experience of having police school resource officers in schools. Money quote: “…it is worth remembering that social policies need to be grounded in empirical evidence. Ideally, that evidence should be collected by researchers without preordained opinions.”

Not, of course, unique to this issue as advocates and activists, including researchers, often have “preordained opinions” rather than looking at the evidence more dispassionately.

I come across this regularly in my analysis of public service diversity. My How well is the government meeting its diversity targets? An intersectionality analysis, which showed that Black public servants were not under-represented at the all employees level, and less under-represented at the EX level than South Asian, Chinese and Filipino public servants. Black hiring rates were among the highest, separations the lowest and promotion rates second highest, with overall visible minority hiring and promotion rates higher than not visible minority. Overall visible minority hiring rates were higher than not visible minorities, separation rates were lower (likely reflecting age) and promotion rates were also higher over the 2017-22 period.

This prompted Twitter discussion, with advocates arguing for a disproportionality index based on narrow salary bands rather than my approach based on the broader occupational groups, including EX, and the hiring, separation and promotion data for the last six years. While some engaged on the substance of the different approaches, some “activists on a pension” public servants simply disregarded an “inconvenient truth” to their narratives:

The presence of police in schools, often referred to as school resource officers (SROs), has been a topic of debate for decades. However, after the global movement critically examining the role of the police in modern society, these discussions have intensified. Proponents argue police in schools reduce crime, keep students safe and improve police-community relations. On the other hand, critics maintain that SRO programs are costly and disproportionately disadvantage Black, Indigenous and other marginalized students. Activists and community leaders often argue that SROs contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Several American studies have found that racialized students are subjected to higher levels of police surveillance within schools and are more likely to be disciplined and/or charged by SROs. These studies have also found that students disciplined by school-based police officers often maintain a criminal label, have poor educational and career outcomes, and are at increased risk of becoming further entrenched in the criminal-justice system. Does the same situation exist in Canada?

Most Canadian research has failed to explore whether SROs disproportionately affect racialized and marginalized students. Nonetheless, a few small-scale studies have suggested that racialized and marginalized youth are likelier to have negative experiences with SROs than their white counterparts. Advocates have used these findings to support removing SRO programs from several large Canadian school boards. However, in the aftermath of recent high-profile incidents of violence in Canadian schools, including student homicides in Toronto and Edmonton, there is renewed support for returning the police to schools. How should we as society assess the different perspectives on this issue? As university professors, we believe that answering such challenging questions begins with rigorous empirical research.

Between 2022 and 2023 we conducted research on SRO programs within both the Edmonton Catholic and public school systems. Our multimethod approach included a review of official SRO records and focus groups, interviews and surveys with over 11,000 students, 4,000 parents and 650 teachers. These are the largest and most comprehensive such studies in Canada. Unlike most other Canadian studies, we explicitly set out to explore and understand the perceptions and experiences of racialized and marginalized students. We found that:

  • Regardless of race, sexual orientation and self-reported disability status, students and parents were much more likely to report positive experiences with their SRO (approximately 45 per cent of all respondents) than negative experiences (approximately 7 per cent of all respondents). Positive experiences included feelings of safety, assistance with victimization incidents, assistance with personal problems, informal conflict resolution, mentorship, legal education, and innovative strategies for discipline and reform.
  • Regardless of race, sexual orientation and disability status, most students reported that their SRO made them feel safe at school and was a positive member of their school community. Few students felt targeted or intimidated by their SRO.
  • Regardless of race, few students and parents felt that SROs treat Black, Indigenous and other racialized students worse than white students. It was also uncommon for participants to believe officers were biased toward sexual minorities and students with disabilities.
  • Most teachers believed SROs reduce, not increase, formal disciplinary actions (i.e., suspensions, expulsions, arrests etc.) against students. Teachers felt students would be treated more harshly by regular police officers who might be called to the school if the school did not have an SRO.
  • Regardless of race, sexual orientation and disability status, most students, parents and teachers (approximately 80 per cent of all respondents) want the SRO program retained or reinstated at their school. Few want to see the program permanently suspended (approximately 8 per cent of all respondents).

That said, the results of our studies are not all positive. Both teachers and students believed SROs are sometimes called to deal with non-criminal student conduct issues (including lateness) that school staff should handle. Teachers and students also complained that certain police officers – particularly those with an enforcement orientation – should not work with youth and should be screened out and removed from SRO programs.

While most Black and Indigenous students and parents supported Edmonton’s SRO program, Black and Indigenous students were somewhat more likely to support suspending the program than respondents from other racial backgrounds. Black and Indigenous students were also more likely to report negative experiences with SROs, including allegations of oversurveillance, targeting and unfair disciplinary decisions.

Our study also uncovered considerable weaknesses in how the school boards and the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) document SRO activities. How often are SROs involved in school disciplinary decisions, including suspensions and expulsions? How often do SROs ticket, arrest or lay charges against students? Are Black, Indigenous and other marginalized students disproportionately involved in SRO enforcement decisions? Does the presence of an SRO significantly reduce illegal activity on school property? We cannot answer these and other important questions with the existing data. If school boards retain SRO programs, we recommend improving the data being collected, including collecting data on the race and other demographic characteristics of those affected by SRO activities. At the same time, students and caregivers with personal experience with expulsions, suspensions and other interventions consistently reported being treated more harshly by school administrators than by SROs. This (perhaps surprising) finding suggests that leaving conduct issues in the hands of school administrators might lead to more harm for students and families – yet another aspect that warrants expanded data collection.

While many questions remain, our overall finding is that racialized and marginalized students and their families support SRO programs. Further, our results provide little evidence of perceived racial bias. This is news in a climate where some Canadian social scientists and activists now demand that SRO programs be eliminated. Unsurprisingly, they were not happy with our findings.

In the past, our research has – in various contexts – uncovered racial bias with respect to police street checks, arrest decisions and use of force. While the police largely dismissed these results, activists embraced our findings, using them as valuable evidence to support discussions about racial profiling. Our study of SROs has produced the opposite effect: Some advocates and scholars have been quick to criticize our findings because they do not support their preferred policies, while police organizations seem to support the results, without acknowledging negative findings.

This is concerning, but in some respects, these public responses fit a familiar pattern whereby activists and organizations selectively embrace, reject or ignore scholarly research depending on whether it supports or challenges their political position or preferred policies. However, one thing that makes the Edmonton SRO situation slightly different is that those who have opposed the SRO programs have said they were voicing the desires of Edmonton’s Black, Indigenous and other racialized communities. Our evidence, in contrast, demonstrates that such groups mainly support the SRO program, raising questions about who legitimately speaks on behalf of the interests of Black, Indigenous and other racialized parents and students on such issues in Alberta.

We deliberately mention Alberta because it is entirely possible that SRO programs in other jurisdictions are poorly run, biased and not supported by local communities. As researchers, we understand that context matters in how well any program or initiative operates. However, attention to such local specificity often gets lost on the political stage when people make sweeping statements embracing or rejecting policies without knowing or paying attention to the local details.

Given how many aspects of policing are contentious within Canada, it is worth remembering that social policies need to be grounded in empirical evidence. Ideally, that evidence should be collected by researchers without preordained opinions.

Kanika Samuels-Wortley is an associate professor in the faculty of social science and humanities at Ontario Tech University.

Scot Wortley is a professor in the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto.

Sandra Bucerius is a professor of sociology and criminology and director of the Centre for Criminological Research at the University of Alberta.

Source: Police in schools has long been a topic of debate. In Alberta, at least, the students have spoken

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Dear colleagues: How to achieve student diversity, legally [affirmative action after SCOTUS]

2023/09/04 Leave a comment

Of note:

On 14 August the Biden administration provided colleges and universities with scenarios that would allow them to maintain the racial diversity of their student bodies following the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision last June that ended affirmative action.

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona cast the maintenance of racial diversity in the nation’s colleges and universities as both an economic necessity and the fulfilment of America’s promise to itself. “For higher education to be the engine of economic opportunity, upward mobility and global competitiveness, we need campus communities that reflect the beautiful diversity of our country,” he said.

The Washington DC-based American Council on Education (ACE) welcomed the guidance provided by the Biden administration.

“This guidance from the Department of Education is a welcomed effort to delineate the limits of the ruling and help colleges better understand this new environment as they seek to meet their diversity and inclusion goals within the new limitations imposed by the court’s ruling,” said Audrey Hamilton, associate director of ACE’s public affairs.

Pushback against court findings

In the United States, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional questions. Its decisions are binding on both the federal and state governments.

While the Biden administration was well within rhetorical norms when it expressed regret about the decision, official government statements such as the “Dear Colleague letter” addressed to colleges and universities and signed by Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice (DoJ), and Catherine E Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education (DoE), are not generally considered the place to re-litigate constitutional issues in public.

Still, the administration pushed back against the SCOTUS’ rejection of the notion that student diversity adds to the educational experience of college and university students, stated most clearly in Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA).

“I have sought to understand exactly how racial diversity yields educational benefits,” said Thomas. “With nearly 50 years [since the establishment of affirmative action programmes] to develop their arguments, neither Harvard nor UNC – two of the foremost research universities in the world – nor any of their amici [friend of the court briefs] can explain that critical link.”

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), and Harvard University were sued by SFFA which claimed that the universities’ affirmative action programmes discriminated against Asian and white applicants.

The Dear Colleague letter underscored that both the DoJ and DoE believe: “Learning is enriched when student bodies reflect the rich diversity of our communities. Research has shown that such diversity leads to, among other things, livelier and more informative classroom discussions, breaking down prejudices and increased cross-racial understanding, and heightened cognitive development and problem-solving skills.”

The letter further states: “The benefits of diversity in educational institutions extend beyond the classroom as individuals who attend diverse schools are better prepared for our increasingly racial and ethnically diverse society and global economy.”

Holistic application-review processes

The DoJ’s guidance, that accompanied the letter from Clarke and Lhamon, is grounded in the SCOTUS’ decision in SFFA and, specifically, in the statement, just before the end of the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise”.

As interpreted by the DoJ, Roberts allowed universities and colleges to continue to use holistic application-review processes that provided opportunities, through essay prompts, to assess how an applicants’ background and individual attributes – including race, experience of racial discrimination or the racial composition of his/her schools or neighbourhood – position the applicant to contribute to the college or university in a unique manner.

Among the concrete examples the guidance provides are:

• “A university could consider an applicant’s explanation about what it means to him to be the first Black violinist in his city’s youth orchestra”; and

• “[A]n institution could consider an applicant’s discussion of how learning to cook traditional Hmong dishes from her grandmother sparked a passion for food and nurtured her sense of self by connecting her to past generations of her family (the Hmong are an indigenous group from East and Southeast Asia)”.

When Dr Alí Bustamante, deputy director of the New York-based Roosevelt Institute’s Worker Power and Economic Security Program, was asked if the DoJ’s examples were pitched only to those students who excelled in high school, and thus made them good candidates for Harvard at the expense of those students who managed to do well in the many poorly equipped and underfunded high schools in America’s slums, he said: “Yes.”

“A more apt example of how race directly impacts lived experiences is a narrative about a Black student that graduates from an underfunded school, lived through years of systemic exclusion, and/or residing in an over-policed community. These examples better show how race commonly impacts lived experiences and overcoming these experiences should be valued,” he wrote in an email to University World News.

Further, the decision does not, the DoJ told universities and colleges, prevent them from considering that data if it comes from a third party.

“An institution could . . . consider a guidance counsellor or other recommender’s description of how an applicant conquered her feelings of isolation as a Latina student at an overwhelmingly white high school to join the debate team,” says the Dear Colleague letter.

Measures beyond race

The SCOTUS decision dealt with a narrow question: did affirmative action programmes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution ratified in 1868, one of the three post-Civil War amendments that banned slavery?

The clause reads in part: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” SCOTUS decisions interpreted the phrase “No state” to include the federal government and, thus, included the laws under which affirmative action was implemented.

The decision does not prohibit colleges and universities from using means other than specifically identifying a student’s race to foster diversity. Both outreach and recruitment programs can, the DoJ says, “consider race and other factors that include, but are not limited to, geographic residency, financial means and socioeconomic status, family background, and parental education”. (Postal codes are strong predictors of race and these other sociological factors.)

Colleges and universities that seek diverse student bodies can direct their outreach/recruitment towards schools and school districts that serve predominantly students of colour and students of limited financial means.

They may also “target school districts or high schools that are underrepresented in the institution’s applicant pool by focusing on geographic location (for example, schools in the Midwest, or urban or rural communities) or other characteristics”.

Among these characteristics are low-performing schools or those with high dropout rates, those in which large percentages of students received free lunches or have historically low numbers of graduates being admitted to the college or university in question.

Neither these outreach/recruitment efforts nor establishing pathway programmes in which, for example, an institution partners with a high school to offer mentoring and summer enrichment boot camps run afoul of the SCOTUS decision.

Moreover, the DoJ says, neither would admissions policies such as the automatic admittance of community college (two-year college) graduates, as is the case in several states presently. For, each of these regimens is designed to increase the applicant pool and not to identify the race of any individual student by ticking off a box.

In his opinion, which argued for race blindness, Justice Thomas derided this bureaucratic shorthand: “What it [the admissions process] cannot do is use the applicant’s skin colour as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for ‘black’ he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.”

Such arguments ignore the fundamental role racism has played in American history and how it is baked into many of the nation’s institutions.

“Affirmative action practices have been contested since they were first implemented [in the middle 1960s] because some Americans, including policymakers, do not agree with the use of policy to address, and attempt to repair, the injuries that marginalised communities have endured as a result of past discriminatory policies,” said Bustamante.

“Some Americans believe in the myth that government policy should be race neutral despite the stark reality that American policymaking has a legacy of disproportionately benefiting whites and men and excluding people of colour, women, and those with atypical abilities and gender identities.”

A university takes proactive steps

A month before the Biden administration released its guidance to colleges and universities, Sarah Lawrence College stole a march on the DoJ and DoE. The liberal arts college just north of New York City changed the essay prompt that students applying for admissions in the 2024-25 school year must follow.

The prompt begins by referencing and then citing the SCOTUS decision in SFFA.

“In a 2023 majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: ‘Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the applicant can contribute to the university’.”

Prospective students are then asked to write an essay: “Drawing upon examples from your life, a quality of your character, and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced or affected by the Court’s decision.”

According to Bustamante, Sarah Lawrence’s essay prompt aligns with the Biden administration’s view and not with the SCOTUS.

“The court majority has repeatedly affirmed that racial discrimination and marginalisation is not a given – a generalised experience of all people of colour. The Sarah Lawrence and Biden administration perspective is that the court’s ruling means that racial discrimination and marginalisation must be explicitly factored into admissions, and no longer be assumed based on the identification of race alone.”

Source: Dear colleagues: How to achieve student diversity, legally

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Ford gov’s anti-racism plan doubles down on funding for DEI, left-wing groups

2023/09/01 Leave a comment

Ford government being accused of being too progressive by right-wing media:

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has published a new anti-racism strategic plan that doubles down on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives and funding for left-wing organizations.

The plan, published on the Government of Ontario’s website on Aug. 24, commits millions of dollars towards anti-racist initiatives and highlights several recent anti-racist policies implemented by Ford’s PCs.

“Too many individuals are denied opportunities or face discrimination because of the colour of their skin, their cultural identity or their beliefs,” says Ontario’s minister of citizenship and multiculturalism Michael Ford.

The Ford government believes anti-black racism “is deeply entrenched in Canadian institutions, policies and practices,” such that it is “either functionally normalized or rendered invisible to the larger white society.” 

It hopes the new plan will help “break down barriers and address systemic challenges to ensure every Ontarian — from every corner of the province, urban and rural — can participate, contribute and succeed.”

True North has compiled noteworthy initiatives highlighted in the plan. 

The government is doubling down on DEI training, saying it “heard from community members that there is a need for students, teachers, staff and school boards to learn more about anti-racism and the diversity of culture in Canada.” It is currently “working with community partners to enhance and provide culturally relevant and responsive supports, services and resources to students and educators to combat racism, hate and discrimination.”

Ford’s PCs are spending $1 million on, among other things, anti-racist lesson plans and classroom materials while also investing $3 million over 2 years in “anti-hate initiatives that include development of classroom resources to promote diversity.”

The Ford government plans to work in collaboration with several organizations on anti-hate training, including trans rights group Egale Canada.

Among other things, the government funded group opposes parental rights policies and is pushing for restrictions on protests against drag shows for children. As previously reported by True North, Eagle also made headlines for a campaign calling on the CRTC to ban Fox News and for pushing for Christian blue jays player Anthony Bass to be cancelled over a video he made discussing the biblical foundation for boycotting companies that promote gender ideology to children.

Other organizations listed as partners on anti-hate training include the Muslim Association of Canada, African Canadian Coalition against Hate, Oppression and Racism, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, FrancoQueer, L’Association Canadienne pour la Promotion des Héritages Africains and the Indigenous Trustees’ Council Chair.

The Ford government is also giving an additional $303,500 to Parents of Black Children – a race-focused organization supportive of Critical Race Theory that opposes the presence of police in schools. As previously reported by True North, the group previously received over one million dollars in government funding, including from Ford’s PCs.

The organization was previously chaired by the founder of controversial DEI consultancy KOJO Institute, Kike Ojo Thompson. A lawsuit against the TDSB alleges late principal Richard Bilkszto was bullied, shamed, humiliated, and accused of upholding white supremacy at an “anti-racism” session by the KOJO Institute after he challenged a claim that Ojo-Thompson made. 

Bilkszto died of suicide two years later, with his family claiming he was dealing with plaguing stress stemming from the incident. 

The allegations have not been proven in court and Ojo-Thompson has denied them.

Parents of Black Children have been strongly defending Ojo-Thompson and her organization amidst blowback, saying she’s being used as a scapegoat by the right wing

Ontario’s anti-racist plan also highlights a “strengthening (of) standards and anti-racist education for teachers” through the creation of anti-black racism qualifications and anti-black racism professional advisories for teachers. Ford’s PCs have also made DEI training a mandatory PA day activity for teachers.

The province also amended Regulation 437/97 on Professional Misconduct to recognize “hateful remarks and behaviour” as misconduct and modified teacher hiring practices to ensure teacher hiring is dictated by merit, diversity and unique needs.

Other initiatives listed in the Ford government’s anti-racism plan include changes made to trades programs to “increase the representation of Indigenous People and Black and other racialized individuals” by among other things, giving employers “additional milestone payments” for sponsoring apprentices from under-represented groups.

It is also giving $3 million to community organizations that offer sport and recreation programming – placing emphasis “on the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.”

DEI ideology has been criticized by many as woke, racist and counter productive.  Several U.S. states, including Florida, have moved to ban both DEI ideology and CRT. Some had hoped Ontario would follow suit following the death of Bilkszto. 

While Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce has ordered a review of the circumstances surrounding Bilkszto’s suicide and a review of school trainings, his office told CP24 that DEI training in Ontario schools would continue, calling it “important work.” 

The Ford PCs opting to abet wokism rather than fight it, especially in the education system, has been criticized by many – including members of Ontario’s black community. 

In a 2021 National Post op-ed, author Jamil Jivani, who was appointed as Ontario’s first community opportunities advocate and is now a federal Conservative candidate, accused Lecce of being “a woke liberal in conservative clothing who has turned his back on parents.”

Jivani resigned from the position last year, criticizing the Ford government’s policies.

True North reached out to Minister Ford’s office for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Source: Ford gov’s anti-racism plan doubles down on funding for DEI, left-wing groups

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

Yakabuski: Back-to-school in France means back to another bitter debate over secularism

2023/09/01 Leave a comment

Good commentary:

La rentrée, as the back-to-school season is known in France, is starting off with yet another divisive civics lesson after the government’s move to prohibit a traditional Middle Eastern robe that had become a fashion statement among some Muslim high-schoolers.

…

Source: Back-to-school in France means back to another bitter debate over secularism

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Experiences of discrimination in daily life among Chinese people in Canada, and their perceptions of and experiences with the police and the justice system

2023/08/29 Leave a comment

Of note, particularly the change from 2014 to 2019:

  • In the five years preceding the 2019 General Social Survey (GSS) on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization), three in ten (29%) Chinese people aged 15 and older experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in their daily lives. While this proportion was similar for other racialized populations (29%), it was nearly double that of the non-racialized population (16%).
  • Compared to the 2014 GSS on Victimization, the proportion of Chinese people that experienced discrimination in 2019 nearly doubled (16% versus 29%). Increases were also noted among other racialized populations (21% in 2014 versus 29% in 2019) and the non-racialized population (12% versus 16%), although the rise was more pronounced among those who are Chinese.
  • Of the Chinese people who experienced discrimination in 2019, the largest proportion said it took place in a store, bank or restaurant (45%E). This was followed by those who said they were discriminated against when at work or when applying for a job or promotion (27%E), when attending school or classes (22%E), when crossing the border into Canada (6.7%E) and when dealing with the police or the courts (4.7%E).
  • Chinese people most often experienced discrimination on the basis of race or skin colour (22%), ethnicity or culture (17%) and language (11%). Discrimination on the basis of physical appearance (5.1%), sex (4.3%), age (3.7%) and gender identity or expression (1.4%) was less common.
  • The large majority (85%) of Chinese people reported a great deal of or some confidence in the police; however, this was lower than confidence among the non-racialized population (92%). Chinese people less often said they thought the police do a good job for every measure of police performance included in the survey, when compared to other racialized populations and the non-racialized population.
  • One-quarter (25%) of Chinese people came into contact with police—for a variety of reasons—in the 12 months preceding the GSS on Victimization. Of those who had contact with police, three-quarters (75%E) perceived their experience as positive. Still, this proportion was smaller than other groups (87% of other racialized populations and 89% of the non-racialized population that had contact with police).
  • Less than one in ten (7.2%) Chinese people had ever come into contact with Canadian criminal courts, less common than other racialized populations (12%) and the non-racialized population (22%).
  • According to the Canadian Legal Problems Survey, around one in six (16%) Chinese people experienced problems or disputes they considered serious and not easy to fix in the three years preceding the survey. Serious problems or disputes were less common for Chinese people than those from other racialized populations (21%).

Source: Experiences of discrimination in daily life among Chinese people in Canada, and their perceptions of and experiences with the police and the justice system

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

French Govt Sees Islamic Clothing In Schools As ‘Political Attack’

2023/08/29 Leave a comment

Hear we go again:

The wearing of abaya dresses by some Muslim women in French schools is a “political attack”, the government’s spokesman said Monday as he explained a ban announced on the clothing.

Education Minister Gabriel Attal said Sunday that the long, flowing dresses that originated in the Middle East would no longer be allowed in schools when the new term begins next week because they violate secular laws.

Government spokesman Olivier Veran said it was “obviously” a religious garment and “a political attack, a political sign” which he saw as an act of “proselytising” or trying to convert to Islam.

“School is secular. We say it in a very calm but firm way: it is not the place for that (wearing religious clothing),” he told the BFM TV channel.

Attal said Monday that the government was clear that abayas “did not belong in schools.”

“Our schools are being tested. These last few months, violations of our secular rules have considerably increased, particularly with regard to the wearing of religious clothing such as abayas or qamis which have appeared — and remained — in some establishments,” he told reporters.

Attal’s decision to ban abayas has sparked a new debate about France’s secular rules and whether they are used to discriminate against the country’s large Muslim minority.

A law of March 2004 banned “the wearing of signs or outfits by which students ostensibly show a religious affiliation” in schools.

This includes large Christian crosses, Jewish kippas and Islamic headscarves.

Unlike headscarves, schools had struggled to regulate the wearing of abayas which were seen as being in a grey area.

The government has sided with politicians on the right and far-right who had pushed for an outright ban, arguing that they are part of a wider agenda from Islamists to spread religious practice throughout society.

But politicians on the left and many Muslims see France’s secular rules — known as “laicite” — as a front used by conservatives for Islamophobic policies.

They say some women choose to wear abayas, or headscarves, to signal their cultural identity, rather than out of religious belief.

Many conservative politicians have pushed in recent years for the ban on the wearing of religious symbols to be widened to universities and even parents accompanying children on their school outings.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen campaigned in last year’s presidential election to ban veils from all public streets.

The country’s constitution guarantees citizens the right to practice religion freely, but it imposes an obligation on the state and state employees to respect neutrality.

The abaya ban is likely to face a legal appeal and could lead to difficulties for school authorities who will have to decide when a large flowing dress moves from being a personal fashion choice to a religious statement, observers say.

Source: French Govt Sees Islamic Clothing In Schools As ‘Political Attack’

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Sacha Baron Cohen’s Speech on Standing Against Hate

2023/08/28 Leave a comment

For the record:

Reverend Sharpton, members of the King family—thank you for inviting me to join you today. This is an incredible honor.

I’m indebted to the legacy of Dr. King and the work of the King Center. When I was a 19-year-old university student doing my thesis on the civil rights movement, I visited Atlanta and stayed at the historic Butler Street YMCA. I’ve never forgotten how I was welcomed by the staff of the King Center and the people of Atlanta.

There, I learned about how Black Americans and Jewish Americans—and people of so many faiths—linked arms together, went to jail together, sacrificed their lives together, and achieved historic victories together for civil rights. Their brave alliance teaches a powerful lesson that we can never forget: when we are united, we can hasten the day—as Dr. King proclaimed—when all of “God’s children will be able to walk the earth in decency and honor.”

The power of our unity is exactly why those who stand in the way of equality and freedom seek to divide us. They appeal to the worst instincts of humanity, which often simmer just below the surface. I’ve seen it in my own work.

As Borat, the first fake news journalist, I interviewed some college students—three young white men in their ballcaps and polo shirts. It only took a few drinks, and soon they were telling me what they really believed.

They asked if, in my country, women are slaves. They talked about how, here in the U.S., “the Jews” have “the upper hand.” When I asked, do you have slaves in America?, they replied, “we wish!” “We should have slaves,” one said, “it would be a better country.”

Those young men made a choice. They chose to believe some of the oldest and most vile lies that are at the root of all hate. And so it pains me that we have to say it yet again. The idea that people of color are inferior is a lie. The idea that Jews are dangerous and all-powerful is a lie. The idea that women are not equal to men is a lie. The idea that queer people are a threat to our children is a lie.

At other times, I’ve seen people make a different choice.

As Borat, I once got an entire bar in Arizona to sing, “Throw the Jew down the well”—which revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. But when I tried to film that same exact scene at a bar in Nashville, something different happened. People started to boo. And then they chased me right out of that bar.

Those people made the choice that brings us all here today—they chose to belief the truth: the truth that we are all deserving of respect, dignity, and equality, no matter who we are, what we look like, how we pray, or who we love.

We always have a choice.

Today, the choices we make are more important than ever because the forces of hate have a new weapon that was not available in 1963—social media. These social media platforms deliberately amplify content that triggers outrage and fear, including fear of “the other.”

This technology gives an advantage to the intolerant. They’ve gone from Klan rallies to chat rooms, from marches to message boards. It’s how they spread their filth, recruit new members, and plan their attacks. And we’ve all seen the deadly results. A surge in hate crimes. The murder of religious and ethnic minorities. And, on the other end of this Mall, an attack on democracy itself—hate and violence that should have no place in our pluralistic societies.

Today, we make a different choice—and we call on people everywhere to join us in standing up to hate, conspiracies, and lies, especially on social media.

To every person online, when someone tries to blame the problems of the world on vulnerable groups, don’t believe it. Don’t click on the conspiracy. Don’t “like” the lie. Learn the facts. “Education”—as Nelson Mandela said—“is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

To every corporation that advertises on social media, these platforms cannot survive without your dollars. Without your revenue, racist “influencers” cannot spew the lie that immigrants and people of color are trying to “replace” white Christians. Corporations—pull your ads from platforms that spread racism, hate, and bigotry.

To every social media CEO who has gotten rich off algorithms that help fuel the mental health crisis among our children and the polarization of our societies—change your business model. Stop hate for profit. For once, use the billions of dollars you’ve made to build a product that is not toxic, but safe.

Finally, to elected officials… Here in the United States, it’s been nearly 30 years since Congress passed meaningful internet regulations, in large part because social media companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars blocking them. Meanwhile, from Pittsburgh to Buffalo and now Cedar Glen, hate in the virtual world kills in the real world. How many more people have to die? Congress, it’s time to hold these social media companies accountable for the harm they cause.

We always have a choice. Today, as others spread lies, we choose truth. As others stoke conspiracies, we choose facts. As others fuel hate and division, we choose the empathy and the unity that allows us to make progress together, for equality, for decency, and for democracy, especially here in U, S, and A.

Thank you all very much.

Source: Read Sacha Baron Cohen’s Speech on Standing Against Hate

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

Le blasphème comme limite à la liberté d’expression?

2023/08/26 Leave a comment

Thoughtful discussion:

La liberté d’opinion et d’expression fait partie des droits protégés par la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme de 1948. Il s’agit du droit de ne pas être inquiété pour ses opinions et du droit de chercher, de recevoir et de répandre, sans considération de frontières, des informations et des idées, par quelque moyen d’expression que ce soit.

Or, cette liberté d’expression heurte les tenants de dogmes religieux, qui ont recours aux accusations de blasphème pour faire taire les personnes mettant en question leurs croyances. À preuve, la résolution non contraignante du Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations unies, adoptée en juillet 2023, qui demande aux États de condamner tout plaidoyer et manifestation publique et préméditée de profanation du Coran.

De tout temps les religions revendiquent le droit d’être protégées contre le blasphème, soit une parole, un discours ou un geste qui outrage un ou plusieurs de leurs aspects.

Dans les sociétés de droit, cette requête s’appuie de nos jours sur trois éléments. À savoir : la liberté de religion ; la protection de la société et de l’ordre public ; la religion comme élément intrinsèque et indissociable de la personne.

Dans le premier cas, la demande d’interdiction du blasphème présume que la liberté de religion vise la protection des croyances et des sentiments religieux des expressions jugées offensantes. Il incomberait ainsi à l’État d’intervenir pour contrer les critiques de dogmes religieux, ce qui semble contradictoire avec le principe de séparation de la religion et de l’État, de la liberté d’expression et de la liberté de conscience des citoyens.

La deuxième justification concerne la protection de la société et de l’ordre public. Il s’agit là d’une question brûlante d’actualité en Suède et au Danemark, à la suite des crises diplomatiques avec les pays musulmans qu’ont provoquées les récents autodafés du Coran survenus sur leurs territoires respectifs. Sans parler d’interdiction du blasphème, en tout respect de la liberté d’expression, ces pays explorent aujourd’hui des solutions juridiques qui pourraient permettre d’interdire certaines manifestations offensantes afin de contrer une situation jugée « dangereuse pour la sécurité nationale ».

Il s’agit d’une question délicate puisqu’elle remet en question leur autonomie nationale quant au modèle de société choisi démocratiquement. D’ailleurs, n’est-ce pas cette autonomie par rapport aux accusations de blasphème de pays tiers qui a permis de protéger l’écrivain britannique Salman Rushdie d’une fatwa appelant à la mort ? Voire encore celle qui a permis au Canada d’accueillir la Pakistanaise Asia Bibi, accusée de blasphème dans la foulée d’une dispute autour d’un verre d’eau en 2019 ?

La troisième justification mise en avant pour interdire le blasphème vient de l’idée que les individus et leurs croyances forment un tout indissociable, et que le respect des uns implique obligatoirement le respect des autres. Les accusations d’islamophobie s’appuient sur ce principe en confondant critique de dogmes religieux et propos offensants à l’égard d’une personne. Cette conception d’un tout identitaire immuable soulève cependant la question de la liberté, pour les croyants, de se conformer ou non aux dogmes religieux, de la liberté de croire ou de ne pas croire, de la liberté d’association et de la liberté d’expression.

La situation au Canada

Le Canada a décriminalisé le blasphème en 2018. La liberté d’expression défendue par le Canada est cependant limitée par la criminalisation des discours qui incitent à la violence contre un groupe identifiable. Le défi consiste donc à départager un propos critique à l’égard d’une religion de ce qui relève du discours haineux visant un groupe en particulier, c’est-à-dire qui incite à détester des personnes.

En 2020, à la suite de l’assassinat de l’enseignant français Samuel Paty pour avoir montré des caricatures jugées blasphématoires par une partie de la communauté musulmane, le premier ministre canadien, Justin Trudeau, avait ainsi créé toute une polémique en associant le respect d’un dogme au respect de la personne : il avait alors affirmé qu’il ne fallait pas chercher à « blesser, de façon arbitraire ou inutile, ceux avec qui on est en train de partager une société et une planète ». Ces déclarations semblaient aller au-delà du concept de propos haineux qui limite la liberté d’expression au Canada.

Est-ce la perception de ce supposé lien indissociable entre religion et croyants qui a motivé le premier ministre à nommer, en 2023, une commissaire chargée de la lutte contre l’islamophobie ? N’y a-t-il pas là confusion entre le respect de la personne musulmane et le respect absolu des préceptes de l’islam ?

Rappelons que c’est la liberté d’expression qui a notamment permis les avancées scientifiques contraires aux dogmes religieux (on n’a qu’à penser à l’origine de la vie) ou à la reconnaissance du droit des femmes à l’égalité.

Aujourd’hui, le Canada semble errer en souscrivant au concept d’islamophobie par respect et pour éviter de blesser des sensibilités d’une certaine communauté. Comme la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme l’a rappelé en 1994 : « Ceux qui choisissent d’exercer la liberté de manifester leur religion, qu’ils le fassent en tant que membres d’une majorité ou d’une minorité religieuse, ne peuvent raisonnablement s’attendre à être exemptés de toute critique. Ils doivent tolérer et accepter le déni… Et même la propagation par d’autres de doctrines hostiles à leur foi. »

Toute critique des religions ne constitue pas en soi une incitation à la violence ou à la discrimination.

Source: Le blasphème comme limite à la liberté d’expression?

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

I’m a Black Professor. You Don’t Need to Bring That Up.

2023/08/25 Leave a comment

Interesting read:

The hotel was soulless, like all conference hotels. I had arrived a few hours before check-in, hoping to drop off my bags before I met a friend for lunch. The employees were clearly frazzled, overwhelmed by the sudden influx of several hundred impatient academics. When I asked where I could put my luggage, the guy at the front desk simply pointed to a nearby hallway. “Wait over there with her; he’s coming back.” 

The conversation was wide-ranging: the papers we were presenting, the bad A/V at the hotel, our favorite things to do in the city. At some point, we began talking about our jobs. She told me that—like so many academics—she was juggling a temporary teaching gig while also looking for a tenure-track position. 

“It’s hard,” she said, “too many classes, too many students, too many papers to grade. No time for your own work. Barely any time to apply to real jobs.” 

When I nodded sympathetically, she asked about my job and whether it was tenure-track. I admitted, a little sheepishly, that it was. 

“I’d love to teach at a small college like that,” she said. “I feel like none of my students wants to learn. It’s exhausting.” 

Then, out of nowhere, she said something that caught me completely off guard: “But I shouldn’t be complaining to you about this. I know how hard BIPOC faculty have it. You’re the last person I should be whining to.” 

I was taken aback, but I shouldn’t have been. It was the kind of awkward comment I’ve grown used to over the past few years, as “anti-racism” has become the reigning ideology of progressive political culture. Until recently, calling attention to a stranger’s race in such a way would have been considered a social faux pas. That she made the remark without thinking twice—a remark, it should be noted, that assumes being a Black tenure-track professor is worse than being a marginally employed white one—shows how profoundly interracial social etiquette has changed since 2020’s “summer of racial reckoning.” That’s when anti-racism—focused on combatting “color- blindness” in both policy and personal conduct—grabbed ahold of the liberal mainstream. 

Though this “reckoning” brought increased public attention to the deep embeddedness of racism in
supposedly color-blind American institutions, it also made instant celebrities of a number of race experts and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) consultants who believe that being anti-racist means undergoing a “journey” of radical personal transformation. In their righteous crusade against the bad color-blindness ofpolicies such as race-neutral college admissions, these contemporary anti-racists have also jettisoned the kind of good color-blindness that holds that we are more than our race, and that we should conduct our social life according to that idealized principle. Rather than
balance a critique of color-blind law and policy with a continuing embrace of interpersonal color-blindness as a social etiquette, contemporary anti-racists throw the baby out with the bathwater. In place of the old color-blind ideal, they have foisted upon well-meaning white liberals a successor social etiquette predicated on the necessity of foregrounding racial difference rather than minimizing it. 

As a Black guy who grew up in a politically purple area—where being a good person meant adhering to the kind of civil-rights-era color- blindness that is now passé—I find this emergent anti-racist culture jarring. Many of my liberal friends and acquaintances now seem to believe that being a good person means constantly reminding Black people that you are aware of their Blackness. Difference, no longer to be politely ignored, is insisted upon at all times under the guise of acknowledging “positionality.” ough I am rarely made to feel excessively aware of my race when hanging out with more conservative friends or visiting my hometown, in the more liberal social circles in which I typically travel, my race is constantly invoked —“acknowledged” and “centered”—by well-intentioned anti-racist “allies.” 

This “acknowledgment” tends to take one of two forms. The first is the song and dance in which white people not-so-subtly let you know that they know that race and racism exist. This includes finding ways to interject discussion of some (bad) news item about race or racism into casual conversation, apologizing for having problems while white (“You’re the last person I should be whining to”), or inversely, offering “support” by attributing any normal human problem you have to racism. 

The second way good white liberals often “center” racial difference in everyday interactions with minorities is by trying, always clumsily, to ensure that their “marginalized” friends and familiars are “culturally” comfortable. My favorite personal experiences of this include an acquaintance who invariably steers dinner or lunch meetups to Black-owned restaurants, and the time that a friend of a friend invited me over to go swimming in their pool before apologizing for assuming that I know how to swim (“I know that’s a culturally specific thing”). It is a peculiar quirk of the 2020s’ racial discourse that this kind of “acknowledgment” and “centering” is viewed as progress. 

My point is not that conservatives have better racial politics—they do not— but rather that something about current progressive racial discourse has become warped and distorted. e anti-racist culture that is ascendant seems to me to have little to do with combatting structural racism or cultivating better relationships between white and Black Americans. And its rejection of color-blindness as a social ethos is not a new frontier of radical political action. 

No, at the core of today’s anti-racism is little more than a vibe shift—a soft matrix of conciliatory gestures and hip phraseology that give adherents the feeling that there has been a cultural change, when in fact we have merely put carpet over the rotting floorboards. Although this push to center rather than sidestep racial difference in our interpersonal relationships comes from a good place, it tends to rest on a troubling, even racist subtext: that white and Black Americans are so radically different that interracial relationships require careful management, constant eggshell-walking, and even expert guidance from professional anti-racists. Rather than producing racial harmony, this new ethos frequently has the opposite effect, making white-Black interactions stressful, unpleasant, or, perhaps most often, simply weird. 

Since the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, progressive anti-racism has centered on two concepts that helped Americans make sense of his senseless death: “structural racism” and “implicit bias.” e first of these is a sociopolitical concept that highlights how certain institutions—maternity wards, police barracks, lending companies, housing authorities, etc.—produce and replicate racial inequalities, such as the disproportionate killing of Black men by the cops. e second is a psychological concept that describes the way that all individuals—from bleeding-heart liberals to murderers such as Derek Chauvin—harbor varying degrees of subconscious racial prejudice. 

Though “structural racism” and “implicit bias” target different scales of the social order—institutions on the one hand, individuals on the other— underlying both of these ideas is a critique of so-called color-blind ideology, or what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls “color-blind racism”: the idea that policies, interactions, and rhetoric can be explicitly race-neutral but implicitly racist. As concepts, both “structural racism” and “implicit bias” rest on the presupposition that racism is an enduring feature of institutional and social life, and that so-called race neutrality is a covertly racist myth that perpetuates inequality. Some anti-racist scholars such as Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi have put this even more bluntly: “‘Race neutral’ is the new “separate but equal.’” Yet, although anti-racist academics and activists are right to argue that race-neutral policies can’t solve racial inequities—that supposedly color-blind laws and policies are often anything but—over the past few years, this line of criticism has also been bizarrely extended to color-blindness as a personal ethos governing behavior at the individual level. 

The most famous proponent of dismantling color-blindness in everyday interactions is Robin DiAngelo, who has made an entire (very condescending) career out of asserting that if white people are not uncomfortable, anti-racism is not happening. “White comfort maintains the racial status quo, so discomfort is necessary and important,” the corporate anti-racist guru advises. Over the past three years, this kind of anti-color-blind, pro-discomfort rhetoric has become the norm in anti-racist discourse. On the final day of the 28-day challenge in Layla Saad’s viral Me and White Supremacy, budding anti- racists are tasked with taking “out-of-your-comfort-zone actions,” such as apologizing to people of color in their life and having “uncomfortable conversations.” Frederick Joseph’s best-selling book e Black Friend takes a similar tack. e problem with color-blindness, Joseph counsels, is it allows “white people to continue to be comfortable.” e NFL analyst Emmanuel Acho wrote an entire book, simply called Uncomfortable Conversations With a Black Man, that admonishes readers to “stop celebrating color-blindness.” And, of course, there are endless how-to guides for having these “uncomfortable conversations” with your Black friends. 

Once the dominant progressive ideology, professing “I don’t see color” is now viewed as a kind of dog whistle that papers over implicit bias. Instead, current anti-racist wisdom holds that we must acknowledge racial difference in our interactions with others, rather than assume that race needn’t be at the center of every interracial conversation or encounter. Coming to grips with the transition we have undergone over the past decade—color-blind etiquette’s swing from de rigueur to racist—requires a longer view of an American cultural transition. Civil-rights-era color-blindness was replaced with an individualistic, corporatized anti-racism, one focused on the purification of white psyches through racial discomfort, guilt, and “doing the work” as a road to self-improvement. 

Writing in 1959, the social critic Philip Rieff argued that postwar America was transforming from a religious and economic culture—one oriented around common institutions such as the church and the market—to a psychological culture, one oriented around the self and its emotional fulfillment. By the 1960s, Rieff had given this shift a name: “the triumph of the therapeutic,” which he defined as an emergent worldview according to which the “self, improved, is the ultimate concern of modern culture.” Yet, even as he diagnosed our culture with self-obsession, Rieff also noticed something peculiar and even paradoxical. erapeutic culture demanded that we reflect our self-actualization outward. Sharing our innermost selves with the world—good, bad, and ugly—became a new social mandate under the guise that authenticity and open self-expression are necessary for social cohesion. 

Recent anti-racist mantras like “White silence is violence” reflect this same sentiment: exhibitionist displays of “racist” guilt are viewed as a necessary precursor to racial healing and community building. In this way, today’s attacks on interpersonal color-blindness—and progressives’ growing fixation on implicit bias, public confession, and race-conscious social etiquette—are only the most recent manifestations of the cultural shift Rieff described. Indeed, the seeds of the current backlash against color-blindness began decades ago, with the application of a New Age, therapeutic outlook to race relations: so-called racial-sensitivity training, the forefather of today’s equally spurious DEI programming. 

In her 2001 book, Race Experts, the historian Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn painstakingly details how racial-sensitivity training emerged from the 1960s’ human-potential movement and its infamous “encounter groups.” As she explains, what began as a more or less countercultural phenomenon was later corporatized in the form of the anemic, pointless workshops controversially lampooned on e Office. Not surprisingly, this shift reflected the ebb and flow of corporate interests: Whereas early workplace training emphasized compliance with the newly minted Civil Rights Act of 1964, later incarnations would focus on improving employee relations and, later still, leveraging diversity to secure better business outcomes. 

If there is something distinctive about the anti-color-blind racial etiquette that has emerged since George Floyd’s death, it is that these sites of encounter have shifted from official institutional spaces to more intimate ones where white people and minorities interact as friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances. Racial-awareness raising is a dynamic no longer quarantined to formalized, compulsory settings like the boardroom or freshman orientation. Instead, every interracial interaction is a potential scene of (one-way) racial edification and supplication, encounters in which good white liberals are expected to be transparent about their “positionality,” confront their “whiteness,” and—if the situation calls for it—confess their “implicit bias.” 

In a vacuum, many of the prescriptions advocated by the anti-color-blind crowd are reasonable: We should all think more about our privileges and our place in the world. An uncomfortable conversation or an honest 

A look in the mirror can be precursors to personal growth. We all carry around harmful, implicit biases and we do need to examine the subconscious assumptions and prejudices that underlie the actions we take and the things we say. My objection is not to these ideas themselves, which are sensible enough. No, my objection is that anti-racism offers little more than a Marie Kondo–ism for the white soul, promising to declutter racial baggage and clear a way to white fulfillment without doing anything meaningful to combat structural racism. As Lasch-Quinn correctly foresaw, “Casting interracial problems as issues of etiquette [puts] a premium on superficial symbols of good intentions and good motivations as well as on style and appearance rather than on the substance of change.” 

Yet the problem with the therapeutics of contemporary anti-racism is not just that they are politically sterile. When anti-color-blindness and its ideology of insistent “race consciousness” are translated into the sphere of private life—to the domain of friendships, block parties, and backyard barbecues—they assault the very idea of a multiracial society, producing new forms of racism in the process. e fact that our media environment is inundated with an endless stream of books, articles, and social-media tutorials that promise to teach white people how to simply interact with the Black people in their life is not a sign of anti-racist progress, but of profound regression. 

The subtext that undergirds this new anti-racist discourse—that Black-white relationships are inherently fraught and must be navigated with the help of professionals and technical experts—testifies to the impoverishment of our interracial imagination, not to its enrichment. More gravely, anti-color-blind etiquette treats Black Americans as exotic others, permanent strangers whose racial difference is so chasmic that it must be continually managed, whose mode of humanness is so foreign that it requires white people to adopt a special set of manners and “race conscious” ritualistic practices to even have a simple conversation. 

If we are going to find a way out of the racial discord that has defined American life post-Trump and post-Charlottesville and post-Floyd, we have to begin with a more sophisticated understanding of color-blindness, one that rejects the bad color-blindness on offer from the Republican Party and its partisans, as well as the anti-color-blindness of the anti-racist consultants. Instead, we should embrace the good color-blindness of not too long ago. At the heart of that color-blindness was a radical claim, one imperfectly realized but perfect as an ideal: that despite the weight of a racist past that isn’t even past, we can imagine a world, or at least an interaction between two people, where racial difference doesn’t make a difference. 

Tyler Austin Harper is an assistant professor of environmental studies at Bates College. 

Source: I’m a Black Professor. You Don’t Need to Bring That Up.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

The Political Impact of Increased Diversity: What the Census Shows with Respect to Indigenous peoples

2023/08/24 Leave a comment

As a companion piece to my earlier riding level analysis of visible minorities, The Political Impact of Increased Diversity: What the Census Shows, I performed the same analysis with respect to Indigenous groups, highlighting that the relative political importance of Indigenous groups is declining in relation to visible minorities in electoral terms. This draft was shared with the three national Indigenous organizations but no comments were received given their higher priorities. 

census-2021-the-political-impact-of-increased-indigenous-populationDownload

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →