Barbara Kay: Radical Islam’s western fangirls

Not a great fan of Kay in general but I have to admit having similar questions (as with LGBTQ). Remember a tweet from one asking why Iranian Canadians were not similarly supportive with the obvious reason most of them fled the Islamic Republic of Iran:

….Hamas’s leaders knew that in these quarters, their atrocities would be perceived through a political rather than a moral lens. So they correctly assumed their pogrom would be characterized as “resistance” rather than wanton iniquity.

Hamas terrorists didn’t even shy away from filming themselves torturing women and children, which they should have considered a risk. After all, plangent appeals for the world to condemn Israel’s alleged genocide in Gaza, based on the war deaths of their own women and children, are a staple of the pro-Palestinian party line. The sight of the bloodied and raped female victims on October 7 could have been — should have been — a deal-breaker for feminists everywhere.

But it seems Hamas knew their female audience, too. One of the striking features about Hamas’s useful-idiot entourage is the robust support it enjoys from progressive women, in glaring contrast to the robust revulsion that should have prevailed among feminists.

Some women have publicly denied the vicious sexual torture inflicted on Israeli women, or shrugged it off as a sidebar to the sacred mission of “resistance.” This, they parrot, may entail “any means necessary,” including the degradation of women for no purpose other than malicious male pleasure. Evidence of western women’s indifference to Israeli women’s victimhood can be found in the fact that UN Women waited for months after the pogrom before condemning the rapes or Hamas.

A subset of anti-Zionist women appear to have taken their support to the next level. On some campuses, protesters are taking part in Islamic prayers. At UCLA, and elsewhere, to the consternation of some Muslim women living under Islamic regimes where the hijab is a symbol of oppression, some white female students bowing down in submission to Allah have taken to wearing hijabs in solidarity with their Palestinian comrades. Some young people have even reportedly converted to Islam as a result of the Israel-Hamas war, and others may soon follow suit….

Source: Barbara Kay: Radical Islam’s western fangirls

Richler: Is the Jewish moment in North America over?

Interesting long read:

….But later tides have washed the North American beach clean for other groups to land and make their mark. Jews, by virtue of their success, are seen as a part of the establishment now. Not allies, as Jews were to African Americans during the civil-rights era, but “white-adjacent” and fair targets for shunning. We are living, now, in a time in which our “common humanity” matters less than the particular, than the difference in our identities so often brandished to set a community apart. It may only be passing, but at least for today whatever qualities we may share falter before the imperative of fair representation so that where, earlier, Jewish authors dominated bookstore shelves, the cinema, Broadway and television, now a story by a Jew is unlikely to be chosen by, say, the CBC, over a Black, Indigenous, Asian, South Asian or Muslim one.

Which is a positive and as it should be. Jewish novels are not so novel, their stories, their idiom are familiar, and any reader, any patron of any art, craves the new and what it teaches for good reason. Through art we learn about each other and how to share the spaces, real and abstract, that we live in. Other communities’ stories are invigorating the arts and it is their turn for good reason.

But for Jews there is a negative in this receding from public view and therefore interest that is, when it comes to immigration and settlement, the ordinary historical order of things. For the integration of Jews into North American life – what the writer and critic Dara Horn, author of People Love Dead Jews, has called the diaspora’s “fantasy” of acceptance – was, in North America, realized. And this acceptance was doubly important to Jews because it constituted, in the second half of the 20th century, a mirroring of the establishment of the nation of Israel, a state for a stateless people, and the hopes it represented. The stark truth is that a loss of security in either country brings its own existential peril: No place in America or no place in Israel, each dour prospect augurs in a new iteration of the precarity Jews knew in the Middle East and Europe for two millennia.

How did this come to be? Well, through simple demographics for a start, the 20th-century waves of Jewish immigration vastly superseded by the arrival into this continent of peoples whose own traumatic histories either do not intersect with the Jewish ones or contradict them. This demographic shift is one that politicians, many caught off guard, have been compelled to recognize – we are democracies, after all – and especially after its furious acceleration by the entry into social and political arenas of younger generations for whom terms such as “the Holocaust” and “genocide” have markedly different meanings.

No longer is the Holocaust a literal burning – instead, a confluence of horrid circumstances that may even be inadvertent is enough. No longer is genocide the realization of the meticulously planned and organized murderous intent of a specific, targeted people. It can be cultural, or, as we are seeing today in Gaza, a crushing, deleteriously ham-fisted and ultimately self-defeating military campaign that is the result of a profound and inalienable existential fear in a grievously injured population whose motives there is no will to understand, let alone permit. In this age in which “lived experience” is ultimately what validates a truth, the manner in which Jews remember both the Holocaust and the Nazi attempt at genocide is not shared. Jewish references are historical and effectively redundant. They are not this generation’s, and useful only as weapons to be turned back against Israel and the Jewish “Zionist” by activists and also governments benefiting from the distraction – Colombia, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Turkey. (I used to think that, yes, to be anti-Zionist or anti-Israel did not necessarily mean a person was antisemitic but now, what with Jews basically regarded as colonists “from the river to the sea” – well, I’m not so sure.)…

Source: Is the Jewish moment in North America over?

It was once a center of Islamic learning. Now Mali’s historic city of Djenné mourns lack of visitors

Sad:

…Djenné is one of the oldest towns in sub-Saharan Africa and served as a market center and an important link in the trans-Saharan gold trade. Almost 2,000 of its traditional houses still survive in the old town.

The Grand Mosque, built in 1907 on the site of an older mosque dating back to the 13th century, is re-plastered every year by local residents in a ritual that brings together the entire city. The towering, earth-colored structure requires a new layer of mud before the rainy season starts, or it would fall into disrepair.

Women are responsible for carrying water from the nearby river to mix with clay and rice hulls to make the mud used to plaster the mosque. Adding the new layer of mud is a job reserved for men. The joyful ritual is a source of pride for a city that has fallen on hard times, uniting people of all ages.

Bamouyi Trao Traoré, one of Djenné’s lead masons, says they work as a team from the very start. This year’s replastering took place earlier this month.

“Each one of us goes to a certain spot to supervise,” he said. “This is how we do it until the whole thing is done. We organize ourselves, we supervise the younger ones.”

Mali’s conflict erupted following a coup in 2012 that created a power vacuum, allowing jihadi groups to seize control of key northern cities. A French-led military operation pushed them out of the urban centers the following year, but the success was short-lived.

The jihadis regrouped and launched relentless attacks on the Malian military, as well as the United Nations, French and regional forces in the country. The militants proclaimed allegiance to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group.

Sidi Keita, the director of Mali’s national tourism agency in the capital of Bamako, says the drop in tourism was sharp following the violence….

Source: It was once a center of Islamic learning. Now Mali’s historic city of Djenné mourns lack of visitors

Silverstein: The blind spots in diversity and inclusion

From Pizza Pizza, some interesting broader ways of looking at diversity in terms of use of health and wellness plans:

When Pizza Pizza decided in 2021 to form a diversity and inclusion council, one of the first things we did was send out a survey designed to give us a foundational snapshot of our workforce.

The results told us about 60 per cent of corporate employees who participated were from racialized groups and more than 40 per cent were women. Almost 80 per cent said they viewed Pizza Pizza as a diverse organization.

Despite the inherent limitations of survey data, our results were a good starting point for building our initial slate of diversity and inclusion policies and programs. But we knew it wasn’t enough.

A key challenge with diversity and inclusion efforts is they tend to address only the diversity that’s visible and known, and organizations often have limited insight into the full range of interests and needs within their ranks. This limited perspective is caused by a number of reasons, including companies’ reliance on employees’ self-disclosure as well as the widespread use of tick-box questionnaires that leave little room for anything that falls outside pre-defined diversity groupings.

Consequently, many organizations must navigate forward with blind spots in their strategy, potentially missing opportunities to strengthen their culture and corporate brand. But how do you address blind spots you don’t know exist?

You need to think – and look – outside the box.

At Pizza Pizza we’ve started to use data analytics to find hidden patterns of inequality as well as unexplored areas of opportunity to strengthen our diversity and inclusion strategy. One example of how we’re doing this is through analysis of aggregated, anonymized data pertaining to use of company-sponsored health and wellness benefits. Do data patterns show, for example, more frequent use of our family resources? Are there increased claims for particular drug categories or health services, such as mental health or physiotherapy?

We undertake this and other types of data analyses with the goal of identifying unmet needs we could potentially address with new programs. For example, we might learn from our analysis that we need to expand our focus on wellness. This insight could also lead to actions that ensure stronger awareness of the resources available to employees, and that our leaders are trained to handle conversations around physical and health wellness challenges.

This data-driven approach doesn’t apply to all blind spots. Some instances of “unconscious bias” and inequity are hard to substantiate, but we know that when they happen, they erode an organization’s culture of inclusion. Consider, for instance, a department’s habit of automatically assigning overtime work to employees with no spouses or children. Or think about the manager who answers emails during meetings while lower-level team members sit and wait quietly. Would that manager behave that way in the presence of a peer or a more senior leader?

Ultimately, building a solid strategy – one with minimal blind spots – is about instilling and nurturing the right values within the organization. We do this by training leaders and team members and by having ongoing conversations about diversity. We also do this by asking questions.

Since we launched our first employee engagement survey in 2021, we’ve continued to ask what and how we can do better to make our employees feel like they belong. Through one survey we learned that our team members felt there was a need for more inclusive language. That prompted us to work with our partners at Pride Toronto to organize lunch-and-learns focused on inclusive language along with allyship.

These sessions proved to be relevant beyond the 2SLGBTQI+ context. Inclusive language and allyship, we all learned, are useful in virtually any dialogue or circumstance.

We know that as the country’s demographic makeup evolves, our diversity and inclusion strategy will inevitably run into more blind spots. Our increasingly multigenerational, racialized and gender-diverse workforce continues to be vulnerable to all manner of unconscious bias, which is why we also continue to fortify the strong culture we’ve built so far.

We know there are emerging needs among our team members that are likely to grow in urgency in the coming years, as many start families or, as we’re seeing with our more experienced workers, become caregivers to aging parents. We’ll need to adjust our programs accordingly.

As it is today, an evidence-based approach will be critical going forward, along with an ongoing commitment to a truly diverse and inclusive culture.

Amy Silverstein is the senior director of People for Pizza Pizza Ltd.

Source: The blind spots in diversity and inclusion

Half of racialized people have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years

Latest GSS. Interestingly overall observation “Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination.”

But “For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%).:

Over one in three people (36%) aged 15 years and older living in Canada have experienced some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the latest wave of the Canadian Social Survey. These experiences occurred in a variety of settings—while attending school, applying for jobs, working, shopping, and seeking healthcare, among others. The results, based on new data from the survey collected from January to March 2024, suggest that while the proportion of self-reported incidents of discrimination has remained relatively stable since 2021, discrimination and unfair treatment continue to disproportionally affect racialized groups, Indigenous people, women, 2SLGBTQ+ populations, people living with disabilities, and young adults. 

Discrimination and unfair treatment is a headline indicator in Canada’s Quality of Life framework. This framework enables the federal government to identify future policy priorities, to build on previous actions to strengthen evidence-based decision-making and budgeting, and to improve the well-being of Canadians. 

Racialized people, especially Canadian-born Black people, are more likely to face discrimination

Using pooled data from six waves of the Canadian Social Survey, it is possible to examine the intersection of various characteristics of people who have experienced discrimination. From 2021 to 2024, just over half (51%) of racialized people aged 15 years and older reported experiencing discrimination or unfair treatment within the five years prior to the survey. This was nearly double the proportion (27%) recorded for non-racialized people. Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination. 

Reflecting the diversity of intersectional identities in Canada, experiences of discrimination varied across intersecting identities of racialized people and immigrants. Consistent with previous findings, reports of discrimination were more common among the Canadian-born racialized population (57%) than among racialized people who recently immigrated to Canada (48%) or who immigrated more than 10 years ago (49%). This difference was most pronounced among Black Canadians, with Canadian-born Black people being significantly more likely to report having experienced discrimination (71%) than either recent (51%) or established (59%) Black immigrants. 

The higher prevalence of experiences of discrimination among racialized groups was perceived to be largely motivated by race or ethnicity. Specifically, discrimination based on race or skin colour was the leading perceived reason for discrimination against racialized people (66%). This was followed by discrimination due to ethnicity or culture (49%), accent (28%), and language (27%). 

Discrimination is also more common among other historically marginalized groups such as 2SLGBTQ+populations, Indigenous people, and people with a disability

Chart 1 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, perceived reason for discrimination, by sex and total population, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 1: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, perceived reason for discrimination, by sex and total population, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Reasons behind discriminatory treatment varied among groups, as did the actual prevalence of discrimination. For instance, the leading perceived reasons behind discrimination and unfair treatment against 2SLGBTQ+ populations were sexual orientation, physical appearance, and sex. This population was also nearly twice as likely as the non-2SLGBTQ+ population to face some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the survey (61% versus 32%). 

Among First Nations people living off reserve, Métis, and Inuit, 46% reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 33% of non-Indigenous people. The reasons for these experiences were largely perceived to be due to Indigenous identity and physical appearance. Indigenous people (23%) were also nearly twice as likely to be discriminated against due to a physical or mental disability compared with the non-Indigenous population (12%). 

Elevated levels of discrimination were also recorded for people living with a disability. In all, 44% of people with a disability reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 32% of people without a disability. The most frequently-cited perceived reasons for discrimination against people with a disability were due to physical or mental disability, physical appearance, and age. 

Age and sex also played a role in both prevalence of and perceived reason for discrimination. Experiences of discrimination consistently decreased with age, from a high of 45% among those aged 15 to 34 to a low of 17% among people aged 65 years and older. This may be explained by the fact that the racialized population and people who are 2SLGBTQ+ tend to be younger

Perceived reasons for discrimination varied by people in different age groups, with race or skin colour (38%) and physical appearance (38%) being the most common reasons among those aged 15 to 34, and age (50%) being the most common reason for people aged 65 years and older. There were also sex differences in prevalence of discrimination: 37% of women reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 30% of men. Women were more often discriminated against because of their sex or age, while for men, discrimination was more often on the basis of their race or skin colour, ethnicity or culture, language, accent, or religion. 

The work environment is the most common context where discrimination is reported

Chart 2 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, situation in which discrimination was experienced, by sex, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 2: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, situation in which discrimination was experienced, by sex, Canada, 2021 to 2024

There were differences in the context in which discrimination was experienced across groups, though the workplace (41%) was the most common location of discrimination or unfair treatment, whether it was while working, applying for a job, or seeking a promotion. This was followed by discrimination experienced in a store, bank, or restaurant (33%) and while using public areas (29%). 

While differences in the prevalence of discrimination did not significantly differ between racialized groups, the contexts in which they occurred did. For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%). 

Conversely, Chinese people were less likely than other racialized groups to report experiencing discrimination while attending school (17% versus 23%), in the workplace (26% versus 44%), when crossing the border into Canada (5% versus 8%), and when seeking housing (3% versus 8%). Similarly, reports of discrimination towards Chinese people were lower than reports of discrimination against non-racialized people in the workplace (41%) and against non-racialized people when seeking housing (6%). 

People who experience discrimination also report lower measures of quality of life

Chart 3 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, confidence in selected types of institutions, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 3: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, confidence in selected types of institutions, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Experiences of discrimination and unfair treatment may influence overall perceptions of health and wellbeing. People who experienced discrimination in the five years prior to the survey compared with those who did not were more than twice as likely to report fair or poor mental health (31% versus 14%), were less likely to report high life satisfaction (37% versus 57%) and were less likely to report high levels of meaning and purpose (46% versus 63%). And while two-thirds of people who experienced discrimination (66%) reported that they always or often had someone they could depend on, this was lower than those who had not experienced discrimination (79%). 

People who experienced discrimination were also less likely to report a strong sense of belonging to their local community compared with people who did not experience discrimination (39% versus 51%). Furthermore, they were less likely to report confidence in various institutions, including the police, school, courts, Canadian Parliament, and media. These results were consistent with a previous study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic using crowdsourced data

Source: Half of racialized people have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years

Muslim, Jewish voters leaning away from the federal Liberals as Gaza war grinds on: poll

Hard to reconcile Muslim and Jewish perspectives. Middle of the road is often road kill, as is the zig-zagging of the government:

A new poll suggests Muslim and Jewish voters are leaning away from the federal Liberals in voting intentions — a possible sign that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s efforts to straddle gaps in public opinion over the Israel-Hamas war are falling short.

The new poll of voting intentions by the Angus Reid Institute says the federal NDP is leading the Liberals among Muslim voters 41 per cent to 31 per cent, while the federal Conservatives are beating the Liberals among Jewish voters 42 per cent to 33 per cent.

“This does feel to the Liberals, in terms of their outreach around diaspora politics, to now be a fairly untenable situation,” Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, told CBC News.

“The Jewish diaspora is now saying, ‘You haven’t gone far enough in condemning Hamas and condemning the violence and stopping antisemitism in Canada.’ And you’ve got pro-Palestinian voters and populations, many of whom are Muslim, obviously saying, ‘You haven’t gone far enough to condemn the Israeli Defence Forces for its counterattack in Gaza.'”

The data shows only 15 per cent of Muslims polled say they would vote for the Conservatives, while just 20 per cent of Jewish voters say they would support the New Democrats.

Kurl said that under Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals have made a concerted effort to appeal to Muslim voters since 2015, when the Conservatives under Stephen Harper ran an election campaign that included controversial promises like a ban on the niqab and a “barbaric cultural practices” tip line.

An Environics Institute poll looking back on that election found 65 per cent of Muslims who said they voted cast their ballots for the Liberals, while only 10 per cent voted for the NDP.

“We saw the Liberals go out and court Muslims in Canada to vote Liberal,” Kurl said.

She said the Liberals appear to be feeling the fallout from trying to appease both Muslim and Jewish voters since Hamas’s attack on Israel of Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials say up to 1,200 Israelis were killed and 253 were taken hostage in that attack. Health authorities in Gaza say the Israeli military operation launched in response has killed almost 35,000 people….

Source: Muslim, Jewish voters leaning away from the federal Liberals as Gaza war grinds on: poll

Buruma: The privileged Gaza protesters

Of note:

The problem is that the “anti-Zionist” cause gaining ground on college campuses is often incoherent. Its ideological underpinnings tend to see everything as interconnected: police brutality, global warming, U.S. imperialism, white supremacy, European colonialism, trans- and homophobia and now the Israel-Hamas war. In the words of a Cornell University student, interviewed by The New York Times, “climate justice” is “rooted in the same struggles of imperialism, capitalism – things like that. I think that’s very true of this conflict, of the genocide in Palestine.”

Zionism, a disparate 19th-century Jewish nationalist movement that contained religious, secular, left-wing and right-wing elements, has now become synonymous with colonialism, imperialism and racism. To be a good, humane and moral person, the thinking goes, one must be an “anti-Zionist.” …

Perhaps that is why students and faculty at Columbia University showed the way in protesting Israel’s war in Gaza, and were swiftly followed by activists at other Ivy League schools. Whether this will really help Palestinians gain their own state, where they can lead better and more dignified lives under a freely chosen government, is unclear. But that may never have been the main point. As is often the case with protest movements in America, this one is really all about the U.S.

Source: The privileged Gaza protesters

Public service notebook: BCAS applauds government’s commitment to update the Employment Equity Act

The question remains whether there is adequate time for the current government to present and pass legislation prior to the election. Unlikely that a likely Conservative government would be so inclined:

Nicholas Marcus Thompson, chief executive officer of the Black Class Action Secretariat, said he was “very pleased” with the federal government’s commitment to “modernize” the Employment Equity Act, including by expanding designated equity groups, as outlined in Budget 2024.

The government first announced it would be updating the act to create new groups for Black and 2SLGBTQI+ people in December, alongside the release of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force’s final report, which included that recommendation. The four current groups include women, people with disabilities, Indigenous people and members of visible minorities.

In April, the government reiterated its plans, announcing in the budget its “intention to propose legislative amendments” to the act.

“It will certainly go a long way in terms of addressing specifically anti-Black racism and discrimination,” said Thompson, who noted it “would have been nice” to see more measures around delayed mental health supports for Black employees, first announced in Budget 2022, as well as funding for the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent included in the budget. “Black folks will not be excluded, hidden in the visible minorities category as it stands.”

In an interview, Anand said there was no funding for Black public servants included in the latest budget as funds remained from previous years.

“It’s not the case that we are forgetting that we want programming to support them, not at all,” said Anand, who in February announced the first initiatives of the government’s “action plan” for Black public servants.

BCAS filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Employment Equity Act in 2020, arguing that it violated the Charter of Rights by discriminating against and excluding Black employees.

Source: Public service notebook: Mediation and measures to prevent hearing injuries

‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

Latest publication by ACS focussing on citizenship issues, based upon a conference last year. Good range of perspectives and I encourage you to check it out.

My contribution below where I continue to reinforce themes of concern to me:

Time to take citizenship seriously

The Census 2021 revelation that the naturalization rate of recent immigrants (five to nine
years) in Canada had plummeted to 45.7 percent in the 2011-15 census period compared 60.4
percent for the equivalent period from the 2016 Census provided a needed shock for the
government to take citizenship more seriously. An earlier Statistics Canada study noted a longer-
term trend of declining naturalization which reinforced that need. The analysis indicated that the
main factors influencing naturalization were family income, knowledge of official languages,
and educational attainment.


Some factors are outside the Canadian government’s purview. Whether or not an immigrant
source country permits or prohibits dual citizenship, and the extent to which it enforces a
prohibition, affects naturalization. However, recent analysis by the Institute for Canadian
Citizenship indicates the net effect on naturalization is small despite the fact that a larger number
of immigrants come from countries that do not permit dual citizenship.


The relative economic and other benefits of Canadian citizenship have changed for some
developing countries, resulting in some immigrants returning to their country of origin or
keeping their options open. However, there are a number of measures that the government could
take to strengthen the efficiency, oversight and meaningfulness of citizenship.
Operational efficiency, oversight and accountability


Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the federal department responsible for these
issues, has made progress in moving to online applications and updates to manage increased
numbers and improve applicant service. Investment in AI and automation for routine
applications is a logical next step, particularly given that citizenship is straightforward compared
to the multitude of immigration pathways, and should result in faster processing. A pilot program
integrating citizenship and passport applications is a welcome initiative.


IRCC needs to publish more citizenship statistics on the Open Government Portal, as currently
the portal only has monthly statistics on countries of birth with no data on citizenship
applications (unlike for permanent and temporary residents along with international students).
Backlog (inventory) statistics need to be integrated into the portal. Moreover, regular publishing
of citizenship proofs (citizenship certificates), broken down by those submitted from within
Canada and those submitted from outside Canada, should resume given these provide a reality
check on the number of “lost Canadians” from earlier parliamentary testimony.


While broader than citizenship as it will allow for deeper analysis of health and immigration
linkages, IRCC, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI)
should provide more precise information on birth tourism (women travelling to Canada on visitor
visas to obtain Canadian citizenship for their child) by separating out women international
students and temporary foreign workers from the overall numbers of “non-resident” births.
Moreover, MPs need to challenge those advocating the easing of citizenship requirements and
policies given the disparities between claims of the numbers of people affected and actual
numbers and the risks that additional complexity brings to citizen service.


While the number of “Lost Canadians” claimed was around 200,000, the actual number was
about 20,000. Restrictions on voting rights for Canadian expatriates were lifted in 2019 but out
of the estimated 3.6 million adult expatriates, fewer than 30,000 voted in the 2021 election, a
tripling compared to the 2015 election but still a minuscule number. Similarly, while the number
of persons subject to the first generation citizenship transmission cut-off will grow, it is likely
that the numbers of those who have a meaningful connection to Canada will be relatively small
and advocates for change have relied more on anecdotes and country comparisons.


More systemically, all MPs need to recognize that not every situation requires a specific
legislative solution, which only further complicates overall service delivery, as some are best
handled through a discretionary grant in section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act or the permanent
resident application route.


Meaningfulness
The government needs to issue a revision to Discover Canada, the citizenship study guide, first
announced in 2016 four IRCC ministers ago, and reportedly ready for ministerial sign-off for
some time. The current guide, while a significant improvement from its predecessor, is dated in
terms of approach, emphasis and examples, and is not aligned with the government’s inclusion
emphasis.


The government also needs to decide whether it intends to implement, in whole or in part, its
election platform’s commitment in 2019 and 2021 to eliminate citizenship fees, currently around
$1,400 for a family of four. The high fees contribute to lower citizenship take-up among
disadvantaged immigrants. Given that citizenship provides both private benefits such as security
and passports and public benefits such as greater inclusion and political participation, halving the
current fees would balance private and public benefits.


The government needs to abandon its proposed self-administration of the citizenship oath and
revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies for the majority of ceremonies. Moving to “citizenship
on a click” combined with virtual ceremonies largely removes the recognition of the immigration
journey and its celebration by family and friends. The government’s justifications for the
proposed change focusses on saving three months and unspecified savings given that
“participation in ceremonies would be lower than it is currently, and there would likely be fewer
ceremonies overall”. However, it is silent on the more substantive impact that being in a room
together with other new (and already) Canadians brings in terms of belonging and inclusion.


Efficiency should focus on application processing, not the ceremonial and celebratory moment.
Treating citizenship as transactional, much as a driver’s licence, undermines the fundamental
objective of reinforcing integration, a fundamental objective of the Citizenship Act since 1947.
Public commentary has been highly negative, as have the majority responses to the Gazette
notice, and a parliamentary petition was launched to oppose the change. The government should
shift the relatively small needed funds from the integration program (about one billion dollars
outside Quebec) to maintain the in-person citizenship oath and ceremonies.


Ongoing work by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship is focused on understanding the link
between dual citizenship prohibitions and Canadian naturalization, disaggregating average time
between permanent residency and becoming a citizen by gender, immigration category and place
of birth. To further understand the reasons behind declining naturalization, a detailed comparison
between Census 2021 and Census 2016 citizenship data will assess the relative impact of
income, labour force participation and education.


The government also needs to set meaningful performance standards. The current standard is
an 85-per-cent naturalization rate for all immigrants, whether recent or many years ago,
essentially meaning no accountability for the government given that until the 2021 census, it
always met this meaningless standard. A more valid approach, consistent with Statistics Canada
methodology, would be to set the standard for recent immigrants (five to nine years) rather than
all. Recent data suggests a benchmark of 75 per cent of recent immigrants would be appropriate.


Just as the government needs to strike a balance between easing the path to becoming a citizen
and operational efficiency, the government needs to ensure that citizenship reinforces the sense
of belonging and inclusion that citizenship brings. Efficiency improvements in application
processes are needed and welcome but should not be to the detriment to the one moment in
immigration journeys that celebrates and honours this achievement by new Canadians.

Prime ministers, immigration ministers and MPs all treasure these celebratory moments, as do the vast
majority of new Canadians. It is important that this in-person moment not be limited to the few
but provided to all.

Source: ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

Agree:

In January 2015, Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for depicting the Prophet Muhammad. When PEN Americahonored the magazine with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award that same year, the organization received backlash from prominent members.

Then-PEN president Andrew Solomon stood by the decision, saying that the controversy was a reminder that the “defense of people murdered for their exercise of free speech is at the heart of what PEN stands for, so is the unfettered articulation of opposing viewpoints.”

Standing up for free speech principles against religious extremism, it turns out, was the right call since it remains a real threat to authors and speakers around the world. At a book talk in August 2022, novelist and former PEN America president Salman Rushdie was stabbed 15 times by an assailant who admired Iran’s theocratic regime that issued a fatwa against Rushdie back in 1989 for the supposed blasphemy of his novel The Satanic Verses.

But now PEN America finds itself embroiled in another controversy about first principles.

The organization felt compelled to cancel its 2024 World Voices Festival after around 30 writers withdrew from the event backing protesters who claimed PEN America’s approach to the war between Israel and Hamas was “tepid.” In other words, PEN America stood by its explicit mission to promote free expression and remain neutral on sharply contested matters of geopolitics and armed conflict.

An open letter from writers and translators nominated for the PEN America Literary Award argued that they “cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values… We refuse to be honored by an organization that acts as a cultural front from American imperialism.”

Never mind that PEN America has provided financial assistance to Palestinian writers, issued many statements condemning the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, spoken out against postponing awards for Palestinian authors, and criticized the cancellation of film screenings for documentaries critical of Israel. The now-canceled World Voices Festival would have also featured several Palestinian writers.

Regardless, the authors of the open letter contend that PEN America’s leadership should be replaced with staff that will make a bold declaration that would firmly align with one side. But this would be a grave mistake.

PEN America’s very purpose is “to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide” and to “champion the freedom to write… unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.” PEN America’s mission is not to advance the political or ideological goals of a specific portion of the diverse range of writers around the globe. To succumb to external and internal pressures to take positions on contentious policy issues threatens to undermine its very purpose and its efforts on other issues.

PEN America has been leading the charge against attempts by red states to ban books and restrict discussions of “divisive concepts,” which frequently means speech treating issues like race and LGBT+ themes in a manner that triggers conservatives. It has also played a crucial role in trying to persuade progressives that the values of free speech and equality are mutually reinforcing—not mutually exclusive—and that abandoning free speech is likely to hurt rather than protect minorities and vulnerable groups.

But if PEN America bends to pressure to take explicit positions on progressive or social justice causes, it will only become more vulnerable to criticism. After all, why should skeptical lawmakers or the general public pay attention to an organization whose advocacy dovetails with progressive politics rather than First Amendment principles?

To understand the danger of an unprincipled defense to free speech—where ideological agendas mean abandoning commitments to free expression when it’s inconvenient—one needn’t look further than Republicans who decry “cancel culture” and censorship.

“If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.”

In March 2023, House Republicans on the Higher Education Committee held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), chair of the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, said, “If those with certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, the battle to sustain freedoms upon which our county was founded—free speech, free thought, and free expression—will be lost.”

This week, that devotion to free speech apparently waned, as Owens joined his fellow Republicans in co-sponsoring and passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. If the bill becomes law, it will deem certain viewpoints—including criticism of Israel—as antisemitic based on the broad definition promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If colleges fail to adopt this definition, they could lose federal funding.

PEN America rightly opposed this bill, arguing that it could “harm academic freedom, free speech, and legitimate political speech.”

In 2019, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law to promote free speech on college campuses and tweeted about how “protecting the right to free speech is critical to the future of our country.” But his belief that censorship is “un-American” hasn’t stopped the governor from banning drag performances, banning books, and issuing an executive order for Texas colleges to enforce the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.

If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.

It will instead become the distorted mirror image of the very unprincipled forces it is fighting against.

Source: PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism