Rise refers to what Canadian hate crime stats would classify as mischief, with violent forms declining. Still disturbing:
Harassment, vandalism and other hostile acts against Jewish people and sites in the U.S. increased by 34 percent last year and are up 86 percent through the first three months of 2017, according to data released on Monday.
A spate of bomb threats against Jewish community centers and schools, and vandalism at Jewish cemeteries in the U.S. this year have contributed to the surge, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s report.
There have been more than 100 bomb threats against 75 Jewish community centers and eight Jewish day schools around the country this year through early March. Vandals have toppled headstones and inflicted other damage at Jewish graveyards in St. Louis, Philadelphia and other cities this year. A swastika made from feces besmirched an art school bathroom in Rhode Island.
“What the data tells us is incontrovertible and why the Jewish community describes such heightened anxiety,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told The Huffington Post. “There’s no doubt that there’s a high degree of anxiety.”
Greenblatt added that his organization’s report, which was released on Holocaust Remembrance Day, shows that public officials must do more to denounce anti-Semitism and find ways to make Jewish-Americans feel secure.
DOMINICK REUTER VIA GETTY IMAGES
Vandalized tombstones are seen at the Jewish Mount Carmel Cemetery, Feb. 26, 2017, in Philadelphia, PA. Police say more than 100 tombstones were vandalized a week after a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis was desecrated.
In all, the ADL documented 1,266 incidents in 2016 and 541 since the beginning of this year until March. That’s a sharp increase since 2013, when the ADL recorded 751 incidents, the fewest number since record keeping began in 1979, a spokesman said. For comparison, anti-Semitic incidents peaked in 1994 when there were more than 2,000 incidents reported for the first and only time.
The ADL’s analysis excluded most bigoted acts on social media. However, it included the harassment of Jewish residents in Whitefish, Montana, because the coordinated abuse rose above typical taunting and hate speech online, an ADL spokesman said. Supporters of alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer targeted town activists and Jewish residents after Spencer’s mother, a Whitefish business owner, said she was harassed because of her son’s politics.
While forms of harassment and vandalism have jumped since 2015, the ADL said that physical assaults fell 36 percent in 2016 and are down 40 percent this year.
It would be interesting to know if second-generation Indo-Canadians continue this practice or not and I understand the researchers are planning to do just that:
Fewer girls than boys are born to Indian women who immigrate to Canada, a skewed pattern driven by families whose mother tongue is Punjabi, according to a new study.
One of the most surprising findings of the study, to be published Monday in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada, is that the preference for boys does not diminish, regardless of how long women from India have lived in Canada.
“It’s counterintuitive,” said Marcelo Urquia, a research scientist at the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Health Policy and lead author of the study. “We know that the longer immigrants are in Canada, the more likely they are to align to the host country.”
But for many Indian immigrants who express a strong desire for sons, the study found, the practice of sex selection remains entrenched. Women who already have two female children are most at risk for abortions in the second trimester, when parents can learn the sex of the fetus. The study builds on previous research led by Dr. Urquia that found a deficit in Canada of more than 4,400 girls over two decades.
The latest study shows that women born in India who already have two daughters gave birth to 192 baby boys in Ontario for every 100 girls. The sex ratios are so distorted, they cannot be explained by natural causes, Dr. Urquia said. Across the globe, by comparison, the odds of having a boy over a girl are slightly higher: 107 boys for every 100 girls.
The preference for boys among many Indian immigrants reveals underlying gender inequities and will not change without intervention, Dr. Urquia said.
Amanpreet Brar, a third-year medical student at the University of Toronto who worked on the study, said gender-selection abortion was talked about openly in India’s Punjab province, where she grew up, but she was surprised to learn that it also happens in Canada.
Ms. Brar, who immigrated to Canada with her family when she was 14, remembers the traditional celebration called a Lohri in India for celebrating the birth of a boy.
“It was rare to hear about a girl’s birth being celebrated,” she said.
But some steps have been taken in Canada to end gender-based customs and celebrate the birth of girls. In Brampton, Ont., where 40 per cent of the population is South Asian, one hospital has started handing out Ladoos, a sugary Indian sweet, when a baby girl is born, Ms. Brar said. Traditionally in India, Ladoos were just for moms who delivered boys.
The study analyzed 46,834 birth records for Indian-born mothers who delivered up to three live births in Ontario hospitals between April, 1993, and March, 2014, and who immigrated to Canada between 1985 and 2012. Mothers who gave birth to twins or triplets were excluded. The study also looked at the mother’s birth place, her mother tongue and how long she had been in Canada.
Among all the mothers having their third child, nearly twice as many males were born compared with females if the previous two children were girls. The ratio was even higher among women whose mother tongue was Punjabi: 240 boys to 100 girls. The ratio of males to females did not differ according to when women arrived in Canada.
Valid commentary and critique by Nicholas Dawson. My sense is that English Canada has better representation of immigrant and visible minority writers:
Pendant le Salon du livre de Québec, la revue Les Libraires a invité dix auteurs à constituer « la bibliothèque idéale », exercice fort amusant dont l’intention était d’encourager des lectures diverses. Toutefois, parmi ces dix « invités de marque », aucun n’était racisé, comme quoi la diversité ethnique demeure un angle mort important dans le milieu littéraire québécois.
Ce type d’omission se reproduit régulièrement. Pour souligner leur dixième anniversaire, les éditions Héliotrope, qui publient des auteurs de grand talent et qui privilégient les voix plurielles (dont celle des femmes et des personnes queer), ont publié sur Facebook une mosaïque de photos présentant les visages tous blancs de ces « voix singulières ». On retrouve la même homogénéité parmi les finalistes des catégories roman, poésie et hors Québec du Prix des libraires, dont le jury n’est également composé que de personnes blanches. L’an dernier, ce même prix n’a été décerné qu’à des femmes, ce dont on doit absolument se réjouir, mais aussi toutes blanches. Il y a quelques visages non blancs parmi les « 100 poètes québécois » recensés par la revue Les Libraires pour la Journée mondiale de la poésie, mais ils se comptent sur les doigts d’une seule main.
Ce ne sont que quelques exemples parmi une pléthore de listes d’auteurs blancs qu’on dresse dans des palmarès, recommandations et recensements, parfois célébrant une « diversité » du paysage littéraire québécois qu’on limite souvent à la parité entre hommes et femmes. Devant ces omissions répétées, j’ai pourtant eu l’instinct de me taire. C’est que je suis un jeune auteur québécois d’origine chilienne, actif dans le milieu mais qui n’a publié qu’un seul livre, avec un deuxième en cours de publication. C’est mon milieu ; on pourrait facilement me reprocher de « prêcher pour ma paroisse », de me faire du « capital symbolique sur le dos des minorités », voire de « jouer la victime ». Ces arguments visent à dépolitiser l’enjeu, l’individualiser, comme si une personne racisée qui crie au racisme ne parlait, au final, que pour son propre intérêt. Pourtant, dans un si petit milieu, certes ouvert d’esprit et sensible, mais où tout le monde se connaît et où les contacts sont légion, de telles démagogies sont efficaces.
Oser prendre la parole
Bref, il y a un problème de représentativité ethnique dans notre milieu littéraire québécois ; les maisons d’édition, les revues, les journaux, les enseignants et les institutions semblent encore relayer la responsabilité aux personnes racisées qui, peu nombreuses et isolées, risquent gros quand elles osent prendre la parole.
[…]. L’enjeu étant très peu soulevé par des gens en position de pouvoir dans ce milieu, les personnes non blanches se retrouvent seules à jouer le rôle de la police ethnique, comme si l’enjeu ne leur appartenait qu’à elles. Pourtant, il s’agit d’un problème qui concerne tout le monde. Célébrer et encourager la diversité ethnique dans la production artistique nationale, c’est non seulement représenter tous les groupes qui constituent notre société, mais surtout contribuer à réduire l’hégémonie des voix majoritaires en permettant aux voix minorisées de les influencer. Pour ce faire, la sous-représentation des personnes non blanches doit être décriée par tous, sans quoi la voix minoritaire, qu’elle soit littéraire ou révoltée, demeure un chuchotement affectant peu les autorités blanches qui ont le beau jeu de garder le silence.
Pour ce faire, il faut d’abord se responsabiliser en reconnaissant ses angles morts, premier pas primordial dont parlent Martine Delvaux et Carole David dans un magnifique article qu’elles ont rédigé pour la revue À bâbord à la suite d’une conférence « autour d’une table ronde sur les femmes et la littérature », événement qui a reçu des critiques parce que les invitées étaient blanches. Une fois cet angle mort reconnu, les personnes en position de pouvoir possèdent les outils pour affronter les questions difficiles : pourquoi les personnes non blanches envoient-elles moins de manuscrits ? Pourquoi sont-elles si peu nombreuses à étudier ou à enseigner la littérature ? Qu’est-ce que les institutions peuvent faire de plus pour, d’une part, attirer les personnes non blanches à prendre part à la production littéraire québécoise et, d’autre part, pour mieux s’adapter aux réalités des minorités dont les langues, les structures et les pratiques ne correspondent pas toujours aux codes dominants ?
Pour répondre à ces questions, je fais donc appel à ces personnes en position d’autorité — éditeurs, journalistes, enseignants — pour qu’elles écoutent d’abord les voix minorisées qui soulignent ce problème blanc auquel plusieurs semblent aveugles. Mais surtout, j’appelle à ce que ces personnes blanches reconnaissent leur hégémonie pour qu’elles cessent de « porter le visage de l’innocence», comme le disent si bien Delvaux et David. Ainsi, en prenant part au débat, elles contribueront à faire de notre milieu littéraire ce qu’il devrait être : un espace de discussion, autoréflexif et politique, qui n’abandonne pas dans des angles morts les personnes minorisées.
Last week’s integration seminars in Copenhagen and Malmö gave me a better appreciation of European debates on integration and multiculturalism (an updated version of my deck with 2016 citizenship numbers is Integration, Diversity and Inclusion – Copenhagen April 2017).
While the two seminars had different participants – Copenhagen included members of the diplomatic corps, officials involved in integration issues and academics from the Centre for Migration Studies, University of Copenhagen, Malmö had only academics, mainly Masters and PhD students – common themes and discussion points emerged. Both events were well attended: between 50-60 in Copenhagen and 25-30 in Malmö.
My pre-reading highlighted just how different Denmark and Sweden’s national policies on integration and multiculturalism are, one reflected in both the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) and the Multiculturalism Policy Index (MPI), with the two countries largely at opposite ends of the spectrum. At the municipal level, however, the differences are less clear-cut.
None of the participants in both locations could explain how and why this difference emerged, given that on most other issues both countries have broadly comparable policies and outlooks. Some possible factors mentioned Sweden’s self-perception as a large country compared to Denmark’s being small compared to its earlier history, and thus possible greater societal insecurity. Moreover, Sweden has more urban centres, where diversity is more a fact, whereas Denmark is largely rural save for Copenhagen. But these were cast more in the nature of possible hypotheses, and there appears to be sensitivity, at least among academics, to probe more deeply into the differences.
The Copenhagen event, hosted by the Embassy and the Centre for Migration Studies, was part of the government’s agenda of promoting the Canadian approach to diversity and inclusion (Malmo was in part a follow-on activity to the Governor General’s earlier visit but was self-funded).
As Global Affairs Canada looks at different approaches to meet this commitment, ranging from the symbolic (e.g., this resolution tabled at the UN’s Human Rights Council, The Power of Inclusion and the Benefits of Diversity), high level dialogue (e.g., more senior level engagement like the GG’s messaging in Sweden) or working level (which I would characterize this event as being), I think it is important to emphasize sharing experiences, not promoting models, with some humility in how we approach such discussions.
After all, as I emphasized in both seminars, each country’s geography, history, demographic mix is unique. While we can and should learn from each other, models and approaches cannot be easily transplanted or applied.
Some of the more interesting comments and observations, at least to me, were:
Copenhagen
Immigration and related debates (integration, citizenship and multiculturalism) are largely only viewed through a refugee lens, with little public debate or discussion on what appears a need for skilled immigrants to meet labour shortages. Ironically, there is some recognition in rural areas regarding the contribution immigrants make to the sustainability of rural centres (examples of immigrants from Eastern Europe were cited). This recognition, however, did not translate into any nuance in Danish political debates, where neither rural or business community needs were generally raised, and where all nine political parties hold the same position and focus on refugee issues.
There was considerable discussion of values, which are the important ones and what are the friction points (gender equality being the one most signalled). Some participants were perplexed by Canadian use of the term visible minorities and how it is defined (Denmark does not systematically collect comparable data.)
Malmo
Some of the questions and comments of particular interest included:
How does private sponsorship of refugees work? What is the comparative evidence on how well private vs government sponsored refugees integrate, and over what period of time. Some noted that Sweden’s focus on equality made it difficult to discuss and implement what would be perceived as a “two-tier” system.
Participants noted that like Denmark, immigrants were welcomed in rural areas given their contribution to the local community’s sustainability.
There was an interesting exchange on possible tipping points on reasonable accommodation issues and how these are resolved – or not – through public discussion or, as more likely, through practical accommodations in the various public and private institutions.
An equally interesting question and exchange was with respect to definitions of social cohesion and social inclusion, where I noted that it was largely a question of emphasis: social cohesion stressed expections, social inclusion put more weight on accommodation, but both occurred within the same legal and general framework.
Also raised was the question of “disadvantages” of multiculturalism which led to some discussion about diaspora politics and how foreign policy becomes influenced by homeland concerns.
My observation that in many ways, the citizenship program was “broken” prompted a question (provoked but not planted!) asking for an explanation of how so (i.e., under-resourcing and under-management leading to periodic processing backlogs, recent changes that have resulted in a decline in applications, leading to a decline in the recent naturalization rate).
This pilot will provide some real world data to the existing blind cv studies that have been conducted by Oreopoulos and Reitz.
Wisely, the government has chosen to pilot this in a number of departments with different representation challenges, as shown in the table below:
As the government has largely met the goal of being representative of the population it serves, implicit bias may be less of a factor in the government sector. Representation is somewhat less at more senior levels, where implicit bias is likely less of an issue given that candidates are known.
It would be ironic indeed if the pilot, intended to test for bias against visible minorities, would show a bias for visible minorities, given some of the “over-representation” in some departments. In any case, a valuable exercise.
Ottawa has launched a pilot project to reduce biases in the hiring of federal civil services through what is billed “name-blind” recruitment, a practice long urged by employment equity advocates.
The Liberal government’s move came on the heels of a joint study by University of Toronto and Ryerson University earlier this year that found job candidates with Asian names and Canadian qualifications are less likely to be called for interviews than counterparts with Anglo-Canadian names even if they have a better education.
“It’s not just an issue of concern for me but for a lot of people. A number of people have conducted research in Canada, the U.K., Australia and the U.S. that showed there is a subliminal bias in people reading too much into names,” said Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, who first delivered the idea to Parliament last year as a rookie MP from Toronto.
“Name-blind recruitment could help ensure the public service reflects the people it serves by helping to reduce unconscious bias in the hiring process.”
Some companies in the private sector, including banks and accounting firms, have already adopted the practice, which removes names from application forms in order to stop “unconscious bias” against potential recruits from minority backgrounds.
In the United Kingdom, the government now requires name-blind applications for university admissions service and other applications for organizations such as the civil service, British Broadcasting Company and local government.
U of T sociology professor Jeffrey Reitz said the initiative is an important step forward but cautioned officials they must consult independent experts in developing the process and reviewing the results to make sure it is done correctly.
To conduct name-blind screening, he said, recruiters must remove any information on a resumé that would reveal the ethnicity of the person, such as name, birth place and membership in an association before coding the candidates in the talent pool.
“If the government is serious about it, they need to make the process transparent and allow researchers to look at the new procedures and the results,” said Reitz, a co-author of the Canadian study on name discrimination against Asians.
Debbie Douglas of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants said she hopes the pilot could benefit other minority groups, given studies have shown that white English- and French-speaking able-bodied women have been the primary beneficiaries of current employment equity programs.
“We hope as the government moves proactively to ensure diversity in hiring it will review the existing program and strengthen it to ensure the intentional inclusion of racialized and indigenous job seekers,” said Douglas.
Treasury Board President Scott Brison, who championed Hussen’s initial idea, said he welcomed the opportunity to explore new ways of recruiting talent for the public service.
“A person’s name should never be a barrier to employment. Diversity and inclusion in the workplace is critical to building an energized, innovative and effective public service that is better able to meet the demands of an ever-changing world,” said Brison at the launch of the pilot at Ryerson Thursday.
The six departments participating in the pilot include Department of National Defence; Global Affairs Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Public Services and Procurement Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; and the Treasury Board Secretariat. A report on the pilot is expected in October.
Although a master’s degree can improve Asian candidates’ chances of being called, it does not close the gap and their prospects don’t even measure up to those of Anglo applicants with undergraduate qualifications.
Compared to applicants with Anglos names, Asian-named applicants with all-Canadian qualifications had 20.1 per cent fewer calls from organizations with 500 or more employees, and 39.4 per cent and 37.1 per cent fewer calls, respectively, from medium-sized and small employers.
No blogging this week as speaking on the Canadian approach to integration at a seminar organized by the Canadian Embassy and the Centre for Migration Studies, University of Copenhagen Wednesday and the Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare Friday.
It has been fun to put together this deck, updated with 2016 citizenship data, which tries to show how the various elements – immigration, settlement, citizenship and multiculturalism – work together to facilitate integration.
Given some difficulties I had reconciling data sets, Temporary Foreign Worker Program and International Mobility Program data is only up to 2015.
A pair of interesting studies, with some caveats by other researchers:
Two new University of Toronto studies suggest racial bias can develop in babies at an early age — before they’ve even started walking.
Led by the school’s Ontario Institute of Child Study professor Kang Lee, in partnership with researchers from the U.S., U.K., France, and China, the studies examined how infants react to individuals of their own race, compared to individuals of another race.
“The goal of the study was to find out at which age infants begin to show racial bias,” Lee said. “With existing studies, the evidence shows that kids show bias around 3 or 4 years of age. We wanted to look younger.”
The first study looked at 193 Chinese infants from three to ninth months, recruited from a hospital in China, who hadn’t had direct contact with people of other races. The babies were then shown videos of six Asian women and six African women, paired with either happy or sad music.
The study found that infants from three to six months old didn’t associate sad or happy music with people of the same race or of other races, which indicates they “are not biologically predisposed to associate own- and other-race faces with music of different emotional valence.”
However, at around nine months old, the reactions were different.
According to the study, nine-month-old babies looked at their own-race faces paired with happy music for a longer period of time, as well as other-race faces paired with sad music. Lee says this supports the hypothesis that infants associate people of the same race with happy music, and other races with sad music.
That’s not to say parents are teaching their children how to discriminate against other raced individuals, Lee says.
“We are very confident that the cause of this early racial bias is actually the lack of exposure to other raced individuals,” he said. “It tells us that in Canada, if we introduce our kids to other-raced individuals, then we are likely to have less racial bias in our kids against other-raced people.”
Andrew Baron, an associate professor of psychology the University of British Columbia, said while the goal of the study is “terrific,” there are many reasons infants would look for longer amounts of time at faces of different races. For example, he says an infant could spend more time looking at an own-race face because it is familiar, or at an other-race face because it is different and unexpected.
“It’s impossible to draw that conclusion about association from a single experiment when you could have half a dozen reasons why you would look longer that don’t support the conclusion that was made in that paper,” said Baron, who was not involved in the studies, but specializes in a similar field — the development of implicit associations among infants.
“There’s multiple reasons — and contradictory reasons — why we look longer at things. We look longer at things we fear, we look longer at things we like. That’s an inherent tension in how you choose to interpret the data.”
The second study took a closer look at that bias and how it affects children’s learning skills.
Researchers showed babies videos of own-race and other-race adults looking in the same direction that photos of animals appeared (indicating they are reliable) and looking in the wrong direction of the animals (indicating they are unreliable).
The study found that when adults were reliable and looking in the direction of the animals, the infants followed both own- and other-raced individuals equally. The same results occurred when the adults were unreliable and looking in the wrong direction.
However, when the adults gaze was only sometimes correct, the children were more likely to take cues provided by adults of their own race.
“In this situation, very interestingly, kids treated their own-raced individuals — who are only 50 per cent correct — as if they were 100 per cent correct,” Lee said.
“There is discrimination, but only when there is uncertainty.”
The first study was published in Developmental Science and the second was in Child Development.
The study was conducted in China, Lee says, because the researchers were able to control the exposure to other-raced individuals.
Lee said he has been trying for nearly 10 years to organize a study looking at babies born into mixed-race families. He suspects infants born into mixed-race families would show less racial bias.
When it comes to parents who want to try to eliminate racial bias from a young age, Lee says exposure is key.
“If parents want to prevent racial biases from emerging, the best thing to do is expose their kids to TV programs, books, and friends from different races,” he said.
“And the important message is they have to know them by name . . . it’s extremely important to know them as individuals.”
Interesting poll that gives some sense of “religiosity,” in terms of beliefs, compared to general religious affiliation:
Beneath Canadians’ widespread abandonment of places of worship and their negative view of even the word “religion,” a new poll has found a solid core of faith that continues to shape the country.
The survey, conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, grouped respondents into four categories according to their answers on a range of questions gauging their beliefs and religious practices.
“We have a society that has a secular government and there is a general assumption of faith being very private,” said Ray Pennings, executive vice-president of think tank Cardus. “On the other hand, when you actually take a look at everyday society, the majority of people are people of faith to one degree or another, and faith informs and influences many of the ways we deal with each other on a day-to-day basis.”
Mike Faille/National Post//Angus Reid
The poll classifies 21 per cent of Canadians as religiously committed, meaning they hold a strong belief in God or a higher power and regularly attend religious services. At the other end of the spectrum, 19 per cent of Canadians are pure non-believers.
It is the swath in between, equally divided between what the pollster terms “privately faithful” and “spiritually uncertain,” that offers the greatest insight into Canadians’ evolving beliefs and practices.
The privately faithful, 30 per cent of respondents, “are people who actually believe in God, believe in heaven, believe in an afterlife,” said Angus Reid, the institute’s founder and chairman. “They have largely not been involved in organized religion. They will go to funerals and weddings and that sort of thing, but their faith is largely a private matter, and it’s really driven by their prayer. They pray on a regular basis.”
Mike Faille/National Post//Angus Reid
The spiritually uncertain, also representing 30 per cent, “seem to be a bit confused about where they want to be,” Reid said. “On some issues they kind of side with the non-believers, but they haven’t given up totally on everything.
“They continue to believe that there’s a God, but they’re uncertain about the role of God.”
The poll is part of a multi-faith effort initiated by Cardus called Faith in Canada 150, which aims to highlight the role religion has played historically and continues to play in Canada. The initiative, which has a budget of roughly $1-million, was denied federal funding as part of official 150th anniversary celebrations.
And the accompanying op-ed by Ray Pennings of Cardus:
Despite this religious openness, the same polling indicates a significant disconnect between the perception and reality of faith’s role in today’s Canada.
Simply put, religion has an image problem in Canada. In fact, the word “religion” is more likely to be seen negatively than positively, according to this new poll. Moreover, just over half of Canadians say they disagree with the claim that religion’s overall impact on the world is positive.
About half of Canadians polled say they’re uncomfortable around those who are religiously devout. Throw in terms like born-again, theology and evangelism, and just 15 per cent of respondents associate those words with a positive meaning.
But how well do Canadians actually understand the role faith plays in everyday life? Asked what’s most important in life, the 21 per cent of Canadians who are religiously committed are most likely to prioritize family life, honesty and concern for others.
Conversely, concern for others was a lower priority for non-believers. Instead, they are more likely to select a comfortable life, self-reliance and good times with friends as important. Not to put too fine a point on it, but those who are most likely to pray to God, attend religious services regularly and read the Bible or another sacred text seem most oriented toward others and their welfare.
What about Canadians’ emotional lives? The religiously committed are the happiest amongst us. Fully 47 per cent of them say they’re very happy or extremely happy overall, compared with 35 per cent of non-believers. They also report the highest levels of happiness among friends and in their communities. None of that is terribly surprising. If anything, it simply confirms what other research has shown. It makes sense, then, that the religiously committed are also more likely to be “very optimistic” about the future.
When it comes to community engagement and charitable giving, once again it’s the religiously committed who report the strongest involvement. Slightly more than half of non-believers say they are uninvolved in community groups or activities. That percentage drops to 17 per cent of the religiously committed. In fact, 41 per cent of the religiously committed have at least some involvement in their community, with another 42 per cent reporting heavy involvement.
Almost a third of the religiously committed say they regularly volunteer compared with 13 per cent of non-believers. Dare we ask about charitable giving? Only 12 per cent of non-believers say they try to donate to whatever charities they can. That jumps to 43 per cent among the religiously committed. These are not selfish people.
The numbers present a clear picture: Religiously committed Canadians tend to be the most concerned about others, the happiest and most generous. So, why do Canadians have a negative view of religion? Arguably, the story of faith in Canada is not being well told. The narrative around faith is often negative. Religion is frequently presented as something that divides rather than unites people within communities.
That is part of the reason why Faith in Canada 150 exists, to showcase the role of faith in making Canada the country that it is. That legacy is a story worth telling.
Greek Orthodox Bishop, Metropolit Seraphim of Piraeus has caused controversy by urging Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to convert to Orthodoxy with Russian President Vladimir Putin as his godfather. And no, it’s not a joke.
In a 37-page letter to Erdogan written in Greek, Metropolit Seraphim asks the Turkish leader to denounce his Islamic faith and be baptised in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
“If you want to save yourself and your family you should convert to Greek Orthodox Church, the only real faith,” Seraphim writes, reports Keep Talking Greece.
“We propose and we advise you to come to the arms of the Greek Orthodox Church before the end of your life on earth.
“Otherwise, you will unfortunately find yourself, your family and your people in the same place where Allah, Muhammad and his followers are, ie. in the place of suffering, eternal and unending hell.”
He calls on Erdogan to “repent, cry, be humble and believe in Christ,” and claims that “the Holy Trinity of God will open the arms for you”.
If Erdogan is to heed the Metropolit’s advice, he says that the Orthodox faithful on earth and in heaven will rejoice and “the angels in heaven after your enter the true Church!”
In the extensive letter, the Bishop also analyses Greece’s 400 years under Ottoman rule, the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey’s recent history and the country’s efforts to join the European Union.
Despite concluding his letter with “honour, respect and honest brother love”, it contains a number of remarks in which he insults the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, and describes Islam as a sect rather than a religion.
Just one more approach to help people understand and appreciate diversity issues:
A lot of tech companies say they want to make progress on diversity and inclusion. Code2040, a nonprofit that gets its name from the year people of color are projected to be the majority of the U.S. population, argues that just saying that isn’t enough. Businesses need to act.
“It’s often positioned as an add-on,” Code2040 CEO Laura Weidman Powers said on the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. “What really needs to be the case is to change the core of what you’re doing. We’re not saying, ‘Keep hiring the way you’re hiring and also do this diversity thing on the side.’ [We are saying,] ‘You need to change the way you hire in order to be more inclusive.’”
Code2040 focuses specifically on “underrepresented minorities” — black and Latino/Latina students who have 18 percent of computer science degrees but only three percent to five percent of the jobs in Silicon Valley.
Powers said that since the nonprofit launched in 2012, Code2040 has found more and more support for its annual “fellows program,” which charges companies to connect them with talented minorities whom they might otherwise overlook. This summer, it will place more than 100 black and Latino students in tech offices.
But there’s still a long way to go. She said managers and employees, even the ones who mean well, often fall into traps that set everyone back — for example: “unconscious bias” training that doesn’t give attendees the ability to apply anything they learn.
“Talking about unconscious or implicit bias can seem to let people off the hook,” Powers said. “It’s been shown if you do unconscious bias training and it’s like, ‘Hey, everybody’s got bias,’ then the takeaway is, ‘Oh, phew, it’s not me! It’s just humans because we need to learn how to be scared of snakes so you make assumptions!’ You can get farther away from making progress.”
“Folks go to our trainings, they go back to their desks, and there’s half a dozen black and Latino interns who are working there,” she added. “They actually get a chance to see: ‘How inclusive is my culture? What is the experience of these individuals coming through?’ That makes a big difference, putting a face to the work and actually having a chance to build those skills.”
DOMINICK REUTER VIA GETTY IMAGES
