Stephens: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests

2024/08/22 Leave a comment

Essential reading for some of our more “woke” institutions, academics and students. Money quote:

“It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes.:”

…Some of you may have heard the term “institutional neutrality.” It is the belief that universities like ours should avoid taking political positions of any kind, either through investment decisions or political declarations by administrators or by academic boycotts of foreign scholars, except when the interests of the university are directly affected — like when the Supreme Court weighs in on our admissions process.

You may also have heard about the Chicago principles, which make the case for universities to embrace an almost unfettered principle of free expression as “an essential part of the university’s educational mission,” even when the speech is seen by most members of the community as “offensive, unwise, immoral or wrongheaded.”

Our university embraces both institutional neutrality and the Chicago principles. We do so not because they are ends in themselves but because they are necessary ways to cultivate the spirit of inquiry. That spirit cannot be fettered by formal or informal speech codes that might stop us from asking uncomfortable but important questions, or by university policies that preclude fruitful exchanges with scholars from other countries. At our university you will find scholars from Israel, China, Turkey, Russia and other countries whose policies you may not like; we do not hold them responsible for their governments, nor do we ask them to make political declarations as the price of belonging to our community.

But necessary isn’t sufficient. If all we accomplish by adopting the Chicago principles is that everyone gets to speak and nobody bothers to listen, those principles will have fallen short. If we embrace institutional neutrality at the topmost level while remaining indifferent to the one-sided politicization of classrooms, departments and administrative offices, we will have done little to advance the pedagogical benefits of neutrality, which is intended to broaden your exposure to the widest variety of views and ideas.

And if we permit protests that inhibit the speech of others, or set up no-go zones for Jewish students, or make it difficult to study in the library or pay attention in class, we may have upheld the right to speak in the abstract while stripping it of its underlying purpose. The point of free speech is to open discussion, not to shut it down. It’s to engage with our opponents, not to shut them out. It’s to introduce fresh perspectives, not to declare every perspective but our own to be beyond the moral pale.

I’d like to add a personal note as a Jew. Many people objected to last year’s protests, with their chants of “from the river to the sea,” as antisemitic. I find that calling for the elimination of Israel — indeed, of any state — is inherently repugnant, since it would almost inevitably entail an almost unimaginable level of violence, dispossession and destruction.

But antisemitism is not what I found chiefly offensive about the protests. I accept that most of the protesters are not antisemitic, or at least don’t think of themselves that way.

What bothered me, rather, was watching members of our community turn off their critical faculties. It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes. It was the substitution of serious political thought with propaganda. It was the refusal to engage with difference and criticism in any way except denunciation and moral bullying.

In short, the way in which these protests unfolded was an insult to the spirit of inquiry that this university has an institutional responsibility to protect and champion. So does this mean we will brook no form of protest? Of course not. But we do expect that protests, so long as they happen on our campus, on our property, conform with the aims of education as we see them.

That means, at a minimum, that we will enforce clearly established “time, place and manner” restrictions, so that the rights of those who protest are never allowed to impinge on the rights of those who don’t. It also means we will invest in serious programming about the Mideast conflict, including by inviting Israeli and Palestinian scholars to campus and hosting moderated debates where you can cheer your own political side but must at least listen to the other. Our goal is never to make you think one way or the other. It’s to make you think, period.

The spirit of protest will always have a place here, as it must in every free society. Our job is to harness it to the task of inquiry so that knowledge may continue to grow, and human life may be enriched.

Source: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests


Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Australia: Modernised Multicultural Grants Program

2024/08/17 Leave a comment

Announcement by the Albanese government. Interesting, that Australia provides core funding support as well as support for non-religious training for faith leaders:

The Australian Government commits to supporting a stronger multicultural Australia through the Modernised Multicultural Grants Program.

This program will:

  • give more consistent and long term funding to multicultural organisations,
  • foster more certainty and sustainability for multicultural organisations, and
  • support longer-term initiatives and lasting results.

The funding will support organisations to:

  • hold local events,
  • celebrate festivals,
  • build and deliver support programs,
  • improve amenities,
  • build facilities, and
  • strengthen their ability to serve both members of their own community and the broader society.

This program will give funding through four separate streams:

  • Infrastructure for Multicultural Organisations
  • Multicultural Grass Roots Initiatives
  • Multicultural Peak Body Funding
  • Faith Leaders Training

These opportunities are currently under development. For more information on when these grant rounds open, including how to apply for these opportunities, see the Australian Government’s grants information system, GrantConnect.

You can subscribe to the Community Grants Hub mailing list to get notifications of new grant opportunities as they become available.

Infrastructure for Multicultural Organisations

This opportunity will fund grants of up to $20 million over 3 years from 2025-26. You can apply for this round in October 2024.

Successful projects will include construction, upgrade or extension of infrastructure that provides demonstrated benefits to multicultural communities. For example:

  • community hubs and centres
  • museums, libraries and art spaces
  • indoor and outdoor amenities, like food preparation areas, dining spaces, bathrooms, play equipment and barbecue facilities
  • meeting and conference facilities
  • stages, auditoriums and spaces to encourage performing arts
  • spaces for sporting and physical activities.

To be eligible to apply, your project must be investment ready (or ‘shovel ready’), meaning construction can begin within 12 weeks of executing your grant agreement. This means you will have:

  • regulatory and/or development approvals,
  • evidence of experience in delivering similar sized projects or have engaged a third party with relevant experience,
  • evidence of your co-contribution from another source (for example state government funding) or your cash contribution to the project,
  • a detailed project proposal, including project plans (designs), timelines and procurement process,
  • detailed budget including quotes and cost benefit analysis,
  • detailed risk management plan, and
  • evidence that you either own the land/infrastructure being built/upgraded upon, or that you have the landowner’s permission to use the land/infrastructure.

Multicultural Grassroots Initiatives

Organisations will be able to apply for grants of up to $100,000 over 2 years from 2024-25 for:

  • Multicultural celebrations, such as festivals and events,
  • Multicultural amenities, such as building upgrades, furnishings or equipment, or
  • Intercultural connections, such as intercultural sports programs or art projects.

You can apply for this round in November 2024.

Multicultural Peak Body Funding

Multicultural peak bodies and community organisations will be able to apply for 4 years of funding of up to $400,000 per year. This will allow them to continue to play a pivotal role in strengthening Australia’s multicultural capacity.

You can apply for this round in December 2024.

Faith Leaders Training

This grant opportunity will provide up to $500,000 per year, over 4 years,  from 2024-25 for organisations to develop and deliver non religious training courses to faith leaders and those in pastoral roles in faith organisations.​

You can apply for this round in December 2024.

Source: Modernised Multicultural Grants Program

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

2024/08/14 Leave a comment

Of note:

Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. special envoy for monitoring antisemitism, defended a controversial definition of antisemitism Wednesday and slammed a progressive alternative as having been endorsed by “some renowned antisemites.”

In a conversation with reporters at the State Department, Lipstadt said that International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which describes anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism, represented the best language for addressing antisemitism overseas because foreign governments are most familiar with it.

“You need a definition,” Lipstadt said.

How the federal government should define antisemitism in relation to Israel has been a contentious topic since the Trump administration, and even more so as President Joe Biden has sought to make combating antisemitism a cornerstone of his administration.

The release of the landmark national strategy to counter antisemitism last year was delayed for several weeks amid a frantic lobbying campaign between proponents of the IHRA definition, including most major American Jewish groups, and critics who say that it has a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel.

The White House ultimately mentioned in the strategy both the IHRA definition and the Nexus Document, which is meant to complement the IHRA definition and soften some of its positions on Israel. But Lipstadt said on Wednesday that Nexus was not appropriate for international use.

“You say ‘Nexus’ to most Europeans, they have no idea what you’re talking about,” Lipstadt said. “It’s not applicable.”

Jonathan Jacoby, who founded the task force behind Nexus, said that he hoped the group could work with Lipstadt to raise its profile internationally. “Nexus has only been used in the U.S. context, but the principles apply whenever and wherever issues related to Israel and antisemitism intersect,” he said.

Endorsed by ‘renowned antisemites,’ Lipstadt claims

But Lipstadt, a Holocaust historian, reserved her harshest criticism for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which was released in 2021 as an alternative to IHRAand alluded to, but not mentioned, in the White House strategy.

“A group of academics signed it, including some renowned antisemites like Richard Falk,” Lipstadt said. “So I don’t know that I’d want to go with that definition of antisemitism.”

Falk, a retired Princeton professor and longtime critic of Israel, has been embroiled in several controversies involving allegations of antisemitism and conspiracy theories, including posting a cartoon on his blog that featured a dog wearing a yarmulke while urinating on Lady Justice. 

Falk, who is Jewish, has consistently denied that he is antisemitic.

The Jerusalem Declaration was drafted by a group of mostly Jewish academics and has been signed by more than 300 other scholars.

Source: Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Chris Selley: Gaza makes strange bedfellows — and maybe that’s a good thing

2024/08/14 Leave a comment

Of interest. Interesting type of intersectionality:

…Barely veiled threats aside, there’s nothing surprising about any of the foregoing. Few religions are bullish on things like homosexuality and gender fluidity, and Islam is no exception. When the Environics Institute last surveyed Canadian Muslims’ attitudes about the country, in 2016, it found just 36 per cent of Muslims felt “homosexuality should be accepted by society,” versus 80 per cent of Canadians overall. Just 26 per cent of Muslims felt it “should … be possible to be both an observant Muslim and live openly in a … same-sex relationship.”

And they’re allowed to think that. We put freedom of religion in the Charter and everything.

In some ways this just highlights the absurdity of left-versus-right thinking. Your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really should have no bearing on your opinions about same-sex marriage or the appropriate age, if any, for gender-reassignment surgery — or indeed vice versa. They are entirely unrelated issues.

I don’t consider myself especially conservative or right wing, so I’m not here to rep “my side” or score any points. But I will note that people on the left are often obsessed with bedfellows: If someone nasty agrees with you on something, that’s somehow a reflection on you. It’s a reason to reconsider your position.

It’s not a judgment progressives would want to invite on themselves, in this case. But if they’re capable of locking arms with social-conservatives to advance a common cause, I’m tempted to see it as a good thing more than a bad thing. We should all be able to look past our differences, even visceral ones, to make a better country.

Source: Chris Selley: Gaza makes strange bedfellows — and maybe that’s a good thing

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Aziz: The Canadian dream is on life support

2024/08/13 Leave a comment

One of the articles attracting considerable and merited attention:

….To make matters worse, immigration − an exclusively federal jurisdiction − has gone unchecked, which is a disservice to both the country and the legal immigrants who have been here for years. Canada’s immigration system used to be the envy of the world − focusing on merit, on the needs of the labour force, and on a generosity of spirit that was practically unrivalled. Canada will always be pro-immigration, but there needs to be a responsible conversation on the subject, not using it to divide people or sing one’s own moral praises.

In Canada, the social contract for years allowed more immigration to grow the economy, but this came with stringent criteria for who should be admitted. Today, there are more than 900,000 international students in Canada, a 170-per-cent increase over the past decade. Some of these students have been scammed by for-profit colleges. Others have been affiliated with fake schools, using their student visas as loopholes in the immigration system. The social system was unprepared for such an influx, though certain institutions benefited: colleges and universities got more fees; politicians touted rising immigration numbers; the landlord class got an endless supply of perpetual renters. Without any housing available, this has left the country unprepared to deal with multiple, overlapping economic and social crises.

Whether for immigrants or those born in Canada, the same reality unfolds. We have created an entire generation of permanent renters, people who will work and struggle and maybe build some limited wealth, but will never be able to own property. Keep in mind that more than half of Canadians are living paycheque-to-paycheque. Many in my generation have been entirely shut out of prosperity − betraying the promise of progress for millions….

The social situation deteriorates. The housing shortage is chronic. Economic stagnation is severe. The political crisis may be even worse. At this moment, there is a backlash building. Evidence for this is everywhere − most recently in the riding of Toronto-St. Paul’s, which just elected a Conservative MP for the first time since 1988 − and it would be wise for leaders in office to take notice. They should admit something went wrong, re-examine old assumptions and pivot. There must be a positive vision for Canadians, bringing in new voices and faces, and grounded in a common purpose that unites all people around the shared values of hard work and equal opportunity. Most importantly, politicians should dispense with their scripts and level with Canadians about the challenges ahead.

Canada is not broken; it is wounded. But the potential inherent in this country is enormous. Its future must be reclaimed and won soon, or lost for good.

Source: The Canadian dream is on life support

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Haan et al: What Does Integration Mean in a Multicultural Country like Canada?

2024/08/12 2 Comments

Interesting discussion on integration definitions. But I think this relationship model, while important, neglects socioeconomic outcomes (income, employment, scolarity etc). Valid to question whether integration into the “mainstream” remains valid but looking at the data indicates still is relevant.

And there is a risk of dismissing pre-existing norms as it suggests an approach of “anything goes” rather than conforming with Canadian laws and regulations, which of course evolve and change as the population and social norms change:

…Although there is evidence to support both segmented and new assimilation theories, it is also becoming obvious that researchers should pay more attention to the demographic realities in immigrant-receiving countries such as Canada. As some native-born populations shrink in proportion to the whole, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint where exactly the process of integration might occur. The sociologist Richard Alba recommends expanding the definition of the mainstream to include more groups. While this is obviously an important step, it maintains an underlying assumption that there exists a core population group. What happens when a city increasingly does not have a majority group? 

To this end, sociologist Maurice Crul recommends moving beyond thinking about integration as a minority group’s merging into a majority population and having little to no effect on the mainstream itself. His “integration into diversity” theory posits that the notion of a mainstream is becoming less useful and should be replaced with one of a population marked by diversity.

Drawing on results from the Becoming a Minority project, which collected data from several European cities, he provides a matrix to describe nine outcomes of individuals, each focused on different integration attitudes (see Figure 2). The most integrated individuals will exist in a diverse social network that believes immigration-related diversity is enriching, while the least integrated will be at the opposite end of the spectrum, feeling threatened by immigration and favoring a homogenous social circle.

Figure 2. Integration into Diversity Theory Matrix

Source: Maurice Crul, “Integration into Diversity Theory Renewing–Once Again–Assimilation Theory,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 50, no. 1 (2024): 257-71, available online.

The strength of this approach is that it does not take into consideration individual characteristics such as skin color or first language spoken. According to this theory, these factors do not really matter because there is no expectation of comparing individual characteristics to that of a mainstream population; neither the characteristics of the community nor the person matter. What matters instead is individual actions and attitudes towards diversity. The more tolerant a person is, the more integrated they are into their heterogenous society.    

This approach is still rather new and, as such, does not yet explain which identity position a person will take. It is, in fact, only beginning to be used to predict characteristics such as feelings of belonging and perceptions of neighborhood security. Crul is clear in that he does not want his theory to replace new or segmented assimilation theory as an explanation of the integration process (he instead refers to it as an update), but the idea shifts the focus away from that of an individual melding into the mainstream. By positing the existence of nine subgroups, it becomes possible to envision multiple mainstreams with multiple attitudes towards integration. In a country such as Canada, this approach seems rather prescient.

Nonetheless, the utility of a new theoretical framework is best assessed empirically. Canada’s General Social Survey asks individuals how many of their friends are of the same immigrant group, although not about attitudes towards diversity. It would be interesting to add this question and find other ways to analyze integration into diversity theory.

Moving forward, immigration to Canada is only increasing. With extensive efforts to bring in more new arrivals every year, immigrants’ influence on the Canadian population is growing—and appears on course to continue doing so even as public disquiet has caused the government to seek to trim some immigration. Traditional notions of integration are becoming increasingly irrelevant in a country where nearly all population growth stems from immigration. New arrivals find their place in society not by assuming pre-existing norms, but by finding their people and their place and creating their own norms. In this way, Canada’s diversity will only continue to grow over time.

Source: What Does Integration Mean in a Multicultural Country like Canada?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Todd: Do women, people of colour get fewer votes in Canada? New studies say no

2024/08/12 Leave a comment

Interesting US study, broadly applicable to Canada:

Given the Olympics are up and running, it’s fitting to reflect on how the image that cartoonists most often use to show that women and ethnic minorities have a disadvantage is one of the hurdles.

The illustrations recur: Of women and people of colour literally having to jump over more and higher hurdles than white people or men to reach victory in their fields, particularly politics.

Now that U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris, whose mother was born in India and father in Jamaica, is the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, media outlets are especially filled with talk about gender and racial barriers.

But the clichéd metaphor of an unfair hurdles race is in need of an update in light of studies showing that in almost all cases and places women and people of colour compete evenly.

Last month, researchers at the University of Oxford unveiled the findings of the most extensive analysis yet performed on how people vote in view of candidates’ ethnicity and gender.

Lead by Sanne van Oosten, the team looked for the patterns in 43 different sociological experiments in the U.S., Europe and Canada of voter preference over the 10-year period ending in 2022.

The experiments typically involved presenting respondents with profiles of fictional political candidates, while randomly varying the candidates’ race or ethnicity. There were in total more than 310,000 observations of respondents’ preferences.

“Our meta-analysis concludes that, on average, voters do not discriminate against minoritized politicians,” van Oosten said. “In fact, women and Asians have a significant advantage compared to male and white candidates.”

Van Oosten, who had earlier been appalled by gender-based criticism of Hillary Clinton and the race-based undermining of Barack Obama, considers the results good news — for Harris and other candidates who are female and/or of colour.

The researcher has been surprised by the dearth of media interest, however, given that her earlier study of how the public can stereotype Muslim candidates as homophobic received international coverage.

“One journalist at a very highly esteemed newspaper even literally said to me: ‘People aren’t interested in good news’,” van Oosten said on social media.

The study by van Oosten, Liza Mügge and Daphne van der Pas doesn’t deny that there is a small minority of voters who have racist or sexist attitudes. But it does find most voters aren’t negatively impacted by a candidate being female or a person of colour. Indeed, it’s often perceived as a positive.

Here how the authors put it in their meta-analysis:

• “Voters do not assess racial/ethnic minority candidates differently than their majority (white) counterparts.”

• In regard to Asian candidates in the U.S.: “Voters assess them slightly more positively than majority (white) candidates.”

• “A meta-analysis on gender demonstrates that voters assess women candidates more positively than men candidates.”

• When voters from minority ethnic groups share the same ethnicity as the candidate, they positively “assess them 7.9 percentage points higher” than white candidates.

• Even in “patriarchal” societies, such as in Jordan, men will vote for a female candidate over a male if she shares the voter’s ethnicity.

The comprehensive Oxford study also cites the work of Anthony Kevins, of Utrecht University, who found across the U.S., Britain and Canada there is no sign that voters will refrain from marking an X on a ballot for a candidate because of their gender or ethnic background.

In Canada, Kevins found only one distinct bias: That members of the Canadian political left have, all other things being equal, “a higher likelihood of voting for the East Asian candidate.”

The University of Toronto’s Randy Besco, author of Identities And Interests: Race, Ethnicity and Affinity Voting, said in an interview that on average racial minority candidates don’t get fewer votes in Canada.

However, in one specific category, “racial minorities running for the Conservative Party do get less votes.”

The broader finding in the work of Besco and others is about significant so-called “affinity voting,” in which people elect members of their same identity group.

“Chinese and South Asians showed preference for their own ethnic group compared to a white candidate,” Besco said. And they also preferred to vote for members of other minority groups over white candidates. “But this preference was weaker than same-ethnic preference.”

Asked whether Canadians who are white also engage in affinity politics, by tending to mark their ballots for Canadians who are white, van Oosten said in an interview there is no indication white majorities in Britain and Canada make a point of voting for their ethnic in-group. But in the U.S., she said there is an inclination for some white people to do that.

In regard to Canadian voting trends around gender, Besco pointed to the work of his colleague, Semra Sevi of L’Université de Montréal, whose team wrote a paper titled, Do Women Get Less Votes? No.

Sevi et al studied the gender breakdown of over 21,000 candidates in all Canadian federal elections since 1921, when women first ran for seats in Parliament.

The researchers determined, in the 1920s, women were at a 2.5 percentage point disadvantage to men.

But in recent decades, Canadian voters have shown no anti-female bias.

What then explains the disparities on gender and ethnicity among MPs in the House of Commons?

In 2023, about 31 per cent of MPs were female, even though women make up half the Canadian population. Jerome Black and Andrew Griffith also wrote in Public Policy that MPs of colour comprised about 16 per cent of House of Commons members in 2021, while visible minorities made up about 20 per cent of all citizens.

Virtually all the researchers cited in this article maintain that such variance, in Canada and around the world, is not the result of voters being prejudiced against women or members of ethnic minorities.

It’s more about who decides to test the political waters.

The researchers strongly suggest the widespread incorrect belief that voters are prejudiced contributes to fewer minority and female candidates putting their names forward, or being supported, at the nomination stage.

As van Oosten puts it, “the demand” is definitely there for women and people of colour in office. But “the supply” often isn’t, she says, in large part because of misplaced fears about racist and sexist attitudes among the electorate.

In other words, as a society we need to stop discouraging women and people of colour from running for politics — and we can start by throwing away outdated images meant to show they have to jump over extra hurdles.

Source: Do women, people of colour get fewer votes in Canada? New studies say no

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , , ,

‘What is it about the make-up of our society?’ Deborah Lyons on antisemitism in Canada

2024/08/10 Leave a comment

Of interest:

What have the last 10 months been like in your role?

It has been intense, extremely difficult, with the many challenges that, frankly, we hear about every day. It has been disappointing, in part because I don’t feel that the rise in antisemitism is getting the attention or response from leadership across the country, at all levels, that it should be getting, and that’s been very disappointing. And it’s been quite troubling, because as much as I’ve worked in conflict zones before and difficult environments, to be here, in my own country and to experience the horrific rise, unprecedented rise, of antisemitism in Canada and the lack of a real response to it, causes me to worry about the future of our country.

It’s been, on the one hand, a very meaningful period. But, on the other hand, it’s been, in some ways, very discouraging and concerning about where are we headed. But, frankly, I wouldn’t have wanted to have missed it, because it’s important.

What would you like to see done? 

A lot more. A lot more of leaders at all levels — federal, provincial and municipal, local level — speaking up, speaking out, condemning, clearly, antisemitism. This is not a hard thing to do when you see hatred happening on the streets, in schools, at universities, in the business environment. When you see protests that maybe intended to be peaceful, but truly do get out of hand, with hateful slogans and chants and actually threatening slogans and chants. You really need leaders, community leaders, political leaders, business leaders, faith leaders, academic leaders, standing up and clearly speaking out against this surge of ugliness that seems to have taken over our country.

I would like to see a situation where the fullness of the legal system is being applied, where we have police well-trained on hate crimes, which I think we’re seeing now in some of the major centres across the country, where we’re recording well and fully the incidents that are happening and ensuring that we’re getting a strong sense of this new level of intimidation and fear that has been created in the last year. And that we are making sure that we have our educators, our teachers and our security, our police, well trained to recognize antisemitism and to respond to it.

Do you fear that there is any risk of allegations of antisemitism stifling legitimate political speech?

I’m less worried about that, and more worried about the level of hatred that is growing and where that could take us. Now, having said that, I am a huge supporter of freedom of expression, of academic freedom, freedom of speech.

One of the things we’re working on right now is the fulsome definition of antisemitism that has been developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that Canada has endorsed. And we’re going to be coming out with a guidebook, a handbook on explaining that definition and trying to demonstrate to people, criticize whatever you want to criticize, criticize Israel, criticize any government in the world. You want to criticize them? That’s what we want, in terms of democracy. We want freedom of expression. We want the boundaries of knowledge to be pushed. But there has to be an understanding of where that is treading into, either hateful speech or a demonstration of a particularly threatening bias.

I want to emphasize my concern about protecting freedom of expression, and, particularly, academic freedom, but, at the same time, we have to have a clear moral clarity about what we consider to be hateful speech or hateful incidents.

What does a day in your job look like?

It probably starts off around seven in the morning with a review of the latest crises or catastrophe or incidents, either from the mainstream media or from social media. It then goes through many, many meetings or calls with people across the country, because this is not an Ottawa-centric job, even though I am based out of Ottawa. So I’m travelling across the country a lot. We meet with provincial government people on a regular basis. We meet with federal ministers. So the whole (equity, diversity and inclusion) program is one that we’re looking at. We work with law enforcement on training on antisemitism for police officers across the country. We’re looking at the fullness of the legislation to make sure that it is adequate in addressing hate crimes. We’re looking at the data-collection process, so I’m often engaged with StatCan and others on, are we collecting the right data? Are we getting a good, comprehensive picture so we can have honest conversations about what is really happening there, and provide that to the political leaders?

We’re doing work on social media. (On Tuesday) we were spending some time with social media research companies to identify what is happening in terms of hate crimes throughout that platform. We’re doing work with the universities, of course, so we’re preparing right now for the return to campus in September. So I’m spending time with Universities Canada and specific universities on how they’re going to be working to ensure that the year ahead in the university environment is a more constructive and calmer one.

It does appear that Canada is one of the countries that is actually actively tackling antisemitism, openly, overtly, dramatically, intensely. We’ve seen a huge increase in antisemitism in many parts of the world. I think that we’re seen as a country that is really trying to address it; we’re not having the success I’d like to see us have, but we are at least pushing and actively struggling to try to get to a much healthier place.

Do you see any different textures to antisemitism in your travels and conversations across the country?

I guess I would say that what we’re seeing is a mix of motivations that seem to be driving antisemitism. Some of it comes from the far right, maybe, some of it, maybe, from the far left. Some of it from people who are confusing Canada’s foreign policy, and what they are expressing here in the country is an anti-Jewish hatred, which is completely, I think, all mixed up together.

One of the things, again, as somebody who’s travelled a lot internationally, is, why is Canada having this unprecedented surge in antisemitism right now? What is it about the make-up of our society? What is it about our push for diversity and inclusivity? And what is it about our demographics? What is it about our country that is seeing such a level that has actually caused other countries, to say ‘What’s going on in Canada? We wouldn’t have expected this from Canada.’

I don’t think the faith community has stepped up. I don’t think we’ve seen the non-Jewish, non-Muslim faith communities step up to say, ‘Wait a minute. This is unacceptable in Canada. We don’t endorse this level of hatred and  animosity toward one another. This is unacceptable. This is not who we are as children of God.’

Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP, was appointed early last month as special adviser on Jewish community relations and antisemitism. Are you stepping on each other’s toes?

I’d say we’re dancing together rather than treading on each other’s toes. Anthony has a very particular role and it’s very important and it’s complementary to my role. We work very closely together, I know him very well. I work very closely, though, with all members of Parliament. Frankly, I can do with more people working actively on this file and I know how committed Anthony is. We’re in touch somewhere between daily and weekly.

Does it make your job easier or more challenging when there are different offices? There’s you, there’s Housefather, there’s Amira Elghawaby on the Islamophobia file. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, it was the one office of religious freedom.

We talk about that from time to time. I think it was actually prescient, really forward thinking on the part of the present government to have put in place the special envoys and special representatives such as my counterpart, Amira (Elghawaby). No one knew that things were going to get this bad in Canada. It turned out to be prescient, because there is just so much specific work that we have to do, and hopefully we can get that done in spite of the fraught environment that everyone is working in right now and since October 7.

I think the configuration we have right now is actually one that we need for the time right now, because I think there’s very specific work that needs to be done to deal with Islamophobia, to deal with anti-Muslim hate. And there’s no question that there is a huge amount of work that we have to do to combat antisemitism here in Canada. And I don’t know if you would get that done with the same intensity if you were part of a larger, more general approach.

Is there anything specific you’d like to see that might lower the temperature when class returns at universities?

We want to try to see the administrations provide the students, and particularly working with the faculty, who could be playing a much larger role here, in creating safe spaces for debate, for argument, for learning from one another. For exchanging of views, that type of thing, so that the students have the opportunity to challenge the boundaries and come up with new knowledge and come up with new ways of understanding one another and communication.

And then, certainly, I would say that one of the big concerns that we’re seeing, not just at universities, but frankly in work environments generally, the whole EDI (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) philosophy and approach often does not include antisemitism at all. In fact, it dismisses it almost. And what we found was that many students who were having issues on the campuses after October were going to and we’re told to ‘go to student services, the EDI counsellors are so good,’ and we’re not getting any real responses. And we’ve spoken to university administrations about that, and we’re hoping that we’re going to see some improvements there, where the EDI and student services offices will actually take more seriously the concerns of Jewish students who went to them to seek recourse or support or solace or whatever.

How optimistic are you about the future of your work?

We’re still in the middle of a very challenging time. I think we thought that we would have been in a better place by now. We’re not. So that’s concerning. But I think that you can feel the momentum building, more people coming on stream to be supportive, to be engaged, members of the non-Jewish population who are stepping up.

I don’t even know if I’d use the word optimist or pessimist. I would just say, I think we’re all very determined to come out of this. I’m hoping in a better place than we’ve been, not even the same as we were before, because I think this experience has taught us so much that we have no choice but to find a way to have a better Canada out of this. Because, if we don’t, that alternative is unacceptable.

Source: ‘What is it about the make-up of our society?’ Deborah Lyons on antisemitism in Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Kutty: Canada is putting too many Black Canadians behind bars. Here is what we can do about it

2024/08/09 Leave a comment

As always, the challenge is in the determining what is feasible and has an evidence-base regarding effectiveness, and ultimately in the doing and implementing. Writing a report and making recommendations is relatively easy and consultations have to include diverse views:

…Despite these strengths, the report has notable weaknesses that need to be addressed for effective and meaningful reform.

One problem is the lack of concrete action plans and timelines. Without specific implementation strategies and deadlines, the recommendations risk remaining mere aspirations. To drive real change, the government must outline clear, actionable steps and hold relevant agencies accountable for meeting these targets. Many such reports, including the 445-page Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (1995), which I also wrote about, have gone into the dustbins of history without significant action. The evidence is in the numerous subsequent reports since then that also accumulated dust.

Another weakness is that while the report calls for major overhauls like pouring more resources into jobs, housing, health, and education, and eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, it does not provide robust strategies to address these underlying factors. Comprehensive socio-economic policies ensuring access to quality education, health care, housing, and employment opportunities are essential for a holistic approach to justice reform. Furthermore, the report’s recommendations for training and education of justice system professionals are not adequately detailed. Cultural competency and anti-racism training must be rigorous, ongoing, and integrated into all aspects of professional development. The report should specify the content, frequency, and evaluation methods for such training to ensure it effectively transforms attitudes and behaviours within the justice system.

While the report emphasizes the importance of community engagement, it falls short in outlining mechanisms for meaningful and sustained community involvement in the reform process.

True transformative justice requires continuous dialogue and partnership with affected communities. Establishing advisory councils, conducting regular town hall meetings, and creating platforms for community feedback are ways to ensure reforms are responsive to the needs and experiences of those most impacted by systemic racism.

It is well past the time to start dismantling systemic racism and build a criminal justice system that truly serves all members of our diverse nation.

Faisal Kutty is a lawyer and law professor. @themuslimlawyer

Source: Canada is putting too many Black Canadians behind bars. Here is what we can do about it

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI – Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

2024/08/09 Leave a comment

As in Canada:

Australians have been rightly proud of our largely harmonious and tolerant society, rooted in our unique model of multiculturalism.

This model is centred on celebrating cultural diversity, maintaining shared core values – such as the rule of law, mutual respect and tolerance – and a framework of laws aimed at ensuring good intercommunal relations and deterring and marginalising racial vilification, hate speech and incitement to violence.

Yet, in the past year, the notion that the different peoples and faiths that comprise modern Australia can co-exist in mutual harmony has been repeatedly challenged.

There is no denying we are experiencing an extended period of intercommunal tension, hatred, incitement and violence, which represents a direct challenge to ongoing Australian multiculturalism and our stable, cohesive democratic society.

Since Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7 and the subsequent war, a day has seldom passed without examples of hate speech and incitement to violence and worse against Jews and non-Jews who dare express support for Israel or fail to condemn Israel for defending itself against Hamas.

These appalling incidents have included defacing war memorials and tagging Jewish day schools, synagogues and communal buildings with offensive graffiti and banners. The wider community has not been immune from these attacks either.

Protesters have glorified Hamas – a banned terrorist group – and chanted hateful slogans including: “There is only one solution, intifada revolution”.

Some Muslim leaders have seemingly supported Hamas’ massacre as legitimate resistance against Israel. One Australian Islamic scholar said there were no “innocent victims” on October 7; another Muslim cleric sermonised recently that Jews are “descendants of pigs and monkeys”; another sermonised on December 22 in Sydney that, “The most important characteristic of the Jews is that they are bloodthirsty … another is betrayal and treachery,” adding Jews are “monsters” who “love to shed blood”.

Antisemitic tropes – such as allegations that “Jewish power” works to undermine our institutions and national interests – have migrated from the fringes into the mainstream with claims from members of parliament about the supposed tentacles of the Jewish lobby and the alleged veto of Jewish politicians over the government’s Middle East policies.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority have seized on these incidents as proof that multiculturalism is not only a failed experiment but the catalyst for many of our problems.

Yes, we should be concerned, but we need to focus on the right targets.

Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for “anything goes”, that whatever your background or values – be they embedded in extremism, violence, terrorism, racism or whatever – they’ll fit into diverse Australia.

Rather, our multicultural, democratic model has succeeded only by emphasising the need to accept and practise one’s responsibilities and not just exercise one’s rights. It relies on a non-negotiable commitment to certain shared core values and responsibilities, including parliamentary democracy and the rule of law; freedom of speech and religion; the equality of the sexes; and mutual respect and tolerance.

If the values and principles embedded in your ethnicity, religious or national background violate those core multicultural, democratic values, they are unacceptable in multicultural, democratic Australia.

These are the principles underpinning the fabric of Australian multiculturalism, which so much of the current discord, hatred and antisemitism profoundly challenges and undermines.

The fundamental issue is the failure of our leaders to emphatically stress these core values and forcefully condemn behaviour breaching them, and the relative inaction of legal authorities in enforcing the law.

During the infamous October 9 anti-Israel demonstration at the Sydney Opera House, which included chants of “f— the Jews” and “Where’s the Jews?”, NSW Police failed to act against protesters.

Instead, Jews and pro-Israel supporters were told to avoid Sydney’s CBD. Law enforcement’s practice of managing conflict by shifting responsibility from would-be perpetrators to the targets of hate has been on repeat since October 7.

On November 10, when anti-Israel demonstrators descended on Melbourne’s Jewish community, the police evacuated congregants from a nearby synagogue service.

Continuing the pattern, visiting families of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas were further traumatised when anti-Israel agitators took over their hotel lobby. Instead of dispersing those disturbing the peace, the police moved the Israeli guests to a nearby police station for their protection.

Police investigations into some of the sermons cited above concluded that none appeared to “meet the threshold of any criminal offence” covered by our laws against racial vilification and incitement.

Something is clearly amiss. At a time of escalating tensions, it’s crucial our leaders and law enforcement take a strong stand against hateful and threatening behaviour.

No one would argue that from time to time policies and legislation don’t need tweaking to meet today’s challenges and circumstances, and indeed reviews are under way, including on ways “for government and the community to work together to support a cohesive multicultural society” with the federal government just releasing the report of the multicultural framework review and its response.

Yet, we need more rigour and vigour in enunciating and implementing both our policy and legal frameworks to prevent further damage to Australian democracy and our multiculturalism upon which the harmony and security of our society crucially depend.

Colin Rubenstein is the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and was a member of the initial Council for Multicultural Australia (2000-06).

Source: Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →