Opinion: Nationalist anti-immigrant parties thrive in Europe. Why not in Canada? | Herbert Grubel

While I disagree with much of Grubel’s argumentation, I do agree with his assessment that the FPTP provides a degree of immunity compared to PR systems. This combined with 41 ridings that are visible majority (mainly in the 905 and Lower Mainland) makes it virtually impossible to win a majority and likely a strong minority for any party:

The German federal elections on Sept. 24 produced an electoral earthquake. The country’s ruling coalition headed for 12 years by Chancellor Angela Merkel lost its majority, mainly because of the success of the nationalist/anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD), which won 97 seats, up from zero in the preceding elections. On Nov. 16, Merkel made the unprecedented announcement that she had been unable to form a new governing coalition and refused to head a minority government, preferring a new election instead.

Nationalist/anti-government parties in other countries of Europe also have gained much support from voters. The percentage of the total vote and the number of seats gained in these countries after the most recent elections were: Switzerland 29.4 per cent and 65 seats out of 200; Denmark 21.1 and 37/179; Austria 26 and 51/183; Finland 17.7 and 38/200; Norway 15.2 and 27/169; Netherlands 13.1 and 20/150; Sweden 12.9 and 49/349; Germany 12.6 and 97/631.

In France, the National Front received 13.2 per cent of the vote this year, more than the gains by the AfD, but because of the country’s electoral system won only eight out of 377 seats in parliament. In Poland, the Law and Justice party received 37.6 per cent, and with a majority of 235 out of 460 seats has formed the government. Nationalist/anti-immigrant parties have also been successfully attracting votes in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia and other former communist countries of Eastern Europe.

Voters dissatisfied with their countries’ immigration policies also played important roles in the victory of the British referendum that led to Brexit, and of President Donald Trump in the United States.

The platforms of the nationalist/anti-immigrant parties in Europe appealed to voters who had personal experiences and learned from media reports that immigrants were responsible for many growing social and economic ills in their lives: the number and scope of terror attacks and criminal acts; threats to cultural and religious institutions and practices; the cost of housing; the crowding of schools, hospitals and public spaces; and the scarcity of jobs.

The establishment politicians in the countries with strong nationalist/anti-immigrant parties obviously have not been able to counter these views by claiming that their supporters are racist, xenophobic and fascists and that they do not understand the large benefits brought by immigrants: the elimination of labour shortages; reductions in the financial problems of social programs; increases in global solidarity with needy people in the rest of the world; and the benefits of greater cultural and religious diversity.

Canadian politicians and intellectual elites have been ignoring the growth of nationalist/anti-immigrant parties in Europe. The current government has instead increased the planned annual number of immigrants from the recent 250,000 to a high of 360,000 by 2020.

It seems that this policy is out of touch with the views of the public. An Angus Reid poll in the middle of 2017 found that 57 per cent of Canadians agreed with the statement that “Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.” The latest annual poll by the federal Department of Immigration reported in November that increasing numbers of Canadians hold negative views about the current level of immigration.

Why the persistence of the difference between government and public views on immigration policies? The answer is that Canada uses the first-past-the-post system to allocate seats in parliament. In Europe, most countries use proportional representation to assign seats, which enabled the creation and success of the nationalist/anti-immigrant parties.

Canada’s establishment parties will not abandon the present electoral system. Their assured protection from anti-immigrant parties brings them too many opportunities to use immigration policies to buy the votes of employers of cheap immigrant labour, the firms and professionals wanting larger domestic markets for their output, the real estate and construction industries, the communities of recent immigrants and the immigration industry of lawyers and consultants — even as they know that the public disapproves of the mass immigration they create.

The majority of Canadians who want to see fewer immigrants will have to wait a long time before they get their way.

via Opinion: Nationalist anti-immigrant parties thrive in Europe. Why not in Canada? | Vancouver Sun

Canada’s problem with polygamy: Islamic family law – The Economist

Would be nice to have some estimates of the numbers rather than just relying on the fact that some of Canada’s top source countries permit polygamy.

Is there not any data on how widespread polygamy is in the Philippines, Iran and Pakistan (three of our large source countries, one mainly Christian, the others Muslim)?

Immigrants go through a rigorous process, it is not simply a matter of a “snap judgement” of a border agent.

Not to say that this polygamy does not occur, and that processes would benefit from further review along with greater enforcement, but a greater analysis of how prevalent it is would help assess what measures are required:

MENTION polygamy in Canada and what might come to mind is Bountiful, a suitably named town in British Columbia. It is home to Canada’s best-known polygamist, Winston Blackmore, who has an estimated 148 children. He and James Oler, a fellow adherent of a fundamentalist splinter sect of the Mormon church, practised “plural marriage” for decades until a court found them guilty in July of the crime of polygamy. (Their appeal will be heard on December 12th.)

It was the first conviction for more than a century under a law from 1892 that aimed to stop American polygamists (many of them Mormons irked by their church’s renunciation of polygamy in 1890) from practising in Canada. Authorities had been wary of laying such charges for fear of a constitutional challenge. That obstacle was removed in 2011 when the Supreme Court in British Columbia found freedom of religion could not be used to justify actions that harmed others.

The debate about the conflicting principles of human rights and religious freedom is shifting to Islamic immigrants. That is partly because of the trial of Mohammad Shafia, an Afghan immigrant who in 2009, with the help of his second wife and son, murdered three of their other children, as well as his first wife; and partly because of the passage in 2015 of the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act by the previous Conservative government. The law, which reiterated that polygamy is a crime, as are “barbaric practices” such as genital mutilation and the forced marriage of children, was criticised for having an Islamophobic tone. Yet it struck a chord with those Canadians who feel Muslims do not share their values.

Polygamy is legal for Muslims in three of the top five source countries for immigrants to Canada in 2015 (the Philippines, Iran and Pakistan) and quite common in another (India). Canada has advised UNHCR, the UN’s agency for refugees, not to refer any refugees in polygamous marriages to Canada for resettlement. But border agents in Canada must often make snap judgments based on little information. Often the only way they can identify a polygamist is if he were to volunteer the information or tried to bring in more than one wife at once. Easier to bring them in separately as domestic servants or relatives (Ms Shafia was brought in as a servant and described as the children’s aunt).

Often the first sign officials have of a polygamous relationship is when it comes to light in a case of domestic abuse, says Shalini Konanur of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, which helps women in violent relationships who risk deportation. The impact of enforcement falls most heavily on women, who are barred at the border, abandoned in their home country or stuck in abusive relationships in Canada for fear of being found out and deported.

Martha Bailey, a specialist in family law at Queen’s University in Kingston, says polygamy sometimes comes up as an issue when multiple wives seek shares in an inheritance. Susan Drummond, a legal anthropologist, argued in 2009 that the ban on polygamy should be dropped because Canada has other laws and regulations to protect women and minors.

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has promised to ensure Canadian laws are analysed to see if they harm women. That is a nice gesture. But he should look at how laws work in practice, too.

via Canada’s problem with polygamy – Islamic family law

Fiery exchange erupts in Ottawa over reports citizenship guide for immigrants may be changed

Minister is being disingenuous – Canadian Press obtained a draft a few months ago (New citizenship study guide highlights Indigenous Peoples, Canadian …):

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen won’t say whether the government will keep a warning against female genital mutilation in a revamped study guide for the Canadian citizenship exam.

During a House of Commons committee meeting Thursday, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel grilled Mr. Hussen on a Canadian Press report earlier this year that said the reference to female genital mutilation (FGM) had been removed from a leaked draft of the new citizenship guide. The document, known as the Discover Canada guide, is currently being rewritten by the government.

The Liberal government has made gender issues a prominent part of its foreign policy, launching what it called “Canada’s first feminist international assistance policy” earlier this year. The Conservatives want the government to make it clear in the citizenship guide that FGM is illegal in Canada, so that female newcomers from countries where it is allowed understand their rights.

Mr. Hussen declined to comment on the draft guide or say whether the government will include references to FGM in the new version.

“There hasn’t been any removal of anything. There is no citizenship guide that has been written, so your assertion that we removed something from something that hasn’t been completed is completely false,” Mr. Hussen said in a fiery exchange with Ms. Rempel.

“I commit to continue to consult Canadians on the citizenship guide.”

In 2011, the then-Conservative government inserted a warning against “barbaric cultural practices,” such as FGM, honour killings, forced marriage and spousal abuse. Former Liberal immigration minister John McCallum – Mr. Hussen’s predecessor – was in favour of removing this section from the document.

A draft version of the guide obtained by The Canadian Press in July showed that the Conservative section on “barbaric cultural practices” had been removed. Ms. Rempel asked Mr. Hussen which stakeholders wanted the government to remove the reference to FGM.

“No one has,”Mr. Hussen said.

The minister’s response left Ms. Rempel baffled.

“In the minister’s own words, nobody is asking for this change. So I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just say ‘okay’ [to the guide’s FGM reference],” Ms. Rempel said after the committee meeting.

When Ms. Rempel tried to ask Mr. Hussen for his opinion on FGM, her question was ruled out of order by committee chair Robert Oliphant who said the minister’s personal views were irrelevant.

Speaking to The Globe and Mail after the committee meeting, Mr. Hussen made his views clear.

“Of course I’m against FGM. It’s a criminal offence. I’m a lawyer. I’m an officer of the court,” Mr. Hussen said. “My personal opinion on this is irrelevant.”

The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women says FGM has been perpetuated against at least 200 million women and girls worldwide. The UN says 98 per cent of women and girls in Somalia aged 15 to 49 have undergone FGM, followed by Guinea at 97 per cent and Djibouti at 93 per cent.

Ms. Rempel has sponsored a petition in Parliament calling on the government to include the condemnation of FGM in its final version of the citizenship guide. It has garnered more than 17,000 signatures to date.

The Immigration Department did not respond to a query asking when the government will release its updated version of the citizenship guide.

via Fiery exchange erupts in Ottawa over reports citizenship guide for immigrants may be changed – The Globe and Mail

While many fixate on swastikas, insidious hatred is increasingly normalized: Oliver Schmidtke

Good piece by Schmidtke, a professor of history and political science at University of Victoria:

Across North America and Europe, we’re being confronted with a striking increase in hate crimes and symbols of intolerance toward minorities and migrants.

The University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia have both seen racist posters and activities on their campuses in recent weeks. “This brazen outburst of far-right anti-semitism at a Canadian university is a serious concern,” noted B’nai Brith Canada CEO Michael Mostyn to media after white-supremacist posters surfaced at UVic in October.

We are understandably shaken by the growing prominence of a symbol that ought to have been irreversibly discredited by history: the swastika. Penned on walls in our cities, scribbled on desks in libraries and on campus whiteboards, left on public display in parks, exhibited endlessly on the internet – the hakenkreuz (hooked cross) as the symbol of Hitler’s National Socialists and the Holocaust has made an eerie comeback.

How should we react to these intolerable displays of anti-Semitism? Is the public informed by the subsequent media attention, or does it merely provide visibility to acts of hate? Does the reappearance of the swastika in our public spaces indicate a rise in anti-Semitic and racist ideologies?

Clearly in many cases, the use of this symbol simply reflects ignorance. Let’s presume the vast majority of those drawing the swastika in public places would be hard-pressed to explain what they’re trying to invoke, let alone reflect on the symbol’s relation to the myth of Aryan racial superiority and genocide orchestrated by Germany’s fascist regime.

Yet this ignorance does not take away from the viciousness with which the swastika is used as an instrument of hatred.

One of the key challenges for those alarmed by this trend is the anonymity of those spreading an ideology of race-based hatred. The people behind the incidents at UVic and UBC remain invisible.

The internet is an ideal tool for disseminating messages of hate with little fear of repercussion. Legal instruments such as the prohibition of hate propaganda in Canada’s Criminal Code remain difficult to apply to online hate sites.

Germany recently introduced a “social media law” in an effort to provide more robust investigative and legal means to address hate speech on internet platforms. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of such approaches.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

What we must keep in mind amid the resurgence of hate crimes and overt displays of racism is that ugly posters celebrating white supremacy and swastikas in our public spaces are only the most obvious examples of a much subtler and troubling shift.

The most organized groups employing fascist messaging are in fact moving toward a more cautious use of direct references to Nazi-era fascism. Across Europe and North America, nationalist groups seek to gain respectability in mainstream politics and media. French politician Marine Le Pen sacked her father and founder of the Front National from the party after he described the Holocaust as a “mere detail” in history.

Similarly, organizers of the Unite the Right march in Charlottesville, Va. – or Germany’s new party, the Alternative for Germany – carefully avoid conspicuous references to Hitler’s regime.

Claims of white supremacists and extreme nationalists are now primarily framed in terms of protecting one’s culture or identity, reflected in slogans such as “They won’t replace us” or “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West,” which conceal overt reference to ideas of racial superiority.

With issues of migration and refugees looming large in public discourse, extreme nationalists have sensed the opportunity to spread their message to parts of society that once would have rebuffed the rhetoric of exclusion. We are confronted with a deliberate and insidious attempt to muddy the waters regarding what constitutes intolerable racism, especially when political elites accept this gradual normalization of exclusionary nationalism.

When U.S. President Donald Trump comments on the “fine people” among the white supremacists in Charlottesville, or when Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Blaszczak describes as “a beautiful sight” the Nov. 11 march of 60,000 extreme nationalists advocating for an exclusively Catholic and white Poland, it shakes the foundations of an inclusive and pluralistic society.

Such statements normalize and legitimize beliefs of cultural homogeneity that provide the breeding ground for race-based hate.

Recent history has demonstrated how vulnerable democratic practices and norms are to authoritarianism and extreme nationalism. We are currently at a critical threshold, as those with lived memory of fascist dictatorships and the Holocaust are aging and dying.

The role of our educational institutions, political leadership, media and civil society has never been more essential for educating coming generations of the threat that xenophobia and authoritarianism pose to the viability of a democratic and inclusive society.

Yes, images that call up the Nazi era rightly repel us. But the most insidious forces for racist hatred are among us, with no swastika in sight.

via While many fixate on swastikas, insidious hatred is increasingly normalized – The Globe and Mail