PEN America: A Free-Speech Meltdown

Sad:

…Maybe the most revealing aspect of this eruption, though, is just how little it took to set it off. Thursday’s article nodded to the curtailed freedoms of Israeli and Jewish writers without taking any ideological side. It was far from a battle cry or a shift in priorities. It was just a way of acknowledging, in the measured but principled language common to PEN America, that the past three years of discourse have had an effect on a large group of writers. For anyone who has spoken to Israeli or Jewish artists—as I have—this is undeniable; you hear it everywhere. This reality does not neutralize the cause of pro-Palestinian writers or the suffering in Gaza and elsewhere. The fact that the article was perceived that way, and that it led to the resignation of a president, tells us all a great deal about the hair-trigger moment we live in, and about the precarity of the liberal principles on which PEN America was founded.  

Source: A Free-Speech Meltdown

Canadian Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Diversity

Encouraging large scale public opinion research highlighting that concern over immigration levels has largely not affected overall support for diversity and multiculturalism. But support for multiculturalism is less for “deeper” multiculturalism when it involves separate group institutions:

Summary recommendations: When asked what multiculturalism means to them, 64 percent of Canadians provide a response that describes multiculturalism positively, saying, for instance, that it means having an accepting society that welcomes people from different cultures. Only six percent describe multiculturalism negatively. However, 30 percent opt not to provide a response.

  • A majority of Canadians (66%) agree that “multiculturalism has contributed positively to the Canadian identity.” One in four (25%) disagree.
  • Even among white or non-immigrant Canadians, the proportions agreeing that multiculturalism has contributed positively to the Canadian identity outweigh those disagreeing by a margin of roughly two to one.
  • Even among Canadians who currently hold more negative opinions about immigration, a majority (about 3 in 5) has a positive opinion about the impact of multiculturalism.
  • There is widespread agreement among Canadians that people should not be discriminated against based on their race, ethnicity or culture. There is also agreement among a majority of Canadians that there are benefits to living in a diverse society. But disagreement outweighs agreement when it comes to setting up separate institutions in areas such as education to accommodate ethnic or religious minorities. While there are differences in the extent of agreement with each of several statements about diversity among Canadians of different backgrounds, what is notable is that the gradient in opinions just described applies for all groups.
  • One in five Canadians express wholly positive opinions about immigration: they are not concerned about the current number of immigrants coming to Canada, and they see welcoming immigrants as part of their vision of the type of country that Canada should be. A larger group (36%) has mixed views, expressing concern about the number of immigrants currently arriving, but nonetheless agreeing that Canada should be a country that fully welcomes immigrants from around the world. A similarly-sized group – about one in three – expresses wholly negative opinions: they believe immigration levels are too high and do not want Canada to be fully welcoming to immigrants from all over the world. Among non-immigrants, the proportion with wholly negative opinions reaches 41 percent….

Source: Canadian Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Diversity

McWhorter: Euphemism Won’t Save Young Black Men’s Lives

Plain speech rather than euphemisms or ignoring reality (e.g., pregnant people):

…Euphemism can feel so right. We imagine that if we create a new term for something we can get people to think about it differently. Surely more will understand that a “bum” isn’t a reprobate if we refer to him as “homeless.” I’m just old enough to remember when “homeless” was the new default in the 1980s — it sounded so polite, open-minded. But before long, sentiments associated with “bum” transferred to “homeless.” We now have the dismissive slang term “homelessy.” So we’re supposed to say “unhoused.”

Hence “gun violence.” The key contrast is that if someone said “knife violence” we’d feel like they were trying to hide something. It’s the same with “gun violence.” We seek euphemism, maybe to avoid thinking about who is doing the shooting. “Gun violence” encourages us to see Black men who shoot one another not as self-destructive killers, but as people beset by a larger force unrelated to blame.

But we need not euphemism, but action, so that eventually there isn’t anything more to euphemize about.

We should think more of initiatives like Save Our Streets, part of a nationwide movement in which former gang members and others who have committed crimes are enlisted to act as experienced mediators between young people on the verge of using guns. A study by the sociologist Patrick Sharkey and co-authors Gerard Torrats-Espinosa and Delaram Takyar has shown that nonprofit organizations that focus on crime and community life can help reduce murder rates. Precision policing or focused deterrence, zeroing in on the tiny percentage of people in a neighborhood committing crimes, rather than canvassing the entire population, has been shown to reduce homicides.

The tragic effects of these shootings, including the convulsive grief of thousands of mothers, demands stark honesty that treats the lives of poor young Black men as reality, not as an abstraction. This includes talking about them rather than around them.

Source: Euphemism Won’t Save Young Black Men’s Lives

Clark: Carney opens the Senate doors wider to partisans

Most of the commentary has understandably focussed on the formal removal of non-partisanship in appointments. But little has been said regarding the diversity of appointments, whether of minority groups, sectoral or ideological. While the initial four appointments are too few to establish a trend, half are political, three-quarters are men, one visible minority but no Indigenous. The two non-political appointees appear to be more centrist than some of the activist senators appointed under the Trudeau government:

The chamber of sober second thought is apparently too sober for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s liking, and tends to waste all kinds of time in second thought. What it needs, we are told, is more party loyalists.

So Mr. Carney appointed his principal secretary and campaign manager, Tom Pitfield, to the Senate, alongside Conservative MP Richard Martel, 65, who bolted from Pierre Poilievre’s joyless Conservative caucus for another nine years and eight months of job security.

But the PM also changed the appointment process for new senators to remove the nominal requirement of non-partisanship, thus opening the door wide to former politicians, aides and fundraisers.

It seems strange for a Prime Minister with so little partisan history of his own, but it was not the first time Mr. Carney has removed restrictions on partisanship in power. Last year, he loosened rules on the government spending on partisan ads – and now Mr. Carney’s Canada Strong campaign slogan is often heard in TV commercials.

Source: Carney opens the Senate doors wider to partisans

And Stephen Maher’s take:

…Trudeau was wise, I thought, to stop putting hacks, fundraisers and failed candidates into the upper chamber, and he never had to deal with any blowback.

The backroom fixers in the Liberals and Conservatives are glad to see Carney set aside Trudeau’s reforms, offering thin arguments about political tradition, but that is because they and their friends want to get in there.

It looks dirty, and Carney will wear it if these appointments go wrong.

Source: Opinion | With his Senate appointments, Mark Carney is undoing one of Justin Trudeau’s smartest decisions

Gail Asper isn’t visibly angry about ‘Nakba’ exhibit. But she’s resolute about fixing the rights museum

More on the CMHR Nakba controversy:

…“As a national federal museum,” she says, “there’s a very high standard here. This isn’t a community-centred exhibit. I fought for the designation, for this to be a federal institution with all the imprimatur and gravitas that title entails, because I wanted to show Canadians that this isn’t just the opinion of Izzy Asper or, you know, me or anybody else. This is something that matters to Canadians, that human rights are so important to Canadians, and Stephen Harper was the prime minister that finally delivered this as the national federal museum.

“It feels intentional that the Jewish voice and connection to this museum is deliberately being diminished,” she observes. Her phone and inbox have been “exploding” since the announcement. Supporters who trusted the Aspers to create something intellectually honest feel betrayed.

“The whole point of the museum is to bring people together,” she explains. “The whole point is to have dialogue and debate. So the whole point of this exhibit, as I said to everybody, was that there are hard truths on both sides. Let’s have all the hard truths and let’s have the rational, quiet, respectful debate the museum was intended to inspire.”

“But when you obliterate one side of the narrative so egregiously, obviously, and so ideologically and intentionally, you lose that trust from one part of the participants. And that’s where I really am so disappointed in the museum. They didn’t have to do it this way.”

She made repeated efforts to steer things differently, including a presentation to the board six weeks before opening. As an honorary board member, she reminded them of the museum’s mandate and warned about fanning antisemitism at a fraught time. There was no meaningful response.

“I just thought this is heartless,” she says. “There is no compassion for the place that we have now found ourselves in the Jewish community.”

Then, one week before opening, the sole Jewish board member, Mark Berlin, resigned. “I think he was gaslit,” Gail says. Berlin, a respected human rights lawyer who had lived and worked in Ramallah, called her before stepping down. “It was a very sad conversation,” but she understood.”…

Source: Gail Asper isn’t visibly angry about ‘Nakba’ exhibit. But she’s resolute about fixing the rights museum

Restaurateur Francis Deck ran the legendary Toronto diner chain Fran’s

Blast from my past growing up in Toronto where one of my high school hang-outs was a Fran’s at Yonge and Eglinton.

But more significantly, Fran’s reflected the old Toronto that my parents settled in after the war as captured in the following quote:

…“In the early 1960s, Fran’s was the restaurant of record for Rosedale meals out. Toronto didn’t eat out much then, and Fran’s offered comfort,” former Globe and Mail food critic Joanne Kates said. “It was all about superbly managed expectations. The innards of the slightly dry club sandwich never wavered from one year to the next. The food was bland – the way staid old Hogtown liked it. When the food scene in Toronto exploded in the 1970s, Fran’s became an object of gastro-derision. It was a sad day for an institution of such reliability.”…

Source: Restaurateur Francis Deck ran the legendary Toronto diner chain Fran’s

Foran: A quarter-century after his death, how is Mordecai Richler’s work remembered?

Always interesting to see what happens with the passage of time. I remember well the controversies, have read many of his books, seen the film adaptations of Duddy Kravitz and Barney’s Version, recall that my mother felt uncomfortable with his portrayal of Canadian Jews. Still worth reading IMO:

…English Canada, in contrast, has not kept faith in its “hero.” As he acknowledged, Richler was a chronicler of his times, and times – along with literary tastes – change. His voice, masculine and provocative, could tilt into the intemperate, especially when pressing a joke or grievance. Our age is quick to judge modes of expression declared deviant from our own progressive standards. 

Finally, nearly all literary criticism now emanates from within our universities, and with few exceptions, the professors just haven’t been interested.

Time usually sorts things out for artists. Either the work endures or it doesn’t. Mordecai Richler had his day and may have another up ahead. The pleasures of this erudite, funny, deeply moral writer are many, and veteran readers will envy newcomers to his books, especially the novels. Meanwhile, the invitation of Solomon Gursky Was Here stands. 

Source: A quarter-century after his death, how is Mordecai Richler’s work remembered?

Rights council seeks unity that Jewish, Muslim envoys couldn’t achieve: Miller

Not sure whether the council will work (an earlier initiative by Public Safety, the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security (CCRS) last evaluation dates from 2008-9, about the same period when I participated, highlighting the limited impact). But clearly the envoy approach didn’t.

“The CCRS has had an impact on the Government’s understanding and sensitivity to community needs. As well, some concrete examples were noted of CCRS impacts on GoC policies, directives and communications materials. However, there is limited evidence that the CCRS has contributed to better community understanding of national security policies, practices and challenges. This may be due to the fact that there are no formal mechanisms in place for disseminating information to communities, and there has been limited formal CCRS member-organized outreach conducted to date. As well, some interviewees noted a lack of clarity as to whether or not CCRS is mandated to do outreach.”

Don’t envy the officials responsible:

Heritage Minister Marc Miller says the government’s widely criticized advisory council on inclusion is meant to unify Canadians in a way previous federal envoys tasked with tackling antisemitism and Islamophobia could not.

“This is an advisory committee that is going to foster dialogue and a space to talk about some extremely difficult issues, chief of which is the current scourge of antisemitism in the country,” Miller told The Canadian Press.

Ottawa first created the role of a special envoy for combating antisemitism in 2020 and a similar position dealing with Islamophobia in 2023.

In February, the government announced it was scrapping both of those stand-alone federal envoy positions and replacing them with a new, broader “advisory council on rights, equality and inclusion” composed of prominent academics, experts and community leaders.

At the time, Prime Minister Mark Carney framed the measure as one aimed at addressing hatred of Muslims, Jews and Indigenous Peoples. 

When he officially launched the council a month ago, the prime minister said it would investigate the causes of antisemitism and improve research and data collection on hate incidents.

Since then, the government has been hit with a torrent of criticism — particularly from Jewish advocacy groups who argue the causes of antisemitism are well understood and documented in parliamentary reports.

“If we are looking at the threats that our community is facing, it’s going to take a lot more than people sitting at a table and speaking to one another to stop bullets from flying through the windows of synagogues and schools,” said Noah Shack, head of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

“When we have international actors directing attacks on Jewish community targets in Canada, and we have radicalized people in the spirit of the Islamic State plotting terror attacks similar to the one that occurred at Bondi Beach in Australia … these are issues that are not going to be solved by dialogue,” Shack said.

His group and other large Jewish organizations have called on Canada to do more to prevent hate crimes and to call out groups affiliated with the Iranian government.

Some groups have also called on Ottawa to restore the antisemitism envoy role and reform it. CIJA had previously suggested modifying the envoy role when the government had left it vacant, but is no longer calling for either envoy’s role to be restored.

He said it’s “a noble endeavour” to seek common ground across communities but he worries the effort will distract the government from directly addressing the elevated threats Jews face.

“Really, what we need is concrete action right now to demonstrate that the government isn’t just convening to explore and study issues but is committed to solving them,” Shack said.

In a statement, the National Council of Canadian Muslims said it wants “a real plan to counter the rise in Islamophobic incidents across Canada” and says Muslims have worked before with other communities on addressing hate.

“Talking about the things the (Islamophobia envoy) office supposedly didn’t do ignores both its mandate and the positive work it did accomplish,” wrote National Council of Canadian Muslims spokesman Steven Zhou, adding the group will work with the advisory council.

Miller said his government is also pursuing anti-hate policies and legislation.

Parliament passed Bill C-9 last month, which creates new criminal offences for intimidating or obstructing someone outside a religious or cultural institution, and codifies a definition of hatred in criminal law.

Miller said the former envoys on Islamophobia and antisemitism, Amira Elghawaby and Deborah Lyons, both provided helpful guidance to the government. He said they were not to blame for the failure to significantly boost dialogue between Jews and Muslims in Canada.

“Perhaps (it’s) unfair to expect real improvement in very polarized groups in society … that largely are not speaking to each other,” Miller said.

“The work that those two (envoys) have done, we can build on. But the focus, I think — and I agree with the prime minister in this — was to make sure that we had a broader group … focused on national unity that, visibly, whether we like it or not, those two secretariats were not achieving.”

Lyons, the former antisemitism envoy, has said that Jewish and Muslims groups disapproved of attempts she and Elghawaby had made to work together on things like provincial school curriculums. Elghawaby has said she wasn’t aware of those sentiments in Muslim communities.

Shack said the mandate for the envoys didn’t appear to mention unifying communities.

“You can’t conflate these two things. Often we would see antisemitism and Islamophobia routinely mentioned in the same breath. I think each community is having its own experience,” he said.

Miller said Carney came up with the idea for the council and discussed it with him back in December, shortly after his appointment as heritage minister.

“We had a long conversation about the unity of the country … but also his concern with the state of polarization,” he said.

The idea behind the council is to have eminent people who are generally representative of Canada’s diversity who can encourage social cohesion, Miller said, because “that fabric has been torn” by multiple factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and events in the Middle East.

“This isn’t about trying to identify new forms of hate. It’s about looking at the ones that are already there — that in the case of antisemitism is one of the oldest, if not the oldest form of hatred — and look at the current drivers of it,” he said.

“You will find naysayers. We owe it to ourselves — and we owe to our country — to try.”

Source: Rights council seeks unity that Jewish, Muslim envoys couldn’t achieve: Miller

Why Is Canada’s Refugee Board relying on Francesca Albanese?: Randolph Hahn for Inside Policy

Reasonable question that deserves an answer. Difference between her official reports and activism? Institutional capture?

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decides who receives refugee protection — and for many successful claimants, a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship. Those decisions depend in part on country information the IRB makes available to its decision-makers as authoritative background material.

That is why one name appearing in the IRB’s National Documentation Packages should alarm anyone who expects Canada’s refugee system to rely on balanced and credible sources: the highly controversial Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Albanese has become one of the world’s most polarizing UN officials. She has been sanctioned by the United States, condemned by several democratic governments, and publicly rebuked by Canada itself. In 2024, Canada’s Permanent Mission in Geneva described her remarks as “unacceptable and incompatible with her duty of impartiality” and added that “antisemitism has no place anywhere.”

Yet, while the Canadian government has distanced itself from Albanese, the IRB continues to include her in reports in its official country documentation for Israel and for what it characterizes as the Occupied Palestinian Territories. After experienced Canadian immigration lawyers formally challenged the decision, the Board reviewed the matter — and chose to keep her reports in place….

Source: Why Is Canada’s Refugee Board relying on Francesca Albanese?: Randolph Hahn for Inside Policy

ICYMI – Jack Jedwab: Antisemitism flies in the face of Canadian multiculturalism

Agreed:

…“Outside Israel, Canada has one of the highest proportions of Holocaust survivors in the world — part of a community that has made a profound mark on this country. When that history is treated as expendable, Jewish belonging becomes easier to question as well. For that reason, Canadian Multiculturalism Day should be an occasion not only to celebrate diversity, but also to recognize the challenges multiculturalism faces when prejudice is rationalized, historical memory is minimized, or minority communities are made vulnerable by conflicts beyond Canada’s borders.

That is why it is important to guard against those who would appropriate Canadian Multiculturalism Day in support of political agendas. A day meant to celebrate pluralism and strengthen mutual respect should not be turned into an occasion for advancing political narratives that decontextualize history or invite Canadians to view one community through the grievances of another. Multiculturalism is not served by selective memory, nor by historical accounts that intensify suspicion and fuel resentment. Ideally its objective should be to reduce intercultural tension, not to exacerbate it.”

Source: Jack Jedwab: Antisemitism flies in the face of Canadian multiculturalism