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

2024/05/17 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Buruma: The privileged Gaza protesters

2024/05/17 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

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

2024/05/16 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

2024/05/15 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

2024/05/15 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

2024/05/15 Leave a comment

More of the proposed Quebec National Museum of History:

On ne peut pas reprocher à François Legault de manquer de persistance en culture. En dépit des quelques revers qu’il a essuyés en ces matières fortes en symbole, son engagement exalte un attachement inusable. Certains diront un attachement téflon tant il n’en fait qu’à sa tête. On en a eu une nouvelle preuve avec l’annonce en grande pompe de la création d’un nouveau musée national — une rareté qui aurait normalement dû lui valoir des hourras.

L’idée de se doter d’un Musée national de l’histoire du Québec n’est pas mauvaise, au contraire. La nation québécoise — irréductible mais fragile fleur francophone posée au creux d’un massif de vivaces anglophones envahissantes — vaut bien cet hommage que nombre de sociétés se sont offert avant nous. Notre fierté nationale pourrait même gagner gros à étendre ses bourgeons sur un tuteur aussi structurant.

Se doter d’un musée national est en effet une excellente façon d’honorer un legs compliqué, à la fois sombre et lumineux, qu’on a fâcheusement tendance à négliger au Québec. Pour cela, le regard que l’on pose sur notre histoire commune doit être capable d’accueil comme d’autocritique, en plus d’être scientifiquement irréprochable, a mis en garde un contingent de spécialistes déconcertés par ce lapin sorti sans consultation du chapeau de M. Legault.

C’est d’abord là que le bât blesse. Le gouvernement a eu beau s’adjoindre les conseils de l’historien Éric Bédard, cela ne l’a pas empêché de multiplier les bourdes en s’improvisant expert dirigiste là où on l’attendait plutôt en pollinisateur inspirant. Invité à préciser sa vision, le premier ministre a commencé par montrer l’étendue de ses oeillères. Notre histoire nationale, a-t-il expliqué, a commencé, rêvé et prospéré par et pour les Canadiens français. Et les autres ? Tous relégués au rôle ingrat de figurants.

Sa façon spécialement cavalière de minimiser l’apport des nations autochtones à la société québécoise est indigne d’une nation qui prétend parler d’égal à égal avec ces peuples. Quiconque replonge dans l’épopée de Champlain — point zéro du récit national caquiste, on le rappelle — sait pourtant qu’il ne pourra le faire sans s’enfarger dans tout ce que ces nations ont pu apporter aux premiers colons, puis plus largement à la société québécoise au fil du temps. Et pas qu’en adversité, mais aussi bien en émulation qu’en imagination.

Son silence radio sur l’apport des autres communautés — on pense aux vagues migratoires, mais aussi aux Anglos — a fait le reste, nourrissant une déferlante de malaises autant chez les spécialistes que chez nombre de Québécois qui ne se sont pas reconnus dans sa vision rétrécie de la nation. Il est vrai que, jusqu’ici, le discours politique n’a pas été à la hauteur des promesses qui viennent avec l’érection d’un musée national moderne, décomplexé et rassembleur.

Bien sûr, l’histoire n’est jamais neutre. Mais un musée digne de ce nom, même national, ne saurait se résumer à une vitrine politique, encore moins à la vitrine d’une seule vision politique. Les Québécois n’ont pas besoin d’un musée de pureté idéologique. Ce qui n’empêche pas le fait qu’il y a du bon dans le projet du gouvernement Legault. Les Espaces bleus n’avaient pas d’avenir : trop chers et sans vision commune. Le Musée national de l’histoire du Québec, érigé à même leurs cendres malheureuses, ne part pas grevé de la sorte.

D’abord, il plantera ses racines dans un écrin magnifique, le pavillon Camille-Roy du Séminaire de Québec, rénové au coût de 92 millions. Ensuite, il arrive sur un terrain encore fertile, celui des musées d’État. S’il est bien fait, son ajout au noyau formé du Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, du Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec et du Musée de la civilisation (MCQ) permettra de repenser ce qui lie nos musées nationaux entre eux afin d’en faire un réseau exemplaire dont la solidité, si elle s’avère, percolera jusqu’aux musées régionaux.

Le rêve esquissé par François Legault se frottera bientôt à un réel qu’il a, en vérité, mieux balisé que son annonce mal ficelée. Le MCQ, qui aura la tâche de concevoir les contenus et d’aménager les espaces d’exposition de ce nouveau musée national, a en effet les ressources et le savoir nécessaires pour y arriver. Il pourra au surplus compter sur les lumières d’un comité scientifique, de même que sur celle d’un duo d’éclaireurs formé d’Éric Bédard et de Jenny Thibault, qui veilleront sur les destinées historiques et numériques du nouveau musée.

Espérons seulement que le gouvernement Legault aura l’humilité de s’appuyer sur leur vision commune pour la suite du projet. Car le bon récit national, celui qui a le pouvoir d’élever et de rassembler un peuple derrière lui, peut, oui, devenir un formidable legs, pour peu qu’il ne se conjugue pas qu’au « je ». Conjugué aussi au « nous », son engagement en faveur de notre fierté nationale pourrait même constituer un vigoureux — et redoutable ! — cultivar. S’il est planté dans un sol adéquat, bien sûr.

Source: Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Immigration minister says protesting government the right thing to do, targeting individuals isn’t

2024/05/14 Leave a comment

As pro-Palestinian protestors outside accused him of having blood on his hands, Immigration Minister Marc Miller told attendees of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration conference in Montreal over the weekend that they had every right to be there.

“The people outside have a right to protest,” he said, noting many come from countries that deny that right.

“That’s not the country that Canada is. Protesting me and the government is the right thing to do.”

He noted that suppressing the right to protest leads to frustration and anger taken out in other ways.

That said, there’s a wrong way to go about it, whether it’s encouraging terrorism or targeting Jewish institutions and Jews.

Calling the situation in Gaza “disastrous” and “a humanitarian catastrophe,” the minister said there are charged emotions on both sides of the conflict. But people are feeling targeted and threatened.

“The right to protest comes with a responsibility, and I think it needs to be properly exercised. Don’t do it by targeting individuals and making them feel insecure,” he told those gathered.

“If people confuse the legitimate right to criticize the Netanyahu government with picking on Jews in this country, I don’t want your vote.”

In January, three months into the conflict, the federal government launched a reunification program offering temporary refuge to family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents — parents, siblings, grandparents, and grandkids — who are in Gaza.

Miller said it was a “rapidly put together and probably singular in the world attempt” to get people’s families out.

It came with a lot of uncertainty, coupled with the additional challenge of an ongoing war and no pre-determined commitment from Israel or Egypt, which control the exit, mainly through Rafah, that it would succeed.

“I wanted to make sure when we announced this program that we didn’t simply issue visas, give false hope and strand people. But we absolutely owed it to Palestinian Canadians to try and get their families out in the face of this desperate situation,” the minister said.

“In government, there are things that you manage and things that you control. This was something we managed, and we took a risk.”

By March, just 14 people had made it through the application process and been approved, prompting Miller to call the program “a failure.”

While the government got Canadians and permanent residents out of Gaza, doing the same for their families proved more difficult.

Two months later, with some slow progress made, the minister said it’s still “very limited in its success.” More than 200 visas have been issued, but frustration and challenges persist.

Despite the recent developments in Rafah, Miller said he has some hope that Canada will be able to get more people out on a humanitarian basis. He’s agreed to expand the program and is committed to growing the numbers, drawing on diplomatic efforts.

However, when even the US can’t influence the situation, he said it’s a sign of the ability of Canada, with even less capacity, to influence it.

Miller is undeterred.

“I won’t be happy until those people are out and safe. This is about saving lives, and we owe it to ourselves to try harder. We could have sat on our hands and done nothing. But we chose to take a risk.”

Asked whether other countries are having more success on this front, Miller said everyone is running up against the same challenges. Still, several have tried to reproduce the program Canada has put in place, including the US, which reached out to ask “how we got this in place so quickly.”

The conversation also turned to the current tension in Canada around housing affordability and immigration in the face of an aging population and labour shortage.

Miller said when it comes to immigration, the reality is this country has no choice given its relatively older workforce.

“We can either increase the number of babies in this country or bring in new migrants. Frankly, we could have a baby boom right now, but we would still need to bridge 20 years through immigration.”

There were seven workers for one retiree when he was young. Today, in Canada, it’s closer to three to one.

“So if we want to maintain all the social programs that have defined the fabric of this country, we have no choice but to welcome qualified workers to help with that,” Miller said.

“Immigration isn’t the only solution, but it is part of solving the bigger problem.”

It comes with a conundrum, however.

The cost of shelter across the country has increased in recent years. And while Miller said that immigrants can’t be blamed for the increase in interest rates, the volume of temporary residents is undeniable.

Historically, temporary residents have made up about two per cent of Canada’s population. In 2023, they accounted for 6.2 per cent.

The government has announced plans to curb the country’s population growth by reining that in to five per cent over the next three years.

In November, after several recent increases, the government also said it would keep the number of new permanent residents steady at 500,000 in 2026. In January, it announced plans to scale back the number of international students by putting a two-year cap on new admissions.

After meeting with his provincial counterparts last week and emerging with an “exceedingly rare” unanimous communique, Miller suggested that one way to decrease temporary residents is to make them permanent.

“(That consensus) reflects the fact that we need to get things right,” he said.

“We can do it as a country, but it isn’t by reproducing the rhetoric that we’re seeing to the south of us or in different countries across the world.”

Source: Immigration mihttp://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/immigration-minister-says-protesting-government-the-right-thing-to-do,-targeting-individuals-isn-tnister says protesting government the right thing to do, targeting individuals isn’t

Filed under Multiculturalism

Algorithms help people see and correct their biases, study shows

2024/05/14 Leave a comment

Of interest:

Algorithms are a staple of modern life. People rely on algorithmic recommendations to wade through deep catalogs and find the best movies, routes, information, products, people and investments. Because people train algorithms on their decisions – for example, algorithms that make recommendations on e-commerce and social media sites – algorithms learn and codify human biases.

Algorithmic recommendations exhibit bias toward popular choices and information that evokes outrage, such as partisan news. At a societal level, algorithmic biases perpetuate and amplify structural racial bias in the judicial system, gender bias in the people companies hire, and wealth inequality in urban development.

Algorithmic bias can also be used to reduce human bias. Algorithms can reveal hidden structural biases in organizations. In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, my colleagues and I found that algorithmic bias can help people better recognize and correct biases in themselves.

The bias in the mirror

In nine experiments, Begum Celikitutan, Romain Cadario and Ihad research participants rate Uber drivers or Airbnb listings on their driving skill, trustworthiness or the likelihood that they would rent the listing. We gave participants relevant details, like the number of trips they’d driven, a description of the property, or a star rating. We also included an irrelevant biasing piece of information: a photograph revealed the age, gender and attractiveness of drivers, or a name that implied that listing hosts were white or Black.

After participants made their ratings, we showed them one of two ratings summaries: one showing their own ratings, or one showing the ratings of an algorithm that was trained on their ratings. We told participants about the biasing feature that might have influenced these ratings; for example, that Airbnb guests are less likely to rent from hosts with distinctly African American names. We then asked them to judge how much influence the bias had on the ratings in the summaries.The author describes how algorithms can be useful as a mirror of people’s biases.

Whether participants assessed the biasing influence of race, age, gender or attractiveness, they saw more bias in ratings made by algorithms than themselves. This algorithmic mirror effect held whether participants judged the ratings of real algorithms or we showed participants their own ratings and deceptively told them that an algorithm made those ratings. 

Participants saw more bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions, even when we gave participants a cash bonus if their bias judgments matched the judgments made by a different participant who saw the same decisions. The algorithmic mirror effect held even if participants were in the marginalized category – for example, by identifying as a woman or as Black.

Research participants were as able to see biases in algorithms trained on their own decisions as they were able to see biases in the decisions of other people. Also, participants were more likely to see the influence of racial bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions, but they were equally likely to see the influence of defensible features, like star ratings, on the decisions of algorithms and on their own decisions.

Bias blind spot

People see more of their biases in algorithms because the algorithms remove people’s bias blind spots. It is easier to see biases in others’ decisions than in your own because you use different evidence to evaluate them.

When examining your decisions for bias, you search for evidence of conscious bias – whether you thought about race, gender, age, status or other unwarranted features when deciding. You overlook and excuse bias in your decisions because you lack access to the associative machinery that drives your intuitive judgments, where bias often plays out. You might think, “I didn’t think of their race or gender when I hired them. I hired them on merit alone.”The bias blind spot explained.

When examining others’ decisions for bias, you lack access to the processes they used to make the decisions. So you examine their decisions for bias, where bias is evident and harder to excuse. You might see, for example, that they only hired white men.

Algorithms remove the bias blind spot because you see algorithms more like you see other people than yourself. The decision-making processes of algorithms are a black box, similar to how other people’s thoughts are inaccessible to you. 

Participants in our study who were most likely to demonstrate the bias blind spot were most likely to see more bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions. 

People also externalize bias in algorithms. Seeing bias in algorithms is less threatening than seeing bias in yourself, even when algorithms are trained on your choices. People put the blame on algorithms. Algorithms are trained on human decisions, yet people call the reflected bias “algorithmic bias.”

Corrective lens

Our experiments show that people are also more likely to correct their biases when they are reflected in algorithms. In a final experiment, we gave participants a chance to correct the ratings they evaluated. We showed each participant their own ratings, which we attributed either to the participant or to an algorithm trained on their decisions.

Participants were more likely to correct the ratings when they were attributed to an algorithm because they believed the ratings were more biased. As a result, the final corrected ratings were less biased when they were attributed to an algorithm.

Algorithmic biases that have pernicious effects have been well documented. Our findings show that algorithmic bias can be leveraged for good. The first step to correct bias is to recognize its influence and direction. As mirrors revealing our biases, algorithms may improve our decision-making.

Source: Algorithms help people see and correct their biases, study shows

Filed under bias Tagged with ,

Rioux | La nazification d’Israël

2024/05/11 Leave a comment

Useful reminder of past and present naïveté:

L’humour peut-il être ignoble et drôle tout à la fois ? Je l’avoue, il est arrivé que des humoristes qui flirtaient avec l’abject me fassent rire. Comme il m’est arrivé de m’ennuyer avec d’autres trop bien intentionnés. C’est tout le mystère de l’humour. Et c’est toute l’ambiguïté de cette blague qui, cette semaine, a coûté son poste au comique de France Inter Guillaume Meurice, qui avait qualifié le premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Nétanyahou, d’une « sorte de nazi mais sans prépuce ».

Peut-on en rire sans pour autant adhérer à cette infamie sans nom qui consiste à nazifier le peuple de la Shoah ? L’idée n’est pas nouvelle. Quelle jouissance de démasquer le loup déguisé en mère-grand et de dire à la victime qu’elle est devenue semblable à son bourreau. Comme le disait le philosophe Michel Eltchaninoff, rien de tel que de peindre les Israéliens en nazis pour « se libérer de la culpabilité d’une des plus grandes tragédies de l’histoire récente : le génocide des Juifs d’Europe » qui, à de très rares exceptions, n’a jamais été reconnu dans le monde arabo-musulman.

Ce n’est évidemment pas parce qu’on appartient à une droite dure, comme Nétanyahou, et qu’on s’est allié par pur opportunisme politique à des partis extrémistes qui sont la honte d’Israël qu’on est un nazi et qu’on prépare un génocide. Génocide dont on attend encore la preuve sonnante et trébuchante. Les deux millions de citoyens d’origine arabe qui vivent librement en Israël étant la preuve éclatante du contraire.

Les slogans entendus ces jours-ci sur les campus américains, français et canadiens n’en finissent pourtant pas de nazifier Israël, quand ils n’expriment pas parfois un antisémitisme flagrant. Ainsi en est-il du mantra « from the river to the sea » (« du fleuve à la mer »), dont l’origine n’évoque rien de moins qu’une Palestine où Israël aurait été rayé de la carte. Faudrait-il, pour soutenir le peuple palestinien — qui mérite toute notre compassion, répétons-le —, aller jusqu’à qualifier le pogrom du 7 octobre d’acte de résistance ? Ou en taire l’horreur absolue, ce qui revient au même ?

On peut certes comprendre le désir d’une génération élevée en banlieue, dans un moralisme souvent étouffant, de se rejouer la grande épopée de l’opposition à la guerre du Vietnam. « En 67 tout était beau, c’était l’année de l’amour », disait la chanson.

Un demi-siècle plus tard, la mythologie a pourtant pris quelques rides. Si la libération du Vietnam méritait le soutien de tous, il n’en allait pas de même des Viêt-Cong et de leurs alliés communistes, dont le véritable visage nous a été révélé quelques années plus tard par les multiples vagues de boat people et le génocide des Khmers rouges au Cambodge. Un vrai, celui-là, puisqu’il fit 1,7 million de morts.

Un demi-siècle plus tard, malgré l’émotion légitime, c’est pourtant la même naïveté béate qui s’exprime à l’égard du Hamas, dont l’objectif avoué n’est pas de créer un État palestinien, mais de rétablir le califat en Palestine. Et pour cela, d’en finir avec l’État d’Israël.

Serait-ce trahir « la cause » ou « faire le jeu de l’ennemi » que de rappeler à ces militants LGBTQ+ et autres « Queers for Palestine » le destin que leur réserverait la charia advenant une victoire du Hamas ? Quant à celles qui hurlent leur colère souvent légitime contre Israël, savent-elles le sort qu’on réserve aux femmes dans ces théocraties ?

C’est Raymond Aron qui disait que « les hommes font l’histoire, mais ils ne savent pas l’histoire qu’ils font ». Cette naïveté criminelle fait étrangement penser à celle de cette gauche française qui, derrière Jean-Paul Sartre et Michel Foucault, n’avait dans les années 1970 que des mots doux à l’égard de l’ayatollah Khomeini, réfugié dans le petit village de Neauphle-le-Château. Parlez-en à cette jeunesse d’extrême gauche très active à l’époque dans les universités iraniennes, et qui sera littéralement exterminée après la révolution de 1979.

Si on a raison de dénoncer le cul-de-sac politique que représente Nétanyahou, l’émotion légitime que suscitent les souffrances des Palestiniens ne saurait justifier la moindre concession à une organisation qui, en islamisant la cause des Palestiniens au profit d’un pur délire religieux, signe pour ces derniers la plus terrible des défaites. « Ce que cherchait le Hamas, écrit l’ancien ambassadeur de France à Tel-Aviv Gérard Araud, c’est de commettre des atrocités qui rendent tout compromis inacceptable. Je crains qu’il n’ait réussi… »

Source: Chronique | La nazification d’Israël

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Nicolas | Racisme anti-palestinien

2024/05/11 Leave a comment

As mentioned earlier, I think the existing forms of racism, anti-Arab for both Muslim and Christian Palestinians, and anti-Muslim for Muslim Palestinians, cover the essential. The substantive examples raised by Nicolas can be addressed under both:

On apprenait mercredi dans le Toronto Star que la nouvelle version de la Stratégie canadienne de lutte contre le racisme, qui devrait être rendue publique sous peu, n’inclura pas de définition du racisme anti-palestinien.

Cette stratégie, publiée pour la première fois en 2019, « est conçue pour jeter les bases de la lutte contre le racisme systémique par des actions immédiates à l’échelle du gouvernement du Canada ». Plusieurs groupes ont fait pression sur la ministre de la Diversité, de l’Inclusion et des Personnes en situation de handicap, Kamal Khera, pour que le racisme anti-palestinien soit désormais défini et donc reconnu par le gouvernemental fédéral, au même titre que l’islamophobie et l’antisémitisme, le racisme anti-noir ou le racisme anti-asiatique, par exemple. Ça aura été en vain.

Pour l’instant, on continue donc officiellement à dénoncer l’islamophobie, du moins sur papier, laissant de son côté le racisme anti-palestinien se déployer au Canada. Ce n’est pas suffisant. Voici pourquoi.

D’abord, tous les Palestiniens ne sont pas musulmans. De larges pans du mouvement nationaliste palestinien ont toujours cherché à se rassembler autour d’une identité culturelle et d’une situation politique — et non d’une religion. Le keffieh, par exemple, est un symbole à la fois culturel et politique, selon le contexte, mais pas un symbole religieux. Le foulard blanc et noir a pris la signification qu’il a aujourd’hui après avoir été porté durant des décennies par le leader palestinien Yasser Arafat.

Lorsque le parlement provincial ontarien prend la décision de bannir le keffieh de sa chambre législative, comme il l’a fait le mois passé, on empêche l’expression culturelle et politique du peuple palestinien dans son enceinte. Parler vaguement d’« islamophobie », ce serait ici très mal nommer les choses.

En fait, pour bien comprendre le racisme anti-palestinien, il faut savoir qu’il se déploie notamment comme une forme de racisme anti-autochtone. Et ici, je fais très attention à mes mots et aux explications que j’en donne.

Être autochtone est une catégorie politique, et non pas seulement ethnique. Ce n’est pas simplement un terme qui réfère à « qui était là avant ». Il est important de le comprendre si on veut éviter de remonter aux temps bibliques. Le mot « autochtone », dans nos instances internationales, réfère notamment à une catégorie de personnes qui se retrouvent sans État qui parle en leur nom dans le système des Nations unies, parce qu’un État s’est construit « par-dessus » leur territoire ancestral, en quelque sorte. Si le mot référait seulement à de vieilles racines dans une terre, tous les Français chez qui on décèle une forme d’ADN gaulois pourraient participer au Forum des peuples autochtones des Nations unies, pour donner un exemple grossier. Le terme « autochtone » prend une grande partie de son sens à l’intersection de l’« ancienneté » et de la dépossession. C’est en ce sens que je m’exprime.

Lorsqu’un État assied sa souveraineté sur un territoire en dépossédant un autre peuple de ce même territoire, il doit déployer un récit national et un appareil idéologique qui normalise cette dépossession. L’âge d’or du colonialisme correspond avec l’invention de l’idée de terra nullius, par exemple, qui veut que lorsqu’un territoire n’est pas occupé — et par occupé, on veut dire occupé à l’européenne, sujet à des activités économiques « productives » dans une perspective européenne —, il est considéré comme vacant et donc disponible pour la prise de possession coloniale.

C’est aussi en pleine expansion coloniale que Friedrich Hegel et plusieurs autres penseurs européens ont développé leurs idées sur la téléologie de l’Histoire. D’abord, on a tracé une ligne arbitraire entre la « préhistoire » et l’« Histoire », puis on a posé l’État-nation comme l’aboutissement de l’« Histoire » et ainsi hiérarchisé les peuples selon leur « stade de développement ». On a, en quelque sorte, inventé la catégorie de « primitif » — une autre manière de naturaliser qui a le droit d’exercer sa souveraineté sur des terres, et qui peut en être légitimement dépossédé.

Ces idées continuent d’être mobilisées jusqu’à aujourd’hui un peu partout en Occident. Elles permettent notamment à certaines voix pro-israéliennes plus radicales de nier jusqu’à l’existence même de la Palestine, puisque le peuple palestinien ne disposait pas d’un État-nation indépendant avant la fondation d’Israël.

Ces notions nous permettent aussi de mieux comprendre, par exemple, les commentaires de Selina Robinson, qui était ministre de l’Éducation postsecondaire en Colombie-Britannique, lorsqu’elle a affirmé, en janvier, que la Palestine était un « morceau de terre merdique » (crappy piece of land) sur lequel « il n’y avait rien » avant la fondation d’Israël. Ses propos n’étaient pas « islamophobes ». Ils étaient un parfait exemple du racisme anti-palestinien ordinaire, appuyés sur une forme d’actualisation de la doctrine de la terra nullius. Finalement, Selina Robinson s’est excusée, a perdu son poste de ministre, puis a quitté le caucus du Nouveau Parti démocratique provincial.

Le maire de Hampstead, Jeremy Levi, nous a offert un autre exemple de dérapage anti-palestinien. La semaine dernière, il a encore déclaré sur X que le gouvernement canadien devrait « reconsidérer son plan d’immigration pour les Gazaouis », puisque « leurs valeurs semblent incompatibles avec les nôtres ». Il faut savoir que l’idée des « valeurs incompatibles » a été mobilisée durant l’histoire coloniale pour justifier le statut subalterne, « non intégrable » de certaines populations. Le discours est encore souvent employé à l’égard des Palestiniens, notamment dans les espaces médiatiques israélien et américain, pour justifier certaines inégalités ou violences structurelles.

La liste d’exemples pourrait être encore longue. Pour repérer le racisme anti-palestinien dans l’espace public, encore faut-il le comprendre. Pour le comprendre, il faut d’abord le nommer clairement.

Source: Chronique | Racisme anti-palestinien

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →