Bouchard: Le racisme, pourquoi systémique?

2021/10/12 Leave a comment

Good explainer for those in Quebec who continue to deny:

Nous connaissons bien le racismecomme source dediscrimination.Pourquoi ajouter à cela le qualificatif« systémique » ? En quoi est-ce utile ?

Voilà une question à laquelle plusieurs spécialistes ont essayé de répondre. Dans mon esprit (et peut-être dans celui d’autres personnes ?), un besoin de clarification subsiste. Dans son émission du 1er octobre dernier, le journaliste de Radio-Canada Sébastien Bovet l’a posée à quelques reprises, mais sans obtenir de réponse claire (toujours à mon avis). Je m’y essaie donc à mon tour.

Le racisme est bien connu. C’est une vision négative de l’Autre qui prend prétexte de traits biologiques ou culturels pour violer ses droits. La façon de le traiter nous est familière : la victime porte plainte, le coupable est identifié et condamné.

Dans les cas de ce genre, les instances autorisées recourent aux moyens conventionnels en réprimant les manifestations individuelles, apparemment aléatoires, du racisme. Elles prennent aussi des dispositions ad hoc pour les prévenir (augmentation de la surveillance policière, tribunaux plus expéditifs, peines plus sévères…). Mais en réalité, elles agissent à la surface des choses. Car ces comportements discriminatoires récurrents découlent d’une structure sous-jacente, d’un système dont les racines sont anciennes et bien intégrées dans des institutions.

C’est clair quand on pense aux Autochtones : la mise en place, surtout depuis la Conquête anglaise, d’un régime colonial qui a établi des règles et des pratiques progressivement institutionnalisées dans différents domaines de la vie collective et perpétuées jusqu’à aujourd’hui — comme l’évoquait ici Brian Myles dans son éditorial des 2-3 octobre. C’est net aussi dans le cas des Noirs américains : un héritage du régime esclavagiste depuis longtemps disparu, mais qui a laissé bien des survivances.

Il y a donc deux niveaux à considérer, celui des comportements individuels et celui des structures. Cette distinction importe pour ce qui concerne la lutte contre le racisme. Dans le premier cas, on s’en tient à la surface des choses et la répression est sans cesse à recommencer ; elle est certes nécessaire, mais peu efficace à long terme. Dans le deuxième cas, on s’en prend à la racine du mal.

Pour combattre le racisme à ce niveau, il faut recourir à des moyens différents. Le racisme systémique s’appuie sur de vieux arrangements institutionnels (politiques, juridiques et autres). En plus, il se prolonge dans la culture, plus précisément dans des stéréotypes qui infériorisent. Il s’infiltre ainsi dans l’imaginaire collectif, ce bassin de conceptions, de visions premières, tenaces, profondément ancrées dans l’inconscient et donc difficiles à déloger.

Les stéréotypes jouent un rôle déterminant en justifiant la discrimination : les victimes sont décrites sous des traits peu enviables, elles sont vouées à la délinquance et à la dépendance. En somme, on leur attribue les traits que le régime lui-même a produits. On les rend responsables de leurs maux.

À cause des arrangements institutionnels et des images stéréotypées, leracisme systémique ne se laisse paséradiquer aisément. La façon de le combattre, c’est de s’attaquer à ses fondements structurels, en donnant à voir leur genèse, les étapes de leur institutionnalisation. Et de cette façon : a) mettre à nu l’arbitraire, l’inanité de leurs fondements, les injustices qui les ont inspirés, b) bousculer les stéréotypes, c) faire le procès des vieux arrangements institutionnels avec tous leurs tentacules.

Pour remplir son rôle essentiel, la reconstitution historique peut emprunter deux voies complémentaires : d’abord le travail indispensable des historiens, et surtout, les témoignages des victimes (les histoires de vie), tout cela devant être amplement répercuté principalement par le biais de l’éducation et des médias.

Il y a une quinzaine d’années, j’ai conduit de nombreuses entrevues au sein des communautés innues et j’y ai appris une leçon capitale. Entendre une victime des pensionnats raconter dans ses mots son expérience, pouvoir observer ses émotions, sa souffrance toujours bien vivante, se pénétrer de ce vécu tragique, tout cela est d’une éloquence, d’une « efficacité » inégalable. Et donne le goût d’en savoir plus — c’est ici que les historiens prennent le relais.

J’ai donné en exemple les pensionnats, je pourrais en évoquer bien d’autres. Je songe, entre autres, aux récits d’anciens chasseurs décrivant la façon dont ils ont été brutalement évincés de leurs territoires de chasse (et du genre de vie millénaire qui leur était associé) pour être placés dans des réserves sous la gestion autoritaire d’un fonctionnaire fédéral ordinairement ignorant et insouciant des réalités autochtones.

Le premier ministre a raison d’affirmer que l’existence du racisme systémique ne signifie pas que les Québécois soient racistes. Mais il faut ajouter un élément : cette forme de racisme étant par définition inconsciente, insidieuse, il peut nous arriver néanmoins de contribuer à en perpétuer la structure dans notre vie quotidienne par des mots qu’on emploie, une opinion qu’on exprime, un geste que nous posons — ou que nous ne posons pas.

En ce sens, une prise de conscience s’impose à laquelle tout le monde est convié. Mais donnons d’abord la parole aux Autochtones ; ils ont beaucoup à nous dire.

Historien, sociologue, écrivain, Gérard Bouchard enseigne à l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi dans les programmes d’histoire, de sociologie/anthropologie, de science politique et de coopération internationale. Il est titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les imaginaires collectifs.

Source: Le racisme, pourquoi systémique?

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

Statement on the 50th Anniversary of the Multiculturalism Policy

2021/10/12 Leave a comment

PM statement. No statement by Conservatives (not surprising given silence in platform) or NDP (more surprising given extensive section in platform):

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the 50th anniversary of Canada’s multiculturalism policy:

“On this day in 1971, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau announced multiculturalism as an official government policy – the first of its kind in the world – to recognize the contribution of cultural diversity and multicultural citizenship to the Canadian social fabric.

“The diversity of Canadians is a fundamental characteristic of our heritage and identity. For generations, newcomers from all over the world, of all backgrounds, ethnicities, faiths, cultures, and languages, have been coming to Canada with the hopes of making it their home. Today, in addition to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, people from more than 250 ethnic groups call Canada home and celebrate their cultural heritage with pride – they are at the heart of our success as a vibrant, prosperous, and progressive country.

“Canada’s multiculturalism policy was implemented based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. These recommendations were made upon the urging of diverse ethnocultural groups throughout Canada, a reminder of the lengthy and ongoing struggle for equality in this country. The policy promotes respect for cultural diversity, acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance, and share their own cultural heritage, and considers their cultural contributions throughout the country as essential to Canada. The policy received constitutional sanction in 1982, with an explicit recognition that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Multiculturalism was then further enshrined into law in 1988 through the passing of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act,which was adopted unanimously by Parliament. This was an important step toward promoting the full and equitable participation of individuals of all backgrounds in shaping a strong, diverse, and inclusive society.

“While the policy continues to give vitality to Canadian society, reflect its multicultural reality, and inspire people and countries around the world, we still have work to do to make Canada inclusive, fair, and equitable for all. This year, several disturbing and divisive incidents motivated by hate have reminded us that prejudice, systemic racism, and discrimination continue to be a lived reality for many Indigenous and Black peoples, religious minorities, and racialized communities. Many also continue to face barriers to social and economic participation, which have only gotten worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Today, Canada strives to be a respectful, prosperous, and compassionate country thanks to the tremendous contributions of people of all backgrounds who call it home. As we continue to build a more inclusive and open country, we recognize that a multicultural society is a work in progress. We must continue to promote the values of respect and inclusion that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Charter, human rights legislation, and many other commitments have sought to promote. Along with Canada’s strong multiculturalism policy, we must also recognize the rich cultures of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and our commitments to respecting their Aboriginal, treaty, and human rights and advancing reconciliation. This requires us to confront painful truths about our history and society, learn from them, and take meaningful action together to address systemic discrimination and ensure everyone is treated with respect and able to participate equitably in economic, social, cultural, and political life in Canada.

“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I invite all Canadians to find out more about multiculturalism in Canada, celebrate the cultural diversity that makes us who we are, and continue to learn from one another. By appreciating our differences as the source of our strength and resilience, we can build a truly inclusive, vibrant, and multicultural society.”

Source: https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2021/10/08/statement-prime-minister-50th-anniversary-canadas-multiculturalism

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Wright: Fifty years on, Canada’s #multiculturalism policy remains a pillar of its diversity

2021/10/09 Leave a comment

Another commentary on the anniversary of the multiculturalism policy:

Fifty years ago today, on Oct. 8, 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adopt what Pierre Trudeau described as a “vigorous policy of multiculturalism.” Canada’s identity “will not be undermined by multiculturalism,” Mr. Trudeau told the House of Commons, because “cultural pluralism is the very essence” of its identity.

In practice, multiculturalism has meant a series of government programs to fund research, support curriculum development, launch anti-racism initiatives, integrate immigrants and refugees, and promote intercultural and interfaith understanding. It has also translated to continued support for immigration: as written in a Migration Policy Institute study, “Canada may be the only Western country where strength of national identity is positively correlated with support for immigration, a finding that is difficult to explain except by reference to multiculturalism.”

How did such a policy come to be? In broad strokes, it was a product of the post-1945 rights revolution that saw historically disenfranchised groups dismantle inherited hierarchies and demand basic citizenship rights. But in order to exist, the notion of biculturalism first had to be dispelled. Indeed, Trudeau’s policy departed from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, appointed by Lester B. Pearson in 1963. “For although there are two official languages,” Mr. Trudeau insisted, “there is no official culture.”

From the moment it was constituted, the commission was criticized by non-English and non-French Canadians for incorrectly framing the country it had been tasked to study: Canada was not bicultural, they said, and never had been. Demographically, it had always been multicultural, something Commission co-chair André Laurendeau quickly learned. In his diary, he recounted a January 1964 dinner in Winnipeg, by any definition a multicultural city. Seated next to an Icelandic doctor and a Ukrainian war hero, he found himself “exposed to a veritable assault of multiculturalism” – so much so that he and his colleagues almost missed their plane.

And so it went, in hearing after hearing, especially in Western Canada: bilingualism was one thing; biculturalism was quite another. In its preliminary report released in 1965, the Commission indicated as much when it summarized the views of what it called Canada’s other ethnic groups: “If two cultures are accepted, why not many?” It was a compelling question, but not one the Commission could answer. Four years later, in 1969, it made a series of recommendations – for example, that the National Museum of Man, now the Canadian Museum of History, be given sufficient resources to carry out projects related to “cultural groups other than the British and French” – but it stopped short of recommending official multiculturalism, believing that was outside its mandate.

Mr. Trudeau, however, was not bound by the Commission’s mandate. Nor were the leaders of Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. For his part, Robert Stanfield applauded the prime minister’s “excellent words” while David Lewis – who had been born David Losz in a Russian shtetl and who knew the sting of anti-Semitism – struck an eloquent and, perhaps, personal note, referring to cultural diversity as “a source of our greatness as a people.”

To its critics, however, multiculturalism was Liberal pandering to ethnic voters. The Globe and Mail referred to the portfolio of the Secretary of State for Multicultural Affairs as “an insulting political bone thrown at Canada’s ethnic communities” in a 1974 editorial, adding that it wasn’t sorry to see it folded into another portfolio.

But Mr. Trudeau’s commitment to multiculturalism wasn’t cynical. It stemmed from years of thinking about diversity and its accommodation. Federalism was one answer. Bilingualism was another. And multiculturalism yet another. He even included it as an interpretive clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Successive prime ministers followed Mr. Trudeau’s lead in non-partisan fashion. In 1988, Brian Mulroney passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. And in 2002, Jean Chrétien declared June 27 Canadian Multiculturalism Day, turning multiculturalism into a national symbol, like hockey and maple syrup.

After making his announcement fifty years ago, Mr. Trudeau flew to Winnipeg where, on Oct. 9, he spoke to the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress. The Canadian mosaic, he said, “and the moderation which it includes and encourages, makes Canada a very special place.” After all, “Every single person in Canada is now a member of a minority group.”

That was true in 1971. It’s even more true in 2021: Canada will welcome 401,000 immigrants this year, a number not seen since the record set in 1913.

Donald Wright teaches at the University of New Brunswick and is the author ofCanada: A Very Short Introduction.

Source: Fifty years on, Canada’s multiculturalism policy remains a pillar of its diversity

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Douglas Todd: Is Vancouver really the ‘anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America?’

2021/10/09 Leave a comment

More discussion about the data and the challenges of country comparisons:

It’s hardly the reputation Vancouver, or any city, would want.

But in May some of the world’s largest media outlets dubbed Vancouver, which has about 700,000 residents of mixed ethnicities, the “anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America.”

Source: Douglas Todd: Is Vancouver really the ‘anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America?’

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

‘A work in progress’: after 50 years Canada’s multiculturalism policy a ‘model,’ but must shift to ‘dismantling’ discrimination, say panellists

2021/10/08 Leave a comment

Good overview of the plenary with three good speakers but Nenshi, as often happens, stole the show with his blending of the personal and political:

Fifty years after Canada made multiculturalism an official policy, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi contrasted his life under the system to another political figure who, like him, was born within months of its enactment in 1971: the prime minister. 

Both men turn 50 within a matter of weeks of each other, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) this coming Christmas Day and Mr. Nenshi a few weeks later, in February. During an Oct. 6 panel dubbed “Multiculturalism@50,” Mr. Nenshi said the last five decades and the two leaders’ paths to politics reveals some of the impact of the world-leading policy put in place by Mr. Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, when he led the country.

“He grew up in a life of great privilege. But in a life where, as a formally bilingual white person in this country, he had a very different view of what multiculturalism meant than others may have,” Mr. Nenshi said in his set-up, contrasting that with his early years and how he—that “baby boy”—grew up in Canada.

“He grew up as a person of colour, who could not avoid conversations about racism, or multiculturalism, because they were actually part of his life, every single day.”

During the 2019 election, Mr. Trudeau pointed to his privilege to explain how he as a teenager, and a man in his 30s, chose to don the racist garb of blackface and brownface.

Following the revelations, Mr. Trudeau said he had “a massive blind spot” borne from his upbringing in “a place of privilege.” His critics, including NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, B.C.), have noted a disconnect between his words and actions.

Last week, and again on Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau apologized for choosing to vacation in Tofino, B.C., on Sept. 30, the inaugural National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The Vancouver Island town is a few hours’ flight west of Kamloops, B.C., where, in May, the local First Nation announced it had found 215 unmarked graves at a former residential school.

Mr. Nenshi did not mention the last campaign’s scandal or the prime minister’s record, but noted in thinking about “the different paths that we’ve taken, and where we’ve ended up, both he and I in public life, through very different ways, we start to understand, I think, what the impact of that policy has been,” Mr. Nenshi observed.

Canada’s multicultural policy, adopted in October 1971 in a world first, is “one of our country’s greatest achievements,” said Independent Senator Donna Dasko (Ontario).

Sen. Dakso, also a panellist for the Metropolis Canada event, credited the elder Trudeau for his “vision,” and though the approach had its detractors, she said it did not “impede its progress.” She said Canada “marched forward” with the approach, adopting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which “recognized the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural character of Canada,” and, in 1988, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney passed the Multicultural Act, further “entrenching the principles and practices of multiculturalism.”

These efforts “marked Canada as the first country in the world to adopt these measures. And really, we did become a model of intercultural relations in the world,” said Sen. Dasko, a former pollster who said she has followed public opinion shift over the years so it’s now accepted as a “core feature of our national identity.”

Now, after 50 years, it’s time to focus on “dismantling,” and actions to address anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism, said former Liberal cabinet minister Jean Augustine, who became Canada’s first female Black MP when she was elected in 1997.

Despite equal pay legislation and commitments to equality, she questioned why Black Canadians are overrepresented below the poverty line and in Canada’s prisons.

“We need to ask questions. We need to get more complete answers. That is the only way that we can continue to write the story and also tell the story of a more accurate, inclusive, and genuine multicultural Canada,” said Ms. Augustine, who served as minister of state for multiculturalism between 2002 and 2004. 

Still, Ms. Augustine said she remains “steadfast” in her support of the policy, invoking Winston Churchill’s remarks on democracy; that it is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried.

“We can say the same about multiculturalism. It is the best form and the best set of policies to enable us to be the Canada of the future. This is a work in progress,” she said. 

Canada must “meaningfully address barriers” diverse cultural groups face and “meet the challenges head on,” she said.

“The full dream of what Canada can be will only happen when we embrace true inclusion and equity. And this demands that we situate our approach to multiculturalism within a space that is anti-racist, and anti-oppression.”

While Canada is “immeasurably better” than it was when Mr. Nenshi’s parents first came to Canada, the mayor noted the country is still in a time when politicians deny systemic racism persists. 

This week, Quebec Premier François Legault doubled down on past statements saying it doesn’t exist in his province, following the release of a coroner’s report into the death of Joyce Echaquan, an Atikamekw woman who filmed herself being insulted by hospital staff before she passed. Mr. Legault “incorrectly” defined the term to “bolster his argument,” said Mr. Nenshi, noting the province’s so-called secularism laws are “blatantly discriminatory.” One law prohibits some civil servants from displaying religious symbols, such as wearing a hijab or turban.

That means lawyer-turned-NDP leader Mr. Singh, if he had practised law in Quebec, would be denied a path to ever be a judge. The topic came up in the English-language federal leaders’ debates, when moderator Shachi Kurl also described the law as discriminatory and asked Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, in light of the law, how he could say the province doesn’t have a “problem with racism.”

Remarking on the flood of criticism Ms. Kurl, a woman of colour, faced in the Sept. 9 debate’s aftermath, Mr. Nenshi said people of colour are often challenged for daring to “play the race card,”

“Let me tell you something, the race card is very rarely part of a winning hand,” said Mr. Nenshi, who, 11 years ago became the first person of colour to head Calgary and a major city in Canada, and the first Muslim mayor of a major North American city. In the city’s 136-year history, he’s one of seven non-white members elected to council, according to Mr. Nenshi.

But it was his religion that propelled him to the pages of the likes of Time magazine—even though it had barely registered in his municipal campaign. He could have said “no” to all those dozens of media interviews, he noted, but multiculturalism, in part, pushed him to have those public conversations.

“I thought that this was an opportunity to tell a story of a place where it does work [and] use my own ordinary, typical immigrant story as a beacon of hope for Canada and for the world,” he said, and while that story still feels real and true, “things feel different now.”

Mr. Nenshi said there’s been a shift in the last four or five years, though nominal compared to the flood of hate women of colour experience when they enter public life. 

“It seems that voices of division, anger, and hatred are growing louder and louder in our communities. And they sometimes seem to be winning.”

Echoing Ms. Augustine’s assessment, Mr. Nenshi agreed the next stage means a move from pluralism and multiculturalism to “true anti racism, to true reconciliation.”

Mr. Nenshi said he doesn’t know what that looks like, but he’s optimistic Canada can get there.

“But it starts by recognizing where we are. It starts by recognizing how far we’ve come, but it also starts by recognizing how far we have to go.”

Source: https://hilltimes.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a90bfb63c26a30f02131a677b&id=dace268bc7&e=685e94e554

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Nicolas: Une confusion cultivée [regarding systemic racism]

2021/10/08 Leave a comment

Good column by Nicholas:

Soixante-six pour cent des Québécois reconnaissent que le racisme systémique existe. À l’échelle du pays, 67 % des Canadiens admettentsans problème que le concept a un sens. Du moins, ce sont là les résultats d’un sondage publié la semaine dernière par Léger Marketing pour le compte de l’Association des études canadiennes. Sur cette question, le caractère « distinct » du Québec ne tiendrait donc qu’à un seul petit point de pourcentage.

La donnée est remarquable, car si le racisme systémique existe partout, le discours sur le racisme systémique n’est pas le même d’un océan à l’autre. Depuis qu’une coalition d’acteurs de la société civile (dont je faisais partie) a interpellé le gouvernement du Québec pour demander une consultation publique sur la question en 2016, la notion est devenue, particulièrement au Québec, la cible d’une campagne politique et médiatique continue de désinformation et de confusion. Il y a aussi, bien sûr, de la désinformation qui circule ailleurs. Simplement, sur ce point particulier, c’est ici que les démonstrations de mauvaise foi se sont montrées les plus énergiques, disons, dans l’histoire récente.

Des définitions du racisme systémique plus farfelues les unes que les autres ont en effet défilé en ondes au fil des années, souvent à heure de grande écoute. « Procès des Québécois ». « Être systématiquement raciste ». « Se lever le matin avec l’intention de discriminer les minorités ». Le premier ministre François Legault a ajouté une nouvelle couche de désinformation, mardi, en réaction au rapport de la coroner Géhane Kamel sur la mort de Joyce Echaquan, affirmant que reconnaître le racisme systémique, « ça voudrait dire que tous les dirigeants de tous les ministères ont une approche discriminatoire qui est propagée dans tous les réseaux ». On aurait pu en rire, si la mauvaise blague était venue d’un quidam.

Dans un de nos grands médias (vous savez lequel), vous pourrez retrouver plusieurs dizaines de billets sur le « racisme antiblanc », une notion qui n’a aucune crédibilité scientifique, et qui a été popularisée par le Front national de Jean-Marie Le Pen. On « thèse » aussi un peu partout sur le « wokisme », que personne n’a défini, sinon Fox News. Mais François Legault répète que le racisme systémique est un concept trop « mal défini » pour être utile.

Pourtant, la Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse du Québec a une définition du racisme systémique, comme ses équivalents à travers le pays ont aussi les leurs. Le Barreau du Québec en a déjà proposé une. La Ville de Montréal en a aussi une, depuis la consultation municipale sur la question. On ne compte plus les rapports et les articles scientifiques, ici et ailleurs, qui font appel à la notion.

Chaque organisme formule les choses à sa façon, pour essentiellement dire la même chose. Tout comme chaque organisme scientifique ne met pas exactement la virgule à la même place dans sa définition des changements climatiques, et que vous n’arriverez pas, en mettant tous les économistes dans une même pièce, à une définition immuable de l’économie. Mais que personne (de sérieux) n’utilise cette réalité pour avancer que les changements climatiques ou l’économie n’existent pas.

Le racisme systémique fait référence aux façons de faire (processus, décisions, pratiques) qui favorisent ou défavorisent certaines personnes en fonction de leur identité raciale. Il s’agit de dire que nos grands systèmes — de santé, d’éducation, de justice, de services sociaux — ont été pensés par et pour la majorité. Encore aujourd’hui, ce sont les approches qui conviennent le mieux à cette majorité qui dominent, et elles ne sont pas présentées comme culturellement spécifiques, mais comme « le sens commun », voire des « règles objectives ».

Si le système de santé est conçu par et pour la majorité plutôt que pour les personnes autochtones, par exemple, cela veut dire que des professionnels de la santé peuvent être diplômés après 3, 5, 10 ans de formation universitaire sans avoir aucune compétence culturelle pour interagir avec une clientèle autochtone. Si ces professionnels, faute de formation, agissent avec les mêmes préjugés que le citoyen moyen exposé aux stéréotypes véhiculés par la culture populaire, il n’y a pas non plus de processus interne efficace pour reconnaître le problème et le corriger. Dans un système par et pour la majorité, rien de tout cela n’apparaît comme un besoin criant.

Autre exemple : une formation médicale conçue par et pour la majorité blanche utilise presque exclusivement des images de personnes blanches pour apprendre aux futurs médecins à reconnaître les symptômes d’une maladie. Plusieurs études ont déjà démontré que les patients à la peau foncée reçoivent souvent un mauvais diagnostic, plus tardif, pour des problèmes de santé visibles à l’œil nu. Est-ce que l’infirmière ou la dermatologue qui ne reconnaissent pas un problème sur une peau foncée haïssent personnellement les Noirs, ou, pour reprendre les propos du premier ministre, « ont une approche discriminatoire propagée dans tout le réseau » ? Non. Le problème vient des écoles de médecine, de leurs curriculums qui mènent à désavantager certains patients en fonction de leur identité raciale. Soit la définition du racisme systémique. Déclarer qu’on n’est « pas raciste » ne réglera rien si l’on n’est pas prêt à investir temps et énergie pour corriger les failles de la formation de base (lire : pour la majorité). Quitte à passer pour un « woke ».

Dans les pires cas, ces deux exemples peuvent mener à des morts inutiles. Soixante-six pour cent des Québécois arrivent à comprendre cette réalité du racisme systémique, malgré la désinformation ambiante. On peut imaginer que si ce n’était des efforts particulièrement soutenus pour embrouiller les gens, les Québécois accepteraient la notion dans une proportion bien plus importante que la moyenne canadienne.

Il y a là, il me semble, un signal assez encourageant sur la teneur de ces fameuses « valeurs québécoises ».

Source: https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/638610/chronique-une-confusion-cultivee?utm_source=infolettre-2021-10-07&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=infolettre-quotidienne

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Cohen: Eighty years after the Babi Yar massacre, we struggle to remember and learn

2021/10/08 Leave a comment

Good reminder:

Among the most searing scenes in War and Remembrance, Herman Wouk’s epic novel of the Second World War presented as a multi-hour television series in the 1980s, is the massacre at Babi Yar in 1941. It is where the Holocaust began.

Through his highly developed characters, Wouk offers an unsparing depiction of the plight of the Jews in Auschwitz and in Theresienstadt, “the paradise ghetto.” In contrast to the slow, intimate unspooling of that agony, his dramatization of Babi Yar is remote, anonymous and brief.

See thousands of Jews ordered from their homes in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. See them marched to a sprawling ravine on the city’s outskirts. See them present their papers, leave their luggage, remove their clothes. All methodically.

See them walk to the edge of the ravine — naked, terrified, wailing — where they tumble like cordwood before the battery of machine guns. See officers with revolvers wading through the bodies that have been choreographed to fall “like sardines” in the pit; they shoot those still moving. See them work with equanimity and efficiency.

They needed both. After all, you can’t dispatch 33,371 Jews over two days without a plan. The Nazis had one. Blow up important buildings in Kiev and blame it on the Jews, calling them Bolshevik saboteurs, Communists and partisans. Use that as a pretext to eliminate the community of 230,000, mostly women, children and the elderly, the younger men having gone east to join the Soviets.

Post signs telling the Jews to gather with their belongings, bedsheets, winter coats. Years later, those confiscated items were sold in local markets.

All this took place on Sept. 29 and 30, 1941. It was the largest such operation up to then as the Nazis swept across the Soviet Union, which they had invaded in June. It was, as historians says, the Holocaust “by bullets” rather than gas.

There was no ghetto in Kiev like there were in Warsaw and Lodz in Poland and other cities in Ukraine. The mechanized killing that reached its apogee in the Nazi concentration camps came later.

That autumn they would kill Jews, gypsies, political prisoners, the mentally ill, Roma, Communists and Ukrainian nationalists, thought to number 100,000. Two years later, the leaching mass graves so alarmed retreating Germans fleeing the Soviets that they made prisoners dig up and burn the bodies, then killed them.

Eighty years after the massacre, in a climate of swelling anti-Semitism, we struggle to remember. In our unconscious world, where memory is easily manipulated, distorted or denied, who knows or cares?

Five years ago, when my son and I visited Babi Yar, we could barely find it. There were monuments at either end of the nearby subway station, but they were unimpressive. Worse, when we came upon what appeared to be the blood-lands, nothing marked what happened there.

Nothing. A grassy park, picnic grounds, slightly sunken. A couple sat on a blanket. Children roughhoused. Dogs roamed. No one seemed aware of the atrocity. It was nauseating.

In my season searching for the past in monuments, memorials and museums of Europe, this was the most wilful, brazen erasing of memory I’d seen.

What the Nazis tried to hide, the Soviets did, too. In 1961, Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko famously wrote: “No monument stands over Babi Yar/A steep cliff only, like the rudest headstone.”

Only after Ukraine became free was there any attempt to recognize the past. It was easier to forget, especially because some Ukrainians took part in the atrocity, too. History is a minefield, and no more so than when it is a killing field.

That’s changing. Ukraine is now remembering Babi Yar. The story is taught in schools; on the 80th anniversary last week, there were commemorations and programs in Kiev and beyond, attended by prominent politicians.

In the next five years, a museum, memorial and research centre are planned. Finally, Ukrainians want to come to terms with their uncomfortable past.

If the acknowledgement of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this is reason for hope.

Source: Cohen: Eighty years after the Babi Yar massacre, we struggle to remember and learn

Filed under Antisemitism, Holocaust Tagged with ,

Racist labour exploitation continues in multicultural Canada [Odd to showcase Chinese Canadians]

2021/10/08 Leave a comment

Bit surprising that one would choose Chinese Canadians as the example of contemporary exploitation compared to other visible minority groups and temporary residents. Issues of anti-Asian hate, of course, have increased during COVID-19:

The history of racialized labour exploitation that began with Chinese workers arriving in Canada in the 19th century to take up jobs employers had trouble filling with European settlers continues unabated in multicultural Canada.

Canada has been applauded for being the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as federal policy. Multiculturalism, which turns 50 years old on Oct. 8, successfully established a positive image of Canada as a diverse, inclusive and immigrant-friendly nation.

Multiculturalism has defined national identity, resulting in Canadians perceiving themselves as tolerant, benevolent and peace-loving. It has persuaded many people to immigrate to Canada and many refugees to look toward Canada for safety.

However, multiculturalism as state policy has also perpetuated the discriminatory immigration and labour policies of white Canada. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become evident that Canada’s job market simultaneously relies on Asian essential workers and scorns them.

Canada has witnessed a sharp increase in racial violence against Asian Canadians during the pandemic.

The most recent uptick in anti-Asian racism is not an aberrant response by anxious or fearful Canadians during a health crisis, but the continuation of old hierarchies of racial difference, a legacy of legalized and everyday racism that structures the lives of Asian Canadians and other racialized minorities.

It will be important to ensure that anti-Asian racism during COVID-19 is not obliterated from Canada’s collective memory of the pandemic.

Robust public education, through intentional changes in school curricula and public outreach, informed by the experiences of affected communities, can help Canadians unlearn biases and understand Canada’s history of racial violence. Remembering the past might provoke inquiry into the ways things are and how they should be.

According to the 2016 census, one in five Canadians are foreign-born, and half of these are from Asia. A little more than a quarter of all Canadian children have at least one foreign-born parent. Chinese presence in Canada can be traced back to the early 19th century and Asian Canadians are sometimes called the “model minority.”

How then did Asian minorities of varying age, immigration status and national origin suddenly become objects of hatred during the pandemic?

A look back at 1960s and 70s immigration reforms is helpful in situating anti-Asian racism during the current pandemic.

British Columbia was the site of the first Asian settlement in Canada, when Chinese prospectors were lured by the gold rush. Soon after, the Canadian government actively recruited Chinese labourers to build the Canadian Pacific Railway.

After the completion of the CPR, Chinese workers began taking up employment in logging camps, fisheries and mines, before competition between white and Chinese workers culminated in calls for legislation to restrict Chinese immigration. The perceived threat fermented into a stereotype of the Chinese, and then eventually other Asians, as a menace or “yellow peril.”

The Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration of 1885 was established to assess the impact of Chinese immigration to Canada. The commission heard testimony linking infectious disease to Chinese sanitation, food habits, housing and cultural practices. While the commissioners found little evidence to support those claims, they recommended restricting Chinese immigration. This laid the grounds for exclusionary immigration policies, such as the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885, which levied a head tax on all Chinese immigrants, and the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which more or less stopped Chinese immigration entirely.

Reforms in immigration policy in the 1960s and 70s facilitated Canada’s rebranding of itself as a multicultural nation. The elimination of overt racial distinctions in immigration policy signalled a successful transition from a white settler colony to a multiracial society.

The selective entry of workers based upon Canada’s economic needs continued, however. The introduction of the point system in 1967, for example, favoured immigrants from particular professions and educational backgrounds. New immigrants selected to come from Asia were largely medical, industrial and other professionals, and this change in the immigrant profile fed the “model minority” stereotype.

The celebration of the “model” multicultural subject sets off racial groups against one another and shapes the public’s understanding of national well-being and threat. It masks the fears and anxieties that the increasing visibility of racialized minorities in Canada provokes in white settlers. By inscribing inclusivity and cultural diversity as core Canadian values, Canada’s policy of “multiculturalism within a bilingual framework” articulates a narrative of tolerant nationhood, erasing claims of Indigenous peoples to their land along with the history of African Canadian slavery.

Despite the point system that enabled the entry of skilled immigrants, data shows that racialized immigrants continue to experience higher levels of unemployment and earn less income than white Canadians. Our labour-market policies have resulted in the over-representation of Asian Canadians in so-called essential jobs which are typically low-paying, low-skilled and precarious, such as warehouse, personal support, and cleaning work.

Some of the largest outbreaks of COVID-19 in Canada have occurred in long-term care and meat-packing facilities, where racialized people, including Asians, are disproportionately employed. More than 1,500 COVID-19 cases were linked to the Cargill meat plant in Alberta, the largest COVID-19 outbreak linked to a single facility in North America, where 70 per cent of employees are of Filipino descent.

The current pandemic has also brought to light how early 19thcentury representations of the Chinese as “a serious public health risk” combined with legalized racism in immigration policy have effectively embedded in public consciousness the perception of Asian Canadians as disease carriers and foreigners within their own nation. Yet Canada’s successful marketing of official multiculturalism as an end to past racism and the framing of recent or emergent racism as aberrations deter acknowledgement of exclusionary and discriminatory policies contributing to anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For Asian Canadians, the pandemic has intensified the racial grief of exclusion from their own nation. In June 2020, a survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with the University of Alberta suggested a “shadow pandemic” of racism exists. Exactly half of surveyed Canadians of Chinese ethnicity reported being called names or insulted as a direct result of the COVID-19 outbreak, and 43 per cent said they had been threatened or intimidated.

Learning the history of anti-Chinese racism in Canada can equip us to intervene in structural racism, which must take a central place in the pandemic recovery process, so that living well together, which is the premise of multiculturalism, can be grounded in justice, rather than mere tolerance of difference or selective inclusion.

Improved public policy that moves past celebrating diversity and enhances cross-cultural, cross-racial learning can facilitate difficult and necessary conversations.

Source: Racist labour exploitation continues in multicultural Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

A Sea of White Faces in Australia’s ‘Party of Multiculturalism’

2021/10/07 Leave a comment

More on Australia:

She seemed an ideal political candidate in a country that likes to call itself the world’s “most successful multicultural nation.”

Tu Le, a young Australian lawyer who is the daughter of Vietnamese refugees, was set to become the opposition Labor Party’s candidate for Parliament in one of Sydney’s most diverse districts. She grew up nearby, works as an advocate for exploited migrant workers and had the backing of the incumbent.

Then Ms. Le was passed over. The leaders of the center-left party, which casts itself as a bastion of diversity, instead chose a white American-born senator, Kristina Keneally, from Sydney’s wealthy eastern suburbs to run for the safe Labor seat in the city’s impoverished southwest.

But Ms. Le, unlike many before her, did not go quietly. She and other young members of the political left have pushed into the open a debate over the near absence of cultural diversity in Australia’s halls of power, which has persisted even as the country has been transformed by non-European migration.

While about a quarter of the population is nonwhite, members of minority groups make up only about 6 percent of the federal Parliament, according to a 2018 study. That figure has barely budged since, leaving Australia far behind comparable democracies like Britain, Canada and the United States.

In Australia, migrant communities are often seen but not heard: courted for photo opportunities and as fund-raising bases or voting blocs, but largely shut out of electoral power, elected officials and party members said. Now, more are demanding change after global reckonings on race like the Black Lives Matter movement and a pandemic that has crystallized Australia’s class and racial inequalities.

“The Australia that I live in and the one that I work in, Parliament, are two completely different worlds,” said Mehreen Faruqi, a Greens party senator who in 2013 became Australia’s first female Muslim member of Parliament. “And we now know why they are two completely different worlds. It’s because people are not willing to step aside and actually make room for this representation.”

The backlash has reached the highest levels of the Labor Party, which is hoping to unseat Prime Minister Scott Morrison in a federal election that must be held by May.

The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, faced criticism when he held up the white senator, Ms. Keneally, 52, as a migrant “success story” because she had been born in the United States. Some party members called the comment tone deaf, a charge they also leveled at former Prime Minister Paul Keating after he said local candidates “would take years to scramble” to Ms. Keneally’s “level of executive ability, if they can ever get there at all.”

Ms. Keneally, one of the Labor Party’s most senior members, told a radio interviewer that she had “made a deliberate decision” to seek the southwestern Sydney seat. She did so, she said, because it represents an overlooked community that had “never had a local member who sits at the highest level of government, at a senior level at the cabinet table, and I think they deserve that.”

She plans to move to the district, she said. In the Australian political system, candidates for parliamentary seats are decided either by party leaders or through an internal vote of party members from that district. Candidates do not have to live in the district they seek to represent.

When contacted for comment, Ms. Keneally’s office referred The New York Times to previous media interviews.

Chris Hayes, the veteran lawmaker who is vacating the southwestern Sydney seat, said he had endorsed Ms. Le because of her deep connections with the community.

“It would be sensational to be able to not only say that we in Labor are the party of multiculturalism, but to actually show it in our faces,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in March.

Ms. Le, 30, said she believed the party leadership sidelined her because it saw her as a “tick-the-box exercise” instead of a viable contender.

As an outsider, “the system was stacked against me,” she said. “I haven’t ‘paid my dues,’ I haven’t ‘served my time’ or been in with the faceless men or factional bosses for years.”

What she finds especially disappointing about Labor’s decision, she said, is the message it sends: that the party takes for granted the working-class and migrant communities it relies on for votes.

Australia has not experienced the same sorts of fights over political representation that have resulted in growing electoral clout for minority groups in other countries, said Tim Soutphommasane, a former national racial discrimination commissioner, in part because it introduced a “top down” policy of multiculturalism in the 1970s.

That has generated recognition of minority groups, though often in the form of “celebratory” multiculturalism, he said, that uses food and cultural festivals as stand-ins for genuine engagement.

When ethnic minorities get involved in Australian politics, they are often pushed to become their communities’ de facto representatives — expected to speak on multiculturalism issues, or relegated to recruiting party members from the same cultural background — and then are punished for supposedly not having broader appeal.

“The expectation from inside the parties as well as the community is that you’re there to represent the minority, the small portion of your community that’s from the same ethnic background as you,” said Elizabeth Lee, a Korean Australian who is the leader of the Australian Capital Territory’s Liberal Party. “It’s very hard to break through that mold.”

Many ethnically diverse candidates never make it to Parliament because their parties do not put them in winnable races, said Peter Khalil, a Labor member of Parliament.

During his own election half a decade ago, he was told to shave his goatee because it made him “look like a Muslim,” he said. (Mr. Khalil is a Coptic Christian.)

“They want to bleach you, whiten you,” he added, “because there’s a fear that you’ll scare people off.”

In the Australian political system, the displacement of a local candidate by a higher-ranking party insider is not unusual. Mr. Morrison was chosen to run for a seat in 2007 after a more popular Lebanese Australian candidate, Michael Towke, said he was forced to withdraw by leaders of the center-right Liberal Party.

Ms. Keneally moved to the safe Labor seat, with the backing of party leaders, because she was in danger of losing her current seat. Her backers also note that she has been endorsed by a handful of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Middle Eastern community leaders.

Joseph Haweil, 32, the mayor of a municipality in Melbourne and a Labor Party member, said that as a political aspirant from a refugee background, he saw in the controversy over Ms. Le a glimpse of his possible future. Mr. Haweil is Assyrian, a minority group from the Middle East.

“You can spend years and years doing the groundwork, the most important thing in politics — assisting local communities, understanding your local community with a view to help them as a public policy maker — and that’s not still enough to get you over the line,” he said.

Osmond Chiu, 34, a party member who is Chinese Australian, said “the message it sent was that culturally diverse representation is an afterthought in Labor, and it will always be sacrificed whenever it is politically inconvenient.”

Ms. Le spoke out in a way that others in the past have avoided, perhaps to preserve future political opportunities. She said that she was uncertain what she would do next, but that she hoped political parties would now think twice before making a decision like the one that shut her out.

“It’s definitely tapped into something quite uncomfortable to discuss, but I think it needs to be out in the open,” she said. “I don’t think people will stand for it anymore.”

Source: A Sea of White Faces in Australia’s ‘Party of Multiculturalism’

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , ,

We speak a lot of languages in Canada — elections should reflect our diversity

2021/10/07 Leave a comment

How significant a barrier are official languages on ballots? Any evidence-based studies?

According to the 2011 census, almost 213,500 people reported an Indigenous mother tongue, including 144,000 who speak an Algonquian language and 35,500 who speak an Inuit language. All Indigenous languages are the languages of this land.

In the same 2011 census, more than 20 per cent of Canadians (6.8 million people) reported a mother tongue other than English or French. At home, more than a million Canadians reported speaking a variant of Chinese, and six other languages (Punjabi, Spanish, Italian, German, Tagalog and Arabic) were each spoken by some 400,000 to 500,000 Canadians. 

The census revealed more than 200 languages spoken by Canadians as a home language or a mother tongue, with 20 languages each numbering over 100,000 speakers.

These “immigrant” languages are also the languages of Canadians, along with the two official languages — English and French (which are also immigrant languages). With some 350,000 new immigrants arriving to Canada each year and numbers rising, the variety and number of non-official minority language speakers are constantly increasing.

Canada has taken the first steps towards the linguistic accommodation of its minority citizens. During the 2019 federal election, Elections Canada developed and offered to voters two publications — the Guide to the Federal Election and the Voter ID info sheet — in more than 30 minority languages and 16 Indigenous languages. 

The Canada Elections Act also specifies that electors may contact electoral returning officers if they require a language or sign-language interpreter. The aim is to facilitate greater participation of all citizens in the fundamental democratic process.

Discretionary accommodation measures

Canada’s 2019 Indigenous Languages Act states that a federal institution (like Elections Canada) may provide access to services in an Indigenous language. It may also translate a document into an Indigenous language, or provide for interpretation services to facilitate the use of an Indigenous language in the course of the federal institution’s activities. 

However, these otherwise progressive provisions do not mandate linguistic accommodation, meaning these measures are discretionary and not guaranteed.

Electoral rights are universally recognized as among the most fundamental of civil and political rights. They are the hallmark of democracy. Barriers to their exercise and enjoyment — including linguistic barriers — are a human rights and equality issue.

The law and its practice in the United States are instructive. The language minority provisions of the U.S. Voting Rights Act state:

“Whenever any state or political subdivision provides registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall provide them in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language.” 

These provisions apply to situations where more than 10,000 people, or five per cent of the total voting-age citizens in a single political jurisdiction, are members of a single language minority group, have depressed literacy rates or don’t speak English sufficiently well in order to exercise their electoral participation rights.

During the November 2020 elections, voters in California were able to request ballots in widely spoken languages like Arabic, Armenian, Hmong, Korean, Persian, Spanish and Tagalog. 

In Harris County in Texas (home to America’s fourth largest city, Houston) the ballot was printed in four languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese.

In Cook County (home to Chicago, America’s third-largest city), where over one-third of residents speak a language other than English at home, elections-related information and fully translated ballots were provided to the voters during the November 2020 elections in 12 languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog, Arabic, Gujarati, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Urdu.

The UN urges accommodation

International human rights standards under the United Nations system and within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which Canada is part, urge the accommodation of linguistic minorities.

Most notable provisions can be found in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 2001 OSCE Guidelines to Assist National Minority Participation in the Electoral Process and the 2017 handbook Language Rights of Linguistic Minorities by the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues. 

Similar provisions on political participation of Indigenous peoples can be derived from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), brought into Canadian law this year through Bill C-15.

To be more inclusive and rights-based, Canada needs to fully embrace linguistic diversity for its elections. Greater use of Indigenous and minority languages will enhance the quality of Canada’s elections in line with international norms and standards.

This will certainly resonate well with current pledges of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and with Canada’s Inuktitut-speaking new governor general, Mary Simon. 

As a multicultural, plurilingual and well-heeled country, Canada can do better to accommodate and facilitate the fuller participation of citizens in our elections. In so doing, we can offer a leading example to the world.

Source: https://theconversationcanada.cmail19.com/t/r-l-tryhljdk-kyldjlthkt-f/

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →