Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Useful overview:

Plusieurs étapes ont été franchies au cours des ans pour une laïcité de l’État au Québec. On n’a qu’à penser à la création du ministère de l’Éducation lors de la Révolution tranquille, à la déconfessionnalisation des Commissions scolaires en 2000, ou encore à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi 21) en 2019. Cette grande épopée n’est pas encore arrivée à terme. Voici, en rappel, quelques événements survenus en 2024.

5 février 2024. Le Bloc québécois dépose un deuxième projet de loi pour éliminer l’exception religieuse du Code criminel canadien, lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande haineuse (C-373). Le 14 juin dernier, ce projet de loi a été ajouté à l’ordre de priorité du gouvernement, mais il est toujours en attente d’une date pour être considéré en deuxième lecture.

29 février 2024. La Cour d’appel du Québec confirme la constitutionnalité de la Loi 21 et rejette ainsi le jugement de la Cour supérieure qui en avait exempté les Commissions scolaires anglophones.

21 mars 2024. La Cour supérieure autorise Droits Collectifs Québec et le Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) à intenter un recours en justice (via un mandamus) contre le Conseil de la magistrature du Québec pour lui enjoindre d’établir des règles traduisant les exigences de la laïcité de l’État auprès des juges. Cette cause est importante car elle concerne le droit de toute personne vivant au Québec de bénéficier d’institutions judiciaires laïques.

26 avril. Le gouvernement fédéral crée tout un émoi au Québec en indiquant, dans son budget 2024, explorer de nouvelles mesures pour élargir l’accès aux prêts hypothécaires islamiques. La Coalition avenir Québec, le Parti québécois, le Bloc québécois à Ottawa et des organisations civiles, dont le Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL) montent aux créneaux pour s’opposer à cette initiative contraire aux principes de la laïcité de l’État.

29 avril. La décision de la Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) d’amener la Loi 21 devant la Cour suprême est vivement critiquée par des enseignants qui s’opposent à ce que leurs cotisations syndicales servent à financer ce recours juridique et réclament une véritable consultation sur cette démarche.

19 juin. L’arrondissement d’Ahuntsic-Cartierville autorise un groupe religieux à organiser une prière collective musulmane dans un parc, en contradiction avec son règlement qui y interdit toute cérémonie religieuse. Cette décision crée des remous puisque l’événement, réservé aux adeptes de cette religion tout en reléguant femmes et fillettes dans un espace cloisonné loin derrière les hommes, prive les citoyens de leur espace public.

9 juillet. À la demande du gouvernement du Québec et du MLQ, le juge Mahmud Jamal de la Cour suprême se retire du dossier sur la Loi 21.

Juillet. Le choix de la Ville de Montréal d’inclure une femme voilée sur le panneau de bienvenue de son hall d’entrée crée polémique. Selon le MLQ et Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, cette affiche porte atteinte à la laïcité de l’État et au droit des femmes à l’égalité. La mairesse Valérie Plante annoncera, en octobre, que cette affiche sera retirée en raison du « malaise » qu’elle suscite, mais essentiellement pour réitérer que le Québec est une société laïque.

Septembre. Les manuels du nouveau programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise, qui devaient faire la « promotion de l’État de droit laïque » dans nos écoles, comportent de sérieuses lacunes. Ils contiennent des définitions et principes de la laïcité qui ne reflètent pas les principes de la Loi 21 et ils ne s’appuient pas sur les considérants de la loi pour expliquer ses motifs.

22 octobre. À la suite de la publication du rapport de l’école Bedford, le premier ministre Legault confie aux ministres Drainville et Roberge le mandat de trouver des moyens de renforcer les contrôles et la laïcité dans les écoles du Québec. Ce rapport faisait état de plaintes et de signalements concernant des enjeux liés au non-respect d’obligations en matière de laïcité. Le PM a aussi mentionné être disposé à débattre de bonne foi de l’abolition du financement des écoles privées religieuses quoique ce ne soit pas sa priorité. Quelques jours plus tard, les ministres amorcent des vérifications dans 17 écoles du Québec.

27 novembre. Le Comité consultatif sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne recommande de doter le Québec d’une constitution codifiée qui inclurait les lois fondamentales actuellement en vigueur, dont la Loi 21.

29 novembre. Le gouvernement du Québec demande au fédéral la fin de l’exemption religieuse inscrite au code criminel concernant la propagande haineuse, demande aussitôt appuyée par RPL et le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes (CIJA). Comme le dit si bien la philosophe Louise Mailloux : « cette immunité accordée aux croyants est une aberration et rien ne peut justifier que ceux-ci puissent jouir d’un pareil privilège au détriment de tous les autres citoyens ».

6 décembre. Le premier ministre Legault dit songer à légiférer pour interdire la prière dans l’espace public et à un projet de constitution pour inscrire la laïcité, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et l’intégration des immigrants en toutes lettres dans un texte fondamental.

Il n’y a pas à dire, l’année 2025 s’annonce fructueuse en discussion quant à la laïcité de l’État.

Marie-Claude Girard L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

Several steps have been taken over the years for a secularism of the state in Quebec. We only have to think of the creation of the Ministry of Education during the Quiet Revolution, the deconfessionalization of School Boards in 2000, or the Law on the Secularism of the State (Law 21) in 2019. This great epic has not yet come to an end. Here are, as a reminder, some events that occurred in 2024.

February 5, 2024. The Bloc Québécois is filing a second bill to eliminate the religious exception of the Canadian Criminal Code when it comes to hate propaganda (C-373). On June 14, this bill was added to the government’s order of priority, but it is still waiting for a date to be considered in second reading.

February 29, 2024. The Quebec Court of Appeal confirms the constitutionality of Bill 21 and thus rejects the ruling of the Superior Court, which had exempted the English-speaking School Commissions.

March 21, 2024. The Superior Court authorizes Droits Collectifs Québec and the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) to bring an action (via a mandamus) against the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec to order it to establish rules reflecting the requirements of the secularism of the State with judges. This cause is important because it concerns the right of any person living in Quebec to benefit from secular judicial institutions.

April 26. The federal government is creating a stir in Quebec by indicating, in its 2024 budget, to explore new measures to expand access to Islamic mortgages. The Coalition avenir Québec, the Parti québécois, the Bloc québécois à Ottawa and civil organizations, including the Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL), are stepping up to oppose this initiative contrary to the principles of state secularism.

April 29. The decision of the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) to bring Bill 21 before the Supreme Court is strongly criticized by teachers who oppose their union dues being used to finance this legal recourse and call for a real consultation on this approach.

June 19. The borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville authorizes a religious group to organize a collective Muslim prayer in a park, in contradiction with its regulations that prohibit any religious ceremony. This decision creates a stir since the event, reserved for followers of this religion while relegating women and girls to a compartmentalized space far behind men, depriving citizens of their public space.

July 9th. At the request of the Government of Quebec and the MLQ, Justice Mahmud Jamal of the Supreme Court withdrew from the Bill 21 file.

July. The City of Montreal’s choice to include a veiled woman on the welcome sign in its entrance hall creates controversy. According to the MLQ and Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, this poster violates the secularism of the state and the right of women to equality. Mayor Valérie Plante will announce in October that this poster will be removed because of the “unease” it causes, but mainly to reiterate that Quebec is a secular society.

September. The manuals of the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship program, which were supposed to “promote the secular rule of law” in our schools, have serious shortcomings. They contain definitions and principles of secularism that do not reflect the principles of Bill 21 and they do not rely on the recitals of the Act to explain its reasons.

October 22. Following the publication of the Bedford School report, Prime Minister Legault entrusted Ministers Drainville and Roberge with the mandate to find ways to strengthen controls and secularism in Quebec schools. This report reported on complaints and reports regarding issues related to non-compliance with secular obligations. The PM also mentioned that he was willing to debate in good faith the abolition of the funding of private religious schools whatever was not his priority. A few days later, the ministers began checks in 17 schools in Quebec.

November 27. The Advisory Committee on the Constitutional Issues of Quebec within the Canadian Federation recommends that Quebec be given a codified constitution that would include the fundamental laws currently in force, including Bill 21.

November 29. The government of Quebec asks the federal government to end the religious exemption inscribed in the criminal code concerning hate propaganda, immediately supported by RPL and the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA). As the philosopher Louise Mailloux says so well: “this immunity granted to believers is an aberration and nothing can justify that they can enjoy such a privilege at the expense of all other citizens”.

December 6th. Prime Minister Legault said he was thinking of legislating to prohibit prayer in public space and a draft constitution to include secularism, equality between women and men and the integration of immigrants in full in a fundamental text.

There is no need to say, the year 2025 promises to be fruitful in discussion about the secularism of the State.

Marie-Claude Girard The author is retired from the Canadian Commission on Human Rights. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Order of Canada Appointments: 2024 Update

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

This analysis, conducted over the past decade, examines the diversity of Order of Canada appointments. Appointments are contingent upon nominations and typically reflect contributions over an extended period. This updates the analysis in my analysis of last year, How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? Key findings include:

  • Women are significantly underrepresented across all periods.
  • Visible minorities are underrepresented, while Indigenous peoples are slightly overrepresented relative to their population share.
  • Visible minority representation has increased over time.
  • Contributions to the arts have generally constituted the largest share of appointments, followed by health, business, public service, and activism.
  • The share of appointments by rank and group follows the typical pattern in most diversity analyses, where diversity decreases with increasing rank. However, this pattern is only observed for women. In contrast, the share of Indigenous companions is higher than for officers, which in turn is higher than Indigenous members. The share of visible minority officers is greater than the share of visible minority members.
Order of Canada 2013-24 Diversity – Key slidesDownload

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Really good and thorough analysis of judicial appointments under the Liberal government. My 2016 analysis of the Harper government appointments referenced. Legacy achievement of the Liberals and their first minister of justice, Wilson-Raybould. The next needed analysis would be to assess their impact on jurisprudence and decisions, a much harder task.

Likely that there will be a contrary shift under the likely Poilievre government in terms of process, appointments and transparency (i.e. FCJAC reports):

…A decade ago, and forever before that, a clear majority of judges on Canada’s most important courts were white men. That began to change after the federal government’s 2016 reshaping of the judicial hiring process, which in part focused on increasing diversity.

Now, among 1,180 federally appointed judges, 47 per cent are women, 6 per cent are racialized and 2 per cent are Indigenous, according to data compiled by the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs in 2024. It is the first time the agency has compiled statistics on the varied backgrounds of all judges who decide the biggest cases.

Underrepresentation remains an issue, especially among Indigenous and racialized people, but recent gains are significant. In unofficial data from 2016, compiled by a former senior federal civil servant [me!] in Policy Options magazine, 30 per cent of judges at the time on federally appointed benches were women, 2 per cent were racialized and 1 per cent were Indigenous…

Up until 2016, the top judicial ranks were dominated by white men, chosen by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. From 2007 through 2015, when Stephen Harper was prime minister, two-thirds of 701 appointments were men, according to earlier data on gender from Federal Judicial Affairs. For several years, almost all new judges appointed by Mr. Harper’s government were white, a 2012 Globe story reported.

The federal Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment.

In the new data compiled by Federal Judicial Affairs, with numbers as of February, 2024, the shift under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is distinct….

Source: A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 


Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Snyder: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Snyder is providing some of the best macro-level analysis of the incoming administration and its acolytes. The recent infighting over H1-B visas being a recent example:

  1. Mump regime. Musk plus Trump. Mu…mp. The real centibillionaire and the fake rich person in the proper order.
  2. Mump oligarchy. The regime is an oligarchy, rule by the wealthy few. Trump is the oligarchs’ spokesman. He might stay or go. The oligarchs will remain.
  3. Mump as illness. Physical illness: we are made sick and scammed blind (think of RFK Jr and Ramaswamy). Mumps is one of the diseases that will return without vaccines. Mental illness: Musk’s idea of prosperity is that he hurts you and you thank him. See my work on sadopopulism. 
  4. In Mumptopia, Americans spend our time in front of screens, instructed whom to hate and worship by algorithms curated by immigrant software engineers. We die pointlessly young on an overheated Earth with the word “Mars” on our lips. The Mump mage performs a ritual rocket dance, leaping a few inches over our graves. 
  5. Mump not MAGA. The MAGA folks somehow did not realize that they were giving power to a an illegal immigrant South African centibillionaire. This is not their regime.
  6. Mumpers. South Africans, Russians, and others close to power. Musk, Putin, Thiel, Sacks, Trump (today), Vance (tomorrow) and their closest circles.
  7. Mumpery. Behavior typical of the Mump regime. Gaslighting, theft, scams, tax avoidance, disinformation, Putinism, dictator worship, threatening U.S. allies, submitting to U.S. enemies, persecuting Americans, suppressing speech with threats of violence and lawsuits, promoting pollution and global warming, ending public services.
  8. Mumpets. Those who choose to submit to Musk. For example, senators who ignore their constitutional responsibilities and vote for Trump’s Cabinet nominees, whose buffoonery and fascism are meant to weaken the state so Musk can profit. Compare: puppet, pet.
  9. To mumpify. To become a mumpet. Nouns can be formed from this verb. For example: “Senator Fetterman is pretty far along in his mumpification.” Or adjectives: “Yep, I’d say he’s mumpified by now.” Compare: zombify, zombification.
  10. Mumpy, or mumpish. People influenced by the Mump regime, or actions that tend towards a mumpified world. “That’s mumpier than I would have expected.” “She’s gone all mumpy on me.” Supercedes: trumpy.

Source: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Idées | Islamophobie ou islamocécité?

2024/12/19 Leave a comment

Useful distinction from secularists:

Un comité de la Chambre des communes recommande que les cégeps et les universités augmentent la représentation des professeurs musulmans pour lutter contre l’islamophobie. Cette suggestion fait écho à celle d’Amira Elghawaby, représentante spéciale du Canada chargée de la lutte contre l’islamophobie. En septembre dernier, son appel avait suscité une vive réaction au Québec, et l’Assemblée nationale avait réclamé sa démission, tout comme elle l’avait fait en janvier 2023 en raison de propos jugés offensants envers les Québécois à la suite de l’adoption de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État.

Bien que cette mesure s’inscrive dans une démarche de discrimination positive, il convient de se demander si cette discrimination, même qualifiée de « positive », est véritablement bénéfique.

Depuis l’attaque du Hamas contre Israël en octobre 2023 et la contre-offensive des troupes israéliennes dans la bande de Gaza qui se poursuit depuis, l’antisémitisme est, de façon flagrante, la forme de racisme la plus visible au pays, selon les plus récents chiffres publiés par Statistique Canada. Bien qu’ils ne représentent que 1 % de la population canadienne, les juifs ont été victimes de 70 % de tous les actes criminels haineux fondés sur la religion.

Si l’on peut compatir à la cause palestinienne, il n’en reste pas moins que cette communauté est marginale au Canada, tandis que la diaspora juive, enracinée depuis des siècles, est au cœur de notre histoire. Dans ce contexte, une représentante spéciale pour lutter contre l’antisémitisme ne serait-elle pas plus pertinente, direz-vous ?

Il appert qu’il y en a une depuis 2020. C’est Deborah Lyons qui occupe présentement le poste d’envoyée spéciale pour la préservation de la mémoire de l’Holocauste et la lutte contre l’antisémitisme. Mais d’elle, on a eu très peu d’écho.

Plus largement, nous suggérons qu’aucun poste officiel ne soit associé à une minorité particulière, afin d’éviter une fragmentation accrue de notre société.

Il est également crucial de rappeler que la religion n’est pas une race. Tandis que la foi, souvent héritée dans l’enfance, peut évoluer ou être abandonnée, la race est immuable et n’est pas sujette à choix ou à transformation. Assimiler l’islamophobie à une forme de racisme revient donc à confondre deux concepts fondamentalement différents.

Par ailleurs, si les Nations unies et la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux, y compris canadien et français, considèrent que l’islamophobie se définit par la peur, les préjugés et la haine envers l’islam et les musulmans, nous observons qu’elle cible d’abord les islamistes, ce qui est une distinction essentielle pour éviter tout amalgame.

Plusieurs figures musulmanes influentes au Canada, telles que Nadia El-Mabrouk, Ensaf Haidar et, plus récemment, Fatima Aboubakr, dénoncent d’ailleurs vigoureusement les dérives islamistes. Enfin, exprimer des préoccupations quant à une religion, en particulier quant à ses variantes intégristes, ne relève aucunement d’une « phobie ». Bien au contraire, il s’agit d’une attitude rationnelle, fondée sur une vigilance légitime et parfois salutaire.

S’il est rarement acceptable de s’en prendre à des individus, critiquer des idées ou des comportements reste légitime. Les récents actes de vandalisme commis par des groupes islamistes lors de manifestations propalestiniennes vont à l’encontre des valeurs pacifiques qui définissent le Canada. De plus, des professeurs ont été suspendus au Québec pour avoir promu des enseignements contraires aux principes de laïcité. Les prières dans des lieux publics, un autre exemple de pratique controversée, suscitent également des mesures correctives de la part du gouvernement québécois.

Le premier ministre Trudeau n’en est pas à un paradoxe près. D’une part, il se positionne comme un ardent défenseur des droits LGBTQ+ et de l’égalité des sexes. D’autre part, il s’allie régulièrement à des figures dont les discours et pratiques sont ouvertement contraires à ces valeurs fondamentales. Alors que le discours haineux est interdit au Canada, l’article 319 (3) b du Code criminel offre une exemption troublante : un discours homophobe ou sexiste peut être permis s’il s’appuie sur des motifs religieux. Cette exception, critiquée à plusieurs reprises par le ministre québécois de la Justice, révèle une contradiction profonde dans l’application des principes d’égalité et de justice.

En fin de compte, le problème du Canada ne réside pas tant dans l’islamophobie que dans l’islamocécité : une cécité volontaire et complaisante face aux dérives islamistes, qui fragilise nos principes démocratiques et compromet la défense de nos valeurs fondamentales. Refuser de confronter ces enjeux, c’est accepter de sacrifier les acquis de la liberté, de l’égalité et de la justice sur l’autel du multiculturalisme.

Romain Gagnon, David Rand, Andréa Richard, Normand Baillargeon, Francois Dugré et Michel Virard Les auteurs sont respectivement administrateur des Sceptiques du Québec et auteur d’«Et l’homme créa Dieu à son image»; président des Libres penseurs athées et auteur d’«Un simulacre de laïcité»; lauréate du prix Condorcet-Dessaulles et autrice d’«Au-delà de la religion»; membre émérite du Conseil de l’Ordre de l’excellence en éducation du Québec et auteur de «Le Québec en quête de laïcité»; administrateur du Rassemblement pour la laïcité; président de l’Association humaniste du Québec.

Source: Idées | Islamophobie ou islamocécité?

A House of Commons committee recommends that CEGEPs and universities increase the representation of Muslim professors to fight Islamophobia. This suggestion echoes that of Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s special representative for the fight against Islamophobia. Last September, her appeal aroused a strong reaction in Quebec, and the National Assembly called for her resignation, just as it did in January 2023 because of remarks deemed offensive to Quebecers following the adoption of the Act on the Secularism of the State.

Although this measure is part of a positive discrimination approach, it is important to ask whether this discrimination, even described as “positive”, is truly beneficial.

Since Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023 and the Israeli troops’ counter-offensive in the Gaza Strip that has continued since, anti-Semitism has been blatantly the most visible form of racism in the country, according to the most recent figures published by Statistics Canada. Although they represent only 1% of the Canadian population, Jews have been victims of 70% of all hate crimes based on religion.

While we can sympathize with the Palestinian cause, the fact remains that this community is marginal in Canada, while the Jewish diaspora, rooted for centuries, is at the heart of our history. In this context, wouldn’t a special representative to fight anti-Semitism be more relevant, you would say?

It appears that there has been one since 2020. Deborah Lyons currently holds the position of special envoy for the preservation of Holocaust memory and the fight against anti-Semitism. But from her, we had very little echo.

More broadly, we suggest that no official position be associated with a particular minority, in order to avoid increased fragmentation of our society.

It is also crucial to remember that religion is not a race. While faith, often inherited in childhood, can evolve or be abandoned, race is immutable and is not subject to choice or transformation. Assimilating Islamophobia to a form of racism therefore amounts to confusing two fundamentally different concepts.

Moreover, while the United Nations and most Western governments, including Canadian and French, consider Islamophobia to be defined by fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam and Muslims, we observe that it targets Islamists in the first place, which is an essential distinction to avoid any amalgamation.

Several influential Muslim figures in Canada, such as Nadia El-Mabrouk, Ensaf Haidar and, more recently, Fatima Aboubakr, vigorously denounce Islamist excesses. Finally, expressing concerns about a religion, especially about its fundamentalist variants, is in no way a “phobia”. On the contrary, it is a rational attitude, based on legitimate and sometimes salutary vigilance.

If it is rarely acceptable to attack individuals, criticizing ideas or behaviors remains legitimate. The recent acts of vandalism committed by Islamist groups during pro-Palestinian demonstrations go against the peaceful values that define Canada. In addition, professors have been suspended in Quebec for promoting teaching contrary to the principles of secularism. Prayers in public places, another example of a controversial practice, also give rise to corrective measures by the Quebec government.

Prime Minister Trudeau is not at a paradox. On the one hand, he positions himself as an ardent defender of LGBTQ+ rights and gender equality. On the other hand, he regularly allies himself with figures whose speeches and practices are openly contrary to these fundamental values. While hate speech is prohibited in Canada, section 319 (3) b of the Criminal Code offers a disturbing exemption: homophobic or sexist speech may be allowed if it is based on religious motives. This exception, repeatedly criticized by the Quebec Minister of Justice, reveals a profound contradiction in the application of the principles of equality and justice.

In the end, Canada’s problem lies not so much in Islamophobia as in Islamoblindness: a voluntary and complacent blindness in the face of Islamist excesses, which weakens our democratic principles and compromises the defense of our fundamental values. To refuse to confront these issues is to accept to sacrifice the achievements of freedom, equality and justice on the altar of multiculturalism.

Filed under CAPAR, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Muslim population in Canada

2024/12/19 Leave a comment

Good graphical overview:

Source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024058-eng.htm?utm_source=mstatcan&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=statcan-statcan-mstatcan

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

Good coverage of the super diversity website and the work by Dan Hiebert and Steven Vertovec:

Have you ever wondered how your local community stacks up when it comes to diversity in ethnicities, income levels, language spoken or education attainments?

Residents of Canada’s six largest metropolitan areas can now check that out through a website launched on Monday that tracks the transformation of the country by immigration down to the neighbourhood level.

Coined “Superdiversity,” the project crunches immigration and census data into interactive graphics and maps that showcase Canada’s changing landscapes and how socioeconomic indicators such as wealth, income, employment status and education play out across ethnic groups, generations of newcomers and neighbourhoods.

“We’re hoping to just help anyone come to a better understanding of the society that surrounds them that they’re part of,” said University of British Columbia professor emeritus Daniel Hiebert, a co-founder of the project.

“This is really about social change and the ability to show it based on data.”

Since Ottawa changed its immigration rules in the 1960s that favoured immigrants from the U.K., continental Europe and the U.S., Canada’s population has become increasingly diverse. The proportion of newcomers from the “traditional” source countries has dwindled to about 15 per cent from nearly 90 per cent.

The Superdiversity website shows how the annual admissions of permanent residents — broken down into economic, family and humanitarian classes — evolved from under 150,000 in 1980 to over 450,000 in 2023, as well as how the nationalities of each subgroup of newcomers changed over time to now being dominated by those from India, China and the Philippines.

It also documents how the annual inflow of temporary residents — divided into asylum seekers, international students and different types of work permit holders — skyrocketed in just a few years from under 200,000 to more than 1.6 million today, and how the source countries shifted under each category.

“When you see people who came from a particular country with a particular migration stream, with a particular age group and with a different gender pattern, you can see how these fit together to produce certain social outcomes,” said project co-founder Steven Vertovec, director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Germany.

“By treating groups only as ethnic communities, we didn’t see the complexities and diversity within groups. You just treated all Indians as the same, all Italians and all Asians as the same.”…

Source: How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

Link: https://superdiv.mmg.mpg.de/#vancouver-intro?bubble;filter:Total%20population?map;variables:0,0;mode:traditional?tree;year:2012;category:Humanitarian?sankey;year:1991?dashboard;filters:99,99,99,99,99

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

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 , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →