Sarwal: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Similar commentary could apply to Canada:

In response to Nick Cater’s recent Sky News op-ed on the Bankstown Hospital anti-Semitic outbursts, I feel compelled to address a common misconception about Australia’s multicultural experiment. While Cater rightfully condemns the vile actions of the nurses involved, his assertion that the entire Australian multicultural model is failing misses a crucial point.

Cater’s article highlights the deeply disturbing incident in which two nurses were caught on video making anti-Semitic remarks. It is, without question, a chilling example of hate and prejudice that has no place in any society, least of all in a country like Australia that prides itself on tolerance and diversity. However, Cater’s conclusion that this event signals the failure of Australia’s multiculturalism oversimplifies a far more complex issue.

While these nurses’ actions were reprehensible, the underlying issue is not the multicultural model itself, but rather the harmful ideologies that certain migrant groups may bring with them. Cater himself notes that “the demoralising conclusion from this incident is that hatred of Israelis is unremarkable in Bankstown and in the suburbs where Nadir and Abu Lebdeh live.” This, however, is not indicative of the failure of Australian multiculturalism as a whole. Instead, it exposes the reality that there are pockets of isolation where radical and extremist views take hold. These communities, driven by political, social, or religious ideologies, often fail to fully engage with mainstream Australian values. This does not mean that multiculturalism is inherently flawed—it simply highlights that certain groups may resist assimilation or integration into the broader social and cultural fabric of the nation.

Cater’s article points to the existence of “Ethnoburgs”—areas where ethnic communities live in relative isolation from the rest of society and, as he suggests, may be more susceptible to radical ideas. These communities may struggle with the integration process for various reasons, whether due to language barriers, limited economic opportunities, or entrenched cultural beliefs. It is important to recognise that such challenges are not exclusive to any one ethnic or religious group. Every migrant community faces its own struggles in adjusting to life in a new country. However, the focus should not solely be on these challenges but also on the solutions that encourage better integration and shared understanding.

The key issue at hand is not multiculturalism itself but the failure of some individuals or groups to embrace the fundamental values of Australian society—values that prioritise equality, respect, and non-violence. As Cater rightly points out, “Australian citizenship is not just a flag of convenience. It is an obligation to put our shared identity as Australians first.” The challenge is ensuring that all migrants, regardless of background, understand that the key to a successful Australian society lies in mutual respect, coexistence, and commitment to the shared ideals that unite us as citizens.

It’s crucial to remember that multiculturalism has been an overall success in Australia. The vast majority of migrants who arrive here do so with a genuine desire to build better lives for themselves and their families while embracing the core values of this nation.

Multiculturalism in Australia thrives because the majority of migrants and their descendants understand that diversity does not mean division but the enrichment of society. We should not allow the actions of a few individuals or communities who have failed to adapt to sour our perception of the broader multicultural project.

Moreover, it’s important to acknowledge that not all migrant groups face the same struggles. As Cater mentions, “Pakistani migrants are not at war with Indians, and Serbian and Croatians no longer fight proxy wars in the grandstands at soccer games.” Similarly, it is wrong to generalise or scapegoat entire communities based on the actions of a few. Just as past waves of migrants—such as the Irish and Italians—integrated into Australian society and contributed to the country’s cultural fabric, so too will those from more recent migrant communities, provided we offer them the right support and opportunities.

In fact, Indian-Australians are one of the fastest-growing and most vibrant communities in Australia, contributing significantly to the country’s cultural, economic, and social landscape. They are among the highest taxpayers in Australia, particularly within the skilled migration sectors, as many in the community work in high-paying professions such as healthcare, information technology, engineering, and finance. Despite occasional challenges such as racial discrimination, Indian-Australians continue to thrive, making significant contributions to Australian society.

That said, when extreme ideologies take root within any community, the responsibility falls on both the government and society to address them head-on. This means confronting hate speech, educating about Australian values, and ensuring that radical ideologies are not allowed to fester unchecked. The incident at Bankstown should serve as a wake-up call not to abandon multiculturalism, but to double down on our efforts to create a more inclusive society where extremism has no place.

Australia’s multicultural identity has always been about more than just tolerance; it’s about actively embracing diversity and promoting inclusion. But for that to work, all members of our society must be willing to accept the underlying principles that make Australia the fair and just country it is. These principles demand mutual respect, a commitment to social harmony, and the understanding that, while our differences make us unique, we all share the responsibility to uphold the values that unite us.

The real threat to multiculturalism lies not in the model itself, but in the failure of some individuals and groups to integrate into it. It is not the diversity of cultures that threatens our social fabric, but the intolerance and extremism that, when left unchecked, undermine the very foundation of the Australian way of life.

Ultimately, the way forward is not to abandon the ideals of multiculturalism but to ensure that those who come to our shores are willing to adopt and uphold the values that make Australia the inclusive, tolerant, and prosperous society that it is. It’s time to confront these challenges directly, rather than dismissing the entire multicultural experiment based on the actions of a few.

Amit Sarwal is Melbourne-based academic, writer, translator, and former radio broadcaster. He is the Founding Convenor of Australia-India Interdisciplinary Research Network (AIIRN), Co-founder of the Australia Today news network and Founder of Kula Press.

Source: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Interesting study (similar studies could be conducted for other groups):

…Ultimately, the group’s best efforts identified about 380 Black Canadians who have run for or been elected to office, largely from the past two decades. Of those, 75 people ran federally, with former Progressive Conservative MP Lincoln Alexander’s 1968 election in Hamilton West, Ont., being the earliest such entry. But as the report highlights, Black Canadians have been involved in politics for more than 150 years, going back to Wilson Ruffin Abbott’s participation in local Toronto politics in the late 1840s and 1850s, and abolitionist and civil rights activist Abraham Doras Shadd’s election to Raleigh,Ont.’s town council in 1859.


“Part of the reason for focusing on compiling these lists and acknowledging who has run for office, and who has served is to help in that process of excavating that history and providing an archive of those contributions and those achievements to rewrite that historical record and to rewrite the narrative that Black Canadians haven’t had a long-standing and durable presence in Canadian politics,” said Tolley.
Still, Tolley stressed that the lists are not complete, and highlighted theironline call for people to submit information about individuals who may have been missed.


“That’s a really important part of the project because a lot of times in the country’s political history, Black Canadians really just don’t appear in those historical records,” she said.


Thirty-three Black Canadians who have run for or served in public office were interviewed for the project. On top of that, a survey was sent to 212 individuals across Canada, garnering 95 responses.


Survey respondents were split almost evenly by gender—with 52 per cent identifying as women,and 48 per cent as men—and 60 per cent had run for office within the past year. Of those surveyed, 45 per cent had been elected to office at some point.


The survey found a majority of respondents had run at the local level—for school boards, local or regional councils, or for mayor—while 19 per cent had run provincially, and 21 per cent federally. Local levels of government were also where a majority of respondents made their first run for office, with only 17 percent starting at the federal level.


Of the roughly 380 past candidates identified through research, a majority similarly ran or were elected at the local level, with 46 per cent of that poolhaving run for school boards or municipally, while 20 per cent ran federally.


Tolley said she suspects there’s an “element of accessibility” at play as local races don’t require the same “fundraising capacity and volunteer base that you might need to have at the federal and provincial level[s]”—two key hurdles highlighted through the survey. Tolley also noted that 52 percent of respondents cited a desire to address a policy problem as a factor that influenced them to run for office, and policy problems “might be … more evident” at the municipal level…

Source: New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

Filed under Multiculturalism, Peel, Politics Tagged with ,

Khan: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause 

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Unlikely to become an election issue, provincially or federally, but good points:

…Constitutional clauses that grant considerable powers can become destabilizing over time. Down south, the rule of law is being threatened by the rule of the presidential pardon. Here, we are morphing into the “True North, Strong and Free – Notwithstanding.”

We can reverse the trend through sustained public engagement. We must demand that our elected officials refrain from using the notwithstanding clause – and if they do use it, to not to do so pre-emptively. We must ensure that laws with the potential to harm basic freedoms are fully challenged in court in the light of day so that the public is fully aware.

We can also make it an election issue. As premier, Mr. Ford has threatened to use or has used the clause four times: in 2018, to reduce the size of Toronto’s municipal council; in 2021, to restrict third-party spending before an election; in 2022, to prevent education workers from negotiating or striking; and in 2024, to clear homeless encampments. If he truly cares about fairness for all Ontarians, make him pledge not to use this threat again. Other provincial and federal leaders should also be challenged on their views on the clause.

During this period of intense patriotism, let’s define who we are: a generous, centrist people who believe in fairness. Especially when it comes to our basic freedoms.

Source: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Of interest. Not quite Gillead but alarming nevertheless:

Amanda Tyler didn’t need President Donald Trump to tell her that Christian nationalism was on the rise. She had seen it reshape churches, rewrite textbooks and realign politics.

But when Trump took the podium last month for his second inaugural address, claiming divine intervention in the assassination attempt — “I was saved by God to make America great again” — she saw something even more unsettling.

The standing ovation.

It wasn’t just applause for a president. It was a moment of ecclesiastical fervor, a collective confirmation that America had not just an elected leader, but an anointed one.

Tyler, a lifelong Baptist and executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, was unsettled but unsurprised. She is leading a growing movement within Christianity that is resisting Christian nationalism — not from the outside, but from inside the church itself. “We’re disgusted to see our faith being used to justify discriminatory policies of all kinds,” Tyler said in an hour-long phone conversation.

A fight from within

Christian nationalism — the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed accordingly — has always been woven into the country’s DNA. But in recent years, it has moved from the margins to the mainstream, carried by Trump’s presidency and a base that sees his political survival as divinely ordained.

For decades, opposition to Christian nationalism came mostly from secular organizations, civil rights groups and religious minorities. Now, Christians themselves are leading the charge.

Across denominations — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even conservative evangelicals — a coalition of faith leaders is pushing back against a movement they believe is not just a political threat, but a theological one. They argue that Christian nationalism doesn’t just corrupt democracy — it corrupts Christianity.

Tyler’s campaign, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, has drawn over 40,000 signatories, many from churches that once considered themselves apolitical. Her position, she believes, carries unique weight. “Our Jewish and Muslim colleagues tell us, ‘You can speak with more authority on how Christian nationalism is not reflective of Christianity.’”

For Tyler, 47, the fight is also personal. She is married to a Jewish man, and together they are raising their son in an interfaith household. “I feel a different sense of vulnerability for them than I do for myself,” she said.

That vulnerability has been heightened by the growing push to codify Christian nationalist ideas into law. She has seen firsthand how Christian privilege manifests in ways that marginalize others. “It’s a form of othering,” she said, pointing to the fact that public schools close for Christian holidays but not for Jewish or Muslim ones.

Texas as a test case

The push to codify Christian nationalism into law is accelerating. Texas, where Tyler lives and fights these battles daily, has become a proving ground.

In 2021, the state passed a law requiring public schools to display donated “In God We Trust” posters. Two years later, lawmakers approved unlicensed religious chaplains to counsel students.

Now, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants to mandate the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a proposal modeled after a Louisiana law that has already been blocked in federal court. In Oklahoma, parents are suing the state superintendent — the son of a Christian minister — for ordering schools to teach the Bible.

Last fall, Tyler joined Jewish community leaders to challenge the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to infuse Bible lessons into subjects as varied as math and poetry with their Bluebonnet curriculum. The board approved Bluebonnet by a single vote.

Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has seen these battles escalate. “If the public school can play religious favorites,” he said, “then my tradition might benefit this week and be demonized next week.”

Chancey, a United Methodist who also works with Christians Against Christian Nationalism, added: “Christians differ theologically among themselves. The schools might not teach the Bible stories the way that parents would like.”

From the pulpit to the White House

The movement is no longer just shaping school curriculums — it is influencing federal priorities.

A 2023 poll found that 52% of Americans who attend religious services weekly either identify as Christian nationalists or sympathize with the movement; a separate survey the year before showed 45% think the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Now, with Trump’s return to power, those numbers aren’t just statistics — they are a governing blueprint.

The ideological framework for much of this agenda is detailed in Project 2025, a conservative guidebook that overlaps significantly with Christian nationalist priorities. It calls for aggressive immigration crackdowns, the rollback of LGBTQ+ rights, bans on abortion and pornography. These policies are designed to enshrine biblical principles and a particular moral order into law.

Several high-profile lawmakers have openly embraced Christian nationalism. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene wear the label proudly. House Speaker Mike Johnson promotes many of its tenets. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, sports tattoos inspired by the Christian Crusades — the medieval wars against Muslims.

Jesus as ‘political mascot’

The belief that America was divinely chosen has deep roots. Political leaders in the early 1800s mythologized the Founding Fathers as quasi-prophetic figures, with George Washington often recast as a Moses-like prophet. During the Cold War, as the United States sought to distinguish itself from the “godless” Soviet Union, Congress added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and declared “In God We Trust” the national motto.

But this moment feels different for Tyler. She believes Christian nationalism now poses an existential threat to American democracy itself. She argues that it undermines pluralism and twists religion into a tool of power. “It’s a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus,” she said. “Jesus was all about love — loving our neighbors, loving everyone without regard to difference. Christian nationalism takes Jesus and turns him into a political mascot.”

Despite being the dominant religious group in the country — 68% of Americans who identify with a religion are Christian, as have been all 45 U.S. presidents — Christian nationalists insist they are under attack as an embattled minority.

“It isn’t logically consistent,” Tyler said, exasperated. “One can’t both be a majority faith in the country and also be a persecuted minority.”

A test for religious freedom

Now, that belief in persecution is shaping federal policy. This month, Trump announced a new federal task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias,” led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Critics say the initiative is more about advancing Christian nationalism than protecting religious freedom.

“If Trump really cared about religious liberty,” said Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “he’d be addressing antisemitism in his inner circle, anti-Muslim bigotry, and hate crimes against religious minorities.”

Tyler, meanwhile, sees the political contradictions. “I’m concerned about how this task force could be weaponized to enforce a particular religious viewpoint by the government,” she said. She finds it hypocritical that this initiative is happening at the same time the administration is dismantling DEI offices, under the guise of eliminating bias.

A test of church and state separation

For many, opposing Christian nationalism is not just a political stance — it is a theological necessity. Tyler knows that many American Christians see no contradiction between their faith and politics. That’s why she tries to meet them with empathy.

“It’s important to resist and reject Christian nationalism as an ideology,” she said, “without demonizing individuals who hold to some of its principles.”

She sees her new book, How to End Christian Nationalism, as both an extension of her faith and a call to action. The founders, she argues, got it right. “The best arrangement, the arrangement that they chose, was to disestablish religion,” she said. “To be sure that the government would not take sides when it comes to picking between religions, or even picking religion over no religion.”

As Trump embarks on his second term, Tyler believes the next four years will test the strength of the separation of church and state. “I think all Americans, regardless of religious belief, should defend free speech and freedom of religion in these moments,” she said. “But also religious leaders and communities really need to have the courage to continue to speak from their traditions, including when it’s unpopular or challenging of power.”

Source: Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

Filed under Religion Tagged with , , , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec [laïcité in education]

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Legitimate concerns regarding Bedford and the influence of more fundamentalist Muslim educators:

L’école Bedford nous a offert un concentré des dangers qui guettent l’école québécoise : déni de laïcité, refus de l’égalité hommes-femmes, gouvernance scolaire anémiée, mépris des besoins particuliers de certains élèves et incompétence pédagogique. Ce quintette délétère est au cœur du plan d’action rendu public vendredi. Les experts Jean-Pierre Aubin et Malika Habel invitent le gouvernement Legault à faire de Bedford l’aiguillon d’une réforme qui dépasse les frontières de cette école prise en otage par un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine principalement maghrébine.

Leur ambition est justifiée. Un si grand mal ne saurait s’accommoder d’une réponse simpliste. Même s’il constitue un cas atypique tant par sa gravité que par son intensité, Bedford n’est pas un cas unique, comme en témoignent la poignée d’enquêtes ouvertes dans la foulée de la mise au jour du scandale, et alors que 11 de ses professeurs sont toujours en examen, avec plein salaire. Cela en fait au contraire le laboratoire idéal pour tester les limites des leviers prévus à la Loi sur l’instruction publique (LIP).

Si on arrive à Bedford à faire en sorte de clarifier une fois pour toutes la différence « entre discipline et violence », entre « bienveillance et laxisme », entre « difficultés d’apprentissage et paresse intellectuelle », comme le prescrivent les deux experts, c’est qu’on sera en mesure de faire de même partout au Québec. Qui s’élèverait contre cet objectif à l’heure où l’école connaît une telle crise de confiance ?

L’accent a été largement mis sur la proposition de soumettre l’ensemble des enseignants québécois à une évaluation de leurs compétences tous les deux ans. À raison, c’est l’épine dorsale de ce plan, qui cherche à rétablir les équilibres délicats entre la nécessaire préservation de l’autonomie professionnelle de l’enseignant et l’indispensable assurance de sa responsabilisation.

De telles évaluations sont courantes dans la plupart des milieux de travail. Pour les parents comme pour les élèves, cette mesure fait miroiter la promesse d’un programme enfin suivi à la lettre et d’un climat en classe conforme aux attentes. Pour les enseignants eux-mêmes, elle ouvre la porte à une uniformisation des pratiques professionnelles, ce qui évitera, par effet de domino, qu’une majorité ait à souffrir les guerres de chapelle que des groupes minoritaires voudraient leur imposer, comme ce fut le cas à Bedford.

Bien accueillie par le ministre de l’Éducation comme par le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, la mesure, et plus largement le plan d’action qui l’encourage, a suscité quelques réticences, notamment de la part de la Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), qui s’élève contre l’imposition généralisée de solutions forgées sur mesure pour Bedford. À ses yeux, les leviers législatifs existants sont suffisants pour superviser et évaluer adéquatement le travail des enseignants. Si cela n’a pas été fait à Bedford — et si ce n’est pas toujours fait ailleurs, comprend-on entre les lignes —, c’est « faute de temps et de ressources », argue la CSQ.

Il est vrai que la pénurie de personnel et les compressions dans les services aux élèves mettent en péril la qualité éducative du réseau. Le ministre de l’Éducation aurait tort de s’imaginer qu’il peut effacer ces facteurs fragilisants de l’équation. Mais ce que conclut le rapport d’enquête comme le plan d’action, c’est qu’il est aussi trop facile pour les directions d’écoles de passer outre aux leviers législatifs actuels, que ce soit par manque de temps, faute de conviction ou même sous la pression d’un corporatisme malavisé.

C’est pourquoi vouloir mettre les écoles à l’abri de dérives comme celles qui ont permis l’instauration d’un climat de peur et d’intimidation à Bedford passe par un dépoussiérage législatif, défendent les deux experts. Ceux-ci prescrivent notamment l’ajout d’une clarification des concepts de culture et de religion dans la loi. Partisans d’une ligne franche, ils recommandent d’y inscrire noir sur blanc que l’école doit être préservée de toute manifestation du fait religieux, pendant et après les classes. Ils suggèrent aussi d’évaluer la possibilité d’y intégrer l’obligation de parler français dans tous les espaces susceptibles d’être fréquentés par les élèves.

Ce faisant, le duo fait preuve d’une bonne dose de courage en affirmant sans détour ce que plusieurs, y compris des intervenants en éducation, se refusent à reconnaître. À savoir que les leviers prévus dans la LIP ne suffisent plus, dans le contexte explosif de 2025, à offrir aux élèves un milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire à l’abri de toute forme d’intimidation ou de violence.

Ce plan, qui s’accompagne d’un projet pilote pour en tester les grandes lignes, compte, en plus de ses impératifs législatifs costauds, des appétits financiers qui risquent de poser de grands défis au ministre. Bernard Drainville jongle déjà avec la « discipline » prescrite par le ministre des Finances pour affronter un contexte budgétaire jugé difficile, sinon sombre. Il ne faudrait pas que cette ligne dure ait le dessus sur un dépoussiérage dont on ne devrait pas faire l’économie pour les élèves du Québec.

Source: Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Krishnan | DEI was always flawed. It’s being replaced with something much worse

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

Valid comment:

…Personally, I would welcome a true meritocracy. I was raised mostly on a single income by immigrant parents who grew up extremely poor in Fiji. I went to an unknown college in Vancouver, and still made it to New York, won an Emmy, and currently hold an “extraordinary ability” work visa. I did all of that without the connections and wealth of many others at the top of the dying media industry. 

With the pushback against DEI, however, we’re not getting a meritocracy though, despite the rhetoric insisting we are. Rather it’s an obnoxious and defiant return to the old world order — with the added feature of obscene wealth. Something tells me when the powerful white billionaires now controlling the world run things into the ground they won’t be looking inward. DEI will be long gone, but their failures will still be everyone else’s fault.

Source: Opinion | DEI was always flawed. It’s being replaced with something much worse

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Kay: Explaining Canada’s Cult of ‘Decolonial Futurity’ to Americans

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

Does appear to be a waste of time compared to more practical training with respect to indigenous health and needs of Indigenous patients:

Last month, I received a tip from a nursing student at University of Alberta who’d been required to take a course called Indigenous Health in Canada. It’s a “worthwhile subject,” my correspondent (correctly) noted, “but it won’t surprise you to learn [that the course consists of] four months of self-flagellation led by a white woman. One of our assignments, worth 30 percent, is a land acknowledgement, and instructions include to ‘commit to concrete actions to disrupt settler colonialism’… This feels like a religious ritual to me.”

Canadian universities are now full of courses like this—which are supposed to teach students about Indigenous issues, but instead consist of little more than ideologically programmed call-and-response sessions. As I wrote on social media, this University of Alberta course offers a particularly appalling specimen of the genre, especially in regard to the instructor’s use of repetitive academic jargon, and the explicit blurring of boundaries between legitimate academic instruction and cultish struggle session.

Students are instructed, for instance, to “commit to concrete actions that disrupt the perpetuation of settler colonialism and articulate pathways that embrace decolonial futures,” and are asked to probe their consciences for actions that “perpetuate settler colonial futurity.” In the land-acknowledgement exercise, students pledge to engage in the act of “reclaiming history” through “nurturing…relationships within the living realities of Indigenous sovereignties.”

My source had no idea what any of this nonsense meant. It seems unlikely the professor knew either. And University of Alberta is not an outlier: For years now, whole legions of Canadian university students across the country have been required to robotically mumble similarly fatuous platitudes as a condition of graduation. It’s effectively become Canada’s national liturgy….

Source: Explaining Canada’s Cult of ‘Decolonial Futurity’ to Americans

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

While definitions, preferably robust, are helpful, not sure the degree to which they “stem the tide of hate.” This definition, while generally helpful, sidesteps issues when religious or ethnic cultures conflict with what most would consider fundamental human rights:

…The criteria proposed by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia(CBMI) provide a valuable framework for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobic discourse. These criteria address key dimensions that help us assess the nature and intent behind the critique. These dimensions are organised into eight key areas:

  • Monolithic versus diverse: Legitimate criticism acknowledges the diversity of thought and practice within Islam, avoiding generalisations. Islamophobia, on the other hand, often portrays Islam as monolithic and static.
  • Other versus interdependent: Legitimate critique recognises that Islam is part of a complex, interconnected world; whereas Islamophobia often portrays Islam as separate, “other” and irreconcilable with Western societies.
  • Inferior versus different but equal: Legitimate criticism considers different cultures as equal and different. Islamophobia, on the other hand, positions Islam as inferior to other cultures and religions.
  • Aggressive enemy versus cooperative partner: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some elements of some Islamic traditions may be problematic while still recognising that Muslims as a community are generally peaceful. Islamophobia paints Islam and Muslims as fundamentally aggressive and hostile.
  • Manipulative versus sincere: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some people use any religious tradition for personal and political gains, but does not to assume that all adherents of those traditions are dishonest. Islamophobia assumes that all Muslims are manipulative or insincere in their beliefs and practices.
  • Rejection versus reciprocal exchange and critique: Legitimate criticism must be open to engaging with and debating Muslim criticisms of Western societies. Islamophobia often dismisses Muslim voices altogether.
  • Defending discrimination versus its opposition: Legitimate criticism would oppose all forms of discrimination — including those directed at Muslims. Islamophobia defends or ignores discriminatory behaviour against Muslims.
  • Rational criticism versus problematic anti-Muslim discourse: Legitimate criticism recognises that criticism of ideas is one thing, but anti-Muslim hate speech is a problem. Islamophobia, on the other hand, normalises and promotes anti-Muslim discourse.

These criteria are crucial in understanding what constitutes Islamophobia and what does not. For example, while criticising specific Islamic doctrines is valid, using such critiques to stereotype all Muslims as violent or fanatical crosses the line into Islamophobia. Similarly, while a discussion of the role of religion in politics is important, denying the basic human rights of Muslims is clearly Islamophobic.

The importance of clarity and cooperative action

The CBMI criteria offer an important framework that helps us differentiate between fair critique and prejudiced bigotry. Just as a clear definition of Islamophobia and criteria for legitimate criticism of Islam are crucial for combating prejudice against Muslims, a similar effort is required to establish a robust and well-understood definition of antisemitism — along with an understanding of what constitutes legitimate criticism of Judaism and of the State of Israel — in order to combat antisemitism effectively. I believe that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism(JDA) is one such definition.

Clear definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism — along with adherence to the CBMI criteria and JDA guidelines — are not just an abstract academic concern but a practical necessity. Without such robust definitions, it is difficult to identify and counter Islamophobic and antisemitic acts and rhetoric. When Islamophobia is not recognised, its consequences can be dire, as is evidenced by the tragic events in Christchurch.

Source: If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Harel, Weil et al: Le PL84 est en rupture avec l’interculturalisme 

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

Critique of the assimilationist aspects of Bill 84:

Le 30 janvier, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, a déposé le projet de loi 84 sur l’intégration nationale, qui propose de définir le modèle québécois d’intégration ainsi que les responsabilités de l’État, des Québécois et des personnes immigrantes pour assurer la vitalité du français et de la culture commune. Depuis, il ne cesse de soutenir publiquement que cette loi se situe dans le prolongement de l’interculturalisme, le modèle pluraliste de vivre-ensemble auquel le Québec adhère officieusement.Or, le projet de loi 84 est loin de s’inscrire dans cette continuité. Avec son approche aux accents assimilationnistes, il s’agit d’une nette rupture par rapport au modèle hérité de la Révolution tranquille. Affirmer les spécificités de l’approche québécoise est essentiel pour offrir une option de remplacement à la fois crédible et juste au multiculturalisme canadien. L’initiative caquiste ne va pas dans ce sens, à notre avis. Au contraire, le message envoyé aux personnes immigrantes nuira au projet d’une société d’accueil québécoise.

La trajectoire d’un modèle pluraliste

Sans jamais l’avoir explicitement inscrit dans une loi, le Québec s’est doté d’un modèle de vivre-ensemble fondé sur la recherche d’un équilibre entre l’ouverture au pluralisme ethnoculturel et la continuité d’un projet national et francophone. Cet objectif a été poursuivi par tous les gouvernements, quelle que soit leur couleur partisane, et a inspiré plusieurs lois et politiques.

En 1975, un gouvernement libéral fait adopter la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne qui reconnaît aux minorités le droit « de maintenir et de faire progresser leur propre vie culturelle avec les autres membres de leur groupe » ainsi que leur droit à l’égale dignité, en interdisant la discrimination à leur égard. Dès 1977, la Charte de la langue française, élaborée par un gouvernement péquiste, fait en sorte que les enfants de parents immigrants doivent désormais fréquenter l’école française, favorisant ainsi leur pleine participation à la société québécoise.

Un gouvernement péquiste dépose en 1978 la Politique québécoise du développement culturel, qui affirme le rôle central de la culture de tradition française tout en permettant aux diverses communautés de préserver leur culture et leurs valeurs. Rejetant à la fois l’assimilation et le repli identitaire, cette approche se renforce en 1981 avec le Plan d’action à l’intention des communautés culturelles, qui promeut les rapprochements entre la majorité et les minorités ainsi que la lutte contre la discrimination.

En 1991, un gouvernement libéral introduit la notion de « contrat moral » dans son Énoncé de politique en immigration et intégration. Dans un esprit de réciprocité, on demande aux nouveaux arrivants de respecter trois principes chers à la société d’accueil : le français comme langue commune, la démocratie et la participation, ainsi que le pluralisme et les relations intercommunautaires. Ces principes étaient au cœur de la recommandation du rapport de la commission Bouchard-Taylor voulant que l’État québécois adopte une politique ou une loi en matière d’interculturalisme.

Ces politiques reflètent une identité québécoise affranchie de son ancrage exclusivement canadien-français et marquent un tournant majeur dans notre histoire : le Québec francophone est appelé à se diversifier et à prendre en compte les différentes origines de sa population. Le cadre civique qu’elles ont défini guide encore aujourd’hui l’action gouvernementale en matière de vivre-ensemble.

Une rupture inquiétante

Plusieurs aspects du projet de loi 84 l’éloignent du modèle interculturel, équilibré et inclusif, au profit d’une logique aux tendances assimilationnistes. Il exige d’abord des personnes immigrantes qu’elles « adhèrent » à une culture commune, présentée comme « le creuset » d’une nation unie. Or, cette notion, associée au melting-pot américain, évoque l’effacement des différentes cultures et s’éloigne de la tradition pluraliste québécoise. De plus, le projet de loi ne dit rien sur les rapports entre la majorité francophone, la communauté anglophone et les Premières Nations, outre leur mention dans les considérants. Ce faisant, le projet de loi 84 s’écarte radicalement du pluralisme au cœur de l’interculturalisme.

Ensuite, le projet de loi 84 instaure une asymétrie dans les devoirs et les attentes envers l’État, les Québécois et les personnes immigrantes ; ces dernières étant soumises à des exigences nettement plus élevées. Elles doivent « participer à la vitalité de la culture québécoise en l’enrichissant », une obligation qui ne s’applique pas au reste de la population. Cette disparité fragilise le principe de réciprocité du modèle interculturel.

Finalement, le projet de loi 84 réduit l’intégration à l’acquisition du français et à l’adhésion à la culture commune, ignorant ses dimensions économiques et sociales. De plus, le document fait l’impasse sur la lutte contre le racisme et les discriminations, pourtant essentielle au respect du droit à l’égale dignité. L’épanouissement personnel et la participation à la société signifient aussi le plein accès aux emplois, aux services et au logement, quelles que soient son origine ou sa couleur de peau.

Révision majeure

Le projet de loi 84 rompt avec l’approche québécoise du vivre-ensemble de façon inacceptable. En souscrivant à une vision aux tendances assimilationnistes plutôt qu’en mettant en avant les dimensions civiques et plurielles de la culture commune, il risque davantage de repousser les minorités ethnoculturelles que de renforcer leur sentiment d’appartenance à la société québécoise. Le gouvernement doit donc revoir en profondeur le projet de loi 84 en adoptant une démarche fondée sur un esprit d’équilibre.

Une telle loi est trop importante pour ne refléter que la vision du gouvernement : incarner un large consensus est essentiel pour permettre à tous les Québécois, quelle que soit leur origine, de s’y reconnaître. En tant que société d’accueil ayant su conjuguer immigration et préservation de son identité nationale distincte, nous avons le devoir d’offrir mieux à celles et ceux qui choisissent de contribuer à notre développement collectif.

François Rocher, David Carpentier, Louise Harel et Kathleen Weil

Source: Le PL84 est en rupture avec l’interculturalisme

On January 30, the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, tabled Bill 84 on National Integration, which proposes to define the Quebec model of integration as well as the responsibilities of the State, Quebecers and immigrants to ensure the vitality of French and common culture. Since then, he has continued to publicly maintain that this law is an extension of interculturalism, the pluralist model of living together to which Quebec unofficially adheres. However, Bill 84 is far from being part of this continuity. With its approach with assimilationist accents, it is a clear break with the model inherited from the Quiet Revolution. Affirming the specifics of the Quebec approach is essential to offer a replacement option that is both credible and fair to Canadian multiculturalism. The Caquist initiative does not go in this direction, in our opinion. On the contrary, the message sent to immigrants will harm the project of a Quebec host society.

The trajectory of a pluralist model

Without ever having explicitly inscribed it in a law, Quebec has adopted a model of living together based on the search for a balance between openness to ethnocultural pluralism and the continuity of a national and Francophone project. This goal has been pursued by all governments, regardless of their partisan color, and has inspired several laws and policies.

In 1975, a liberal government adopted the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which recognized the right of minorities “to maintain and advance their own cultural life with the other members of their group” as well as their right to equal dignity, by prohibiting discrimination against them. As early as 1977, the Charter of the French Language, developed by a Péquist government, ensured that children of immigrant parents must now attend French school, thus promoting their full participation in Quebec society.

In 1978, a Péquiste government introduced the Quebec Cultural Development Policy, which affirms the central role of traditional French culture while allowing the various communities to preserve their culture and values. Rejecting both assimilation and identity retreat, this approach was strengthened in 1981 with the Action Plan for Cultural Communities, which promoted rapprochement between the majority and minorities and the fight against discrimination.

In 1991, a liberal government introduced the concept of “moral contract” in its Immigration and Integration Policy Statement. In a spirit of reciprocity, newcomers are asked to respect three principles dear to the host society: French as a common language, democracy and participation, as well as pluralism and intercommunity relations. These principles were at the heart of the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission’s report that the Quebec State adopt a policy or law on interculturalism.

These policies reflect a Quebec identity freed from its exclusively Canadian-French anchorage and mark a major turning point in our history: Francophone Quebec is called upon to diversify and take into account the different origins of its population. The civic framework they have defined still guides government action today in terms of living together.

A worrying break

Several aspects of Bill 84 distance it from the intercultural, balanced and inclusive model, in favor of a logic with assimilationist tendencies. He first requires immigrants to “adhere” to a common culture, presented as “the crucible” of a united nation. However, this notion, associated with the American melting pot, evokes the erasure of different cultures and moves away from the Quebec pluralist tradition. In addition, the bill says nothing about the relationship between the Francophone majority, the English-speaking community and the First Nations, other than their mention in the recitals. In doing so, Bill 84 radically departs from pluralism at the heart of interculturalism.

Next, Bill 84 introduces an asymmetry in duties and expectations towards the State, Quebecers and immigrants; the latter being subject to much higher requirements. They must “participate in the vitality of Quebec culture by enriching it”, an obligation that does not apply to the rest of the population. This disparity weakens the principle of reciprocity of the intercultural model.

Finally, Bill 84 reduces integration to the acquisition of French and adherence to common culture, ignoring its economic and social dimensions. In addition, the document ignores the fight against racism and discrimination, which is essential for respecting the right to equal dignity. Personal development and participation in society also mean full access to jobs, services and housing, regardless of their origin or skin color.

Major revision

Bill 84 breaks with Quebec’s approach to living together in an unacceptable way. By subscribing to a vision with assimilationist tendencies rather than highlighting the civic and plural dimensions of the common culture, he risks pushing back ethnocultural minorities more than strengthening their sense of belonging to Quebec society. The government must therefore thoroughly review Bill 84 by adopting an approach based on a spirit of balance.

Such a law is too important to reflect only the government’s vision: embodying a broad consensus is essential to allow all Quebecers, regardless of their origin, to recognize themselves. As a host society that has been able to combine immigration and the preservation of its distinct national identity, we have a duty to offer better to those who choose to contribute to our collective development.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Mafalda en Absurdistan

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

Another example of incoherent positions:

…L’AGEM [l’Association générale des étudiantes et étudiants de Montmorency (AGEM)] adhère à la campagne BDS, un mouvement qui prône le boycottage, le désinvestissement et les sanctions envers l’État d’Israël comme moyens de pression pour le forcer à mettre fin à l’occupation des territoires palestiniens.

Qu’on soit pour ou contre cette campagne, ça se discute — et ce n’est pas l’objet de cette chronique. L’absurdité, dans cette histoire, c’est le refus de l’AGEM de financer un voyage d’élèves québécois aux Nations unies, sous prétexte que ce voyage contrevient à une campagne de boycottage visant l’État hébreu.

Comme on dit : c’est quoi, le rapport ?

Le rapport, tordu, c’est que le comité exécutif de l’AGEM « considère que le Conseil de sécurité est l’organe le plus puissant de l’ONU et que son inaction dans le génocide palestinien est condamnable », lit-on dans un courriel envoyé aux élèves, le 18 décembre.

Autrement dit, le comité exécutif de l’AGEM en veut à l’ONU, cette vile organisation qui supplie le monde d’en faire plus pour les Palestiniens, qui fournit de l’aide vitale aux Gazaouis par l’entremise de l’UNRWA et dont le secrétaire général, António Guterres, est persona non grata en Israël. Comprenne qui pourra….

Source: Mafalda en Absurdistan

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →