Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Of interest, more from a general and multicultural marketing perspective:

What it means to be ‘Canadian’ isn’t what it used to be; it’s so much more, according to a new study commissioned by AV Communications (AVC) and Ipsos. The research reveals a seismic shift in the demographic makeup and cultural complexities of Canada, in which previous conceptions about dominant ethnicities no longer control the narrative. For the majority of Canadians (84 per cent), their Canadian identity coexists alongside their cultural identity – it’s not about one or the other.

The findings show that cultural connections and diversity now run deep across multiple generations of Canadians, demanding a fundamental rethinking of how communities and organizations engage with audiences in the years ahead.

“Today’s multicultural Canada is about so much more than ethnicity or ‘newcomer’ narratives – it is about a population that is comfortable moving between layers of cultural norms and identities while remaining steadfastly Canadian,” said Joycelyn David, Owner and CEO of AV Communications. “Success in today’s market requires navigating these layered perspectives and fostering a multicultural mindset.”

A New Kind of Canada

Younger and first generations are setting the cultural tone and agenda as they move into adulthood and establish themselves. Fifty-four per cent of Gen Z (18–27-year-olds) and 67 per cent of first-generation Canadians are predominantly not White, compared to 78 per cent of boomers and 83 per cent of third generation Canadians, signaling a massive shift in the country’s demographic landscape – and future.

This transformation runs deeper than demographics alone; in fact, what the data tells us is that being more than Canadian is what makes us Canadian. The study reveals 77 per cent of Canadians view cultural diversity as core to national identity, with distinct patterns of cultural engagement emerging:

  • Cultural Fluidity: 83% of Canadians feel comfortable expressing their cultural identity while feeling part of Canadian society. They see themselves as Canadian, and then some.
  • Multi-Generational Impact: Second-generation Canadians (46%) show the highest rates of cross-cultural relationships, emerging as crucial bridges and connectors between cultural communities.
  • Language Layer: While 97% of third+ generation Canadians speak English and/or French only at home, 51% of first-generation Canadians and 35% of Gen-Z maintain multilingual households, signaling ease in moving between worldviews through linguistic/cultural norms.
  • Content Consumption: 86% of Gen Z actively engage with international content, signaling a new era of global connectivity and cross-cultural appreciation.

“This groundbreaking study marks a significant departure from traditional siloed approaches to cultural research in Canada,” said Grace Tong, Vice President, Ipsos Canada. “Instead of studying ethnic groups in isolation, we’ve uncovered the complex web of cultural connections that span generations. The data reveals that viewing multicultural consumers as a niche market fundamentally misses how cultural diversity has become embedded in the mainstream Canadian experience.”

Source: Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Bouchard: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Always interesting to read Bouchard, with his sensible analysis and recommendations:

Je suis fermement opposé aux pratiques qui viennent d’être exposées dans nos écoles. Elles sont nettement contraires aux valeurs de notre société et il faut y mettre fin. Mais de quelle façon ?

Parti en guerre contre l’islamisme (« On va se battre ») comme si une vague déferlait sur le Québec, M. Legault veut immédiatement sortir l’artillerie lourde : durcir la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, l’enchâsser dans une constitution, utiliser la disposition de dérogation, « sortir » la religion des écoles et des lieux publics. Il y a certes un problème, mais une intervention précipitée, mal calibrée, pourrait l’aggraver plutôt que de le régler. Nous connaissons mal la situation, des enquêtes viennent tout juste de commencer. Voici quelques questions à considérer.

1) Quelle est l’ampleur du problème ? Gardons-nous de généraliser hâtivement. Nous savons actuellement que moins de vingt écoles sont concernées. Est-ce la pointe de l’iceberg ? Ou l’iceberg lui-même ? Qu’en est-il des 2757 établissements primaires et secondaires recensés au Québec ? Et qu’en est-il des universités et des cégeps ? Nous l’ignorons.

En passant, ce que nous savons des dérapages provient du travail des médias. Sinon, quand le public en aurait-il été informé ?

2) Quelle est la source du problème ? Les situations dénoncées peuvent être imputables à diverses causes : a) les responsables, à tous les niveaux décisionnels, en étaient informés, mais ont choisi de les cacher ; b) les responsables immédiats le savaient et ont fait leur devoir, mais leurs messages se sont « perdus » plus haut ; c) des responsables, à un niveau quelconque, ont jugé que les pratiques concernées ne méritaient pas qu’on s’y attarde ; d) des acteurs, victimes d’intimidation, se sont tus. Encore là, nous ne savons pas.

Il s’agissait peut-être de peu de choses au départ. Le problème a pu s’accentuer à la faveur de l’inaction prolongée des gestionnaires. Dans le cas de l’école Bedford, on sait que les transgressions avaient cours depuis sept ans. Il est troublant que le ministère de l’Éducation n’ait pas été saisi de ces écarts ou que, l’ayant été, il n’ait rien fait.

3) Un problème d’intégration culturelle ? Il paraît clair que des éléments très localisés (jusqu’à preuve du contraire) d’un fondamentalisme islamique s’activent dans les écoles. Fondamentalisme ? J’entends par là le fait de a) reconnaître une priorité absolue à des valeurs religieuses ; b) se fermer à tout assouplissement ; c) s’adonner à l’endoctrinement.

Ce semble être un phénomène neuf ici. Aucune mention n’en a été faite au cours des nombreuses consultations conduites auprès de la communauté scientifique et auprès du grand public par la commission que j’ai coprésidée avec Charles Taylor.

Nous faisons face à un choc culturel. Qu’il soit ou non le fait d’une nouvelle génération, il témoigne d’un rejet de valeurs primordiales promues par notre société. Nous devons mieux connaître les conditions dans lesquelles des catégories de croyants en viennent à se comporter d’une manière inacceptable dans des institutions aussi névralgiques que le système scolaire.

4) Interdire les prières en public ? Qu’entend-on exactement par là ? On parle des attroupements de fidèles accomplissant un rituel religieux sur un trottoir ou une place. Qu’est-ce qu’un attroupement : deux personnes ? Cinq ? Dix ? Visera-t-on aussi le dévot qui, devant l’oratoire Saint-Joseph, s’arrête pour faire une génuflexion et le signe de la croix ? Qu’entend-on par « lieux publics » ? Par « prières » ? Comment démêler le religieux et le spirituel ? Et qu’advient-il des droits fondamentaux ? Enfin, toutes les religions seront-elles visées ? On aura noté que le premier ministre ne parle que des « islamistes ».

Bonne chance aux spécialistes qui rédigeront les nouvelles directives. Et bonne chance à ceux et celles qui devront les appliquer.

5) « Sortir » le religieux des écoles ? Comment procédera-t-on ? Il faudra distinguer l’endoctrinement et l’enseignement des religions, statuer sur les anciens séminaires laïcisés subventionnés par l’État et qui abritent une chapelle encore active. Et si notre premier ministre est cohérent, il devra fermer les écoles religieuses. Osera-t-il le faire ? Sinon, qui le prendra au sérieux ?

Selon un texte de Radio-Canada (avril 2022), notre gouvernement subventionnerait cinquante établissements privés ayant « une vocation religieuse explicite ».

6) Quoi faire ? Comment ? Comment contrer les expressions répréhensibles de convictions profondément enracinées dans le religieux ? Cette tâche appelle de la prudence et du doigté dictés par une approche réfléchie, expérimentée. Possédons-nous les outils psychologiques et sociologiques requis ?

Nous avons un centre de prévention de la radicalisation créé par la Ville de Montréal depuis une dizaine d’années. Il a fait ses preuves, surtout à l’échelle des individus, sauf erreur. Disposons-nous d’une expertise spécifique sur le plan collectif ? Saurons-nous traiter correctement des réalités aussi complexes, potentiellement explosives ?

7) Une déchirure sociétale à la française ? Des interventions à l’emporte-pièce pourraient donner à court terme l’illusion d’un succès, mais elles pourraient aussi activer le feu qu’on voulait éteindre. Évitons, si possible, de reproduire ici la situation de la France : un clivage profond, terreau de violences, devenu ingérable.

Au premier ministre de jouer…

Quel parti va prendre M. Legault ? Cédant à l’émoi du moment et en quête d’un gain électoral facile, va-t-il choisir d’en découdre et risquer de provoquer un durcissement, d’ériger un mur ? Ou optera-t-il pour la prudence afin d’y voir plus clair avant d’agir ?

Ce texte n’est pas une invitation à la complaisance ou à la mollesse. C’est une invitation à donner une chance à la prévention (sensibilisation, mises en garde, négociations, mises au pas, sanctions au besoin) avant de recourir à l’artillerie lourde. C’est une invitation à bien baliser le parcours avant de s’y engager. Et n’excluons pas que le cadre juridique actuel, appliqué rigoureusement, puisse offrir les moyens de ramener les choses à l’ordre. C’est ce que croient plusieurs juristes.

Source: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

I strongly oppose the practices that have just been exposed in our schools. They are clearly contrary to the values of our society and must be put to an end. But in what way?

Gone to war against Islamism (“On va se battre”) as if a wave was sweeping over Quebec, Mr. Legault immediately wants to take out the heavy artillery: toughen the Law on the Secularism of the State, enshrine it in a constitution, use the exemption provision, “take” religion out of schools and public places. There is certainly a problem, but a hasty, poorly calibrated intervention could aggravate it rather than solve it. We do not know much about the situation, investigations have just begun. Here are some questions to consider.

1) What is the extent of the problem? Let us be careful not to generalize hastily. We currently know that less than twenty schools are affected. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Or the iceberg itself? What about the 2757 primary and secondary schools identified in Quebec? And what about universities and CEGEPs? We do not know it.

By the way, what we know about skids comes from the work of the media. Otherwise, when would the public have been informed?

2) What is the source of the problem? The situations denounced can be attributed to various causes: a) those responsible, at all decision-making levels, were informed, but chose to hide them; b) the immediate officials knew it and did their duty, but their messages were “lost” above; c) those responsible, at some level, judged that the practices concerned did not deserve to be dwelling on; d) actors, victims of intimidation, fell silent. Again, we don’t know.

It may have been a few things at the beginning. The problem may have been exacerbated by the prolonged inaction of managers. In the case of the Bedford School, we know that the transgressions had been taking place for seven years. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Education has not been seized of these discrepancies or that, having been, it has done nothing.

3) A problem of cultural integration? It seems clear that very localized elements (until proven otherwise) of Islamic fundamentalism are being activated in schools. Fundamentalism? I mean a) recognizing absolute priority to religious values; b) closing to any relaxation; c) indocting indoctrination.

It seems to be a new phenomenon here. No mention of this was made during the many consultations conducted with the scientific community and with the general public by the commission that I co-chaired with Charles Taylor.

We are facing a cultural shock. Whether or not it is the fact of a new generation, it testifies to a rejection of primordial values promoted by our society. We need to better understand the conditions under which categories of believers come to behave in an unacceptable way in institutions as neuralgic as the school system.

4) Prohibit prayers in public? What exactly do we mean by that? There is talk of crowds of worshippers performing a religious ritual on a sidewalk or square. What is a crowd: two people? Five? Ten? Will we also aim at the devotee who, in front of the Saint-Joseph oratory, stops to make a genuflection and the sign of the cross? What is meant by “public places”? By “prayers”? How to disentangle the religious and the spiritual? And what happens to fundamental rights? Finally, will all religions be targeted? It will have been noted that the Prime Minister only speaks of “Islamists”.

Good luck to the specialists who will write the new guidelines. And good luck to those who will have to apply them.

5) “Take out” the religious from schools? How will we proceed? It will be necessary to distinguish the indoctrination and the teaching of religions, to rule on the old secularized seminars subsidized by the State and which house a chapel that is still active. And if our prime minister is consistent, he will have to close religious schools. Will he dare to do it? Otherwise, who will take it seriously?

According to a text from Radio-Canada (April 2022), our government would subsidize fifty private institutions with “an explicit religious vocation”.

6) What to do? How? How to counter the reprehensible expressions of convictions deeply rooted in the religious? This task calls for prudence and tact dictated by a thoughtful, experienced approach. Do we have the necessary psychological and sociological tools?

We have a radicalization prevention center created by the City of Montreal for about ten years. It has proven itself, especially at the level of individuals, unless I am mistaken. Do we have specific expertise at the collective level? Will we be able to properly deal with such complex, potentially explosive realities?

7) A French societal tear? Cookie-cutter interventions could give the illusion of success in the short term, but they could also activate the fire we wanted to put out. Let’s avoid, if possible, reproducing here the situation of France: a deep cleavage, a breeding ground for violence, which has become unmanageable.

It’s up to the Prime Minister to play…

Which side will Mr. Legault? Giving in to the emotion of the moment and in search of an easy electoral gain, will he choose to fight and risk causing a hardening, erecting a wall? Or will he opt for caution in order to see more clearly before acting?

This text is not an invitation to complacency or softness. It is an invitation to give prevention a chance (awareness, warnings, negotiations, steps, sanctions if necessary) before resorting to heavy artillery. It is an invitation to mark the course before committing to it. And let’s not rule out that the current legal framework, rigorously applied, can offer the means to bring things back to order. This is what many lawyers believe.



Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

From ‘eh’ to ‘meh’? Pride and attachment to country in Canada both endure significant declines 

2024/12/14 Leave a comment

Alarming decline, reflecting likely mix of housing, healthcare, post-COVID hangover, inflation, youth challenges etc, along with perhaps undue focus on criticism of Canada and its history. No easy corrective action no matter which government:



Link to the poll here: www.angusreid.org/

The years since the onset of COVID-19 have been a well-documented period of division and discord in this country, with Canadians expressing concerns about the lack of a “middle” option politically, an unwillingness from governments to work together for the people, weakening compassion and growing space between Canadians.
 
New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute find two broad trends underscoring these changes and signalling a challenge for national unity. In 2016, 62 per cent of Canadians said they had a deep emotional attachment to Canada. In 1991 that mark was three points higher (65%). Now in 2024 it is 13 points lower at 49 per cent.

Even more dramatic is a drop in a sense of pride among Canadians. In 1985, 78 per cent said they were “very proud” to be Canadian. This dropped to 52 per cent in 2016 and now by another 18 points to 34 per cent. The proportion who say they are either proud or very proud of their nationality has dropped precipitously from 79 per cent to 58 per cent over the past eight years.

Source: From ‘eh’ to ‘meh’? Pride and attachment to country in Canada both endure significant declines 

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Brian Dijkema: American solutions won’t solve the problems fuelling Canadian populism  

2024/12/14 Leave a comment

Good discussion of some of the differences:

…Canadian populism ≠ American populism

Conservatives who are sympathetic to an economic vision that is focused on the working class might be forgiven for wanting to copy and paste the American vision into the Canadian context. But this would be a mistake because while many of the concerns of the Canadian working class are shared with their American counterparts (particularly their distrust of elite institutions, including universities, media, law, and cultural establishment), the economic realities that have affected the working class in Canada are markedly different in nature than they are in America.

Many of the items that Cass, Salam, and Douthat sought as policy remedies for the working class in America—family allowances or parental leave, for instance—are well established in Canada. And, frankly, if you look at significant portions of our economy, we are kind of living the dream of a realignment conservative in the U.S. You would expect populism to be a non-factor here.

But that assumes that all countries are like the United States, and they’re not. We’re not.i

Populism is a factor here for many of the same reasons in the U.S. on the cultural side.2 But on the economic side, while we have experienced job polarization, we also have many of the family and other supports that realignment conservatives in the U.S. offer as a means to provide a base for family vitality.

While Cass might be right about the imbalance in favour of the consumer in the U.S. (I’ll let him debate that within his own country), it is absolutely true that in Canada the imbalance goes the other way.

Whether it’s Volkswagen’s battery plants, or spaghetti factories in Brampton, Ont., there is nothing Canadian governments love doing more than taking care of producers in the name of creating jobs (or, more accurately, hypothetical jobs). I think it’s entirely plausible to suggest that, across a whole range of industries, the structure of our economy works against working families getting ahead. So many bills, for cell phones, the milk, butter, and cheese that we use to feed our children, chicken, flights home for Christmas, Christmas turkeys, banking costs, electricity, or housing are far higher than they need to be because the Canadian governments (both provincial and federal) have chosen the producer over the consumer.

Many Canadians, myself included, just look at their monthly bills, look at the ways in which associations and lobbyists for these groups secure protections from competition that would lower prices, and start reaching for their pitchforks. And that doesn’t include the array of other industries that aren’t directly connected with consumer goods—shipbuilding, aerospace, or infrastructure, for instance—that take our tax dollars to create jobs, but barely do that, and also fail to build us the ships and planes that we need to defend our own country. It’s tough to swallow getting dinged with tariffs because our money has gone to stuff the pockets of the Bombardiers, Irvings, and SNCs of the world while they in turn have failed to deliver the things we need to defend democratic institutions against global threats.

A realignment economic agenda in Canada will need to include measures that address these challenges, and insofar as it does so, it will not only look far different from its populist neighbours to the south, but far more like traditional free market economics than the heterodox strands that have been woven into the American populist agenda.

Politicians in Canada who hope to craft a multi-ethnic, working-class coalition will, of course, also need to address the deeply rooted sources of populism in culture, but when it comes to economics, at least in Canada, what’s old should become new again.

Source: Brian Dijkema: American solutions won’t solve the problems fuelling Canadian populism

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Ling | Court fights aren’t fixing our culture wars. They might be making them worse

2024/12/13 Leave a comment

Good commentary:

…The fact is, Canada is in a state of particular social and political polarization. That isn’t inherently a bad thing. There was a time when having gay teachers in the classroom was a deeply polarizing concept. The courts, yes, declared that legally permissible. But having Queer people in the classroom did not become normal or accepted because the courts deemed it so. That was made possible because many good people did the difficult work of convincing skeptics that it was an actively positive thing. A recent backlash to LGBTQ issues in education should be a sign that while the law can be settled, our politics rarely are.

Community is not created by a tribunal ruling or a waving flag, but by people who actively work to build it. Litigation can absolutely dismantle systemic injustice and force conversations, but there are limits to what the adversarial battles in the courtroom can achieve. 

In recent years, many progressives have come to believe they are indisputably right and therefore have no need to debase themselves by talking to those who are wrong. In the worst cases, they have come to believe that wrong-thinkers can be cowed into silence or deplatformed entirely. These lines in the sand aren’t just polarizing, they rob us of the ability to resolve actual differences. And when polarization can’t resolve itself, it can spiral into societal breakdown.

One of the ways we can disentangle these disputes is through politics. (McQuaker didn’t have to defend his record in a campaign, he was recently re-elected by acclamation.)

But more broadly, we should take some lessons from Gilbert Baker and Queer activists of recent decades. As the Queer community’s Betsy Ross told theTimes: “We have put our whole lives into changing society, but we are just starting. This is an intergenerational process.”

This process is slow and difficult, but it is important. If we rely too much on institutions, symbols, and learning modules titled “Human Rights 101” to change society, we can forget that society is other people. And other people must be convinced, not cajoled.

Source: Opinion | Court fights aren’t fixing our culture wars. They might be making them worse

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Committee’s endorsement of ‘anti-Palestinian racism’ report splits Liberal caucus

2024/12/13 Leave a comment

No surprise. Ongoing tension. Agree no need for new category for racism. Anti-Arab more than sufficient for ethnic origin, anti-Muslim or Islamophobia for Palestinian Muslims:

Tensions were apparent in the Liberal caucus Wednesday after a committee chaired by Liberal MP Lena Metlege Diab released a report endorsing the disputed concept of anti-Palestinian racism.

Attorney General Arif Virani said he was “alive to concerns” about the notion of anti-Palestinian racism, but stressed the need to confront the rise in hatred since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in southern Israel.

“I think what’s really important is that Canadians understand we’re trying to address the divisions and the hatred that we’re seeing in society,” Virani told reporters on his way to the Liberals’ weekly caucus meeting. “And we’re seeing a lot that’s related to geopolitical conflicts on the other side of the world.”

“That’s why it’s critical to address antisemitism, but it’s also critical to address reprisals and backlash that we’ve seen against people that are Arab or Palestinian, including looking in more detail at the definition of anti-Palestinian racism.”

Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP for Mount Royal, said he wasn’t convinced Palestinians need special protections.

“We’d have to understand why … you would have this nationality and not other nationalities,” said Housefather.

“If you’re going to adopt anti-Palestinian racism, are you going to have anti Israeli-racism? Are you going to have anti other country racism?”

Housefather, who is Jewish, was a vocal backer of the Trudeau government’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in 2019.

The committee report, titled Islamophobia on the Rise, uses the term “anti-Palestinian racism” more than a dozen times. It also recommends that the federal government, joined by the provinces, direct educational institutions to appoint “special advisors” on anti-Palestinian racism.

The report stops short of recommending that anti-Palestinian racism be added to Canada’s anti-racism strategy, as some activists have pushed for.

The report also sidesteps the question of formally defining anti-Palestinian racism, but refers to a definition put forward by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association in 2022, which is commonly used.

In this definition, anti-Palestinian racism is “a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”…

Source: Committee’s endorsement of ‘anti-Palestinian racism’ report splits Liberal caucus, Report: ISLAMOPHOBIA ON THE RISE: TAKING ACTION, CONFRONTING HATE AND PROTECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES TOGETHER

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Gaps in how justice system responds to hate crimes need to be addressed, report finds

2024/12/12 Leave a comment

Of note:

Numerous gaps in how the justice system responds to hate crimes must be addressed with more strategic investment to help police, and also legislative reform, a federal watchdog’s report concludes.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime released its latest report Tuesday, saying the under-resourcing of police hate crimes units, victims’ hesitancy to report crimes and failures in successfully prosecuting or deterring crimes create a system where victims feel left behind.

“The justice system fails survivors consistently. It validates hate and feelings of exclusion,” said Benjamin Roebuck, the victims’ ombudsperson.

The report discusses the impact of hate on Indigenous, Black, Asian and LGBTQ+ communities, and discusses gender-based hate as well as hate targeting people with disabilities, seniors, those of different economic classes and those who don’t have homes….

But, in the study’s detailed review of how hate affects different communities, it leaves out explicit discussion of the group that police say has become the most targeted in Canada for the last two years: Jewish Canadians.

Police-reported hate crimes rose 32 per cent in 2023 compared with 2022, an increase police agencies across the country link explicitly to the outbreak of war between Hamas and Israel in October, 2023. There were 900 crimes targeting Jews in Canada in 2023, compared with 527 the year before.

Data collected by Statistics Canada so far in 2024 show Jews remain the most targeted group this year. Black Canadians are the second-most targeted, followed by those targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation….

Source: Gaps in how justice system responds to hate crimes need to be addressed, report finds

Report link: Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime in Canada


Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with

A wave of South Asian racism is sweeping Canada — and the Liberals’ missteps on immigration helped fuel the problem

2024/12/11 Leave a comment

Not convinced that much of the concerns about immigration levels are racist or xenophobic. After all, housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc affect immigrants and non-immigrants alike. Agree with Cochrane’s comment that governments, not immigrants, are responsible for the pressures:

…York University Prof. Tania Das Gupta has observed a shift in public discourse, especially after some politicians started making statements about how immigrants are contributing to the affordability crisis, framing migrants, especially international students, as interlopers.

“They are not Canadians. They are outsiders within. And they are using our services. They are using our housing. They’re using our food banks. They’re taking away jobs,” says Das Gupta, who researches on South Asian diaspora, migration and labour issues. “These are old racist tropes that have been surfacing again.

“In the popular psyche, migrants are being now visualized as being South Asians,” especially people from India, the largest source country of migrants in Canada, Das Gupta says.

She noticed a shift in the rhetoric in the wake of last year’s mass deportation of Indian students who claimed they were duped by an unscrupulous education recruiter and used fraudulent admission letters to apply for student permits to Canada, which she says feeds into the stereotypes that the group was taking advantage of Canada.

By association, an entire group is flagged and viewed through a different lens. And that kind of division and hate will spread if normalized, she warns. This can be felt not only by newcomers, but all Canadians of South Asian ancestry.

Reena Kukreja, an associate professor of global development studies at Queen’s University, is researching the linkage between hateful discourse, its normalization and how that manifests in abuse in people’s day-to-day interactions.

Her research is focused on South Asian men working in the gig economy, such as rideshare drivers and food delivery, or what she calls “hyper-visible” jobs. She says her findings show a “sharp rise in hate” — some report they’ve experienced a rise in overt racism, such as slurs, while others say they feel it in more passive-aggressive behaviours from customers.

“One of the guys told me it’s the way they look at you, and then slam the door shut … it’s a continual reinforcement of two things: One is that Canada is a white-dominant country. And you do not belong here.”

She says while such microaggressions can be hard to prove as outright discrimination, it creates a “continual trauma that accumulates over time, where you feel as less worthy.”

“The moment when hate becomes banal, it is highly dangerous,” she says. “It becomes everyday, which is what I’m seeing right now.”…

“There’s a considerable amount of research out there that shows that online hate doesn’t stay in the online space,” says Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, who edited the report.

She points to a study from the University of Warwick in England that showed tweets targeting Muslims and Latinos by then-U.S. President Donald Trump correlated with an increase in hate crimes against those same groups. 

In Canada, police-reported hate crimes against South Asians have increased every year since 2020, with 228 incidents in 2023, compared to 135 in 2020.

But these statistics likely only represent a fraction of what is really happening, as many people don’t report their experiences, and a comment like “Go back to your country” doesn’t typically meet the threshold of a hate crime, unless it precedes an act such as vandalism or assault, which could then be deemed hate-motivated. …

While it’s valid to criticize Canada’s immigration system, it becomes problematic when people start blaming the individuals who are coming here, rather than a deliberate government policy that welcomed them, and seems designed to keep wages low, says Christopher Cochrane, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto, Scarborough.

“It’s governments that are responsible for this,” he says. “It’s not the fault of the students that are coming here and paying these massive tuitions that are subsidizing all of the students from Ontario who are going to university.”…

Source: A wave of South Asian racism is sweeping Canada — and the Liberals’ missteps on immigration helped fuel the problem

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Matthew Lau: Education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings between races

2024/12/11 Leave a comment

What Lau fails to consider are the barriers that affect education levels and enrolment in STEM disciplines. The numbers are correct but the analysis is overly simplistic:

Significant federal program spending is premised on the idea that visible minorities in Canada are systemically disadvantaged.

Take the latest: Earlier this fall, the federal government released a 45-page anti-racism strategy for 2024-2028, which “aims to tackle systemic racism and make our communities more inclusive and prosperous.” Such a strategy is necessary, according to the government, because systemic racism exists throughout our institutions and “[perpetuates] a position of relative disadvantage for racialized persons.”

But where is the evidence for this premise? Not in the income statistics.

Directly contradicting the idea that visible minorities are systemically oppressed, a new Statistics Canada study shows many Canadians from minority backgrounds thrive and even do better on average than their white counterparts.

The StatCan study started with 1996 and 2001 census data, used T1 and T4 tax files and other data to measure cumulative earnings over 20 years among Canadian-born men and women from four racial cohorts — white, South Asian, Chinese, and Black — and found minorities outperforming the majority population.

Specifically, among Canadian-born men, cumulative earnings over 20 years were highest on average among Chinese men ($1.58 million in 2019 dollars), followed by South Asian men ($1.51 million). Only Black men ($1.06 million) earned less than white men ($1.31 million).

Clearly, if Chinese and South Asian men have higher earnings power than white men, it is difficult to conclude Canada is systemically racist against minorities.

What about the inverse? Does the data suggest Canada is systemically racist against white men? No. “The fact that Chinese and South Asian men have higher education levels than white men and are more likely to be in STEM fields is the single most important factor explaining why these two groups have higher cumulative earnings than white men,” the StatCan report found.

In other words: education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings.

So what happens when we control for education and other factors like employer size, industry, and geography? The earnings gap between white and Black men remains. As well, while Chinese and South Asian men out-earned white men, after controlling for education and other factors, white men actually earned more.

Alas, have we found evidence of systemic racism? Is this evidence that the country is systemically racist because these employers paid minorities less than their white counterparts with similar educational backgrounds?

There’s no hard evidence of this. First, discrimination by employers against visible minorities has been illegal for decades. Second, as the study itself even suggests, many factors affect earnings besides the ones researchers can observe and control for, including differences in social networks, job search methods, and preferences for certain working conditions, so automatically blaming racism doesn’t make much sense. Third, if Canada is systemically racist against minorities, how did Chinese and South Asian men find themselves overrepresented in the higher-paying STEM fields to begin with?

And if racism against Black Canadians is to blame for the earnings gap among men, what explains the fact that Black women earned more than white women? Among Canadian-born women, before controlling for education and other factors, the cohort that earned the least over two decades was white women ($0.80 million). Chinese women had the highest cumulative earnings ($1.14 million), followed by South Asian women ($1.06 million), and then Black women ($0.82 million). Is Canada full of racists who only discriminate against Black men but not Black women?

Another outcome of the StatCan analysis is that after controlling for the same factors (e.g. education), Chinese women out-earned white women — by $38,000, on average. So, do racist employers systematically favour white men over Chinese men, while also disfavouring white women relative to Chinese women?

The narrative that Canadians from visible minority backgrounds are systemically disadvantaged just doesn’t hold up to the data.

Moreover, this latest StatCan study only considered four groups (Chinese, South Asian, white, and Black) of Canadian-born individuals, but other StatCan research provides similar evidence against systemic racism. Weekly earnings data from 2016 show that in addition to Chinese and South Asian men, Canadian-born Japanese and Korean men had higher earnings than their white counterparts. Among women, seven of ten minority groups (Korean, Chinese, South Asian, Japanese, Filipino, “other visible minorities,” and Arab or West Asian) had higher average weekly earnings than the white population.

Simply, the earnings data do not provide evidence that Canada is a society that systemically disadvantages minorities. Rather, the data show the exact opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats might want to consider these facts before wasting large sums of taxpayer dollars drawing up lengthy “anti-racism” plans.

Source: Matthew Lau: Education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings between races

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

Idées | Les leçons de l’expérience française sur la laïcité à l’école et la limite des lois

2024/12/11 Leave a comment

Thoughtful discussion and recognition that coercive measures are ineffective in improving the “vivre ensemble”

Maintenant que 17 établissements scolaires font déjà l’objet d’enquêtes pour de possibles manquements à la laïcité et que l’école Saint-Maxime de Laval fait les manchettes, les enjeux entourant la laïcité détonnent de plus belle. Un rapport détaillé sur ces cas est attendu en janvier.

Cette situation soulève des questions fondamentales sur l’application de la laïcité, une valeur profondément ancrée en France, mais aussi au Québec. Présentée comme garante de la neutralité de l’État face aux religions et protectrice des libertés individuelles, la laïcité, lorsqu’elle se traduit en législation scolaire restrictive, peut devenir une source de divisions plutôt qu’un facteur de cohésion. La France, pionnière dans la mise en œuvre de telles politiques depuis la fin des années 1980, offre un exemple clé pour l’analyse de leurs effets sur le climat scolaire et les relations interculturelles.

Des restrictions qui n’améliorent pas le respect de la laïcité

L’un des principaux arguments avancés pour ces lois est qu’elles renforceraient la laïcité en garantissant un espace neutre où toutes les croyances sont respectées. Cependant, en interdisant certaines pratiques religieuses, cette législation donne souvent l’impression de cibler des communautés spécifiques, ce qui crée un sentiment de stigmatisation et de discrimination.

En France, les lois sur la laïcité ont principalement affecté les jeunes filles musulmanes portant le hidjab. Ce ciblage a donné lieu à des accusations de traitement inégal et à des débats sur l’incompatibilité supposée entre l’islam et les valeurs dites « républicaines ». Or, la laïcité, idéalement, ne devrait ni exclure ni contraindre, mais offrir à chacun la liberté de croire ou de ne pas croire. Les restrictions imposées par les lois sur les signes religieux dans les écoles publiques compromettent cet équilibre en associant la laïcité à un outil coercitif plutôt qu’à un cadre émancipateur.

Un climat scolaire exacerbé par les tensions

Loin d’apaiser les tensions dans les établissements scolaires, les lois restrictives tendent à les exacerber. Dans l’affaire de Creil et dans les années qui ont suivi, de nombreux cas similaires ont mis en lumière l’instrumentalisation des écoles comme champ de bataille idéologique. Cela détourne les enseignants et les élèves de leur mission première : apprendre et grandir ensemble.

Des études menées en France montrent que l’application de la loi de 2004 a conduit à une augmentation des conflits dans les établissements touchés. Comme l’avait souligné la chercheuse Françoise Lorcerie en 2008, la législation prohibitive ne fait qu’accroître les tensions, souvent accompagnées d’une spirale médiatique et politique. Ce type d’escalade installe rarement le climat propice à la discussion de ce genre d’enjeu, comme la France a pu le voir lors de la commission Stasi, qui a mené aux lois prohibitives de 2004. La surreprésentation du camp prohibitionniste dans les médias fut soulevée dans la recherche (Thomas, 2008).

Ces lois ont également renforcé un climat de suspicion envers les élèves issus de minorités et fait en sorte que les professeurs se sentent parfois pris dans un rôle de police des comportements religieux. Ce type d’interventions n’encourage ni la compréhension mutuelle ni l’intégration, mais peut au contraire favoriser un repli identitaire chez les jeunes concernés.

Des relations interculturelles mises en péril

Une des promesses implicites de ces lois est qu’elles favoriseraient l’intégration des élèves dans la société laïque. Pourtant, l’effet inverse semble souvent se produire. Les interdictions rigides de pratiques religieuses, même dans un cadre scolaire, peuvent être perçues comme une négation de l’identité culturelle et spirituelle des élèves concernés.

En France, l’application de ces lois a parfois contribué à marginaliser des groupes minoritaires, alimentant un sentiment de rejet et une méfiance accrue envers les institutions publiques. Dans ce contexte, les établissements scolaires, qui devraient être des lieux de dialogue interculturel et de formation citoyenne, risquent de devenir des espaces de division.

Au-delà des murs de l’école, ces lois ont également un impact sur la perception des valeurs d’accueil dans la société. Plutôt que de renforcer une laïcité apaisée, elles alimentent le discours de l’exclusion et du « nous contre eux ». Les jeunes issus de ces minorités religieuses font ainsi face à un dilemme : renoncer à une partie de leur identité pour se conformer, ou résister, au risque de se voir rejetés davantage.

Pour une approche équilibrée de la laïcité

L’exemple français devrait servir de mise en garde pour le Québec envisageant de légiférer dans le même sens. Si l’objectif est de promouvoir la laïcité et le vivre-ensemble, des mesures coercitives ne sont pas la solution. La laïcité doit être perçue comme une valeur d’union et de respect mutuel, et non comme un instrument de contrôle ou d’assimilation forcée.

En fin de compte, les écoles devraient être des lieux où les enfants apprennent à vivre ensemble dans la diversité, et non des arènes de conflits idéologiques. Loin de résoudre les problèmes auxquels elles prétendent s’attaquer, les lois restrictives sur la laïcité risquent de creuser les fractures qu’elles cherchent à combler. L’expérience française, marquée par des décennies de controverses sur le sujet, montre qu’une approche plus nuancée et inclusive à la québécoise est non seulement souhaitable, mais aussi nécessaire pour bâtir une société véritablement respectueuse des différences.

Source: Idées | Les leçons de l’expérience française sur la laïcité à l’école et la limite des lois

Now that 17 schools are already being investigated for possible breaches of secularism and the Saint-Maxime de Laval school is making headlines, the issues surrounding secularism are more in tune. A detailed report on these cases is expected in January.

This situation raises fundamental questions about the application of secularism, a value deeply rooted in France, but also in Quebec. Presented as a guarantor of the neutrality of the State in the face of religions and a protector of individual freedoms, secularism, when it translates into restrictive school legislation, can become a source of division rather than a factor of cohesion. France, a pioneer in the implementation of such policies since the late 1980s, offers a key example for the analysis of their effects on the school climate and intercultural relations.

Restrictions that do not improve respect for secularism

One of the main arguments put forward for these laws is that they would strengthen secularism by guaranteeing a neutral space where all beliefs are respected. However, by prohibiting certain religious practices, this legislation often gives the impression of targeting specific communities, which creates a sense of stigmatization and discrimination.

In France, the laws on secularism have mainly affected young Muslim girls wearing the hijab. This targeting has given rise to accusations of unequal treatment and debates about the supposed incompatibility between Islam and so-called “republican” values. However, secularism, ideally, should neither exclude nor constrain, but offer everyone the freedom to believe or not to believe. The restrictions imposed by the laws on religious signs in public schools compromise this balance by associating secularism with a coercive tool rather than an emancipatory framework.

A school climate exacerbated by tensions

Far from easing tensions in schools, restrictive laws tend to exacerbate them. In the Creil case and in the years that followed, many similar cases highlighted the instrumentalization of schools as an ideological battlefield. This distracts teachers and students from their primary mission: to learn and grow together.

Studies conducted in France show that the application of the 2004 law has led to an increase in conflicts in affected institutions. As researcher Françoise Lorcerie pointed out in 2008, prohibitive legislation only increases tensions, often accompanied by a media and political spiral. This type of escalation rarely sets the climate conducive to the discussion of this kind of issue, as France was able to see during the Stasi commission, which led to the prohibitive laws of 2004. The overrepresentation of the prohibitionist camp in the media was raised in the research (Thomas, 2008).

These laws have also reinforced a climate of suspicion towards students from minorities and ensured that teachers sometimes feel caught in a role of police of religious behavior. This type of intervention does not encourage mutual understanding or integration, but can on the contrary promote an identity retreat among the young people concerned.

Intercultural relationships at risk

One of the implicit promises of these laws is that they would promote the integration of students into secular society. However, the opposite effect often seems to occur. Rigid prohibitions of religious practices, even in a school setting, can be perceived as a negation of the cultural and spiritual identity of the students concerned.

In France, the application of these laws has sometimes contributed to marginalizing minority groups, fueling a feeling of rejection and increased distrust of public institutions. In this context, schools, which should be places of intercultural dialogue and civic education, risk becoming spaces of division.

Beyond the walls of the school, these laws also have an impact on the perception of welcoming values in society. Rather than strengthening a peaceful secularism, they feed the discourse of exclusion and “we against them”. Young people from these religious minorities thus face a dilemma: giving up part of their identity to conform, or resist, at the risk of being further rejected.

For a balanced approach to secularism

The French example should serve as a warning for Quebec considering legislating in the same direction. If the objective is to promote secularism and living together, coercive measures are not the solution. Secularism should be perceived as a value of union and mutual respect, and not as an instrument of control or forced assimilation.

At the end of the day, schools should be places where children learn to live together in diversity, not arenas of ideological conflicts. Far from solving the problems they claim to tackle, restrictive laws on secularism risk deepening the fractures they seek to fill. The French experience, marked by decades of controversy on the subject, shows that a more nuanced and inclusive Quebec approach is not only desirable, but also necessary to build a society that truly respects differences.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →