The missing ingredient in today’s debates? Generosity

More on polarization, binaries and the need for greater generosity – civility and goodwill – in public discussion and debates (within some limits):

In the early 1960s a white student who had seen Malcolm X speak at her college went to the Nation of Islam restaurant in New York to challenge him on his philosophy. “Don’t you believe there are any good white people,” he recalled her asking, in his autobiography. “I didn’t want to hurt her feelings,” he wrote. “I told her, ‘People’s deeds I believe in, Miss – not their words.’”

“What can I do?” she exclaimed. “Nothing,” Malcolm X said, and “she burst out crying, and ran out and up Lenox Avenue and caught a taxi”. He would later say of that encounter: “I regret that I told her she could do ‘nothing’. I wish now that I knew her name, or where I could telephone her …”

Generosity is a rare commodity in politics. That is not so surprising on the right: a politics rooted in individualism, self-reliance and private profit does not lend itself to altruism. States of penury and acts of charity are understood to emerge from entirely separate worlds. That is how George Osborne as chancellor could pauperise people with austerity and then, as editor of the London Evening Standard, run a campaign to feed the hungry without any sense of hypocrisy.

The left is different. It is difficult to imagine building a society that thrives on more sharing, redistribution and collective endeavour without a spirit of generosity – you cannot liberate humanity and dislike the people you are ostensibly doing it with and for at the same time.

At present it feels as if the well of generosity in left and liberal circles is running dry, creating an atmosphere of reflexive judgment and sweeping dismissal. On issues such as trans rights, a second referendum or Labour and antisemitism, for instance, debates have become so toxic that many find it difficult to meaningfully intervene.

A series of unequivocal binaries deny context and privilege certainty, while dispensing guilt and innocence by association. There is no room for Eurosceptic remainers or leavers who were not duped; you can either love Jeremy Corbyn and hate Jews or oppose antisemitism and hate Corbyn; support the protection of spaces fought for by women and back the “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” or be all in for every aspect of trans rights and supposedly betray those women; support a second referendum and deny democracy or do Nigel Farage’s dirty work, and deliver a manageable Brexit.

People who do not fall neatly into either camp often choose silence, not because they have nothing to say, but because they are not confident that they will be heard. The worst possible motives are assumed for every statement. The option of keeping two competing and maybe even conflicting ideas in your head at the same time is tantamount to heresy. Trapped between what feels like a choice of fundamentalisms, they witness the low blows traded in either direction and decide it is safer to keep their own counsel than get caught in the crossfire.

While it may be ugly, this particular outcome is not always a bad thing. Some people, particularly men, feel entitled to voice opinions on everything, whether they are well-informed or not. It would be preferable if they came to the conclusion by themselves that they’d do everyone a favour by shutting up. But if they need to be cowed into it, then that may be a fortunate unintended consequence.

It may seem a strange thing for a columnist to argue, but it’s OK not to have a firm opinion about everything. It’s OK not to know, to be conflicted or just in the process of working something out. Indeed, I wish more commentators would admit that more often.

I’ve frequently seen people, however, who do have something valuable to say or ask but would rather not do so. My sense of this is anecdotal not empirical. It feels worse online, where people make their case, impulsively and often while distracted, in 280 characters against or with people they’ve never met. I’ve witnessed it in social media any number of times. But I have seen it increasingly in actual live social situations, too.

It’s not hard to see why generosity might be lacking in progressive circles. Embattled people, defining their enemies broadly and their potential allies narrowly, may well fall short when called upon to be both thick-skinned and open-hearted. It is also not difficult to see why this is a problem. A lack of generosity makes the left smaller, less effective and more divided than it need be, while creating a culture of online trolling, vindictiveness and insensitivity that leaves little space for growth, evolution, inquiry or nuance.

When I talk about generosity here I am referring to a mixture of civility and goodwill towards a range of people who broadly share goals, if not methods, and with whom engagement is necessary. One need not resort to cliches such as “the truth is somewhere in the middle”, or “they’re all as bad as each other”, or even Rodney King’s hallowed “Can’t we all get along?” to believe that some kind of accommodation, rooted in sensitivity and mutual respect, is preferable to a fight to the death and all the collateral damage that comes with it.

The problem is not with people taking sides, or even the sides they’ve taken, but the apparent inability of many to venture beyond their own trenches to see what kind of truce is possible.

The coarsening of discourse does not take place in a vacuum. It relates to the deeper polarisation and anomie that has taken over our politics. This is not about the “left intolerance” constructed by rightwingers in order to justify their own bigotry. They are far less tolerant both of each other – Tory party discipline has collapsed, and just a few years ago Ukip had one of its leadership contenders punched out by a colleague – and of the outside world: you can draw a direct line from Farage to the Windrush scandal that goes straight through David Cameron and Theresa May.

There are limits, of course. I do not extend this hand of generosity to debates about whether the Holocaust happened, Islamophobia is real, climate change a hoax or ethnic diversity a threat to western civilisation. I see no need to debate my, or anybody else’s, humanity or right to exist. We all have red lines; the only question is where you draw them.

I also understand that this might be how some Jews feel about the antisemitism debate or both some trans people and cis-gendered women feel about sex and gender: their red lines have been crossed. Their right to exist has been challenged. Being cis-gendered male and Gentile, that could never be my call. Many would like to talk about it. Others would like to listen. But they can’t hear or make themselves heard for all the shouting. I’m not sure how we arrived at this bad place. But it feels like we got here very quickly.

Source: The missing ingredient in today’s debates? Generosity

Poll finds deep divisions among Ukrainian Jews on threat of anti-Semitism

Of note:

In the largest poll of Ukrainian Jews conducted in 15 years, nearly one fifth of 900 respondents (17 percent) said that anti-Semitism has increased in the country, while another fifth (21 percent) said the opposite.

The data underline divisions among Ukrainian Jews over the effects of the 2014 revolution that toppled the previous regime and unleashed an explosion of nationalist sentiment.

In the poll, commissioned by the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress this year, another 23 percent of respondents said it was too hard to say whether there has been an increase anti-Semitism. Thirty-six percent of respondents said the level of anti-Semitism has not changed.

Ariel University’s Prof. Ze’ev Khanin developed the methodology for the poll and presented it Monday at a Kyiv Jewish Forum event. The previous survey of Ukrainian Jews this size occurred in 2003-2004.

Michael Mirilashvili, president of the Eurasian Jewish Congress, said that whereas anti-Semitism “is certainly an important challenge,” the main one is helping Jews “hold onto a strong Jewish identity that can withstand the environment and not weaken as a result of social pressures.” EAJC, he added, is investing in projects focused on achieving this, including Limmud.

Other key findings of the survey include:

  • Seventy-two percent of Ukrainian Jews said they feel solidarity with Israel, compared with 3 percent who said they do not and 26 percent who could not say.

  • Forty-two percent said they find it important that their descendants feel Jewish, compared to 25 percent who said it was not.

  • Twenty-nine percent described themselves as “Ukrainian Jews;” 22 percent as “simply Jews”; 6 percent as “Russian Jews”; and 21 percent percent as “human beings,” regardless of their Jewish affiliation.

Source: Poll finds deep divisions among Ukrainian Jews on threat of anti-Semitism

Macpherson: Quebec’s Fox News, only bigger

Of note, and the consequent implications:

For their shrill populism, the Québecor media have been called Quebec’s Fox News. But in terms of their influence on this province’s politics, they’re much bigger than that.

Last weekend, in the annual Quebec journalism awards, Québecor’s newspapers, television channels and digital media were shut out.

But its flagship daily Le Journal de Montréal boasted of survey results suggesting that on all platforms, the three Québecor dailies were read at least once a week by more than half of Quebecers over the age of 14.

And Québecor’s TVA network bragged that its newscasts and LCN all-news channel led the television ratings in their respective categories.

This market domination by the Québecor media, and their resulting influence on public opinion, help explain poll results published this week suggesting that Quebec is the only province where a majority supports legislation like Bill 21.

The Legault government’s proposed anti-hijab-and-kippah-and-turban bill is supposed to settle, after more than a decade, the issue of accommodating minority religions. As the Bouchard-Taylor provincial commission on the subject reported in 2008, that issue was largely created by sensationalist and often inaccurate reporting by Québecor. And it’s mainly Québecor that has kept the issue alive.

In December 2017, TVA reported that a Montreal mosque had female construction workers removed from a work site outside during Friday prayers. The report was quickly debunked, but it wasn’t until a year later that TVA grudgingly admitted it was false and apologized.

Instead of editorials, Québecor’s dailies have columnists who circulate among its “convergent” platforms defending the supremacy of what one of them, Mathieu Bock-Côté, calls Quebec’s “historic French-speaking majority” — that is, ethnic French-Canadians — against the province’s minorities and other enemies of the true people.

Last January, another Le Journal columnist, Denise Bombardier, called minorities who complain of their treatment in the province “enemies … of French-speaking Quebec.” And she issued a call to “extinguish these hotbeds of intolerance,” even though she acknowledged it might be used by the “hotheaded and violently prejudiced.”

Le Journal’s columnists have clout. The non-binding 2017 National Assembly motion against the public use of English, in the form of the bilingual “bonjour-hi” greeting in businesses, resulted from a campaign spearheaded by one of them, Sophie Durocher.

Another, Richard Martineau, is obsessed with “Islamism” and has been accused of Islamophobia, which he denies.

In 2017, TVA’s rival Radio-Canada reported that in the previous 10 years, Martineau had written about 700 columns directly or indirectly concerning Islam.

A UQAM sociologist, Rachad Antonius, told Radio-Canada he had concluded from a study of Le Journal’s news coverage and columns on Islam that their cumulative effect fostered distrust of Muslims.

But if “Islamists” are a Martineau dog whistle, they may not be his only one. A cheerleader for Bill 21, he predicted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will come under pressure to challenge the legislation from “followers of multiculturalism who live in Hampstead or Côte-Saint-Luc,” Montreal suburbs widely identified with their Jewish residents.

Québecor’s domination of the marketplace puts pressure on other media to follow its lead, in both news coverage and opinion. And its position may get even stronger, as its competitors get weaker.

The same day that Le Journal boasted of its readership, its main competitor, La Presse, published another plea for reader donations.

From 250,000 paying subscribers when it was still charging for its journalism, the number of its financial supporters willing to donate money to keep reading La Presse has shrunk to a total of 23,500 donors for the past four months.

This was after Le Journal reported last week that La Presse and another of Québecor’s competitor, Quebec City’s daily Le Soleil, are in serious financial trouble, and have asked the Legault government for help.

It said the government is “particularly pessimistic” about the future of Capitales Médias, which owns Le Soleil and five small regional dailies. And it said that, despite La Presse’s campaign to raise $5 million in donations, it could be broke within a year.

Source: Macpherson: Quebec’s Fox News, only bigger

Laïcité: le SFPQ veut élargir l’interdiction des signes religieux

Regressive position for a union to take:

Le Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec (SFPQ) demande au gouvernement Legault d’étendre l’interdiction du port de signes religieux « ostentatoires » à l’ensemble des employés de l’État qui ont des contacts avec les citoyens.

« Les symboles religieux ostentatoires n’ont pas leur place dans la fonction publique puisqu’ils sont contraires au principe de neutralité », a affirmé le SFPQ, jeudi, de passage à Québec pour la troisième journée de consultations du projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de l’État.

Le syndicat, qui représente quelque 30 000 employés de la fonction publique québécoise, ramène ainsi des dispositions qui étaient prévues dans la défunte Charte des valeurs présentée par le gouvernement péquiste de Pauline Marois.

« Ces symboles, qui revêtent une signification importante pour les personnes qui les portent, peuvent être perçus comme très dérangeants par les citoyens et citoyennes qui entrent en interaction avec ces personnes », affirme le SFPQ dans son mémoire, qui fait un parallèle entre le devoir de neutralité politique des fonctionnaires à la volonté d’imposer une neutralité face à une appartenance religieuse.

Le projet de loi 21 présenté par le gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) interdit le port de signes religieux (qu’ils soient « ostentatoires » ou non) aux employés de l’État en position d’autorité, incluant les enseignants et les directions scolaires.

Québec prévoit une clause grand-père pour les employés du secteur public qui sont visés par la loi, mais qui sont déjà à l’emploi de l’État en portant un signe religieux. Le SFPQ souhaite que ce droit acquis soit préservé tout au long de leur carrière. À l’heure actuelle, la loi prévoit qu’un employé visé perd son droit s’il change de poste ou d’employeur au sein de la fonction publique.

Stigmatisations des gais et des croyants

Lors de la période des questions, jeudi, la cheffe de Québec solidaire, Manon Massé, a fait un lien entre les droits des homosexuels qui ont été protégés en 1977 dans la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne et les droits que Québec souhaite désormais restreindre à certains employés de l’État qui portent un signe religieux.

« Le premier ministre répète à qui veut l’entendre que c’est parce que c’est comme ça qu’on vit au Québec [qu’il veut interdire les signes religieux aux employés de l’État en position d’autorité, incluant les enseignants]. Comme si, lorsque nos prédécesseurs ont adopté [la Charte des droits et libertés], tous partis confondus avaient erré, en 1975. Et pourtant, en 1977, lorsque les droits des personnes homosexuelles ont été inclus dans la charte québécoise, ce n’était pas comme ça qu’on vivait au Québec », a dit Mme Massé.

« À l’époque, une large partie de la population était convaincue que nous, les gais et lesbiennes, on ne pouvait pas enseigner ou s’occuper des enfants, parce que, dans les faits, on allait les contaminer avec notre différence. Une chance que les politiciens de l’époque, puis ceux qui ont suivi, n’ont pas appuyé leur seul jugement sur les qu’en-dira-t-on, parce qu’aujourd’hui il manquerait bien des profs à l’école », a-t-elle ajouté.

« Personne ne peut nous reprocher de ne pas avoir été clairs durant la campagne électorale. […] On en parle depuis des années. Je comprends que la cheffe de Québec solidaire n’est pas d’accord, je comprends aussi que certains députés libéraux ne sont pas d’accord […], mais je pense qu’on doit avoir ce débat de façon calme, sans s’accuser de gros mots. Il faut être capable de débattre au Québec de façon respectueuse. Je pense que notre projet de loi est modéré, justement pour essayer de rassembler […]. Je pense qu’on a le droit au Québec de faire ce choix », a répondu le premier ministre François Legault.

Que prévoit le projet de loi 21  ?

Le projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de l’État, déposé en mars dernier par le gouvernement Legault, prévoit l’interdiction du port de signes religieux aux employés de l’État en position d’autorité, y compris les enseignants et les directions d’écoles publiques. Les policiers, les agents correctionnels, les agents de la faune, les constables spéciaux, les procureurs de la Couronne et tous les avocats du gouvernement sont également visés. Idem pour le président de l’Assemblée nationale et ses vice-présidents, alors que les députés pourront continuer de porter leurs signes religieux. Une clause de droit acquis est également prévue pour les employés de l’État actuellement en poste et qui portent un signe religieux, tant et aussi longtemps qu’ils ne changent pas de poste ou d’employeur. Tous les signes religieux sont visés par le projet de loi : tant le hijab que la kippa et la croix catholique. Québec a également inclus une disposition de dérogation aux chartes des droits afin que sa loi ne soit pas contestée devant les tribunaux.

Source: Laïcité: le SFPQ veut élargir l’interdiction des signes religieux

Australia: Foreign-born voters and their families helped elect Turnbull in 2016. Can they save ScoMo?

Interesting overview of the upcoming Australian election and ethnic votes. Some similarities to Canada but with greater polarization and more extreme views:

At the 2016 federal election, a small but significant vote cast by foreign-born Australians and their families helped elect the Liberal Party. The voters backed conservative minor parties in typically Labor-leaning electorates, and their preferences flowed to the Liberals.

Electoral pundits made little of this phenomenon at the time, and the media were not particularly interested. But in the wake of a similar voting pattern in the same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017, the search is now on to find the elusive “ethnic vote”.

Who are these voters and where do they live?

The two largest collectives of non-English speaking groups are Chinese-Australians, and people from the Indian subcontinent including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. These “ethnic groups” are already multicultural, multilingual and politically diverse.

Pockets of Chinese-Australians concentrated in key swing seats in NSW and Victoria were mainly responsible for the surprise outcomes in 2016. That included Reid, Banks and Barton in NSW and Chisholm in Victoria. Three of the four went to the Liberals, but on demographic grounds and political trends at the time, all could have been delivered to Labor. (While Barton stayed Labor, the swing to the Liberals was significant.)

In 2019, we could see a similar pattern emerge in these seats again, as well as in Moreton in QLD, Hotham in Victoria, and Parramatta, Greenway and Bennelong in NSW.

Australia has over 300 ancestries, 100 religions and 300 languages, so invoking a category like “ethnic” does not lead in a particular direction – especially given the divisions and diversity within cultural groups and language communities.

And this population diversity has been shifting as newer groups have accelerated their presence, and older groups have passed on. The foreign-born population now have a growing number of Australian-born children, although many may not yet be able to vote.

How are the parties targeting them?

The main ethnic communities lobby group, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA), has produced a policy wish-list and is seeking responses from the parties.

Among the majors, only the Greens have a clearly articulated multicultural policy, having put a proposal for a Multiculturalism Act with subsequent implementation and rights machinery to the Senate over a year ago.

The ALP still sits on its hands on the legislative option, possibly fearing that supporting such a move might trigger negative reactions from the working class and more racist voters.

Their policy now includes a “body” named Multicultural Australia, with a string of commissioners across the country. It will probably come under Tony Burke as Minister, focusing on citizenship and access issues. In this, it is a variant on the 1990s Office of Multicultural Affairs. This was once part of the Hawke/Keating prime minister’s office but was abolished by John Howard as soon as he could.

Labor has committed more funds for community language schools and criticised delays in processing citizenship applications, as well as the high level of English required to pass the test. Former Senator Sam Dastyari has argued that opening up parental reunion is a major offer to a range of ethnic groups needing older family members to do caring work. This move, as one of this author’s informants, said, would really “win the Desi’s heart”, and probably many other ethnic groups as well. The idea has prompted a hostile response from the Coalition.

While Liberal leader Scott Morrison reiterates the old Turnbull mantra of Australia being the most successful multicultural country, the government’s lacklustre Multicultural Advisory Council no longer seems to have a web presence other than one which promotes integration and Australian values.

The Liberals propose a system of aged care “navigators” to help people with limited English survive the aged care system, while also injecting funds into start-up businesses run by migrants.

Conservative think-tank the Institute for Public Affairs retains as its second policy demand of any Liberal government that Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act be abolished. The Liberals took this into 2013 and 2016; Morrison has said it’s not on for 2019, though the right of the party is still committed.

What role will they play in the election?

Ethnic communities are not necessarily either cohesive or unanimous in their political viewpoints unless something particularly touches on their “ethnicity”.

The recent anti-Chinese sentiment reflected in media headlines about the alleged corruption of Australian political parties by wealthy Chinese residents may be doing that among Chinese communities. Many Australian Chinese think that Labor is much more sensitive to these issues than the Coalition, and Liberal Party Chinese figures have voiced these concerns in public gatherings.

Although they can be very interested and involved in politics, Chinese Australians have tended to hold back from active political engagement in the past. Indians, by contrast, bring some knowledge of English and, coming from a Westminster democratic system, tend to be more directly engaged – as party members for example. The Greens are particularly open to south Asian members; so, it seems, is the Christian Democratic Party (CDP).

While there are many conservative and religious parties across the country, only NSW has the CDP. It’s offering a “multicultural” array of candidates and directing preferences to the Liberals. The party was key in funnelling support from East Asian intensive electorates in 2016.

After unsuccessful discussions over a number of elections as to whether a socially conservative alliance might be formed between Muslims and Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoist and non-religious groups, something like the alliance appears to have been launched in Sydney. Reportedly “targeting Labor seats that had a high no vote in the same-sex marriage survey”, it could put some further some punch behind the Christian Democratic Party even though it’s not directly affiliated. The CDP is also targeting the Pacific communities in its campaign of support for Christian footballer Israel Folau.

Meanwhile, parties of the far right are competing to present their anti-multicultural agendas. In Lindsay, neo-Nazi Jim Saleam represents the Australia First Party, while across the country, right-leaning parties tussle for the xenophobic vote. That includes Rise Up Australia, Shooters Farmers and Fishers, Australian Conservatives, Australian National Conservatives, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and United Australia Party.

Although these parties may preference the Coalition, they may prove to be one force that drives ethnic communities towards the ALP.

Election day and beyond

Election day will provide the proof for many of the claims about ethnicity, voting, influence and ideology. It’s highly likely that the senators elected from the right will run a unity ticket against multiculturalism in the new Senate.

This year may well prove the last flash of a mainly White Australian election, with its defenders doubling down on the right, while the centre takes on a multi-coloured hue, and the left is ever more rainbow. A lot of the knowledge that we may glean from the election process will only be learned in its aftermath, picking through small details and trying to form a pattern of explanation.

It has taken the Australian public sphere the best part of three years to work out what happened with cultural diversity and its complexities in 2016. We may well have just as long to wait this time around.

Source: Foreign-born voters and their families helped elect Turnbull in 2016. Can they save ScoMo?

Younger Arabs embrace Palestinian identity, redefining Israeli citizenship

Interesting evolution of identity:

Loudspeakers blared nationalist Arabic music across hillsides in northern Israel on Thursday as children ran across a field waving Palestinian flags.

The scene was a rally for members of Israel’s 21% Arab minority. The Israeli term for them is Israeli Arabs, but many now reject that label, identifying instead as “Palestinian with Israeli citizenship,” or simply “Palestinian.”

Each year they hold a gathering to mark the Nakba — or “Catastrophe” — when Palestinians lament the loss of their homeland in the 1948-49 war that surrounded the creation of the modern Jewish state.

The scene was a rally for members of Israel’s 21% Arab minority. The Israeli term for them is Israeli Arabs, but many now reject that label, identifying instead as “Palestinian with Israeli citizenship,” or simply “Palestinian.”

Each year they hold a gathering to mark the Nakba — or “Catastrophe” — when Palestinians lament the loss of their homeland in the 1948-49 war that surrounded the creation of the modern Jewish state.

The event is a celebration of Palestinian identity that, Arab politicians and academics say, reflects a change in thinking over the decades.

On Thursday, busloads arrived at a roped-off field near the Khubbayza, a ruined Palestinian village that lay 20 miles south of Haifa and was destroyed in the fighting between Arab and Jewish forces in 1948.

It and hundreds of others are now marked on paper and digital maps by groups such as “Palestine Remembered.”

The Nakba rally is timed each year to coincide with the day that Israelis in the rest of the country celebrate Independence Day.

On Thursday, Palestinian flags flew in the roped-off field where Israeli authorities gave permission for the gathering. Across a country lane, Israeli banners were draped across the hillside from which Israeli police watched, a drone hovering nearby.

Shouting over the music, Rula Nasr-Mazzawi, 42, a psychologist, said many of the first two generations of Arabs in post-1948 Israel were too scared to discuss matters of identity openly.

“But now we are seeing the younger generation, the third generation, more and more identifying very frankly and very loudly as Palestinians,” she said.

“The term Israeli Arabs is mistaken, it’s not accurate. We are Palestinians by nationality, and we are Israeli citizens.”

Ahmad Tibi, Arab member of Iraeli parliament

In an interview earlier this year, Ahmad Tibi, an Arab member of Israel’s parliament with the Ta’al party said: “The term Israeli Arabs is mistaken, it’s not accurate. We are Palestinians by nationality, and we are Israeli citizens.”

He added: “They are saying Arab Israeli or Israeli Arabs in order to say that we are not Palestinians. We bypassed that. We are part of the Palestinian people, and we are struggling in order to be equal citizens.”

Identity and citizenship

Israel’s population recently passed the 9 million mark, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics. This includes 1.89 million Arab citizens — mostly Muslim, Druze and Christians — living alongside the 6.68 million Jews who make up the 74.2% majority.

Professor As’ad Ghanem, 53, a Haifa University political scientist and co-author of the book “Palestinians in Israel,” drew a distinction with Druze and Bedouin Arabs, many of whom serve in the Israeli military, taken by many as an indicator of integration.

In contrast, most Muslims and Christian Arabs do not serve.

He said Israel’s Arabs had undergone a slow transformation from their initial status as marginalized within both Israel and the Arab world.

A new generation of intellectuals and politicians were “much more strong than those in the 50s and 60s,” and voiced their community’s complaints about discrimination in the job market, and lack of services, he said.

“The majority think that they want to be identified as Palestinian,” he said.

Nonetheless, he said most Israeli Arabs still valued their Israeli citizenship and would oppose attempts to transfer them to Gaza or the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-rule, because “they see all the troubles on the other side.”

A woman shouts as she takes part in the Nakba rally marking the “Catastrophe” when Palestinians lost their homeland in the 1948-49 war, near the abandoned village of Khubbayza, northern Israel, May 9, 2019.

‘Best conditions’

Recently, Arabs were angered after Israel’s parliament last year passed the nation-state law, which declared that only Jews have the right to self-determination in the country.

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and only it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasserted that principle just before his victory in the election a month ago, saying on Instagram: “Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and only it.”

He sought to placate non-Jewish citizens — and critics at home and abroad — by adding “there is no problem with the Arab citizens of Israel. They have equal rights like all of us and the Likud government has invested more in the Arab sector than any other government.”

Some of the Arab minority disagree with the sentiments expressed at Thursday’s rally, saying Israel protects them from threats in the Middle East.

“I am very proud to be an Israeli Arab,” said Yoseph Haddad, 33, a Greek Catholic speaking in the mixed Jewish and Arab city of Haifa.

“The fact is that if you take a look around all or most of the Arab nations, the Israeli Arabs here in Israel are in the best conditions.”

But Eyad Barghuty, 39, a novelist and former head of the Arab Cultural Association, said there had been an evolution in identity.

His generation had to struggle to find their roots within a country that emphasized the majority’s narrative, he said, while a younger generation took their Palestinian-ness for granted.

“I saw the ruins of Palestinian villages across the Galilee when I was a young man working on building sites, and I had to go to encyclopedias to look these places up. … Now there’s an app.”

Eyad Barghuty, 39, novelist

“I saw the ruins of Palestinian villages across the Galilee when I was a young man working on building sites, and I had to go to encyclopedias to look these places up,” he said. “Now there’s an app.”

Laïcité : «On n’a pas l’air d’une société décente», dit Gérard Bouchard

Worth noting:

Le sociologue Gérard Bouchard croit que le Québec « n’a pas l’air d’une société décente » avec le projet de loi sur la laïcité de l’État qui dépeint une province peu sensible aux droits fondamentaux.

De passage à Québec dans le cadre des consultations du projet de loi 21 du ministre Simon Jolin-Barrette, celui qui a cosigné en 2008 le rapport Bouchard-Taylor croit que les libéraux sont en partie responsables de la polarisation du débat en n’ayant pas agi à l’époque.

« Si [le gouvernement Charest] avait appliqué nos principales recommandations, on ne serait pas là aujourd’hui, a dit M. Bouchard. On pourrait enfin s’occuper enfin d’enjeux qui sont beaucoup plus importants. »

« Avec un enjeu aussi émotif, qui rejoint ce qui est de plus profond chez une personne, c’est évident que si le débat traîne, on va d’échec en échec, avec de l’impatience, de l’animosité, de l’agressivité, de la polarisation et des positions qui se durcissent », a poursuivi le sociologue.

Avec le projet de loi 21 du gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), qu’il qualifie de « radical » puisqu’il utilise une clause de dérogation pour le préserver de contestations judiciaires, la réputation du Québec est entachée, a dit M. Bouchard.

« On a l’air de gens qui ne sont pas très sensibles aux droits fondamentaux, a affirmé le sociologue. On a l’air d’une société pas très démocratique [en ayant] recours à la clause dérogatoire pour se soustraire à l’examen des tribunaux. On n’a pas l’air d’une société décente. »

Des conséquences sociales  

Gérard Bouchard a aussi prévenu mercredi que le gouvernement Legault risque de détériorer les relations entre la population majoritaire francophone et les communautés minoritaires du Québec.

« Les relations entre la majorité [francophone] et les minorités ne sont pas en bon état au Québec, notamment depuis la Charte des valeurs du Parti québécois. On a pu le voir encore cet été avec la controverse sur les appropriations culturelles. L’état de ces relations est mauvais et je pense que le projet de loi [caquiste] va les détériorer encore plus », a dit M. Bouchard.

Selon lui, si Québec excluait les enseignants et les directions d’école du projet de loi, pour interdire qu’aux fonctionnaires ayant un pouvoir coercitif le droit de porter un signe religieux (comme il proposait déjà en 2008), « [le gouvernement] aurait de bonnes chances de convaincre les tribunaux ».

Gérard Bouchard a aussi rappelé qu’il n’existe aucune donnée scientifique qui prouve que le port de signes religieux peut endoctriner des élèves ou les traumatiser. « Il n’y a aucune étude rigoureuse qui permet » d’appuyer cela, a-t-il dit.

Si de telles études existaient, M. Bouchard pourrait même être favorable au projet de loi du gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), a-t-il ajouté mercredi.

Source: Laïcité : «On n’a pas l’air d’une société décente», dit Gérard Bouchard

And some teacher testimony in favour of Bill 21:

Si la cigarette de Lucky Luke ou un homme-sandwich McDonald’s transmettent des messages, les signes religieux le font aussi, ont dénoncé mercredi deux enseignantes invitées aux consultations du projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de l’État.

Leila Bensalem, une enseignante de la Commission scolaire de Montréal (CSDM), croit que le voile que porte certaines musulmanes « n’est pas un modèle à transmettre [aux] élèves. »

De passage à Québec mercredi, Mme Bensalem était accompagnée de Nadia El-Mabrouk, professeure en informatique à l’Université de Montréal. Les deux femmes ont salué la volonté du gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) d’interdire le port de signes religieux aux employés de l’État en position d’autorité, incluant les enseignants.

« Est-ce qu’il y a des données sur le fait que s’habiller en homme-sandwich McDonald’s, ça fait en sorte que les gens mangent plus de hamburgers ? L’affichage, la publicité, […] ça conditionne les personnes. Si on [en] n’était pas convaincu, […] il n’y aurait pas de publicité », a affirmé Mme El-Mabrouk.

« Les signes religieux [ont] une charge politique, a pour sa part affirmé MmeBensalem. C’est un problème dans une classe. »

Tout comme Djemila Benhabib, mardi, l’enseignante montréalaise considère qu’une enseignante musulmane voilée qui refuserait de retirer son voile, une fois la loi adoptée, serait « intégriste ».

Devant les parlementaires, elle s’est questionnée sur les états d’âme d’une petite fille iranienne dont la famille aurait fui son pays et qui se retrouverait devant une enseignante voilée. « Comment va-t-elle se sentir? », s’est inquiétée MmeBensalem.

« [Et] des élèves palestiniens […] qui ont fui les pratiques de l’État israélien [et] qui feraient face dans une classe à un enseignant qui porte la kippa, [voilà] qui les ramène à toutes ces choses qu’ils ont fuies », a-t-elle ajouté.

Québec « cautionne l’exclusion »

Haroun Bouazzi, porte-parole de l’Association des Musulmans et des Arabes pour la laïcité au Québec, croit pour sa part que le gouvernement Legault « cautionne l’exclusion » avec le projet de loi 21.

« Un gouvernement établit avec ses lois […] ce qui est acceptable ou pas dans une société. Le message est clair ici qu’il est acceptable d’exclure des membres d’une minorité sans raison valable », a-t-il dénoncé mercredi lors de son allocution devant les parlementaires à Québec.

M. Bouazzi a mis au défi le ministre Simon Jolin-Barrette de ne pas appliquer une clause dérogatoire à sa loi et de la laisser être contestée devant les tribunaux.

Plus tard en journée, mercredi, le sociologue Gérard Bouchard témoignera à son tour aux consultations particulières du projet de loi 21. Mardi, son ancien collègue, le philosophe Charles Taylor, a affirmé que le gouvernement Legault semait actuellement la division.

Source: Les signes religieux portent un message, disent des enseignantes

 

Germany issues an ‘early warning’ report about rise of Islamist anti-Semitism

On Islamist extremists:

The top intelligence agency in Germany has written what is being called its most comprehensive analysis of rising anti-Semitism by Islamist extremists.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, described its 40-page brochure as a tool for educators, social workers, police and others who work closely with recent Muslim immigrants or refugees.

She said the agency has never published such a comprehensive analysis of the subject based on empirical data.

“We are an early warning system,” Pley said. “Recommendations on what can be done must come from society and the political establishment.”

Pley said there had been no public response to the report by Muslim associations in Germany, but that it had been downloaded 1,439 times since its release.

It is one of a few recent government measures born of increased concern about anti-Semitism in Germany.

In 2018, the government appointed a commissioner, Felix Klein, to focus specifically on the topic. In 2012, a Bundestag commission was established to report on anti-Semitism nationwide and in all categories.

“Anti-Semitism in Islamism” homes in on the Islamist extremist component, which represents a looming threat, the agency said, though relatively few anti-Semitic crimes in Germany have been attributed to Islamist extremism.

The report distinguishes between “Islam” the religion and “Islamism,” which it describes as a form of political extremism that “aims at the partial or complete abolition of the liberal democratic constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Between 2010 and 2016, the Pew Research Center reported, the number of Muslims living in Germany rose to nearly 5 million, or 6 percent of the population, from 3.3 million, or 4.1%.

The vast majority of anti-Semitic crimes in Germany have a right-wing extremist background: In 2018, a total of 755 anti-Semitic crimes were reported, and 670 were attributed to the far right and 25 to “foreigners.” Of the 707 cases the previous year, 651 were attributed to the far right and 15 to foreigners.

But the new report, which identifies Islamist organizations and movements and their propaganda, warns that radicalization and incitement to anti-Semitic hate “form the breeding ground for violent escalations.”….

Anti-Semitic beliefs promoted by Islamist groups and individuals “already represent a considerable challenge for peaceful and tolerant coexistence in Germany,” the report says.

It is not the first time the agency has examined anti-Semitism in this context: Past annual reports on extremist crime have covered Islamism and its anti-Semitic components. A symposium was held on the subject in the early 2000s, Pley told JTA.

Juliane Wetzel, a senior staff member at the Center for Research on Antisemitism at the Technical University in Berlin, called the report an “excellent contribution on the theme.”

“The conclusion is important: Islamist anti-Semitism is spreading in Germany,” said Wetzel, a member of the Bundestag’s commission of experts on anti-Semitism.

The new report is important, though the topic of anti-Semitism in Islamism has hardly been taboo in Germany as some critics have claimed, said political scientist Clemens Heni, director of the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.

Among other organizations, “the intelligence agency has reported on it for decades,” Heni told JTA.

In its definition of anti-Semitism, the brochure includes anti-Zionism, since it “aims at the complete elimination of the State of Israel” and falsely defines the Mideast conflict “as a Jewish ‘war of annihilation’ against the Palestinians.”

The brochure says that anti-Zionists in Germany often argue that they are against Israel, not against Jews. But given that “Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and that its annihilation would inevitably result in the death and expulsion of millions of Jews, this argumentation turns out to be a trick to conceal the actual thrust of anti-Zionism,” the report concludes.

Among other points, the brochure covers anti-Semitic stereotypes in Islamism and the rejection of the State of Israel by Islamist organizations.

Its list of Islamic extremist groups and movements in Germany includes the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, among others.

Though there has been no public response from Muslim organizations in Germany, the Liberal Islamic Association recently published its own 178-page report on the results of its three-year program, Extreme Out: Empowerment, Not Antisemitism. The project was designed to “shed light on and work [against] anti-Semitic attitudes among young people of Muslim faith” and to help youth see themselves as part of German society.

Source: Germany issues an ‘early warning’ report about rise of Islamist anti-Semitism

Addiction Kills More Blacks, But Treatment Is Prescribed Mostly To Whites

Yet another study on the disparities in healthcare:

White drug users addicted to heroin, fentanyl and other opioids have had near exclusive access to buprenorphine, a drug that curbs the craving for opioids and reduces the chance of a fatal overdose. That’s according to a study out Wednesday from the University of Michigan. It appears in JAMA Psychiatry.

Researchers reviewed two national surveys of physician-reported prescriptions. Between 2012 and 2015, as overdose deaths surged in many states, so did the number of visits during which a doctor or nurse practitioner prescribed buprenorphine, often referred to by its brand name, Suboxone. The researchers assessed 13.4 million medical encounters involving the drug but found no increase in prescriptions written for African Americans and other minorities.

“White populations are almost 35 times as likely to have a buprenorphine-related visit than black Americans,” says Dr. Pooja Lagisetty, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School and the study’s corresponding author.

The dominant use of buprenorphine to treat whites occurred at the same time opioid overdose deaths were rising faster for blacks than for whites.

“This epidemic over the last few years has been framed by many as largely a white epidemic, but we know now that’s not true,” Lagisetty says.

What is true, Lagisetty added, is that most of the white patients either paid cash (40%) or relied on private insurance (35%) to fund their buprenorphine treatment. The fact that just 25% of the visits were paid for through Medicaid and Medicare “does highlight that many of these visits could be very costly for persons of low income,” Lagisetty says.

Doctors and nurse practitioners can demand cash payments because there’s a shortage of clinicians who can prescribe buprenorphine, according to Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University. Only about 5% of physicians have taken the special training required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The few that are doing it are really able to name their price, and that’s what we’re seeing here and that’s the reason why individuals with more resources — who are more likely to be white — are more likely to access treatment with buprenorphine,” says Kolodny, who was not involved in the study.

Kolodny wants the federal government to eliminate the required special training for buprenorphine and a related cap on the number of patients a doctor can manage on the drug.

Some physicians who have studied racial disparities in addiction treatment say the root causes go back to 2000, when buprenorphine was approved. At that time, proponents argued that buprenorphine was needed to help treat suburban youth, says Dr. Helena Hansen at New York University. Those young patients didn’t see themselves as addicted to heroin in the same way as hard-core urban heroin users who went to methadone clinics for treatment, she says.

“Buprenorphine was introduced as private office treatment, for a private market, with the means to pay,” says Hansen, an associate professor of psychiatry and anthropology. “So the unequal dissemination of buprenorphine for opioid dependence is not accidental.”

Hansen added that the fix must include universal access to treatment in a primary care setting, an end to the criminalization of opioid dependence (which puts more blacks in prison for drug use than whites), and more federal funding to expand access to buprenorphine for all patients.

Several leaders in the fight to reduce opioid overdose deaths say the study results are disturbing.

“It really demands for us to be looking at equitable treatment for addiction for African Americans as we do for white Americans,” says Michael Botticelli, director of the Grayken Center for Addiction at Boston Medical Center and the former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Botticelli identified some key issues that may be contributing to the racial treatment gap that deserve further investigation. For example, he wants to know whether Medicaid reimbursement rates are simply too low to entice more doctors to work with low-income patients, or there are too few inner-city doctors prescribing buprenorphine, or African Americans themselves are somehow reluctant to seek this form of treatment.

Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health, called the findings surprising and disturbing. Surprising because the disparity is so large, and disturbing because her agency has prioritized educating doctors about the value of prescribing buprenorphine.

Volkow also expressed disappointment that federal parity laws, which are supposed to guarantee equal access to all types of medications, don’t seem to be working for buprenorphine. “We need to ensure that we have capacity to provide these treatments,” Volkow says. “Because if you say you have to pay for them, but there are no services that can provide the treatments, then the issue of paying for them is secondary.”

Volkow has noted that fewer than half of Americans with an opioid use disorder have access to buprenorphine or the two other medications used to treat opioid addiction: methadone and naltrexone. Volkow said she is glad that the use of buprenorphine is on the rise, but the U.S. needs to understand why this lifesaving treatment isn’t benefiting all patients who need it.

Source: Addiction Kills More Blacks, But Treatment Is Prescribed Mostly To Whites

Huge Racial Disparities Found in Deaths Linked to Pregnancy

Yet another example of racial disparities. Have not seen and comparative Canadian studies and grateful if any readers can direct me accordingly:

African-American, Native American and Alaska Native women die of pregnancy-related causes at a rate about three times higher than those of white women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Tuesday.

The racial disparity has persisted, even grown, for years despite frequent calls to improve access to medical care for women of color. Sixty percent of all pregnancy-related deaths can be prevented with better health care, communication and support, as well as access to stable housing and transportation, the researchers concluded.

“The bottom line is that too many women are dying largely preventable deaths associated with their pregnancy,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the C.D.C.

“We have the means to identify and close gaps in the care they receive,” she added. While not all of the deaths can be prevented, “we can and should do more.”

Maternal health among black women already has emerged as an issue in the 2020 presidential campaign. Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, have both raised the glaring racial discrepancies in maternal outcomes on the campaign trail.

“Everyone should be outraged this is happening in America,” Ms. Harris recently said on Twitter. She blamed the deaths on racial bias in the health system.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which was not involved in the C.D.C. report, recently acknowledged that racial bias within the health care system is contributing to the disproportionate number of pregnancy-related deaths among minority women.

“We are missing opportunities to identify risk factors prior to pregnancy, and there are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and postpartum, particularly for black women,” Dr. Lisa Hollier, immediate past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement.

The United States has an abysmal record on maternal health, compared with other high-income countries. Even as maternal death rates fell by more than one-third from 2000 to 2015 across the world, outcomes for American mothers worsened, according to Unicef.

The C.D.C. examined pregnancy-related deaths in the United States from 2011 to 2015, and also reviewed more detailed data from 2013 to 2017 provided by maternal mortality review committees in 13 states.

The agency found that black women were 3.3 times more likely than white women to suffer a pregnancy-related death; Native American and Alaska Native women were 2.5 times more likely to die than white women.

[The topics new parents are talking about. Evidence-based guidance. Personal stories that matter. Sign up now to get NYT Parenting in your inbox every week.]

Obstetric emergencies involving complications like severe bleeding caused most of the deaths at delivery. Disorders related to high blood pressure accounted for most deaths from the day of delivery through the sixth day postpartum.

A leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths was cardiovascular disease, which is not typically associated with young pregnant women.

Heart disease and strokes caused more than one-third of pregnancy-related deaths, the C.D.C. found. Cerebrovascular events, such as strokes, were the most common cause of death during the first 42 days after the delivery.

Cardiac disease, which disproportionately affects black women, may be present in a woman before pregnancy, but it also may appear during pregnancy. If heart disease goes undetected, it may become acute after the baby is born.