How can we help Jews stay in Europe despite anti-Semitism: Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article doesn’t answer that question.

Interesting take by William Salatan on antisemitism in Europe:

I don’t mean to suggest that Muslims don’t understand anti-Semitism. They do. But the anti-Semitism they’re familiar with is the anti-Semitism of resentment, not the anti-Semitism of genocidal success. Goldberg describes a French Jew whose parents fled Tunisia in 1967, “driven out by anti-Jewish rioters who were putatively distressed by Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War.” The key word in that sentence is victory. If Israel had lost—if the Jews of Palestine had been annihilated—Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa might understand anti-Semitism the way Europeans do. Anti-Semitism isn’t about a chant or a salute. It’s about piles of corpses.

Nor do I mean to exonerate the majority of Europeans who are neither Muslim nor Jewish. They’ve played their part in the intimidation of Jews by not playing their part in stopping it. Goldberg credits leaders of Germany, France, and Britain for denouncing anti-Semitism. But he points out that “the general publics of these countries do not seem nearly as engaged in the issue as their leaders. The Berlin rally last fall against anti-Semitism that featured Angela Merkel drew a paltry 5,000 people, most of whom were Jews.” And the silence of the majority leaves Jews feeling isolated. “Everyone is saying ‘Je suis Charlie’ today,” a Jewish student in Paris tells Goldberg, alluding to outrage over the murder of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. “But this has been happening to the Jews for years and no one cares.” Another student, using the French term for “Jewish,” suggests: “It would be nice if someone would say ‘Je suis Juif.’ ”

Why don’t non-Muslim Europeans care more about the new anti-Semitism? One reason is that they aren’t Jews. But another reason is that they aren’t Muslims. They’re neither the victims nor the perpetrators. They feel neither the threat nor the responsibility.

…If I were a Jew in Europe, I don’t think I’d leave. Growing up in Texas, I had many encounters—slurs, threats, occasional minor violence—similar to those described by Goldberg as anti-Semitic. They were anti-Semitic. I just had to deal with them. One thing that helped me get through it was the belief that my tormentors represented an ignorant, dying past. The best way to help today’s European Jews is to give them the same confidence, by working on the ignorance at the heart of Muslim anti-Semitism. To do that, you have to focus on the ignorance, not the Islam.

How can we help Jews stay in Europe despite anti-Semitism: Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article doesn’t answer that question..

CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam

A reminder that the threats are broader than government messaging and labelling would suggest:

“Lone wolf” attacks more often come from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologies than from Islamic radicalism, internal CSIS documents say.

Citing recent academic research, the unclassified documents note extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideology has been the “main ideological source” for 17 per cent of so-called lone wolf attacks worldwide.

Islamic extremism accounted for 15 per cent of such attacks, the document noted, while left-wing extremism and “black power” groups followed with 13 per cent. Anti-abortion activism (8 per cent) and nationalism/separatism (7 per cent) rounded out the list, while in 40 per cent of cases there was no clear ideological motivation.

“Lone actors tend to create their own ideologies that combine personal frustrations and grievances, with wider political, social, or religious issues,” note the documents prepared for Michael Peirce, assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

“This study confirms that lone actor terrorism runs the gamut of ideological persuasions.”

CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam | Toronto Star.

Trevor Phillips Says Multiculturalism Is ‘A Racket’ Ahead Of Channel 4 Race Documentary

Trevor Phillips on the dangers of excessive political correctness and the need for more open and frank discussion:

The perverse and unintended consequences of our drive to instil respect for diversity is that our political and media classes have become terrified of discussing racial or religious differences.

“Our desperation to avoid offence is itself beginning to stand in the way of progress. And all too often the losers are minority Britons.

“Preventing anyone from saying what’s on their minds won’t ever remove it from their hearts. People need to feel free to say what they want to without the fear of being accused of racism or bigotry.”

He listed ’10 true things’ it is taboo to say, including “Romanians are far more likely to be pickpockets” and “Jewish households are twice as wealthy as the rest”.

He cited the child sex abuse scandals in towns including Oxford, Rotherham and Rochdale and the murder in 2000 of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie as examples of institutions failing to act for fear of offending minority groups.

Phillips, a Labour London Assembly Member, also admitted he felt he bore some responsibility for the July 7 bombings in 2005 because, as then head of the CRE, he failed “to see what was coming”.

He said: “Because I had made it my business to spend part of each week in a community outside London, I already knew some groups were becoming so isolated that values and ideas which most people would find alien were tolerated and even encouraged.

“But we had said little about it and done even less. After 12 months at the CRE I had come to the conclusion that, while beautiful in theory, multiculturalism had become a racket in which self-style community leaders bargained for control over local authority funds that would prop up their own status and authority.

“Far from encouraging integration it had become in their interest to preserve the isolation of their ethnic groups. In some, practices such as female genital mutilation — a topic I’d made films about as a TV journalist — were regarded as the private domain of the community.

“In others, local politicians and community bosses had clearly struck a Faustian bargain: grants for votes.

“And I saw a looming danger that these communities were steadily shrinking in on themselves, trapping young people behind walls of tradition and deference to elders.

“Of course none of this was secret. But anyone who pointed the finger could expect to be denounced for not respecting diversity.”

Phillips criticised the public reaction to “pefectly reasonable” comments by Benedict Cumberbatch about the lack of roles for black actors in the UK.

He said Cumberbatch was making the “much-needed case for the employment of black actors in greater numbers”.

Trevor Phillips Says Multiculturalism Is ‘A Racket’ Ahead Of Channel 4 Race Documentary.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’

How does the Government seriously think that this ongoing line of unsubstantiated allegations helps increase cooperation with Canadian Muslim groups and Canadian Muslims in generally in helping reduce the risk of radicalization and violent extremism?

Just reinforcing previous examples of divisive language and the lack of a de-radicalization strategy on “soft” measures to reduce what are real risks:

During a question-and-answer session following National Council of Canadian Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee’s presentation to the House public safety committee on Bill C-51, Diane Ablonczy used her allotted time to “put on the record” what she described as “a continuing series of allegations” that the NCCM has ties to groups that have expressed support for “Islamic terrorist groups,” including Hamas.

“I think it is fair to give you an opportunity to address these troubling allegations,” Ablonczy said.

“In order to work together, there needs to be a satisfaction that, you know, this can’t be a half-hearted battle against terrorism. Where do you stand in light of these allegations?”

Gardee pushed back.

Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told Diane Ablonczy that her line of questioning Thursday was “entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.” (CBC News)

“First and foremost, I’ll say on the record that NCCM has condemned violent terrorism and extremism in all of its forms, regardless of who perpetrates it for whatever reason,” he told the committee.

“However, the premise of your question is false, and entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.”

Gardee pointed to the group’s history as an independent, non-profit, grassroots Canadian Muslim civil liberties organization with a “robust and public” track record.

“These are precisely the types of slanderous statements that have resulted in litigation that is ongoing,” he said, including a defamation lawsuit launched last year against the Prime Minister’s Office over “false statements” linking the group to Hamas made by now-former spokesman Jason MacDonald.

“The NCCM is confident that the courts will provide the necessary clarity on these points to ensure they are never repeated again,” he said. “The NCCM is not going to submit to a litmus test of loyalty used against Canadian Muslims and their institutions… which underlie such offensive questions.”

“McCarthyesque-type questions protected by parliamentary privilege are unbecoming of this committee,” he said, referring to a style of questioning used by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, imputing guilt with little or no evidence to back it up.

In response, Ablonczy mused that Gardee seemed to have been prepared for her question — as, she said, she thought he might be — before switching topics to hear his thoughts on effective anti-radicalization initiatives.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’ – Politics – CBC News.

Justin Trudeau, Steven Blaney and Godwin’s law of Nazi analogies – From the author of Godwin’s Law

For those accusing Justin Trudeau and Minister Blaney of inappropriate Nazi and Hitler references, an interview with Mike Godwin, the coiner of Godwin’s law that whoever first invokes an (inappropriate) reference has lost the argument, to set the record straight:

Let’s start with Mr. Trudeau. Did you think what he said was appropriate? 

Yes I actually do I think that it’s served Canada well to remain aware that the singling out of people on the basis of their ethnic or religious background is not something that Canadians have totally been a stranger to. That in the run up to World War Two certainly Jews in Canada had that experience …. I think that Canada of this century is a better place and I think what Mr. Trudeau is saying is in line with what I think majority of Canadian values are today.

You are aware that some people did criticize him for that comparison perhaps unconsciously thinking of Godwin’s Law. 

I am aware of it and I think that the thing that I would say in defence of Mr. Trudeau is that he is not saying that anyone who is afraid of people of different cultures or people of different ethnic groups is inherently going to act like a Nazi or be like Hitler. I think what he’s saying is look, let’s be aware of history, we should remember our mistakes and not repeat them.

Let’s look at minister Blaney who seemed to draw a line between certain kinds of speech and the Holocaust. Do you think that that comparison was acceptable. 

…  I want to say, in defence of Mr. Blaney, that in fact bad ideas can lead to bad real world outcomes. That is certainly true and nobody can dispute that. But what free and open societies like Canada’s and like those of other developed nations really try to do is not attack the ideas by suppressing them.

For all the Canadian pundits, politicians and interest groups who condemned both, worth reading and reflecting upon, and appreciating the nuance in Trudeau’s remarks in contrast to the less sophisticated remarks of Blaney.

Justin Trudeau, Steven Blaney and Godwin’s law of Nazi analogies – Home | Day 6 | CBC Radio.

Douglas Todd: Canada a blank slate, with no culture?

More on the ongoing (existential) debate on whether Canada has a unique culture. My favourite comments cited by Douglas Todd are below:

Eric Kaufmann, a Vancouver-raised political scientist at the University of London, said while there is no single Canadian identity, “as long as each resident of the country identifies with Canada in some way, the whole remains united.”

Somewhat like John Ralston Saul, Kaufmann emphasizes the “Métis,” or “mixed,” nature of Canadian culture — that many residents are a blend of such things as Anglo-American, Protestant, aboriginal, French-Canadian, Catholic and, increasingly, Asian origins.

The “northern landscape” is also a significant connector among Canadians, said Kaufmann. So is the way Canada is a more “ordered, equal society than the U.S. Then there are everyday things like maple syrup, hockey and the moose, which of course, matter, too.”

Kaufmann suggests governments not push too hard on promoting a single view of Canadian culture, but instead highlight “core values around respect for liberty, law and celebrating major historical episodes.”

All of this acknowledges that Canada is not an easy-to-define country. And there are semantic challenges around the word, “culture,” which some academics enjoy de-constructing.

But even highlighting core values, and the interpretation that can be attached to each core value, is never quite as easy or as neutral as it sounds.

Douglas Todd: A blank slate, with no culture?.

NDP tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec

More on some of the internal NDP debates:

But headlines in French-language media that say NDP is “in favour of the niqab” were not well received by all New Democrats, and provided fodder for the party’s opponents in the province.

The niqab is a controversial subject in Quebec, where a promise from the separatist Parti Québécois to ban overt religious symbols among government workers was a major issue in the most recent provincial election.

One of the NDP’s best known Quebec MPs, Alexandre Boulerice, gave media interviews this week to explain his “uneasiness” with the niqab.

“It seems to be a symbol of oppression, which is not something that pleases me,” Mr. Boulerice told The Globe and Mail on Friday. “I think the niqab is at the junction of the limits of what is accepted by the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and what Canadian society is ready to accept.”

He also questioned the ability of fully veiled bureaucrats to provide services to the public, stating Canada might need a country-wide consultation on religious symbols similar to one in Quebec in 2007-2008. However, he added that the Charter needs to be respected, and accused the Conservative government of “going overboard” on the issue.

The Liberal Party jumped on Mr. Boulerice’s comments, arguing that on minority rights, the NDP says “one thing in Quebec, and something else in the rest of Canada.”

New Democrat officials said the party’s position has not changed: it will continue to support minority rights vigorously and defend the Charter, including the right of women to wear a niqab when swearing the oath of citizenship.

The party also renewed its assault on Prime Minister Stephen Harper for attempting to use the issue of the niqab to win support in Quebec. New Democrats explained that in much of the country, the debate is among three federalist parties, but that in Quebec, the separatist Bloc Québécois, a federal party, is scoring political points by criticizing the niqab.

“Stephen Harper is helping the separatists by giving them a lifeline, by fanning the flames of division on this issue,” NDP principal secretary Karl Bélanger said in an interview.

NDP tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec – The Globe and Mail.

Quebec woman denied her day in court over hijab turns down $52,000 raised through crowdfunding

Class act:

The money collected on the gofundme website was to be used to help Rania El-Alloul buy a car.

The drive was in response to a judge’s refusal to hear her case against Quebec’s automobile insurance board, which had seized her vehicle.

El-Alloul said in a letter on the website that she appreciates the financial support offered by the “generous and warm-hearted campaign.”

But, she added, she can’t accept the gift.

“The awareness raised by this campaign has brought us people from all over, who have offered support to carry this issue forward,” El-Alloul wrote.

“As a result, I believe that these funds can be put to better use helping those whose rights have been forfeited and stories left untold.”

Quebec woman denied her day in court over hijab turns down $52,000 raised through crowdfunding

Election Watch: Beyond the “Ethnic Vote” – New Canadian Media – NCM

Start of an interesting series in New Canadian Media in the lead-up to the October election by political science profs Inder S. Marwah, Stephen E. White and Phil Triadafilopoulos:

  • What exactly is the “ethnic vote”?  How is it understood and/or defined by different parties, media and researchers? Is there such a thing as an ethnic vote, or are there many different (perhaps conflicting) ethnic votes? Do assumptions about the “ethnic vote” portray widely diverse communities as sharing in a single set of values or interests?
  • What are the key ridings to watch in the lead-up to the 2015 election? How will demographic factors affect local, regional and national voting patterns?
  • What are the issues of greatest concern to new Canadians and/or longstanding ethnic communities? How are the different parties addressing them?
  • Are religious practices being politicized for electoral purposes, as has been the case in many European states? How are new Canadians likely to respond to such efforts?

We will explore how immigration and new Canadian communities are helping to shape the country’s political landscape. Broadly speaking, Canada is an immigrant-receiving success story. In the last few decades, the country has opened itself to a high volume of immigration, provided immigrant populations with relatively easy access to naturalization and citizenship, and maintained its social cohesion, political stability and economic wellbeing along the way. While new Canadians undoubtedly face barriers in accessing social, political and economic opportunities, they fare better in these respects than do immigrant communities in many other countries. New Canadians are, then, poised to profoundly influence the 2015 federal election, and more broadly, Canada’s political life. We look forward to analyzing their influence in the months ahead.

Election Watch: Beyond the “Ethnic Vote” – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Germany reverses ban on headscarves for Muslim teachers

Progress even if some dissent:

The court in Karlsruhe, ruling on a case brought by a Muslim woman blocked from a teaching job because of her headscarf, said religious symbols could only be banned when they posed “not just an abstract but a concrete risk of disruption in schools.”

“This is a good day for religious freedom,” said Volker Beck, a lawmaker from the opposition Greens.

He argued that headgear worn by devout Muslim, Jewish and Christian women and men was less of a threat to German society than “opponents of diversity” such as the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), neo-Nazis and extremist Muslim Salafists.

Christine Lueders, head of the federal anti-discrimination agency, hailed the ruling for “reinforcing religious freedom in Germany.” With education administered by Germany’s 16 states, she called on local authorities to review the relevant rules.

But the German Teachers’ Assocation (DL) called the ruling “problematic,” saying it undermined the principle of political and religious “neutrality” in schools and public services.

“We fear this ruling could lead to disruption in certain schools if, for example, non-Muslim parents do not agree with their children being taught by teachers in headscarves,” said Josef Kraus, president of the teachers’ body.

Germany reverses ban on headscarves for Muslim teachers – The Globe and Mail.