Bill Murray Befriends the Muslim World: ‘Not Every Flower Is the Same’

Some funny but pointed Bill Murray quotes, that aim to counter the current hysteria:

“There is a phobia about what Muslims are like,” he continues. “I have known about two-dozen. I went to school in Paris with Muslims. Most were from Iran. I found them much to be like friends back home. I was raised as a Catholic. It was always Catholics against Jews. I’m in Hollywood. There are lots of nutty Jews and lots of nutty Catholics. Muslims are just as goofy, too. It is what makes the garden beautiful: Not every flower is the same.”

…And the film [the new Ghostbusters], he says, carries an even deeper message.

“In Ghostbusters, what comes to destroy New York is a giant marshmallow,” explains Murray. “If you face your fears, they are all giant marshmallows. There were people that were afraid to come here to come along for the ride. That thought came into my mind. A friend said we just made a film about a girl that couldn’t sing. Are we going to be afraid to go back? Fear is negative imagination. Do I think these events have been terrible? Are they horrible? Are they dreadful? Yes. But I can’t live a life of fear like that. If I’m going to go, I’m going to go living. Here we all are and we are okay, aren’t we? As soon as I saw the cars and walls, I was like, ‘I’m so glad I’m here. I’m glad I came.’”

Source: Bill Murray Befriends the Muslim World: ‘Not Every Flower Is the Same’ – The Daily Beast

Parable on Bigotry and Citizenship Plays Out in a Supermarket – The New York Times

A good parable:

At the end of the aisle, Ms. Macksoud noticed a couple of middle-age white men talking. One in particular caught her eye with his beer belly, tattooed forearms and large golden cross. As she neared him, she heard the word “Bible.” When she passed him, he said in a raised voice: “not like the Quran those Muslims read.” He included an obscenity to describe Ms. Macksoud and 1.6 billion coreligionists.

Ms. Macksoud grew up on Staten Island, competing in soccer and track, and liked to think that she had that outer-boroughs bravado. Instead of firing back, though, she answered with forced calm: “You didn’t have to say that.”

Surface composure aside, she was shaken. Her flesh felt as if it were quivering. Her mind went so blank she made a wrong turn, and instead of heading into frozen foods, she was adrift and searching for Ms. Yu. “She was shocked and angry,” Ms. Yu recalled the other day. “More in a kind of disbelief that something like this could happen to her.”

Indeed, nothing before ever had. Even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when Ms. Macksoud began wearing the hijab as her personal way of reclaiming Islam from jihadists, nobody had ever said a word to her. No one objected even when she was working for MTV in Times Square and her building was evacuated during a failed car bombing by a militant Muslim in May 2010.

But in the United States of 2015 — weeks before the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. — someone had insulted and implicitly threatened her in her favorite ShopRite. It felt to her as if all the toxic language of the Republican presidential campaign, with its various forms of Islamophobia, had infiltrated even a store she cherished for its commitment to diversity.

With Ms. Yu at her side, she went to the Customer Service counter to report what had happened. The agent there called for the store’s assistant manager, Mark Egan. “I’m not done shopping,” Ms. Macksoud recently recalled telling him, “but I don’t feel safe here.”

Mr. Egan was about as much of a Jersey guy as a Jersey guy can get. He grew up in Freehold, Bruce Springsteen’s hometown, and married in the young Springsteen’s parish church, Saint Rose of Lima. Mr. Egan, his hair starting to thin at 43, has worked at ShopRite for 13 years.

He told Ms. Macksoud he would protect her. And for the next half-hour, he walked alongside her on the pretense of checking inventory as she did the rest of her shopping. They never did find the man who had insulted her. Before leaving, Ms. Macksoud asked for Mr. Egan’s name so she could send a thank-you letter to the store.

The next day she wrote about the incident on Facebook. She had nearly 300 replies, some from other American Muslims on their experiences with bias — being called a “raghead” or a “Christian killer,” being almost run over, being told to go home, as if home were not here. Many offered solidarity and solace.

One of those correspondents, Sheryl Olitzky, is the wife of a rabbi and the mother of two others. Five years earlier, she and a friend, Atiya Aftab, had formed a group called the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, to bring Jewish and Muslim women together. Since then, it has grown to 20 local chapters across the country with another 15 in formation.

With Ms. Macksoud’s permission, Ms. Olitzky called Mr. Egan and told him, “I heard what happened, and you’re my hero.” He replied, “I was just doing my job.”

Modesty aside, Mr. Egan did agree to attend the Sisterhood’s annual convention last weekend to receive an award. His wife and father-in-law came with him, and the Saker family, which owns the North Brunswick ShopRite, made a donation to the group.

Source: Parable on Bigotry and Citizenship Plays Out in a Supermarket – The New York Times

US Conservatives Call For ‘Religious Freedom,’ But For Whom? : NPR

Good article on the ongoing hypocrisy of the religious right and Republican contenders:

Such prejudice bothers some advocates of religious freedom, including Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“If we really believe in religious liberty, then religious liberty applies to everyone, and that means I’m not threatened by non-Christians having religious liberty,” he says. “I think the only way the Gospel can advance is with free consciences, and I think evangelical Christians particularly ought to be the most vocal about religious liberty for our non-Christian neighbors and friends.”

Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and a leading lay Catholic intellectual, is also outspoken on the need to defend religious liberty for people of all non-Christian faiths, including Islam.

“It’s scandalous to me when members of a community say, ‘We don’t want a mosque in our town, because the Muslims are terrorists,'” George says. “The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathizers of terrorists. They want the same things for themselves and for their children that Christians want, that Jews want, that Hindus want, that all of our fellow citizens want.”

In the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernardino shootings, the fear of more attacks has inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment, fueled in part by Donald Trump and others who are highlighting the threat of “Islamic terrorism.” Those candidates who have emphasized the struggle for religious liberty as a mobilizing cause, from Cruz to Jeb Bush, have either ignored Trump’s repeated anti-Muslim comments or condemned them.

For some conservatives, however, recent events may bring a decision point. They may need to choose between opposing Islam and advocating for religious freedom. To wage both fights at the same time is likely to become increasingly awkward.

Source: Conservatives Call For ‘Religious Freedom,’ But For Whom? : NPR

Voile intégral: Couillard confiant de pouvoir légiférer malgré l’approche d’Ottawa

Federal citizenship case reflected fact that Minister did not have the authority under the Citizenship Act to prohibit the niqab, not the fundamental question of whether banning the niqab would be in conformity with the Charter.

Quebec law may result in that more fundamental challenge:

Le premier ministre Philippe Couillard a maintenu que les assises juridiques du Québec sont solides pour interdire le port du voile intégral au moment de voter et dans les services publics, malgré la décision d’Ottawa de l’autoriser pendant les cérémonies de citoyenneté et lors de scrutins.

Lors d’une conférence de presse en compagnie du premier ministre Justin Trudeau, vendredi, M. Couillard a reconnu que son gouvernement approche la question du port du voile sous un angle différent de son homologue.

M. Couillard a déclaré que cette différence ne remet pas en question les fondements juridiques sur lesquels Québec s’appuie.

« On est persuadés que l’approche qu’on choisit est tout à fait conforme avec les lois du pays, en incluant les chartes, on est très attentifs à cette question-là », a-t-il dit.

Selon le premier ministre québécois, il n’est pas nécessaire de faire l’unanimité à ce sujet, qui a occupé une place importante dans la dernière campagne fédérale.

« On aborde la question d’angles différents mais avec la même préoccupation, a-t-il dit. Moi-même j’ai fait une campagne complète sur les droits et libertés des gens et c’est un enjeu important pour moi. »

Après avoir été élu il y a près de deux mois, M. Trudeau a retiré l’appel déposé par le gouvernement conservateur devant la Cour suprême du Canada, dans la cause entourant le port du niqab aux cérémonies de citoyenneté.

Par ailleurs, en 2007, les conservateurs s’étaient engagés à interdire le vote à visage couvert, mais ils avaient fait marche arrière en février 2014, au moment de réformer la loi électorale.

Plusieurs citoyens ont choisi de protester contre l’absence de balises en se présentant le visage masqué de diverses façons au moment du scrutin fédéral d’octobre dernier.

Alors que le vote à visage couvert est interdit au Québec depuis huit ans, le gouvernement de M. Couillard a déposé un projet de loi qui fixerait la même obligation lors de la prestation de services publics.

« Le cas du visage voilé va au-delà de cette question, au-delà de la question religieuse, a-t-il dit vendredi. C’est une question d’image de la femme dans une société, du message qu’on envoie aux gens. (…) Pour le Québec et dans l’histoire du Québec dans l’état actuel de nos valeurs communes, je pense que c’est un geste qu’il faut faire et qu’on va poursuivre. »

M. Couillard a affirmé que M. Trudeau et lui sont malgré tout d’accord « sur les grands enjeux, sur les grands principes ».

« Il n’est pas interdit qu’il y ait des éléments où on a des approches différentes, a-t-il dit. Il ne faut pas rechercher l’unanimité et la constance à tout prix. »

M. Trudeau a insisté sur la place du débat sur les symboles religieux dans les dernières campagnes électorales québécoise et fédérale.

« Nous nous situons dans cette lignée de refuser la politique qui divise ou qui vise à faire peur aux gens, a-t-il dit. On a tous deux gagné des élections dans les dernières années en étant raisonnables et ouverts dans le respect des droits. »

Source: Voile intégral: Couillard confiant de pouvoir légiférer malgré l’approche d’Ottawa | Alexandre Robillard | Politique québécoise

Unmuzzle the ambassador of religious freedom, Conservatives tell Dion

My sense is that Andrew Bennett’s time is up.

Open question whether they fold back the function into the Human Rights Division or keep it as a stand-alone division (6 FTEs). Arguments can be made for both approaches:

With Donald Trump calling earlier this week for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the country’s representatives can “figure out what’s going on”, it seemed like a great opportunity for Canada’s ambassador of religious freedom to say…something.

It is his mandate, after all, to “promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.”

But since the Liberals were elected in October, Andrew Bennett has been suspiciously quiet, leading many to speculate Canada’s first ambassador of religious freedom could also be its last.

Though Bennett, who was appointed to the Harper government-created position in February 2013, released a statement on the International Day for Tolerance in mid November, Global Affairs Canada has turned down requests from multiple media outlets for interviews.

“I will have to politely decline your interview request with Ambassador Bennett at this time,” Global Affairs spokesperson John Babcock told iPolitics in an emailed statement right around that time.

“I will say that the promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada’s constructive leadership in the world. Freedom of religion or belief, including the ability to worship in peace and security, is a universal human right in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Toronto Star was told during the campaign that he’d be available after the election, and CTV‘s Don Martin lashed out on Twitter this week after being declined yet another interview request with Bennett.

In Question Period on Wednesday, Conservative MP Garnett Genuis sought clarification from the government, echoing the familiar Liberal jab at the Conservatives’ muzzling of federal government scientists.

“Mr. Speaker, members of the media are telling us that they have been unable to get hold of the ambassador for religious freedom since the new government was sworn in. The ambassador has previously been a highly effective advocate internationally, earning widespread acclaim and achieving substantial results. At a time when religious minorities are more vulnerable than ever before, why is the ambassador being muzzled?”

Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion responded, “Mr. Speaker, that is quite rich coming from this party. We do not muzzle officials at all. They did. They did it all over the place. We will fight to protect the right of freedom of religion, and all freedoms will be protected as much as possible by this government.”

Unmuzzle the ambassador of religious freedom, Conservatives tell Dion

Egan: Algonquin’s money-losing Saudi campus raises ethical questions

Valid questions:

Why does the world go nuts when the University of Ottawa student federation cancels a yoga class – for lack of cultural sensitivity – but no one bats an eye when Algonquin College opens a men-only campus in Saudi Arabia, only to lose $1 million in public money in one year?

Algonquin, the city’s leading college with 20,000 students, has a mission statement that details its core values. One of them is “integrity,” described thusly: “We believe in trust, honestly and fairness in all relationships and transactions.”

Another is “respect,” put this way: “We value the dignity and uniqueness of the individual. We value the equity and diversity in our community.”

How you square those values in a country with a human rights record like Saudi Arabia is a mystery. It has been said — and written — that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne would not only be barred from attending Algonquin’s campus in Jazan, she could well be arrested for being open about her sexuality. If she tried driving a car to class, Lord knows what would happen.

(This is not histrionics: public floggings and beheadings are common in a country with so-called religious police. It hardly helps when you visit the Human Rights Watch website and the first story on Saudi Arabia is: “Poet Sentenced to Death for Apostasy.”)

Nonetheless, a couple of the Wynne ministries were only too eager to announce this great adventure in international education in 2013.

The optics are terrible, frankly, gender inequality being one of many sore points.

The college said this planned “revenue generator” was important at a time of reduced funding, presumably from the Ontario treasury. At capacity, annual revenue in Jazan was to peak at more than $25 million.

Well, does this not have a “sell-your-soul” feel to it? It’s OK if it makes money? Setting aside that whopper, the bottom-line predictions turned out to be wrong.

The campus lost $983,000 in 2014/15 and the estimate for the current year is a modest profit of $232,000, followed by projected profits of $2 million and $3.6 million. Well, we shall see. It might be the moment to point out Algonquin’s operating deficit for 2016/17 is projected to be near the $5-million mark.

This can probably be parsed eight ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is easy to find. This is a public institution. It is not a for-profit corporation. It needs to think pretty hard about gambling with the public’s money, with an eye on profit, to provide a service to citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

The people of Ontario — is it not so — are subsidizing oil sheiks?

The arguments are not lost on the school. It produced a strategic plan in 2014 that discussed the human rights records in countries where Algonquin does or might collaborate.

“Algonquin believes that education is a powerful, effective force for positive change in any country,” it reads.

“For these reasons, while some feel Algonquin should not partner with countries that do not offer the same human rights protections as Canada, the College is convinced that working with those genuinely invested in change can yield beneficial outcomes. Saudi Arabia and China, for example, are investing heavily in education and have explicit policies encouraging their educational institutions to partner with those in the west.”

It is also worth asking whether the Saudi deal could have been structured so that Ontario taxpayers were protected. Instead, the college is paid on a performance-based model that takes into account things like attendance and graduation rates.

Wonderful if students stay in school. Not so good if they drop out, or flunk, which they did in alarming numbers in 2013-14: of the 600 students in the English foundation program, only 20 per cent completed the year.

Things are improving, however. This year, the school has 800 students, including 200 in actual diploma programs. So, perhaps, financially, the corner has been turned.

This hardly solves the conflict in values. Institutions of higher learning should be places where ideas — even crazy ones about yoga — can be expressed without fear of reprisal. Hard to imagine this is the case at Algonquin’s Saudi campus, where students are learning how to be accountants and “truck and coach technicians.”

Source: Egan: Algonquin’s money-losing Saudi campus raises ethical questions | Ottawa Citizen

Charlie Hebdo Editor: Europe’s Problem Is Racism, Not Islamophobia | TIME

Deceased Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier on the need to focus on racism, and the risks of focusing on Islamophobia. Valid arguments, that will likely provoke some debate.

In Canadian context, the previous government’s almost exclusive focus on antisemitism meant broader anti-racism initiatives and programming were neglected. Expect some of this to change with the Liberal government as part of its diversity and inclusion agenda, although likely with a mix of broader messaging and programming and specific community focus (i.e., antisemitism, anti-Muslim):

Minority pressure group activists who seek to impose the concept of “Islamophobia” on judicial and political authorities have only one goal: to persuade the victims of racism to proclaim themselves Muslim. Forgive me, but the fact that racists may also be Islamophobic is essentially incidental. They are racists first, and merely use Islam to target their intended victim: the foreigner or person of foreign extraction. By taking only the racist’s Islamophobia into account, we minimize the danger of his racism. Yesterday’s anti-racism activist is turning into the salesman of a highly specialized commodity: a niche form of discrimination.

The fight against racism is a fight against all forms of racism; but what is the fight against Islamophobia against? Is it against criticizing a religion or against abhorring its practitioners because they are of foreign descent? Racists have a field day when we debate whether it is racist to say the Koran is a useless rag. If tomorrow the Muslims of France were to convert to Catholicism or renounce all religion, it wouldn’t make the least bit of difference to the racists—they would continue to hold these foreigners or French citizens of foreign descent responsible for every affliction.

Okay, so Mouloud and Gérard are Muslims. Mouloud is of North African extraction and comes from a Muslim family; Gérard is of European origin and comes from a Catholic family. Gérard has converted to Islam. Both are trying to rent the same apartment. Assuming they have similar incomes, which of the two Muslims is more likely to get the apartment? The Arab-looking fellow or the white guy? It’s not the Muslim who will be turned away; it’s the Arab. The fact that the Arab bears no outward sign of belonging to the Muslim faith changes nothing. Yet what does the anti-Islamophobia activist do? He charges religious discrimination instead of decrying racism….

Social discrimination, while the subject of much less debate than religious discrimination because it is manifested more insidiously and discreetly, is nevertheless far more predominant in France. Managers choose their future employees less on the basis of their religious membership, true or supposed, than, for instance, on their place of residence. Between the Mouloud who lives in upscale Neuilly-sur-Seine and the Mouloud who lives in the down-at-heel banlieue of Argenteuil, which of the two, assuming they are of equal competence, is more likely to get the job? Yet who ever talks about this kind of discrimination? People are massively discriminated against based on their social class, but since a large proportion of the poor—whom no one wants hanging around their place of work, their neighborhood, or their building—is made up of people of foreign descent and, among these, a great many of Muslim origin, the Islamic activist will claim that the problem is Islamophobia.

Source: Charlie Hebdo Editor: Europe’s Problem Is Racism, Not Islamophobia | TIME

If Donald Trump were campaigning in Canada, could he be charged for hate speech?

Good comparative analysis:

On Monday Donald Trump called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” Despite universal outrage, the billionaire presidential candidate has only doubled down on his vow, the latest in a string of anti-minority comments ranging from the offensive to the downright absurd. Even respectable commentators have started calling him a fascist.

These comments are in bad taste at best and hateful at worst, why are there no legal repercussions for Trump making them? 

The short answer is because it’s the United States. The U.S. has extremely strong protections for free speech, which is only considered hateful if it will incite direct and immediate violence. Trump pontificating at a podium or in an interview doesn’t qualify. Until he starts an angry mob, he’s free to say whatever he likes.

So for argument’s sake, what if this were happening in Canada? Would anything be different?

Trump’s most recent comments might offend you, but they likely still couldn’t be prosecuted under Canadian law. Though hate speech laws in Canada are broader than they are south of the border, speech needs to meet some very specific requirements to be considered hateful here, too.

Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code states that hate speech “incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” and where the comments are made in a public place.

This would pose two problems for charges under hate speech law.

“[T]he immediacy of the breach of the peace would make it extremely difficult to convict someone for saying what Trump said,” said Faisal Kutty, a Toronto lawyer and human rights activist.

Trump also isn’t making any outright claims despite the subtext of his statements, said Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor.

“That’s the main problem with trying to fit his current statement under the hate speech law: it doesn’t have any real hateful content in the sense of making a claim about the nature of character of Muslims,” said Moon. “Of course, why should they be excluded other than, presumably, on the belief that they are somehow dangerous? But he leaves that slightly open.”

But I’ve seen and heard people call his comments hate speech. What does that mean?

That’s due to the technicality of law. While his comments might be considered hateful, the burden of proof under the law is higher. The comments must meet specific criteria to be prosecuted, and his comments likely don’t meet these standards.

What about some of his other comments? He’s said a lot more extreme things in the past.

Some of his previous remarks could more easily be prosecuted, like his remarks about Mexican immigrants during his announcement speech on June 16: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

“That is the very stuff of hate speech, and a claim like that made in Canada might well constitute hate speech contrary to the Criminal Code,” Moon said.

So why are Canadian and American hate speech laws so different?

It’s probably due to a lot of factors, but part of it traces back to the founding of the country. America is old, and so are some of the laws, said David Matas, a Winnipeg-based lawyer and author of Bloody Words: Hate and Free Speech.

“In the United States you’ve got a bill of rights which is very old.  It comes from the 18thcentury. Everywhere else, the concept of rights is post-Holocaust, post-Declaration of Human Rights. Being ahead of the gun at the time has left them far behind when it comes to the 21st century.”

Source: If Donald Trump were campaigning in Canada, could he be charged for hate speech?

Diversity Makes You Brighter – The New York Times

Other studies have also shown, I believe, the advantages of diversity in reducing automatic thinking and group think:

Upholding affirmative action in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that it served the intellectual purpose of a university. Writing for the majority, she described how the University of Michigan aspired to enhance diversity not only to improve the prospects of certain groups of students, but also to enrich everyone’s education.

Ms. Fisher [the applicant of the case before the US Supreme Court] argues that diversity may be achieved in other ways, without considering race. Before resorting to the use of race or ethnicity in admissions, the University of Texas must offer “actual evidence, rather than over broad generalizations about the value of favored or disfavored groups” to show that “the alleged interest was substantial enough to justify the use of race.”

Our research provides such evidence. Diversity improves the way people think. By disrupting conformity, racial and ethnic diversity prompts people to scrutinize facts, think more deeply and develop their own opinions. Our findings show that such diversity actually benefits everyone, minorities and majority alike.

To study the effects of ethnic and racial diversity, we conducted a series of experiments in which participants competed in groups to find accurate answers to problems. In a situation much like a classroom, we started by presenting each participant individually with information and a task: to calculate accurate prices for simulated stocks. First, we collected individual answers, and then (to see how committed participants were to their answers), we let them buy and sell those stocks to the others, using real money. Participants got to keep any profit they made.

When trading, participants could observe the behavior of their counterparts and decide what to make of it. Think of yourself in similar situations: Interacting with others can bring new ideas into view, but it can also cause you to adopt popular but wrong ones.

It depends how deeply you contemplate what you observe. So if you think that something is worth $100, but others are bidding $120 for it, you may defer to their judgment and up the ante (perhaps contributing to a price bubble) or you might dismiss them and stand your ground.

We assigned each participant to a group that was either homogeneous or diverse (meaning that it included at least one participant of another ethnicity or race). To ascertain that we were measuring the effects of diversity, not culture or history, we examined a variety of ethnic and racial groups. In Texas, we included the expected mix of whites, Latinos and African-Americans. In Singapore, we studied people who were Chinese, Indian and Malay. (The results were published with our co-authors, Evan P. Apfelbaum, Mark Bernard, Valerie L. Bartelt and Edward J. Zajac.)

The findings were striking. When participants were in diverse company, their answers were 58 percent more accurate. The prices they chose were much closer to the true values of the stocks. As they spent time interacting in diverse groups, their performance improved.

In homogeneous groups, whether in the United States or in Asia, the opposite happened. When surrounded by others of the same ethnicity or race, participants were more likely to copy others, in the wrong direction. Mistakes spread as participants seemingly put undue trust in others’ answers, mindlessly imitating them. In the diverse groups, across ethnicities and locales, participants were more likely to distinguish between wrong and accurate answers. Diversity brought cognitive friction that enhanced deliberation.

For our study, we intentionally chose a situation that required analytical thinking, seemingly unaffected by ethnicity or race. We wanted to understand whether the benefits of diversity stem, as the common thinking has it, from some special perspectives or skills of minorities.

What we actually found is that these benefits can arise merely from the very presence of minorities. In the initial responses, which were made before participants interacted, there were no statistically significant differences between participants in the homogeneous or diverse groups. Minority members did not bring some special knowledge.

The differences emerged only when participants began interacting with one another. When surrounded by people “like ourselves,” we are easily influenced, more likely to fall for wrong ideas. Diversity prompts better, critical thinking. It contributes to error detection. It keeps us from drifting toward miscalculation.

Our findings suggest that racial and ethnic diversity matter for learning, the core purpose of a university. Increasing diversity is not only a way to let the historically disadvantaged into college, but also to promote sharper thinking for everyone.

Source: Diversity Makes You Brighter – The New York Times

Distinct societies: Why Canada, U.S., diverge on Syrian refugees: Adams

Michael Adams on the contrast between Canada and the USA:

Americans certainly enjoy unique latitude in the individual pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of happiness doesn’t always look like much fun. In an environment where there is a lot to fear (financial ruin in an unforgiving system, illness leading to bankruptcy, gun violence inflicted by a stranger, a family member, or an unsupervised toddler), it is perhaps not surprising that some are eager to control the one variable that seems like a no-brainer: don’t give jihadists a green card. But one of the San Bernardino jihadis seems to have been born in Chicago. The “big and beautiful wall” Donald Trump proposed to build to keep dangerous people out of America would require complex architecture indeed. No society is or can be perfectly safe. But societies that have traditionally put a little more stock in collective well-being seem to have better odds. To be fair, those safer, quieter places have also not been the birthplaces of Apple, Google, Tesla, Amazon, Wikipedia and the first man on the moon.

As I have written elsewhere, despite the current apparent spasm of xenophobic sentiment and the din of gun violence, our values research suggests that in fact Americans’ values are tilting in a slightly more Canadian direction – toward greater openness to social difference, a more nuanced sense of personal autonomy, and even a less suspicious attitude toward government. The shift is by no means a sea change, but the election of Mr. Obama (twice) was indeed the product of deep and meaningful changes in the electorate, no matter how lonely he may sometimes appear in White House press briefings these days. As younger voters, women (especially single women), and America’s diverse, city-dwelling voters become more influential politically, America is changing. But those who are on average less keen on this direction of social change (older, more conservative, whiter, more religious and patriarchal voters) have some innings left, as the tremendous polarization of U.S. political discourse attests.

What will become of America in the next election cycle and beyond? And how will the noisy debates and decisions of our neighbour to the south influence our own public conversations and political aspirations? As we wait to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees, Canada feels like a fairly peaceable corner of a turbulent world. Recent reports suggest, however, that of the more than 25,000 refugees interviewed by the UN, fewer than 2,000 were interested in coming to Canada. Many are likely hoping for reunification with family members in Europe. It would be interesting to know how many are holding out for their shot at the American Dream.

Source: Distinct societies: Why Canada, U.S., diverge on Syrian refugees – The Globe and Mail