Unpacking the People’s Party’s Fear of ‘Radical Multiculturalism’

Will see how this turns-out post the debates. And while I haven’t compiled candidate data (working with Samara and others to do so), anecdotally there so seem to be a fair number of visible minorities, some immigrants, some subsequent generations, among their candidates:

The People’s Party of Canada says it is “inclusive,” but how does that square with its calls to scrap the country’s Multiculturalism Act, tighten our borders, promote “Western civilization values” and cut immigration by more than half?

More diversity will “destroy what has made us a great country,” leader Maxime Bernier tweeted last year in a long, Trumpian thread.

Bernier, who narrowly lost the Conservative leadership to Andrew Scheer in 2017, founded the People’s Party in September 2018.

Since then, it has alarmed critics across the political spectrum, including some former supporters who are worried that xenophobic, and even racist, members of the radical right, as seen in the U.S. and Europe, now have a political home in Canada.

“What the PPC is doing risks normalizing far-right ideology,” said Brian Budd, a PhD student in political science at the University of Guelph who researches right-wing politics and populism in Canada.

The party uses the language of inclusion to communicate its ideas, noted Budd.

Those studying far-right parties in Western democracies have found that the most successful ones in Europe use the language of liberalism, civic values, and the national interest as a Trojan horse to normalize discrimination in the mainstream.

The strategy allows such parties to say they’re pursuing national unity when they’re actually promoting exclusion. It allows them to posit that hate speech is actually the free speech of a democratic society.

“It’s a built-in defence against accusations of racism,” said Budd.

It’s the kind of strategy that Conservative Kellie Leitch used in her bid for re-election in 2015. Leitch said she wanted to establish a “barbaric cultural practices” tip line to “defend Canadian values.”

Bernier used a similar approach in his Twitter rant against diversity, warning that “people live among us who reject basic Western values such as freedom, equality, tolerance and openness.”

While populist right-wing parties, including the People’s Party, have attracted supporters who are white supremacists, Budd doesn’t view the party as all-in advocating for a “homogenous, white European society.”

The party has been quick to point out that it has candidates who are immigrants and people of colour — proof, it has said, that it is not anti-immigrant or racist.

And it is willing to accept newcomers if they “share fundamental Canadian values, learn about our history and culture and integrate in our society,” Bernier has said.

That can be understood as “conditional multiculturalism,” said political scientist Erin Tolley of the University of Toronto.

The party’s immigrant candidates have said that they don’t see a problem with limiting immigration or with Bernier’s view that immigrants must assimilate and take on the party’s definition of “Canadianness.”

Rocky Dong, the party’s candidate in Burnaby North–Seymour, used a metaphor to explain his support for the policies.

“If you have one chopstick, it breaks easily,” he said. “If you have many chopsticks, they’re hard to break.”

Integration is crucial to national unity, said Dong, 48, who arrived in Canada from China in 2001. He helps international students integrate on a daily basis at work, connecting them with housing and education.

Another party candidate, Baljit Singh Bawa of Brampton Centre, who immigrated to Canada from India in 2000, said he was able to integrate thanks to his own drive to improve his English and a three-year stint working in Dubai “to get that international exposure, to get myself out of my comfort zone.” He wants others moving to Canada to integrate in similar ways.

Budd said that immigrant candidates allow the party to showcase its idea of the model minority — “the immigrants who have come in and successfully assimilated without support from the state.”

“A lot of Canadians like to think that Bernier is simply importing something successful from elsewhere,” he said. “But what he’s really doing is trying to adapt ideas and discourses to the Canadian context.”

Having these model immigrant candidates adds a made-in-Canada flavour to the kind of populism Bernier is building; it’s more visibly colourful than whiter movements in other Western democracies.

“It’s about population management,” said Budd, “while ensuring the privilege and supremacy of European culture.”

According to the party’s platform, it seeks to manage newcomer populations by:

  • Cutting immigration to between 100,000 and 150,000 people a year (Last year about 321,000 people immigrated; in the peak year under Stephen Harper, 280,700 arrived in 2010);
  • Focusing on economic immigration to fill labour gaps, while stopping the intake of temporary workers and people entering through family reunification programs;
  • Interviewing newcomers to ensure they subscribe to “Canadian values and societal norms;”
  • Eliminating the Multiculturalism Act and spending on multiculturalism;
  • Stopping “illegal migrants” and “false migrants” entering via the U.S. border;
  • Move to a reliance on private sponsorships to pay for refugee settlement, ending government support.

Bernier describes his vision in the liberal language of “harmony and the maintenance of our Canadian national identity.”

He has also attempted to justify his plans economically for his libertarian supporters, saying the party aims to cut down on state-funded “specialist services” for “freeloaders,” said Budd.

Bernier has said that some cultures, like First Nations, Cape Breton and Quebec’s Eastern Townships “deserve to be nurtured” because they were “developed in Canada” and “don’t exist anywhere else in the world.”

Political scientist Tolley said regional cultures are true of any country. “It is interesting that they’re trying to suggest that these regional cultures can’t exist alongside immigration and multiculturalism,” she said.

The party’s desire to clamp down on immigration and promote “Western civilization values” has led critics, including some former supporters, to accuse it of attracting and harbouring racists, white supremacists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.

People’s Party events have been attended by such far-right individuals as Faith Goldy, an advocate of the conspiracy theory of white genocide who has verbally attacked immigrants and Islamic culture; Paul Fromm, a self-described “white nationalist” based in Hamilton who directs several far-right groups in Canada; and members of the Northern Guard, a militant anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim group that is an offshoot of the Soldiers of Odin.

This has caused trouble with some party supporters.

In July, the entire board of a Winnipeg riding association resigned, saying “racists, bigots, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists” had a large presence in the public conversation around the party.

The board members also said they were “appalled” to see “disinformation and distrust… encouraged with wink and a nod now.”

Last week, People’s Party candidate Brian Misera of Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam called on Bernier to “do more to help us disassociate from far-right groups that really have no place in our society.” The party has since revoked Misera’s candidacy, saying that he broke Elections Canada rules by acting as his own financial agent.

Bernier has responded by saying he doesn’t know everyone who attends his rallies and that “people who are racist and [don’t] believe in the Canadian values aren’t welcome in our party.”

Sanjay Jeram, a senior lecturer in political science at Simon Fraser University, believes Bernier’s failure to condemn these far-right elements more strongly is linked to efforts to build the new party.

“My feeling is he’s trying to cobble together a party that’s having trouble with organization,” said Jeram. As an upstart party trying to compete with the Conservatives, Bernier “can’t afford alienating people who he might not want part of the bigger message.”

Jeram said that debate about immigration levels shouldn’t be taboo but cautions against empowering more dangerous anti-immigration constituents. “The party should be more careful to screen candidates who have views that might actually incite violence,” he said.

“In a liberal democratic society, we shouldn’t be limiting debate. But that debate can go into the realm of targeting people for their race, gender, ethnicity or religion and making them vulnerable. It’s possible for people to take those messages and turn them into the legitimization of violence or discrimination.”

Stewart Prest, who also lectures in political science at SFU, said the party’s language is worth scrutiny. For example, it often decries what it calls “radical multiculturalism.”

That “could translate into disliking a particular group, Muslims being singled out,” he said.

Bernier’s attempt to redefine immigration and multiculturalism is a “grand project,” said Prest, as Canada’s mainline parties have agreed for a generation that immigration and multiculturalism are a part of the country’s foundations.

“But these messages can get picked up a number of ways and open the door to even more radical conversations.”

Tolley said that why the potential impact of the People’s Party should not be dismissed despite the party’s low support, currently at three per cent, according to the latest CBC aggregate of available polling data.

Tolley gives the example of the Reform Party, also an opponent of multiculturalism, which in the 1990s was able to change the conversation around immigration, making it an economic issue rather than a social one.

Last week the Leaders’ Debates Commission invited Bernier to participate in leadership debates.

Many experts wonder how the People’s Party’s narratives on immigration, refugees and multiculturalism might shift how other parties and the Canadian public talk about these topics.

People’s Party candidate Rocky Dong says they are only preaching “common sense.”

“We don’t hate the people outside. We just love the people inside the fence.”  [Tyee]

Source: Unpacking the People’s Party’s Fear of ‘Radical Multiculturalism’

Ethnic media election coverage 15-21 September

Latest weekly analysis of ethnic media coverage. For the analytical narrative, go to Ethnic media election coverage 15-21 September:

I’m Calgary’s Muslim mayor. We can learn from Trudeau’s ‘brownface’ moment.

One of the best articles:

When I saw the picture, it was like a sucker punch. But there it was, smack in the middle of the Canadian election: my prime minister, dressed up in some sort of Orientalist “Arabian Nights” get-up, his face and hands darkened, that smile the same today as in the 18-year-old photo.

Let’s dispense with the obvious: Yes, it was a stupid thing to do, as much in 2001 as now. No, he’s not a racist. Yes, he’s done incredible things for pluralism at home and abroad. He’s apologized honestly and acknowledged how his own privilege blinded him to the impact of his actions on others. No, we don’t need to demand more penance from him. Yes, he should have come to this self-awareness much earlier, particularly as a then-29-year-old teacher who also happened to be the son of a former prime minister. No, he shouldn’t resign over this; he deserves to be judged on the totality of his record and whether Canadians believe in his ability to do good in the future.

But this tawdry incident highlights a much more important conversation all Canadians — and citizens of all liberal democracies — need to have.

First, some context.

Justin Trudeau and I are the same age. He was born when his father, Pierre Trudeau, was prime minister, growing up at 24 Sussex Drive, Canada’s version of the White House. I was born six weeks later; my father and pregnant mother having recently immigrated to Canada not long after Trudeau père announced, in a statement to our House of Commons, that multiculturalism would be Canada’s official policy.

Justin’s and my upbringing were quite different, but we both grew up in a Canada that defined itself by opportunity: a place where a poor, first-generation kid could get a great public education, work hard and do well in his career, supported by a community with a stake in his success. Like the son of a well-to-do prime minister, he can even be elected to public office.

When I was elected as Calgary’s mayor in 2010, I suddenly became well known beyond the boundaries of my beloved hometown. It surprised me. I thought people might want to talk about my come-from-behind win, or how a wonky professor with little name recognition beat better-known opponents. But all anyone wanted to talk about was my faith: How did a conservative municipality known for cowboys, rodeos and hosting the 1988 Winter Olympics end up with the first Muslim mayor of a major Western city?

I was surprised. My faith was not an election issue. It rarely came up, and when it did, citizens protested. He grew up here, he’s one of us, they said on call-in shows. We don’t care that he fasts during Ramadan, we care what he thinks about public transportation.

I could have waved those questions away, but I felt there was an important story to tell. A story of Canada as a multicultural utopia, as a place that has long understood that everyone who shares this land deserves dignity and the chance to be the best they can be. I still believe that.

Even in Canada, people of colour (or color, if you prefer) don’t quite live in the same world as others. We sometimes have to work a little harder, we have to prove ourselves a little bit more, we have to put up with occasional irritations. But it’s part of the deal to live and have great lives here. And we’ve got jokes to help us sort awkward moments: Go back to my camel, you say? I don’t have one. It’s 2019! I use a camel-sharing app!

I guarantee you there were people at parties in Calgary and in your town this past Halloween who darkened their faces for costume. Heck, I’ve even seen pictures of people dressed as me (despite my annual public service announcement that “Sexy Mayor” is not an appropriate look). The folks dressed like me are generally fans. They’re certainly not racists. And “brownface” (Is that even a thing?) doesn’t have the moral weight and historical baggage of blackface. Does it?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada with his face and hands painted in what he described as “brownface,” poses with others at an “Arabian Nights” party when he was a 29-year-old teacher at the West Point Grey Academy in Vancouver, in this photo published in the academy’s 2000-2001 yearbook. This image, published in The View yearbook, was obtained by Time. (The View Yearbook/Via Reuters)

Someone who is seen as an ally can still do senseless things, however. Even in my amazing country, we don’t always know who really gets it, and who, despite their best intentions, still isn’t quite there. And in the past half-decade, something has shifted. Here in Canada, the home of the Global Centre for Pluralism, a nation where our innovation and defense ministers both wear turbans, where another minister is a refugee from Afghanistan, and where, during the Syrian refugee crisis, political parties supported taking in more people, something isn’t quite right.

It’s become easier to be careless with our language and comments, both online and in line at the coffee shop. In the run-up to the 2015 federal election, the incumbent government flirted with haters by pledging to ban face veils at citizenship ceremonies and promising to institute a Barbaric Cultural Practices snitch hotline. Canadians, in their way, responded by reporting, My neighbor wears socks with sandals! I saw someone eat Thai food with chopsticks instead of the correct spoon and fork! That government was defeated.

Yet in this year’s election, we have a (hopefully marginal) political party vowing, “Say NO to Mass Immigration” and accusing politicians of promoting sharia law. (Neither of these things exist in Canada.)

Far more egregiously, it’s no longer just slogans or casual individual acts of racism. It’s moved into actual policy. In Quebec, a new law prohibits people who wear conspicuous religious attire from holding certain public-sector jobs, including teachers and police officers.

Jagmeet Singh, a lawyer, is running for prime minister as leader of a national party, but because he wears a turban, could not serve as a judge in Quebec. I, as a Muslim man, could hold any job I want, but under this law, a Muslim woman who covers with a headscarf cannot. Muslim men who wear long beards could claim it’s just a nod to hipster-dom, and be free and clear, but Orthodox Jewish men with the same beard or a yarmulke cannot. Montreal’s mayor can hold any role, but the leader of her opposition, who wears a kippah, cannot. They’ve stood together against the law.

It’s all flagrantly unconstitutional, but the province of Quebec used the “notwithstanding clause,” a constitutional override provision (ironically, like multiculturalism, a gift from the tenure of the first Prime Minster Trudeau) to protect itself from legal challenge.

What’s funny about all of this is that various national leaders have mumbled platitudes about how much they dislike this law, but also haven’t committed to doing anything about it — including the candidate who wears a turban. Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer leans on the notion of “provincial jurisdiction” in a way that echoes of the language of “states’ rights” in the United States.

Even though the federal government could restrict Quebec’s financing or use its legal power to enjoin the provincial legislation, our federal leaders so far haven’t demonstrated the courage to do so. They’re hardly even talking about it. The law is popular in Quebec, and among others in the country, too. In an election year, they must be thinking, why risk losing those votes?

I‘m grateful every day that I’m Canadian — that my parents chose this country on the other side of the world. There’s no better place to have these conversations. But we have to have them.

We cannot stand on moral high ground calling out leaders for offensive things they did, years ago, if we’re not also willing to stand up against the racist and discriminatory behavior that’s right in front of our faces in 2019. We cannot choose our values a la carte when they benefit us — we need to be all in, all the time.

Canada, like any other country, isn’t black and white. It’s many-hued. Sometimes, it’s brown. We’re a welcoming, diverse country, but we recognize that we have work to do. Now, let’s use Justin Trudeau’s old blunders to think about the links between individual action and real justice.

Source: I’m Calgary’s Muslim mayor. We can learn from Trudeau’s ‘brownface’ moment.

When Anti-Immigration Meant Keeping Out Black Pioneers

Comparable restrictions I believe in Canadian West:

William Brown managed to get across the river safely, finding work in a small rural Illinois community close to the state’s border with Indiana. He would have known of the new anti-immigration laws, but must have been willing to risk breaking them for a better life. But a sheriff named John Watts soon arrested Mr. Brown for making his illegal crossing. When Mr. Brown could not pay the $50 fine the State of Illinois required of him, Sheriff Watts put him in chains on the Lawrence County courthouse steps and tried to sell him at auction to the highest bidder.

This was the 1850s and Mr. Brown, an African-American, was one of many victims of some of the earliest and harshest anti-immigration laws in America — laws created by white people in Midwestern states determined to keep free black people out.

The river William Brown crossed was the Wabash River, which runs along much of the border between Illinois and Mr. Brown’s home state, Indiana. Sheriff Watts was enforcing an 1853 law created by Illinois whites to add teeth to the state’s 1848 Constitution, which barred African-Americans from entering the state. Senator Stephen A. Douglas (the “Little Giant,” best known for his debates with Abraham Lincoln) strongly defended the State Constitution’s ban by arguing in 1850 that without it, Illinois would be filled with “old and decrepit and broken-down negroes” — a version of the “dumping ground” theme that’s been used by white politicians for so long.

In reality, Senator Douglas had arrived as an immigrant from Vermont in 1833, decades after many free African-Americans had helped to settle Illinois. Indeed, there might not have been a state of Illinois for him to move to if African-Americans had not bravely fought in the Wabash River Valley during the War of 1812.

Former Liberal adviser rips party over racial insensitivity in government ranks

In 2016, I examined staff diversity which was much less than Cabinet or MP diversity Diversity in political backrooms still lacking):

A former adviser in the Liberal government said he wasn’t surprised by photos of Justin Trudeau in blackface makeup because he encountered racially insensitive behaviour while working in the upper ranks of his government.

Omer Aziz said the photos of Trudeau are of a piece with behaviour he saw while working on Parliament Hill with Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s policy team. According to his Linked In profile, Aziz held the job for seven months. He quit in 2018.

“Sometimes a slip of the tongue is not just a slip of the tongue. It’s a slip of the mask,” he said in an interview with CBC Radio’s The House airing today.

“I basically had to leave my dream job because of racist prejudices that went unacknowledged.”

Aziz said that while he worked in the department, he heard staffers referring to certain communities as “ethnic vote banks.” He said he was assigned to “brown files” in the department — files dealing with non-white-majority countries — and said he was subjected to “whitesplaining” by colleagues who assumed he wasn’t aware of certain cultural nuances because of his skin colour.

Trudeau has been forced to answer uncomfortable questions all week after three instances of him wearing brownface or blackface as part of various costumes surfaced in the media.

The images span about a decade and a variety of situations, and show Trudeau in blackface both as a teenager and as an adult.

“What I did was inexcusable and wrong and hurt a lot of people who considered me to be an ally and that was wrong. And I am deeply, deeply sorry,” Trudeau told a crowd in Saskatchewan Thursday.

Trudeau has now publicly apologized twice — but he also has repeatedly declined to state how many times he may have worn blackface. He said he was “wary of being definitive about this because of the recent pictures that came out, I had not remembered.”

Aziz said almost all of his colleagues in the federal government were white and seemed unaware of subtle racist behaviour in the workplace.

“People in power above me were blind to what I was seeing,” he said.

“I felt like (…) I was a character from the movie Get Out, where my reality was kind of warped and distorted. Obviously people are never racist to your face.”

CBC News’s requests for comment from the Prime Minister’s Office and Freeland’s office were forwarded to the Liberal Party.

“When hiring exempt staff across government, the aim is always to identify high-quality candidates that reflect the diversity of Canada and to build more inclusive work environments,” the party statement reads.

Aziz said he tried to share his concerns with Gerry Butts, then the principal secretary to the prime minister, but was ultimately unable to meet with him.

The India trip

Aziz said his decision to leave the Liberal government permitted him to dodge a bullet: he believes he would have been involved in organizing Trudeau’s early 2018 trip to India.

The trip turned into a colossal PR disaster for the prime minister after news emerged that a Sikh extremist had been invited to a reception at the Canadian High Commissioner’s residence — and after he was roundly mocked for appearing in traditional Indian dress.

“The India trip was brownface without the makeup,” Aziz said.

As for the blackface images, Aziz wondered aloud how everyone managed “to miss this for 18 years.”

Aziz said voters can still count on the Liberals to be progressive in areas like climate change and the economy — but they shouldn’t assume Trudeau “at every instance has been on the side of minorities and the powerless.”

“Don’t have any illusions and still pretend that this is a saviour … It’s not true,” he said.

Trudeau also responded to questions about how voters should analyze his actions.

“I certainly hope that they will continue to support us in the work that we’re doing, but they might not,” he said at a media event in Winnipeg Thursday. “And I know that is something that all Canadians get to decide and they get to bring in all sorts of different factors, because every Canadian has a different way of looking at what matters to them.”

If the Liberals form government again, Aziz said he wants to see changes made at the top.

“One thing I’m going to be looking forward to is if they are re-elected, do they diversify at the top, because I’m kind of tired of hearing about people talking about diversity when everyone around them looks the same.”

Source: Former Liberal adviser rips party over racial insensitivity in government ranks

Japanese camp unearthed in North Shore mountains was likely an escape from racism, until internment intervened

Interesting part of our history:

Hidden away in British Columbia’s North Shore mountains are the remnants of a Japanese-Canadian logging camp, shrouded by forest and veiled from memory after it was apparently abandoned because of internment during the Second World War.

Since 2004, Vancouver archeologist Bob Muckle has been visiting and excavating the site; almost everything had been swallowed by the forest and has been gradually and carefully uncovered. There are as many questions as answers, still, but Muckle has a theory that it was an oasis of Japanese culture, on the fringe of Vancouver, decades ago, that was heretofore unknown.

Sherri Kajiwara of the Nikkei National Museum in Burnaby, B.C. says there is no record, yet, of anyone remembering living there, or remembering that their ancestors resided there, although there were plenty of Japanese-Canadians in Canada at the time.

“By the 1940s the community was very established and spread across metro Vancouver and the province,” Kajiwara said.

More than 1,000 artifacts have been collected at the site, researchers say.Bob Muckle

Her museum is putting together an exhibit about the history of Japanese-Canadian internment, and one of the main characters is Eikichi Kagetsu, a successful businessman who had logging rights in the area where Muckle found a settlement.

Muckle’s involvement with the camp began as a search for an area where he could teach his Capilano University students about proper excavation. He found one, a logging camp, by the looks of it, since there were bits of saw blades around. But, the excavation soon revealed it “was not really a typical logging camp at all.”

A typical camp, Muckle explained, would have bunk houses and a mess hall for the men working there. This one has 14 locations that were, to Muckle’s eyes, houses. There is also evidence of a shrine, a garden space and a water reservoir system.

“The most significant find is evidence of what may be a Japanese bathhouse,” Muckle noted. “Very few bathhouses have been excavated outside of Japan.”

Though he doesn’t “have the smoking gun yet,” Muckle’s hypothesis about the origin and life of the camp is that Japanese-Canadians moved to the logging camp around 1918, and remained there even after logging activity ceased. He was most recently on-site for several weeks in May and June.

“In the Vancouver area, where we are, in the 1920s and ’30s there was pretty explicit racism against both Chinese and Japanese, so this would’ve been an escape from that.”

Here they lived, with the men commuting into Vancouver for work, Muckle suspects, until February 1942, when they would have left for internment camps, a policy put in place during the Second World War that relocated families from the B.C. coast.

The evidence for the timing, and reason, for the camp’s abandonment, even in the absence of clear artifacts from the 1940s, is that the departure seems to have been reasonably orderly. Everyone there just walked away, leaving behind clocks, watches, pocketknives, dishes and stoves. There are about 1,000 artifacts in total: beer bottles and teapot pieces and evaporated milk cans, suggesting the presence of children.

“I think (internment) explains why we have so many personal items left behind,” Muckle said. “The dishes tend to be in really good condition, which you wouldn’t expect if people were normally abandoning their site.”

And, some items were hidden, such as a valuable stove secreted away off-site and parts of an early-1900s camera that were inside the walls of the bathhouse.

“I’m thinking this is probably my last season there,” he said. “I’m going through the process right now of figuring out what’s going to happen to all the artifacts.”

Certaintly, some of them are going to go to Kajiwara’s museum. For her part, she’s heard from a number of people about the settlement, as it has received more press, including someone from Japan. “It’s really been quite remarkable that the word has gone out sort of far and wide,” she said. “We’re starting to slowly collect names.”

“That whole generation really didn’t talk about the experience for decades and it’s only now, it’s only recently, that the stories have started to be revealed or shared,” she said. “It will be interesting to see if we can track down any of the descendants.”

Source: Japanese camp unearthed in North Shore mountains was likely an escape from racism, until internment intervened

Reflections on the Trudeau brown face/black face photos

Observing the media frenzy over the past few days over the Trudeau photos, a number of thoughts came to mind:

  • The focus on what was viewed as hypocrisy, understandably so, given Trudeau’s inclusion and diversity mantra and the Liberal party’s war room tactics in “outing” Conservative candidates for homophobic or racist remarks;
  • The overall shallowness of the reporting, focussed almost exclusively on the possible political impact, rather than more substantive issues involving racism;
  • The contrast between media and pundit outrage and more balanced reaction by many visible minority Canadians in talk shows and other reactions; and,
  • The lack of assessment of the Trudeau government’s record where, as I have analyzed before, is strong with respect to increased diversity (Taking stock of Ottawa’s diversity promises) and its renewal of the Multiculturalism Program including additional funds for data collection and anti-Black racism initiatives.

As noted by many, Trudeau’s apology was in many ways, his first real apology. One can only wonder whether he had adapted a similar approach to the various ethnical lapses (Aga Khan Island holiday, particularly SNC Lavalin) whether the government would be facing the same electoral challenge.

And most pundits, at least at the time of writing, have not done any meaningful comparison between the Trudeau apology for these photos and Scheer’s non-apology for his 2005 speech in Parliament against same sex marriage.

My quick take:

  • Trudeau responded quickly, with a second and more comprehensive response within 24 hours;
  • Scheer waited for the better part of a week before responding;
  • Trudeau recognized what the photos communicated, recognized their impact, expressed regret and indicated his personal views and behaviour have evolved, and made a strong statement against racism;
  • Scheer spoke in impersonal and legalistic terms that a Conservative government would not reopen same sex marriage but did not indicate his personal views and behaviour had changed;
  • Both were in their mid-to-late 20s and thus were adults.

Fundamentally, Trudeau’s insensitivity and obliviousness towards these images is balanced by not by his disavowal but more important by the actions the government he leads.

In contrast, Scheer continues to give the impression that personally, he stands by his 2005 speech but accepts the reality that same sex marriage is the law of the land. His absence in Pride events tends to confirm that.

Two media articles that drew my attention:

First, Samana Siddiqui’s Responding to Justin Trudeau’s Brownface: Memories of a Brown-Skinned Canadian:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is just a few years older than I am, and he grew up in the same Montreal I did in the 1980s. Which is why I can understand the roots of his “brownface” stunt.

For the record, blackface and brownface are wrong. Dressing up and mimicking another race or culture via costume is nothing less than a modern-day minstrel show. It’s not about humor, but about power and arrogance, intentional or not. The mimicked group is rarely the one in control of the accepted narrative about themselves or others.

My elementary school in Montreal was very racially and ethnically diverse. Most of the kids were like me, second-generation Canadians, the children of immigrants to Canada from all over the world. While we had our fights and disagreements, most of the time, epithets and insults based on race, ethnicity, or religion were rarely, if ever, uttered.

That changed once I reached seventh grade in a new school, in another Montreal neighborhood. There, most of the kids were also second-generation Canadians, with one caveat – their roots hailed from a specific European country (I’ll decline to name it). I was now, literally, a brown face in a sea of white. That was the first time I was called a “Paki” in school.

My response to the insult (which had been imported from Britain to Canada to describe brown-skinned South Asian people) was fairly simple. I responded by insulting the name-caller’s ethnic group. It worked. He never insulted me again.

And life moved on.

Did it scar me? Not really. But it made me wonder what had made him call me a “Paki” when a. I was at my locker minding my own business at the time and b. I had never before insulted his ethnic group?

Part of it was because teenage boys can be exceedingly immature. The other part though reflected something deeper.

It was the understanding that such words and mockery were accepted culturally – even if they weren’t officially. Had I gone to my teacher or principal, I have no doubt that the offender would have been forced to apologize. But that didn’t take into account the fact that “Pakis” like me were unknown to my classmate. We were rarely encountered in person, or in the cultural landscape via movies or on television. And when we were, our brown faces, “smelly” food, “funny” clothes, and our parents’ “accents” were a source of derision.

It was a reminder that we can all talk about multiculturalism until we’re blue in the face in Canada – but in the end, the only acceptable setting is white.

The more interesting part of this whole fiasco though is that it was Trudeau’s father, the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who pushed for greater multiculturalism, opening up Canada legally and culturally to diversity when he was Prime Minister.

The elder Trudeau declared in 1971, the year of Justin Trudeau’s birth, that Canada would adopt a multicultural policy. Under his leadership, he emphasized that the Government of Canada would recognize and respect diversity in languages, customs, religions, and so on. In 1982, when he was still in power, multiculturalism was recognized by section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But laws are one thing. Cultural change takes longer. It takes generations.

I’m grateful that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologized. I have no doubt that this sudden revelation is also partly political calculation on the part of his opponents in a heated election campaign. In addition, we should keep in mind Trudeau’s overall record as a leader on issues of diversity when understanding this incident.

We can move on from here. But it has to be with the understanding that this is not about face paint or costumes. It’s about power. And if Canada, or any other country for that matter, wants to establish itself as a society committed to justice, equity, and strength through diversity, it cannot do that by creating an imbalance of cultural power – through insulting practices like brownface, blackface, or any other mockery.

Source: Responding to Justin Trudeau’s Brownface: Memories of a Brown-Skinned Canadian.

Secondly, Mark Kingwell’s Memo to Justin: Who you are today is who you were yesterday. His point on Aristotle “what you do is who you are” applies to Trudeau’s persistent instinct to defend, deny and obfuscate but not, I would argue to his political evolution.

After all, the views of most of us do evolve, both individually and collectively as we have seen with respect to gender equality, diversity, same sex marriage and the like:

So this is what we are forced to imagine. You have been invited to a party. There is a stated theme, or maybe it’s just a general fancy-dress affair. You go to the mirror, look at your handsome face and think: Hey, brown makeup! Or you look at your somewhat less handsome face and think: Hey, Nazi uniform!

Is there any species of dumb that’s dumber than donning a racist or fascist costume under cover of a party? Justin Trudeau, once our “It Boy” Prime Minister, is reeling from revelations that he dressed in brownface for an “Arabian Nights” party in 2001. Some may remember Prince Harry’s equally ill-judged decision to favour a brown shirt and swastika for a swanky birthday party back in 2005. What is it about parties? In both cases, you have to wonder: What were these guys thinking? I mean, really – brownface and brown shirt? I’m older than both of them, but even at their respective ages I think I would have known that these were bad, perhaps despicable, choices. Brownface? Brown shirt? Red flags, guys, red flags.

“I take responsibility for my decision to do that,” the PM said this week on the campaign trail. “I should have known better.” He added: “It was something that I didn’t think was racist at the time, but now I recognize it was something racist to do, and I am deeply sorry.” Things got even worse when it was revealed that, in high school, the youthful Justin performed Harry Belafonte’s hit song Day-O while wearing “makeup.”

Let’s be clear. We are not talking, here, about the nasty N-word dialogue in Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises (1926) or the casual disregard shown for black people in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (1884). In both those cases, and many similar ones, there is an argument that the quoted characters are not identical with the author. Even T.S. Eliot’s avowed anti-Semitism or Enid Blyton’s racism might be contextualized, if never excused, based on the passage of time. But Mr. Trudeau: 2001. Prince Harry: 2005.

We are forced to recall, in the Prime Minister’s case, his justification, faced with accusations of unwanted groping, that “someone else might have experienced that differently and this is part of the reflections that we have to go through.” Memo to Justin: Some of us do our ethical reflections before the fact, not after.

The issues go beyond parties, japes and half-baked apologies. Recently, comedian Shane Gillis had his upcoming contract with Saturday Night Livecancelled because of racist and homophobic jokes he made, all captured on social media. This ignited an enraged counterattack from mostly white, mostly middle-aged comedians who saw it as an example of “cancel culture” – the new right-wing code for what used to be called political correctness.

Never mind that SNL, and especially executive producer Lorne Michaels, can boast no clean sheet when it comes to racist, homophobic and politically craven humour (the show’s kiss-ups to Donald Trump are especially egregious, though maybe balanced by some other gags). When Bill Burr, Jim Jefferies, Rob Schneider and others lamented this contractual decision as “cancelling,” they were just wrong. Wrong, period. There are consequences to actions, whether or not you consider yourself an “edgy” comedian or a handsome fellow with a fine social pedigree.

Some people, lamenting the new vigilance over what public figures say and do, wonder if there is no statute of limitations on bad behaviour. “Sheesh, guys, it was 2001! I was a kid!” In 2001, Justin Trudeau was 29 years old. Shane Gillis was 30 when he recorded the now-infamous podcast. “But I’m a comedian who takes risks.” Again, no. It’s not being overly sensitive or too social-justice warrior or “millennial” to respond: “Sorry, no free pass on that one, now or ever.”

Personally, I’m with Aristotle. The Greek philosopher taught us that your actions are your character. What you do is who you are. There is no escape hatch from that, just a deep and never-ending responsibility. Who you are today is who you were yesterday. We may forgive, but we never forget. Saying you “take responsibility” does not alter the record.

Have you done bad things in your life? Of course you have. So have I. Let’s hope we all exercised better judgment than even contemplating donning dark facial makeup or a swastika – or finessing a charge of sexual harassment. For the rest, the world must decide. Welcome to ethical life, friends.

Source: Memo to Justin: Who you are today is who you were yesterday

TTC commits to using race-based data to eliminate discrimination: ‘Every rider’ should feel ‘safe and respected’

Of note:

The TTC says it’s taking steps to combat concerns about racial bias at the agency, including making a commitment to use race-based data to identify and eliminate discrimination, and strengthening its policies for investigating complaints about its transit officers.

The measures are part of ongoing anti-bias efforts the TTC has embraced following two race-based controversies it was forced to grapple with earlier this year: a Star investigation that raised concerns transit officers were disproportionately targeting Black riders for tickets and recording their personal information when they were issued warnings; and a damning city ombudsman report that found serious flaws with the agency’s investigation of three fare inspectors who pinned a Black teen to the ground at a streetcar stop in February 2018.

In a staff report released Wednesday that provides an update on those efforts, the transit agency acknowledged “the public’s concerns regarding racial profiling and anti-Black racism in transit enforcement activities should be taken seriously,” and described taking “proactive” measures to address the issue as vital to “restor(ing) public trust.”

The TTC had already moved to take action in the wake of the Star investigation and ombudsman report, including a review of its policies around the collection of riders’ personal information and creating an agency-wide anti-racism strategy.

The new report, which will be debated at the TTC board meeting Tuesday, adds to those initiatives by making a clear commitment to start collecting and analyzing race-based data to combat discrimination.

Few details were provided about the plan, which is still in development. But it follows the Toronto Police Services Board moving toward what appears to be a similar policy that would have the force document the race of citizens its officers interact with in a broad range of circumstances.

While institutions collecting race-based data about members of the public has been controversial in the past, anti-racism groups have more recently thrown their support behind the idea. They argue that if it can be done while protecting citizens’ privacy and human rights, it can help document and fight discrimination.

Nigel Barriffe, president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, argued the TTC collecting comprehensive racial information about its riders would provide data to support the assertion common among many Black transit users that they face discrimination on the system. That in turn would help the TTC develop evidence-based policies to address the problem.

“It takes it from being just anecdotal to being, here’s the hard data that demonstrates that they’re overpoliced, that they’re unfairly targeted when they take the TTC,” he said.

The Star investigation published earlier this year found that since 2008 TTC officers had collected the personal information of more than 40,000 riders who were issued warnings for alleged offences on the transit system, and the numbers suggested a disproportionately high number of them were Black. For years, transit officers used the same forms to collect the information that Toronto police used for “carding,” a practice widely criticized as discriminatory. The TTC kept the data, which could include a rider’s name, address, driver’s licence number, physical appearance, for 20 years.

The Star also found Black riders appeared to be overrepresented in tickets issued to TTC users for fare evasion and other offences.

While acknowledging public concerns about bias, the TTC maintained the transit agency database the Star analyzed hadn’t been recorded in a reliable way and couldn’t be used to draw conclusions. It denied its officers were “carding” riders or discriminating against any group.

The agency discontinued use of police-style forms in March, and stopped collecting personal information from riders not charged with an offence pending a review.

The report says the agency is hiring an unspecified third-party expert to conduct that review, which is aimed at improving and standardizing the TTC’s collection of personal information, and ensuring its data collection policies align with privacy and human rights legislation, according to the report.

The experts will examine the TTC’s historical use of data and develop a “framework for the collection, analysis and retention of race-based data for equity purposes that will eliminate bias within the system.”

Agency staff will report back to the board in early 2020.

The report states that in addition to improving data collection policies, the TTC has taken steps to implement recommendations in the July report from Toronto Ombudsman Susan Opler into fare inspectors’ violent takedown of a Black teen named Reece Maxwell-Crawford along the St. Clair streetcar route last year.

The TTC’s original investigation, released in July 2018, all but completely exonerated the officers involved. But Opler determined the transit agency’s investigator failed to examine evidence of potential racial bias. She also found he wasn’t sufficiently independent from the officers he was tasked with scrutinizing because before taking on the investigator role he’d worked for the transit enforcement unit for more than 10 years and knew many of its members.

The TTC has now appointed an interim investigator “with no previous connection” to the unit, according to the new report. The interim investigator will handle allegations of minor misconduct against fare inspectors, while third-party investigators would be called in for more serious cases.

In the longer term, the TTC plans to establish “a new, independent, dedicated team of internal investigators” to look into allegations against members of the transit enforcement unit.

In addition to pledging to implement all the ombudsman’s recommendations, TTC CEO Rick Leary announced in July the agency would take further steps, including setting up an anti-racism task force, adopting the city’s Action Plan to Confront Anti-Black Racism, reviewing TTC policies using an anti-racism analysis, consulting with affected communities, and providing enhanced anti-bias training to all employees. Those initiatives are ongoing.

In a written statement, TTC Chair Coun. Jaye Robinson (Ward 15, Don Valley West) said that while the agency “has taken tangible steps” to improve its policies, the measures to date are “the beginning of a long and complex process.”

“It is imperative to make (sure) every rider and operator feels safe and respected across the TTC network,” she said.

Source: TTC commits to using race-based data to eliminate discrimination: ‘Every rider’ should feel ‘safe and respected’

41 circonscriptions multiculturelles pourraient faire pencher la balance

Some interesting on the ground reporting in addition to the overall story:

Le Canada compte désormais 41 circonscriptions composées majoritairement de minorités visibles. C’est huit de plus que lors des dernières élections fédérales. Ces champs de bataille clés, souvent des comtés pivots, pourraient jouer un rôle décisif le 21 octobre. Les conservateurs qui avaient perdu la grande partie de ce bloc en 2015 sont-ils mieux placés pour regagner ces sièges?

Quelque chose d’ironique s’est produit dans la circonscription d’Ajax, en banlieue de Toronto.

Elle a connu la plus forte hausse de résidents issus des minorités visibles. Un bon de 11 % en 5 ans.

L’ironie? Ce comté était représenté par l’ancien ministre de l’Immigration, Chris Alexander, défait en 2015.

C’est lui qui avait présenté la promesse électorale conservatrice d’instaurer une ligne de dénonciation pour signaler des cas présumés de pratiques culturelles barbares. Cette annonce lui a collé à la peau et s’est ajoutée aux prises de position controversées des conservateurs, tant sur la révocation de la citoyenneté que sur le niqab.

Tout cela allait être néfaste pour Stephen Harper et son parti, qui avaient mis tant d’efforts à conquérir les communautés culturelles.

Linda et Ernest Ombrog d’origine philippine sont assis sur un banc.

Linda et Ernest Ombrog, d’origine philippine, demeurent à Ajax. En cinq ans, cette circonscription à l’est de Toronto a connu la plus forte hausse de population de minorités visibles au Canada.

PHOTO : RADIO-CANADA / MARC GODBOUT

À la gare de train de banlieue d’Ajax, un couple originaire des Philippines attend le prochain départ. Linda et Ernest Ombrog ont entendu parler de cet épisode même s’ils sont arrivés au Canada après l’élection fédérale de 2015.

Nous n’avons pas tout à fait confiance, dit Ernest Ombrog. Je ne crois pas que nous voterons pour les conservateurs, ajoute sa femme.

Quelques mètres plus loin se trouve Abdol Nadi, un chirurgien devenu chauffeur de taxi. Cet Afghan raconte que la plupart des immigrants qui se sont installés à Ajax dans les dernières années sont surtout originaires du Tadjikistan, de l’Inde, du Pakistan et de l’Afghanistan. Plusieurs sont ses clients.

Abdol Nadi, d’origine afghane, est au volant de son taxi.

Abdol Nadi d’origine afghane est au volant de son taxi à Ajax, en Ontario.

PHOTO : RADIO-CANADA / MARC GODBOUT

Je sens une méfiance chez certains, à tort ou à raison. Même si je trouve que les libéraux sont loin d’être parfaits, je préfère encore les appuyer, affirme-t-il.

Les stratégies de campagne de 2015 semblent toujours avoir laissé un goût amer, à tout le moins dans ce comté.

De 33 à 41

À l’époque, Ajax ne faisait pas encore partie des circonscriptions fédérales dont la population est majoritairement composée de minorités visibles. Elle est une des huit circonscriptions qui se sont ajoutées à la liste depuis 2015.

Andrew Griffith, expert en multiculturalisme, a décortiqué les données. Cet ancien haut fonctionnaire du ministère de l’Immigration constate que 27 de ces 41 circonscriptions sont situées en Ontario, 9 en Colombie-Britannique, l’Alberta et le Québec en ont chacune 2 tandis qu’une autre se trouve au Manitoba.

On ne peut pas gagner de gouvernement majoritaire sans gagner ces comtés-là.

Andrew Griffith, expert en multiculturalisme

Lors du scrutin de 2015, les libéraux ont décroché 85 % de ces circonscriptions, 35 sur 41. Les conservateurs et les néo-démocrates ont dû se contenter de trois sièges chacun.

La population du comté de Scarborough-Nord, en Ontario, est composée à 92 % de minorités visibles. Au Canada, 17 circonscriptions fédérales ont maintenant une population composée de plus de 70 % de minorités visibles.

Andrew Griffith explique qu’on ne peut plus parler des populations immigrantes comme d’un bloc monolithique. Les groupes qui sont arrivés il y a 20 ans ont peut-être une tendance à être plus conservateurs. Mais ceux qui ont suivi ne sont pas liés automatiquement et continuellement à un parti politique, précise le chercheur.

Les placer dans des cases précises serait une erreur, selon lui. Ils peuvent faire un virage plus à gauche comme ils peuvent faire un virage à droite.

Ce sont des circonscriptions pouvant passer d’un parti à l’autre. Bien entendu, cela a une incidence constante sur les stratégies électorales des différents partis.

Andrew Griffith, expert en multiculturalisme

Une photo d'Andrew Griffith.

Andrew Griffith, expert en multiculturalisme et ancien haut fonctionnaire au ministère de l’Immigration.

PHOTO : RADIO-CANADA / MARC GODBOUT

En 2011, les conservateurs avaient gagné la majorité de ces comtés. En 2015, ils sont passés aux mains des libéraux. Et fait à considérer, lors de l’élection provinciale ontarienne de 2018, Doug Ford et les progressistes conservateurs les avaient presque tous raflés.

Kenney, la carte maîtresse?

Les conservateurs aimeraient bien pouvoir compter sur le premier ministre albertain Jason Kenney dans cette campagne pour venir donner un coup de main à Andrew Scheer dans certaines de ces circonscriptions en Ontario. Ce scénario est toujours sur la table même si aucune stratégie n’a encore été arrêtée.

Jason Kenney, autrefois ministre de l’Immigration du gouvernement Harper, avait été l’architecte de la grande séduction du Parti conservateur à l’endroit des communautés culturelles.

Mais le simple fait de vouloir avoir recours au premier ministre albertain démontre que les efforts de rapprochement n’ont pas été suffisants depuis l’arrivée d’Andrew Scheer à la tête de son parti, estime Ghanaharan S. Pillai.

L’interaction entre les communautés et le Parti conservateur n’est plus celle qu’elle était sous les années Harper.

Ghanaharan S. Pillai

Pourtant, ils auraient une occasion à saisir.

Selon cet animateur à la radio et télévision tamoule de Toronto qui observe depuis des années le jeu politique dans les communautés culturelles, Justin Trudeau ne jouit pas nécessairement de la même popularité qu’en 2015. Si les libéraux ont maintenu leur base, ils ne l’ont pas pour autant élargieajoute-t-il.

Mais les conservateurs ne contrôlent pas tout. Au-delà du travail sur le terrain, pour Ghanaharan S. Pillai, le principal défi pour eux est de surmonter un obstacle susceptible d’avantager ses adversaires : Doug Ford.

Le premier ministre ontarien a été porté au pouvoir notamment grâce à l’appui de cet électorat composé majoritairement d’immigrants. Or, depuis, Doug Ford a particulièrement mauvaise presse dans les médias multiculturelsconstate Andrew Griffith qui analyse régulièrement leur contenu. Ils sont très sévères à son endroit.

Le facteur médiatique

C’est un facteur non négligeable.

Il existe pas moins de 600 médias multiculturels au Canada. Plus de la moitié se trouvent dans la grande région de Toronto. Leur influence est importante dans les communautés.

Un résident de Brampton, en Ontario, lit un journal en pendjabi.

Un résident de Brampton, en Ontario, lit un journal en pendjabi.

PHOTO : RADIO-CANADA / MARC GODBOUT

Dans ses émissions de radio, Ghanaharan S. Pillai est à même de constater le sérieux bris de confiance envers Doug Ford qui s’est créé après à peine 15 mois.

À quel point cette méfiance se répercutera-t-elle contre Andrew Scheer?

À quel point le chef conservateur réussira-t-il à faire oublier les stratégies de campagne de 2015?

L’enjeu est majeur. Après tout, 41 circonscriptions, c’est désormais 9 de plus que celles des quatre provinces de l’Atlantique réunies. 41, presque le même nombre de sièges qu’en Colombie-Britannique.

Source: 41 circonscriptions multiculturelles pourraient faire pencher la balance

Facebook auto-generating pages for Islamic State, al-Qaida

Sigh….

In the face of criticism that Facebook is not doing enough to combat extremist messaging, the company likes to say that its automated systems remove the vast majority of prohibited content glorifying the Islamic State group and al-Qaida before it’s reported.

But a whistleblower’s complaint shows that Facebook itself has inadvertently provided the two extremist groups with a networking and recruitment tool by producing dozens of pages in their names.

The social networking company appears to have made little progress on the issue in the four months since The Associated Press detailed how pages that Facebook auto-generates for businesses are aiding Middle East extremists and white supremacists in the United States.

On Wednesday, U.S. senators on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will be questioning representatives from social media companies, including Monika Bickert, who heads Facebooks efforts to stem extremist messaging.

The new details come from an update of a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the National Whistleblower Center plans to file this week. The filing obtained by the AP identifies almost 200 auto-generated pages — some for businesses, others for schools or other categories — that directly reference the Islamic State group and dozens more representing al-Qaida and other known groups. One page listed as a “political ideology” is titled “I love Islamic state.” It features an IS logo inside the outlines of Facebook’s famous thumbs-up icon.

In response to a request for comment, a Facebook spokesperson told the AP: “Our priority is detecting and removing content posted by people that violates our policy against dangerous individuals and organizations to stay ahead of bad actors. Auto-generated pages are not like normal Facebook pages as people can’t comment or post on them and we remove any that violate our policies. While we cannot catch every one, we remain vigilant in this effort.”

Facebook has a number of functions that auto-generate pages from content posted by users. The updated complaint scrutinizes one function that is meant to help business networking. It scrapes employment information from users’ pages to create pages for businesses. In this case, it may be helping the extremist groups because it allows users to like the pages, potentially providing a list of sympathizers for recruiters.

The new filing also found that users’ pages promoting extremist groups remain easy to find with simple searches using their names. They uncovered one page for “Mohammed Atta” with an iconic photo of one of the al-Qaida adherents, who was a hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks. The page lists the user’s work as “Al Qaidah” and education as “University Master Bin Laden” and “School Terrorist Afghanistan.”

Facebook has been working to limit the spread of extremist material on its service, so far with mixed success. In March, it expanded its definition of prohibited content to include U.S. white nationalist and white separatist material as well as that from international extremist groups. It says it has banned 200 white supremacist organizations and 26 million pieces of content related to global extremist groups like IS and al-Qaida.

It also expanded its definition of terrorism to include not just acts of violence attended to achieve a political or ideological aim, but also attempts at violence, especially when aimed at civilians with the intent to coerce and intimidate. It’s unclear, though, how well enforcement works if the company is still having trouble ridding its platform of well-known extremist organizations’ supporters.

But as the report shows, plenty of material gets through the cracks — and gets auto-generated.

The AP story in May highlighted the auto-generation problem, but the new content identified in the report suggests that Facebook has not solved it.

The report also says that researchers found that many of the pages referenced in the AP report were removed more than six weeks later on June 25, the day before Bickert was questioned for another congressional hearing.

The issue was flagged in the initial SEC complaint filed by the center’s executive director, John Kostyack, that alleges the social media company has exaggerated its success combatting extremist messaging.

“Facebook would like us to believe that its magical algorithms are somehow scrubbing its website of extremist content,” Kostyack said. “Yet those very same algorithms are auto-generating pages with titles like ‘I Love Islamic State,’ which are ideal for terrorists to use for networking and recruiting.”

Source: Facebook auto-generating pages for Islamic State, al-Qaida