Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Thorny issue, given some of the examples where appears needed and others where more questionable:

Ottawa a démontré peu d’ouverture à une demande du ministre de la Justice du Québec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, qui ne veut plus que le Code criminel permette à des individus de se livrer à de la propagande haineuse « sous le couvert de la foi ». Pour toute réponse, le gouvernement Trudeau a suggéré au ministre québécois de collaborer à l’avancement d’un projet de loi fédéral sur « les préjudices en ligne ».

Le ministre Jolin-Barrette a envoyé une lettre jeudi à son homologue canadien, Arif Virani, afin de lui demander d’abroger deux articles du Code criminel qui contreviennent, selon son interprétation, au principe de laïcité de l’État.

Ces articles — 319 (3) (b) et 319 (3.1) (b) — font partie d’une courte de liste d’exceptions pouvant être évoquées face à des accusations d’avoir fomenté volontairement la haine ou l’antisémitisme. Ils permettent à un accusé de se défendre en faisant valoir le fait d’avoir, « de bonne foi, exprimé une opinion sur un sujet religieux ou une opinion fondée sur un texte religieux auquel il croit », ou d’avoir « tenté d’en établir le bien-fondé par argument ».

De l’avis du ministre Jolin-Barrette, « cette justification est actuellement exploitée pour légitimer des propos discriminatoires ou incendiaires sous le couvert de la foi ». « Ce genre de discours contribue à un climat toxique, menaçant la sécurité et le bien-être des personnes visées », a-t-il écrit au ministre Virani.

Le cabinet du ministre Virani a fait suivre une réponse au Devoir. La directrice adjointe aux communications, Chantalle Aubertin, y a écrit qu’en guise d’« action décisive », Ottawa avait présenté la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne, « une mesure globale visant à lutter contre la propagation des discours haineux, tant en ligne que dans nos communautés ».

« Nous apprécions les observations du ministre Jolin-Barrette et restons déterminés à travailler ensemble pour trouver des solutions », a-t-elle ajouté. « Nous l’encourageons à collaborer avec les parlementaires afin de soutenir l’avancement de la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne en comité, garantissant ainsi que nous disposons des outils nécessaires pour combattre efficacement la haine », a ensuite suggéré Mme Aubertin….

Source: Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Ottawa has shown little openness to a request from Quebec’s Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who no longer wants the Criminal Code to allow individuals to engage in hateful propaganda “under the guise of faith”. For any response, the Trudeau government suggested that the Quebec minister collaborate in the progress of a federal bill on “online damage”.

Minister Jolin-Barrette sent a letter on Thursday to his Canadian counterpart, Arif Virani, asking him to repeal two articles of the Criminal Code that, according to his interpretation, contravene the principle of secularism of the State.

These articles – 319 (3) (b) and 319 (3.1) (b) – are part of a short list of exceptions that can be raised in the face of accusations of having voluntarily fomented hatred or anti-Semitism. They allow an accused to defend himself by asserting the fact that he has, “in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text in which he believes”, or that he has “tried to establish its merits by argument”.

In the opinion of Minister Jolin-Barrette, “this justification is currently exploited to legitimize discriminatory or incendiary remarks under the guise of faith”. “This kind of speech contributes to a toxic climate, threatening the safety and well-being of the people targeted,” he wrote to Minister Virani.

Minister Virani’s office forwarded a response to the Duty. Assistant Director of Communications, Chantalle Aubertin, wrote that as a “recisive action,” Ottawa had introduced the Online Injuries Act, “a comprehensive measure to combat the spread of hate speech, both online and in our communities.”

“We appreciate Minister Jolin-Barrette’s comments and remain determined to work together to find solutions,” she added. “We encourage her to work with parliamentarians to support the progress of the Online Damages Act in committee, thus ensuring that we have the necessary tools to effectively combat hatred,” Ms. Aubertin then suggested.

ICYMI – Blum: Remembrance Day is a time to honour, not divide, Sherazi: Many students see Remembrance Day through their own experience of war

Interesting exchange of perspectives among two persons who often work together:

…Bringing contentious political symbols into a Remembrance Day ceremony is antithetical to these principles. It risks fueling division rather than fostering understanding and detracts from the lessons of sacrifice and freedom that Remembrance Day seeks to impart.

At its core, Remembrance Day is about Canadian values — freedom, respect, and unity. Those who fought for these ideals made unimaginable sacrifices, and it is our duty to honour their memory by upholding those values in our schools and communities.

To do so, we must ensure that Remembrance Day remains a day of solemn reflection and unity. It is not a platform for political statements or a time to import contemporary conflicts into our shared spaces. It is a time to remember those who gave their lives for the peace and freedoms we enjoy today and to ensure that their sacrifices are not forgotten.

By keeping politics out of the classroom and focusing on shared values, we can foster an environment where all students feel respected, included and united in their commitment to the ideals that Remembrance Day represents.

Rabbi Menachem M. Blum is the spiritual leader of the Ottawa Torah Centre. His community outreach work includes interfaith dialogue and workshops that he

Source: Blum: Remembrance Day is a time to honour, not divide

…In the last 20 years, some students have experienced war directly.  I have had the privilege to work in schools with students who have done gone through war; the horrors are unimaginable.  I think that Hobbs’s intentions were not misplaced.

If we cannot find ways to help students understand a broader message of honouring the dead — everyone’s dead — if we can’t help teach students about the freedoms we enjoy because some have sacrificed their lives to provide those freedoms, what common ground is there?

For educators, it is worth remembering that students are seeing modern warfare unfold in front of their eyes in real time on social media. In the most recent conflict in the Middle East, they have watched more than 16,000 children lose their lives. Many are buried under rubble. Others have suffered lifelong injuries, and won’t have access to medical treatment. Will students ponder the fact that 12,000 Palestinians also volunteered to serve in the British army and participated in battle in North Africa and Europe during the Second World War, and what those lives meant in the grand scheme of things?

U.S. historian Henry Glassie is quoted saying, “History is not the past but a map

Source: Sherazi: Many students see Remembrance Day through their own experience of war

Freiman and Sandler: Samidoun has been banned. Now, it’s time to stamp it out

Given the government’s mixed record on implementation, legitimate call for action:

…We fully support the evidence-based designation of Samidoun as a terrorist entity. We now call on the authorities to use all available tools to confront this group and those involved in its illegal activities, whether covertly or otherwise.

The listing of Samidoun under the Canadian Criminal Code marks a crucial, albeit preliminary, step in the broader fight against hate and extremism. However, without decisive follow-up, this designation risks having a limited impact. Government agencies and law enforcement must work together to dismantle Samidoun’s operations and, to the extent possible, keep the public informed of the steps being taken. Only with meaningful action can we ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Source: Opinion: Samidoun has been banned. Now, it’s time to stamp it out

Walmart Rolls Back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts After Conservative Backlash

Trend likely to accelerate under Trump beyond curbing some of the excesses:

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, is rolling back its diversity, equity and inclusion policies, joining a growing list of major corporations that have done the same after coming under attack by conservative activists.

The changes, confirmed by Walmart on Monday, are sweeping and include everything from not renewing a five-year commitment for an equity racial center set up in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd, to pulling out of a prominent gay rights index. And when it comes to race or gender, Walmart won’t be giving priority treatment to suppliers.

Walmart’s moves underscore the increasing pressure faced by corporate America as it continues to navigate the fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2023 ending affirmative action in college admissions. Emboldened by that decision, conservative groups have filed lawsuits making similar arguments about corporations, targeting workplace initiatives such as diversity programs and hiring practices that prioritize historically marginalized groups.

Separately, conservative political commentator and activist Robby Starbuck has been going after corporate DEI policies, calling out individual companies on the social media platform X. Several of those companies have subsequently announced that they are pulling back their initiatives, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s and Tractor Supply.

But Walmart, which employs 1.6 million workers in the U.S., is the largest one to do so.

“This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America,” Starbuck wrote on X, adding that he had been in conversation with Walmart.

Walmart confirmed to the Associated Press that it will better monitor its third-party marketplace items to make sure they don’t feature sexual and transgender products aimed at minors. That would include chest binders intended for youth who are going through a gender change, the company said.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer will also be reviewing grants to Pride events to make sure it is not financially supporting sexualized content that may be unsuitable for kids. For example, the company wants to makes sure a family pavilion is not next to a drag show at a Pride event, the company said.

Additionally, Walmart will no longer consider race and gender as a litmus test to improve diversity when it offers supplier contracts. The company said it didn’t have quotas and will not do so going forward. It won’t be gathering demographic data when determining financing eligibility for those grants.

Walmart also said it wouldn’t renew a racial equity center that was established through a five-year, $100 million philanthropic commitment from the company with a mandate to, according to its website, “address the root causes of gaps in outcomes experienced by Black and African American people in education, health, finance and criminal justice systems.”

And it would stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s annual benchmark index that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees.

“We’ve been on a journey and know we aren’t perfect, but every decision comes from a place of wanting to foster a sense of belonging, to open doors to opportunities for all our associates, customers and suppliers and to be a Walmart for everyone,” the company said in a statement.

Source: Walmart Rolls Back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts After Conservative Backlash

Speer: As Canada’s diversity increases, anti-racialism becomes essential

We are more than individuals and outcomes reflect a mixture of individual and group characteristics and experience, along with intersectionality within and between groups. Not one or the other, but need to consider both aspects as the various datasets indicated:

…As an epistemological framework, it represents a way of thinking that systematically organizes individuals into group categories based on race and then grants it explanatory power for virtually everything.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every “pretendian” cited in Pete’s article is a progressive. As the principal purveyors of identity politics, progressives are distinctly predisposed to racialist thinking. They’re more inclined to think in terms of racial identity and attribute value to membership in certain racial groups.

It’s logical therefore that within progressive circles claiming a particular group identity has greater upside than among conservatives who are more instinctively anti-racialist. Does anyone for instance doubt that progressive figures like Turpel-Lanford or Boissonnault realized status gains from adopting fake Indigenous identities?

Which brings us back to Pete’s case against affirmative action and its perverse incentives. His argument is well taken—but one can argue that we actually need to go deeper. We should aim to address the racialist thinking that underpins those policies and the political culture that enables them. Herein lies Salam’s case for anti-racialism.

The good news is that he believes that in the U.S. context, anti-racialism may represent a powerful political proposition across a multi-ethnic coalition. Donald Trump’s election victory is evidence that he’s right.

There’s a strong case to think that the same is true in Canada—particularly in the coming years. As the country becomes more diverse, the distinction between majority and minority populations will necessarily become far weaker. Defining one’s identity in contradistinction to the so-called “white mainstream” will presumably have less resonance in a world in which “racialized” Canadians represent as much as half of the population as early as 2041. Racial salience may counterintuitively decline in a polity composed of a growing multiplicity of racial identities.

If so, we may look back at this era of identity politics and the “pretendians” that it has produced as a regrettable yet temporary waystation on the path to the meritocratic culture that Pete envisions.

Source: As Canada’s diversity increases, anti-racialism becomes essential

The Great Regression: How do we reverse course in a societal death spiral?

New term for me but seems appropriate. Sound recommendations to improve self-awareness (“know thyself”):

…The Great Regression is a full-out threat to civility, peace, democracy and humanity – a social and public health emergency, or what some have called a social death spiral. And I’d like to offer this plea from the therapist’s chair: We’re so distracted by the left-right axis that we haven’t understood the deeper problem of regression, which is a truly dangerous aspect of polarization.

To be clear, I’m not calling for anyone to water down their cherished ideals or strong political beliefs. But I am asking that those swept up in the culture wars take time to consider these questions: Are you no longer able to be friends with people who hold differing views? Do you dehumanize your political opponents? Do you believe they wish you and your family harm? Do you wish them harm? And are you able to consider the other side in a political debate – even though you strongly disagree?

These are all signs, in my view, that you may be drifting downward on the Great Regression axis. It’s important to catch yourself before you descend to regrettable actions such as destroying relationships, or creating a toxic work environment.

Gaining self-awareness of our processes can be life-improving. It helps us mend fences with family members, develop deeper friendships and get along better with colleagues. At one time, our leaders and institutions – not just political, but in all facets of life – were role models of emotional regulation. In a regressed society, we see fewer healthy examples in public life. That’s why I believe individuals must begin to look at their own position on that up-down axis, painful as it might be. The ability to identify and resist regression in ourselves and others is a great power, and an opportunity to help heal our society’s emotional health.

Thomas Ungar is a professor in the Temerty Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto and a staff psychiatrist at North York General Hospital.

Source: The Great Regression: How do we reverse course in a societal death spiral?

Beech | The federal government is spending millions fighting a discrimination suit by Black employees. This is what it should do instead

Reminder that the public sector employment equity numbers for the past 6 years have shown Black Canadians having better hiring, promotion and separation outcomes than whites and most visible minority groups (Executive Diversity within the Public Service: An Accelerating Trend and How well is the government meeting its diversity targets? An intersectionality analysis):

…Knowledge of Canada’s legacy of racism against Black, Indigenous and other people of colour needs to become as mainstream as the multiculturalism that masks its existence.

Acknowledging anti-Black racism while simultaneously attempting to dismiss a class action lawsuit about anti-Black racism within the federal public service is an example of the paradox of progress that fuels the relentless cycle of performative politics. Working conditions in the federal public service are so hostile toward Black employees that it led to mental health challenges resulting in the use of antidepressants and suicide attempts.

More broadly, what are Black Canadians supposed to feel when a federal government seems so keen to avoid taking responsibility for bigotry in its own service? If we truly want to become the Canada we claim to be, and who Canadians believe themselves to be, we must live up to our stated ideals.

The federal government must stop fighting for a dismissal, and the Federal Court should greenlight the lawsuit and reckon with this country’s legacy of anti-Black racism. Only then can we build a future rooted in truth, transparency, equity and inclusion. Until then, Canada will remain a hostile homeland.

Source: Opinion | The federal government is spending millions fighting a discrimination suit by Black employees. This is what it should do instead

Le Devoir editorial: Le racisme vu autrement

Of note:

En définitive, Haroun Bouazzi s’est disqualifié comme porte-étendard de la lutte contre le racisme au Québec. Ce serait cependant une grave erreur de nier l’existence des disparités de traitement et des iniquités qui minent les conditions du vivre-ensemble. Le profilage racial perdure au sein de la police malgré les condamnations et les plans d’action. Le gouvernement Legault s’entête à ne pas reconnaître l’existence du racisme systémique, en jouant sur les mots, alors que des commissions d’enquête, des jugements des tribunaux supérieurs, des rapports ou études produits par des organismes gouvernementaux nomment le problème et suggèrent des mesures pour l’endiguer. L’immigration a le dos large pour expliquer les nombreuses carences du filet de sécurité sociale et les carences dans les services publics, alors qu’il s’agit de phénomènes multifactoriels. La réconciliation avec les peuples autochtones avance à reculons…

Le repli communautariste sous-jacent à l’analyse d’Haroun Bouazzi ne forme pas une base acceptable pour un débat fécond. Il faut tout de même trouver un espace pour entendre la détresse et l’inquiétude des Québécois issus de la diversité ou des Premières Nations. Ils ont droit à la pleine égalité, à leur voix discordante aussi pour dénoncer les imperfections qu’il incombe de nommer, dans un débat public qui doit demeurer vigoureux et respectueux, de part et d’autre.

Source: Le Devoir editorial: Le racisme vu autrement

.. Ultimately, Haroun Bouazzi disqualified himself as the standard-bearer of the fight against racism in Quebec. However, it would be a serious mistake to deny the existence of the disparities in treatment and inequities that undermine the conditions of living together. Racial profiling persists within the police despite convictions and action plans. The Legault government insists on not recognizing the existence of systemic racism, playing on words, while commissions of inquiry, judgments of higher courts, reports or studies produced by government agencies name the problem and suggest measures to stem it. Immigration has a broad back to explain the many deficiencies in the social safety net and the deficiencies in public services, while these are multifactorial phenomena. Reconciliation with indigenous peoples is moving backwards…

The communitarian retreat underlying Haroun Bouazzi’s analysis does not form an acceptable basis for a fruitful debate. It is still necessary to find a space to hear the distress and concern of Quebecers from diversity or First Nations. They have the right to full equality, to their discordant voice also to denounce the imperfections that must be named, in a public debate that must remain vigorous and respectful, on both sides.

John Ivison: It’s not ‘cancel culture’ to silence people who encourage terrorism

Poster child for when cancel culture warranted:

….Canada’s Online Harms Act, which is currently before Parliament, aims to hold the online platforms accountable for content that invites violence. It has many shortcomings: the parliamentary budget officer estimates the legislation could cost upward of $200 million over five years to establish the ranks of bureaucrats the government believes are necessary to police the online world. But at least it should make some of this content inaccessible.

But in the real world, it would not stop characters like Kathrada telling impressionable young Muslims that martyrs are “winners” who will be permitted to intercede on behalf of 70 of their relatives in the afterlife.

He is scheduled to deliver a lecture to the University of Victoria’s Muslim Students Association this Sunday and it is safe to say that he will not be arguing that diversity is our strength.

Should he be banned, or at least denounced by the university, or would doing so equate to the worst of the cancel culture that has dominated campuses in recent years?

Yes, he should. This is qualitatively different from the academic environment where there is only one righteous path — the equality of outcomes for “oppressed groups” — and where political diversity is a threat to social justice.

As John Stuart Mill asserted, individual freedom should only be infringed to prevent harm to others.

Kathrada’s history suggests his glorification of martyrdom could encourage those listening to emulate the acts of the martyr.

In a sermon last December, Kathrada prayed for the annihilation of “the plundering, transgressor Jew.” He has previously praised the October 7th terrorist attacks for humiliating Israel.

Hate speech, as defined by the Supreme Court, expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group that goes beyond disdain or dislike. Incitement occurs when a person is actively encouraged to commit or threaten physical violence.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code bans both of those things.

However, Kathrada has a “stay out of jail” card in the form of an exemption included in the Criminal Code that says if the person bases his or her opinion on a religious subject or religious text, he cannot be prosecuted.

Jewish groups have called for new legislation that would outlaw the glorification of terror acts and symbols. But Kathrada’s exemption would likely still apply.

Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada, said Parliament should clarify the limitations on the religious exemption under the Criminal Code.

However, what is clear is that Kathrada’s “kafir society” is passive, if not paralyzed, in the face of the exploitation and abuse of its good will.

Source: John Ivison: It’s not ‘cancel culture’ to silence people who encourage terrorism

Farber | Canada must confront its shameful history of harbouring Nazi war criminals

Agree:

…Yet, instead of setting the truth free, the government has offered a long line of opaque justifications for withholding the Deschênes documents. Most recently, federal government departments have claimed that releasing these documents could somehow embolden Russia in its war against Ukraine. Such feeble excuses underestimate the intelligence of Canadians and erode public trust in the transparency, accountability, and integrity of our government.

It’s time for Canada to stop concealing the truth and release the Deschênes documents, fully and unconditionally. If the documents embarrass our country, so be it. These documents hold stories of atrocities committed in Europe, lives lost and justice denied. But they also hold the potential for education and healing — a way forward to confront uncomfortable truths about our nation’s past.

Only by revealing the past can we begin the work of reconciliation, educating future generations and building a more just and principled nation. It’s an imperative that Canada can no longer ignore.

Source: Opinion | Canada must confront its shameful history of harbouring Nazi war criminals