Barbara Kay: Teach the truth about Islamophobia

2016/09/15 Leave a comment

While I disagree with Kay’s dismissal of Islamophobia (arguably, many of her commentaries suggest an anti-Moslem bias), I do share some of her concerns with the guide, particularly not situating Islamophobia within the broader context of racism and discrimination more broadly, whether antisemitism or against Blacks and other visible minorities, or racism and discrimination within and between visible minority groups.

Hate Crimes Comparison.004Police-reported hate crime data 2008-14 as in the chart above shows an increased share of anti-Muslim hate crime (while much less than reported crimes against Jews, this reflects in part the greater comfort the Jewish community has in reporting, including through B’nai Brith):

Then there are flag-raising statements in the guide itself.

  • The guide states “it is apparent” that Muslim children are suffering high levels of stress and alienation, but provides no objective evidence other than vague allusions to community feedback. Are mental health professionals reporting elevated levels of Muslim-specific anxiety? It doesn’t say (raising the question: in future CHRC proceedings, could assertions from this CHRC-approved guide be relied upon by parties to a CHRC process without independent proof of their veracity?)
  • The guide (divisively) states that “racial and religious profiling” has become “acceptable” when directed toward Muslim youth, but provides no examples, or comparisons with, say, black profiling.
  • The guide suggests Israeli children’s suffering receives more media sympathy than Palestinian children’s suffering. That is demonstrably false. But is this now a CHRC-Red Cross position?
  • The guide says special support is needed for arriving Syrian Muslim children traumatized by their war experiences, without mentioning the war-related trauma of (the shamefully few) Syrian Christian or Yazidi children allowed into Canada. What message does this send the latter groups?

Most ominously, in its “Final tips” to teachers, the guide states: “Generally, some care should be taken by teachers on the language and tone they take when discussing world events and the Islamic faith.” As opposed, say, to the tone teachers may feel free to take when discussing other religious faiths? One sees here the heavy hand of the Cairo Declaration and its intention to see criticism of Islam criminalized, or at least censored, on a global basis.

If a teaching guide on tolerance is necessary, let it be about tolerance for all minority groups. Let it be evidence-based and a collaboration of racial, religious and other groups. And instead of NCCM/CAIR.CAN, let Muslim input come from the democratic, pluralistic and reform-minded Council for Muslims facing Tomorrow (MFT), one of whose founders, Sohail Raza, responded to my media query on this subject:

“The CHRC and the Red Cross should be more concerned about human rights abuse and actual racial discrimination than pandering to a victim ideology and a contrived phrase like ‘Islamophobia’ created to stifle conversation. MFT is distressed by the activities of certain organizations claiming to represent Muslims while closely linked to the supremacist Muslim Brotherhood. These organizations are part of the problem and not the solution.”

Well said. This ill-conceived, “some are more equal than others” initiative, designed to encourage grievance-collecting in Muslim children and baseless guilt in other Canadian children, should be terminated at once.

Source: Barbara Kay: Teach the truth about Islamophobia | National Post

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Integration and multiculturalism: Finding a new metaphor – Policy Options

2016/09/14 Leave a comment

Having never been comfortable with the “two-way street” metaphor for immigrant integration, I finally got around to articulating my reasons more formally, and proposing some alternatives and stimulating debate and discussion.

The following article in IRPP’s Policy Options is the result.

Some other alternatives that I have received to date include: Wittgensteinian sailing a boat while always renewing the planks, in economics, the supply and demand model in setting prices and achieving a new equilibrium, big river with little streams, and the Norwegian metaphor of samspill, or play together.

I welcome additional suggestions and comments:

When immigration officials and advocates talk about the integration process for new Canadians, often they reach for the metaphor of a “two-way street.” Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada notes that “the focus of the integration programs at CIC is on operationalizing the ‘two-way street approach’…through assisting individuals to become active, connected and productive citizens.” The Canadian Index on Immigration Integration talks about the “metaphorical meeting of the immigrant and the receiving population somewhere in the middle of the street.” Former Immigration minister Jason Kenney used the phrase in speeches, where he emphasized the duty of newcomers to adapt to their new home and the responsibility of Canadians to accommodate them.

But does a metaphor matter? It does, given Canada’s increasingly diverse population and the challenges of ensuring successful integration of immigrants and their children. Getting the metaphor right will convey expectations to newcomers and the host society alike regarding their respective roles in the integration process.

The “two-way street” is handy shorthand. With integration, immigrants and the host society both adapt to each other’s presence, instead of the assimilationist expectation that immigrants will completely adopt the values, attitudes, norms and lifestyles of the host. The aim of integration is for immigrants and their children to obey Canadian laws and eventually and voluntarily to adopt Canadian values, attitudes, norms and lifestyles, most notably gender equality and acceptance of other groups. The ultimate goal is that they eventually enjoy economic, social, health and political outcomes that are broadly comparable with those of “old-stock” Canadians. Accommodation by the host society aims at facilitating that integration process.

While diversions from this norm exist; for example, voluntary exclusion as in the cases of Mennonites or other religious communities, or involuntary exclusion because of racism and discrimination (separation or segregation, to use psychology scholar John Berry’s terms), the overall emphasis is on this integration process.

However, in order for metaphors to be successful, they have to speak to the broader population, not just the specialists, and they have to resonate in a visceral way. They have to be simple and easy to grasp, but they also have to avoid being simplistic. The “two-way-street” metaphor is unsuccessful for a number of reasons.

Streets are for cars, not people. Cars do not meet on a two-way street, they drive past each other (and if they do meet, usually it is in a crash!). Integration is about mingling, interacting and adapting.

The integration process is asymmetric: it is more important for immigrants and new Canadians to adapt to Canadian laws, norms and values than it is for the host society to adjust to them. The meeting point is not “somewhere in the middle” between the host society and the newcomers, but much closer to the host society (80/20 percent, in my view).

And integration is dynamic and ever changing, not linear. What is deemed acceptable evolves through the democratic, legal and political processes, as newcomers assert their identities and their rights and the host society responds. What was originally considered unacceptable (e.g., turban-wearing Mounties) becomes normal; what might initially be considered acceptable (e.g., sharia family law in Ontario) is deemed unacceptable following public discussion and debate.

It also must be noted that the values of the host society are dynamic and change over time; for example, attitudes toward gender equality, homosexuality and same sex marriage have undergone a sea change in Canada and elsewhere over the past generation. Immigrants and new Canadians are expected eventually to follow suit.

The metaphor also fails to capture the diversity and multilayered identities in Canadians, and how these can change with contexts and individual preferences. Ethnicity, religion, gender, age, generation, and lived experiences all play a part at the individual and group levels.

So, what are better phrases that describe this process and dynamic, and how do these capture the roles of newcomers and the host society?

Similar to the multiculturalism dynamic, the integration/accommodation dynamic captures the fact that newcomers integrate into the host society while the host society accommodates and adjusts to newcomer needs and identities. A combination of push and pull between newcomers and the host society, mediated through political, judicial and everyday socio-cultural processes, finds an equilibrium point, which evolves over time. Individuals and groups provide the push that forces the host society to respond. And, of course, as the host society itself becomes more diverse and its values evolve, this mediation happens between not only the “old stock” Canadians of the host society but also the more established and more recent groups of immigrants.

A more sophisticated version of this characterization can be seen in Harald Bauder’s description of integration as a process of Hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, or the host society (thesis) being challenged by newcomers (antithesis), resulting in a new balance and accommodation (synthesis), hence reducing the difference between the “newcomer ‘other’ and the Canadian ‘self’.”

Another concept used by some academics and policy-makers in a multiculturalism context, is that of harmony/jazz. Harmony is provided by the legal and constitutional framework that applies to all Canadians — it is the underlying melody. Jazz reflects improvisation in dealing with accommodation requests within that overall context. Again, the underlying harmony predominates. This approach has the advantage of being more flexible in dealing with accommodation pressures.

So what best describes integration and multiculturalism? Passing each other on a two-way street or “making music together?” My preference is the latter, as it describes the dynamic, complex and varied nature of how we, in our ever more diverse society, continue to search for a new and hopefully improved equilibrium.  Perhaps just as every jazz band interprets a musical composition in new and unanticipated ways, so does a healthy, diverse multicultural society.

—

I would like to thank Michael Adams and Harald Bauder for their helpful comments and suggestions on integration definitions and metaphors.

Source: Integration and multiculturalism: Finding a new metaphor – Policy Options

Filed under Immigration, Integration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: Fact check on Kellie Leitch’s ‘values check’

2016/09/14 Leave a comment

Good analysis by Joan Bryden of the complications in assessing values:

Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch has sparked a fire storm with her suggestion that prospective immigrants should be vetted for “anti-Canadian values.”

Among the values she says should be unwelcome are “intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms.”

Leitch has not spelled out how her proposed screening process would work but she has dismissed the concerns of leadership rivals and others who have argued the scheme is unacceptable, unnecessary and unworkable. She has said it’s akin to conducting security checks and just a matter of asking would-be newcomers some “simple questions.”

But immigration experts say merely asking simple questions would be meaningless; prospective immigrants would quickly learn to give the “correct” answers but not necessarily honest ones.

To attempt to do such screening seriously would cost a fortune and require hiring thousands of professional interviewers trained to detect applicants who weren’t being truthful about their real values, experts warn. And even that, they say, would probably be ineffective.

…

The Facts

Currently, prospective immigrants undergo security and criminal checks. There are numerous reasons a person may be found inadmissible, including if the individual:

  • is considered a security risk. That includes involvement in espionage, violence or terrorism, attempts to overthrow a government and membership in an organization that is involved in any of those things.
  • has committed human or international rights violations, including committing war crimes or having been a senior official in a government that has engaged in gross human rights violations.
  • has been convicted of a crime or committed an act that would be a crime in Canada.
  • has ties to organized crime.
  • has a serious health or financial problem.
  • lied on the application form or in an interview with an immigration officer.

The Experts

So how could Canada go about weeding out would-be immigrants who hold “anti-Canadian values?”

Contrary to Leitch’s assertion, it couldn’t be a matter of asking individuals a series of simple questions — like “Do you support gender equality?” — says Monica Boyd, Canada Research Chair in Immigration, Inequality and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

Asking such questions, to which the socially acceptable answer is evident, “is going to get you what I call the motherhood responses,” she says.

…A serious attempt to explore a person’s values would have to take a more sophisticated approach, asking multiple, subtle questions that can be analysed by professionals to elicit a truer picture of an individual’s real attitudes. And that, Boyd says, “moves us into a set of screening that no nation state has adopted because it’s so bloody expensive you can’t even get near it.”

Bellissimo says any serious attempt to detect who is telling the truth about their values would require hiring thousands of highly-trained interviewers.

“I couldn’t imagine the cost, the training, what would be involved and, again, to what end?”

Even were Canada prepared to foot the bill, Boyd predicts schools would pop up abroad to teach would-be migrants how to pass the Canadian values test.

“In any kind of these values tests, if the incentive is strong enough, people learn to lie,” she says.

And even were it possible to verify the truthfulness of a person’s answers, Vancouver immigration lawyer Zool Suleman says that ignores the fact that values evolve over time, rendering the whole exercise meaningless.

“Values are not a water-tight container,” he says. “They evolve and, in fact, one would hope that by being in Canada people’s values would lean towards what we would call the mean or the centre in Canada, which embraces our Constitution, embraces our engagement with law enforcement and also societal norms.”

The Verdict

Leitch’s claim that screening prospective immigrants for anti-Canadian values would be akin to security screening and a matter of asking some simple questions doesn’t hold up. There is no way to document or check with international authorities about peoples’ values and simply asking them won’t produce useful answers. For this reason, her claim is “full of baloney.”

Source: Fact check on Kellie Leitch’s ‘values check’ – Macleans.ca

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Liberal MPs set up 11 issue-based caucuses, four regionally based immigration caucuses

2016/09/13 Leave a comment

The focus on immigration is not surprising given the Liberals strong showing in ridings with large numbers of new Canadians and the nature of constituent complaints:

Liberal MPs told The Hill Times that immigration is the “No. 1” issue in major urban centres across the country. The four regional caucuses on immigration are: the Western and Northern Immigration Caucus, chaired by Liberal MP Jati Sidhu (Mission-Matsqui-Fraser-Canyon, B.C.); the Ontario Immigration Caucus, co-chaired by Liberal MPs Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Ont.) and Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East-Cooksville, Ont.); the Quebec Immigration Caucus, chaired by Liberal MP Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Que.); and the Atlantic Immigration Caucus, chaired by Liberal MP Alaina Lockhart (Fundy Royal, N.B.).

Liberal MPs told The Hill Times that MPs have to get approval from Chief Government Whip Andrew Leslie (Orléans, Ont.) and Mr. Scarpaleggia to set up the caucuses and that any Liberal MP who is interested in a specific subject can attend. After studying a specific issue and listening to experts, members of issue-based caucuses can provide input to cabinet ministers, but it is not binding on the government to follow this advice, Mr. Scarpaleggia said.

“It’s a way of focusing attention on an issue as part of a process of learning more about an issue,” said Mr. Scarpaleggia. “Sometimes, it’s to develop further policy on an issue. It’s an opportunity to develop ideas and provide input to the government.”

… Meanwhile, the chairs of the regional immigration caucuses told The Hill Times in June that immigration-related issues are top of mind for their constituents and make up a majority of their staffers’ constituency office work in major urban centres.

Liberal MPs said at that time that some of the most common complaints coming from their constituents about immigration issues are related to long delays in the processing times of applications for family reunification, refugees, spousal sponsorship, temporary foreign workers, visitor visas, and Canadian citizenship applications.

“People who put me in here, they come to my office and they’re banging on my doors [asking], ‘What are you doing different from the previous government,’” Liberal MP Jati Sidhu (Mission-Matsqui-Fraser-Canyon, B.C.), chair of the Liberals’ Western and Northern Immigration Caucus, told The Hill Times in June. “So, we’re trying to reform with the help of the immigration minister with the feedback from Members of Parliament to see what can we do together. It’s making his job easier because he can’t see 20 MPs every time.”

Source: The Hill Times

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Conservatives gave ‘serious thought’ to giving women majority on Supreme Court, Peter MacKay says

2016/09/13 Leave a comment

Interesting.

On terms of all federally appointed judges, women formed 30.1 percent of federal court judges, and 34.7 percent of provincial court judges (March 2016 numbers, see “Because it’s 2015 …” Implementing Diversity and Inclusion):

The previous Conservative government at one point considered working toward giving women a majority of the nine seats on the Supreme Court of Canada, former justice minister Peter MacKay said.

“I can assure you that there was very serious thought given,” MacKay said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press about the new appointments process proposed by the current Liberal government.

The former cabinet minister from Nova Scotia said this was at the time leading up to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, a choice that was ultimately rejected by the high court on the grounds that it did not meet the constitutional requirements for a Quebec justice.

The short list of six candidates, which was later leaked to the Globe and Mail, included the names of two female candidates.

Had one of them been chosen, the Supreme Court would have had four women on the bench, resulting in gender parity at a time when there was still another vacancy.

 “It was being considered as an important precedent, but also just the fact that at that moment in time the female candidates for selection were equally impressive as far as their qualification,” MacKay later wrote in an email in response to a follow-up question as to whether promoting more women to the high court was a deliberate goal.
Had things turned out that way, women would have made up a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court for the first time in December 2014, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Suzanne Cote, the first woman appointed to the high court from a career as a lawyer in private practice.

MacKay shared the insight into judicial appointments history while making the argument that the Liberal government should be able to achieve its goal of diversifying the bench without abandoning the “constitutional tradition” that would see retiring justice Thomas Cromwell, who is from Nova Scotia, replaced with another judge from Atlantic Canada.

“I think we really have to keep front and centre that criteria of legal excellence,” said MacKay, who is considering a bid for the Conservative party leadership.

Source: Conservatives gave ‘serious thought’ to giving women majority on Supreme Court, Peter MacKay says | National Post

Filed under Multiculturalism

Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer blasts Labour and says it DOES have anti-Semitism problem | Daily Express

2016/09/13 Leave a comment

Article more nuanced than the headline (as is Bauer who I got to know during my time as Canadian head of delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance):

Yehudi Bauer, the 90-year-old academic, was speaking at a lecture about anti-Semitism in the modern age at the London School of Economics.

One of the world’s leading Holocaust historians, Professor Bauer, condemned the current situation in the Labour Party saying: “I think there is a problem in the UK’s Labour Party, but there is not in every left-wing party – not in Scandinavia or Germany.

“There has been an unease about Jews in European society for hundreds of years.”

Professor Bauer said Shami Chakrabarti’s report on anti-semitism and racism in the Labour Party which concluded it was “not overrun by anti-semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of racism” was “wishy washy” and “turned horses into camels”.

The Czech-born author of dozens of books about the Holocaust said that it is a “shame on society” that Jewish people in Europe and America still need to have security to protect them.He said: “Anti-semitism is not just a European phenomenon and it is usually matched by anti-liberal tendencies.”He said even Shakespeare and Chaucer wrote anti-semitic statements when there were hardly any Jewish people living in the UK.

He said: “There is not a European Government that is anti-semitic, although they may not be effective in fighting it.”

Yehuda BauerGETTY

Bauer has written dozens of books on the Holocaust 

Professor Bauer said that whenever society has gone through a crisis, it has turned against Jewish people as they have been in the minority.He also said Jewish people can not live in non-liberal places.The academic stated that even when there is no conflict in societies and anti-semitism will continue as Jewish culture is based on controversy and is “different” and “complicated”.

Earlier this year, the professor said if he were British Jewish, he would be worried claiming Ken Livingstone was a “violent antisemite” and Jeremy Corbyn “has a problem”.

Mr Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party for claiming that Hitler supported Zionism but has repeatedly denied accusations of anti-Semitism.

Speaking about Islam, Professor Bauer said that the “integration of Muslims is an action against anti-Semitism” as when Muslims are not integrated, they can turn against Jewish people.

He said: “Radical Islam is a danger to the whole world. Non-radical Muslims need to fight it.”

Source: Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer blasts Labour and says it DOES have anti-Semitism problem | World | News | Daily Express

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , ,

Jason Kenney dismisses Kellie Leitch’s immigrant-screening proposal, Candice Malcolm former Kenney staffer endorses Leitch’s proposal

2016/09/12 Leave a comment

Sharp contrast between former CIC Minister Kenney and one of his former staffers, Candice Malcolm. Starting with Kenney:

Federal Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch hasn’t thought through her controversial position on screening immigrants for “anti-Canadian values,” former Tory immigration minister Jason Kenney says.

Following a speech in downtown Calgary on Friday, Mr. Kenney, who is seeking the Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership, said he believes Dr. Leitch is pursuing an “improvised position” without understanding the negative impact of her words.

“I don’t take her position seriously. She’s never articulated it before,” Mr. Kenney said.

 “She’s never said a word about this in Parliament, caucus or cabinet. I don’t think she understands the nuance around these issues. You have to be very careful in the way you articulate questions about integration.”

Dr. Leitch, a Conservative MP from Ontario, e-mailed a survey last week to supporters that included a question about whether the federal government should screen potential immigrants and refugees for “anti-Canadian values.”

She later said she is protecting Canadian values from people who believe that women are property and can be beaten or that gays and lesbians should be stoned.

Despite widespread criticism including unflattering comparisons to U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, Dr. Leitch has defended her position that screening is needed without saying how immigration officials would actually vet new Canadians.

Source: Jason Kenney dismisses Kellie Leitch’s immigrant-screening proposal – The Globe and Mail

And Malcolm’s defence of Leitch:

To most Canadians, this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. In fact, back in 2011 the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation commissioned a report through Dalhousie University that asked very similar questions.

In that survey, 97% of Canadians agreed that values such as “gender equality”and “tolerance of others” must be embraced by newcomers. Likewise, 96% of immigrant Canadians agreed with embracing Canadian values.

According to a Globe and Mail report at the time,the survey demonstrated “a solid consensus around the notion that immigrants should accept certain values as a precondition for joining Canadian society.”

A “pre-condition” – meaning potential immigrants should accept these values before coming to Canada.

The survey also found that nine in 10 Canadians believed that Canadian laws should take precedence over religious laws and that newcomers should learn about Canada’s history and culture. Eight in 10 Canadians supported the idea that immigrants should “raise their children as Canadians.”

The overwhelmingly majority of Canadians believed that newcomers should accept our values. And the media hardly raised an eyebrow.

That was then, and this is now.

Five years ago, we all agreed that Canadian values were cherished and worth protecting. We were confident in ourselves and proud of our country. We celebrated our Canadian values, and weren’t afraid to promote our way of life to newcomers. But things have changed.

In 2016, any suggestion that our values are important leads to name-calling and hysteria. Leitch has received a fury of condemnation from media elites, Liberals and even many of her fellow Conservative caucus members.

They’ve accused her of “xenophobia,” “racism,”“dog-whistle politics,” and compared her to Donald Trump. The comparison is silly.

Trump has been successful in the U.S. for lashing out at the establishment, brazenly opposing political correctness and making shocking comments about various minority groups. He irresponsibly called for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., categorized Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and initially failed to denounce a former KKK leader.

Trump has built his candidacy around emotional appeals to American greatness,while not-so-subtly winking at racists and white supremacists.

Leitch, by stark contrast, made a simple suggestion about standing up for Canadian values, and followed up with a thoughtful explanation.

But elites in Canada are paranoid. The rise of Trump in the U.S, alongside the resurgence of nationalism and anti-immigration parties in Europe, has made many nervous. Wary of a similar movement in Canada, many are determined to nip discussions of integration and immigration reform in the bud before they grow.

This shows a lack of confidence in Canadian commonsense. Not every conservative is aDonald Trump in waiting. Not every proposal surrounding immigrant and integration is tantamount to Trumpian racism.

Kellie Leitch is no Donald Trump

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

When public prejudice can serve the greater good: Saunders

2016/09/12 Leave a comment

Usual interesting and sensible commentary by Doug Saunders on how the request from an exemption from music classes led to a good result and defence of a neutral and inclusive space where all can live together:

Many religious concessions are uncontroversial. Few Canadians object to cafeterias offering non-pork options for observant Jews and Muslims. After a period of debate, most people have come to accept public officials wearing Christian crosses, Jewish yarmulkes, Islamic head coverings or Sikh turbans while on duty. These things may offend logic and aesthetics, but they do no harm and don’t interfere with anyone else’s life.

But some concessions to the religious aren’t benign or harmless. When spirituality infringes on the working of the legal, educational or medical systems, we have a problem – even if we don’t notice at first.

Most shockingly, Canadian provinces allow religious exemptions to the requirement that children be vaccinated in order to attend school.

These exemptions, generally granted to people who claim to be members of ascetic Christian or Jewish denominations, are far, far more dangerous than a pass from music class.

Mr. Dasu is harming only the minds of his children (and mortifying most Canadians of Muslim faith). But if even 10 per cent of a community’s children escape vaccination, they endanger the lives of every child in their city, including those who are vaccinated. This is not a reasonable accommodation.

Groups of Christians and Muslims in Ontario have spent the past year trying to withdraw or exempt their kids from public schools because they’ve come to believe that the province’s rather anodyne reproductive-health curriculum is contradictory to their faith. As harmful as this is to their kids, the province can do little to complain because in the 1980s it granted Canada’s most extensive religious concession by allowing Roman Catholics to withdraw their children from public school entirely and self-segregate with a fully taxpayer-funded religious school system.

It’s unfortunate that people only began to notice these incursions when Salafi Muslims began requesting them. But it’s one instance where public prejudice can serve the greater good.

We saw a great example of this in Ontario’s 2005 decision on quasi-judicial tribunals. These tribunals, known as “faith-based arbitration,” had been created in the early 1990s to reduce the cost and workload of courts by letting churches and synagogues rule on family-law and property disputes. Their rulings, and rules, were often contradictory to Canadian values and laws. But people only began to notice in 2003, when mosques wanted in on the action: Suddenly, those tribunals, applying nearly identical religious laws became known as “sharia courts.”

Ontario responded wisely, by stripping all faith-based tribunals of legal authority. It was a rare moment when the ugly voices of Islamophobia helped secure a neutral, secular public sphere in which people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together. If we’re lucky, Mr. Dasu’s musical tastes will give us another.

Source: When public prejudice can serve the greater good – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows

2016/09/12 Leave a comment

Not surprising. Similar levels of support for a ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies but in the end, not a deciding issues for the vast majority of voters:

Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending support to an idea that is stirring controversy in political circles.

Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, a candidate in her party’s leadership contest, has floated the idea of screening newcomers for their attitudes on intolerance toward other religions, cultures and sexual orientations and reluctance to embrace Canadian freedoms.

A new Forum Research Inc. poll for the Star shows that Leitch may be tapping into an idea that Canadians favour with 67 per cent saying immigrants should indeed be screened for “anti-Canadian values.”

More importantly for Leitch, the poll shows that the idea is especially popular among Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.

That’s certain to be the reason that Leitch (Simcoe-Grey) proposed the idea — and has stuck by it in the face of criticism, said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.

“If you’re going after the base, this is like red meat for them. They’re going to love this,” he said Friday. “This is hitting the nail right on the head.”

When asked to choose the values respondents believe are important, equality came out on top (27 per cent), followed by patriotism (15 per cent), fairness (12 per cent) and tolerance (11 per cent).

Conservative backers put patriotism at the top their list of important values. Liberals and New Democrats ranked equality as their first choice.

Just one-quarter of respondents disagreed with the idea of screening for values and nine per cent had no opinion.

The idea finds most support among those ages 45 to 64 (73 per cent); more men (70 per cent) than women (64 per cent); living in Quebec (71 per cent) and Ontario (70 per cent) than those in the Atlantic provinces (56 per cent).

Leitch raised the idea of screening would-be immigrants in a survey sent out by her campaign seeking input on issues.

Source: Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows | Toronto Star

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Angela Merkel’s Loyalty Test for German Turks – The New York Times

2016/09/10 Leave a comment

Worth noting:

To generally question this large and diverse group’s “loyalty” to Germany, as Ms. Merkel did, is as unfair as it is counterproductive. In demanding loyalty from Turkish Germans to the German state, Ms. Merkel is playing along with Mr. Erdogan’s scheme to segregate Turks from the rest of Germany, of making them a Turkish exclave on German soil, deepening the mutual feeling of alienation.

But Ms. Merkel also speaks for a large number of Germans, if not the majority, a fact that is as instructive as it is depressing. Despite the occasional tensions and setbacks, despite the considerably lower-than-average level of education and prosperity among Germans of Turkish descent, the country had just started to portray their integration as a success story.

Even the marches this summer, full of older and largely poor Turkish Germans, were a reminder of what that first generation of immigrants achieved in creating in their offspring, a generation of doctors, journalists, businesspeople — of successful, integrated Germans. But it is harder and harder to see things that way.

The renewed feeling of mutual alienation also gives us a better idea of the minimal requirements for being German. While bias and distrust toward Turks in the past were often driven by criticisms of conservative practices of Islam (and, no less, by racism and Islamophobia), the excessive public support for Mr. Erdogan also repels the German left and liberals. To them, “loyalty” to the German state means loyalty to the German Constitution and its liberal, democratic values — “the decisive marker of German identity,” according to Herfried and Marina Münkler, the authors of “The New Germans.” The pro-Erdogan rallies looked like a thousandfold public rejection of that identity.

All of this is instructive, not just in how Germany relates to its established immigrant communities, but the million refugees who have recently entered the country and are now attempting to build a new life. It is a reminder that, even decades from now, the process will still be continuing, with setbacks and tensions. But it should also be a reason for optimism — that Germany can, and must, make it work.

Source: Angela Merkel’s Loyalty Test for German Turks – The New York Times

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →