Port de signes religieux: Taylor plombe un compromis possible, déplore Bouchard 

2017/02/18 Leave a comment

Always interesting to listen to both Taylor and Bouchard, both when they agree and when not. But the focus on the concrete mentioned at the end of this article indicates a strong convergence of views:

Le Québec a raté une occasion unique de mettre derrière lui le débat sur le port de signes religieux. En désavouant la solution mise de l’avant dans son propre rapport, Charles Taylor a coupé les ailes au consensus qui se dessinait entre les partis politiques, déplore Gérard Bouchard qui, avec M. Taylor, avait coprésidé la commission sur les accommodements reliés aux différences culturelles.

Avec la prise de position étonnante du philosophe Taylor, «le Québec risque d’être une autre fois enfoncé dans l’âcre querelle qui le divise depuis une quinzaine d’années », observe M. Bouchard dans une lettre publiée demain dans la section Débats de La Presse+. «Pour ma part, j’endosse toujours cette proposition», tranche M. Bouchard.

M. Taylor soutient intervenir pour contribuer à la réconciliation des opinions sur cette question délicate. Or, estime M. Bouchard, cette intervention aura « contribué à mettre en échec [la réconciliation] qui émergeait entre les partis politiques et qui a été rendue possible parce que d’importants éléments de consensus étaient présents dans la population ».

En désavouant cet élément de son rapport de 2008, M. Taylor risque de provoquer «l’échec du projet de consensus, dénonce son collègue Bouchard. Les jeux sont à nouveau ouverts. Il est probable que le PQ et la CAQ voudront maintenant reprendre leurs billes». Avec cette occasion ratée, prédit-il, «le débat sur les signes religieux est relancé au moins jusqu’aux prochaines élections, et peut-être au-delà».

Le sociologue du Saguenay était injoignable depuis que son partenaire Taylor avait, dans une lettre à La Presse, annoncé qu’il n’appuyait plus la recommandation formulée dans leur rapport en 2008. Il avait eu vent que son collègue s’apprêtait à rendre publique sa volte-face.

Les deux intellectuels proposaient alors d’interdire le port de signes religieux visibles aux représentants de l’État exerçant un pouvoir de coercition sur les autres citoyens. Ainsi les juges, les procureurs de la Couronne de même que les policiers et les gardiens de prison n’auraient pu afficher leur confession en portant une croix, une kippa ou un voile, par exemple. Pour Gérard Bouchard, cette formule «s’était progressivement posée, aux yeux de nombreux Québécois, comme l’assise à partir de laquelle on pourrait ériger un consensus. Cet horizon est maintenant compromis».

M. Taylor jugeait que, depuis la publication du rapport, le contexte avait changé et que le débat soulevé par cette question avait entraîné des gestes malheureux à l’endroit de la communauté musulmane. Ce revirement avait comblé d’aise le premier ministre Couillard qui, rapidement, revint à sa position – totale liberté pour le port de signes religieux à la condition que les services publics soient donnés et reçus à visage découvert.

Au passage, M. Bouchard écorche la position de Philippe Couillard qui, opposé à la «discrimination vestimentaire», prône l’absolue liberté quant au port de signes religieux.

Or, le projet de loi 62 proscrit le niqab, le voile qui couvre le visage, «une contradiction flagrante» dans la position du gouvernement, observe M. Bouchard. M. Couillard a déjà fait valoir que des questions d’identification, de sécurité, commandaient que les services soient offerts et reçus à visage découvert.

L’interdiction du rapport Bouchard-Taylor, limitée à quelques «agents exerçant une fonction tout à fait exceptionnelle», «se défendait bien sur le plan juridique», estime le sociologue, rappelant que des juristes avaient été consultés avant la publication du rapport en 2008. «Nous sommes loin d’une attaque directe contre les musulmans ou du projet de charte des valeurs, comme on l’a prétendu» dit-il.

Les «dissensions persistantes sur les signes religieux» vont rester. Il convient maintenant «d’oeuvrer énergiquement » à d’autres tâches, la lutte contre la discrimination, la destruction des stéréotypes, et « vider enfin le panier de crabes des accommodements [qui posent toujours un gros problème pour les deux tiers des Québécois]». Le gouvernement Couillard semble se montrer plus actif dans cette direction, se réjouit en conclusion Gérard Bouchard.

Source: Port de signes religieux: Taylor plombe un compromis possible, déplore Bouchard | Denis Lessard | National

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Andrew Coyne: Hysteria from Conservatives over harmless motion on Islamophobia

2017/02/17 Leave a comment

Andrew Coyne calls out the Conservatives in their opposition to M-103. Again, the hypocrisy given the extent that the Conservative government singled out antisemitism.

Particular anti-racism and discrimination messaging and programming is not in conflict with general messaging and programming, as long as the link is made clear (which M-103 does). Some of the previous government’s messaging on antisemitism was less clear in that regard:

Conservatism used to have some claim to being a coherent political philosophy. Of late it has become a series of dares. The most extreme voice will lay down the most extreme position, then challenge others to endorse it.

As often as not this has nothing to do with conservatism. It is rather a kind of moral exhibitionism, populist virtue-signalling, in which the object is to say and do the most intolerant or ill-considered thing that comes to mind — anything that might attract the condemnation of bien-pensants in the media and elsewhere, whose opposition becomes proof in itself of its merits.

The willingness to court such controversy in turn becomes the test of political purity. To demur, conversely, can only be a sign of cowardice, or worse, liberalism, a heresy that would seem to have overcome much of the conservative movement, to judge by the ever-lengthening list of the excommunicated.

So we come to the latest of these blooding exercises, the “debate” over Motion 103, a private member’s motion introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid. In the fevered imaginings of its online discussants, #M103 is decried as a bill that would forbid any criticism of Islam, if not the first step towards imposing Sharia law. I only wish I were exaggerating.

This hysteria campaign has been whipped up by exactly the people you’d expect, and pandered to by people of whom you might have expected better, including several Conservative leadership candidates. Pierre Lemieux has denounced it as “an attack on free speech.” Maxime Bernier asks whether “it is a first step towards restricting our right to criticize Islam.” Lisa Raitt, Andrew Scheer, and Erin O’Toole have all come out against it, while Kellie Leitch, bless her heart, has set up a petition to “Stop Motion 103,” complete with a blue-eyed model with a gag over her mouth.

The only candidate to say he will vote in favour of the motion is Michael Chong. For this he has been excoriated as a sellout; it rather confirms him as a man of judgment and conscience. There is simply no reasonable construction of the motion that can support the claims made of it. It is not a bill, for starters: it is a simple motion, an expression of opinion, of no legal force or effect. It does not call for any ban or restriction on speech of any kind.

It merely asks the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” and instructs a committee of Parliament to study the matter. Yes, the motion is clumsily worded, and yes, it specifically mentions “Islamophobia.”

But the notion that this amounts to “singling out” one religion for “special privileges,” as some have claimed, is specious.

Yes, of course, all religious groups should be free of discrimination and hatred. But it does no disservice to the others to pay particular attention to one, at a time when that group is particularly exposed to both. After the slaughter of six Muslims at prayer in Quebec City, people of goodwill, not to say common sense, would understand why it might be timely for all of us to offer some assurance to members of that community.

It is, at the same time, understandable why there would be some nervousness around this subject. There is a certain school of Islam that would indeed place severe legal constraints on the right to criticize or ridicule the faith, just as there are lots of people, especially on the left, who would eagerly censor all sorts of “insensitive” speech.

This is what makes these issues so maddeningly elusive of resolution: it is not one thing or the other, but both at the same time. We live in a time both of much more widespread and open expressions of racism — thanks, internet — and of acute hypersensitivity to rude or even frank speech of all kinds. Each feeds off the other. But the alternative to “political correctness” is not bigotry and intolerance, and the answer to racism is not censorship. Indeed, we have too much of that already.

I’m not sure how many of those either praising Chong or denouncing him for his stand on Motion 103 are aware that he has at the same time proposed repealing Section 319 of the Criminal Code: the “hate speech” provision. But he is as correct in the latter stance as the former. Even a free society allows some exceptions to the liberties it enjoys — but a free society always insists that any such exception be, to borrow the language of our Charter, “demonstrably justified.”

The burden of proof is always on those who wish to restrict freedom to show why they must. At the very least they must show what harm it is they wish to address. In the case of “hate speech,” the harm is supposed to be the violence towards its objects that might ensue. But the Criminal Code already contains provisions against incitement to violence: that is, where the connection between the speech, and the violence that might reasonably be expected to result, is so immediate, so direct and so clear as to be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

With the hate speech law, on the other hand, the fear is more generalized, more vague, more dubious: somebody somewhere might read this who might someday then be motivated to attack … someone. That is no basis for any kind of law, let alone one that would restrict something so vital as speech. If the other Conservative candidates want to fight censorship, let them join Chong in that cause, rather than this shameless demagoguery over a harmless motion.

Source: Andrew Coyne: Hysteria from Conservatives over harmless motion on Islamophobia | National Post

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Quebec can’t keep politics out of the identity debate

2017/02/17 Leave a comment

Depressing how the cycle repeats itself:

Now, even Prof. Taylor agrees. Conceding that he never really believed in his report’s principal recommendation – that individuals invested with the “coercive” powers of the state be prohibited from wearing religious symbols – the esteemed philosopher said this week that the events of the past decade have convinced him that Quebec should abandon the idea of legislating in this area altogether. Any such law would probably be unconstitutional anyway. More important, the stigmatization of the province’s Muslim minority in the debates that followed his report, and the subsequent Parti Québécois government’s attempt to adopt a charter of Quebec values that would have extended the ban on religious symbols to all state employees, gave licence to a xenophobic minority of Quebeckers to act on their discriminatory views, Prof. Taylor said.

The 85-year-old philosopher concluded that the recent attack on a Quebec City mosque that left six worshippers dead prompted a rare expression of solidarity that must not be squandered by reopening divisive debates over Muslim headgear. It’s time for Quebec to move on – and heal.

Unfortunately, Prof. Taylor’s words of wisdom will be all but ignored, in part because the co-author of the Bouchard-Taylor report profoundly disagrees with them. For Prof. Bouchard, a sociologist and the brother of former PQ premier Lucien Bouchard, it is precisely the failure of politicians to act on his report’s recommendations that led to an increase in hate crimes and discriminatory attitudes toward Muslims. For him, it’s “urgent” to legislate the rules of religious accommodation now to prevent this debate from boiling over again in the future.

Prof. Bouchard’s point of view reflects one of his report’s fundamental observations. Though a majority in their home province, francophone Quebeckers with Catholic roots still consider themselves a threatened minority and expect newcomers to understand this. “What’s just happened in Quebec,” the 2008 report noted, “gives the impression of a face-to-face between two minorities, each asking the other to accommodate it… We can conclude that Québécois of French-Canadian ascendance are still not very comfortable with the cumulation of their two statuses – majority in Quebec, minority in Canada and North America.”

A decade later, not much has changed. The current Liberal government of Premier Philippe Couillard, which depends on the overwhelming support of the province’s anglophone and immigrant populations to win elections, once again finds itself awkwardly trying to prevent an unresolved identity crisis from again becoming a political one. It has proposed legislation establishing the parameters of the state’s religious neutrality that would ban face coverings among those who dispense or receive government services.

The opposition PQ and Coalition Avenir Québec naturally think the Liberal legislation is too timid and, barely a week after the Quebec City shooting, said they would only support it if it also included Bouchard-Taylor’s proposal to ban police officers, judges and prison guards from wearing religious symbols. Coalition Avenur Québec Leader François Legault called the idea a “compromise.”

Indeed, the opposition is attempting to exploit divisions within the Liberal caucus itself. Liberal MNA’s from outside the Montreal area are worried that a failure to address the debate over religious accommodation could lead to their defeat in the 2018 election, just as it did in 2007. Hence, Mr. Couillard’s government reportedly considered adopting Bouchard-Taylor’s recommendations after the Jan. 29 mosque shooting. But the Premier ultimately could not stomach the idea. Prof. Taylor’s volte-face vindicates Mr. Couillard. But it is a small consolation for the Premier. A decade after Bouchard-Taylor, Quebec is still no closer to reconciling its religious past and present.

Source: Quebec can’t keep politics out of the identity debate – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

L’intérêt des principes: Michel David on Bill 62

2017/02/17 Leave a comment

While I prefer the narrow approach of PM Couillard, recognize the validity of David’s arguments given the opposition consensus. I also remain sceptical that the CAQ and PQ will not be tempted by identity politics in the next election:

En politique, il est facile de confondre ses principes et ses intérêts. Le compromis auquel en sont arrivés le PQ, la CAQ et Québec solidaire, dont les positions ont longtemps paru inconciliables, aurait le mérite de mettre un terme, au moins temporairement, à un débat qui a trop duré. En se montrant aussi intransigeant, M. Couillard donne plutôt l’impression de vouloir le poursuivre.

Le premier ministre dit vouloir empêcher une « dérive discriminatoire » qui, après les policiers et les juges, étendrait l’interdiction du port de signes religieux aux enseignants et éventuellement aux baigneuses. Précisément, si l’Assemblée nationale adoptait à l’unanimité un projet de loi traçant clairement la ligne, un nouveau gouvernement y penserait à deux fois avant de rouvrir la boîte de Pandore.

En refusant toute concession, M. Couillard fait en sorte que le débat s’envenime au cours des prochains mois et que la prochaine campagne électorale donne lieu à une surenchère qu’il se fera un devoir de dénoncer avec la dernière énergie. En raison de ses principes, bien entendu.

Comme pour mieux faire traîner les choses, le gouvernement a décidé d’accorder la préséance au projet de loi 98, qui vise à réglementer les ordres professionnels, mais dont il a soudainement découvert qu’il pouvait favoriser l’intégration des immigrants au travail. L’étude du projet de loi 62 sur la neutralité religieuse de l’État risque donc d’être reportée à l’automne, alors qu’on entrera dans l’année électorale. Avec un peu de chance, tout devrait alors être en place pour un nouveau psychodrame.

Source: L’intérêt des principes | Le Devoir

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Diversity in the Senate – My latest in Policy Options

2017/02/16 Leave a comment

My latest, analyzing the diversity of Senators. Intro teaser below:

With the large number of Senate appointments made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a more independent role for individual senators, a look at the current level of diversity in the Upper Chamber is timely.

In essence, the Trudeau appointments have made the Senate more diverse in terms of gender, visible minorities, and Indigenous peoples and thus more representative of the people it serves.

However, when viewed from the perspective of education and occupation, there is less diversity: more senators with higher degrees, and more senators with an activist background and less with a business background.

Given the increased independence of senators, the increased ethnic and gender diversity and decreased educational and occupational diversity    may play a role in terms of how the Senate responds to legislation and plays its sober second thought role.

This analysis contrasts the various aspects of diversity between the 43 non-affiliated senators (33 form the Independent Senators Group, of whom 28 were appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau),  and the 41 Conservative and 21 Liberal senators (December 2016).

Source: Diversity in the Senate – Policy Options

Filed under gender, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Une bénédiction pour Couillard | Charles Taylor on Bill 62

2017/02/16 Leave a comment

Nothing wrong with either remaining in favour of this recommendation in favour of banning religious symbols for police and judges, as Gérard Bouchard, or having second thoughts as Charles Taylor. IMO, Taylor is more attuned to the continued risks of divisiveness of expanding the relatively narrow focus of Bill 62 on face-coverings:

Une volte-face comme une bénédiction pour le gouvernement libéral. Contrairement à ce qu’il soutenait dans le rapport de la commission sur les accommodements raisonnables, le philosophe Charles Taylor a déclaré publiquement qu’il ne croit plus qu’il faut interdire le port de signes religieux, notamment pour les policiers et les juges. De la musique aux oreilles du premier ministre Philippe Couillard, qui a réaffirmé qu’il n’entendait pas légiférer sur le sujet.

Les libéraux rejettent ainsi tout compromis avec les partis d’opposition, qui s’étaient pourtant montrés ouverts à appuyer le projet de loi 62 sur la neutralité de l’État s’il contenait une disposition empêchant le port de tout signe religieux pour les personnes détenant une fonction « coercitive » ou en situation d’autorité. « Nous, on a toujours été opposés à la discrimination vestimentaire. Ce n’est pas la première fois que je le dis ce matin. […] Je crois que ça permet de constater que, quand on a des principes, il faut s’y tenir », a affirmé Philippe Couillard.

Dans une entrevue à Radio-Canada, M. Taylor a dit qu’il était conscient qu’il intervenait dans un débat politique, confortant du même coup le premier ministre dans sa décision. « Si j’avais une intention politique, c’était d’éviter qu’on accepte ce compromis, oui, justement parce que j’y voyais un grand danger. Le but, auquel je tiens de façon passionnée, c’est que les gens commencent à se rallier et à se comprendre. Et j’ai dû intervenir », a-t-il expliqué.

Même s’il en faisait la recommandation dans le rapport Bouchard-Taylor, déposé il y a neuf ans, le philosophe croit aujourd’hui qu’il est « dangereux » de légiférer pour interdire le port de signes religieux, car cela risque « d’exclure les immigrants de certaines zones ». « Maintenant, non seulement je vois que cette distinction n’est pas importante […] mais je vois les conséquences de mener ces débats. Il y a des conséquences très sérieuses. Ça crée un effet de stigmatisation. » Un effet qui, selon lui, doit être évité à tout prix dans le contexte du nouveau gouvernement de Donald Trump et celui de la fusillade à la mosquée de Québec. « Ne rouvrons pas les plaies », a-t-il écrit dans une lettre ouverte publiée mardi.

Avec cette sortie publique, M. Taylor marque son désaccord avec son collègue et coprésident de la Commission, Gérard Bouchard. Celui-ci avait précisé à maintes reprises qu’il était important, voire « urgent », de légiférer sur la question. Ce dernier n’a pas répondu à nos demandes d’entrevue. « On n’a jamais vraiment été d’accord là-dessus, parce que pour lui c’était une question de principe, pour moi, plutôt une question de conjoncture. Mais je l’estime beaucoup et je suis d’accord avec lui pour tout le reste du rapport », a dit M. Taylor en entrevue à Radio-Canada.

Source: Une bénédiction pour Couillard | Le Devoir

Globe’s coverage:

Charles Taylor, a leading Canadian intellectual who has been described as one of the world’s greatest living philosophers, said such a ban raises the possibility of stigmatizing the Muslim community. Mr. Taylor was, along with academic Gérard Bouchard, co-chairman of a high-profile commission on reasonable accommodation that recommended in 2008 that figures of coercion in Quebec be prevented from wearing symbols of their faith.

Those figures include police officers, judges, prison guards and prosecutors.

However, Mr. Taylor has now said he has changed his mind. In an unusual move, he has disavowed a key section of his report.

“I did sign the report where this recommendation appears; but nine years later, I no longer endorse it,” he wrote in La Presse.

The mosque attack in Quebec City that claimed the lives of six Muslim worshippers last month created a new context, said Mr. Taylor, an emeritus philosopher at McGill University. Quebec has just started to close the divisions left by the acrimonious debate over the Parti Québécois’s Charter of Values, which would have banned religious headwear in the public service. That debate stigmatized some minorities and even led to verbal and physical assaults against women wearing head coverings, he said.

Quebeckers have now started to rally together in the wake of the mosque assault.

“I believe we cannot afford the luxury of taking new steps that would renew the stigmatization, regardless of the good intentions of some of their defenders,” Mr. Taylor wrote, in French. “Let’s not reopen the wounds. Let’s leave all the room to a time of reconciliation.”

He admitted his stance puts him at odds with Mr. Bouchard, who has pushed for the figures-of-authority ban on a matter of principle. “We disagree,” Mr. Taylor told an interviewer Tuesday about his former co-chairman. “We were never entirely in agreement.”

Quebec is in the throes of yet another discussion over the place of religion in the public realm because the Liberals have introduced Bill 62, legislation that would forbid people from giving or receiving public services with their faces covered. The government presents it as a matter of security and communication.

The opposition Parti Québécois and Coalition Avenir Québec have said they want the bill to include a headwear ban for authority figures.

Mr. Couillard argues that such a step would amount to “clothing discrimination.” He hinted on Tuesday he might propose changes to Bill 62, but has given no indication he is prepared to withdraw it.

Quebec’s Couillard rejects push for ban on officials’ religious headwear

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Growing group of Tory leadership hopefuls oppose move to have House of Commons denounce Islamophobia

2017/02/15 Leave a comment

Funny, I don’t recall any Conservatives expressing concerns about singling out Antisemitism when they were in power and launched a number of initiatives (e.g., hosting an international conference on combatting antisemitism, jointing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) that were sometimes at the expense of general anti-racism and discrimination messaging and programming.

And was there not also a strong political aspect to the Conservative government’s efforts with respect to Canadian Jews? Interim Leader Ambrose should be mindful of stones and glass houses:

A growing number of Conservative leadership rivals are declaring their opposition to a Liberal MP’s motion to have the House of Commons denounce Islamophobia and other forms of systemic racism.

And the interim leader of the party, Rona Ambrose, is also likely to vote against the motion, which will be debated Wednesday, as she accuses the Liberals of purposefully trying to sow division in her party with the initiative.

The opposition to the anti-Islamophobia motion by Kellie Leitch, Maxime Bernier, Andrew Scheer and others is likely to play well with a Conservative base that, according to several polls, is more suspicious and wary of Muslim immigrants than other groups of voters.

But as more Tories oppose the motion, their political opponents will have more of a chance to charge that Conservatives are intolerant at best and bigoted at worse, a resurrection of criticisms that hurt them at the ballot box in 2015 after the party unveiled a promise to institute a “Barbaric Practices Snitch Line” and vowed to repeal citizenship for new Canadians in some circumstances.

“Voting against this motion is simply nonsensical,” said Karl Belanger, who spent 19 years as a top adviser to three leaders of the federal NDP. “‎No matter what the convoluted explanation is, you are voting against condemning Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. That will stick.”

The resolution at hand is known as M-103. It was put before the House of Commons in early December by Iqra Khalid, a first-time Liberal MP who represents Mississauga—Erin Mills, Ont.

The motion is scheduled for an hour’s worth of debate in the House of Commons late Wednesday afternoon. And while there is a chance a vote could be held during that hour, the more likely outcome from a procedural standpoint is that a vote will be put off until early April.

Ambrose said she believes the Liberals will want to keep the issue front-and-centre for weeks before bringing it to a final vote.

“We know they are doing this purely for politics,” she said.

Khalid, who was born in Pakistan, wants to accomplish three things with M-103: First, that the House “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination;” second, that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be instructed to study the issue of “eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia;” and, finally; that the federal government collect data on hate crimes for further study.

Scheer, in a recent fundraising letter to his supporters, said one of the reasons he will vote against Khalid’s motion is that it could be construed as a move to stifle free speech. He also says the motion does not define “Islamophobia” and, in any event, he says he cannot vote for a motion that singles out one religion for special status.

“It is also important to note that we already have laws that protect Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. We also have laws against inciting violence,” Scheer said.

Bernier cites similar reasons for his opposition to M-103 but, in a Facebook post over the weekend, said he could support the motion if the word “Islamophobia” was removed from motion.

“We should reaffirm everyone’s right to believe in and criticize whatever belief they want, whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, atheism, or any other,” Bernier said.

MP Brad Trost, who is also running for the leadership, said Jews and Christians are more likely to be victims of faith-based intolerance. He called Khalid’s motion “a farce.”

Steven Blaney, too, will vote against the motion: “While I recognize the value of promoting respect for all religion, I intend to oppose M-103, a motion that is not well defined and clearly represents a threat to freedom of expression.”

For his part, Erin O’Toole, another leadership candidate, has reached out to Khalid with some suggestions to modify the amendment so that it might find more support among Conservative MPs.

Khalid was not available for an interview Monday but, when she tabled her motion last December, she told the House of Commons, ” I am a young, brown, Muslim, Canadian woman. When I moved to Canada in the 1990s — a young girl trying to make this nation my home — some kids in school would yell as they pushed me, ‘Go home, you Muslim,’ but I was home. I am among thousands of Muslims who have been victimized because of hate and fear.

“I am a proud Canadian among hundreds and thousands of others who will not tolerate hate based on religion or skin colour. I rise today with my fellow Canadians to reject and condemn Islamophobia.”

Her motion, if it passes, would not change any Canadian laws, as Bernier correctly noted in his Facebook post. Moreover, House of Commons standing committees are often asked to study a particular issue and make recommendations to the government on a course of action.

Governments sometimes act on committee recommendations, but they just as often ignore them.

But Ambrose, in an interview with the National Post Monday evening, said she worries her work trying to empower women and girls in Muslim communities could be branded Islamophobic if she criticizes the views of some Muslim men.

“Our members are really concerned about this as a freedom of speech issue,” Ambrose said. For Conservatives, it will be a “free vote,” which means they may vote as they choose. Ambrose said she is open to amendments that deal with her concerns about speech.

“We absolutely condemn all forms of hatred, racism and violence,” Ambrose said.

Source: Growing group of Tory leadership hopefuls oppose move to have House of Commons denounce Islamophobia | National Post

And David Akin’s latest update and interview with Iqra Khalid, the MP sponsoring the motion:

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid said she is keen to allay the “fear and anxiety” some Canadians have about her attempt to have the House of Commons denounce Islamophobia, systemic racism and intolerance.

In an exclusive interview Tuesday with the National Post, Khalid, a Pakistan-born first-time MP from Mississauga, Ont., said she is not willing to alter her  motion, which has been given the parliamentary designation M-103, even though some Conservative MPs have suggested she do so and even though she says she has been subjected to “a lot of hatred” and abuse since she first proposed the motion last December.

“Watering down the motion will not be in the best interests of Canadians who are working to fight this (intolerance),” Khalid said.

Debate on M-103 is expected to begin at about 5:30 pm ET Wednesday in the House of Commons and run for about an hour. And while it is procedurally possible that a vote could also happen Wednesday, it is much more likely that the vote will be put off until early April.

Khalid will find significant support from her own caucus colleagues and from the NDP but not as much from the Conservative benches. Rona Ambrose, the interim Conservative party leader, in an interview with the National Post Monday, said she is opposed to Khalid’s motion and several of the contenders to become permanent leader also oppose it.

Liberal MP keen to allay ‘fear and anxiety’ on anti-Islamophobia motion but will not change it in face of ‘hatred’

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Supporters rally behind McGill student rep who called for Zionists to be punched

2017/02/15 Leave a comment

McGill’s SSMU really needs to crack down on this kind of hate speech and encouragement of violence, and those who tolerate and accept it should be ashamed:

In this age of trigger warnings and micro-aggressions, a university campus is not where you would expect people to rally behind someone who called for physical violence.

But after McGill University student politician Igor Sadikov last week used Twitter to encourage people to “punch a Zionist,” supporters have defended him while targeting Jewish students who support Israel.

On Monday, the board of directors of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), on which Sadikov represents Arts students, rejected by a vote of 5-4 a motion calling for his removal from the board.

Students attending an SSMU legislative council meeting last Thursday reported that elected representatives declined to denounce Sadikov but stood by as a Jewish member of the council was singled out for her support of Zionism.

Twitter

Twitter

Jasmine Segal, who represents social work students on the council, said she came under attack for qualifying Sadikov’s tweet as hateful.

“Instead of dealing with this important and distasteful issue, supporters from the gallery for (Sadikov) turned the meeting to attack me and request that I be removed as a representative of SSMU due to my faith,” Segal wrote in a Facebook post on Saturday.

“I was left isolated and alone to respond. My fellow representatives sat in silence and permitted this malicious, prejudicial, and unjustified attack to continue.”

The McGill Daily, a student newspaper that has a policy of not publishing Zionist viewpoints, reported that a pro-Palestinian activist complained at the meeting about the presence of Zionists on council.

“Since SSMU has a social justice mandate, why does it allow Zionist councillors on council, when Zionist ideology is inherently (linked to) ethnically cleansing Palestinians?” the activist asked. Instead of addressing Sadikov’s tweet, the question period became a “heated debate over how exactly to define Zionism, and over who had experienced violence,” the newspaper reported.

Molly Harris, a third-year Arts student who attended the meeting, said she felt targeted as a Jew and a Zionist.

“This tweet and the discourse that followed on Thursday have unleashed a wave of condemnation of Zionists and Jews at McGill and have normalized inciting violence against students who identify as such,” she said by email. “If anything, I feel more unsafe and more singled out now than I did last week because of the campus groups who have used Sadikov’s tweet as an opportunity to express their anti-Zionist, and often anti-Semitic views.”

She criticized the SSMU for failing to act promptly against Sadikov. In a statement on Saturday, the SSMU executive said it condemns violence and apologized “if the abilities of any councillor were questioned on the basis of their personal identity” during Thursday’s council meeting.

“The SSMU recognizes that this is an emotional and contentious issue revolving around differing interpretations of historical and cultural contexts,” it said.

McGill’s administration said last week that its disciplinary procedures are confidential but it is “taking action as required” with respect to Sadikov’s tweet. In a statement Monday addressed to “the McGill community” and sent to alumni, Suzanne Fortier, the principal, said she was “shocked” by the offensive tweet. She said McGill “condemns all expressions of hatred and attempts to incite violence,” but she said the administration does not have the power to intervene in the internal affairs of the SSMU.

Sadikov did not respond to messages seeking comment. On Friday, he wrote on Facebook that he had recently been reminded of tweets he wrote between 2009 and 2012, before he entered university. They contained “violent slurs and discriminatory remarks targeting racialized people, women, queer people, people with disabilities, and people with mental illness,” he wrote. He said he no longer holds those biases and regrets having written the tweets, which have now been deleted along with the rest of his Twitter account.

Source: Supporters rally behind McGill student rep who called for Zionists to be punched | National Post

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Étude: la charte des valeurs québécois aurait attisé la discrimination

2017/02/14 Leave a comment

Not surprising but nice to see this confirmed in a more systematic manner:

Le débat sur la charte des valeurs a-t-il ouvert la porte à plus de racisme ? Depuis l’attentat à la Grande Mosquée de Québec, plusieurs membres de la communauté musulmane accusent le projet du Parti québécois d’avoir alimenté les tensions sociales et engendré des gestes violents à leur endroit. Une très rare étude sur la question, obtenue par La Presse, tend à leur donner raison.

Les jeunes plus sensibles

« La charte a-t-elle généré une solidarité accrue autour d’une identité commune ou a-t-elle sapé l’harmonie sociale ? » Voilà la question à laquelle ont tenté de répondre des chercheurs de l’UQAM et des universités Laval et McGill depuis 2014. Leur étude, qui cible les jeunes, est « très exploratoire », prévient Ghayda Hassan de l’UQAM. « C’est un projet pilote qui n’est pas nécessairement représentatif. » Il s’agit toutefois d’une très rare, sinon de la seule étude scientifique sur le sujet depuis 2014. L’équipe de Mme Hassan a interrogé 441 étudiants de l’UQAM (30,5 % d’hommes, 69,5 % de femmes). Pourquoi l’université ? D’abord parce que « les tensions intercommunautaires ont de graves conséquences pour les jeunes », lit-on. Aussi, « comparativement à la population générale, les étudiants sont plus susceptibles de connaître la charte ».

Discrimination

« Bien que le but de la charte était de placer la laïcité et l’égalité des femmes au coeur du débat public et politique, nos résultats montrent qu’il a eu des conséquences négatives », écrivent les chercheurs. Le tiers des étudiants ont déclaré avoir vécu personnellement ou avoir été témoins d’une forme de discrimination ethnique ou religieuse depuis la charte des valeurs. Un chiffre « plus élevé que prévu », qui a surpris les chercheurs. Les cas de discrimination étaient plus nombreux chez les immigrants, ainsi que chez ceux qui se sont identifiés comme biculturels ou appartenant à des groupes culturels ou religieux minoritaires par rapport aux Québécois « de souche » ou aux personnes s’identifiant comme catholiques. Les participants qui se disaient en faveur de la charte ont rapporté moins de discrimination que ceux qui y étaient opposés.

Perceptions transformées

Bonnes ou mauvaises, les relations intercommunautaires au Québec ? Le débat sur la charte a complètement changé la vision des jeunes sur cette question. Alors qu’ils voyaient majoritairement les relations intercommunautaires comme étant positives avant la charte, leur perception est devenue largement négative après, surtout chez les femmes, les immigrants et ceux qui s’identifient comme des minorités culturelles ou religieuses. C’est plus de la moitié des étudiants qui entrevoyaient un avenir sombre pour les relations entre les communautés. Seulement 20 % croyaient en un avenir positif. « L’étude révèle que la question de l’identité nationale québécoise est très sensible et sous-tend des tensions intercommunautaires importantes », écrivent les chercheurs.

Femmes musulmanes

Les femmes de confession musulmane ont été parmi les plus touchées par la charte, nous explique la chercheuse Ghayda Hassan, notamment parce que le débat sur le projet du PQ a beaucoup tourné autour du port du voile islamique. L’étude démontre que la couverture médiatique, en « dépeignant les symboles religieux comme des menaces au vivre-ensemble », en centrant son discours « autour de la sécularisation préconisée par la charte, a contribué à des manifestations de discrimination et d’ethnicisation dirigées surtout contre des femmes musulmanes immigrées, perçues comme des menaces pour la construction de la nation ».

Encore des séquelles ?

Dans la foulée de l’attentat dans une mosquée de Québec, plusieurs membres de la communauté musulmane ont montré du doigt la charte des valeurs. Visiblement, plus de deux ans après l’abandon du projet, les séquelles se font toujours sentir. Mais ont-elles encore un impact réel dans la société ? « Étant donné que le projet de charte a été abandonné lorsque le gouvernement du Parti québécois a été battu en 2014, les effets négatifs que nous avons observés ont peut-être disparu. Cependant, le débat sous-jacent est encore vivant », écrivent les chercheurs.

Source: Étude: la charte des valeurs aurait attisé la discrimination | Gabrielle Duchaine | National

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism, Religion Tagged with ,

Why Ontario should steer clear of East Asia’s identity politics

2017/02/14 Leave a comment

Diaspora politics in action.

While I would disagree that Japan has come to terms with its wartime atrocities (sharp contrast to Germany), Welch’s concern regarding the divisiveness of this proposal is valid (just as the Canadian Vietnamese community was split over Bill S-219 – Backward Bill Passed, but Vietnamese-Canadians Move Forward – New Canadian Media):

In recent years, China has fanned the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment, partly for instrumental reasons (an external enemy enhances national cohesion and regime legitimacy), and partly because many Chinese honestly believe that Japan is nostalgic for its imperial, militarist past, and continues to pose a latent threat to the mainland. It is hardly surprising that they do. Their government keeps telling them so. Chinese citizens are fed a steady diet of anti-Japanese propaganda in the press and in the form of late-night television dramas depicting the heroic struggle of Chinese soldiers against barbaric wartime Japanese invaders. The Nanjing Massacre figures heavily in these anti-Japanese narratives.

In fact, the government of Japan has long ago—and many times—acknowledged and repented of the country’s imperial sins. Only a handful of arch-nationalist cranks refuse to do so, and they speak only for themselves. Today, Japan is among the least militarist countries in the world. Most Japanese today see their own government as the primary source of their wartime suffering. Since 1945, Japan has been a responsible and constructive member of the international community.

One finds ample evidence of lack of empathy in Japan as well, where China’s anti-Japanese propaganda is seen as part of a larger geopolitical project to impose Beijing’s hegemony. With few exceptions, Japanese fail to appreciate the extent to which anti-Japanese sentiment in China can be attributed to a combination of ignorance and regime insecurity. But the Japanese government does not respond by demonizing China. Instead, it calls for greater cooperation and communication on issues of mutual interest, while hedging its bets through more-or-less-standard balance-of-power politics.

These two efforts to single out the Nanjing Massacre for commemoration effectively endorse and encourage Chinese misperceptions of Japan. They ask the people of Ontario and the people of Toronto to inflame and take sides in a dangerous clash of national egos. They work against, not for, stability in East Asia. This is not the Canadian way. Canadians are peacemakers and bridge-builders, not pawns in others’ domestic and geopolitical games.

At the same time, and at least as importantly, these two efforts threaten to undermine harmony here at home. More than 100,000 Ontarians have roots in Japan, and more than 700,000 have roots in China. Nothing good can come from fanning the flames ethnic hatred—except, perhaps, for cynical politicians who care only about the relative number of their constituents in their districts with Chinese or Japanese ancestry.

Finally, these measures are dangerous precedents. By taking sides in one case, Queen’s Park and Toronto City Council would effectively invite others to do the same. Ontario, in general, and Toronto, in particular, have more diverse populations than anywhere else in the world. There are not enough days in the calendar to commemorate every historical atrocity that drives an ethno-nationalist grievance.

Let us hope that our politicians see the wisdom of avoiding this particular minefield before the damage is done. No one could possibly object to commemorating the innocent victims of war; but if we are to do so, let us make the commemoration inclusive, in true Canadian fashion, rather than divisive.

Source: Why Ontario should steer clear of East Asia’s identity politics – The Hill Times – The Hill Times

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →