Diversity of candidates is fundamental to trust in political leadership

I think her arguments overstate concerns over candidate selection by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of candidates selected by the three major parities is visible minority majority ridings (i.e., those ridings with visible minorities forming more than 50 percent of the population) are in fact visible minorities themselves, over 80 percent in ridings with 70 percent visible minorities, over 40 percent in ridings with between 50 and 70 percent. Even in ridings with between 20 and 50 percent visible minorities, over 20 percent are visible minority candidates.

Of course, just like women candidates, visible minority candidates are more likely in non-competitive ridings:

…Party networks and the limits of recruitment

Part of the job of political parties is to select candidates who will win their seats and thus aid in the party’s quest for power.

However, party recruiters tend to select candidates from their own networks, which are mainly comprised of people like themselves. If recruiters are mostly white men – and that’s been the case historically – then most candidates will likely be white men. Changing this trend requires changing both the recruiter and their networks.

Some parties have tried to combat this by insisting that riding associations look harder for more diverse candidates. The New Democrats are notable here.

But local executives can undermine these efforts even once a candidate has been chosen. For example, a Black lesbian candidate told me that her Liberal riding association said it didn’t have a lot of money for her campaign, yet had no trouble finding more cash for the white men who ran before and after her. These actions can send the message that only white men should apply to be candidates.

Social media scrutiny as a new barrier

In addition, social media scandals are an emerging barrier to candidacy. They first became an issue earlier this century when several federal and provincial candidates were forced to step down after problematic posts came to light. Negative headlines led parties to tighten candidate vetting as a result.

But heightened scrutiny runs the risk of excluding Indigenous, queer and feminist individuals who definitely don’t share the party’s views on everything or whose views may have changed over the years, yet their original posts can still be found online. This could also deter some young people from running because many of them have documented their lives and views online since adolescence.

Scrub one’s social media sites, you say? That doesn’t always work. It’s not uncommon for party operatives to document the online accounts of people they expect to run for office in the future – both to protect themselves and to inflict reputational harm on their opponents. The inability to fully erase one’s online presence means candidate vetting will likely get tougher.

This reality might make it even harder for diverse candidates to make it to the electoral starting line. If so, white men’s dominance in our legislatures and leadership positions will continue.

Barriers such as these make it harder for Canadians of all backgrounds to contribute to our collective governance. More importantly, ongoing resistance to diverse candidates can undermine political trust. If political parties don’t trust diverse people to hold power, why should diverse Canadians trust politicians to govern on their behalf?

Dr. Angelia Wagner is an assistant lecturer and adjunct professor in the department of political science at the University of Alberta. 

Source: Diversity of candidates is fundamental to trust in political leadership

StatsCan: The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, 2023

Interesting findings:

In 2023, 70% of racialized Canadians gave their time, expertise and skills to a range of benevolent causes in the previous 12 months.

Most of this help was arranged informally, mirroring overall patterns in volunteering. In 2023, 64% of racialized Canadians reported helping people directly or improving the community on their own. Meanwhile, 29% of racialized Canadians reported volunteering through a charitable organization or group.

In recognition of International Volunteer Day, Statistics Canada is releasing a new study examining the volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, entitled ”The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians.” This study uses data from the 2023 Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating, which was held from September 15, 2023, to March 30, 2024. This marks the first time this survey has collected data on racialized groups, allowing for an in-depth look at volunteering among these populations in Canada.

Particular attention is paid to differences in volunteering patterns between racialized Canadian-born and racialized immigrant populations given that three-quarters of racialized individuals were born outside Canada.

Among racialized individuals, those born in Canada are most likely to volunteer

Racialized populations in Canada are diverse in terms of their ethnic and cultural origins and their immigrant status. Some people are newcomers, others long-established residents, and many were born in Canada. These differences are reflected in volunteering patterns.

Overall, in 2023, volunteering was more common among racialized individuals born in Canada (79%) compared with racialized immigrants (67%), both recent (66%) and established (67%) immigrants. The volunteering rate for Canadian-born racialized individuals (79%) also surpassed the volunteering rates for non-racialized, non-Indigenous populations born in Canada (74%) and those born outside of Canada (70%).

This higher rate of volunteering among Canadian-born racialized individuals was seen across all racialized groups. For example, among South Asians—who had one of the highest volunteering rates—82% of those born in Canada volunteered in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared with 69% of South Asian immigrants.

Religious and social services are the most common sectors receiving help from racialized volunteers

When racialized Canadians volunteered on behalf of an organization or group in the 12 months prior to the 2023 survey, the religious and social service sectors emerged as the most common areas of involvement. Overall, 25% of racialized volunteers gave their time to religious organizations. This proportion is similar to that of racialized volunteers who provided support to social services (24%), which can include organizations providing services for families, emergency and relief, and income support.

Among racialized volunteers, the level of volunteering was greatest in the religious sector, with the total number of volunteering hours in this sector surpassing that of all other sectors. This contrasts with the patterns observed for non-racialized, non-Indigenous volunteers, for whom the total hours dedicated to the religious sector did not significantly differ from that of other sectors.

The greater involvement of racialized volunteers in the religious sector was driven by racialized immigrant volunteers (28%), who were more likely than racialized Canadian-born volunteers (19%) to dedicate time to this sector. Meanwhile, Canadian-born racialized volunteers were more likely than racialized immigrant volunteers to dedicate time to the education and research sector (23% compared with 11%) and the sports and recreation sector (17% compared with 10%).

Contributing to the community is a leading reason for volunteering 

When asked about the reasons for volunteering on behalf of an organization or group in the 12 months preceding the 2023 survey, contributing to the community (87%) and wanting to use one’s skills and experience (74%) were the top reasons given by racialized volunteers. Networking and meeting new people were other common motivations, reported by 52% of racialized volunteers, with there being no difference by place of birth (in or outside of Canada). One difference, however, was the higher likelihood of volunteering to improve job opportunities among Canadian-born racialized individuals (48%) than among racialized immigrants (28%).

Chart 1 
Top five reasons for formal volunteering among racialized volunteers, 2023

Chart 1: Top five reasons for formal volunteering among racialized volunteers, 2023

As for barriers to volunteering, Canadian-born racialized individuals (particularly Chinese and Black populations) were slightly more likely (95%) to report facing at least one challenge, compared with racialized immigrants (92%). There were no other differences across other population groups.

Not having enough time was the leading barrier to volunteering across all groups, though this barrier was more often reported by racialized individuals born in Canada (82%) than by racialized immigrants (74%). Knowledge, access and information barriers were more commonly reported by racialized immigrants (42%) than by racialized individuals born in Canada (36%).

Source: Study: The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, 2023

Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

Not unexpected but still shortsighted and further demonstration of an age of ignorance:

A Trump administration official on Friday signaled a potential rollback of the racial and ethnic categories approved for the 2030 census and other future federal government forms.

Supporters of those categories fear that any last-minute modifications to the U.S. government’s standards for data about race and ethnicity could hurt the accuracy of census data and other future statistics used for redrawing voting districts, enforcing civil rights protections and guiding policymaking.

Those standards were last revised in 2024 during the Biden administration, after Census Bureau research and public discussion.

A White House agency at the time approved, among other changes, new checkboxes for “Middle Eastern or North African” and “Hispanic or Latino” under a reformatted question that asks survey participants: “What is your race and/or ethnicity?” The revisions also require the federal government to stop automatically categorizing people who identify with Middle Eastern or North African groups as white.

But at a Friday meeting of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics in Washington, D.C., the chief statistician within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget revealed that the Trump administration has started a new review of those standards and how the 2024 revisions were approved.

“We’re still at the very beginning of a review. And this, again, is not prejudging any particular outcome. I think we just wanted to be able to take a look at the process and decide where we wanted to end up on a number of these questions,” said Mark Calabria. “I’ve certainly heard a wide range of views within the administration. So it’s just premature to say where we’ll end up.”

OMB’s press office did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for comment.

Source: Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

Le Devoir Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

Valid critique of the union defending the undefendable:

…Il faut avoir le courage de revenir à la base : de quoi Bedford est-il le nom, au juste ?

Le scandale de Bedford, c’est d’abord le fait de profs qui ont refusé d’enseigner la science, la technologie ou l’éducation à la sexualité, ont rejeté le français comme langue d’usage, ont pratiqué le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, ont refusé de se plier au principe de l’égalité filles-garçons en classe, ont harcelé et intimidé leurs collègues et leurs directions, ont piétiné la laïcité.

C’est cela qu’on veut dans nos classes ? Car c’est bien ce dont il s’agit ici, ne le perdons pas de vue.

Il y a déjà eu un rapport — dévastateur — d’un psychologue industriel dépêché sur les lieux en 2021. Il y a eu une enquête de cinq mois — tout aussi dévastatrice — de la Direction générale des affaires internes, au fil de laquelle 70 personnes ont été rencontrées. Un plan d’action ambitieux. Surtout, il y a eu 11 comités d’enquête, un pour chaque prof pour éviter tout amalgame fortuit, raccourci de facilité ou contamination malheureuse, dont certains sont toujours en cours.

Même le politique a joué ses cartes sans tricher ni plastronner. On peut reprocher bien des choses au gouvernement Legault, qui a multiplié les bourdes et les reculs inacceptables en éducation. Reste que, dans cette affaire, ses deux ministres, M. Drainville d’abord, Mme LeBel ensuite, ont fait les choses dans l’ordre, sans pression indue.

Qu’est-ce que l’Alliance voudrait de plus ?

Hélas, elle n’en dit mot. Elle se réfugie derrière l’article 47.2 du Code du travail, qui l’oblige à défendre ses membres. Il est vrai que cet article la pousse rudement dans les câbles. Mais ce n’est pas un absolu : il arrive qu’un syndicat se range derrière des preuves accablantes. L’« opacité » qui la pousse aujourd’hui à se lever pour ce noyau dur est-elle fondée, solidement harnachée sur des faits et non sur des impressions montées en épingle ?

Il est permis d’en douter, d’autant que l’Alliance comme le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, d’ailleurs, n’auront pas spécialement brillé, allant jusqu’à renvoyer les plaintes des professeurs intimidés à leur délégué syndical… qui était lui-même membre de la clique contrôlant l’école Bedford.

Impossible de ne pas voir une dissonance dérangeante entre la fermeté d’un discours syndical qui refuse de faire son autocritique et la négation des besoins fondamentaux des plus vulnérables, une rengaine que le conflit à la Société de transport de Montréal (STM) a usée de triste manière.

À Bedford, des collègues professeurs et des patrons ont été intimidés des années durant. Surtout, des élèves ont été privés de leur droit le plus fondamental à une éducation de qualité dans un « milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire » exempt d’intimidation ou de violence. Car Bedford, c’est d’abord ça : un milieu détourné de sa mission première au détriment de ceux-là mêmes qui l’habitent. Et il faudrait que cela puisse encore être défendu ?

Source: Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

… You need to have the courage to go back to the base: what is Bedford’s name, exactly?

The Bedford scandal is first of all the fact of teachers who refused to teach science, technology or sex education, rejected French as a language of use, practiced denial of assistance and humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, refused to comply with the principle of girl-boy equality in the classroom, harassed and intimidated their colleagues and their management, trampled on secularism.

Is that what we want in our classes? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, let’s not lose sight of it.

There has already been a report – devastating – of an industrial psychologist dispatched to the scene in 2021. There was a five-month – equally devastating – investigation by the Directorate-General for Internal Affairs, in the course of which 70 people were met. An ambitious action plan. Above all, there were 11 committees of inquiry, one for each teacher to avoid any fortuitous amalgamation, shortcut of ease or unfortunate contamination, some of which are still in progress.

Even the politician played his cards without cheating or cheating. We can blame many things on the Legault government, which has multiplied the blunders and unacceptable setbacks in education. However, in this case, his two ministers, Mr. Drainville first, Mrs. LeBel then, did things in order, without undue pressure.

What more would the Alliance want?

Alas, she doesn’t say a word. She takes refuge behind Article 47.2 of the Labor Code, which obliges her to defend her members. It is true that this article pushes her roughly through the cables. But this is not an absolute: sometimes a union ranks behind overwhelming evidence. Is the “opacity” that pushes it today to stand up for this hard core founded, solidly harnessed on facts and not on pin-mounted impressions?

It is permissible to doubt this, especially since the Alliance as well as the Centre de services scolaires de Montréal, moreover, will not have particularly shone, going so far as to return the complaints of intimidated teachers to their union delegate… who was himself a member of the clique controlling the Bedford school.

It is impossible not to see a disturbing dissonance between the firmness of a union discourse that refuses to make its self-criticism and the denial of the basic needs of the most vulnerable, a line that the conflict at the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) has worn out in a sad way.

In Bedford, fellow teachers and bosses have been bullied for years. Above all, students have been deprived of their most fundamental right to quality education in a “healthy and safe learning environment” free of bullying or violence. Because Bedford is first of all this: an environment diverted from its primary mission to the detriment of those who live there. And should it still be able to be defended?

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Levitt: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

More such conversations needed.

…Recently, I had the pleasure, along with 1,600 people, of listening to two leading commentators share their insight on current issues. NYU’s Scott Galloway and CNN’s Van Jones were the keynote speakers at an event in Toronto hosted by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the human rights organization I head. At a time of widespread antisemitism, high-profile pundits — non-Jewish and Jewish, like these respected American observers — addressing this scourge is more vital than ever.

In this limited space, it’s hard to do full justice to the hour-long discussion, moderated by Canadian journalist Steve Paikin, but the following two excerpts give a sense of the thought-provoking conversation.

Responding to Paikin’s question about whether the U.S. is facing the prospect of a civil war, Jones, a prominent Black political analyst, gave a sobering perspective.

“We are being torn apart by a couple of different factors,” he said. “The most important one is that social media companies have decided to make a bunch of money off of dividing people and now they’re waging a shadow war, a grey war, against the West, primarily on TikTok, and they’ve come up with a novel strategy, never before heard of, called ‘Blame the Jews.’

“This is brand new,” he added caustically, “and unfortunately people are stupid enough to fall for it. I keep telling people that blaming the Jews isn’t the oldest trick in the book, blaming the Jews is literally older than books … Whenever they attack Jews, it’s never about the Jews. It’s always some other thing going on. Why are they picking on the Jews? It’s always because it’s another agenda. And so there’s this very nefarious agenda to divide the West, to divide us, to have us turn on each other rather than turn to each other and one of the ramifications of that is this uncivil war in our country.”

For his part, Galloway, a bestselling Jewish author, professor and entrepreneur, was equally astute. Asked why so many U.S. universities had become cauldrons of hate, targeting especially Jewish students, he didn’t mince words.

“A lot of the fault lies with campus leadership,” he said. “In trying to come to grips with American history, unfortunately, we’ve created the very reductive construct of the oppressed and the oppressor. Figure out who you are based on your identity and that categorizes you as the oppressor or the oppressed. What we’ve done is we’ve basically trained a generation [to think] that you’re one or the other. The most reductive or lazy way of thinking for identifying an oppressor, which we’ve taught kids on campus, is that your level of oppression is directly correlated to how rich and white you are. And unfortunately, Jews have been conflated with the richest, whitest people in the world.”

Referring to the anti-Israel encampments on campus, which often openly and enthusiastically embraced antisemitism, he added:

“If I went down to the square at NYU and I said, ‘Burn the gays!” or ‘Lynch the Blacks!’ my academic career would be over by the close of business that day. There would be no need for [discussing] ‘context.’ We wouldn’t be talking about the First Amendment. My career would be over. It became clear to me that on campuses through a series of well-intentioned teachings that went too far, it ended up where free speech never became freer as long as it was hate speech against Jews.”

Long may the insightful voices of Jones and Galloway resonate far and wide. We need more like them speaking out candidly and people giving them the attention they deserve.

Source: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

StatsCan: Racialized Persons with Disabilities

Good infographic highlighting the similarities and differences between visible minorities and not visible minorities.

Findings that I found of interest:

  • Racialized minorities more likely to have sensory disabilities and less likely to have mental health-related disabilities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities were less likely to live alone than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities aged 65 years and over were more likely to receive help with daily activities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Similar proportions of racialized and non-racialized persons with disabilities reported feeling lonely

Infographic like: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2025051-eng.pdf?st=-P0yrkeu

Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

Arguably not needed given existing laws but recent occupations, obstructions, demonstrations supporting Palestinians have veered into explicit antisemitism and harassment of Jewish communities. The exemption should not be akin to a “get out of jail” card:

Opposition Conservatives say a deal between the governing Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to remove a religious exemption from Canada’s hate-speech laws, in exchange for passing a bill targeting hate and terror symbols, is an “assault” on freedom of speech and religion….

The Conservatives on Monday slammed the removal of that exemption as an attack on freedom of religion and of free speech, with the party quickly putting together a petition, which was circulated by its Members of Parliament.

“Liberal-Bloc amendments to C-9 will criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Poilievre wrote on social media. “Conservatives will oppose this latest Liberal assault on freedom of expression and religion.”

Conservative Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner called on all other parties to oppose the amendment.

“I think it’s an unabashed attack on religious freedom,” Rempel Garner said.

Ontario MP Marilyn Glaudu, who serves as the Conservative critic for civil liberties, in a video on X, said the proposed change amounted to an “attack on people of faith.”

Fortin, the Bloc MP, agreed that the change will curb freedom of expression. However, he argued there must be limits on speech that propagates hate.

“I think this freedom of expression needs to be limited. You’re free to do what you want until you start harming others,” he said.

The bill itself seeks to create new offences around the intimidation and obstruction of sites used by an identifiable group, such as a religious or cultural centre, as well as make it a crime to promote hate by displaying hate symbols like a swastika, or those linked to listed terrorist entities.

The proposed amendments come amid widespread criticism about the Liberals’ bill, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council calling for it to be withdrawn, along with dozens of advocacy groups. Critics warn that the new offences create the risk of police cracking down on lawful protests, and could lead to a targeting of Muslim and other racialized groups.

When it comes to the proposed removal of religious defences from hate speech laws, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA’s fundamental freedoms program, said it raises concerns.

She pointed to how that defence is only available to criminal law dealing specifically with the wilful promotion of hatred and no other offence, even speech-related ones, such as public incitement to hatred, or uttering threats.

“The speech that needs to be criminalized in Canada is already criminalized, and there is no religious exemption applying to that,” she said.

She said the association has for years held concerns around the provision, targeting “the wilful promotion of hatred,” given how broadly it can be applied.

“The concept of hatred is subjective,” she told National Post in an interview on Monday, “so we are always worried about risks of abuse and censorship of unpopular or offensive opinions through this provision. So we fear that removing this religious exemption might gradually erode the protections and increase the scope of this provision.”

Steven Zhou, spokesman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said in a statement on Monday that it was “gravely concerned and surprised” about the reported deal to remove the exemption for religious beliefs, saying that doing so “opens the door to a deeply troubling censorship regime.”

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

“It is a significant change to the law, and one that was not previously the subject of a great deal of discussion or debate by Parliament,” Ross said on Monday. “We hope that further consideration is given before such a move is made.”

As part of the deal with the Bloc, the Liberals are also expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution. The move will likely be supported by both the Bloc and Conservatives.

Fortin, Bussières McNicoll and Al-Qazzaz all said they agreed with maintaining the additional check and balance before charges are laid, which could have a cooling effect on freedom of expression.

Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, who has called on the federal government for years to remove the religious exemption defence, celebrated the deal between Liberals and Bloc on social media.

Source: Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

Girard | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée, A wisely improved secularism

Positive and comprehensive assessment from a former director of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I would disagree with the “wisely” as it over simplifies the lived experiences of women):

…En droit québécois et en droit canadien, la dignité humaine est aussi protégée. Les dispositions du PL 9 concernant les vêtements religieux qui couvrent le visage semblent donc aussi conformes aux Chartes.

En plus d’être légitimes, les principales propositions du PL 9 bonifient le modèle de laïcité de l’État choisi par le Québec pour assurer sa neutralité religieuse. Cela est d’autant plus important que la laïcité de l’État est une des conditionssine qua non pour mettre fin aux inégalités qui touchent les femmes telles qu’elles sont promues par les grandes religions monothéistes. En s’assurant de la neutralité religieuse de l’État, la laïcité protège certains lieux publics de l’influence des pratiques religieuses sexistes auprès de ses citoyens.

L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Idées | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée

… In Quebec law and Canadian law, human dignity is also protected. The provisions of PL 9 concerning religious clothing that covers the face therefore also appear to be in accordance with the Charters.

In addition to being legitimate, the main proposals of PL 9 improve the state’s model of secularism chosen by Quebec to ensure its religious neutrality. This is all the more important as the secularism of the State is one of the qua non conditions to end the inequalities that affect women as they are promoted by major monotheistic religions. By ensuring the religious neutrality of the state, secularism protects certain public places from the influence of sexist religious practices among its citizens.

The author is a retired member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She signs this text in a personal capacity.