Scholastic wanted to license her children’s book — if she cut a part about ‘racism’

2023/04/17 1 Comment

Yet another sad tale from the publishing world:

Maggie Tokuda-Hall was thrilled when she first saw the offer from the publishing giant.

Scholastic wanted to license her 2022 children’s book Love in the Library. The deal would draw a wider audience to her book — a love story set in a World War II incarceration camp for Japanese Americans and inspired by her grandparents, about the improbable joy found “in a place built to make people feel like they weren’t human.”

Then she read Scholastic’s suggested revisions to her book, included in the same email as the offer news. Her excitement at the opportunity was almost immediately tempered.

The publisher‘s only suggested edit was to the author’s note: Scholastic had crossed out a key section that references “the deeply American tradition of racism” to describe the tale’s real-life historical backdrop — a time when the U.S. government forcibly relocated more than 120,000 Japanese Americans to dozens of internment sites from 1942-1945.

Scholastic gave its reasons for the suggested change in an email to the author and her original publisher, Candlewick Press, citing a “politically sensitive” moment for its market and a worry that the section “goes beyond what some teachers are willing to cover with the kids in their elementary classrooms.”

“This could lead to teachers declining to use the book, which would be a shame,” Scholastic’s email said.

The deal with Scholastic was contingent on not only nixing that section, according to the author, but removing the word “racism” from the author’s note entirely.

Scholastic made the suggested revisions above to Tokuda-Hall’s book in an attachment it sent to her original publisher. “They wanted to take this book and repackage it so that it was just a simple love story,” the author wrote on her blog.

Infuriated by what she called a “horrific demand for censorship,” Tokuda-Hall gave Scholastic a hard no.

The author called the offer deeply offensive in an email to Candlewick Press, which passed along Scholastic’s proposal, a response she posted publicly to her website on Tuesday.

“I’m typically a very compromising person,” the Oakland, Calif.-based author, who is Asian American, told NPR. “But when you omit the word racism from a story about the mass incarceration of a single group of people based on their race, there’s no compromise to be had with that if you can’t agree on basic facts.”

Maggie Tokuda-Hall, a children’s author based in Oakland, Calif., rejected an offer from Scholastic to license her book after the publisher proposed an edit that would cut a section referencing “racism.”

Without its proper context, she said, the story “runs the risk of just being like a lovely little love story. And that’s not what it is. To pretend otherwise would do a disservice not just to [my grandparents], but also to the 120,000 other people who were incarcerated at the time.”

Scholastic issues an apology

Two days after the author first spoke out about the offer, Scholastic said it had apologized to Tokuda-Hall for its editing approach, in a statement sent to NPR on Thursday night.

“In our initial outreach we suggested edits to Ms. Tokuda-Hall’s author’s note,” the company’s CEO Peter Warwick wrote in a statement. “This approach was wrong and not in keeping with Scholastic’s values. We don’t want to diminish or in any way minimize the racism that tragically persists against Asian-Americans.”

Scholastic said that during the process it had failed to consult its “mentors” for the Rising Voices collection — authors and educators from Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities — and has since reached out to them to hear their concerns. “We must never do this again,” Warwick wrote

Scholastic, which had planned to feature Love in the Library as part of its “Rising Voices Library” collection highlighting AANHPI voices, said it hopes to restart the conversation with Tokuda-Hall with the aim of sharing the book with the author’s note unchanged.

It’s not yet clear whether Tokuda-Hall will consider their revised offer.

“That conversation is not concluded and so I do not have any comment yet,” she told NPR in an email.

The author says publishers are silencing marginalized voices

To Tokuda-Hall, her experience with Scholastic is another instance in which publishers are yielding to conservative advocacy groups in the face of recent battles over book bans and author censorship.

In one case, a Florida textbook publisher removed all explicit references to race from its lesson materials about civil rights icon Rosa Parks in order to win approval from Florida’s Department of Education, The New York Times reported last month.

Publishers, she wrote on her website before the Scholastic apology, “want to sell our suffering, smoothed down and made palatable to the white readers they prioritize. … Our voices are the first sacrifice at the altar of marketability.”

It’s impossible to put a price on what Tokuda-Hall may sacrifice from rejecting the deal with Scholastic, a trusted, powerhouse publisher in the children’s market that affords authors exposure. She feared that speaking publicly about the offer could harm her reputation and career.

“Children’s book authors — we’re fighting over nickels. It’s not exactly gangbusters, this industry,” she said. “So, when you’re presented with any opportunity to get your story, and particularly a story that you deeply believe in, in front of more eyes, it’s a huge opportunity.”

But she thinks kids and their families have the most to lose from situations like this.

“I think they’re losing the opportunity to talk about the truth, to learn the truth, to discuss it,” she said. “No substantive change for the better can be made without reconciliation with the truth.”

Since going public with her experience, the author says, she’s heard from other marginalized writers and people in the publishing industry — largely people of color and queer people, she says — who have also had to make difficult choices about their work and how its presented.

“My DMs have been absolutely full,” she said. “People sharing pretty horrific stories that they’re just too afraid to share in public.”

Some authors and others in the publishing world responded publicly in support of Tokuda-Hall.

“By refusing to let this story be situated in context of government oppression and enslavement of other marginalized groups, past and present, It makes it safe for them to say ‘historically, mistakes were made, but look at how successful Japanese American communities are now,’ ” literary agent DongWon Song tweeted. “This is white supremacy. This is how it operates.”

Author Martha Brockenbrough has collected close to 400 signatures on a letter to Scholastic calling on the publisher to feature Love in the Library without edits.

Before she received Scholastic’s apology, Tokuda-Hall said that, whether or not the publisher apologizes, her “greatest fear is that this is a momentary flurry of outrage, but nothing changes. And other creators are asked to make horrible choices like this going forward in the dark.”

Source: Scholastic wanted to license her children’s book — if she cut a part about ‘racism’

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

Sandra Griffith-Bonaparte has worked 22 years for the government. She’s never gotten a promotion

2023/04/15 Leave a comment

The numbers are less negative than presented in the article and by the Black Class Action Secretariat given the ongoing increase in representation at all levels.

Will be doing an intersectionality analysis once I have the 2022 data tables broken down by visible minority and Indigenous groups and gender but last year’s analysis showed women visible minorities and Indigenous peoples were doing better than men and that recent hiring was largely representative of overall demographics.

Sandra Griffith-Bonaparte hasn’t gotten a promotion in her 22 years of working for the government.

And it’s not for a lack of trying.

Despite having work experience as a high school teacher in Grenada, before she immigrated to Canada from Grenada in 1988; two undergraduate degrees from Carleton University; a Master’s of Arts and Public Ethics at St. Paul’s University and the University of Ottawa, she still does the same clerical work at the Department of National Defence.

“Time and time again, I’m either blocked, overlooked, ostracized, and this has me questioning: Why?” she says. “My story is not unique, this is happening all over in the Canadian government, in the public service, in the city, in provincial workplaces. Highly qualified, hardworking and dedicated public servants, like me, are being really kept in very low positions.”

Griffith-Bonaparte’s struggle for her own career—and financial—advancement echoes data shared in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s latest employment equity report, which indicates that women, Indigenous people, members of visible minorities and people with disabilities continue to be over-represented in the lowest salary levels of the public service.

In its Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada report for the 2021-2022 fiscal year, Treasury Board President Mona Fortier states the government is committed to working towards creating an “inclusive and diverse federal public service,” with the document outlining plans to continue modernizing self-identification methods and improving the recruitment, retention and advancement of employees with disabilities.

Fortier acknowledged there is “still work to do” to improve representation.

“As the country’s largest employer, we know that strength lies in our diversity, which is why we must continue to work to create a workplace that is truly inclusive and one that better reflects the diverse communities we serve,” Fortier said.

Between 2020-21 and 2021-22, the core public service gained 7,788 employees, according to the report. Over that time, the number of employees identifying as belonging to the four employment equity groups — women, visible minorities, Indigenous people, and people with disabilities — increased by 7,472 to a total of 161,649 (or 68.4 per cent) of the 236,133 public servants, as of March 31, 2022.

The report found that Black employees represented 20.6 per cent of the visible minority population, or 4.2 per cent of the entire core public service.

Despite growing numbers of people in equity groups, those employees were over-represented in the lowest salary levels and under-represented at the highest, the report found.

While women account for 56 per cent of the 236,133 total employees, they made up less than half all employees earning more than $75,000, according to the report. And of the nearly 95,000 employees earning in the $50,000 to $74,999 salary range, two-thirds of them are women. However, half of the 422 employees earning between $200,000 and $250,000 are women.

Indigenous employees were similarly over-represented in salary ranges below $100,000 and under-represented in all salary ranges of $100,000 and above.

Employees with disabilities and employees identifying as members of visible minorities were also over-represented among those with salary ranges below $75,000.

Though not included as an equity group, the report found that Black employees were disproportionately earning salary ranges below $75,000.

Nicholas Marcus Thompson, executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat, which has launched a lawsuit seeking long-term solutions to permanently address alleged systemic racism and discrimination within the public service, said the Treasury Board’s latest report demonstrates that Black employees remain at entry-level positions within the government.

He said it also points to the need for amendments to the Employment Equity Act, specifically including Black employees as a separate equity group.

“It confirms that the systemic barriers are continuing with very small progress,” Thompson said. “We want real change.”

When she first entered the public service, Griffith-Bonaparte said she was paid around $30,000, a number that has slowly grown to $54,800 due to inflation.

Without being promoted, Griffith-Bonaparte said she had been stuck doing clerical work such as booking conference rooms, which has both left her in a difficult financial situation and has greatly affected her mental health, leading her to suffer from anxiety and depression. While she has applied for countless jobs within the public service in hopes of moving up, she has never been offered an opportunity to advance within her unit or other units.

Due to her low-paying salary, Griffith-Bonaparte said she started teaching singing lessons on the side in order to make her mortgage, buy food, pay utilities, and support her family. She also started working as a union representative over 16 years ago to have something rewarding to work on related to the public service, and is now the president of the Union Of National Defence Employees Local 70607 in the National Capital Region.

“Sometimes I regret ever entering the public service,” she said, “It saddens me greatly to see I’ve accomplished nothing in the federal public service at all.”

Source: Sandra Griffith-Bonaparte has worked 22 years for the government. She’s never gotten a promotion

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Canada’s federal budget promises anti-hate action, but can the government actually do anything?

2023/04/15 Leave a comment

Valid questions, applies more broadly than LGTBTQ:

While the 2023 federal budget released last month had very little that was new for queer and trans communities, mostly pointing to previous investments that had been made, there was promise buried within to introduce a new Action Plan to Combat Hate later in the year. Just what exactly they’re promising is murky, and it’s hard to tell how many dollars are actually attached to this plan. It notes that between 2019 and 2021, police-reported hate crimes rose by 72 percent, but just how the federal government proposes to tackle that is unclear.

“To confront hate in all its forms, including hate faced by 2SLGBTQI+ communities, the federal government plans to introduce a new Action Plan to Combat Hate later this year,” the budget reads. “This new Action Plan will include measures to combat hateful rhetoric and acts, building on measures being taken in Budget 2023 to build safer, more inclusive communities.”

The dollar figure attached to that is $49.5 million over five years, starting in the 2023–24 fiscal year, with Public Safety Canada to expand its existing Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program. This largely goes toward things like providing more security to synagogues and mosques, which LGBTQ2S+ community centres could also access (if they haven’t already), but there aren’t many of them across the country, and most are situated in bigger cities. The budget indicates that this means an additional $5 million this year, and $11 million for each of the four subsequent fiscal years.

The infrastructure program is not without its critics within the queer and trans communities. The Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity (CCGSD), an education, advocacy and research organization, put out a statement decrying the lack of specific investment to combat anti-LGBTQ2S+ hate.

“In its current form, we do not feel confident that the Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program is structured in a way that will protect at-risk 2SLGBTQI+ events (such as pride festivals or drag story hours),” the CCGSD statement reads. “While we look forward to the Action Plan to Combat Hate, there is no indication in Budget 2023 that it will contain any specific funding dedicated to combating anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate.”

This is the part where I start to raise questions, because I’m not sure just what the federal government should be doing about Pride festivals or drag story hours, given that those are largely under the jurisdiction of local governments. Yes, federal governments past and present have given funding support to Pride festivals through Canadian Heritage or tourism grants to help with things like operational funding, but how does the federal government enhance security at a Pride festival? While the CCGSD doesn’t specify what they think the federal government should be doing, I wonder what would those federal dollars be funding for security that shouldn’t be provided by the municipality through local police? I have a hard time seeing a case for millions of federal dollars to be dispersed to provide private security for these festivals, even if some of the larger ones in the country may rely on it as part of their festival operations, particularly because that private security is unlikely to be equipped to deal with potential hate crimes.

This is the part where I start to raise questions, because I’m not sure just what the federal government should be doing about Pride festivals or drag story hours, given that those are largely under the jurisdiction of local governments. Yes, federal governments past and present have given funding support to Pride festivals through Canadian Heritage or tourism grants to help with things like operational funding, but how does the federal government enhance security at a Pride festival? While the CCGSD doesn’t specify what they think the federal government should be doing, I wonder what would those federal dollars be funding for security that shouldn’t be provided by the municipality through local police? I have a hard time seeing a case for millions of federal dollars to be dispersed to provide private security for these festivals, even if some of the larger ones in the country may rely on it as part of their festival operations, particularly because that private security is unlikely to be equipped to deal with potential hate crimes.

Likewise, most drag story hours are held in public libraries, which are the responsibility of municipal governments, and the fervent right-wing animosity toward them are both recent and unlikely to be sustained, and shouldn’t justify permanent security infrastructure funding. Any protests are an issue for local police to deal with—and no, it’s not the federal government’s job to deal with the failures of local police in this country. Policing is a provincial jurisdiction, and civilian oversight should be with the hands of the local police services board (though their efficacy can depend on just how much local involvement there is).

I do think that a federal program to combat hateful rhetoric is a good thing, but we need to see more details about what this is going to look like. We also need to be aware that trust in government when it comes to delivering messages to the public has been eroded thanks to a steady stream of misinformation and disinformation during the pandemic, which capitalized on early mistakes by public health officials, and the evolving nature of our understanding of the virus itself. Because trust is low, combatting that rhetoric could be harder, because there will be those who insist that if the government is trying to combat it, then their homophobic and transphobic rhetoric must be justified. That’s going to be a problem.

If the idea is a national ad campaign that says we should embrace diversity, stamped with the Canada wordmark at the end, that is less likely to be as effective as something akin to providing communities with tools to local police or community organizations to help de-radicalize individuals and groups that are targeting these events. Those tools, whatever they may look like, are more in keeping with what kinds of supports that are appropriate for the federal government to provide.

There is also the ongoing funding for the 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, and the various project and community funds that are part of it. This is helping a number of queer and trans organizations and communities across the country build resilience in the wake of increasing hate, but there should also be warning signs here—that groups receiving the funding should be thinking about capacity-building and sustainability. These funds may not survive a change in government, and there has been no move to create a self-sustaining endowment fund like has been done for the Black community, leaving the queer and trans communities that rely on this federal funding more vulnerable. Sustainability is work that these groups should be aware of and working towards.

Source: Canada’s federal budget promises anti-hate action, but can the government actually do anything?

Filed under LGBTQ, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Nicolas: Catho-laïcité

2023/04/14 Leave a comment

Great column:

Dans ma cohorte à l’école primaire, il y avait une poignée d’enfants qui n’étaient pas catholiques. On savait tous qui ils étaient. Parce que nous, les enfants « normaux », regardions les enfants « bizarres », inscrits en morale, sortir de la classe pendant que nous nous préparions pour notre cours de catéchèse. En effet, nos institutions publiques avaient déjà le don de faire se sentir les minorités religieuses comme des extraterrestres bien avant l’apogée de nos débats sur la laïcité.

Nous, les enfants « normaux », disais-je, avions des chansons à apprendre sur Zachée, Lazare, les noces de Cana. Du sérieux, quoi. Le prêtre visitait l’école, puis on passait des soirées dans le sous-sol de l’église de la paroisse à chanter encore pour orchestrer une scène de la nativité pour la messe de Noël, encore pour préparer notre première communion, puis notre confirmation. C’était là un éventail d’activités normal pour des enfants « normaux » d’une école primaire publique, à la fin des années 1990, dans une région certes plus conservatrice que la moyenne, au Québec.

Au secondaire, dans une école officiellement déconfessionnalisée mais que tout le monde continuait d’appeler « couvent » quand même, les religieuses étaient encore très impliquées dans l’enseignement et l’administration de notre quotidien. Dans les années 2000, donc, j’ai récité des « Je vous salue Marie » avant de commencer mon cours de français. Le prêtre venait toujours — dans la salle dédiée à la prière de l’école, n’est-ce pas, qui était tout simplement une chapelle — pour nous encourager à faire le carême, avouer tel ou tel péché sous un mode certes un peu plus créatif que le confessionnal traditionnel et nous accorder le pardon. Les élèves « bizarres » étaient toujours les bienvenus parmi nous. Les crucifix et autres statues de Marie décoraient des salles de classe… inclusives.

J’ai un rapport complexe à cette éducation catho-laïque, plus importante que celle de bien des jeunes de mon âge élevés dans la « grand ville ». Pour le moins, je pense qu’avoir grandi ainsi m’aide à faire des nuances.

Je sais bien, par exemple, qu’aucun élève LGBTQ+ de mon école n’a fait son coming out au secondaire, et que ce n’est certainement pas dans un cours de Formation personnelle et sociale donné par une religieuse qu’on aurait pu se sentir à l’aise de discuter de la diversité sexuelle. Ce tabou, je suis profondément contente qu’il soit moins vécu de front par la génération qui me suit.

Je sais aussi que les soeurs qui m’enseignaient avaient eu l’occasion de faire de longues études, parfois jusqu’au doctorat, qui étaient demeurées inaccessibles à ma grand-mère, pourtant de la même génération. Je comprends que des femmes, dans une société profondément patriarcale, ont choisi de cesser d’exister comme objet sexuel et reproducteur, en quelque sorte, pour avoir des carrières, voyager et contribuer plus largement à leur société.

Cela ne m’empêche pas de comprendre le rôle de l’Église dans la perpétuation de la violence coloniale dans les Amériques et l’Afrique, y compris la mise sur pied des pensionnats autochtones. Il y a quelques jours encore, le pape devait encore s’excuser pour la « doctrine de la découverte », une idéologie qui a légitimé la dépossession territoriale, et donc la « fondation » du Canada.

Et je sais encore que des mouvements politiques ancrés dans la théologie de la libération a nourri des soulèvements des classes populaires en Amérique latine et que les églises afro-américaines ont joué un rôle central dans la mobilisation pour les droits civiques. Et qu’il est tout à fait possible de créer des espaces de subversion et de réflexion critique porteuse au sein même des institutions religieuses.

Tout ça, on s’en rend compte lorsqu’on s’intéresse aux phénomènes religieux et spirituels dans toutes leurs complexités et en nuances. Et lorsqu’on ne sait pas faire d’analyse nuancée de son propre héritage religieux, on est aussi probablement très mal outillé pour avoir des conversations franches, tout aussi pleines de nuances, avec des croyants d’autres confessions qui cherchent aussi du sens dans leurs héritages complexes capables de beauté comme de violence, d’oppression comme de libération.

Les valeurs de solidarité et de partage sont promues par toutes les grandes religions, sous une forme ou sous une autre. Par exemple, la générosité envers les plus démunis est une valeur fondamentale dans l’Islam, une valeur particulièrement à l’oeuvre durant le ramadan, en ce moment même. Et si ce n’était pas de l’entraide, le peuple juif n’aurait pas pu traverser tous les millénaires de son histoire — ni même se libérer, avec Moïse, de l’esclavage en Égypte, ce qu’on célèbre, justement, lors de la Pâque juive, ces jours-ci. Et dans le reste du pays, les communautés anglo-protestantes construisent des filets sociaux les uns pour les autres, sans attendre nécessairement que l’État s’en mêle. C’est une autre manière de voir les institutions, certes, mais certainement pas une absence de solidarité.

Aller dire — par exemple, comme ça — que le catholicisme aurait une espèce de monopole de la valeur de la solidarité, alors que les trois religions du Livre partagent un moment particulièrement fort serait donc un geste d’une profonde insensibilité et inculture. Lorsqu’on est un chef d’État qui doit représenter et traiter équitablement tous ses citoyens, peu importe leur foi, présenter une religion comme « meilleure » sur un aspect ou un autre est une grave erreur politique. Lorsqu’on a fait une partie de sa carrière politique sur le concept de la laïcité a en plus, la déclaration devient tragicomique.

Mais surtout, peu importe le rôle de la personne qui le déclare, sur le fond, il y a un truc qui ne tourne pas rond dans cette hiérarchisation, parfois. On se dit que l’auteur d’une telle sortie aurait besoin d’un bon cours d’éthique et culture religieuse. Et que c’est probablement parce qu’il lui en manque qu’il a voulu l’abolir.

Source: Catho-laïcité

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

The U.K. a role model for political diversity

2023/04/14 Leave a comment

A more compete survey can be found here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/.

While the UK is far ahead of Canada in terms of political leaders, less so in terms of MPs: 10 percent visible minorities compared to about 16 percent in Canada:

History shows us that governments that are representative of all their people are often better run and more meritocratic. Representative governments tend to implement more inclusive policies while at the same time elevating a diverse set of role models. These leaders bring more creative insights to the policy-making table that can lead to alternative solutions and thus make decisions that better serve everyone.

While Canadian governments have been getting more diverse in their representation over the past few years, unlike in Britain, the top jobs in Canadian politics have largely eluded the grasp of racialized and new Canadians.

As India and Pakistan gained their independence just over 75 years ago, the stage was set for a rapid wind down of the British Empire over the next two decades. Britain benefited from its post-colonial relationships by attracting waves of African, Asian and Caribbean immigrants as a postwar labour shortage forced it to look beyond its shores in order attract the workers needed to keep its economy running. This migration changed the face of cities like London, Manchester and Glasgow during the latter half of the 20th century.

Yet it was not all milk and honey for these newcomers. On arrival, many often faced racism and discrimination, which was not officially outlawed in Britain until 1965. While the struggle against systemic discrimination continues, there is no doubt that at least when it comes to political representation, the descendants of these post colonial migrants have made their mark on British society in a big way.

Today, arguably the top three political jobs in the U.K., that of British prime minister, Scottish first minister and Lord mayor of London, are held by Rishi Sunak, Humza Yousaf and Sadiq Khan respectively. Their grandparents lived under British Colonial rule in South Asia.

More importantly, they each hail from different parties across the ideological spectrum and they all rose to political heights without facing significant backlash from a British society that appears to have moved beyond seeing race as a determining factor in selecting its leaders. Across the Irish Sea, Leo Varadkar, whose father was born in Bombay (Mumbai), has twice served as prime minister of the Republic of Ireland since 2017.

So, how do we Canadians fare in comparison to our cousins in the British Isles?

Despite our overt commitment to multiculturalism and the fact that Statistics Canada projects racialized Canadians will make up between 38 to 43 per cent of the Canadian population by 2041, Canada has never had a person of colour serve as a first minister, apart from Ujjal Dosanjh’s very brief stint as premier of British Columbia more than 20 years ago.

At the federal level, neither the Liberals, nor Conservatives, the two perennial governing parties, have ever had a serious leadership contender from a racialized background. Compare this to the U.K. Conservative party whose leadership race last summer saw people of colour make up half of the nominated contestants.

In Canada’s largest city Toronto, where half the population was born outside of Canada, every mayor since amalgamation has been white, middle aged and male. Its city council, until very recently has more closely resembled a 1980’s country club than the decision-making body of one of the most diverse cities in the world.

Despite this, progress, albeit slowly, is finally being made.

About a fifth of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government departments are now led by people of colour or those born outside of Canada, including key portfolios such as defence, trade and transport. In Ontario, that number stands at about 25 per cent of Premier Doug Ford’s executive council.

In Toronto the 2022 municipal elections saw a host of new and diverse candidates elected to city council, although the number of racialized and new Canadians is still not close to being representative of the city’s demographic makeup.

Unfortunately, many young Canadians from multicultural backgrounds still cannot fathom themselves sitting at the head of a major Canadian government. This needs to change if Canadian multiculturalism is to be viewed as anything more than symbolism. Governments and political parties need to work hard to create opportunity for talented Canadians of all backgrounds not just to participate in the political process, but to lead it as well.

If Britain can do it, so can we.

Omar Khan is a Canadian political strategist with over two decades of experience working in federal and provincial politics.

Source: The U.K. a role model for political diversity

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Arab Autocrats are Masking Repression with Religion

2023/04/13 Leave a comment

Of note:

On March 1, the Abrahamic Family House opened to the public on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. Hailed as a beacon of tolerance and modernity in the Middle East, the interfaith complex hosts the Imam al-Tayeb Mosque, St. Francis Church, and Moses Ben Maimon Synagogue.

The complex, part of a UAE government effort marketed as a way to foster interreligious harmony in a region that is regularly depicted as lacking such a quality, began development in 2019, following a visit by Pope Francis to the UAE during which he, along with the Grand Imam of al-Azhar in Egypt, Ahmed el-Tayeb, signed the “Document on Human Fraternity” with the hope of fostering interreligious unity.

Such government-directed initiatives—marketed as a mechanism to advance peace, tolerance, and moderation—have become increasingly common throughout the Middle East over the past decade, with countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and many others launching various international initiatives focused on interfaith dialogue, countering extremist religious practices and interpretations and promoting so-called “moderate Islam.”

However, despite outwardly projecting an image of tolerance and moderation, many of these same governments simultaneously employ religion to buttress their authoritarian rule, legitimize repression, limit their citizens’ freedoms, and justify aggressive policies abroad. For example, the UAE is not only fiercely repressive at home but is also one of the Middle East’s most interventionist states, pursuing policies that have prolonged the region’s civil wars, created humanitarian crises, crushed democratic aspirations, and fueled the underlying grievances that lead to unrest.

Increasingly, many Middle Eastern governments are wielding religion as a tool of soft power alongside other efforts—including sportswashing, greenwashing, and other PR campaigns—designed to absolve themselves of their culpability in human rights abuses and destabilization of the Middle East while maintaining the support of their Western benefactors.

A considerable proportion of academic and policy analyses examining the relationship between religion and politics in the Middle East tends to focus overwhelmingly on how Islam drives political outcomes in the region. Less attention is devoted to how politics often drives religious outcomes. The government-sponsored project of so-called moderate Islam is an example of politically driven religious messaging.

There are two key elements to this government-sponsored moderate Islam.

First is the promotion of a politically quietist and statist conceptualization Islam that stresses absolute obedience to established authority. Governments depict obedience to the ruler of the state as a religious obligation. These governments embrace an interpretation of Islam that is subservient to the state, incapable of challenging the regime’s legitimacy or policies, while also delegitimizing alternative sources of religious or political authority.

Critical to such a strategy is the portrayal of all forms of Islamism—whether mainstream or more radical—and all forms of political opposition as manifestations of “extremism” and “radicalism” in order to eliminate all independent or dissenting religious and political voices capable of challenging state authority.

Aiding these efforts are strategically constructed anti-terrorism laws that have proliferated throughout the Middle East in two main waves: one following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the other following the 2011 Arab uprisings. The language of such legislation was always designed in a vague manner in order to be capable of targeting almost any challenge to the status quo. This kind of legislation has been used to target all forms of dissent in countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and elsewhere.

By painting challenges to the status quo as extreme and casting such opposition as a manifestation of religious radicalism, these governments are simultaneously able to deflect attention from how their authoritarian policies are often the underlying catalysts for regional instability and repress anyone they deem as a threat to their own rule under the guise of countering so-called extremist behavior. Such framing allows these governments to monopolize discussions surrounding Islam, reform, and politics in the Middle East.

Second, in the efforts to brand themselves as moderate, these regimes have also adopted the strategic usage of interfaith tolerance. In particular, outreach by these states to various Christian and Jewish communities, organizations, and figures has proved particularly effective. By framing their actions as in-line with Western initiatives designed to protect religious freedom and encourage interfaith relations, these governments have received regular praise from political leaders and religious groups in the United States. This has allowed them to project an image of tolerance while also currying favor with influential actors in certain key countries.

Engagement with other faith communities and leaders abroad not only advances the image of these governments as tolerant and progressive actors, but also presents an opportunity for these states to project themselves internationally as the sole legitimate representatives of the global Muslim community. The curation of such an image is designed to present these actors as stabilizing forces throughout the Middle East despite their repressive policies at home and aggressive foreign policies that contribute to the underlying sources of regional instability.

The government-sponsored project of moderate Islam is primarily a product of the post-9/11 era. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the West proceeded to construct arbitrary categories of what the scholar Mahmoud Mamdani referred to as “good” and “bad” Muslims. The Islam that autocratic regimes in the Middle East practice and promote is presented to the West as “good” and “moderate,” and is designed to depict these governments as the best—perhaps only—partners capable of working with the West to combat “bad” and “extreme” Islam.

As the United States began pouring money and weapons into the pockets of these governments under the notion of supporting counterterrorism, these regimes were able to harness these resources and utilize them in the widespread repression of any who challenged the status quo. These patterns were accelerated by the 2011 Arab uprisings as ruling elites jockeyed to delegitimize and repress opposition to their rule while maintaining Western support. Presenting themselves as upholders of stability, these autocratic governments have been able to deflect attention away from how their policies and the nature of their rule have contributed to the underlying sources of regional instability.

The project of moderate Islam is directed primarily toward the West, particularly the United States, which remains the security guarantor for many of the governments spearheading these projects. Successfully selling this image on a global scale is a critical component to other complementary soft-power initiatives and efforts to legitimize the domestic and international policies of these autocratic actors.

Two states in particular lead the enterprise that is moderate Islam: Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, hailedby many as a long-awaited reformer, made headlines upon his vow to return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam. Domestically, the crown prince has made several changes, including attempts to distance official Saudi Arabian history from ultra-conservative Wahhabism; allowing women to drive, live alone without male permission, and travel without a male guardian; limiting the religious police’s powers; permitting public entertainment venues such as cinemas and concerts; and arresting religious clerics and scholars labeled as extremists by the regime. State religious figures and institutions continue to praise Mohammed bin Salman as a “modernizer” and “renewer,” and the Council of Senior Scholars, the preeminent religious body in Saudi Arabia, regularly endorses his controversial domestic and foreign policies.

Internationally, the crown prince has overseen the projection of moderate Islam to Western audiences. Institutions such as the Saudi-based Muslim World League, led by Secretary-General Mohammed al-Issa and representing a virtual extension of the Saudi state, have spearheaded such efforts, particularly outreach to Jewish and evangelical Christian communities. In November 2018, Saudi Arabia hosted a delegation of evangelical Christian leaders from the United States, who were received by Mohammed bin Salman and Issa. A similar delegation visited the kingdom again in September 2019. In January 2020, al-Issa led a delegation of Islamic scholars in an unprecedented visit to the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, accompanied by representatives of the American Jewish Committee. A year later, Pope Francis received Issa at the Vatican.

Likewise, the UAE under the leadership of Mohamed bin Zayed has projected an image of the Emirates as a beacon of tolerance, modernity, and stability in the Middle East. The UAE embassy in the United States stresses that “values of inclusion, mutual respect and religious freedom have been ingrained in the UAE’s DNA since before the country’s founding in 1971.” It notes the Emirates “has a forward-looking vision for the Middle East region—a path that promotes moderate Islam, empowers women, teaches inclusion, encourages innovation and welcomes global engagement.”

After the Arab uprisings, the UAE created a series of new institutions to cement this image domestically and promote it abroad, such as the Muslim Council of Elders, the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, and the UAE Fatwa Council; and in 2016, it established an official minister of tolerance position, currently held by Sheikh Nahayan Mabarak al-Nahayan. The year 2019 was proclaimed the “Year of Tolerance” in the Emirates, further advancing this image of the UAE as a source of stability and prosperity in the Middle East.

Internationally, the number of interfaith initiatives spearheaded by the UAE or involving institutions based in the Emirates is considerable. Programs such as the UAE’s Alliance of Virtue seek to “bring together religious leaders of good-will for the benefit of humanity”; the alliance’s steering committee is composed of leading Muslim, Christian, and Jewish individuals from around the world. The newly formed Jewish Council of the Emirates serves as the representative body of Jews within the UAE and, in 2019, New York University Chaplain Yehuda Sarna was named the country’s first chief rabbi.

More than any of the other interfaith efforts the UAE has pursued, the crowning jewel remains the Abraham Accords. The accords were marketed as a way forward for the Israel-Palestine conflict and a broader framework for Middle Eastern peace. When the Abraham Accords were announced, signatories emphasized how this historic declaration would be a tool for “maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence.” The UAE described the accords as “catalyst for wider change in the Middle East” and a mechanism to “promote regional security, prosperity, and peace for years to come.”

Yet, despite these initiatives, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are among the most autocratic governments in the world. Bothcountries are engaged in widespread human rights abuses at home and support a wide array of autocratic actors throughout the region engaged in similar abuses.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the vanguards of the authoritarian resurgence taking place across the Middle East. At home, they are fiercely repressive, forcibly silencing any form of dissent or opposition to the policies pursued by the government. Both states are witnessing a strengthening and intensification of personalistic rule whereby Mohammed bin Salman and Mohamed bin Zayed have sought to eliminate institutional constraints and amass an unprecedented amount of power.

Abroad, these two leaders spearheaded an ongoing military offensive in Yemen that has resulted in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, continue to pour financial and military resources into supportingallied authoritarian actors engaged in gross abuses, and are engaged in sophisticated campaigns of transnational repression and surveillance targeting activists and dissidents around the world. Additionally, they have played critical roles in supporting China’s repression of its domestic Muslim communities, and both Saudi Arabia and the UAE continue to engage in illegal activities within the United States.

Despite many of the interfaith initiatives being marketed as a way to promote moderation, tolerance, and peace, they have increasingly paved the way for expanded cooperation and collaborationon strategic issues. For example, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have increasingly coordinated their lobbying efforts in Washington to advance mutually-shared objectives in the Middle East and across the globe, namely the preservation of the prevailing illiberal status quo and regional balance of power.

The Abraham Accords in particular did not represent a breakthrough for peace in the Middle East, but rather the solidification of a top-down, imposed regional order designed to advance the interests of political elites. Instead of a mechanism to promote peace, interfaith initiatives for Middle East actors are often steeped in shared political objectives between actors with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Interfaith initiatives and the promotion of religious moderation and tolerance are themselves not problematic and should be encouraged. The problem is autocratic regimes are using the government-sponsored project of moderate Islam as a mechanism to whitewash their repressive, aggressive domestic and foreign policies while projecting a false image to their Western benefactors. The initiatives pursued by these regimes are inherently political, designed to support the domestic and geopolitical objectives of these autocratic governments instead of actually countering specific religious interpretations or practices.

Jon Hoffman is research director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN). Twitter: @Hoffman8Jo

Source: Arab Autocrats are Masking Repression with Religion

Filed under Religion Tagged with , , , , ,

François Legault shares racist article, reveals hypocrisy on secularism

2023/04/12 Leave a comment

Sigh…

Quebec Premier François Legault shared an article by infamous Journal de Montréal columnist Mathieu Bock-Côté about the importance of Catholicism in Quebec, revealing his hypocrisy on secularism and a willingness to overlook barely disguised racist sentiments in the material he shares.

In his column, timed with Easter weekend, Bock-Côté praises Quebec’s Catholic heritage, noting that  “Catholicism, from the origins of New France, gave a particular impetus to our adventure in America” — kind of like how the Catholic Church’s Doctrine of Discovery encouraged Europeans to crush Indigenous communities in their travels? Bock-Côté also says, “It is this same sense of the collective that leads us today to resist the fragmentation of society under the pressure of multiculturalism” — a gratuitous slam on multiculturalism as being the root of all our problems.

Legault quoted another piece of the Journal article on Twitter: “Catholicism has also engendered in us a culture of solidarity that distinguishes us on a continental scale.” As Montreal comedian Sugar Sammy pointed out, “Secularism is important except for this one tweet.”

Secularism has been identified by the Legault government as one of Quebec’s core values, and used as justification for Bill 21, which supposedly treats all religions equally in terms of banning religious symbols.

Source: François Legault shares racist article, reveals hypocrisy on secularism

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Lisée: Le droit au monologue

2023/04/11 Leave a comment

A noter:

Ce n’est pas tous les jours que 388 professeurs, auteurs et personnalités se donnent la peine de signer une lettre commune, publiée mardi dans Le Devoir (« Ce ne sont pas que des mots »), pour nous avertir de « dérapages inquiétants, de plus en plus nombreux » dans le débat public au Québec.

M’étant plusieurs fois exprimé, y compris dans ces pages, sur la nécessité d’un débat qui, s’il peut être robuste, doit toujours être respectueux, j’ai été étonné que ma signature n’ait pas été sollicitée. J’ai compris pourquoi une fois avoir soigneusement examiné de quoi il était question.

Les signataires nous y aident en donnant, au total, quatre exemples de ce qui leur paraît intolérable. Il s’agit d’abord d’une entrevue donnée à Stéphan Bureau par Léa Clermont-Dion. Elle y décrit son groupe social d’origine à Rawdon comme étant du « White trash ». Une expression dure, rarement utilisée au Québec, mais courante aux États-Unis pour désigner une population blanche marginale, peu éduquée. Bureau lui demande si elle oserait aussi parler de « Black trash ». « Ben non, ça marcherait pas », dit-elle.

L’échange a été capté par un chroniqueur de Québecor, Mathieu Bock-Côté (MBC), qui y a vu un exemple de « racisme anti-blanc ». (Détail savoureux : ce sont les esclaves noirs du sud des États-Unis qui ont inventé le terme pour dénigrer ces Blancs). L’argument du deux poids, deux mesures se tient, mais la charge de MBC est un peu lourde, d’autant que Clermont-Dion s’amende, dans l’entretien, d’avoir utilisé le terme. Puis, le reproche lui en a été fait sur les réseaux sociaux. J’y reviens.

Les signataires renvoient ensuite à un gazouillis où une autrice et éditrice écrivait ceci : « Les élections et leurs hochets habituels — et même certains dont nous croyions qu’ils appartenaient à un vieux Québec ranci et révolu : l’immigration, l’identité, le vilain étranger, les maudits intellectuels ». Je ne la nomme pas parce que les signataires s’insurgent que de tels propos entraînent une riposte ad hominem, mais surtout parce qu’elle a retiré la publication. Le gazouillis serait passé inaperçu si MBC n’avait pas jugé dans son blogue qu’il « est difficile de trouver un propos plus méprisant à l’endroit des centaines de milliers de Québécois qui prennent la question identitaire au sérieux ».

Pour moi, c’est clair : les deux positions ont droit de cité dans notre débat public. L’autrice a le droit de penser et d’écrire que ces thèmes reflètent un « Québec ranci et révolu », d’autres ont droit de répliquer que cette opinion suinte le mépris.

Le troisième cas concerne l’auteur et vice-président de la Ligue des droits et libertés, Philippe Néméh-Nombré. Dans Seize temps noirs pour apprendre à dire kuei, (Mémoire d’encrier), il écrit : « Une autopatrouille qui brûle est une promesse. » Ce qui lui vaut, toujours par MBC, une accusation de glorifier la violence antipolicière. Cette phrase est prise « hors contexte », écrivent les signataires. Je suis allé le lire. J’ai bien trouvé cet autre extrait : « Détruire des ordinateurs, fracasser des vitrines, brûler des autopatrouilles, bloquer des ponts, des voies ferroviaires. » Mais je n’ai trouvé aucun contexte qui puisse laisser entendre que ces phrases ne doivent pas être prises au premier degré. Il s’agit, au mieux, d’une normalisation de la violence, au pire, de sa glorification. Que les signataires estiment que cela devrait passer comme une lettre à la poste laisse songeur.

Finalement, la lettre nous emmène en 2018, dans la foulée de l’attentat à la mosquée de Québec. Dans un texte publié dans La Presse, la prof et psychiatre Marie-Eve Cotton estime troublant que certains se montrent empathiques envers les troubles psychiatriques de l’accusé, Alexandre Bissonnette, mais n’en fasse pas autant envers les tueurs islamistes qui ne sont, écrit-elle, « pas moins désespérés, apeurés, perdus, et habités d’une colère qui cherche un objet sur lequel se déverser ». Cette fois, c’est Richard Martineau qui monte au créneau, estimant qu’il faut distinguer « un massacre perpétré par une personne déséquilibrée et dépressive et un attentat sanguinaire commis au nom d’une cause par un terroriste qui revendique fièrement son geste ». Ici encore, les deux positions doivent avoir droit de cité. (Je trouve pour ma part des parcelles de vérité dans les deux textes.)

Les signataires se plaignent que la force de la riposte est disproportionnée, de deux façons. D’abord, parce que des chroniqueurs et animateurs ont des tribunes dont l’empreinte est très large; ensuite, parce que leurs critiques entraînent sur la Toile un flot de commentaires souvent haineux qui traumatise l’auteur du texte critiqué. Personne n’est préparé pour le torrent de réactions qu’une première déclaration tranchée peut provoquer. Mais tous ceux qui mettent le petit orteil dans le débat public doivent savoir que cette tempête permanente existe. Il n’y a que deux façons d’y survivre : pour les menaces, on appelle le 911, pour toute violence verbale, on bloque jusqu’à ce que la racaille disparaisse de nos fils.

Mais la lettre ouverte appelle les propriétaires de médias à mettre leurs chroniqueurs et animateurs en laisse. Ils devraient s’abstenir de relever qu’untel parle d’un « Québec ranci » et que tel autre sourit à la vue d’une autopatrouille en flamme. Au nom de quoi, exactement ? Du droit de ne pas être contredit ? Du droit au monologue ?

Je remarque, dans la liste des « victimes » citées et les signatures, des gens qui, à répétition, ont écrit que ceux qui n’étaient pas de leur avis sur la question de la laïcité étaient, nécessairement, des opportunistes et des racistes. On comprend que, du haut de leur certitude d’être les seuls porteurs de la raison, ils voudraient que leur intolérance et leur irrespect de l’autre ne soient relevés par personne, ou alors qu’on taise leurs noms dans les répliques, même lorsqu’ils persistent et signent dans l’insulte.

L’argument de la disproportion des voix aurait de la valeur si l’espace médiatique québécois n’était pas si diversifié. Toute personne outrée peut publier sa prose sur son blogue ou ses réseaux avec l’appui et le relais de sa communauté de vues. Des lettres ouvertes sont acceptées dans tous les médias. J’admets qu’il manque de signatures et de tribunes, disons, « woke », à Québecor, mais ce n’est pas le cas dans ce quotidien-ci, ni à La Presse ni à Radio-Canada.

On pourrait débattre, chiffres à l’appui, de la présence médiatique relative des deux grandes tendances intellectuelles qui s’affrontent. Il faut cependant savoir qu’en politique comme dans le débat d’idées, chacun est toujours convaincu que l’autre camp a trop de visibilité.

J’ai jugé particulièrement significatif de constater que le signataire principal de cette lettre, Mathieu Marion, dénonçant le manque de retenue et de respect et les attaques ad hominem, un prof de l’UQAM, a affirmé quelques jours auparavant sur Twitter que la pensée de MBC s’apparentait à de la « pink slime » — cette viande artificielle dont la vue lève le cœur. Ce qui me rappelle vaguement une histoire de paille et de poutre.

Source: Le droit au monologue

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Goal of IHRA anti-Semitism definition is to target human rights groups, says proponent

2023/04/10 Leave a comment

Of note. However the main author of the definition, Kenneth Stern, has been vocal in his opposition to its “weaponization”:

A prominent advocate of the controversial and inaccurate definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has acknowledged that one of its purposes is to target and silence human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) and others documenting Israel’s human rights abuses.

“The purpose of the IHRA working definition was to prevent the illegitimate demonization of Israel, the singling out of Israel, and the antisemitic aspects of the attacks on Israel, which is exactly what these NGOs are doing,” said a key proponent of IHRA, Professor Gerald Steinberg, the founder of pro-Israel, NGO Monitor.

Steinberg made the remark in response to 60 human and civil rights organisations who on Tuesday released a joint open letter urging the UN not to adopt the IHRA. Steinberg told the Algemeiner that the letter, which was also signed by HRW, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and B’Tselem, is an act of “political warfare against Israel”.

According to Steinberg, the NGOs are doing the very thing which the IHRA was designed to prevent. But critics have pointed out that the IHRA is not preventing anti-Jewish racism and instead has had a chilling effect on free speech and has further undermined the work of the international human rights community.

In the letter to the UN, the groups warned that if the world body endorsed the IHRA then its officials who work on issues regarding Israel and Palestine may find themselves “unjustly accused of anti-Semitism based on the IHRA definition”. A case could also be made for “numerous UN agencies, departments, committees, panels and/or conferences, whose work touches on issues related to Israel and Palestine, as well as for civil society actors and human rights defenders engaging with the UN system,” to be smeared as racist.

The targets of accusations of anti-Semitism based on the IHRA definition have included university students and professors, grassroots organisers, human rights and civil rights organisations, humanitarian groups and members of the US Congress, who either document or criticise Israeli policies and who speak in favour of Palestinian human rights.

Rights group have constantly dismissed the claim that “illegitimate demonization of Israel” and “singling out Israel”, is anti-Semitic. If that principal was accepted in a definition of racism than by that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.

IHRA’s qualification that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” has not offered any protection to the constant smearing of critics of Israel. “In practice,” said HRW, “these disclaimers have failed to prevent the politically motivated instrumentalization of the IHRA definition in efforts to muzzle legitimate speech and activism by critics of Israel’s human rights record and advocates for Palestinian rights.”

Source: Goal of IHRA anti-Semitism definition is to target human rights groups, says proponent

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Quebec Muslim associations denounce government ban on prayer rooms in schools

2023/04/10 Leave a comment

Of note:

A group representing Muslim associations in Quebec wants the provincial government to rescind a directive prohibiting the presence of prayer spaces in elementary and high schools.

On Wednesday, Education Minister Bernard Drainville banned school service centres from transforming classrooms into places of prayer.

In a joint statement issued Thursday evening, representatives from several mosques with the Table de concertation des organismes musulmans (TCOM) expressed their shock and indignation at the decision.

Source: Quebec Muslim associations denounce government ban on prayer rooms in schools

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →