USA: Black farmers worry new approach on “race neutral” lending leaves them in the shadows

2023/02/28 Leave a comment

Interesting discussion from both the substantive perspective (righting historical discrimination) and the politics that broadened eligibility and arguably entrenched discrimination:

Farmers of color across the country, who’d been promised debt cancelation as part of a special program to address racial disparity in lending, rejoiced when they received letters in 2021 in the mail that said their loans with the Agriculture Department would be canceled.

And then, for over a year, there was nothing.

Multiple lawsuits led by white farmers, who said the program discriminated against them for being white, stymied the race-targeted program.

The debt forgiveness was a congressional effort to help USDA make up for a history of discrimination. For decades, farmers of color have filed individual lawsuits, class action lawsuits and congressional testimony against the department. And for decades, rulings and reports have repeatedly concluded that USDA’s lending practices have been discriminatory.

Now, USDA is in the process of rolling out a second, newer, program passed by Congress as a part of the Inflation Reduction Act. But the $3.1 billion now appropriated as payments toward loans don’t just go to racial and ethnic minorities. They also go to some white farmers under a new category: “economically distressed.”

Economically distressed means farmers of any race who are behind on loan payments or on the brink of foreclosure.

And since this new program is now race-neutral, those who are particularly concerned about the disparate impact of lending practices on Black and other farmers of color say the move could hide the scope of the problem and lead to further disenfranchisement.

Farmers of color wonder if relief is being received as intended

In October, USDA began making automatic payments to the accounts of farmers who were 60 days or more delinquent. In some cases, payments were made without notifying the borrower: a pleasant surprise in some cases and procedural confusion in others.

However, advocates and producers complain there is a lack of clarity and transparency about who is getting the money.

“You lose a lot of the trust when there was very little trust in the beginning,” said Brandon Smith, a cattle rancher in Texas who received a payment and is an outreach coordinator for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund. “No one’s trying to be ungrateful, but it’s just the trust and what was promised to them.”

As of Jan. 30, the USDA paid out more than $823 million for the Inflation Reduction Act program to farmers who were either delinquent on payments or on the verge of foreclosure.

“The steps we’ve taken so far are really for lack of a better analogy, to stop the bleeding,” said Zach Ducheneaux, administrator of the Farm Service Agency, the lending arm of the department.

He said the next step is to deal with 15,600 “complex cases,” including borrowers on the brink of foreclosure and those near delinquency.

“As far as I know, we haven’t had any foreclosures in our guaranteed loans since we started providing this assistance. That’s an ongoing process to clean up those complex cases,” Ducheneaux said. “And, of course, having a bankruptcy judge and other creditors make those even more complex.”

This case-by-case funding will include some $500 million in payments.

USDA has not outlined what it will do with the remaining over $1 billion allocated by Congress.

States with “Economically distressed borrowers” net high dollars

Data obtained by NPR show that Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and Puerto Rico are receiving the largest amounts of dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act towards economically distressed borrowers.

Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas also happen to be the largest states for FSA lending for what USDA labels “socially disadvantaged” producers – which are people of color and white women. Oklahoma leads the way in lending to those types of borrowers.

These were also the states that were expected to benefit the most from the original race-targeted program.

It is unclear, however, how many of these “socially disadvantaged” borrowers are people of color.

In the state of Oklahoma, out of 129,619 total producers in Oklahoma, 9.2% are American Indian/Alaska Native and 1.4% are Black or African American, and .4% Asian compared to 84.9% white, according to the self-reported 2017 Agriculture Census.

Puerto Rico, which has not recovered from the destruction caused by Hurricane Maria in 2017, also has a large percentage of socially disadvantaged borrowers.

It has a farming population of 8,230 of which 7% identify as Black, 90% identify as white, .8% as other and 1% as more than one race, according to the self-reported 2017 Census of Agriculture. About 99%, regardless of race, identify as Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin, making them socially disadvantaged.

“Economically, they are (also) disadvantaged. That’s not surprising to me,” said Iris Jannett Rodriguez, president of the coffee sector of the Puerto Rican Farm Bureau. “Many farms might have a lot of land but the land that is producing crops is really small.”

Almost any way you slice the numbers: looking at raw totals of borrowers and dollars, or average payments per borrower or loan, Puerto Rico – which is not among the nation’s top agriculture producers – consistently lands among the top recipients. With 820 direct loan borrowers receiving $72.3 million and two guaranteed loan borrowers receiving $1.3 million in payments, Puerto Rico ranks fourth in the nation for highest borrowers and IRA payments.

“Both Oklahoma and Puerto Rico have a large share of farm loans. Therefore, it is not surprising that they also have more distressed borrowers relative to other states,” said Marissa Perry, press secretary for USDA regarding the rates of payments made toward both states. “In the case of Puerto Rico, in recent years, a number of natural disasters have contributed to delinquencies.”

But advocates say they fear the money may now not be reaching all of the producers who benefited from the first program.

USDA officials say that since Congress did not make race a consideration for payments, it does not track that data. Nonetheless, some patterns stick out because some of the states with the highest number of USDA loan borrowers who are socially disadvantaged are getting the most of the IRA payments.

As a part of the American Rescue Plan, the early 2020 pandemic relief bill, lawmakers approved $5 billion toward debt relief and cancellation for minority farmers. The legislation was specifically targeting what was labeled “socially disadvantaged” farmers, or African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders.

But the program was swiftly blocked by about 12 lawsuits, including one out of Texas led by former President Donald Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller and current state Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. They argued the program was discriminating against white farmers for being white.

Lawmakers then repealed the program and passed a second one through the Inflation Reduction Act.

“The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act was absolutely a tough pill to swallow with regard to the overturning of American Rescue Plan [program],” said Dãnia Davy, director of Land Retention and Advocacy at the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, however adding that some results have benefited her membership. “I have to say that a lot of our farmers ultimately have been very positive as they’ve received benefits under the Inflation Reduction Act that some folks didn’t even anticipate receiving. So it’s actually been a surprisingly positive response.”

The first program was specifically supposed to provide redress to farmers of color, many of who had been a part of class action lawsuits against USDA. Plaintiffs under Pigford v. Glickman, the lawsuit brought by Black farmers settled in 1999. However, tens of thousands missed out due to confusing paperwork and filing deadlines and near attorney malpractice, advocates say.

In 2010, Congress appropriated an additional $1.2 billion in a second round of payouts. But still, many did not receive them due to more denials of claims and deadline and processing issues. Plaintiffs fell even further behind on payments and legal fees — hurting their credit and bottom line for decades to follow.

“There are people who are still living from the first round of Pigford and they’ve never been made whole,” Davy said. “And a lot of times when people talk about Pigford, they think that Pigford addressed all of the racial discrimination that Black farmers faced, but it was really for a finite period of time.”

Smith says producers are happy about payments but upset there isn’t full loan forgiveness and confused about the rollout.

“They feel robbed about that part,” Smith said. “The law was passed almost six months ago and it seems like they [USDA] are a little sluggish.”

Much of the money remains to be doled out.

Smith said farmers who received notice in 2021 that their debt would be forgiven sat in limbo for a year, leading to many of them feeling like the department slow-walked the rollout of the original program, giving time for lawsuits to stall it.

“They were promised something by the government and then put on hold for over a year and a half,” Smith said. “They were told money was allocated to them during the pandemic. They were not able to use those funds. Now the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, they added more money to that pool but they aren’t doing debt forgiveness. They just had a couple of payments.”

In response to the concerns, USDA said they worked quickly to dole out the funds to farmers most at risk of losing their farms. The department is now in a more complicated phase, it said.

“This work requires diligence and time to make sure we are doing right by producers and fundamentally changing our approach to be better and in a long-lasting way,” said Dewayne Goldmon, senior advisor for racial equity to the Secretary of Agriculture. “I’m in this job to advance racial justice and opportunity – and we will keep mending and improving our approach at USDA to ensure Black farmers and any other farmers who have been left behind in the past are no longer left behind.”

Black farmers’ concerns over equity remain

Still, some farmers of color argue that they have still not benefited from a program originally designed to help them.

Eddie Lewis, a farmer in Louisiana, said he falls into that “complex case” category — he is delinquent $600,000. While he was poised to receive cancellation under the first program, the delay to get any payment under the new program is affecting his ability to get the capital he needs, he said.

“I would be the perfect candidate for a case-by-case basis. I’m a good farmer. I got good yields, I got good character. I got good credit,” he said. Lewis is in limbo, unable to secure other loans he needs because of the outstanding delinquency.

Advocates are also concerned that Black farmers who led the movement to get a debt-relief program will be left out of it.

In June 2022, Rep. Alma Adams, a North Carolina Democratic member of the House Agriculture Committee, sent a letter to USDA asking them to use money appropriated in another section of the COVID-19 relief package, also aimed at tackling inequity, to cover the costs of debt to Black farmers while litigation on the debt relief program continued.

Adams argued that according to USDA data, only 3,100 Black farmers would be eligible for the relief totaling less than $300 million. The most recent FSA report released in September shows the cost of 5,970 loans taken out by “socially disadvantaged farmers,” including white women, was $1.2 billion.

Advocates say the amount needed to cover the debt of farmers of color, and especially Black farmers, is so small that the funding should be appropriated — especially out of a multibillion-dollar program.

“Unfortunately, our folks have been so shortchanged that I think the numbers will probably bear out that there’s still a significant number of white farmers who not only benefited from the subsidies and the COVID benefits but now even IRA,” Davy said. “I think that program can’t truly be called a success for civil rights because you have to really intentionally address racial discrimination if you want to call it a success for civil rights.”

However, other farmers argue that the new, race-neutral program may be better at providing aid to those immediately struggling without triggering lawsuits. And many of them happen to be farmers of color.

In defense of the original race-targeted program, the government argued in court that white farmers were far less likely to be delinquent on their loans. The ratio of white borrowers who are delinquent on FSA loans in 2021 was 11%, compared to 38% of Black borrowers, 15% of Asian borrowers, 17% of American Indian and Alaskan Natives, and 68% of Hispanic borrowers.

Rod Simmons, a farmer in North Carolina, at first struggled with the department. He cited familiar problems, like a confusing application process and deadlines, as barriers he faced getting involved with the department’s programs.

When the pandemic hit, he lost 22% of his inventory. He was on the verge of liquidating his assets in order to get money to make the loan payments And then the Inflation Reduction Act loan payment came through, it amounted to two years worth of money he owed.

“My granddad had never seen any type of program in his time that made an impact for farmers like this one did,” Simmons said. “Now, the programs can be designed in a manner that will cater to those that need it versus those that want it. And there’s a big difference.”

Source: Black farmers worry new approach on “race neutral” lending leaves them in the shadows

Filed under Racism Tagged with ,

Australia’s multicultural framework under review after 50 years

2023/02/27 Leave a comment

Of note and to watch. Given that the review is under a Labour government, likely to incline towards greater diversity, equity and inclusion:

The Australian Government is set to begin a policy review of the 50-year-old ‘A multi-cultural society for the future’ report by Whitlam.

Consultation on the draft terms of reference to ensure they advance a multicultural Australia, support a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society, and harness the talents of all Australians.

“Australia is proudly one of the world’s most vibrant and successful multicultural societies. Widespread community support for multiculturalism is one of our major strengths as a nation,” said Minister Giles, adding that “50 years on from our first multicultural policy it is time to look at Australia’s multiculturalism and make sure we have the settings right. We need to make sure every Australian from a culturally and linguistically diverse background can reach their full potential.”

“Drawing on the knowledge of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, the Review will assess what the Commonwealth needs to do at institutional and policy levels to ensure no one is left behind, and everyone feels as though they truly belong.”

The draft Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Framework Review are now open for public comment and close on 19 March 2023. Find it here.

Source: Australia’s multicultural framework under review after 50 years

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Lisée: And what if Quebecers are less racist than other Canadians?

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

Lisée contrasting Quebec and RoC polling data and providing context for Quebec policies on immigration, multiculturalism/interculturalisme and language. Polling data with regional breakdowns between Montreal and the regions would likely nuance his assertions, nor fully explain the high levels of support for Bills 21 and 96 or the general level of political discourse on these issues, but they certainly play a part.

Lisée may have overstepped his case with respect to the number of visible minorities elected in the 2022 election, 12 elected members by my count, 9.6 percent, not 12 percent, largely reflecting the concentration in and around Montreal (just as the GTA bumps up Ontario provincial and federal MP representation numbers:

The number is nine. That’s the percentage of Quebecers who believe some races are superior to others. They, along with other Canadians, were asked this straightforward question by Angus Reid in 2021: “In all honesty, do you think that all races are equal in terms of their natural characteristics, or do you think that some races are naturally superior to others?”

Nine per cent may seem high, but compare it to Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a rate of 14 per cent. There is a spike of 19 per cent in PEI (this may be a sampling error) and lows of 11 per cent in Alberta and eight per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Interestingly, one finds that 13 per cent of Indigenous people believe in the inequality of races and 18 per cent of non-Caucasian/non-Indigenous – double the Quebec number.

How can we possibly square this result with the mere existence of Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21, and the apparent consensus outside Quebec that citizens there are closed-minded? The answer, as Justin Trudeau explained the other day, is Quebecers relation to religion, especially with the misogynistic aspects of the Catholic religion of yesteryear and, these days, Islam.

https://e.infogram.com/lisee-racisme-fig-2-en-1h8n6m31ngx0j4x?live?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2023%2Fquebec-racism%2F&src=embed#async_embed

That is why this same Angus Reid poll found what every other poll will tell you: a much bigger slice of Quebec opinion has negative views of religions as a whole and of Islam in particular. Angus Reid reports that whereas 25 per cent of all Canadians feel “cold” towards Muslims, the chill reaches 37 per cent in Quebec. Still in minority territory (63 per cent feel warm towards them) but a significant difference.

Since support for the secularism bill, which bans the wearing of all religious signs for civil servants in authority, hovers around 65 per cent, there are simply not enough Quebecers who dislike Muslims to account for that great a number. Clearly, other variables are at play and racism is not one of them.

In fact, Canadian pollsters regularly find Quebecers more tolerant on a range of issues than other Canadians. Ekos found in 2019 that 30 per cent of Quebecers believed there were too many members of visible minorities among immigrants. That is awful. But this level rose to 46 per cent in Ontario and 56 per cent in Alberta. And among visible minorities, 43 per cent felt there were too many visible minorities among immigrants. In short, Quebecers were less intolerant of racialized immigrants than Canadians as a whole and citizens of color themselves.

https://e.infogram.com/lisee-racisme-fig-3-en-1h7k2305xlekg2x?live?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2023%2Fquebec-racism%2F&src=embed#async_embed

But these are opinions. What about actions? Hate crimes were more numerous in Ontario than in Quebec per capita in 2019, 2020 and 2021, the year in which there is the latest available data. The Montreal police reports that in 2020 and 2021, the first years of application of the law on secularism, the number of hate crimes related to religion was down 24 per cent. Sure, with the pandemic, there were fewer opportunities to meet and hate each other. Yet they also had a pandemic in Toronto and there, according to the Toronto Police 2021 Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report, religious hate crimes increased by 16 per cent over the same period.

How about discrimination in employment? 2021 Statistics Canada data show that immigrants in Quebec have an employment rate greater than workers born in Quebec (at a ratio of 107 per cent) whereas the opposite is true in Ontario (a ratio of 95 per cent). The gap is greatest for women, with a ratio of 102 per cent employment in Quebec versus 91 per cent in Ontario, probably a result of Quebec’s far reaching daycare program. The same is true for members of visible minorities, whose rate of employment is equal to that of the rest of Quebecers, better than the 95 per cent level in Ontario. Simply put, as an immigrant or a BIPOC, your chances of getting a job is higher in Quebec than in Ontario, especially if you are a woman.

The recent October 2022 Quebec election was remarkable for one barely noticed achievement. For the first time, it delivered the same proportion of elected members from visible minorities, (12 per cent) than their share of the electorate and the same rate (20 per cent) of members of non-French and non-English origin. A perfect score. In Ottawa, Parliament still falls short of its goal of representing 25 per cent of visible minorities, having reached only 15.7 per cent.  In Ontario, with 30 per cent of minority population, the recent parliament counts 23 per cent representation.

None of these numbers are new, but I bet you are reading them here for the first time. Why? Simply because they are so counter-intuitive that few people outside Quebec look for them. Or when these numbers are encountered, they are treated as outliers that surely do not represent reality.

Yet going back in time, Quebec has reached achievements on race significantly before others on the continent. For example, the August 1 commemoration of the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 is problematic in Quebec because it ignores the fact that slavery had already been abolished there for 30 years. In Upper Canada, MPs had voted in 1793 to abolish slavery but grandfathered the “property” of current slave-owners. Slavery thus persisted until 1820. The British 1833 act compensated slave-owners for the “loss” of their property.

Quebecers had none of that. Open-minded judges started declaring slavery illegal in Quebec as early as 1798, without delay or compensation. It disappeared completely in very short order, as told by Frank Makey in his seminal Done with Slavery: The Black Fact in Montreal, 1760-1840 (McGill-Queen’s Press). “The way in which slavery was abolished in Quebec turned out to be one of the most humane and least constraining,” he writes. Slavery thus ended in Quebec 20 years before its demise in Upper Canada, 30 years ahead of the rest of the Empire and 63 years before the emancipation of Black Americans.

Jews were barred from elected office in the entire British Empire until 1858, except in Quebec. In 1832 the Assembly, with a Patriote majority (the ancestor of both the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois) voted an act granting full citizenship to Jews, the Brits be damned.

As for relations with First Nations, in 1701 the Governor of New France and 39 leaders of First Nations gathered in Montreal for the most far-reaching peace treaty ever negotiated between settlers and First Nations in the hemisphere. That’s Nobel Peace Prize territory. In modern times, Quebec signed the first comprehensive land claim in Canada in 1975 and René Lévesque made sure the Quebec National Assembly was the first Parliament in Canada in 1984 to recognize the existence of Indigenous nations on the territory. In 2003 the Paix des Braves with the Cree nation became the gold standard for the granting of autonomy to First Nations.

Environics Institute reports that like other Canadians 44 per cent of Quebecers believe the government has not done enough to ensure true reconciliation. But there are laggards. Those who find that we have gone too far, that we have been too generous. In Quebec, 13 per cent think so. Too many. In Canada: 20 per cent. Too many and a half.

It is also interesting to note how the anti-religious sentiment of Quebecers is intertwined with the issue of residential schools. Polling firm Léger asked who was responsible for this disaster: the federal government or the Catholic Church. Obviously, the answer is: both. But the pollster forced his respondents to choose. Two-thirds of Canadians pointed to the church. Quebecers even more: 69 per cent. The more memory Quebecers have, the more they condemn the church, at 76 per cent among those over 55 years old. Quebecers also say they are more ashamed, at 86 per cent, than the high Canadian average of 80 per cent.

Surely, tons of columns can be – and have been – written on all the faults and frailties of Quebecers. I have written a few myself. Comparative arguments have little weight when the task is to fight back against discrimination, racial profiling, decades-long neglect of Indigenous communities.

They have value, however, when mainstream voices outside Quebec take a moral high ground to misjudge and mischaracterize Quebec, its citizens and its history on issues of race and tolerance.

Source: And what if Quebecers are less racist than other Canadians?

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Krauss: Artificially Intelligent Offense?

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

Of note, yet another concern and issue that needs to be addressed:

…Let’s be clear about this: Valid, empirically derived information is not, in the abstract, either harmful or offensive.

The reception of information can be offensive, and it can, depending upon the circumstances of the listener, potentially result in psychological or physical harm. But precisely because one cannot presume to know all such possible circumstances, following the OpenAI guidelines can instead sanction the censorship of almost any kind of information for fear that someone, somewhere, will be offended.

Even before ChatGPT, this was not a hypothetical worry. Recall the recent firing of a heralded NYT science reporter for using “the N-word” with a group of students in the process of explaining why the use of that word could be inappropriate or hurtful. The argument the NYT editors made was that “intent” was irrelevant. Offense is in the ear of the listener, and that overrides the intent of the speaker or the veracity of his or her argument.

A more relevant example, perhaps, involves the loony guidelines recently provided to editors and reviewers for the journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry to “minimise the risk of publishing inappropriate or otherwise offensive content.” As they describe it, “[o]ffence is a subjective matter and sensitivity to it spans a considerable range; however, we bear in mind that it is the perception of the recipient that we should consider, regardless of the author’s intention [italics mine] … Please consider whether or not any content (words, depictions or imagery) might have the potential to cause offence, referring to the guidelines as needed.”

Moreover, they define offensive content specifically as “Any content that could reasonably offend someone on the basis of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, marital or parental status, physical features, national origin, social status or disability.”

The mandate against offensiveness propounded by the RSC was taken to another level by the journal Nature Human Behaviour, which indicated that not only would they police language, but they would restrict the nature of scientific research they publish on the basis of social justice concerns about possible “negative social consequences for studied groups.” One can see echoes of both the RSC and Nature actions in the ChatGPT response to my questions.

The essential problem here is removing the obligation, or rather, the opportunity, all of us should have to rationally determine how we respond to potentially offensive content by instead ensuring that any such potentially offensive content may be censored. Intent and accuracy become irrelevant. Veto power in this age of potential victimization is given to the imaginary recipient of information.

Free and open access to information, even information that can cause pain or distress, is essential in a free society. As Christopher Hitchens so often stressed, freedom of speech is primarily important not because it provides an opportunity for speakers to speak out against prevailing winds but because that speech gives listeners or readers the freedom to realize they might want to change their minds.

The problem with the dialogues presented above is that ChatGPT appears to be programmed with a biased perception of what might be offensive or harmful. Moreover, it has been instructed to limit the information it provides to that which its programmers have deemed is neither. What makes this example more than an interesting—or worrying—anecdote is the emerging potential of AI chatbots to further exacerbate already disturbing trends.

As chatbot responses begin to proliferate throughout the Internet, they will, in turn, impact future machine learning algorithms that mine the Internet for information, thus perpetuating and amplifying the impact of the current programming biases evident in ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is admittedly a work in progress, but how the issues of censorship and offense ultimately play out will be important. The last thing anyone should want in the future is a medical diagnostic chatbot that refrains from providing a true diagnosis that may cause pain or anxiety to the receiver. Providing information guaranteed not to disturb is a sure way to squash knowledge and progress. It is also a clear example of the fallacy of attempting to input “universal human values” into AI systems, because one can bet that the choice of which values to input will be subjective.

If the future of AI follows the current trend apparent in ChatGPT, a more dangerous, dystopic machine-based future might not be the one portrayed in the Terminator films but, rather, a future populated by AI versions of Fahrenheit 451firemen.

Source: Artificially Intelligent Offense?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Why Rewrites to Roald Dahl’s Books Are Stirring Controversy

2023/02/22 Leave a comment

As the rewrites should. Much better to provide context and background, to improve understanding, rather than efface (disclosure, his books were one of our kids favourite reads, and both are fairly woke adults):

A British publisher has come under fire for rewriting new editions of Roald Dahl’s children’s books to remove language that today’s readers deem offensive when it comes to race, gender, weight, and mental health.

Puffin Books, a children’s imprint of Penguin Books, worked with the Roald Dahl Story Company (RDSC), which is now exclusively owned by Netflix, to review the texts. RDSC hopes that rewriting books by one of the world’s most popular children’s authors, whose books have sold more than 300 million copies worldwide, would ensure that “Dahl’s wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Dahl is the author of many popular titles such as Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and The Witches. But in the years since Dahl’s death in 1990, some have turned their focus to a number of harmful tropes used by the late British author, including a history of anti-Semitic comments.

The language review was conducted with Inclusive Minds, an organization that works with the children’s book world to support them with diversity and inclusion initiatives. The organization told TIME they “do not write, edit, or rewrite texts, but provide book creators with valuable insight from people with the relevant lived experience that they can take into consideration in the wider process of writing and editing.”

Some writers and voices within the publishing industry have criticized the updated works as an act of censorship they believe was brought about by Netflix’s 2021 acquisition of the RDSC. However, others say there is merit and precedent to rewriting books for a contemporary audience.

Below, what to know about the changes to Dahl’s work, and the reactions to it.

Dahl’s anti-Semiticism and controversial legacy

Dahl, who died at age 74, had a history of making anti-Semitic comments and including racist tropes and language in his works. For example, he originally wrote characters like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas as an African Pygmy tribe. In James and the Giant Peach, the Grasshopper declares at one point: “I’d rather be fried alive and eaten by a Mexican.”

Dahl has also been called a misogynist for his unfavorable depictions of women in books such as The Witches.

In 2018, The Guardian reported that the British Royal Mint rejected a proposal to mark the 100th anniversary of Dahl’s birth with a commemorative coin. The idea was rejected on the grounds that he was “associated with anti-Semitism and not regarded as an author of the highest reputation.”

Amanda Bowman, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a community organization, backed the Mint’s decision. “He may have been a great children’s writer but he was also a racist and this should be remembered,” she said.

In 2020, the Dahl family and RDSC preempted public criticism of their literary patriarch, quietly issuing a statement apologizing for the hurt caused by his views.

“Those prejudiced remarks are incomprehensible to us and stand in marked contrast to the man we knew and to the values at the heart of Roald Dahl’s stories, which have positively impacted young people for generations,” it read. “We hope that, just as he did at his best, at his absolute worst, Roald Dahl can help remind us of the lasting impact of words.”

Which of Dahl’s books have been rewritten?

According to The Independent, hundreds of changes have been made to Dahl’s body of work. These edits include the Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach becoming Cloud-People, while in The Witches, the use of “old hags” has been replaced with “old crows.”

In Matilda, a mention of the English novelist Rudyard Kipling has also been replaced with Jane Austen. Kipling, who was born in 1865 in Bombay, India, has been variously labeled a colonialist, a racist, and misogynist in recent years.

In The Witches, Dahl had written, “You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens.” That passage has now been changed to read: “Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.” In the same text, women who were described as being supermarket cashiers or letter-writers for businessmen were rewritten as top scientists or business owners.

Several amendments have been related to violence, including the removal of references to the electric chair in George’s Marvellous Medicine and a Quentin Blake illustration of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Mike Teavee with 18 toy pistols.

Some have suggested that the rewrites are a bid to shield Netflix from controversy as it continues to adapt the books for the big screen. Deadline reported that Roald Dahl’s Matilda the Musical, directed by Matthew Warchus, has grossed over $33 million in U.K. cinemas since its Nov. 25 release, and it was also nominated for two BAFTAs.

Why are some claiming censorship?

Among the critics of the rewrites are Booker Prize-winning author Salman Rushdie, who spent years in hiding after Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a fatwa because of the alleged blasphemy in his novel The Satanic Verses. On Feb. 18, Rushie tweeted, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.’’

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the first racial minority to hold the U.K.’s top political job, likewise criticized the decision. A spokesperson said on Monday: “When it comes to our rich and varied literary heritage, the prime minister agrees with the BFG that we shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words. I think it’s important that works of literature and works of fiction are preserved and not airbrushed. We have always defended the right to free speech and expression.”

Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, a nonprofit organization that defends free expression in literature, also condemned the move in a Twitter thread. “The problem with taking license to re-edit classic works is that there is no limiting principle,” Nossel said. “You start out wanting to replace a word here and a word there, and end up inserting entirely new ideas.” Instead, she suggests, publishers should include introductions to works with offensive language to prepare readers with context.

But Karen Sands-O’Connor, a professor of children’s literature at Newcastle University, says Dahl was no stranger to editing out offensive language and even did so in his own lifetime. “Admittedly under pressure from his publisher,” Sands-O’Connor says. Dahl transformed Oompa Loompas, she adds, from an African Pygmy tribe in the 1964 edition, to people from the fictionalized Loompaland in order to avoid controversy.

Sands-O’Connor says publishers have three choices: stop publishing the work and lose money while risking another publisher releasing the works, leave it as it is and face accusations of sexism, racism, classism, or tailor it to a present-day audience. The latter, she says, is the “least problematic option.”

However, Philip Pullman, a prominent British author, appeared on BBC Radio 4 and said publishers should simply let Dahl’s books go “out of print.” Pullman also encouraged listeners to read the work of other authors, such as Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman, and Jaqueline Wilson.

What other authors have seen their works rewritten?

In March 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that six Dr. Seuss books such as And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and If I Ran the Zoo would no longer be published as they contained racist and insensitive imagery.

The organization told the Associated Press in a statement that the books portray people in “hurtful and wrong” ways and the ceasing of sales was part of a broader plan for inclusivity.

A number of other famous works have been pulled over the years, including Herbert R. Kohl’s Babar’s Travels, which was removed from a British library in 2012 for containing racist imagery of African people. However, textual tweaks appear to be a less common approach.

Sands-O’Connor says that Hugh Lofting’s Doctor Doolittle faced revisions in the 1960s and again in the 1980s after concerns about racism but despite these tweaks, children today typically engage with the film adaptations rather than the book.

She cautions that original copies will always be available and children’s classics will continue to sell if parents feel nostalgic about them. The better option, Sands-O’Connor adds, is to focus on discovering new and exciting storytellers: “The books are out there, people just need to look for them.”

Source: Why Rewrites to Roald Dahl’s Books Are Stirring Controversy

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

McWhorter: DeSantis May Have Been Right

2023/02/22 Leave a comment

Provocative title but substance regarding the diversity of views has merit:

In January, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida announced he would ban a draft curriculum proposed by the College Board for a new Advanced Placement course in African American studies, criticizing the educational merit of the course. This month the College Board released an official curriculum that revised the course by designating some of the writers and ideas in the draft curriculum as optional topics of study rather than core lessons.

The board claimed that the changes were responses to “the input of professors” and “longstanding A.P. principles.” I am unconvinced, to say the least, especially given the degree to which the counsel of these “professors” was mysteriously consonant with DeSantis’s.

I’d like to make clear that I disapprove of the vast majority of DeSantis’s culture warrior agenda, a ham-handed set of plans designed to stir up a G.O.P. base in thrall to unreflective figures such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. If DeSantis runs for president, he will not get my vote.

However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in terms of how we tell the story of Black America, the board did the right thing, whether because of DeSantis’s threat or for more high-minded reasons. The take that I saw in the course’s original draft depicted the history of Black America over the past several decades as an unbroken stream of left protest against a seemingly unchanging racist hegemon. There is certainly drama in the procession. The Black Panthers, the Black arts movement, Black studies departments, Black Lives Matter. Incarceration, reparations and Black struggle. Amiri Baraka, Molefi Kete Asante, Manning Marable (all notably left-leaning writers). But Black history has been ever so much more than protest and professional pessimism; note how hard it is to imagine any other group of people whose history is written with this flavor so dominant.

This is not education but advocacy. And in no sense does racism mean that the difference has no meaning. The key issue is the difference between opinions that are considered and debated and opinions that are mostly uncontested and perhaps considered uncontestable — essentially opinions that are treated as if they were facts.

Of course, it is possible to teach about opinions rather than facts. When that is properly done, the opinions are presented along with intelligent counterproposals. Given that Black conservatives — or skeptics of progressive narratives often processed as mainstream after the late 1960s — were nowhere to be found in the A.P. curriculum (except for Booker T. Washington, who has been dead for over a hundred years, and Zora Neale Hurston, whose conservatism is all too often downplayed), it is reasonable to assume that opinions from the left were going to be presented with little or no meaningful challenge.

Certain takes on race are thought of by an influential portion of progressive Americans — Black, white and otherwise — as incarnations of social justice. To them, our nation remains an incomplete project that will remain mired in denial until these ways of seeing race are universally accepted and determine the bulk of public policy. These issues include ones in the earlier version of the A.P. course, such as the idea that Black people may be owed reparations and that one of the most accurate lenses through which to view America is through the lens of intersectionality.

I imagine that to people of this mind-set, incorporating these views into an A.P. course on African American studies is seen as a natural step, via which we help get America woken by appealing to its brightest young minds. But for all the emotional resonance, the savory intonation of key buzzwords and phrases and the impassioned support of people with advanced degrees and prize-awarded media status, views of this kind remain views.

To dismiss those in disagreement as either naïve or malevolent is unsophisticated, suggesting that racial enlightenment requires comfort with a take-no-prisoners approach and facile reasoning. Not even the tragedies of America’s record on race justify saying “I’m just right, dammit!” as if the matter were as settled as the operations of gravity

For example, Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article “The Case for Reparations,” which appeared in The Atlantic in 2014 and focused on the injustice of redlining policies in mortgage lending until the late 1960s, stimulated a nationwide discussion. It was initially listed as a “source for consideration” in the course. However, for all the impact of that intelligent, influential and well-written article, the idea that reparations are owed is open to wide dispute. It is a proposal and one that many Black people reject. (Useful examples of that, from long before the Coates article was published, are here).

Some think that despite the injustices of the past, people in the present should achieve via their own efforts. Others contest the causal link between past discrimination and Black America’s current problems — a key plank in today’s reparations arguments. Some observe that Blackness alone is too ambiguous a concept in our endlessly hybridized society, i.e., they acknowledge what almost all believe, which is that our concept of race is a messy, contingent fiction. I think the Great Society programs, affirmative action, the loosening of welfare programs in the late 1960s, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and other significant policies have already been conceived of as a form of reparations, if not under the name itself. Reparations advocates have some answersto those objections, but even they fail to establish reparations as a moral absolute. The issue remains a controversy.

Intersectionality is a similar matter, in part as it seems a stand-in for the more openly controversial critical race theory. The very definition of C.R.T. has become a shifting target, rather like the term “neoliberal” or what it means to say that two people dated. However, the implication in much discussion — that C.R.T. is a mere matter of the legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, documenting that race, gender and other factors condition how people process life — is coy. No school of legal or academic thought could consist solely of that unexceptionable and even rather obvious observation. What worries many about C.R.T. are the conclusions its advocates draw from this intersectionality.

The original draft did not explicitly mention C.R.T., as opposed to intersectionality. However, it is reasonable to suppose that many teachers would use intersectionality as a springboard for instructing students, for example, that white people can be conceived as a single mass of domination and that racism is baked into America’s very essence in ways inescapable and unending. We must note that criticism of Crenshaw’s removal from the course — which took place in the College Board’s modified draft — often claim that detractors don’t want students to know the truth about America, something that overshoots the mere excision of the term “intersectionality” and implies a sanctioning of students being taught something broader and more judgmental.

Some C.R.T. advocates, for example, conclude that systemic oppression means that views from those oppressed via intersectionality must be accepted without question, as a kind of group narrative that renders it egregious to quibble over the details and nuances of individual experience. As the C.R.T. pioneer Richard Delgado put it, nonwhite people should protest based on a “broad story of dashed hopes and centuries-long mistreatment that afflicts an entire people and forms the historical and cultural background of your complaint.”

But this perspective, called standpoint epistemology, while intended as social justice, also questions empiricism and logic. Who really thinks that its absence from an A.P. course constitutes denying that slavery happened or that racism exists? C.R.T. advocates too often discuss white people as an undifferentiated mass, as in claims that white people resist letting go of their power, a view memorably promulgated by the legal scholar Derrick Bell. There is a rhetorical power in this sociological shorthand, but it also encourages a shallow classification of American individuals as bad white people and good everybody else. Fact this is not.

To pretend that where Blackness is concerned, certain views must be treated as truth despite intelligent and sustained critique is to give in to the illogic of standpoint epistemology: “That which rubs me the wrong way is indisputably immoral.”

And I hardly see this as applying only to people I disagree with. I have broadcast my views about race for almost a quarter century. Naturally, I consider my views correct — that’s why they are my views — and contrary to what some may suppose, conservative white people are by no means the core of people who often see things my way. I am always gladdened to find that there are quite a few Black people from all walks of life who agree with me. Yet I would protest seeing my views on race included in an A.P. course as facts or uncontested opinions.

There are certainly conservatives who think discussion of racism should be entirely barred from public life. This is, on its face, blinkered, ignorant and pathetic. But to pretend that controversial views on race from the left are truth incarnate is being dishonest about race as well. It sacrifices logic out of a quiet terror of being called racist (or, if Black, self-hating). How that is progressive or even civil in a real way is unclear to me. In being honest enough to push past the agitprop, I hate having to say that in this case, DeSantis, of all people, was probably right.

Source: McWhorter: DeSantis May Have Been Right

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

Lederman: To create a better future, students need an education about race

2023/02/21 Leave a comment

Indeed, even if it will not result in change for some:

At his sentencing hearing on Wednesday, the teenager who murdered 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket last year acknowledged that he had killed them because they were Black. He believed in the Great Replacement Theory – a racist conspiracy theory that falsely argues that the white race is threatened, and that liberal elites (Jews, in particular) are bringing in immigrants to replace white Americans.

“Looking back now, I can’t believe I actually did it,” he said. “I believed what I read online and acted out of hate.”

It’s impossible to know if this specific person was salvageable – but imagine what role a real education in Black history might play in the life of vulnerable young Americans like him. There are many – a frightening many – other potential bigoted autodidacts reading the stuff he was reading online.

How might their reception of this garbage be influenced by a proper education about the Black experience and the role racism has played and continues to play in society?

And yet, in some states, schools influenced (or forced) by right-wing groups and opportunistic politicians are having to shirk their responsibilities to properly educate their students about race. Some say this is out of a (wrongheaded) fear that white children might feel personal shame and responsibility. Or maybe it’s just plain ignorance; perhaps they actually believe that there is no longer racism operating in society.

But of course systemic racism is at play in the United States. Just ask the descendants of generations of slaves upon whose tortured backs many rich, white Americans built their wealth. Just ask the architects and victims of policies that segregated schools, buses, water fountains and lunch counters, or the laws that denied Black people the vote.

Just ask the family of George Floyd. Or the family of Tyre Nichols, a victim of Black police officers invested in what has been described as a systemically racist institution.

Why shouldn’t American students learn about the racism that has infected their country? It is, after all, the truth.

In the wake of the racial reckoning emerging from the 2020 police killing of Mr. Floyd, the once-obscure concept of critical race theory has become a flashpoint. CRT, which emerged out of the Civil Rights movement, argues that racism is embedded in the U.S. legal system, policies and power structures. But it became a favourite target for far-right blabbermouths and then-president Donald Trump. Its meaning has been twisted and obscured in hysterical campaigns in several states, including Florida. There, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law the Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the Stop W.O.K.E. (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, to combat CRT’s “state-sanctioned racism.” (George Orwell must be rolling his eyes in his grave.) Speaking to the state’s board of education last year, Mr. DeSantis said: “the woke class wants to teach kids to hate each other, rather than teaching them how to read.” He called CRT “nonsense ideology.”

This rhetoric is itself nonsense. The kids are still learning to read, of course – even if their options are being limited by other scary developments in Florida schools, such as book bans.

Last November, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of some of the provisions of the law. “The First Amendment does not permit the State of Florida to muzzle its university professors, impose its own orthodoxy of viewpoints, and cast us all into the dark,” Judge Mark Walker wrote in his conclusion.

Then in January, Mr. DeSantis banned a new Advanced Placement course on African-American studies from Florida high schools. The multidisciplinary course, currently in a two-year national pilot program, teaches literature, the arts, politics and history – including the origins of the African diaspora, enslavement and resistance.

Thank goodness there are still some grown-ups in charge. In New Jersey, Gov. Phil Murphy has announced that his state will expand AP African-American studies. “Black history is American history,” Mr. Murphy said Wednesday.

In Canada, Black History Month gives schools the opportunity to teach Black history and contemporary contributions – lessons that should be happening all year. Schools are also now – finally – teaching about this country’s Indigenous history, embracing the fact that to achieve reconciliation, there must be truth: an understanding of the racist policies that targeted Indigenous people and continue to reverberate.

This is not shaming. It’s explaining.

Teaching about race is not indoctrination; it is education. And if the schools won’t do it, there are all sorts of nefarious websites and sketchy media platforms that are happy to fill in the gap with their brand of brainwashing.

Misinformation has never been so accessible – and so dangerous. Knowledge is power, and public educators have an obligation to their students: to teach them to be critical thinkers, to teach them the honest history of their land, and to have faith that the kids will understand what to do with this information – contribute to a better society, for all.

Source: To create a better future, students need an education about race

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

CSIS documents reveal Chinese strategy to influence 2021 election

2023/02/21 Leave a comment

Not a good take on the government’s (lack of) response and the naiveté of some:

China employed a sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada’s democracy in the 2021 federal election campaign as Chinese diplomats and their proxies backed the re-election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals – but only to another minority government – and worked to defeat Conservative politicians considered to be unfriendly to Beijing.

The full extent of the Chinese interference operation is laid bare in both secret and top-secret Canadian Security Intelligence Service documents viewed by The Globe and Mail that cover the period before and after the September, 2021, election that returned the Liberals to office.

The CSIS reports were shared among senior government officials and Canada’s Five Eyes intelligence allies of the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Some of this intelligence was also shared with French and German spy services.

Over the past decade, China, under President Xi Jinping, has adopted a more aggressive foreign policy as it seeks to expand its political, economic and military influence around the world.

MPs on the Commons Procedure and House Affairs committee are already looking into allegations that China interfered in the 2019 election campaign to support 11 candidates, most of them Liberal, in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Drawn from a series of CSIS intelligence-gathering operations, the documents illustrate how an orchestrated machine was operating in Canada with two primary aims: to ensure that a minority Liberal government was returned in 2021, and that certain Conservative candidates identified by China were defeated.

The documents say the Chinese Communist Party leadership in Beijing was “pressuring its consulates to create strategies to leverage politically [active] Chinese community members and associations within Canadian society.” Beijing uses Canadian organizations to advocate on their behalf “while obfuscating links to the People’s Republic of China.”

The classified reports viewed by The Globe reveal that China’s former consul-general in Vancouver, Tong Xiaoling, boasted in 2021 about how she helped defeat two Conservative MPs.

But despite being seen by China as the best leader for Canada, Beijing also wanted to keep Mr. Trudeau’s power in check – with a second Liberal minority in Parliament as the ideal outcome.

In early July, 2021 – eight weeks before election day – one consular official at an unnamed Chinese diplomatic mission in Canada said Beijing “likes it when the parties in Parliament are fighting with each other, whereas if there is a majority, the party in power can easily implement policies that do not favour the PRC.”

While the Chinese diplomat expressed unhappiness that the Liberals had recently become critical of China, the official added that the party is better than the alternatives. Canada-China relations hit their lowest point since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre after December, 2018, when Beijing locked up two Canadians in apparent retaliation for Ottawa’s arrest of a Chinese Huawei executive on an extradition request from the United States.

Most important, the intelligence reports show that Beijing was determined that the Conservatives did not win. China employed disinformation campaigns and proxies connected to Chinese-Canadian organizations in Vancouver and the GTA, which have large mainland Chinese immigrant communities, to voice opposition to the Conservatives and favour the Trudeau Liberals.

The CSIS documents reveal that Chinese diplomats and their proxies, including some members of the Chinese-language media, were instructed to press home that the Conservative Party was too critical of China and that, if elected, it would follow the lead of former U.S. president Donald Trump and ban Chinese students from certain universities or education programs.

“This will threaten the future of the voters’ children, as it will limit their education opportunities,” the CSIS report quoted the Chinese consulate official as saying. The official added: “The Liberal Party of Canada is becoming the only party that the PRC can support.”

CSIS also explained how Chinese diplomats conduct foreign interference operations in support of political candidates and elected officials. Tactics include undeclared cash donations to political campaigns or having business owners hire international Chinese students and “assign them to volunteer in electoral campaigns on a full-time basis.”

Sympathetic donors are also encouraged to provide campaign contributions to candidates favoured by China – donations for which they receive a tax credit from the federal government. Then, the CSIS report from Dec. 20, 2021 says, political campaigns quietly, and illegally, return part of the contribution – “the difference between the original donation and the government’s refund” – back to the donors.

A key part of their interference operation is to influence vulnerable Chinese immigrants in Canada. The intelligence reports quote an unnamed Chinese consulate official as saying it’s “easy to influence Chinese immigrants to agree with the PRC’s stance.”

China wants to build acceptance abroad for its claims on Taiwan, a self-ruled island that it considers a breakaway province and still reserves the right to annex by force. And it seeks to play down its conduct in Xinjiang, where the office of former UN Human Rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet last year said China has committed “serious human-rights violations” in the region, which may amount to crimes against humanity.

Similarly it wants to generate support for a draconian 2020 national-security law to silence opposition and dissent in Hong Kong, a former British colony that Beijing had once promised would be allowed to retain Western-style civil liberties for 50 years.

Beijing also seeks to quell foreign support for Tibet, a region China invaded and annexed more than 70 years ago, and to discourage opposition to Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea and sweeping maritime claims in the region.

A month after the September, 2021, vote, CSIS reported that it was “well-known within the Chinese-Canadian community of British Columbia” that Ms. Tong, then the Vancouver consul-general, “wanted the Liberal Party to win the 2021 election,” one of the reports said.

CSIS noted that Ms. Tong, who returned to China in July, 2022, and former consul Wang Jin made “discreet and subtle efforts” to encourage members of Chinese-Canadian organizations to rally votes for the Liberals and defeat Conservative candidates.

CSIS said Mr. Wang has direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), a vast organization that uses mostly covert and often manipulative operations to influence overseas ethnic Chinese communities and foreign governments. CSIS said Mr. Wang served as an intermediary between the UFWD and Chinese-Canadian community leaders in British Columbia.

In early November, 2021, CSIS reported, Ms. Tong discussed the defeat of a Vancouver-area Conservative, whom she described as a “vocal distractor” of the Chinese government. A national-security source said the MP was Kenny Chiu. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the source, who risks prosecution under the Security of Information Act.

The source said Mr. Chiu was targeted in retaliation for his criticism of China’s crackdown in Hong Kong and his 2021 private member’s bill aiming to establish a registry of foreign agents, an effort inspired by similar Australian legislation to combat foreign interference. The United States has a long-standing registry; Canada is still studying the matter.

Mr. Chiu, who was elected to represent Steveston–Richmond East in 2019, lost the 2021 federal election to Liberal candidate Parm Bains and is widely believed to be a victim of a Beijing-led online disinformation campaign.

According to CSIS, Ms. Tong talked about China’s efforts to influence mainland Chinese-Canadian voters against the Conservative Party. She said Mr. Chiu’s loss proved “their strategy and tactics were good, and contributed to achieving their goals while still adhering to the local political customs in a clever way.”

In mid-November, CSIS reported that an unnamed Chinese consular official said the loss of Mr. Chiu and fellow Conservative MP Alice Wong substantiated the growing electoral influence of mainland Chinese-Canadians.

Former federal Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has alleged that foreign interference by China in the 2021 election campaign, using disinformation, cost the party eight or nine seats. The Liberals won 160 seats compared with 119 for the Conservatives, 32 for the Bloc Québécois and 25 for the NDP, while the Greens picked up two seats.

While the Conservative Party’s overall share of the popular vote increased slightly in the election, the party lost a number of ridings with significant Chinese-Canadian populations. These included the defeat of incumbents such as Mr. Chiu, Richmond Centre MP Ms. Wong and Markham–Unionville’s Bob Saroya.

However, the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force set up by the Trudeau government to monitor threats to federal elections never issued any public warning about foreign interference during the 2019 or 2021 campaigns.

Mr. Trudeau has said it found no meddling, telling the Commons in November of last year that the task force “determined that the integrity of our elections was not compromised in 2019 or 2021.” He also told reporters that “Canadians can be reassured that our election integrity held” in the two elections.

The Globe has reported that the Prime Minister received a national-security briefing last fall in which he was told China’s consulate in Toronto had targeted 11 candidates in the 2019 federal election. CSIS Director David Vigneault told Mr. Trudeau that there was no indication that China’s interference efforts had helped elect any of them, despite the consulate’s attempts to promote the campaigns on social media and in Chinese-language media outlets.

Nine Liberal and two Conservative candidates were favoured by Beijing, according to the national-security source. The source said the two Conservative candidates were viewed as friends of China.

Source: CSIS documents reveal Chinese strategy to influence 2021 election

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Bouchard: La lutte contre la discrimination II – Pour une politique québécoise

2023/02/21 Leave a comment

Always worth reading. Of course, équilibre, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. And interculturalism, like multiculturalism, also has variants ranging from status quo to the more woke and activist:

Il presse pour la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) de mettre en oeuvre une politique énergique de lutte contre la discrimination, une politique alignée sur les grands objectifs à atteindre et qui s’inspire des principes en vigueur, mais les traduit et les applique à notre façon. On devrait viser une approche originale qui s’accorde avec notre tempérament, nos traditions, notre culture, tout en nous affranchissant de la dépendance fédérale et de son moralisme intolérant.

Notre histoire offre plusieurs exemples de formules collectives novatrices que nous avons mises au point, parfois à l’encontre des voies convenues. Pensons à la façon dont, à partir des années 1960, nous avons conjugué l’essor de l’entreprise privée avec l’État partenaire, d’où a résulté une forme originale de capitalisme. Pensons aussi à l’adoption, durant les décennies qui ont suivi, de pratiques économiques néolibérales conjointement avec l’expansion du filet social (seulement pour la fin des années 1990, époque triomphante du néolibéralisme : assurance médicaments, garderies, congés parentaux, logement social). Nous avons également mis au point un modèle de gouvernance qui fait largement appel à la concertation générale sous la forme de sommets. Sur ces trois plans, le Québec a fait bande à part en Amérique.

Parallèlement, le syndicalisme grossissait ses rangs, la taille de l’État se maintenait, le chômage déclinait, l’économie sociale continuait son essor, la pauvreté et les inégalités diminuaient.

On trouve un phénomène similaire dans l’ouverture de la culture québécoise à la mondialisation, une manoeuvre audacieuse pour une culture inquiète de son avenir. Le Québec y a trouvé une voie pour démontrer sa créativité et exporter ses productions culturelles à travers la planète.

L’exemple le plus éloquent, peut-être, réside dans la façon dont nous avons étroitement conjugué un nationalisme fervent avec une philosophie libérale et des politiques progressistes. Peu de nations y sont arrivées. Aux yeux de nombreux Européens, ce genre de mariage est impossible.

Je peux en témoigner. À l’occasion de conférences en Europe, notamment en France, je faisais état de ce que nous avions réalisé. Le public manifestait un profond scepticisme. Dans la plupart des esprits, le nationalisme, c’était les horreurs des deux guerres mondiales : le racisme, la xénophobie, le génocide et la guerre (c’est une formule que le président Mitterrand affectionnait : « le nationalisme, c’est la guerre »). Puisque notre exemple ne convainquait pas, j’évoquais aussi les nationalismes écossais, finlandais, néo-zélandais… Rien à faire.

En matière d’intégration et de relations entre majorité et minorités, l’interculturalisme relève du même esprit : une formule qui bouscule certains tabous, prône la solidarité, les rapprochements et les interactions entre cultures. En se fondant sur une quête d’équilibre, d’équité, de pragmatisme, elle s’applique à raccorder des impératifs concurrents tout en laissant une grande autonomie aux acteurs sociaux. Pourtant, aucun de nos gouvernements n’a voulu jusqu’ici mettre cette formule à l’essai alors qu’entre-temps, le multiculturalisme canadien gagne rapidement du terrain à Montréal (voir La métropole contre la nation ? de David Carpentier, 2022).

La lutte contre la discrimination appelle un effort de même nature : poursuivre en matière d’équité et de protection des droits les mêmes objectifs, les mêmes valeurs, mais en suivant nos voies. Cependant, il faudrait d’abord dégager le terrain de certains obstacles, notamment l’aversion de M. Legault pour la notion de racisme systémique, coupable apparemment de faire passer tous les Québécois pour des racistes, ce qui n’est évidemment pas le cas.

Si l’expression choque au point de freiner le combat contre le racisme, il n’y a qu’à la contourner. Parlons d’une forme spécifique de discrimination qu’on pourrait qualifier de banalisée, au sens que, souvent inconsciente, elle est incrustée dans les mentalités, les stéréotypes, les coutumes, les pratiques courantes, d’où découle une forme d’institutionnalisation de facto.

Rappelons-nous qu’autrefois, le dimanche était un jour de congé réservé au culte. Mais il s’agissait du culte chrétien, sans égard pour les autres. C’était aussi l’époque où les femmes étaient tenues pour faibles, émotives, inaptes à exercer diverses responsabilités. De nombreux Noirs et musulmans sont présentement soumis à un traitement analogue. Et tout récemment, nous avons appris de la bouche de nos gouvernants que les immigrants sont réfractaires à nos valeurs, rejettent le français, refusent de travailler et menacent la cohésion sociale… C’est sur de telles bases que se construit la discrimination banalisée.

Un autre obstacle réside dans une conception radicale du racisme systémique (ou banalisé). Ici, le danger est de provoquer dans la population des effets dissuasifs similaires aux excès du nouveau multiculturalisme. Il ne s’agit nullement de diluer la notion de racisme ou d’édulcorer les politiques destinées à le contrer. Il s’agit simplement de ne pas susciter des résistances pour de mauvaises raisons.

En somme, oui pour les valeurs EDI (équité, diversité, inclusion), bien sûr, et pour les objectifs de développement durable de l’ONU, mais modelés et appliqués à notre manière. Ce serait le bon moment pour une offensive gouvernementale dont la première étape consisterait à inventorier les réflexions et les propositions déjà mises en avant chez nous pour en extraire les prémisses d’un modèle québécois. Un exemple : agir contre la discrimination en aval, certes, mais plus encore en amont, comme l’a suggéré Patrick Moreau dans Le Devoir du 7 février.

C’est une tâche qui demandera un effort collectif, incluant celui des administrations universitaires dont certaines se font très conciliantes avec les diktats du multiculturalisme afin de conserver les subventions fédérales. La mise en garde adressée récemment par la ministre Pascale Déry dans Le Devoir du 17 janvier était donc bienvenue, tout comme l’objectif d’« équilibre » qu’elle préconise.

Source: La lutte contre la discrimination II – Pour une politique québécoise

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

B.C. Liberal MLA the latest politician with mixed messaging for non-English media

2023/02/18 Leave a comment

Warning to all:
British Columbia Liberal leader Kevin Falcon says he supports supervised drug injection sites, but when member of the legislature Teresa Wat spoke to the audience of a Mandarin news show last week, she had a different message.
Wat, speaking on Phoenix TV’s Daily Topic Show, said “we are very opposed to so-called safe injection sites,” remarks she later said “accidentally misrepresented” her party’s position.

Source: B.C. Liberal MLA the latest politician with mixed messaging for non-English media

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →