UK: Universities to defy government pressure to ditch race equality group

2022/07/05 Leave a comment

Of note:

Universities in England have launched a fightback against government attacks on their autonomy, telling ministers they “crossed a line” by pressurising them to abandon a scheme designed to improve equality on campus.

In what may be a turning point in the so-called “culture wars” over free speech, Universities UK (UUK) took on the education minister Michelle Donelan after she warned them to reconsider membership of a race equality charter, run by the charity Advance HE.

The scheme – which counts the majority of Russell Group universities among its members – aims to identify barriers to success for black, Asian and minority ethnic students. But in a letter to vice-chancellors this week, Donelan claimed that membership of the charter was “in tension” with universities’ duties to uphold free speech.

In its letter of response on Thursday, Universities UK said: “An important line has been crossed with the letter appearing to direct universities to take a specific approach” on equalities.

In a later statement, UUK confirmed that it intended to ignore Donelan’s request and remain affiliated with Advance HE.

A spokesperson for UUK said: “Universities take their responsibilities to promote and protect free speech very seriously. We have yet to see any evidence of how this voluntary, non-prescriptive scheme works against this.

“The scheme is voluntary and provides a means through which universities can address racial inequality within the sector and we will continue our work with Advance HE to support this goal.”

The row comes as the higher education freedom of speech bill is being debated in the Lords, where it has come under fire from Conservative, Labour and cross-bench peers. It has been criticised for imposing a new free speech regulator with new powers to fine universities for failing to comply with free speech provisions.

Vice-chancellors said Donelan’s letter was a chilling forerunner of how a regulator could interfere with internal university affairs if the bill is passed in its current form, with one describing it as “an unambiguous attack on university autonomy”.

David Willetts, the Conservative peer and former universities minister, said: “I do wish to see protections for freedom of speech, but it’s very odd to protect freedom of speech at the same time as further intervention.

“I think one of the reasons why universities in Britain are so internationally respected is because of their autonomy. I don’t think it’s as much a line being crossed as a slippery slope that we are on, in which the autonomy of our universities is gradually eroded.”

The letter to Donelan, signed by Prof Steve West, vice-chancellor of the University of the West of England, reminded the minister that racism remained “a pervasive societal issue” that affected students from ethnic minority backgrounds.

But it added: “Universities, as autonomous institutions, must also remain free to decide how best to foster inclusivity and tackle societal issues such as racism which have a serious and detrimental impact on staff and students.”

The letter continued: “We do not believe that free speech and voluntary external assurance frameworks are at odds with each other – rather they can help to address power imbalances and ensure a more diverse range of voices are empowered to speak up.

“We understand from our members in England that a number will likely respond to you directly, both to restate their commitment to ensuring free speech and to highlight how external assurance schemes play an important role in tackling serious issues such as harassment and degree awarding gaps.”

While Donelan’s letter noted that universities were autonomous and free to join schemes such as the race equality charter, she went on to say they should “reflect carefully” on membership.

While Advance HE’s race equality charter was the only example mentioned by name, Donelan went on to say that “there are of course a number of other, similar, schemes, and this letter invites careful consideration in respect of all these”.

Advance HE also administers the Athena Swan charter that seeks to improve gender equality within higher education and research. Donelan has previously described the scheme as “at worst a dangerous initiative that undermines scholarship”.

“Bearing in mind the substantial sums invested by the taxpayer into higher education, I would ask you to consider whether membership of these schemes; the initiatives that flow from them; and the creation of new, highly paid, management roles in these areas truly represent good value for money for taxpayers or students,” Donelan said.

Criticising the higher education freedom bill when it was debated this week, Shami Chakrabarti, a Labour peer and a former director of Liberty, said: “How can it be a protection of academic freedom to give more and more power over independent institutions of scholarship to the government’s Office for Students and the new director for freedom of speech?”

Willetts said that the current bill was heavy-handed and questioned how the bill’s freedom of speech regulator could balance the government’s demands that some forms of legal speech, such as holocaust denial, would not be allowed on campus.

“They are expecting the regulator to be more restrictive than simple lawful, freedom of speech. We need to know exactly what things he or she is not going to protect despite them being lawful,” Willetts said.

Willetts said he hopes the government would make “significant” amendments to the bill, pointing out that universities could find themselves punished for suppressing some forms of speech at the same time as tech platforms were punished under the government’s new online safety bill for transmitting the same opinions.

Source: Universities to defy government pressure to ditch race equality group

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Dyer : Judeo-Christian America: Why scholars reject GOP’s use of ‘Judeo-Christian’

2022/07/04 Leave a comment

Interesting and informative read:

On the right, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” has become like a password: It’s a short, fast way to prove your conservative ilk.

“We believe that America’s destiny depends on upholding the Judeo-Christian values and principles of our nation’s founding,” said former President Donald Trump recently at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

“We know that this is a nation with a deep Judeo-Christian footing. We must defend it at every turn,” said Mike Pompeo at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

Explaining his decision to start the National Association of Christian Lawmakers in 2020, Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert remarked, “Our ultimate goal and intent is that we restore the Judeo-Christian foundations of our government that were intended from the very beginning.”

And, in Idaho in 2015, a group of Republican politicians cited the “Judeo-Christian bedrock of the founding of the United States” in their proposal to make the state formally Christian.

But experts say the phrase is problematic at best, with critics describing it as a sort-of “marketing campaign” that outstayed its welcome.

“The phrase is … a modern one arising from a contemporary political setting that elides a painful history between Jews and Christians in which there was a huge power differential,” said Malka Simkovich, Crown-Ryan chair of Jewish Studies and director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program at Catholic Theological Union.

She and others believe the term “Judeo-Christian” papers over the history of violent antisemitism that Jews faced in Christendom and collapses important theological differences between Judaism and Christianity, erasing Jews in the process.

“There isn’t such a thing as Judeo-Christian anything,” said Meredith J.C. Warren, a senior lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies at the University of Sheffield.

Critics also say that the inclusion of “Judeo” gives a false sense of multiculturalism when the term actually serves to exclude Muslims, atheists and members of many other faiths. They’re hoping the phrase “Judeo-Christian” will soon be retired in favor of a more inclusive — and accurate — alternative.

What is the history of the term ‘Judeo-Christian’?

The origin of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” isn’t entirely settled: European scholars have noted that German theologians used the term in the early 1800s. Today, the term is sometimes used — problematically, Simkovich said — in reference to the “early followers of Jesus who lived in the Jewish community.”

In the American context, the term “Judeo-Christian” was part of “a redefinition of democracy that began in the ’30s in response to totalitarianism around the globe,” said K. Healan Gaston, author of “Imagining Judeo-Christian America: Religion, Secularism, and the Redefinition of Democracy” and a lecturer on American religious history and ethics at Harvard Divinity School.

In the wake of massive Catholic and Jewish immigration to what was then an overwhelmingly Protestant country, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” was also a response to anti-Catholic sentiment and antisemitism. It can be understood as an attempt to create tri-faith unity among the three religious groups that were, at the time, at the center of American life, Gaston said.

This unity was instrumental to the war effort and post-war nation building, becoming deeply linked to the American concept of democracy. The phrase became ubiquitous during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, though Eisenhower later backed away from the term privately when he realized how exclusionary it was, according to Gaston.

The term was handy during the Cold War as a way of differentiating America from our supposedly nonreligious, communist enemies, said Marc Zvi Brettler, a Jewish studies professor at Duke University and co-author of “The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently.”

“One of the times the term was really ascendant was as an anti-communist term,” Brettler said.

Some of that anti-communist residue lingers on the word today as the right often falsely depicts Democrats — a group that includes the majority of American Jews as well as Black Americans, one of the country’s most religious demographics — as godless, secular humanists at best and radical socialists at worst.

For the most part, from the 1930s to 1970s, it was liberals that used the term “Judeo-Christian,” said Gaston. But by the 1970s, the phrase began to gain currency with the right. And it took off in the 1980s with conservatives. Ronald Reagan included the term in his presidential platform, said Gaston, who explained that Reagan imprinted a “Judeo-Christian framework on top of deep-seated anti-communism and free market economics.”

After Reagan, Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority picked up the phrase and it came to be used in five subsequent Republican presidential platforms, Gaston said, but never on the Democratic side. It remains a shorthand for all of those ideas that Reagan loaded into the term, including free market capitalism, family values and other conservative ideals.

How do Jews feel about the phrase Judeo-Christian?

For some Jews, the inclusion suggested by the phrase “Judeo-Christian” has been comforting, said Gaston, adding that the Conservative movement has historically been somewhat more amenable to the term than the Reform and Orthodox movements.

But many American Jews have a complicated relationship with the term, said Brettler, a practicing Jew

While it’s “fine to talk about the commonalities between Judaism and Christianity,” he said that current usage of the term represents a “problematic construct that makes things much more hunky dory than they should be.”

The expression emphasizes “the similarities and almost entirely (denies) the differences,” between Christianity and Judaism, Brettler added.

There’s also a risk that people who embrace the phrase “Judeo-Christian” will deny the antisemitism experienced by early Jewish immigrants to the U.S.

Invoking the so-called “Judeo-Christian” foundations of the country, Brettler said, is “a type of fake nostalgia.”

Has the phrase caught on outside the U.S.?

The phrase “Judeo-Christian” — with an exclusionary meaning — has also caught on among the European right, particularly in France, according to Nadia Malinovich, author of “French and Jewish: Culture and Politics of Identity in Early Twentieth Century France” and a researcher affiliated with the Groupe Société Religions Laïcités at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

“Jews have been re-centered as white societal insiders Europeans while Muslims are now cast as the primary others,” said Malinovich. The phrase, she added, is “being bandied about” as a cover for Christian nationalism

“Rather than saying ‘Christian civilization,’ it’s Judeo-Christian. … It’s a way of trying to cover up the fact that it’s just Christian by somehow getting the Jews involved ex-post facto,” she said.

Obliterating the theological differences and contemporary and historical tensions between Jews and Christians, Malinovich said, is, among other things, “disrespectful of the Jews who died in the Holocaust.”

Moving away from Judeo-Christian

The term “Judeo-Christian” omits the third Abrahamic faith — Islam — and erases its contributions to European history and, by extension, Western culture. The phrase ignores the fact that, historically, Jews lived with greater freedom and security in the Muslim world than they did in Christendom, said Warren.

In the American context, not only does “Judeo-Christian” exclude Muslims, Warren added, but also Indigenous communities.

“In North America specifically it’s important to foreground the rights and traditions of the continent’s First Peoples rather than erase them, too, with the phrase Judeo-Christian,” she said.

Many religion experts say the term should scrapped in favor of something more inclusive, like “interfaith.”

“Judeo-Christian” was “a brilliant civic invention that widened the country’s understanding of itself and reduced antisemitic and anti-Catholic bigotry,” Eboo Patel, founder and president of Interfaith America, recently told the Deseret News.

“Now that America’s demographics have changed further — there are just as many Buddhists and Muslims in the country as there are Lutherans — it’s time to write the next great chapter in the history of American religion. And we think ‘interfaith America’ is the right title for that chapter.”

Rather than trying to create a melting pot in which individuals’ identities are subsumed into a larger national identity, we should strive for a potluck, Patel said, “where people’s unique identities are welcome contributions to the feast.”

Source: Judeo-Christian America: Why scholars reject GOP’s use of ‘Judeo-Christian’

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Shmigel: Australia: Multiculturalism is in, and that’s a good thing

2022/07/04 Leave a comment

On the need in Australia for a conservative case for multiculturalism, learning from the Canadian experience:

According to the latest Census results, for the first time, more than half of Australians (51.2 per cent) are now either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas.

Ethnics and migrants, dear Speccie readers, now have the numbers. Multiculturalism – broadly defined – is in the majority.

If there’s one word or concept that gets many conservatives and many libertarians ‘highly focused’ that is definitely it: multiculturalism. In some ways, that’s understandable when we consider ‘progressive’ ills rightly or wrongly associated with it.

Given the demographic facts of Australia, it may be time for people on the centre-right of Australia’s political spectrum to think anew about what’s historically been positioned by some as a necessarily bad thing.

Perhaps it is time for the conservative case for multiculturalism.

But first, let’s step back. What’s been the critique of multiculturalism in the past? These points might summarise it:

  • Multiculturalism segregates Australians into different types – the ghetto argument.
  • Multiculturalism undermines mainstream Australian values – the cultural subversion argument.
  • Multiculturalism is social engineering – the ‘collectivism is bad’ argument.

While familiar, do these arguments actually stand up against factuality? Not so much.

In the first respect, after many decades of diversity and of pro-multicultural policies, the reality is that the vast majority of everyday interactions between Australians of up to 200 different ethnic, religious, and linguistic backgrounds are entirely civil and respectful. Inter-ethnic relations are in most respects completely normal and unremarkable. They’re in fact dead-set boring 99 per cent or more of the time.

Migrant groups have always tended to both geographically and culturally assimilate more than they tend to segregate. The trend, as driven by migrants themselves, isn’t toward any ghettos or enclaves, but toward the new outer suburban and multi-ethnic residential developments that dominate our major cities’ real estate sales. (Home ownership is greatly valued by our largest and fastest growing ethnic group – Indians – in particular.)

The truth is that, regardless of settlement status or ethnic background, much more binds us than drives us apart. The number of formal complaints to various human rights bodies or government agencies, no less criminal charges via the legal system, based on internecine hatred or ethnic violence between Australians is tiny. In 2020, in a culturally diverse society of some 23 million, there were some 100 complaints about racial hatred to the Human Rights Commission of which 20 per cent were between neighbours and 30 per cent were workplace-related.

Truth be told, migrants tend to readily settle and integrate, and their non-migrant neighbours and workmates tend to readily accept them. Think of the Vietnamese migration of the 70s and the once-prevalent mythology around Cabramatta and other ‘enclaves’ that accompanied that wave. Many in that era were convinced that was the end of our culture as we know it. Those are now but distant memories. We don’t even think twice about our Vietnamese origin neighbours or our child’s schoolmate. If we do, it’s likely to consider ourselves lucky to have such respectful and hard-working neighbours and their smart kids.

In the second respect, unlike many European countries, we actually have very little disagreement – beyond some squeaky media grabs from time to time – about our beliefs. English is uncontested as our language; in fact, it’s the legislated language in some states. We generally abide by the same norms; our settlement and citizenship system, unlike those of France or Germany for example, encourages that. People may well practice their home cultures in their homes, houses of worship, and community centres, but, if we’re honest, there’s little evidence of a substantive impact on our home-grown and common one.

In the third respect, it’s hard to deny the individual aspiration of the majority of people from migrant and ethnic backgrounds. In fact, they tend to own more small businesses than ‘non-ethnics’; they tend to succeed in higher education to a greater extent than ‘non-ethnics’, as any quick look at the annual HSC or VCE results shows.

Those on the centre-right need to consider this evidence that many people from migrant and ethnic backgrounds are about taking responsibility, working hard, and getting ahead at the individual and family levels – rather than counting on some hand-out mentality targeted at ‘groups’ or ‘victims’. Their presence, and indeed now predominance, in Australian society, is reinforcing social goods that our side values.

While there are vast differences between ethnic backgrounds – say Indian people and Chinese people – and vast differences within any given ethnic group itself, a generalisation is possible: people from migrant and ethnic backgrounds exemplify the characteristics that many of us on the centre-right see as positive and constructive. Multiculturalism is working in favour of our model of society.

For some more depth, consider the pro-business behaviours of our migrants and ethnics. In recent years, small businesses have contributed around $400 billion to Australia’s GDP (or about a third of the total economy) and employed some 40 per cent of the business workforce. Less known is that a third of small businesses are run by first or second-generation migrants, some 80 per cent of whom didn’t own a business before coming to Australia. Migrant business owners employed 1.4 million people across Australia and had an annual revenue that was 53 per cent higher than for non-migrant businesses.

If we more broadly consider ethnic connection, the numbers are even bigger: the clear majority of small businesses in Australia are owned by Australians with a non-Anglo surname.

That is a fine level of entrepreneurialism that the centre-right should embrace and admire. And, in purely political marketing terms, migrant and ethnic small business is a significant constituency to respect and work with (read: not pander to).

And, both major parties do in fact ‘get it’ in part. It’s standard practice for there to be specific election campaigning on both sides with regard to ethnic communities and the way that they communicate. Both parties are also smart enough to realise that there isn’t an ‘ethnic vote’ per se and that people, regardless of background, vote on similar issues such as the economy and social services. You can, though, certainly lose large swathes of voters if you don’t show you are respectful of people’s origins or treat them as second-class citizens.

Participation, rather than communications, will be the key going forward. Canada, for example, with a similar multicultural dynamic has for a few generations now had Ministers of significant ethnic background (putting aside Francophone politicians) from both sides of politics. While there were further changes at the last election, Australia’s parliament is yet to significantly look like its suburbs.

To get to that point, and the centre-right would be purely electorally dumb not to aspire to it, we need to drop some of our misconceptions. That starts with avoiding semantic slippage and not so automatically labelling specific policy concerns as somehow solely products of ‘multiculturalism’. That kind of generalisation has hints of a deeper institutional racism and, therefore, the centre-right would want nothing to do with it.

It might be better to think of multiculturalism not as policy or policy objective, but rather as what my old boss, Barry O’Farrell, thought of it. He said: ‘Multiculturalism is simply a way of life.’

If its strong features are pro-opportunity and pro-family, the centre-right should be welcoming that way of life.

As I was writing this piece, I walked past a theatre in western Sydney where a citizenship ceremony was taking place. There were dozens of people and family units who were clearly not ‘Anglo’ for a lack of a better term. All were impeccably dressed; all held Australian flags; all were intensely proud of this the day they became Australians. They are winners and the centre-right should back them.

Source: Multiculturalism is in, and that’s a good thing

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Ontario judge upholds Tamil Genocide Education Week in battle ‘over who gets to write the history of the war’

2022/06/30 Leave a comment

Interesting case and verdict. With respect to Judge Akbarali, any such act can never be purely “educative,” as it reflects politics and relative strength of particular communities:

A court has dismissed a constitutional challenge over Ontario’s proclamation of Tamil Genocide Education Week — concluding that its purpose is purely “educative.”

In a case that cast a spotlight on tension between diasporas, several Sinhalese-Canadian groups took Ontario to court for designating the seven-day period each year ending May 18 — the date the Sri Lankan civil war ended in 2009 — to raise awareness of the Tamil genocide and other genocides in world history.

The Sinhalese applicants claimed that no Tamil genocide has been recognized under international law, arguing that the provincial government didn’t have the authority to adopt the term “genocide” and that the designation would promote hatred for one group over another.

In quashing the claim by the Sinhalese applicants, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said the 26-year-old civil war ravaged Sri Lanka, but the fight has not ended.

“A new battle has emerged over who gets to write the history of the war,” wrote Justice Jasmine Akbarali in a ruling released Tuesday. “While this new battle does not intuitively seem like an issue for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it has in fact become one.”

The Tamil-Canadian diaspora welcomed the decision, saying education is one of the only ways available for the community to pursue justice and healing because the Sri Lanka government has been reluctant to recognize the atrocities and punish those responsible.

“Tamils across the province can now focus on what matters — commemorating and remembering the countless lives lost,” said Katpana Nagendra, a member of the Tamil Rights Group, one of the organizations granted intervener status in this case.

The Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, a private member’s bill tabled by Conservative MPP Vijay Thanigasalam, who is of Tamil descent, was passed unanimously in the Ontario legislature last year.

The preamble of the proclamation of the Tamil Genocide Education Week states that Tamil Ontarians have lost loved ones and have been physically or mentally traumatized by the genocide that the Sri Lankan state perpetrated against the Tamils during the civil war, which lasted from 1983 to the Tamil Tigers’ defeat in 2009.

Akbarali said the court heard evidence from “dueling” witnesses about the Sri Lankan civil war, and specifically, whether or not what occurred amounted to a genocide of Tamils.

“I am not deciding who bears the blame, or who bears more of the blame, for the tremendous suffering and trauma that occurred as a result of the Sri Lankan civil war,” the judge wrote in the 18-page decision.

“Nor am I deciding whether it was wise for the Ontario Legislature to pass the TGEWA. The wisdom of the legislation is a question that belongs solely to the Legislature, and more indirectly, to the voters of the province. The question before me relates only to the constitutionality of the TGEWA.”

While the court agreed with the claim that the proclamation recognizes a Tamil genocide, it said the act is in the spirit of educating the public about the event and other genocides to prevent such atrocities from occurring, and helping create an opportunity for Tamil Ontarians to share their stories and the intergenerational trauma the legislature has recognized.

“The TGEWA does not require any particular educational initiatives to be undertaken by any particular institution,” said Akbarali. “The dominant characteristic of the law is to educate the public about what the Ontario Legislature has concluded is a Tamil genocide.”

The province did not infringe on the federal jurisdiction in relation to the designation of genocide because the act didn’t contain a penalty or claim to determine that genocide has taken place “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“The perpetrator of the genocide recognized by the Legislature is … to be the Sri Lankan government. A claim or a finding of genocide perpetrated by a government or a state does not tar individuals who may be members of the same nationality, ethnicity, or religious affiliation as those people who dominate the government or state,” said the court.

ation of Tamil Genocide Education Week — concluding that its purpose is purely “educative.” In a case that cast a spotlight on tension between diasporas, several Sinhalese-Canadian groups took Ontario to court for designating the seven-day period each year ending May 18 — the date the Sri Lankan civil war ended in 2009 — to raise awareness of the Tamil genocide and other genocides in world history.

Source: Ontario judge upholds Tamil Genocide Education Week in battle ‘over who gets to write the history of the war’

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Tom Mulcair on Legault’s multiculturalism remarks

2022/06/30 Leave a comment

Of note:

The weather is getting better, the Canada Day long weekend is just around the corner and we could all use a break…so Francois Legault decided it’s the perfect time to attack multiculturalism!

Last weekend, the Quebec premier had this to say: “It’s important that we don’t put all cultures on the same level; that’s why we oppose multiculturalism…We prefer to concentrate on what we call interculturalism, where we have one culture, the Quebec culture…”

Legault, of course, is just repeating something that has become commonplace in Quebec: the notion that multiculturalism is a threat.

That’s one of the reasons why Legault has been fighting for full jurisdiction over the choice of immigrants to his province, especially the family-reunification category.

LANGUAGES SPOKEN AT HOME

Not content to just tell people what language they should speak at work, he’s taken to musing about the language people should speak at home. He apparently doesn’t want families reuniting if they are going to be speaking a language other than French in their own house!

For forty years, Canada has had constitutionally guaranteed official bilingualism within a framework of multiculturalism.

The old “two founding peoples” vision (English and French) was replaced by a view that Canada is enriched by the vibrant diversity of all cultures present, and that irrespective of national origin, certain rights to services in both official languages were to be protected.

Things like access to official language minority schools have been guaranteed. That means, in turn, that the English-speaking community of Quebec and the French-speaking minority of, say, Manitoba both have the constitutional right to control and manage the Boards that oversee the schools their kids can attend.

Other language rights are protected by the Canadian constitution. For example, English and French must be used at all steps of the legislative process in Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick (the only officially bilingual province) and the right to use both languages is guaranteed in pleadings before the courts of those provinces.

In order to change the constitution in a way that affects guaranteed language rights, the 1982 Constitution Act says explicitly that you need a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate. That’s what Quebec did when it replaced religion-based school boards with language-based institutions. Lucien Bouchard was the premier, I was in the Liberal opposition and both parties worked together to modernize the system.

Resolutions were obtained in both houses of the Canadian Parliament authorizing the change and It has gone into effect and worked since. Problem is, Legault has also attacked (with Bill 40) the right of the English-speaking community to control and manage its own school boards. The courts have had to intervene to enforce the constitution and stop him.

Since that rebuke, Legault seems to have resolved to never again let the Canadian constitution interfere with his plans to remove minority language rights. With Bill 96, Legault is now claiming to have unilaterally changed the B.N.A. Act, the founding constitutional law from 1867, to remove language guarantees for equality of English and French in official legal documents and before the courts.

No resolution of Parliament was required, in his view, and neither Justin Trudeau nor his Justice Minister David Lametti have stood up to defend the Canadian constitution or the citizens whose rights are being removed.

Those rights have been reinforced through a series of Supreme Court decisions and the bilingual nature of the courts and legislation in Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick are constitutionally sacrosanct. Lametti seems to be unaware.

After Bill 96 was enacted at the end of the legislative session in Quebec City, anglophone Quebecers woke up to the fact that they could no longer get a marriage certificate in English and an English birth certificate from B.C. may as well have be from the other end of the world. You need to have both officially translated – at your own expense! Of course this flies in the face of the constitution. But Trudeau and Lametti don’t want to make waves in the province where they both get elected, so they do nothing.

I was working in the legislative branch of the Quebec Justice Department in the late ‘70s when the Supreme Court ruled that the failure to respect the B.N.A. Act’s bilingualism obligations meant that all Quebec legislation could be struck down. A mad scramble ensued and the legislation was all reenacted, in both official languages, the next day.

Manitoba stonewalled but was eventually compelled to produce a full bilingual version of all of its legislation and the forms that come with it. I also worked in Manitoba for a couple of years to oversee that translation.

Imagine for one second that a Manitoba government would claim to be able to unilaterally amend the Manitoba Act, that mandates this official bilingualism! That was in fact a key argument the Manitoba government has tried in the past and it was rejected conclusively by the Supreme Court. If it were tried again, the Federal government wouldn’t waste a second challenging it.

Why then won’t the feds lift their little finger to protect the same right to use English in the courts in Quebec?

WHY THIS INERTIA IN OTTAWA?

When the constitution allows for a difference for one province, it does so explicitly. For example, there is a different rule for access to English school in Quebec which is baked right into s. 23 of the 1982 constitution. There is, however, no difference allowed when it comes to the requirement to enact legislation, every step of the way, in both languages in Quebec. The use of both languages in legal documents before the courts is also guaranteed. So why this inertia in Ottawa?

To find an answer, it’s good to start with Bill 21, the Quebec law that openly discriminates against religious minorities generally and Muslim women in particular.

That law, like Bill 96, is so patently unconstitutional that Legault has preemptively used the notwithstanding clause to say that it applies despite the Charter of Rights.

Since that law was enacted, we’ve had various degrees of dithering from the different Federal parties, including Trudeau’s Liberals. But Trudeau is the Prime minister. Only he can refer these issues directly to the Supreme Court. Problem is, he won’t, because he’s terrified of Legault. As a result, the first time in our history, we have a federal government that refuses to defend the Canadian constitution.

In the meantime, religious and linguistic minorities are being left to fight the discriminatory and unconstitutional Bills 21 and 96 on their own. It’s a shameful abdication of responsibility by Trudeau and Lametti but such is the state of play when it comes to defending the rights of Canadians who happen to live in Quebec.

Against that backdrop, the Trudeau government has introduced language legislation to shore up the ageing Official Languages Act. Quebec has taken to sending in missives to the Feds telling them what changes have to be made to their law to harmonize it with Quebec’s language laws. This is very complex and detailed handiwork that appears to be beyond the grasp of the team Trudeau has tasked with shepherding the file through Parliament.

As a result, the fall session in Ottawa will no doubt see more than its fair share of debates on language.

For now, whether at the lake or in a local park, let’s just give ourselves that break and enjoy this weekend’s celebration of our fabulous country where, despite these ups and downs, we’re all so lucky to live together. Happy Canada Day!

Source: Tom Mulcair on Legault’s multiculturalism remarks

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Census 2021 data shows Australians are less religious and more culturally diverse than ever

2022/06/29 Leave a comment

Canadian diversity data will be released this October. Religion will be included (10 year cycle in contrast to the standard 5 year cycle).

Some of the same trends occurring in Canada:

Australians are increasingly unlikely to worship a god and more likely to come from immigrant families.

The 2021 census has revealed a growing nation — more than 25 million people — that is more diverse than ever.

It also depicts a country undergoing significant cultural changes.

For the first time, fewer than half of Australians identified as Christian, though Christianity remained the nation’s most common religion (declared by 43.9 per cent of the population).

Meanwhile, the number of Australians who said they had no religion rose to 38.9 per cent (from 30.1 per cent in 2016).

The data also shows almost half of Australians had a parent born overseas, and more than a quarter were themselves born overseas.

The census — a national household questionnaire carried out every five years — took place in August last year amid the worsening COVID-19 pandemic.

The nation’s two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, were in lockdown and residents of regional New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT were about to join them.

Yet Australian Statistician David Gruen said the census was a success despite this challenge, with the household response rate rising to 96.1 per cent from 95.1 per cent five years earlier.

About four in five households submitted their answers online.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) will begin publishing census results today and release more data in coming months.

The information helps governments improve their services, and helps researchers and businesses better understand the community.

Beliefs and family traditions are changing

Christianity was the stated religion of about 90 per cent of Australians until 1966, when its dominance began to wane.

The ABS says migration has affected the trends since, though much of the change is due to the growth of atheist and secular beliefs.

The fastest-growing religions, according to the latest census, are Hinduism (2.7 per cent of the population) and Islam (3.2 per cent), though these worshippers remain small minorities.

The 2021 census was also the first to collect data since same-sex marriages were allowed in Australia.

Almost 24,000 of these marriages were officially recorded.

However, marriage itself is becoming less prevalent.

A generation ago (in 1991), 56.1 per cent of Australians aged over 15 were in a registered marriage. That has now dropped to 46.5 per cent.

New Australians are increasingly from India

Australia has long been one of the world’s great immigration nations, accepting more people than most other countries.

Last year, almost half of the population (48.2 per cent) were first or second-generation migrants, having at least one parent born overseas. That compares with 41.1 per cent 30 years ago.

Of the 27.6 per cent of Australians who were themselves born overseas, the most common country of birth was England.

However, India has become the second-most-common source country, overtaking China and New Zealand.

The census also asked Australians to report their “ancestry”, as opposed to their country of birth or ethnicity.

The top responses were English (33 per cent), Australian (29.9 per cent), Irish (9.5 per cent) or Scottish (8.6 per cent), with another 5.5 per cent saying Chinese.

…

Source: Census 2021 data shows Australians are less religious and more culturally diverse than ever

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Statement by the Prime Minister and other leaders on Canadian Multiculturalism Day

2022/06/28 Leave a comment

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on Canadian Multiculturalism Day:

“Today, on Canadian Multiculturalism Day, I join people from coast to coast to coast to celebrate one of our country’s greatest strengths – our diversity. Cultural communities have always been integral to the fabric of Canada, and Canadians celebrate their diverse cultural heritage and identity with great pride.

“Our multiculturalism makes us who we are as Canadians, and many cultural communities have a long history of contributing to our country. As Canadians and partners, we acknowledge that First Nations, Inuit, and Métis have called these lands home for millennia.

“Canada’s proud and longstanding tradition of welcoming people from around the world with open arms continues to shape our country today. Last year, the Government of Canada welcomed over 405,000 new permanent residents into the country, the largest number of newcomers to Canada in a single year, surpassing the previous record from 1913. Canada was also the global leader in resettling refugees in 2021, helping them establish roots and start a new life here. All across the country, newcomers start businesses in their communities, volunteer to help those who need it, and contribute fully to our local economies. Canada is better for it.

“The government is building on Canada’s global reputation as an open and compassionate society. While we have much to celebrate, many Canadians still face systemic barriers and discrimination based on the colour of their skin, their background, or their faith, and we recognize there is still more work to do to achieve a truly equitable country. Through the Community Support, Multiculturalism, and Anti-Racism Initiatives Program, a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy, and a new National Action Plan on Combatting Hate, we are improving our understanding of the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples, Black and racialized and religious minority communities and driving action to make Canada more inclusive for everyone.

“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I invite everyone to participate in Canadian Multiculturalism Day by taking part in activities and events across the country. Today and every day, let us celebrate the differences that make Canada one of the best places in the world to live.”

Source: Statement by the Prime Minister on Canadian Multiculturalism Day

NDP Leader Singh statement:

Jagmeet Singh, Leader of Canada’s NDP, issued the following statement:

“The celebration of multiculturalism in Canada is a pillar of our society that make this country truly welcoming – it’s a part of who we are and informs much of what we believe in.

The cohesion and coexistence of many cultures and traditions have made Canada into a vibrant and beautiful place to live, raise a family or start a business.

We must never take this diversity for granted – and we must also recognize that Canada hasn’t always been welcoming or inclusive to everybody, with many of these injustices continuing today.

From the treatment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war, or the Komagata Maru incident, to the systemic oppression faced by black and indigenous peoples in Canada’s criminal justice system today, we know that much more work needs to be done.

That is why we must recommit ourselves to challenging intolerance, discrimination and racism. We must acknowledge that these ills exist throughout society and do everything we can eliminate them.

It’s is our responsibility to put action behind our values of equality, inclusivity and compassion.

On behalf of all New Democrats on Multiculturalism Day, let us celebrate the many cultures that make us the vibrant and open country we all love, and recommit ourselves to protecting these values at all cost.”

Source: https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-canadian-multiculturalism-day-2018

At time of writing, no statement from the Conservatives (the last one dates from 2020 under Andrew Scheer).

However, they did issue a statement for the Quebec’s Fête nationale (Saint-Jean Baptiste):

“Every year, on June 24, the pride of being a Quebecer goes up a notch. The National Holiday is a passionate, unifying and colourful celebration of Quebec. From Abitibi to Gaspésie, through Mauricie and Estrie, this pride is celebrated in many ways. Singers and musicians sing patriotic songs, and even farmers and breeders have creatively worked to reinvent themselves to promote Quebec products.

“This year, Quebecers have shown their courage and fighting spirit! You have shown that you are part of a nation that knows how to roll up its sleeves and meet unexpected challenges. You have shown solidarity with your family and friends, but also with entrepreneurs, restaurant owners and health care workers. Yes, the last two years have been difficult, but you never gave up! As always, the people of Quebec have been resilient, and have shown incredible tenacity through the ups and downs of the pandemic.

“For over 400 years, you have been persistent in defending yourselves. Your fight to protect your language and culture is a perfect example. In Quebec, it is important to be able to work, communicate and be served in French. I want you to know that the Conservative Party of Canada will fight every battle to protect French. 

On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, and the Conservative team in Quebec, I would like to wish you a Happy National Holiday.’’

Source: Statement by Conservative Leader Candice Bergen on Quebec’s National Holiday

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canada’s COVID-spurred immigration backlog is hurting its economic growth, survey suggests

2022/06/27 Leave a comment

Valid concern. But perhaps it would be more helpful to recommend reducing levels to focus on timely approval processes particularly for the economic class that IRCC can manage, and do not excessively strain housing, infrastructure, healthcare, the environment etc.

Programs highlighted by Business Council members: the global talent stream, federal skilled worker program and the Canadian experience class.

Immigration backlogs and processing delays have become a top barrier to Canadian employers seeking to attract talent and the situation is impeding economic growth and business investment, a new survey suggests.

The report by the Business Council of Canada found 80 per cent of surveyed employers were having trouble finding skilled workers, with labour shortages in every province and territory — with it being most pronounced in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

Canada’s immigration system has been upended during the pandemic, with applications piling up while staff worked remotely in a restricted capacity. There’s not a single program without a backlog and processing times have gone off the roof, doubling or tripling what they were pre-COVID.

According to CIC News, an online immigration information website, Canada’s immigration backlog has grown to 2.4 million people, including 522,047 awaiting permanent residence; 1.47 million waiting for temporary residence on work and study permits; and almost 400,000 for citizenship.

Sixty-seven per cent of employers said they are being forced to cancel and/or delay projects; 60 per cent are suffering revenue loss; 30 per cent are relocating work outside of Canada; and 26 per cent are losing market share as a result, said the business council, whose member companies employ 1.7 million Canadians in 20 industries and generate $1.2 trillion revenues yearly.

Eighty of the council’s 170 members responded to the survey, including in sectors from agriculture to automotive, energy utilities, finance, high technology manufacturing, information technology, telecom/media and transportation.

Sixty-five per cent of the respondents said they recruit workers through the immigration system and the rest hire permanent residents already in Canada. More than 80 per cent of employers reported relying on immigration to address labour shortages and for global experience, knowledge and networks.

While two-thirds of those who use the system intend to increase their recruitment of immigrant talents, 67 per cent said processing delays have become the top barrier for employers to meet those needs, while 58 per cent of the companies expressed frustration with the complex administrative requirements.

“Given the growing immigration backlog has been identified as a major barrier to economic growth and business investment, it’s imperative Canada take an all-hands-on-deck approach to secure a competitive advantage and … modernize the immigration system,” said Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada.

Of all economic immigration programs, employers said they relied most on the global talent stream, federal skilled worker program and the Canadian experience class, but the two latter programs have been suspended during the pandemic.

The survey found skills shortages are most common in fields such as computer science, engineering and information technology. There is also a huge demand for construction workers, plumbers, electricians, and other skilled trades.

Half of the employers said Canada should increase its annual intake of permanent residents and the rest support the government’s current three-year immigration plan to welcome 431,645 permanent residents in 2022; 447,055 in 2023; and 451,000 in 2024.

“Canada is in a global competition for talent, and we risk losing out to countries with more effective and efficient immigration systems,” Hyder said. “Nobody can afford to wait a year or more to have an application processed, not the deserving candidates themselves nor the companies hiring them.”

Source: Canada’s COVID-spurred immigration backlog is hurting its economic growth, survey suggests

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Jolin-Barrette tend la main à la France pour défendre la langue française

2022/06/27 Leave a comment

The usual wilful or unwilful mischaracterization of multiculturalism as not being about integration in Canada:

Il y avait longtemps qu’un ministre du Québec n’avait pas prononcé un tel discours en France. À l’heure où les relations entre la France et le Québec se déclinent le plus souvent au rythme des échanges économiques, le ministre de la Justice et de la Langue française avait choisi de donner à sa communication un contenu nettement politique.

Pour Simon Jolin-Barrette, il est temps que la France et le Québec unissent leurs forces pour défendre le français non seulement dans leur pays respectif, mais partout dans le monde.

« Le Québec vous tend la main, a-t-il déclaré. Il vous convie à une union des forces entre nos deux nations, basée sur la certitude que le français n’est pas une cause du passé, mais un ferment d’avenir. Un moteur de résistance et de renaissance. »

Dans la grande salle des séances de l’Académie française, le ministre qui n’était pas venu à Paris depuis l’âge de ses 18 ans s’est adressé à une centaine de personnes, dont une douzaine d’académiciens. Visiblement ému de se retrouver en ce lieu fondé par Richelieu à l’époque où naissait la Nouvelle-France, il s’est présenté comme le « descendant de Jean Jolin, un modeste meunier ». C’est la gorge nouée qu’il a déclaré : « Je n’ai ni votre plume ni votre épée. Mais c’est inspiré par toute la fougue du peuple québécois que je prends la parole, en ces murs. »

Le « rouleau compresseur anglo-américain »

Comparant la loi 101 à l’ordonnance Villers-Cotterêt qui, en 1539, établit la primauté du français dans tous les actes publics du Royaume de France, il a brossé un tableau d’ensemble de l’histoire et de l’évolution du français au Québec. Sans oublier d’expliquer en détail les raisons de la nouvelle loi 96, destinée, a-t-il dit, à combattre les « nouveaux périls [qui] guettent la langue française ».

Devant une salle conquise, le ministre en a surtout appelé à « notre devoir de vigilance à l’égard de la langue française » ne manquant pas d’écorcher au détour « le multiculturalisme canadien […] qui combat, dit-il, les prétentions du Québec à se constituer en nation distincte ». Il n’a pas oublié non plus « la révolution numérique des GAFAM », ce « rouleau compresseur anglo-américain, qui bouscule l’écosystème de notre langue et de notre culture ».

Évoquant « des articles diffamatoires contre le Québec […] publiés […] dans des journaux américains et canadiens anglais », le ministre a rappelé avec aplomb que « la langue française n’a jamais été un fait ethnique. Elle a toujours été un fait de culture et de civilisation. »

Avec des mots qu’on n’avait pas entendus depuis longtemps à Paris, le ministre n’a pas hésité d’en appeler directement à la France. « Rien ne serait plus naturel, dit-il, que la France, dans ce monde nouveau, se fasse le porte-parole de la diversité des cultures et de la dignité des nations. Il ne s’agit pas, vous m’avez bien compris, de s’opposer à la révolution de notre temps, mais d’y participer pleinement en y faisant respecter ce que nous sommes. »

Cette invitation de l’Académie française s’inscrit dans le sursaut qui a récemment secoué les Immortels dans la défense de la langue française, nous a expliqué l’académicien et poète Michael Edwards. Depuis un an, l’Académie et son secrétaire perpétuel, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, n’ont pas hésité à intervenir publiquement pour critiquer le bilinguisme qui a envahi certains milieux en France. Ils ont notamment demandé au gouvernement la suppression de la nouvelle carte d’identité entièrement bilingue (anglais-français). L’Académie a aussi publié un important rapport sur l’influence de l’anglais dans la communication institutionnelle. Elle y dénonce l’anglomanie qui s’est particulièrement répandue depuis l’élection d’Emmanuel Macron.

Une invitation « historique »

« Nous faisons cause commune. […] Merci de nous insuffler un peu de votre détermination », a déclaré le chancelier de l’Institut de France, Xavier Darcos. Présent à la séance, l’écrivain haïtien et québécois Dany Laferrière n’a pas hésité à qualifier d’« historique » cette invitation, puisque peu de représentants politiques québécois ont eu l’honneur de s’adresser ainsi directement aux Immortels.

« Je suis particulièrement sensible à la façon dont, au Québec comme en France, le français peut servir à cimenter l’adhésion des nouveaux arrivants », nous a déclaré l’académicien, romancier, diplomate et médecin Jean-Christophe Rufin. « Il n’y a pas d’opposition entre la tradition et l’ouverture. »

Jeudi, Simon Jolin-Barrette a aussi rencontré la toute nouvelle ministre française de la Culture, Rima Abdul Malak, à qui il a aussi fait valoir l’importance que le Québec et la France défendent leur langue en commun. Dans ses interventions, le ministre évoque aussi la solidarité qui unit la France et le Québec sur la question de la laïcité.

« J’ai reçu un accueil très positif de la part du gouvernement français et on m’a indiqué que le président Macron était très sensible à la question de la langue française, dit-il. […] pour nous il s’agit d’une main tendue afin de construire ensemble des alliances qui vont permettre d’être sensibilisé à la défense de la langue française. Si l’État français se mobilise aussi fort que le fait l’État québécois présentement, c’est une lutte qu’on va pouvoir mener ensemble. »

En ce 24 juin, Simon Jolin-Barrette participera aux célébrations de la Fête nationale à la Délégation générale du Québec à Paris. En terminant, le ministre a promis de ne pas attendre aussi longtemps que la dernière fois avant de revenir en France.

Source: Jolin-Barrette tend la main à la France pour défendre la langue française

Article in English, with Premier Legault comments:

In a rare speech before France’s Academie Française — the body charged with protecting the French language in its home country — one of Quebec’s top ministers said that Canadian multiculturalism is a thorn in Quebec’s side.

People are failing to see that Quebec’s controversial recent laws, both language law Bill 96 and even securalism law Bill 21, are themselves about protecting a fragile culture, said Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette.

We’re in a time when the “diversity of cultures is becoming just as threatened as the diversity of fauna and flora,” he said in the Thursday speech — referring to Quebec’s French-speaking culture.

Jolin-Barrette is Quebec’s minister of justice and also its minister for the French language, making him deeply involved in both pieces of legislation.In the lengthy speech, he went over the history of Quebec, from its founding as a French colony to the Quiet Revolution and beyond.

But one thing is a particular problem, he said: ensuring that newcomers to Quebec learn to live in French.

“One of our greatest challenges is to involve immigrants in our national project,” he said.

“We are the neighbours of a great power, the United States, and we operate within a federation with an anglophone majority. The continental and global linguistic dynamic favors English in every way.”

He heaped criticism on Canadian federal law that protects individual rights, calling this emphasis on the individual “nearly absolute,” to the detriment of Quebec’s collective rights.

“Although our project is thwarted by Canadian multiculturalism, which finds an equivalent in what you call communitarianism and which combats the claims of Quebec to constitute itself as a distinct nation,” Jolin-Barrette continued, “the French language must really become the language of use of all Quebecers.”

Despite earlier laws forcing all children of immigrants to attend school in French, he said it hasn’t been enough, leading the current government to clamp down on English in post-secondary colleges by stemming their growth with enrollment caps.

“Upon graduating from high school… an alarming proportion of students, especially those whose first language is neither English nor French, rush into the anglophone network to pursue their studies,” he said.

He also explicitly linked Bill 21 with the same struggle. Arguably the current government’s most controversial bill of their four years in power, it banned certain public servants, including teachers and police, from wearing religious symbols at work.

In practice, it affected female Muslim teachers most heavily, preventing school boards from hiring or promoting any hijab-wearing teachers. Challenges to it are still before the courts and are expected to end up at Canada’s Supreme Court.

“Law 96 on the French language does not come alone,” said Jolin-Barrette.

“It was adopted after Law 21 on secularism, which I also had the honor of piloting, always with the same idea of strengthening the autonomy and personality of the State of Quebec.”

LEGAULT SAYS ALL CULTURES NOT ‘ON THE SAME LEVEL’

When asked about Minister Jolin-Barrette’s comments in Paris today, Premier François Legault said he is opposed to putting “all cultures on the same level” and stressed the importance of having a “culture of integration” above all else.

“So that’s why we oppose multiculturalism. We prefer to concentrate on what we call ‘inter-culturalism’ where you have one culture, the Quebec culture, where we try to integrate the newcomers, but we want to add to this culture,” the premier said.

“I think new people coming to Quebec — they add to our culture. But it’s important to have a culture where we integrate, especially to our language.”

Legault also argued this is in direct opposition to the Canadian model of multiculturalism.

“I see that Mr. Trudeau is pushing for multiculturalism, so he doesn’t want us to have a culture and a language where we integrate newcomers,” the premier said.

MEDIA CRITIQUES OF BILL 96 ARE ‘LAZY,’ JOLIN-BARRETTE SAYS

In his speech, Jolin-Barrette addressed criticism that embracing English and bilingualism is a way of being open to the world, whether you see it as the language of Shakespeare or “Silicon Valley.”

But that’s a misplaced idea, the minister argued.

“What is presented as an openness to the world too often masks acculturation, which comes with a significant loss of memory and identity,” he said.

He said gone are the times when people can request to be served in English or French in Quebec, as in a “self-service business.”

And Jolin-Barrette made a special point of attacking English Canadian media’s coverage of Bill 96.

“Recently, defamatory articles against Quebec have been published with too much complacency in American and English Canadian newspapers,” he said.

“Lazy authors depict our fight from the most denigrating and insulting angle, trying to pass it off as a rearguard fight, a form of authoritarianism.”

“Our fight for the French language is just, it is a universal fight, that of a nation which has peacefully resisted the will to power of the strongest.”

For a large portion of the speech, Jolin-Barrette spoke of the time before the Quiet Revolution, when, he said, French itself was being lost in Quebec.

“A vulnerable proletariat was born, whose contaminated language quickly switched to Franglais,” he said.

“The English-speaking oligarchy, heir to British power, imposed its language and its imagination….in the 1950s, French-Canadians lived in towns where commercial signage was often in English.”

At another point, he called French the greatest of the Western languages, with the biggest literary influence.

In those decades, however, “French Canada was one of the very few places in the world where the French language was a sign of social inferiority,” he said.

Source: Quebec is ‘thwarted’ by Canadian multiculturalism, minister says in France speech

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Ontario 2022 Election MPP Diversity

2022/06/27 Leave a comment

Had some time to do a quick review on the diversity of Ontario MPPs elected in 2022. Citizen percentages are from the 2016 census with the percentage of visible minorities likely to increase by a few percentage points in the 2021 census.

  • Percentage of women MPPs has declined from 39.5 percent
  • Percentage of visible minority MPPs has increased from 21 percent.
  • Percentage of Indigenous MPPs has from 7.5 percent.

The declines in the percentage of women and Indigenous peoples reflect the PCs picking up a number of NDP seats.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →