Toronto lifts curtain on extremism prevention plan, quietly operating for more than 2 years

Part of the arsenal in combatting extremism and increasing resilience:

Police in Toronto are lifting the curtain on an extremism prevention program that has been quietly operating in the city for more than two years — but experts in the field say getting young people at risk of radicalization to use it will come down to a question of trust.

The project, which first sprouted in 2013, has been purposely kept from public view until this week.

“At this point in time we feel that we have a good service in place and we’re ready for people to participate in it,” Deputy Chief James Ramer told CBC News. Together with the City of Toronto, Ramer said, the force hoped to fine-tune the program behind the scenes through direct involvement from community groups, rather than simply present a made-by-police project.

Here’s how it works.

A person deemed at risk for extremism is referred by a police officer or a participating agency to one of four hubs, each consisting of 15 to 20 bodies, including medical professionals, faith groups, the school board and community housing.

Referrals require the consent of the person at risk and are based on a list of some 103 risk factors. Participation, said police, is entirely voluntary.

Cases are assessed at the hub, and depending on the most pressing concerns, two participating organizations are chosen to lead an intervention, which can range from spiritual counselling to mental health assistance.

Referrals anonymous

“All of this is done in complete anonymity,” said Ramer, adding that the hub process meets the privacy commissioner’s “gold standard” in terms of protection of personal information. Only cases that involve a criminal element or pose risks to public safety are formally investigated.

As for what kinds of extremism the program addresses, Sgt. Kelly Gallant said it runs the gamut from Islamist-inspired, to white supremacist to environmental extremism, to name a few. “We talk about all different kinds of extremism.… Not just what we mostly see on TV.”

It’s not the first time a deradicalization program has been floated in Toronto, but it is the city’s first police-led initiative.

Toronto police

Deputy Police Chief James Ramer, Sgt. Kelly Gallant and Staff Sgt. Donovan Locke say the extremism prevention program has been quietly operating in the city for more than two years. (CBC)

Six months ago, the Canadian Council of Imams announced plans to open two to three deradicalization clinics in Toronto that would take a “holistic” approach, as early as this fall. Those clinics, Toronto imam Hamid Slimi told CBC Toronto, have not yet taken off owing to a lack of community support.

Toronto’s program is housed under the police’s existing community safety program, which also tackles gangs and drugs. Montreal also has an anti-radicalization centre, but not one led by police.

Trust ‘in shambles’ in some communities

But whether young people will consent to being involved in the program will ultimately depend on whether they feel safe engaging with police, says University of Waterloo religious studies post-doctoral fellow Amarnath Amarasingam.

“It depends much on how the police are able to gain the trust of communities. In some communities, this trust is in shambles, but in others, there is a history of working together. So, it really depends if the cops can shed some of this baggage,” Amarasingam said.

Source: Toronto lifts curtain on extremism prevention plan, quietly operating for more than 2 years – Toronto – CBC News

Outremont: The right to worship, and build, must apply to all

Yves Boisvert on the Outrement zoning referendum:

With large families, the community is slowly but surely expanding. Synagogues are jam packed. Rough winters and a religious prohibition to drive a car on Sabbath make it essential to find a nearby location.

Hasidic leaders expressed their disappointment over the referendum. They suspect the ban is a clear attempt at limiting their development, if not pushing them outside Outremont.

“We’re not talking about the Hasidic community,” Ms. Cinq-Mars said, insisting that the ban applies equally to all religious groups.

Meanwhile, just a few streets further east, the Mile-End/Plateau borough, where Mordecai Richler was born, seems to find accommodations easily with Hasidic leaders. There are 10 synagogues there and borough Mayor Luc Ferrandez says he only has to sit with leaders to find solutions and compromises. “They have the right to establish places of worship in their neighbourhood; you have to be very arrogant to deny them that right,” he told La Presse.

Indeed, a legal challenge is in the making. Fundamental rights cannot be cancelled by the majority rule. Even if it applies equally to all, the zoning effectively targets a very specific religious group. As French writer Anatole France famously said: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.”

Source: Outremont: The right to worship, and build, must apply to all – The Globe and Mail

Multiculturalism must be a two-way street | Hassan

Farzana Hassan makes valid points regarding the proposed Brossard Muslim housing development (the local mosque does not support such segregation), although it is not unique to Islam: fundamentalists from all religions generally demand more accommodation, and be less open and tolerant:

Even the issues of living space and location have an ethical dimension. Is it socially desirable to allow the creation of religious, cultural and ethnic enclaves and ghettoes, such as the one proposed for one hundred Muslim families in the suburbs of Montreal, or would such localities defeat the very idea of multiculturalism?

The Quebec plan does just the opposite. By definition, any enclave designed to house a community with a shared background proliferates monoculturalism.

The idea was reportedly inspired by the desire to have interest-free housing for Muslims concerned about violating sharia regulations on usury. To that end, solutions, some of which in essence are the same as any other mortgage plans, have already been proposed and implemented.

But using some religious pretext to shut out non-Muslims from a housing development is not the answer. Many Canadian mosques have already instituted culturally acceptable banking systems.

Nabil Warda, the Montreal developer who proposed the project, has stated the following: “Nowhere is it written: ‘Listen guys, we don’t want any nasty Québécois or Canadians in this place.’ We never said that. We never intended that. It is not even my way of thinking.” Nevertheless, the very existence of such an enclave would be exclusionary.

It is time spokespeople from some immigrant communities take a hard look at likely repercussions of their own actions. When Canadians have to endure this housing proposal and the upcoming “Reviving the Islamic Spirit” conference – a gathering to promote orthodox belief – it is hardly surprising that political leaders like Kellie Leitch call for a Canadian values test for immigrants.

Tolerance of “the other”, even in an avowedly multicultural society like Canada, must be limited.

As surely as we cannot possibly tolerate polygamy or the mistreatment of women, we cannot approve of discriminatory housing. Such actions cause rancor with host societies and ultimately make victims of immigrants themselves.

While most Canadian Muslims are well integrated into Canadian society and are happy to interact with other Canadians, fundamentalists and Islamists continue to draw justified negative press through their outrageous demands for faith accommodations.

They withdraw from the multicultural process by locking themselves up from the outside world. Whether it is exemptions from music class for their children, or creating their own sharia-compliant silos, these fundamentalists insist on imposing their inflexible mores on others.

Fundamentalists asserting these rights on the basis of Charter freedoms must assert whatever cultural identities they have within a common context and participate in the multicultural experience without reservation.

To be candid, this is an Islamist issue. I see no devout Hindus, Sikhs, Jews or Christians seeking such far-reaching faith accommodations.

Source: Multiculturalism must be a two-way street | Hassan | Columnists | Opinion | Toro

A short history of scapegoating Muslims in Quebec: Martin Patriquin

caq-adGood piece by Patriquin:

We are midway through Quebec’s election cycle, and predicable things are happening. Opposition parties begin to stake out positions on key issues, the importance of which are no doubt polled, focused grouped and otherwise scientifically developed. The most recent efforts of the Coalition Avenir Québec, the province’s second opposition party, can be seen in the charming advertisement above.

“Couillard and Lisée,” it reads, referring to Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard and Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée, “[are] in favour of the chador for teachers in our schools.”

The ad has a stunned and/or befuddled-looking Couillard and Lisée staring at a woman wearing the Muslim garb. The message, in case it hasn’t yet hit you over the head, is that should you vote for either the Liberals or the PQ, your children will be put under the spell of a cadre of evil-looking Muslim women. Vote CAQ, and teachers will remain uncovered (and probably lily white, for that matter.)

It’s gross stuff, of course. It’s also crafty as hell. Both the PQ and the governing Liberals have said that anyone working for the state must do so with their faces uncovered “for security or identification reasons”, as a proposed Liberal law states. Because the chador wearer’s face remains uncovered, it wouldn’t fall under this stipulation. Ergo, so the intentionally blinkered CAQ reasoning goes, the Liberals (and the PQ, which will likely support the proposed law) much be in favour of the chador.

As gross as it is, the most recent CAQ gambit is hardly the first time a party has attempted to make political hay on the backs of Muslim women and other religious minorities. Who can forget this gem, from 2013?

20130910-140922-g

This was the so-called charter of Quebec values, the Parti Québécois’s electoral gambit leading up to the 2014 election. In many ways it is more offensive than the CAQ advertisement. The above image was part of a $2-million ad campaign for a bill introduced by an actual minister that would have been made law had the PQ won the 2014 election. The PQ didn’t win, but it wasn’t for lack of scraping the bottom of the barrel.

During the campaign, the party trotted out Janette Bertrand, a favoured vedette of the very Baby Boomers the PQ wished to recruit, to press flesh and insult minorities. Muslim doctors, she opined, allowed women to “die faster.” Swarthy men had taken over her swimming pool for religious reasons and kicked her out, depriving her of her ability to do aqua-gym exercises. “That’s why we need the charter,” she said. (I’m not making this up.)

Politics, not a sense of shame, caused the PQ to back away from the charter. It has just announced its “resolute, balanced and responsible approach” to Quebec identity that will see the party “build a better dialogue between its parliamentary wing and cultural communities.”

Yet PQ leader Lisée himself has hardly gone all Kumbaya—he’s just changed opinions once again. In 2013, taking great umbrage in something I wrote, Lisée wrote that the PQ’s charter could have flowed from the pen of Thomas Jefferson. Less than a year and one bruising electoral loss later, Lisée said he wouldn’t have supported the charter after all. About two months ago, he said that burqas must be banned “before a jihadist uses one to hide his movements.” Today, he reneged on the comment, saying it was wasn’t his best line. Translation: Lisée was all for scapegoating religious minorities before he was against it—and he may well be for it again, depending on how things go.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include this pungent example of immigrant-baiting in Quebec.

20080425-081100-g

This is an election sign from the 2008 campaign of the ADQ, the precursor to the CAQ. “Decrease of the French language in Montreal,” it reads. “The track record of the PQ and Liberals: a 22 per cent increase in immigration. The ADQ’s solution: a natalist political plan and a freeze of immigration levels.”

By equating the supposed loss of French in Montreal with the increase in immigration, we have a major political party, the province’s official opposition at the time, scapegoating immigrants not for how they may dress but for what tumbles out of their mouths.

At the time, the PQ denounced the campaign, calling it worthy of France’s hard right Front National. Five years later, the PQ itself introduced the charter—supported by none other than Front National leader Marine Le Pen.

Chutzpah is a great word.

Lisée fait un pas de plus [expanding Bouchard Taylor approach to reasonable accommodation

Identify politics continues – Bouchard-Taylor plus education sector:

Le chef du Parti québécois, Jean-François Lisée, a annoncé, jeudi, un virage identitaire qui va plus loin que ce qu’il proposait comme candidat à la chefferie en matière d’interdiction des signes religieux.

Au cours d’une conférence de presse, le chef péquiste a présenté le « consensus »auquel est parvenue son aile parlementaire au terme d’un débat de quelques heures mercredi, « une approche résolue, équilibrée et responsable », selon le document qui la décrit. En matière de port de signes religieux, la position reprend la recommandation de la commission Bouchard-Taylor, comme le prônait le candidat Lisée, c’est-à-dire une interdiction faite aux agents de l’État qui ont un pouvoir de contrainte — juges, policiers, gardiens de prison. Mais s’ajoutent à cette liste les enseignants du primaire et du secondaire, ainsi que les éducatrices dans les centres de la petite enfance et les garderies subventionnées. Comme candidat, Jean-François Lisée ne proposait qu’une « discussion » à ce sujet.

Cette interdiction ne concernerait que les nouveaux employés ; Jean-François Lisée défend depuis longtemps leurs droits acquis. En outre, la proposition reprend le minimum du projet de loi 62 du gouvernement Couillard — les services de l’État donnés et reçus à visage découvert — et préconise l’interdiction du port du tchador pour tous les employés de l’État, ce qui fait partie des amendements qu’a réclamés le PQ au projet de loi.

La position consensuelle reprend des propositions qui avaient suscité la réprobation du candidat Alexandre Cloutier et de ses partisans Agnès Maltais et Maka Kotto. Ces derniers étaient au côté du chef, Agnès Maltais à titre de porte-parole en matière de laïcité et Maka Kotto comme président du caucus. La porte-parole pour l’immigration, Carole Poirier, complétait le tableau. « La course, déjà, est loin derrière nous », a dit Maka Kotto, qui avait accusé le candidat Lisée de chatouiller « la part sombre de nos âmes ».

Ainsi, un gouvernement du PQ fera la promotion d’un devoir de réserve pour les employés de l’État, « affirmant sa nette préférence pour la plus grande réserve dans l’affichage des convictions politiques, sociales, religieuses ou autres ». La position recycle aussi l’idée d’examiner l’opportunité d’interdire la burqa et le niqab dans l’espace public. Un comité formé de parlementaires et d’experts se pencherait sur les expériences étrangères à cet égard pour ensuite faire des recommandations au gouvernement. Le chef péquiste ne parle plus des mitraillettes qu’on peut cacher sous une burqa. Ce n’est pas sa meilleure citation, a-t-il reconnu.

À plusieurs reprises, Jean-François Lisée a laissé entendre qu’il se rapprocherait de la position défendue par Alexandre Cloutier, qui croit que la charte des valeurs péquiste a considérablement nui au PQ et qu’il fallait s’en tenir à Bouchard-Taylor. « Il y a une différence entre être candidat et être chef. Il va falloir trouver un point d’équilibre », avait dit le nouveau chef dans un point de presse le soir de sa victoire. « Je n’ai pas la réponse, mais probablement qu’Alexandre et moi, on va la trouver. »

Source: Lisée fait un pas de plus | Le Devoir

Racists, dummies and bad costumes: Robyn Urback

Always good to have nuance rather than the automatic reactions:

There is, however, nuance to be found under the impassioned name-calling being sputtered from both sides. It involves the recognition, for one, that most of these students probably aren’t frothing racists, but rather, just uninformed dolts who didn’t read the news last Halloween, and who don’t understand why someone might take offence to them wearing a symbol of profound religious or cultural meaning as a costume.

It also involves the recognition that while some people might not have a problem with students dressed as people of other cultures, there are very legitimate, genuine reasons why Mexican prisoner or Tibetan monk costumes would be considered offensive. Some of those reasons are more obvious than others (see: Mexican prisoner), but just because it might take a bit of digging to find the “offence” doesn’t mean it’s any less real.

All that said, we will certainly never get anywhere if the impulse, from all ends, is to sprint to the extreme each and every time this comes up. So, how about next October, instead of the conversation going as it did this time — “This is shockingly racist!” then “Pft, crybabies…” —  we opt instead for, “Hey, I don’t think you’re a Nazi, but maybe dress as a cat next time?” followed by “OK”?

Maybe then we’ll have a shot at getting through the year without playing out the same tedious routine.

ICYMI: Nepean MP Arya aims to boost maximum sentences for hate-based graffiti

I would expect this to proceed given both the history of such proposals, the number of incidents, and the post-Trump context:

As ugly and unsettling as the recent spate of racist graffiti in Ottawa and across the country may be, it could ultimately help rookie Nepean Liberal MP Chandra Arya in his campaign to crack down on hate-based property damage, vandalism and other acts of criminal mischief.

Under the current law, hate-based mischief against places of worship can result in a sentence of up to 10 years, compared to just two years for general mischief. (There are also special provisions for longer sentences for mischief relating to war memorials and cenotaphs, as well as cultural property.)

Later this week, Arya will get his first chance to convince his House of Commons colleagues to back his private member’s bid to allow similar sentences to be imposed in all cases where public property is targeted for such attacks.

Specifically, he wants to broaden the law’s provisions to include schools, universities, community centres, day cares, sports arenas, seniors’ residences and any other building or structure used for educational, social, cultural or sports-related activities or events.

His bill would also add gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of criteria used to determine whether an offence is motivated by “bias, prejudice or hate.”

He tabled C-305 shortly after the House returned in September, and on Tuesday, he’ll rise in the House to kick off the first round of debate.

Although he is wisely unwilling to declare it a done deal, at least as far as making it through a critical second-reading vote to send it to committee, he told the Ottawa Citizen he’s “cautiously optimistic” that it will garner the support of both the House and the government itself.

In order to increase the likelihood of that outcome, which would virtually guarantee the bill’s passage through the Commons, he says he’s been “working closely” with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and her staff on possible changes to the wording, which could be done at committee.

Among the potential edits: Adding “gender expression” as well as gender identity to the list of identifiable characteristics, and tweaking the section on property damage to make sure the new rules would cover all public facilities, not just those associated with a religious groups.

As Arya points out, currently, the offices of the Ottawa Catholic School Board would be included under the hate mischief provisions, but he wants to make sure the same protections would be in place for the non-Catholic school board headquarters as well.

A spokeswoman for Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to say whether the minister would be encouraging Liberal MPs to vote in favour of the bill. “The government’s position will be public at second reading,” Valerie Gervais told the Citizen.

Arya isn’t the first to propose expanding the reach of hate mischief laws.

Similar private members’ bills have been introduced in previous parliaments since 2000, sponsored by a series of Quebec MPs from both the Bloc Québécois and Liberal caucuses.

Most recently, then-opposition Liberal MP Marc Garneau put forward a virtually identical bill in 2013, although his proposal didn’t include the addition of “gender identity.”

Historically, the initiative has found support within all parties, but ultimately failed to make it to the legislative finish line before dissolution.

Last week, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs launched a letter drive calling on all parties to support Arya’s bill.

“In the past week alone, a spike in antisemitic, racist, and anti-Muslim vandalism was reported in Ottawa, including at three synagogues and other religious sites in our nation’s capital,” it notes.

“Antisemitic graffiti was also reported in Montreal and Toronto. This shocking series of events should remind us of the dangers of hate and the need to ensure our laws are effective in protecting at-risk communities.”

Bill C-305 would “close the gap” and “ensure the law better addresses these terrible crimes,” it concludes.

Source: Nepean MP Arya aims to boost maximum sentences for hate-based graffiti | Ottawa Citizen

Quebec woman told to remove hijab in court appeals for legal clarification on right to wear religious attire

Hard to imagine her not winning this appeal. The hijab is not the niqab where the Supreme Court, in a convoluted ruling, stated should be case-by-case (Supreme Court niqab ruling: Veil can be worn to testify in some cases):

A Montreal woman who was told to remove her hijab by a judge is appealing a ruling that declined to clarify whether Quebecers have a right to wear religious attire in court, her lawyer said Wednesday.

Rania El-Alloul had sought a legal clarification from Quebec Superior Court after she was denied an appearance in a lower court because she was wearing a hijab.

Superior Court Justice Wilbrod Décarie ruled last month that the Quebec court judge’s decision went against the principles of Canadian law protecting freedom of religion.

But he also said that although El-Alloul’s treatment was regrettable, he could not guarantee she would be allowed to wear her hijab during future court appearances.

“Each case must be evaluated in light of the context that exists during the witness’s appearance,” he wrote in his decision.

On Wednesday, one of El-Alloul’s lawyers said this case-by-case approach creates insecurity for his client and anyone else who may need to access the justice system while wearing religious attire.

“She would have to be worried every time whether she’d be heard or not, which might induce her to settle cases she shouldn’t settle or not to go to court,” Julius Grey said in a phone interview.

Grey also believes Décarie erred when he ruled it was out of his jurisdiction to make a declaration on whether all litigants have the right to wear religious attire in court.

“When you have a Charter issue, the procedure should not have the effect of depriving someone of their rights,” he said.

A judge refused to hear El-Alloul’s case against the province’s auto insurance board in February 2015 because of her attire.

El-Alloul refused to remove her hijab and the case was put off. It was ultimately settled when the car was returned.

In a statement, El-Alloul said she wanted more than just confirmation the judge had been wrong.

“It isn’t enough that I have been vindicated,” she said. “It’s so important that the successful resolution of my case ensures that no one is ever humiliated the way I was and deprived of their rights.”

Grey said the appeal likely won’t be heard until late 2017.

Québec met fin à une discrimination | Les étudiants autochtones devaient acquitter une note de 17 500$ pour une formation offerte gratuitement aux minorités culturelles

Seems like reducing the costs to encourage and facilitate more indigenous and visible minority police makes sense, and ensuring comparable incentives to address representation gaps (SVPM has only 6.7 percent visible minority police officers, compared to the 20 percent of its population):

Tout étudiant québécois, autochtone ou non, peut emprunter la voie normale et obtenir un diplôme d’études collégiales (DEC) en techniques policières en trois ans sans avoir à assumer des droits de scolarité. Mais le programme, très couru, est fortement contingenté. En pratique, seul le programme d’AEC réservé aux autochtones, une voie rapide pour des étudiants qui, bien souvent, n’ont pas fréquenté le cégep, peut leur permettre d’accéder à l’ENPQ afin de devenir policiers et poursuivre une carrière dans une force autochtone ou une autre.

Les autochtones ne sont pas les seuls à avoir accès à cette voie rapide. Il existe un autre programme d’AEC en techniques policières, au cégep de Maisonneuve, pour les étudiants issus des communautés culturelles. La Sûreté du Québec et le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) embauchent ces diplômés afin que la composition de leurs effectifs soit plus représentative. Or, tandis que les autochtones paient le gros prix, l’AEC en techniques policières réservée aux étudiants des communautés culturelles est gratuit.

À l’ENPQ, les autochtones continuent toutefois de payer le gros prix par rapport aux autres étudiants. Au lieu de 27 000 $, les étudiants non autochtones assument des droits de scolarité d’environ 8000 $.

Au cégep d’Alma, 14 étudiants autochtones suivent les cours de l’AEC en techniques policières. Pour trois d’entre eux, leur conseil de bande a payé la totalité des droits de scolarité. Deux autres ont reçu de 2000 $ à 3000 $, tandis que neuf étudiants ont dû se débrouiller autrement, s’adressant à leur famille et contractant un prêt auprès d’une institution financière, a indiqué Patrick Girard.

Selon lui, les étudiants autochtones font les frais d’une partie de bras de fer entre Ottawa, qui a créé le programme des services de police des Premières Nations en 1991, Québec et les Premières Nations. Le gouvernement fédéral assume 52 % de la note et Québec, le reste. Or en 2012, le gouvernement Harper a décidé de geler sa contribution, ce qui a depuis exercé d’importantes pressions sur les budgets des corps de police autochtones aux prises avec un alourdissement de leur charge de travail.

La situation est différente pour les étudiants autochtones qui parlent anglais. C’est au collège Ellis, une institution privée sise à Drummondville, que l’AEC leur est offerte à un coût variant entre 18 000 $ et 20 000 $. Selon le coordonnateur du programme, Daniel Guillemette, ce sont essentiellement des Cris et des Inuits qui suivent la formation. Or leurs gouvernements assument tous les frais, a-t-il précisé. Cris et Inuits ne dépendent pas du programme fédéral : ils peuvent compter sur la Convention de la Baie-James.

Depuis qu’Ottawa a décidé de geler son financement, l’Assemblée des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador (APNQL) se plaint du sous-financement des corps policiers autochtones au Québec. Certaines communautés ont menacé de fermer leur service de police pour forcer la Sûreté du Québec (SQ) à prendre la relève.

En 2015, il existait au Québec 20 corps policiers autochtones qui desservaient 44 communautés et comptaient 401 policiers, selon les données citées par Patrick Girard. De son côté, la SQ emploie un petit nombre de policiers autochtones : ils étaient 27 en 2015, un de plus que deux ans auparavant.

Source: Québec met fin à une discrimination | Le Devoir

The Identity Politics of Whiteness – The New York Times

Good thought-provoking piece by Laila Lalani:

A common refrain in the days after the election was “Not all his voters are racist.” But this will not do, because those voters chose a candidate who promised them relief from their problems at the expense of other races. They may claim innocence now, but it seems to me that when a leading chapter of the Ku Klux Klan announces plans to hold a victory parade for the president-elect, the time for innocence is long past.

Racism is a necessary explanation for what happened on Nov. 8, but it is not a sufficient one. Last February, when the subject of racial identity came up at the Democratic primary debate in Milwaukee, the moderator Gwen Ifill surprised many viewers by asking about white voters: “By the middle of this century, the nation is going to be majority nonwhite,” she said. “Our public schools are already there. If working-class white Americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in many cases, and one study found they are dying sooner, don’t they have a reason to be resentful?”

Hillary Clinton said she was concerned about every community, including white communities “where we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths.” She said she planned to revitalize what she called “coal country” and explore spending more in communities with persistent generational poverty. Senator Bernie Sanders took a different view: “We can talk about it as a racial issue,” he said. “But it is a general economic issue.” Workers of all races, he said, have been hurt by trade deals like Nafta. “We need to start paying attention to the needs of working families in this country.”

This resonated with me: I, too, come from the working class, and from the significant portion of it that is not white. Neither of my parents went to college. Still, they managed to put their children through school and buy a home — a life that, for many in the working class, is impossible now. Nine months after that debate, we have found out exactly how much attention we should have been paying such families. The same white working-class voters who re-elected Obama four years ago did not cast their ballots for Clinton this year. These voters suffer from economic disadvantages even as they enjoy racial advantages. But it is impossible for them to notice these racial advantages if they live in rural areas where everyone around them is white. What they perceive instead is the cruel sense of being forgotten by the political class and condescended to by the cultural one.

While poor white voters are being scrutinized now, less attention has been paid to voters who are white and rich. White voters flocked to Trump by a wide margin, and he won a majority of voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, despite their relative economic safety. A majority of white women chose him, too, even though more than a dozen women have accused him of sexual assault. No, the top issue that drove Trump’s voters to the polls was not the economy — more voters concerned about that went to Clinton. It was immigration, an issue on which we’ve abandoned serious debate and become engulfed in sensational stories about rapists crossing the southern border or the pending imposition of Shariah law in the Midwest.

If whiteness is no longer the default and is to be treated as an identity — even, soon, a “minority” — then perhaps it is time white people considered the disadvantages of being a race. The next time a white man bombs an abortion clinic or goes on a shooting rampage on a college campus, white people might have to be lectured on religious tolerance and called upon to denounce the violent extremists in their midst. The opioid epidemic in today’s white communities could be treated the way we once treated the crack epidemic in black ones — not as a failure of the government to take care of its people but as a failure of the race. The fact that this has not happened, nor is it likely to, only serves as evidence that white Americans can still escape race.

Much has been made about privilege in this election. I will readily admit to many privileges. I have employer-provided health care. I live in a nice suburb. I am not dependent on government benefits. But I am also an immigrant and a person of color and a Muslim. On the night of the election, I was away from my family. Speaking to them on the phone, I could hear the terror in my daughter’s voice as the returns came in. The next morning, her friends at school, most of them Asian or Jewish or Hispanic, were in tears. My daughter called on the phone. “He can’t make us leave, right?” she asked. “We’re citizens.”

My husband and I did our best to quiet her fears. No, we said. He cannot make us leave. But every time I have thought about this conversation — and I have thought about it dozens of times, in my sleepless nights since the election — I have felt less certain. For all the privileges I can pass on to my daughter, there is one I cannot: whiteness.