Good profile on Leamington and its seasonal agricultural workers:
On Friday evening, in the heart of this farming city, the workers arrive by bicycle and private bus.
Hundreds of labourers crowd the sidewalks, restaurants and shops on this municipality 50 kilometres southeast of Windsor, famous for its greenhouses and tomatoes.
It’s payday and at almost every turn the old city core is alive with bodies and chatter.
But these farm labourers are speaking Spanish and Patois.
Like many of Ontario’s downtowns, Leamington’s has seen better days. But the thousands of low-wage temporary farm workers from Mexico and the Caribbean, the work they provide and the money they spend here — Mayor John Paterson figures $15 million a year — has transformed the local economy.
Where Theresa’s Fashion once was is now Chica Linda, catering to workers looking to buy clothes to send home to family. Across the road, Mr. 2 Pizzas is now Crazy Chicken, where the menu is available in Spanish and features a cartoon sombrero-wearing bird rocking maracas, its fridge stocked with bottles of Mexican Jarritos soft drinks. Gino’s Restaurant and Wine Bar next door is now La Hacienda, a Mexican restaurant. Clubs offer salsa music and buckets of Corona and Caribbean vibe.
For the unfamiliar, it is jaw-dropping to behold. Yet transformation, like any change, can be simultaneously embraced, tolerated and loathed.
While these migrant workers and their effects on the community are particularly obvious in Leamington, the racial tension between them and the locals is far from unique in a rural Canada increasingly reliant on the labour provided by the migrant worker program.
This is the story of one migrant worker town and how people are learning to get along. Mostly.
Dubbed the “Greenhouse Capital of North America,” Leamington is located on the 42nd parallel — the same latitude as northern California — and draws its agricultural strength from the amount of sunshine it gets and the fertile soil it’s blessed with.
Everyday, some 200 tractor-trailers leave this municipality to deliver fresh produce — from its famous tomatoes to peppers, cucumbers, mushrooms and flowers — to destinations around the world.
Initially called Gainesville, the community was built by immigrants: first, the Scottish, German and Dutch, followed in the postwar era by Italians, Portuguese and Lebanese.
A shortage of labour has always been an issue for Leamington, as far back as Paterson, 63, who was born and grew up here, can remember.
But what distinguishes the earlier waves of migrants from those coming now is that the former came as permanent residents, while the majority nowadays are guest workers — mostly lonely men separated from their families, with temporary status only.
Leamington has more than 1,500 acres of greenhouses, with another 200 acres waiting for municipal approvals. (JIM RANKIN/TORONTO STAR)
More than 10 per cent of the 54,000 average migrant farm workers to Canada work in Leamington, accounting for one-sixth of the town’s population during the farming season.
The number of migrant farm workers in Leamington has surged in the last decade, mostly because of the exponential growth of the greenhouse operations here. Today, the town has more than 1,500 acres of greenhouses, with another 200 acres waiting for municipal approvals.
South of Hwy. 401, along Hwy. 77 are row after row of greenhouses, with new ones under construction. With a $60 million gas line completed earlier this year, the town hopes to finish its $80 million hydro line next June, along with a $7 million water system and a $40 million sewage system in order to meet the needs of more greenhouses in the next five years. Medical cannabis production companies are knocking on its doors.
Everywhere you go, you see hiring signs for general labour, pickers and packing staff at greenhouses. The jobs promise a minimum 48 hours of work a week.
“We don’t have enough people in Ontario that are willing to do that kind of labour or those kind of hours for that kind of pay,” said Paterson.
“I don’t think the greenhouse industry would exist if it wasn’t for the farm worker program. There just wouldn’t be the manpower to make it happen. The program is of ultimate importance.”
Interesting account of how Trump and the rise of the extreme right and antisemitism has given new life to an old publication (as in the case of the NYTimes and Washington Post):
The Forward has chronicled the experiences of Jews in the United States for 120 years. Initially published as a Yiddish-language lifeline for those who fled hatred and strife in Europe, in recent years it had to work harder to stay relevant to a community now largely assimilated, finding new stories to tell about transgender rabbis, the challenges of interfaith marriage and even the “secret Jewish history of The Who.”
Then came 2016, and a sudden clarification of its mission that would be strikingly familiar to the publication’s founders: covering the rise of public displays of anti-Semitism.
“There’s something different happening now,” Jane Eisner, The Forward’s editor in chief, said in a recent interview in her office, where a photo of the publication’s founder, Abraham Cahan, peered from the wall. “And here I’m speaking not just as a journalist, but as a close observer of the American Jewish scene. I feel it’s my responsibility as a writer and editor to illuminate that for people.”
Since the summer of 2016, about a year before The Forward went from being a weekly newspaper to a monthly magazine, it has beefed up its coverage of the so-called alt-right; assigned a reporter to go to white nationalist rallies like the one in Charlottesville, Va., in August, which featured chants like “Jews will not replace us”; and pursued more investigative reporting.
The latter effort led to The Forward’s report in March that claimed that Sebastian Gorka, a national security spokesman for the Trump administration until resigning in August, was a member of Vitezi Rend, a Hungarian nationalist group with a history of Nazi collaboration. The coverage has helped give The Forward a more than 60 percent lift in both donations and web traffic over the last year, according to Rachel Fishman Feddersen, the publisher and chief executive of The Forward, and Michael Sarid, the chief development officer.
“They bring what no one else can sell, and they can bring it and bring it, day after day,” said Ken Doctor, a news industry analyst. “They delve into things that are really in the background for others.”
According to the Anti-Defamation League, there was a 34 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2016 compared with the year before, and an 86 percent increase in the first quarter of 2017.
The Forward’s staff has firsthand experience. Ms. Eisner said the threats directed toward the staff during the presidential race — often through emails or social media — had invoked Holocaust imagery like gas chambers and included images of the anti-Semitic meme Pepe the Frog.
“These are not creative people,” said Dan Friedman, the executive editor.
Still, “to some staff members, it was a little terrifying,” Ms. Eisner said at the publication’s Financial District headquarters, several blocks from The Forward’s birthplace on the Lower East Side.
The threats were serious enough that Ms. Feddersen decided to add more security measures, including a third door that requires an ID to pass through before reaching the office. When threats are made, The Forward now has a set process on how to report them to the police and the F.B.I.; the whole staff has gone through emergency drills.
“We really took it seriously, and it wasn’t fun,” Ms. Feddersen said. “It was not why anybody gets into this business. But that comes with the job, so we kind of have to do it.”
It was especially jarring for The Forward’s roughly 25-person editorial staff of mostly young journalists, for whom anti-Semitism in the United States had been something on the fringes that could be easily ignored — a generation that, in Ms. Eisner’s words, “grew up in Obama’s America” and took inclusion as a given. But it can be jarring even for Ms. Eisner, 61, who recalled recently walking by a church around the corner from her home on the Upper West Side that rents space to a synagogue, and seeing swastikas drawn on it.
“I’m written about on neo-Nazi blogs. David Duke talks about me on his Twitter feed,” said Sam Kestenbaum, a reporter who focuses on anti-Semitism and the alt-right, the far-right fringe movement that advocates a range of racist positions. “I knew that individuals received email threats, and certainly I did.”
When he tried to interview Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, Mr. Kestenbaum was told, “I don’t talk to Jews on the phone.” Mr. Kestenbaum emailed Mr. Anglin questions instead.
Mr. Kestenbaum has also written about the white nationalist Richard B. Spencer and tracked a group of Jews who embraced white nationalism.
The Forward also has Ari Feldman and Larry Cohler-Esses, a senior investigative reporter, who wrote the article about Mr. Gorka and recently examined how President Trump’s father was once arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Mr. Feldman’s coverage has included reports about viral moments like students at an all-girls Catholic school who posted on social media about playing swastika beer pong and an analysis of how the line between alt-right and neo-Nazi has thinned.
“What I’m sensing now is the commitment to doing the work,” Ms. Eisner said.
Which was certainly the focus when it came to covering the Charlottesville rally, an event that, in another year, The Forward may not have sent a reporter to.
“We wanted to get what happened across anecdotally but also contextualize it in terms of our experience and, most obviously, the experience of the Holocaust,” Mr. Friedman said.
In addition to articles on the rally and its fallout, there were stories on Jews who were observing the Sabbath during the riot, and on Charlottesville’s Jewish mayor. Nathan Guttman, The Forward’s Washington-based reporter, also wrote a first-person account of what it had been like to cover the rally.
Very good column by Bernie Farber and Mira Sucharov:
There are times when one community within the Canadian mosaic experiences particular trauma such that succor is in order. Today, that community is Canadian Muslims. MP Iqra Khalid knew this when she proposed M-103, a private member’s motion designed to fight Islamophobia. Now, the parliamentary hearings flowing from M-103’s recommendations provide all Canadians with an opportunity to stand up to Islamophobia.
No one understands this situation better than Canadian Jews. There was a time in this country where Jews were unwelcome, seen as swarthy crooks and objects of suspicion. Attitudes softened somewhat after it became clear that such bigotry — through shameful episodes like the banning of the M.S. St. Louis — had led Canada to be complicit in the Nazi genocide of six million Jewish men, women and children.
But discrimination against Jews in Canada continued. Until the Canadian Jewish Congress challenged it in court in the early 1950s, Jews were often barred from purchasing land. Employers discriminated against applicants with Jewish-sounding names. Some resorts and country clubs kept their doors closed to Jews, and Jewish doctors were banned from practicing in some hospitals. And into the 1960s, there were strict quotas placed on the number of Jews allowed into universities.
While anti-semitism remains a scourge worldwide, in Canada it now hovers along the edges of society. Not so Islamophobia which is, unfortunately, front and centre.
With the horrific mosque attack in Quebec City last January, Canadian Muslims now have the tragic distinction of being the only people in the country’s history to have been gunned down in their house of worship. Incredibly, in the weeks following, anti-Islam protests took place across downtown Toronto. And two months after the massacre, a protestor ripped up and stomped on a Koran at a Peel District school board meeting.
And then there are the quiet prejudicial attitudes. A 2017 poll revealed that only 4 per cent of Canadians would find it “unacceptable” for their son or daughter to marry a Christian. That number jumps to 32 per cent when the hypothetical betrothed is Muslim.
M-103 follows in the tradition of supporting particular targeted groups as needed. But that support has sometimes come decades too late. In fact, it wasn’t until 2015 that a parliamentary motion was passed unanimously decrying anti-semitism. What’s more, unlike the anti-semitism motion, the text of M-103 is fully inclusive. Not only does it condemn Islamophobia, it points to the need to oppose “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
Yet critics of the motion continue to air doubts that opposing Islamophobia is worthy of Canada’s attention. In a briefing note to the parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing the motion’s recommendations, retired Canadian Forces major Russ Cooper has expressed concern that the motion will trample free speech.
Similarly, Jay Cameron of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warns that if “M-103 is legislatively codified, the unconstitutional infringement of freedom of thought, belief, expression and religion is inevitable.”
And Father Raymond De Sousa told the hearing that “to focus on one religion alone, as M-103 suggests, would be unwise.”
All these arguments are red herrings. M-103 does nothing to change the Criminal Code. Canada’s strong speech protections remain in place. And neither does M-103 restrict anti-bigotry to one religion. Its language, as we’ve stressed above, is fully inclusive.
As Canadian Jews we understand the need for memory. With the legacy of Jewish suffering, it has become an article of faith to commemorate persecution. What we’re seeing here, sadly, is that when it comes to oppression of Canadian Muslims, there are too many attempts by too many Canadians to forget. M-103 is an attempt to resist this collective amnesia.
When it comes to Islamophobia, we fear that too many of the testimonies at the hearings to date, coupled with the many Canadians who said they would have voted against the motion, reveal the scope of the very problem the critics are claiming does not exist.
Sheema Khan’s on the limitations of the Runnymede Trust definition and the strengths of its framework:
For the past few weeks, the House of Commons Heritage Committee has been holding public consultations regarding Motion M-103.
Appearing before the Committee at the outset, M-103 sponsor Liberal MP Iqra Khalid emphasized the need for a comprehensive study of Canadians affected by racism and religious discrimination. She spoke eloquently about the painful experiences of individuals affected by prejudice and hatred, and the need for a systematic analysis of data (as required by M-103) to combat forces that are corroding our social fabric.
These are laudable goals that should be supported by all Canadians.
However, an uproar ensued when M-103 was initially tabled, because of the inclusion of the term “Islamophobia” in the motion. There were concerns about the imposition of Sharia Law, a chill on free speech, and special protection granted to Islam. Ms. Khalid received a torrent of hate mail, including death threats. Some argued that the reaction itself was proof of widespread Islamophobia.
And yet, as the Committee has heard, no one really has a handle on the term. Many definitions exist, with widely differing breadths and scopes. Ms. Khalid’s definition: “the irrational fear of Islam and/or Muslims that leads to discrimination” is the most succinct. However, this needs to be balanced by the right to criticize and question.
The term gained currency following the 1997 report on British Muslims, entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All” issued by the Runnymede Trust, a respected British think-tank. In it, Islamophobia was defined as “unfounded hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.”
The report, however, went further, by equating Islamophobia with “closed views” on Islam in eight different categories. These include Islam seen as monolithic; the “other” with no commonality with Western culture; inferior (i.e. barbaric, irrational and sexist); an enemy; and a deceitful ideology bent on political/military domination. Such closed views reject any criticism of the West by Islam, defend discrimination of Muslims, and see Islamophobia as natural. For good measure, “open views” include seeing Islam as diverse with internal debates; having shared values with other faiths; a faith worthy of respect; and a partner in the solution of shared problems.
Such a binary categorization of opinions of Islam is problematic, and was recently recognized as such by the editor of the report. However, since the term is here to stay, the Heritage Committee should devise a precise definition.
Questions and criticism about Islam are not Islamophobia. In fact, Muslims themselves engage in robust debates about modernity and Islamic practice. The cruel irony is that such debates are banned in countries that need it most.
The Heritage Committee must be careful to define Islamophobia, lest it chill the free exchange of opinions. For example, a recent online survey found that 88 per cent of Canadians believe Muslims should be treated no differently than their fellow Canadians, while 72 per cent are worried that hatred and fear of Canadian Muslims is on the rise.
Yet 56 per cent believe that “Islam suppresses women’s rights.” Are they Islamophobic? Of course not. They are entitled to their opinion. Such a critical view is understandable, given discriminatory gender practices in some Muslim cultures. Furthermore, subordination of women is often justified by theology. We need to be able to have frank discussions without the fear of being branded an “Islamophobe.”
A balance must be found between protection of free speech and protection from bigotry and hatred.
In spite of its clumsy definition of Islamophobia, The Runnymede report provides an excellent framework for identifying its deleterious effects in four areas: exclusion (from politics, employment, management); violence; discrimination (in employment and provision of services); and prejudice (in media and conversation).
In fact, this framework can be applied to comprehensive data collection and analysis for all types of racism and discrimination – which just happens to be the stated goal of the Committee.
NOT long ago, Turkey and Malaysia were often bracketed together as countries that inspired optimism about the Muslim world. In both lands, Islam is the most popular religion. In both, democracy has been vigorously if imperfectly practised. And both have enjoyed bursts of rapid, extrovert economic growth.
In their early days in office, people in Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development (AK) party always found plenty of friends in Malaysia: allies who shared their belief that governance with a pious Muslim flavour was compatible with modernising, business-friendly policies and a broadly pro-Western orientation.
All that makes doubly depressing a recent incident in Malaysia involving a prominent writer from Turkey. Mustafa Akyol is an exponent, in snappy English as well as his mother-tongue, of a liberal interpretation of Islam. In his book “Islam Without Extremes” he argues that his faith should never use coercion either to win converts or to keep those who are already Muslim in order. In other words, he takes at face value the Koranic verse which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.”
Last month Mr Akyol was invited to Kuala Lumpur by a reform-minded Muslim group and asked to give three lectures. In his second talk, he warmed to the non-coercion theme. As he insisted, people who fall away from Islam or “apostasise” should not be threatened with death, as happens under the harshest Islamist regimes, or even sent for re-education, as can happen in Malaysia. (For its all terrible human-rights abuses, nothing of that kind happens in Turkey.)
Afterwards, Mr Akyol was approached by members of Malaysia’s religious-affairs authority and told that he had done wrong by lecturing on Islam without their approval. Mr Akyol’s hosts reluctantly decided to cancel his third and final lecture. This would have highlighted Mr Akyol’s latest book, which is about Jesus of Nazareth and the common features of the Abrahamic faiths. The religious enforcers made it clear that the subject matter was not to their taste.
Matters did not end there. As he was about fly back to the United States where he currently lives, Mr Akyol was detained at the behest of the religious-affairs authority and interrogated. His detention lasted a night and a morning. It could have been a lot longer, but for the intervention of Turkey’s former president, Abdullah Gul, who still has friends in high Malaysian places.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the story is that Malaysia’s authorities particularly objected to Mr Akyol’s views on coercion. As was noted by the late Patricia Crone, a professor of Islamic studies, that Koranic verse about “no compulsion” has been subject to many different interpretations, both in Islam’s early years and recently.
For example, it has often been interpreted to mean simply that converts to Islam must adopt the faith freely, if the act is to have any merit. That does not preclude the use of state power to keep Muslims in line, and for example, punish them if they fail to fast or cover themselves properly. The Koranic verse has even been read in ways that are compatible with a harsh regime of Islamic enforcement. For example, it can be asserted that only a voluntary turning of the heart to God has any spiritual merit, but the state still needs to impose outward conformity for reasons of public order.
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) seems to have thought something similar. She said she had no desire to “make windows into men’s souls”, but nonetheless, after a fairly tolerant start to her reign, ended up by persecuting Catholics who were seen as a threat to national security.
In modern times, too, the Koran’s non-compulsion verse has been read in a variety of ways: either as an appeal for full-blown religious freedom, of the sort which Mr Akyol advocates, or else as a much more limited statement, that people who embrace Islam must do so spontaneously and wholeheartedly.
This narrower reading is, apparently, the official line not only in full-blown theocracies like Saudi Arabia but somewhat milder places like Malaysia. And in Kuala Lumpur as well as Riyadh, other interpretations are excluded.
Understandable concerns of German Muslim communities:
On a day celebrating German unity, many Muslims have reason to wonder if “German unity” applies to them in light of recent federal election results. The third strongest party in the Bundestag will be the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party which has rejected the Islamic faith as part of German cultural identity.
October 3 is the country’s national holiday and, for many Germans, just a day to sleep in or earn some extra cash at work. For mosques around the country, however, it’s the day of their national open house: neighbors can take a tour, satisfy their curiosity about Islam and local Muslims and – of course – eat.
To be Muslim and nonpartisan
Indeed the smell of oil and charcoal wafting into the prayer room is the only indication that something different is going on at this Cologne mosque. The plush Bourdeaux carpeting of the sacred space seems to absorb all outside sounds – and our feet – as Tarik Yilmaz and Mustafa Karatas talk community outreach.
“Our religion is at the forefront of our work. Not politics,” Karatas tells DW.
Germany’s mosques began annual open houses in 1997 and have carried forth the tradition ever since. Technically, though, most mosques in Germany are open year round to the public upon appointment
Muslims have become the center of many heated debates over public safety, women’s rights and even loyalty to the German state in recent years. Hence, dispelling misconceptions is one of their priorities. However, they emphasize that this work is nonpartisan, just like their cooperation with local religious groups and charities.
“It’s a mosque community so it’s a good idea not to be politically active,” the board’s representative explains.
Yilmaz, a 27-year-old theologian who recently started working at the primarily Turkish house of worship, agrees: “People come here to pray or because they have friends here and to eat some food. We don’t really talk politics.”
Still, in a community where they have strong partnerships, what do they make of the AfD winning over 9 percent in their constituency? An answer is out of the question.
Feeling the pain of neo-Nazi terrorism
Just a few blocks away from that mosque and theology school in northeastern Cologne is the site of a nailbomb attack perpetrated by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Underground (NSU). It was a hit on the Turkish community and an attack on social cohesion and multiculturalism in Cologne.
The wounds of the attack lie much deeper than the shrapnel that left over 20 injured in June 2004. The terrorist attack on Keupstrasse was one of a dozen the NSU carried out between 2000 and 2007. Yet, despite the attackers’ identities being known to police in the late 1990s, it wasn’t until a botched robbery brought the right-wing terror cell to light in 2011 that officials cleared members of the Turkish community of suspicion.
The bomb planted by the NSU sent over 700 nails flying through Keupstrasse. For several years, officials interrogated locals suspecting the crime to be linked to Turkish mafia
The case has raised questions about right-wing sympathizers among police and a how large the blind spot to right-wing extremism in Germany is.
And, with the rise of the a party like the AfD – one whose leaders have made racist and Islamophobic comments, as well as relativized the Holocaust and have been known to use Nazi rhetoric – critics worry that a far-right party in parliament could embolden the country’s radical right-wing scene.
Rising violence toward Muslims
For Ahmed Erdogan, like many on Keupstrasse, the swift rise of the far-right AfD has been a shock. “Where will this lead?” he wonders.
Tucked away from the frilly bridal dress shops and bounteous bakery display cases that line Keupstrasse, the local mosque is easy to overlook. It’s one of the oldest in the Cologne neighborhood of Mühlheim, where over 40 percent of the population has foreign roots. According to Erdogan, who’s on its board, it has been and remains very active in community outreach and cooperation – making the AfD’s popularity all the more puzzling.
This year, there have nearly 20 attacks on Muslims and nearly 400 incidents of “Islamophobic crimes,” ranging from hate speech, threats and damage to property, according to a governmental inquiry from the Left party. As it’s the first year officials have assessed the crime rate against Muslims, no previous data for comparison has been analyzed.
Meanwhile, the AfD’s rhetoric surrounding Islam has also raised concerns. In addition to dismissing the religion – one practiced by over 4 million people in Germany – as being a part of German society, the AfD also wants to prohibit minarets and the call to prayer.
“The AfD sees a great danger to our state, our society and our set of values through the spread of Islam and the presence of over 5 million Muslims, whose numbers are increasing,” the AfD said in its party platform, which states that Muslims who obey the law and are “integrated” are “valued members of society.” The far-right party denies all accusations of Islamophobic or racist rhetoric.
Given the need for dialogue these days, mosques can choose to stay out of politics, but as a Muslim it’s hard to “keep out it,” Erdogan tells DW.
The Keupstrasse mosque doesn’t participate in the national open house because it’s open to anyone everyday, just like most mosques. And if there’s one point Erdogan and his colleagues at the neighboring mosque agree on, it’s this: dialogue – and not fear – is the only way forward.
Not going well (enquiries and consultations on divisive issues are hard to manage):
Les membres de la Table de concertation contre le racisme systémique ont dénoncé la politisation et l’ingérence du premier ministre dans la consultation sur le sujet, indiquant que c’est précisément cela qui est en train de faire dérailler le processus. Dans un point de presse mercredi, ils ont jugé « déplacées » les déclarations faites par Philippe Couillard au sujet de sa déconfiture à l’élection partielle, qui ouvraient la porte à l’annulation de la consultation sur la discrimination et le racisme systémique.
« Si le premier ministre aujourd’hui déclare qu’à cause de ses résultats électoraux dans Louis-Hébert il faut repenser la consultation, c’est qu’il n’a pas compris ce que ça veut dire, l’indépendance de la Commission des droits de la personne [et des droits de la jeunesse]. Ce n’est plus Philippe Couillard, le boss, c’est la Commission des droits de la personne », a insisté Émilie Nicolas, l’une des porte-parole de la Table de concertation contre le racisme systémique. « Les calculs électoraux des libéraux et la saison électorale, ça n’a strictement aucun rapport avec le mandat que s’est fait donner la Commission. »
L’exercice consultatif est trop important pour qu’il soit soumis au jeu politique et récupéré par des intérêts partisans, a indiqué pour sa part Haroun Bouazzi, président de l’Association des musulmans et des Arabes pour la laïcité au Québec. « C’est un problème de société profond qui demande du tact. »
Pour la Table de concertation, ce serait une déception si la consultation était annulée. « Mais on le serait aussi si ça se tenait tout croche. Et quand on a de l’ingérence politique dans ce qui doit être indépendant, c’est croche », a soutenu Émilie Nicolas. « Il ne faut pas d’ingérence. On veut un exercice qui soit serein et quand on se crie par la tête à l’Assemblée nationale, ce n’est pas ce que j’appelle de la sérénité. »
Conditions de réussite
Pour qu’il soit réussi, l’exercice consultatif doit se tenir à certaines conditions : la garantie de son indépendance, mais également de sa transparence. « Imaginez une seconde une consultation sur l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et qu’on veuille cacher les femmes victimes de sexisme », a renchéri M. Bouazzi. Il doit aussi être doté des moyens en temps et en argent, a-t-il rappelé, évoquant ainsi les critiques de l’opposition devant l’ajout de 400 000 $ portant à 900 000 $ le budget de la consultation. « Juste en pub pour la Charte des valeurs, ça a coûté 1,9 million ! »
Samira Laouni, coprésidente de la Table de concertation, déplore que certains Québécois voient dans l’exercice une manière de les accuser de racisme. « Certains médias, et je dis bien certains médias, jouent beaucoup avec les terminologies pour monter les citoyens les uns contre les autres. On a bien compris le message, nous l’entendons, le vivons sur le terrain : ce ne sont pas nos concitoyens qui sont racistes, mais les institutions », a-t-elle insisté.
Haroun Bouazzi rappelle qu’il est important de distinguer le racisme systémique, celui des institutions, de ce qui ne l’est pas, comme les actes isolés. « Une femme qui se fait cracher dessus dans la rue — malheureusement, ça existe — parce qu’elle porte un foulard, ce n’est pas un acte de racisme systémique. Mais ça le devient quand la police de Sherbrooke refuse de prendre la plainte de cette femme-là. »
Possible annulation
Mercredi matin, le premier ministre avait laissé entendre qu’il était disposé à annuler la consultation sur la discrimination systémique et le racisme et qu’il allait discuter de cette possibilité avec les membres du caucus libéral.
En après-midi, le député de Mercier, Amir Khadir, a rencontré M. Couillard et la ministre de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion, Kathleen Weil, afin d’améliorer le processus de consultation, notamment « pour être sûr que personne au Québec [ne]puisse continuer à croire que c’est le procès des Québécois ». « La rencontre a été positive et l’écoute, attentive. Nous espérons que notre échange pourra contribuer à trouver des solutions pour surmonter les appréhensions concernant cette consultation », a-t-il affirmé au Devoir, dans la foulée de sa rencontre.
Pour leur part, le Parti québécois et la Coalition avenir Québec demandent tous deux au gouvernement libéral d’en finir. « M. Couillard s’entête aujourd’hui. Il veut sauver la face. L’important, c’est qu’on agisse, qu’il n’y ait pas de procès et qu’il y ait de l’action », a lancé le chef de l’opposition officielle, Jean-François Lisée.
M. Couillard songe à revoir les modalités de la consultation. Il balaie cependant l’idée d’annoncer une série de mesures visant à enrayer la discrimination et le racisme au Québec sans avoir entendu préalablement des victimes. « Il faut laisser les gens s’exprimer aussi. On ne peut pas juste dire : “On va dicter nos solutions” », a-t-il fait valoir. Le forum public qui doit réunir plusieurs experts et acteurs du milieu pourrait donc avoir lieu comme prévu en novembre, à Montréal.
Confiance en la CDPDJ
La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse a été plongée dans la tourmente après des révélations au sujet de la gestion autoritaire de sa présidente, Tamara Thermitus. Cette organisation doit-elle continuer à piloter la consultation sur la discrimination et le racisme systémique ? « On est encore dans les spéculations, et j’aimerais que la Commission réponde aux questions de journalistes et aux questions hypothétiques qui sont soulevées », s’est contentée de dire Émilie Nicolas.
Pour Nicole Filion, de la Ligue des droits et libertés, la « crise » à la Commission des droits a été instrumentalisée pour faire dérailler la consultation. « On pense que la Commission pourrait même avoir le pouvoir de décider elle-même de mener cette consultation. Je ne suis pas en train de dire que c’est ce qu’elle va faire, mais ça fait partie de ses mandats. »
Haroun Bouazzi en a profité pour réitérer l’importance de la consultation. « Lutter pour l’égalité, contre le racisme, c’est quelque chose de noble dans une société et je pense que c’est une occasion qu’on a pour montrer qu’on est capable en tant que société, en tant que nation québécoise, de mener à bien l’exercice. »
Before a single witness has been heard at Quebec’s hearings on systemic racism, before a single study has been tabled, a clear portrait of the victims is emerging.
François Legault, leader of the Coalition Avenir Québec, this week called on Premier Philippe Couillard to “end all unfair accusations against Quebecers” and cancel the commission. “Quebec doesn’t need an additional crisis on the identity issue, and especially not a crisis created by the Liberal Government,” he said.
Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée said an examination of systemic racism is unnecessary and would “simply put vinegar in the wounds.” He said Couillard should “stop being so arrogant towards the will of the people” and scrap the hearings.
In a column in the Journal de Montréal last July, sociologist Mathieu Bock-Côté helped set the tone of the debate around the racism hearings — or “public self-flagellation” as he called them — scheduled to begin this month.
“We will witness an immense trial of Quebec society and, more specifically, of Quebec nationalists, who will be accused of all evils,” he wrote.
The premier’s resolve seemed to be weakening on Wednesday when he acknowledged that members of his caucus were blaming Monday’s by-election loss of a previously safe Liberal riding in Quebec City on the racism consultations. He said he would steer the process, overseen by the Quebec Human Rights Commission, “in the right direction” and assured nobody would be put on trial.
The manner in which the debate has derailed has left representatives of minority communities, armed with stacks of examples of discrimination against their members, scratching their heads. How did a debate over protecting racial minorities from discrimination get twisted into a campaign to stop labeling Quebecers as racist?
Emilie Nicolas, a board member of an umbrella group fighting systemic racism, said part of the problem is that the concept of systemic racism is poorly understood in Quebec. “It doesn’t mean that people are systematically racist,” she said.
Whereas neighbouring Ontario has been wrestling with the issue for decades, in Quebec, even the word “racism” is seen as taboo, she said.
“Any kind of gap in actual equality based on race that is a result of institutional practices is systemic racism,” Nicolas said. “It’s not about individual intentions, and it’s not about people being good or bad people.”
The changing patterns of settlement in greater Montreal:
Plus les années passent, plus les immigrants quittent Montréal pour s’établir dans les couronnes. Mais alors qu’on pourrait croire que c’est parce qu’ils s’intègrent et se fondent de plus en plus dans le paysage socioculturel québécois, le taux de concentration de ces populations demeure assez élevé, même en banlieue.
C’est ce qui ressort d’une mise en forme des données des derniers recensements de Statistique Canada, à deux semaines de la sortie des nouvelles tendances en immigration du recensement de 2016.
La théorie de l’assimilation spatiale prédit une sorte de disparition naturelle de la ségrégation, mais ce n’est pas nécessairement ce qu’on doit conclure en voyant que les immigrants s’installent en banlieue, indique René Houle, chercheur pour Statistique Canada.
« C’était le point de départ de notre étude. Avec la théorie de l’assimilation spatiale, on pouvait s’attendre à ce que les immigrants et les enfants des immigrants aient tendance à se disperser, mais ça ne marche pas comme ça », souligne-t-il.
Le chercheur, qui s’est intéressé à l’origine des immigrants et à leurs mouvements sur le territoire canadien, a mesuré l’indice de dissimilarité, soit la tendance des populations à se concentrer ou à se disperser sur le territoire. Son constat ? Les immigrants qui migrent hors de la métropole vont avoir tendance à se reconcentrer ailleurs. « Ce n’est pas parce que les immigrants vont en banlieue qu’ils se dispersent. »
Les Français, États-Uniens et Portugais seraient parmi les plus dispersés, alors que les Philippins, les Indiens et les Grecs seraient des populations plus concentrées.
Quartier homogène
Il serait toutefois hasardeux de conclure à une certaine ghettoïsation, soutient la sociologue à l’INRS-Urbanisation Annick Germain. « Dans l’image populaire, la concentration, ça renvoie à un cas de figure où il n’y a que des gens d’une même origine qui vivent dans le même voisinage. Or, ce n’est pas ce dont on parle. »
Si certains regroupements peuvent se faire en raison d’affinités linguistiques, c’était surtout au siècle dernier que les immigrants, notamment d’origine européenne, avaient tendance à s’installer dans un quartier plus homogène. Pour démontrer les réelles tendances à la co-ethnicité, il faudrait des analyses plus poussées, ajoute-t-elle.
Les immigrants, ces banlieusards
René Houle remarque que l’engouement pour la banlieue croît proportionnellement au nombre d’années passées au Québec. Même si les immigrants nouvellement arrivés s’installent d’abord à Montréal, « [la métropole] se vide pratiquement après trois générations ou plus », constate-t-il. Le prix élevé des loyers est un facteur, pas seulement pour les immigrants, d’ailleurs.
Fait intéressant : de manière encore très marquée, les immigrants s’établissent selon le fameux axe « est-ouest » du boulevard Saint-Laurent, selon leur affinité avec le français ou l’anglais. Un axe semble se prolonger de façon imaginaire dans les banlieues comme Laval et Longueuil, orientant l’installation de la même manière.
Nearly half of the countries in the world have an official religion, have a preferred faith or are hostile to religious institutions, Pew Research Center research finds.
Islam is the most common official religion, with 27 countries naming Sunni Islam, Shia Islam or Islam in general as their official faith, Pew data shows. An additional 13 countries name some form of Christianity as their official faith, two name Buddhism and just one, Israel, names Judaism. Christianity is the most frequent preferred religion, with 28 countries favoring the faith or a certain denomination of it over others, while three name Islam, four name Buddhism and the remainder name multiple religions.
The Pew Research Center analyzed 2015 data on 199 countries, including their constitutions and basic laws as well as other governmental and nongovernmental sources, and published its findings on Tuesday. The analysis found 43 countries (22 percent) have an official state religion, 40 countries (20 percent) have a favored or preferred faith and 10 countries (five percent) are hostile to religious institutions of all faiths. Just more than half, 106 countries (53 percent), have no official or preferred religion, including the United States.
There is not one set definition or archetype for what it looks like to have an official or preferred religion. There are extremes—on one end of the spectrum the designation is mostly ceremonial and followers of the faith are treated pretty much the same as other groups (Liechtenstein, Malta and Monaco) and on the other, a religion is mandatory (Comoros, Maldives, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia all make Islam mandatory). Elsewhere, there are countries that give special benefits to the official faith (such as funding for religious activities, land and education) and either regulate other groups or create a harsh environment for them. Jordan’s official religion, for example, is Islam, and it subsidizes certain mosque activities and manages Islamic institutions, while other groups must register to own land or perform marriage and other rites.
Countries with preferred religions often also disproportionately fund religious activities, land or education for the favored faith, but are more likely than those with official religions to offer similar benefits to other religions. In Laos, for example, the government sponsors Buddhist facilities and uses Buddhist rituals in state ceremonies. It allows the printing, import and distribution of Buddhist religious material, whereas other groups are restricted from doing the same. Russia names Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism as “traditional” religions, but recognizes the “special contribution” of Russian Orthodox Christianity to Russian history and gives the church special benefits beyond what the other three religions receive (such as giving its patriarch security and access to official vehicles).
Ten countries—Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam—have no official or preferred religion but severely restrict and/or have a highly contentious relationship with religious groups. China, for example, says in its constitution that citizens have “freedom of religious belief,” but in reality its one-party political system scrutinizes religious activity very closely. There are five state-sanctioned “patriotic religious associations” that can hold worship services. Still, the country detained, arrested or harassed those and unregistered religious groups frequently.
The United States is part of the slight majority of countries that are generally neutral toward religion, according to Pew, since although it may give benefits to religious groups, it doesn’t privilege any one group over another.
The Pearson Centre asked me to do a piece on multiculturalism for the 46th anniversary of the policy and Canada 150.
This article is part of a longer piece I am working on, looking at how immigration, settlement, citizenship and multiculturalism work together to foster integration.
The approach of the Employment Equity Act to require federal public sector and regulated companies to publicly report on designated group representation has shown the benefits of transparency and regular reporting:
Visible minorities make up more than half of Toronto’s population, but only 3.3 per cent of corporate boards and 9.2 per cent of the private sector’s senior management, a new study finds.
While the percentage of women on large corporate boards has steadily grown, from 14.8 per cent in 2012 to 23.6 per cent in 2017, the representation of visible minorities in leadership has stalled, inching up from 2.8 per cent to 3.3 per cent over the five years, said the study by Ryerson University’s Diversity Institute, released Wednesday.
“Diversity is more than gender,” said Wendy Cukier, the institute’s founder and professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management, at a forum on advancing diversity and inclusion in Canadian Business. “If you look at the minority representation on boards, it is not a pretty picture.”
The six-year study, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, analyzed data on senior leaders from the largest organizations in Greater Montreal and the GTA in six sectors — elected, public, private, volunteer, education and agencies/boards/commissions.
Although the representation of women has improved, the gains are primarily made by white women, said Cukier.
“While equally represented in the workforce, white women outnumber racialized women 16 to 1 on corporate senior management teams,” noted Cukier.
In Toronto, 24 per cent of companies have more than 30 per cent women on their boards while 28 per cent have none. By contrast, only 3 per cent of firms have 20 per cent visible minorities on their boards and 90 per cent have none.
In Montreal, where minorities make up more than 20 per cent of the population, almost 10 per cent of corporate boards actually had more than 40 per cent women, while 25 per cent had none. Only 3 of 60 of the largest companies there had any racial minorities on their boards.
“We have a problem,” said Cukier, adding that the research findings underline the significance of moving forward two government bills currently before the Parliament and Queen’s Park — that aim at tracking racial diversity data in organizations.
Navdeep Bains, federal minister of innovation, science and economic development, said Bill C-25, which is now before the Senate, requires publicly traded corporation to report on diversity data and policies.
“Diversity is not just the right thing to do. It has a strong economic case,” Bains told the Toronto forum attended by business leaders, diversity and industry experts. “Canadian competitiveness and strength and resourcefulness come from our people and diversity.”
Michael Coteau, Ontario’s children and youth services minister and minister responsible for anti-racism, said Bill 114 will extend reporting requirements on race, gender and other demographic characteristics to provincially-funded agencies.
“Eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial equity is integral to our plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday life,” said Coteau, who was also on the panel. “We believe that data is the foundation of an effective strategy to advance inclusion.
Tiffany Gooch, a public affairs consultant in Toronto, said she was not surprised by the little progress made by visible minorities as the hope was that changes would trickle down from gender diversity to other aspects of diversity representation.
“You need a critical mass for any conversation to take on,” said Gooch, who believes both proposed government bills can help build a good foundation for meaningful conversations about organizational diversity.
Andi Shi, executive director of the Chinese Professionals Association of Canada, was disappointed by the poor minority representation in leadership roles despite Canada’s celebrated pride in multiculturalism.
“There is still the unconscious assumption that racial minorities are not good enough, and the fear that we are not going to perform as good as a white person,” said Shi. “We need quotas to force organizations to make changes.”
Overall in 2017, women are faring well in taking senior leadership positions in all sectors in Toronto compared to private companies, representing 42 per cent in agencies, boards and commissions, 40.1 per cent in education, 42.5 per cent in the volunteer sector, 44.4 per cent in the public sector, and 41.5 per cent among elected officials.
However, visible minority representation is still dismal in 2017 in all areas, accounting for just 17.2 per cent in agencies/boards/commission, 23.1 per cent in education, 12.3 per cent in the volunteer sector, 9 per cent in the public sector, and 29.8 per cent among elected officials.
