Staley: The idea of equity deserves to die

2026/02/13 Leave a comment

While I remain critical of the role of these envoys and believe that Amira Elghawaby’s activist background was not helpful compared to the more professional approach of Deborah Lyons (activists obviously disagree), this criticism is over the top. And not even mentioning her name?

And greater equity, not just equality, should be the objective, but without some of the excesses of previous and current policies:

Mercifully and at long last, the corrosive movement of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity) seems to be dying in Canadian public life.

Last week, the federal government announced the elimination of the Special Representative for Combatting Islamophobia, along with the federal office for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, which had sat vacant since its last special envoy, Deborah Lyons, left the role last July. Both positions are to be replaced by a new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion.

To be clear, it is more likely than not that the new advisory council becomes an unproductive mess, and the government is clearly not doing enough to combat antisemitism in particular. Ottawa has never lacked for panels that generate language rather than outcomes. Still, despite that likelihood, there are reasons for optimism.

The first is that the former Special Representative for Combatting Islamophobia had become emblematic of the Liberal government’s equivocal moral relativism when it came to tackling the surge in antisemitic hate post-October 7th. Rather than acknowledge that reality, the Trudeau government appointed a provocateur who consistently downplayed antisemitic incidents, advocated for harsher criticism by the government against Jewish organizations, and advocated for radical and corrosive “anti-Palestinian racism” training….

She was a divisive and corrosive figure whom Canadian taxpayers should never have been footing the bill for.

The second reason for optimism lies in the government’s quiet replacement of the term “equity” in its new advisory council with the older, more conventional “equality.”

Equity is not an extension of equality, but rather a perversion of it.

For centuries, democratic and pluralistic societies moved haltingly toward a simple moral standard. That people should be judged as individuals. The law should be blind to race, religion, and background. Citizens should rise or fall based on the content of their character rather than the circumstances of their birth.

Equity inverted that standard.

Under equity, individuals were reclassified as representatives of groups. Moral judgment shifted from conduct to identity. Group grievance replaced personal responsibility. Group blame replaced individual guilt. The very idea of a shared civic identity gave way to a system of competing moral claims, mediated by mobs of activists, and increasingly, by the state.

The Islamophobia file crystallized this inversion. One form of prejudice was elevated into a bespoke federal portfolio, while others were absorbed into broader categories or left to existing law. The distinction was never coherently justified. Its effect was to teach Canadians that equality before the law was no longer the governing principle.1

The removal of the Islamophobia envoy matters because it signals a retreat from that model, and the elimination of one of the most prominent and corrosive examples of moral relativism of the Trudeau era.

The new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion may disappoint. It may produce vague language, cautious recommendations, or even foster more division. But the symbolic shift away from equity, and away from offices designed to institutionalize group grievance, still matters.

DIE is ending because it reversed the moral logic of liberal democracy and, in so doing, exhausted its credibility.

Bad ideas rarely die the public death they deserve. They simply stop being defended, then stop being funded, then stop being mentioned.

That, for now, is progress.

Source: The idea of equity deserves to die

Filed under Multiculturalism

Lederman: Now is a bad time for Canada to ditch its antisemitism and Islamophobia envoys

2026/02/12 2 Comments

Yet another commentary arguing for keeping the envoys. Still remain to be convinced that envoys will be any more effective than the council, apart from providing some comfort to affected groups:

…Why not keep these envoys and have them report to the council? 

Granted, the status quo wasn’t working. And it’s fair to question why a government assigns these roles to only specific groups. Why not for Black people – who are the most targeted for hate crimes in Canada – or Indigenous people, or LGBTQ+ folks?

But the way hatred aimed at Jews is being accepted, mainstreamed or shrugged off these days, all around the world, is astounding. 

Canadians are fortunate to have a government that cares enough about discrimination to create this council. But this is crisis time for the Jewish and Muslim communities. Specially designed roles are required, with strong people in them willing to take on all that hate; I don’t know how Ms. Lyons did it, or how Ms. Elghawaby has been doing it. Kudos to them both, and to Mr. Cotler.

It is imperative that the voices representing these communities do not get drowned out, watered down, or disqualified in a council dealing with what shouldn’t be, but sadly and certainly at times will be, opposing concerns.

Source: Now is a bad time for Canada to ditch its antisemitism and Islamophobia envoys

Former Minister and envoy Cotler:

…Mr. Cotler, founder and international chair of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights non-profit, and Canada’s first antisemitism envoy between 2020 and 2023, said the government’s decision to abolish his former post was “however well intentioned …. uninformed, ill-advised and prejudicial, both to its mandates of preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism.”

He said the decision had been made “precisely at a time when we are witnessing an unprecedented global explosion of antisemitism, including here in Canada, and rising levels of Holocaust denial, distortion, minimization and inversion.”

Mr. Cotler said in a statement that the new advisory council on rights, equality and inclusion, while valuable, will be no replacement for the envoy role. 

“From my experience, such a council, while necessary to combat all forms of hate, tends to marginalize or erase the singularity of anti-Jewish hatred, its globality, and its descent into standing threats of intimidation, harassment, violence and even terrorism,” he said. “This decision will end up, however inadvertently, making Jews in Canada less safe, and feeling less safe.” 

The new advisory council will be overseen by Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller, and it is not known if Ms. Elghawaby, the Islamophobia envoy who still had several months left on her term, will be a member. …

Source: Former antisemitism envoy warns abolition of the post could make Canadian Jews less safe

From former head of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation:

…This is not about privileging one community over another. It is about protecting the integrity of Canada’s human rights framework. Antisemitism remains the oldest and most persistent hatred in Western history. Islamophobia has intensified in recent decades and has proved deadly in Canada. Treating these realities as interchangeable risks responding inadequately to both.

Unity is not built by flattening differences or avoiding difficult truths. It is built through recognition, accountability and trust. Communities facing rising hatred are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for visible leadership, institutional commitment and meaningful consultation. When decisions affecting them are made without that engagement, trust erodes — and trust is far harder to rebuild than institutions.

Canada does not face a choice between unity and effectiveness. It can pursue both. But doing so requires clarity, not consolidation. Dedicated offices with clear mandates, stable funding and public accountability should be strengthened, not dissolved. Advisory bodies should support this work, not replace it.

As we remember the victims of the Quebec City mosque attack and reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust, the minister of Canadian Identity and Culture should reconsider this decision. Combating hatred is not a matter of administrative efficiency. One size does not fit all.

Source: Opinion: Let’s not dilute antisemitism and Islamophobia

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Renforcement de la laïcité: Le Barreau propose d’encadrer l’usage de la disposition de dérogation

2026/02/11 Leave a comment

Of note, good to see this pushback. But we will see whether the current or future Quebec governments would support a framework that would limit their action:

Dans un mémoire qui a été soumis lundi aux députés chargés d’étudier le projet de loi 9 sur le renforcement de la laïcité, l’ordre professionnel des avocats – dont la mission est la protection du public et la défense de la primauté du droit – note que le gouvernement de François Legault utilise la disposition de dérogation (aussi nommée la clause de souveraineté parlementaire ou clause nonobstant) pour une sixième fois.

“Le contexte mondial est actuellement marqué par une érosion préoccupante de l’état de droit. La réponse la plus robuste à une telle tendance ne doit pas provoquer l’affaiblissement des mécanismes de justification, de contrôle et de reddition de comptes, mais bien les renforcer. Une démocratie solide se reconnaît à l’obligation que se donne une société de respecter les règles qui la fondent.” Le Barreau du Québec

L’ordre professionnel rappelle que la disposition de dérogation était au départ un « compromis politique historique » dans le cadre du rapatriement de la constitution, en 1982. Or, si son utilisation devait être exceptionnelle, elle a été normalisée au cours des dernières années au Québec, notamment en matière de laïcité et de protection du français. Ottawa a déjà annoncé qu’il s’attardera à la question de son utilisation de façon préventive par le gouvernement québécois dans le cadre de la contestation de la loi 21 sur la laïcité qui sera entendue devant la Cour suprême au mois de mars.

« De mécanisme d’exception destiné à répondre à des situations particulières, la disposition de dérogation est devenue un outil de sécurisation politique mobilisé en amont de la contestation judiciaire et au détriment du dialogue constitutionnel », déplore pour sa part le Barreau.

Une loi-cadre « résolument québécoise »

Dans ce contexte, le Barreau du Québec propose au gouvernement d’adopter une loi-cadre pour assurer une « juste utilisation » de la disposition de dérogation. « Une telle solution sera rassembleuse, sécurisante sur le plan juridique, structurante sur le plan institutionnel, et résolument québécoise », estime l’ordre professionnel.

Une telle loi devrait comporter différents éléments pour assurer « le maintien d’un dialogue réel et soutenu entre le législateur et les tribunaux, tout en réaffirmant sans ambiguïté la souveraineté parlementaire du Québec ». Parmi ces éléments, le Barreau estime qu’il faudrait établir des « conditions strictes » à son recours, l’obligation pour le gouvernement d’expliquer les raisons qui justifient son utilisation, de consulter la société civile et de garantir un débat parlementaire sur la question.

Le Barreau suggère également qu’un seuil supérieur à la majorité simple des députés devrait être requis pour utiliser la disposition de dérogation (afin que la démarche soit transpartisane) et qu’un renvoi vers la Cour d’appel (le plus haut tribunal de la province) soit requis pour obtenir un avis sur la question, sans que celui-ci soit de nature à limiter la souveraineté parlementaire….

Source: Renforcement de la laïcité: Le Barreau propose d’encadrer l’usage de la disposition de dérogation

In a brief that was submitted on Monday to the deputies responsible for studying Bill 9 on the strengthening of secularism, the professional order of lawyers – whose mission is the protection of the public and the defense of the primacy of law – notes that the government of François Legault is using the derogation provision (also called the clause of parliamentary sovereignty or clause notwithstanding) for a sixth time.

“The global context is currently marked by a worrying erosion of the rule of law. The most robust response to such a trend should not cause the mechanisms of justification, control and accountability to weaken, but rather strengthen them. A solid democracy is recognized by the obligation that a society gives itself to respect the rules that base it.” The Quebec Bar

The professional order recalls that the derogation provision was initially a “historic political compromise” in the context of the repatriation of the constitution in 1982. However, if its use were to be exceptional, it has been standardized in recent years in Quebec, especially in terms of secularism and the protection of French. Ottawa has already announced that it will dwell on the issue of its preventive use by the Quebec government in the context of the challenge of Bill 21 on secularism that will be heard before the Supreme Court in March.

“From an exceptional mechanism intended to respond to particular situations, the derogation provision has become a tool for political security mobilized upstream of the judicial challenge and to the detriment of constitutional dialogue,” laments the Bar for its part.

A “resolutely Quebec” framework law

In this context, the Barreau du Québec proposes to the government to adopt a framework law to ensure a “fair use” of the derogation provision. “Such a solution will be unifying, legally secure, institutionally structuring, and resolutely Quebec,” believes the professional order.

Such a law should include different elements to ensure “the maintenance of a real and sustained dialogue between the legislator and the courts, while unambiguously reaffirming the parliamentary sovereignty of Quebec”. Among these elements, the Bar believes that “strict conditions” should be established for its appeal, the obligation for the government to explain the reasons that justify its use, to consult civil society and to guarantee a parliamentary debate on the issue.

The Bar also suggests that a threshold higher than the simple majority of MPs should be required to use the derogation provision (so that the approach is cross-party) and that a referral to the Court of Appeal (the highest court in the province) be required to obtain an opinion on the matter, without this being likely to limit parliamentary sovereignty.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Interculturalisme Tagged with , , ,

Kutty | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

As I wrote some four years ago, don’t believe these envoys facilitate integration and greater mutual understanding as they tend to be advocates for particular group: Racism and the need for a national integration commission:

…In practical terms, Ottawa’s legitimacy on this issue will now depend on what happens next.

Who will sit on the new council? Will Muslim and Jewish leaders be adequately represented? Will the council have independence and influence? Will its recommendations shape legislation, policing, education, and online regulation? Will ministers remain directly accessible to affected communities?

Racism and religious discrimination are not interchangeable phenomena. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and anti-Indigenous racism each have distinct histories and dynamics. Treating them as generic “hate” risks flattening those differences. At the same time, siloed responses can obscure shared structural causes such as economic precarity, digital radicalization, and political scapegoating.

The government must now demonstrate — through appointments, funding, transparency, and sustained engagement — that it is not retreating from the fight against Islamophobia and antisemitism, but reorganizing it in good faith.

Community organizations are right to remain vigilant. Monitoring, advocacy, and constructive pressure are not signs of disloyalty. They are essential features of democratic accountability.

This moment should not be framed as a simple victory or betrayal. It is better understood as a test.

A test of whether Ottawa can move from symbolic politics to durable partnerships. A test of whether institutional reform will deepen or dilute accountability. And a test of whether trust — so painstakingly built over years — will be reinforced or quietly eroded.

The answer will not be found in press releases. It will be found in practice.

Source: Opinion | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

HESA: Merit Wars

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

.To watch:

..…The question is: how is the Ford Government going to approach all of this?


As near as I can tell, it has four options.

It can take stock of the full variety of pathways and adjudication of merit and say “eh, this is all too complicated/post-secondary institutes are doing a decent job”. It should go without saying that this is almost certainly the least likely outcome.

It can leave contextualized admissions alone but try to limit the practice of special pathways for Indigenous, racialized or otherwise underserved students. That is, it might give a pass to programs where 10-20% of places are reserved for certain underserved groups, but at the same time say “75% in reserved pathways (as TMU proposes) is too much”. I suspect this is the likeliest option.

It can leave contextualized admissions alone but eliminate pathways entirely. This would mean eliminating things like the U of T’s Indigenous Student Application Program and many other programs like it. My read of Conservatives’ views on this is that they tend to be warier of Indigeneity initiatives than they are of critiquing EDI as a whole, seeing more justice in the claims advanced by Indigenous communities than they do for Black ones (for instance). I think this is less likely than option 2 but would not rule it out.

It could seek to eliminate both pathways and contextualized admissions and tell institutions that the only thing they should use is high school grades.  

That last one might sound radical, but pay attention to what the Ford government has been doing in secondary schools, and in particular the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), which runs a large number of schools which were formerly selective (e.g. Schools of the Arts, Special STEM focus schools, International Baccalaureates, etc.). The selectivity process, naturally, was criticized because marks are often correlated with family income, and so 3 years ago, at the peak of the EDI wave, the TDSB decided to abandon selections and make all these schools lottery-based, which in theory at least would make access to these programs more equitable.

I have no idea whether this policy met its goal or not; to my knowledge there has not been a publicly released study on this. But it caused a number of people to freak out. Accusations of penalizing students who worked hard, of “devaluing merit” began to circulate. And there was some force to those arguments, particularly (IMHO) for elite Fine Arts programs where students no longer had to submit portfolios as evidence of talent/interest, which I think is a bit odd. I have never seen any surveys about this issue, but my guess is that it rankled particularly hard among parents in the entitled upper-middle class and aspirational Chinese families, since these are the groups that tend to do best in a “marks-only” system (for more on how Chinese parents view contextual ideas of merit, do listen to my podcast interview with Ruixue Jia, co-author of The Highest Exam from last fall).

And so, Ford government to the rescue! The government instructed the TDSB to ditch the policy, to loud applause from Trustee Weidong Pei, who gained office campaigning against lotteries. Replacing the lottery system? Well, according to the TDSB “Applicants will be seated based on their overall applicant score; a combination of select report card marks connected to their program of choice and an evaluated demonstration of knowledge and skills”, which sounds a lot like the previous marks-only based system, with all the class-and culture-based biases that brings. 

In other words, if the TDSB’s experience is anything to go by, the Ford government will go straight to option 4. And if that happens, it will be a seriously contentious affair since almost certainly it will mean a big reduction in students from underserved groups getting into high-demand programs. 

Now, none of this is going to happen in this admissions cycle (at least I bloody hope not). The likeliest scenario is that the government makes a move in the spring or summer, in order to put new rules in place – whatever those rules end up being – in place for the fall 2027 admissions cycle. So, we have a few months left before the wars start. But when they start, it won’t be pretty.

Source: Merit Wars

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

“Les parents de Jack Letts, détenu en Syrie, veulent revoir leur fils”

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

Seeing less coverage in English language media than in previous years. Parental nightmare:

“En 2019, en raison du risque qu’il poserait à la sécurité du pays, Jack, qui est né et qui a grandi au Royaume-Uni, s’est fait déchoir de sa citoyenneté britannique. Il ne lui reste que sa citoyenneté canadienne, obtenue par filiation. À l’époque, Ottawa avait déploré que Downing Street se soit « déchargé de ses responsabilités ».

Depuis, le gouvernement canadien refuse de rapatrier Jack, comme tous les autres ressortissants canadiens soupçonnés d’avoir combattu avec Daech. En 2023, la Cour d’appel fédérale avait donné raison à Ottawa en précisant qu’il n’existait pas de « droit absolu » permettant de contraindre l’État à rapatrier ses citoyens afin de « les soustraire aux répercussions de leurs actions ».

Sally Lane espère qu’Ottawa révisera sa position à la lumière des récents développements. Si Jack est traduit en justice en Irak, il risque de subir un procès expéditif et partial, pourrait être contraint de passer aux aveux sous la torture et être condamné à la peine de mort, craignent ses parents.

“« Les abus du système judiciaire en Irak sont bien connus », mentionne Mme Lane. « J’espère que l’attention médiatique va réellement forcer le gouvernement canadien à agir [en le rapatriant], ce qu’il a refusé de faire jusqu’à présent. » Jack pourrait ensuite subir un procès ici, soutient John Letts.

Depuis des années, les autorités kurdes et états-uniennes réclament que les détenus étrangers retournent dans leurs pays d’origine. « Je pense que les Américains utilisent ces transferts comme une technique de rapatriement sous haute pression. C’est la manière qu’ils ont trouvée pour forcer les pays réticents à rapatrier leurs ressortissants », confie Mme Lane.”

“Extrémisme
Les parents de Jack — qui n’ont pas pu parler à leur fils depuis 2017 — se disent tous deux convaincus de son innocence. Jack, qui s’était converti à l’islam à 16 ans et qui s’est rendu en Syrie à 18 ans, s’est fait arrêter parce qu’il se trouvait dans le territoire contrôlé par Daech, clament-ils.



« Ce n’est pas parce que vous travaillez ou vivez dans l’espace géographique contrôlé par Daech que vous êtes forcément membre de Daech », mentionne son père. Plusieurs médias, qui ont affublé leur fils du surnom de Jihadi Jack, l’ont toutefois dépeint comme un homme ayant été radicalisé.



Sally Lane et John Letts ont eux-mêmes dû faire face à la justice en 2019 pour avoir envoyé de l’argent à leur fils. Ils ont été jugés coupables d’un chef lié au financement du terrorisme, puisque l’argent envoyé aurait pu être utilisé par Daech, a statué le tribunal.”

Source: “Les parents de Jack Letts, détenu en Syrie, veulent revoir leur fils”

In 2019, due to the risk he would pose to the security of the country, Jack, who was born and raised in the United Kingdom, was deprived of his British citizenship. All he has left is his Canadian citizenship, obtained by filiation. At the time, Ottawa deplored that Downing Street had “discharged its responsibilities”.

Since then, the Canadian government has refused to repatriate Jack, like all other Canadian nationals suspected of fighting with Daesh. In 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Ottawa by specifying that there was no “absolute right” to force the State to repatriate its citizens in order to “subtract them from the repercussions of their actions”.

Sally Lane hopes that Ottawa will revise its position in light of recent developments. If Jack is brought to justice in Iraq, he risks an expedited and biased trial, could be forced to confess under torture and be sentenced to death, his parents fear.

“The abuses of the judicial system in Iraq are well known,” says Ms. Lane. “I hope that the media attention will really force the Canadian government to act [by repatriating it], which it has refused to do so far. “Jack could then face a trial here,” says John Letts. For years, the Kurdish and American authorities have been demanding that foreign prisoners return to their countries of origin. “I think Americans are using these transfers as a high-pressure repatriation technique. This is the way they have found to force reluctant countries to repatriate their nationals, “says Ms. Lane.”

“Extremism

Jack’s parents – who have not been able to talk to their son since 2017 – both say they are convinced of his innocence. Jack, who converted to Islam at the age of 16 and went to Syria at the age of 18, was arrested because he was in the territory controlled by Daesh, they claim.

“It is not because you work or live in the geographical area controlled by Daesh that you are necessarily a member of Daesh,” says his father. Several media outlets, which gave their son the nickname Jihadi Jack, however, portrayed him as a radicalized man.

Sally Lane and John Letts themselves had to face justice in 2019 for sending money to their son. They were found guilty of a charge related to the financing of terrorism, since the money sent could have been used by Daesh, the court ruled.”

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization Tagged with

USA: Colleges See Major Racial Shifts in Student Enrollment

2026/02/09 1 Comment

Of note:

The Supreme Court ruling in 2023 banning race-conscious college admissions led to declines in Black and Latino admissions at highly selective universities. At many other schools, the opposite occurred, according to a new analysis.

Overall, freshman enrollment of underrepresented minority groups increased by 8 percent at public flagship universities. The analysis, by a nonprofit organization, Class Action, concludes that those schools were among institutions that benefited as a result of higher rejection rates for Black and Hispanic students at the nation’s 50 most selective schools.

At those top 50 schools, Black freshman enrollment was down by 27 percent and Latino enrollment down by 10 percent.

The data from Class Action, which works to promote equity in education, was based on 2024 federal enrollment figures released in January covering more than 3,000 colleges and universities.

Data released publicly by a smaller number of schools have hinted that highly selective schools admitted fewer Black and Latino students following the Supreme Court decision, but the report was one of the first efforts to analyze the impact of the decision on enrollment demographics across a broad swath of the nation’s colleges.

While the data covers only freshman enrollment the first year after the Supreme Court decision went into effect, it bolsters the prediction by some education experts that the decision would create a chain of consequences. Highly qualified Black and Latino students, who might have been admitted to the Ivy League and other similar schools before the Supreme Court decision, enrolled in less-selective schools as a result of the decision, potentially leading to a “cascade” of less-qualified minority students enrolling in even less-selective institutions.

Some research suggests that the phenomenon, called a “cascade” effect and identified in California following a statewide ban on affirmative action in 1998, may have long-term effects on employment opportunities and earnings for the students who ended up in the least selective institutions.

The new report concludes that the Supreme Court decision reduced the number of students of color at institutions with the highest graduation rates and largest median incomes after graduation, a result that the authors said could lead to persistent racial inequities in income….

Source: Colleges See Major Racial Shifts in Student Enrollment

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Jamie Sarkonak: New Liberal ‘inclusion’ council heralds more division

2026/02/09 Leave a comment

Simplistic and overly biased. Better to bring different groups together than have ongoing separate envoys. Of course, selection of members is key, ideally one wants to find persons from the different groups that are not part of a particular advocacy organization but have visibility and credibility from the group. The Cross Cultural Round Table on Security under the Harper government was relatively useful as while some of the members were tied to specific groups, some were not:

….“It seems that the more reconciliation and diversity the government promotes, the more division we get. Nearly half of the country says it’s “time to move on” from residential schools. Half of Canadians are opposed to new immigration. Half of those born outside of Canada believe the country belongs to Indigenous people. Half of Canadians claim to have witnessed systemic racism. These are all stats from 2025. And then, there’s the general vibe: conversations and comments sections seem to be more racially charged than ever.

The Liberal response to the overdose crisis was to give more drugs to addicts, and it left everyone worse off. On social cohesion, they’re doing something similar: put everyone into boxes and make up reasons to treat some of them better than others, and then wonder how society got so divided.

The answer, which Miller’s committee is unlikely to arrive at, is to drop the agenda of discrimination and start promoting Canadian history — not the abridged version that only focuses on dark parts, enclaves, and the legal victories of progressives. If you want Canadians to feel like they are one people, you need to treat them like it.”

Source: “Jamie Sarkonak: New Liberal ‘inclusion’ council heralds more division”

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

L’interdiction des signes religieux affecte l’implication des parents dans les écoles alternatives

2026/02/06 Leave a comment

Reminder of the collateral damage related to laïcité:

L’interdiction de porter un signe religieux, imposée au personnel scolaire, risque de faire particulièrement mal aux écoles alternatives du Québec, puisque cette directive s’applique aussi aux bénévoles, a appris Le Devoir. C’est que, dans ces établissements, l’implication des parents dans la classe de leurs enfants est obligatoire.

Le 30 octobre dernier, le gouvernement Legault a fait adopter son projet de loi 94, qui visait à renforcer la laïcité dans le réseau scolaire québécois. Depuis, les élèves doivent fréquenter leur école à visage découvert, tout comme l’essentiel du personnel scolaire. Il est par ailleurs interdit aux employés de porter un signe religieux. Une directive qui s’étend « à toute personne qui fournit régulièrement des services » entre les murs d’une école, peu importe leur nature, ou encore qui fournit « des services aux élèves », même de façon ponctuelle et gratuite.

« Ainsi, pour fournir bénévolement des services dans l’école de son enfant dans l’une ou l’autre des situations qui précèdent, le parent doit respecter l’interdiction de port de signe religieux », confirme le ministère de l’Éducation, dans un courriel au Devoir. Une clause de droits acquis s’applique cependant aux parents qui fournissaient déjà bénévolement des services dans l’école de leur enfant avant le 30 octobre 2025, « sauf si l’entente en vertu de laquelle ces services sont offerts est renouvelée après cette date ». Ils devront alors retirer leur signe religieux ou cesser de s’impliquer dans leur école.

Dans de nombreux établissements, cette décision pourrait complexifier le travail du personnel scolaire, comme des directions d’école, la présence de parents bénévoles pour aider au rangement des livres dans les bibliothèques ou pour accompagner des enseignants lors de sorties scolaires permettant d’alléger, quelque peu, les effets de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre, évoquent plusieurs intervenants au Devoir.

« Discrimination par association »

Cependant, c’est dans les écoles alternatives — dont le nombre, en augmentation, approche la cinquantaine au Québec — que cette interdiction pourrait avoir le plus de répercussions. Car, dans ces établissements, l’implication bénévole des parents d’élèves, directement dans la classe de ces derniers, est obligatoire. Certaines écoles demandent d’ailleurs un nombre d’heures minimales d’implication bénévole aux parents.

Ainsi, si un parent ne peut plus s’impliquer dans une école alternative parce qu’il porte un signe religieux, « son enfant ne peut plus aller à cette école-là », relève le porte-parole du Regroupement des comités de parents autonomes du Québec, Sylvain Martel. « On va arriver à exclure des enfants de leur école en raison des croyances religieuses de leurs parents », déplore M. Martel, qui voit là « une sorte de discrimination par association ».

Une situation que dénonce le porte-parole du Réseau des écoles publiques alternatives du Québec, Pierre Chénier, qui a été mis au fait de cette situation par Le Devoir.

« Je trouve ça vraiment déraisonnable », lance-t-il, déplorant que cette interdiction vise ainsi des parents motivés par leur « bonne volonté » et leur « désir d’aider ». « Vraiment, je n’en reviens pas », poursuit M. Chénier. Selon lui, cette directive menace de « faire disparaître le modèle » unique des écoles alternatives, qui cherche « l’inclusion plutôt que l’exclusion ». 

Source: L’interdiction des signes religieux affecte l’implication des parents dans les écoles alternatives

The ban on wearing a religious sign, imposed on school staff, may particularly harm alternative schools in Quebec, since this directive also applies to volunteers, Le Devoir learned. It is because, in these institutions, the involvement of parents in their children’s class is mandatory.

On October 30, the Legault government passed its Bill 94, which aimed to strengthen secularism in the Quebec school network. Since then, students have had to attend their school with their faces uncovered, just like most of the school staff. Employees are also prohibited from wearing a religious sign. A directive that extends “to anyone who regularly provides services” within the walls of a school, regardless of their nature, or who provides “services to students”, even on an ad hoc and free of charge.

“Thus, to voluntarily provide services in his child’s school in any of the above situations, the parent must respect the prohibition of wearing a religious sign,” confirms the Ministry of Education, in an email to Le Devoir. However, an acquired rights clause applies to parents who were already voluntarily providing services in their child’s school before October 30, 2025, “unless the agreement under which these services are offered is renewed after that date”. They will then have to withdraw their religious sign or stop getting involved in their school.

In many schools, this decision could complicate the work of school staff, such as school principals, the presence of volunteer parents to help store books in libraries or to accompany teachers on school outings to lighten somewhat the effects of the labor shortage, say several speakers at Le Devoir.

“Discrimination by association”

However, it is in alternative schools — whose number, increasing, is approaching fifty in Quebec — that this ban could have the most repercussions. Because, in these institutions, the voluntary involvement of parents of students, directly in their classroom, is mandatory. Some schools also require a minimum number of hours of volunteer involvement from parents.

Thus, if a parent can no longer get involved in an alternative school because he wears a religious sign, “his child can no longer go to that school,” says Sylvain Martel, spokesman for the Regroupement des comités de parents autonomes du Québec. “We will be able to exclude children from their school because of the religious beliefs of their parents,” laments Mr. Martel, who sees this as “a kind of discrimination by association”.

A situation denounced by the spokesman for the Réseau des écoles publiques alternatives du Québec, Pierre Chénier, who was made aware of this situation by Le Devoir.

“I find it really unreasonable,” he says, deploring that this ban is aimed at parents motivated by their “good will” and their “desire to help”. “Really, I can’t believe it,” continues Mr. Chenier. According to him, this directive threatens to “make the unique model” disappear from alternative schools, which seeks “inclusion rather than exclusion”.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

2026/02/05 2 Comments

Can’t claim credit but it has been something I have been advocating for some time, as separate envoys tend to accentuate differences:

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government said Wednesday that it is eliminating Canada’s special envoy positions on fighting Islamophobia and antisemitism.The positions, which Carney had pledged to keep when he ran for Liberal leadership, will be replaced by a new advisory council on “Rights, Equality and Inclusion,” Culture and Identity Minister Marc Miller said in a news release.

“The Advisory Council will be comprised of prominent Canadians from academia, experts and community leaders with a mission to foster social cohesion, rally Canadians around shared identity, combat racism and hate in all their forms, and help guide the efforts of the Government of Canada,” Miller said, without immediately announcing its membership.

First reported by the Star, the move comes as the Liberal government had been looking to fill the special envoy position on combating antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance after former representative Deborah Lyons retired in July, several months before her term was set to end.

Speaking to reporters following a Liberal caucus meeting, Miller said the new council will address rising polarization and division coming in part due to the war in Gaza, but will still recognize the “specificities” of Islamophobia and antisemitism.

“I think we have to give the opportunity to people to be upset,” Miller said. “I think the focus here, though, is to make sure that we are focusing on the unity of the country, on the division that we know is there that’s been fuelled by a lot of things, and making sure that we have a group of experts that will focus precisely on trying to bring people together.” …

Source: Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →