Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation

2015/02/16 Leave a comment

CIC Minister Alexander trying up to come up with a convincing rationale for the niqab ban bit mixing up the niqab at citizenship ceremonies with domestic violence issues (which are not, needless to say, unique to niqabi women) is clumsy.

PM is more convincing when he spoke about the symbolism of “joining the Canadian family,” as niqab signals separation, not integration, in a way that other religious symbols (hijab, kippa, kirpan) do not:

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, who was named as the respondent in Ishaq’s case, said Friday that people need to be identified and need to “commit to the oath.”

“We also are a government, and I think a people, that is concerned about protecting women from violence, protecting women from human smuggling, protecting women from barbaric practices like polygamy, genital mutilation, honour killings,” Alexander said.

“I worry when some of those defending the idea of keeping a woman behind a niqab in a citizenship ceremony are also those who say that we don’t need these protections for women from violence and from abuse. It’s something we’re all passionate about in Canada, there is no place for violence against women or any domestic violence in this country.”

Alexander said not showing your face is not a requirement of Islam and the “vast majority” of Muslim groups have said the 2011 law in question is fair and does not violate their freedom of religion.

Amira Elghawaby, human rights coordinator at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said many Muslims and Canadians disagree with the idea of the niqab, but if it’s someone’s sincere religious belief, the right to wear one is a legal matter protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

New Canadians take the oath of citizenship at a ceremony in Dartmouth, N.S. in 2014. A Federal Court ruling that women who wear a niqab do not have to remove it to take the oath is being appealed by the federal government. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

“Our opinions about these things really are irrelevant, what’s important is what it means to be Canadian and what it means to have freedom of religion and consciousness in this country,” she said.

“I think that unanimously, people who understand our Charter of Rights understand that this is a right that should be protected. She is not harming anyone by deciding to keep her niqab on … and whether I agree in it or not, I do not have the right to tell her to remove it because the law does not support that and the constitution does not support that.”

NCCM forgets that freedom of religion, like other fundamental freedoms, is not absolute.

Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation – Politics – CBC News.

The muted reaction of other political parties:

Federal opposition parties trod carefully Friday on the issue of whether a Toronto Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship.

NDP multiculturalism critic Andrew Cash said the Conservative government was conflating matters of security and ceremony by appealing a court decision permitting the woman to wear the facial covering.

“It’s unfortunate that in matters of ceremonial issues, Conservatives are willing to play partisan politics to simply ratchet things up to win votes,” Mr. Cash said.

Liberal immigration critic John McCallum said that the matter is before the courts. And party spokesman Cameron Ahmad said that “the responsibility to present the case falls on the government.”

Neither party would say outright whether it backed Zunera Ishaq’s bid to keep her face covered during the swearing-in portion of the ceremony.

Federal opposition parties tread carefully on issue of niqabs during citizenship oath

Filed under Citizenship, Religion Tagged with , , , , , ,

Fear Inc.: Behind the $57 Million Network Fueling Islamophobia in the U.S.

2015/02/16 Leave a comment

Interesting short video on some of the forces behind anti-Islam and anti-Muslim messaging (under 2 minutes):

 

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

James Comey, FBI director, gives frank talk on policing and race

2015/02/14 Leave a comment

More on unconscious bias, assumptions and instinctive reactions:

The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York, at the hands of white police officers, as well as the more recent slayings of two New York police officers, have raised difficult issues on both sides of the debate, Comey said.

One is that police officers who work in neighbourhoods where most street crime is committed by young black men may hold unconscious biases and be tempted to take what he called “lazy mental shortcuts” in dealing with suspicious situations.

That means officers may be influenced by feelings of “cynicism,” relying on assumptions they should not make and complicating the “relationship between police and the communities they serve,” he said.

‘The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others that officer has locked up. Two white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black, and that drives different behaviour.’

But another truth, he said, is that minorities in poor neighbourhoods too often inherit a “legacy of crime and prison,” a cycle he said must be broken to improve race relations with police.

Comey contended that everyone, regardless of background or colour, carries around biases.

“I am reminded of the song from the Broadway hit, Avenue Q — Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist …”

“But if we can’t help our latent biases, we can help our behaviour in response to those instinctive reactions, which is why we work to design systems and processes that overcome that very human part of us all,” he added.

James Comey, FBI director, gives frank talk on policing and race – World – CBC News.

Filed under Racism Tagged with , ,

Multiculturalism Redefined? (#179) « Quebec Culture Blog

2015/02/14 Leave a comment

While I think the writer is over-stating the change in Trudeau’s language (many of the points are stating more explicitly what has been implicit, just as Minister Kenney’s reboot was re-emphasising the integration objective of multiculturalism), nevertheless worth reflecting upon.

And his recognition of the close similarity between multiculturalism and interculturalism is something that more need to acknowledge, as the issue is more what kind of multiculturalism and what kind of interculturalism we believe is most effective:

At first glance, Trudeau’s socio-cultural contractualism, or renewed multiculturalism, or inter-multiculturalism (whatever name you wish to attach to it) does keep the principal traits of multiculturalism as we have known it (which is Canada will let you live your life in peace, and with time you will integrate into society at your rhythm and in your own way, but you may also receive a gentle nudge from time-to-time to encourage you to continue in that process – this is an oversimplistic definition, but it’s tough to otherwise sum it up in one sentence).

However, J.Trudeau seems to be opening the way to “pre-established” integration conditions, aligned with the norms of the environment in which a person lives in Canada.  He is giving immigrants obligations towards these norms and towards groups of people around them which already form the core of society, and towards those with whom newcomers have to live.  It is these last two phrases which conform more to concepts and ideologies of Québec’s interculturalism (those at least which are more apt to be practiced in Québec).   Let me be clear that I am not at all saying that this redefinition is anywhere near elements contained in the deposed proposal for a Québec Charter of Values (which was debated during the winter of 2013/2014).  Even on this point, Québec was not ready or comfortable, as a society, to adopt such a charter in the name of interculturalism (we all saw how the proposal imploded on itself during public debates on the issue).   Justin Trudeau seems to be taking another path, but one which still could hold potential to bridge the publicly perceived distances between multiculturalism and interculturalism.

Kenney’s changes in fact did bring the two closer together.

Multiculturalism Redefined? (#179) « Quebec Culture Blog.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Max Yalden championed human rights in Canada

2015/02/14 Leave a comment

Bernie Farber’s tribute to Max Yalden:

Max Yalden was the consummate civil servant with a twist: he didn’t suffer fools gladly. He played significant roles in two key areas of Canada’s growth as a nation, as Commissioner of Official Languages (1977-1984) and perhaps his most important posting, as Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) from 1987 to 1996.

He was a studied man who preferred focused research and facts to educate and make his points. His annual reports in both of his key positions are now the stuff of legend. It was Yalden’s goal while overseeing the Official Languages Act to normalize the transition of Canada from a unilingual state to a bilingual nation and eventually as Human Rights Commissioner into a multicultural entity. While not yet perfect, Yalden’s determined work was largely successful.

And while today we essentially take human and civil rights for granted it was not always so. Hatred, bullying and discrimination were commonplace 30 years ago especially when it came to gay and lesbian rights, the status of women, people with disabilities, as well as faith and minority groups. Max Yalden created a “fence of protection” for minorities in this country by ensuring that the Canadian Human Rights Act was a force for good and a vehicle for change.

He viscerally understood that words had power and that evil words could be fraught with danger for minority groups. He was a strong defender of the now-repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that gave some authority to the commission to deal with hate speech through the Internet. Yalden saw the regulation as a means to teach about the need for decency and civility as opposed to using the heavy hammer of criminal law to punish those who should know better.

…Max Yalden was a man of uncommon dignity. He understood and had compassion for those who often found themselves without a champion. He became their champion. Much of Canada’s progress in the arena of human and civil rights is a direct result of Max Yalden’s vision, courage and determination.

Today, at a time where anti-terrorism laws are being considered that may further restrict our hard-fought-for human rights, where once again Muslims, Jews and others are the subjects of hate and distrust, we could use a Maxwell Yalden to be our champion.

Max Yalden championed human rights in Canada | Toronto Star.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: Wesley Wark: Intelligence lessons from France

2015/02/14 Leave a comment

Wesley Wark on the intelligence lessons from the Paris attacks and sensible conclusion:

French intelligence and security agencies are highly experienced with terrorism threats and have particular knowledge and capabilities in the Middle East, North Africa and the sub-Saharan region. But there are lessons to be learned, for France, and for other countries, in the failures of counter-terrorism on display last week. Those lessons point in four directions: perseverance in maintaining a strategic watch on presumed lower tier threats; better technological capabilities; better intelligence sharing at home and abroad; and better external scrutiny.

Wesley Wark: Intelligence lessons from France | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , ,

Student killings a rallying cry for alienated Muslim Americans

2015/02/13 Leave a comment

A Muslim American Ferguson moment?

Among the millions of posts about the killing, there quickly appeared clear themes. Many users wondered how much more news coverage the killings would have received had it been a Muslim man who’d shot three white students dead. Others asked white Americans to vocally condemn the alleged killer, and make an effort to find out how he became radicalized – a sardonic reversal of something many Muslims complain they are continually asked to do. Many, including some of the victims’ family members, rejected the claim that the killing was prompted solely by a dispute over a parking space, calling it an obvious hate crime.

(It is a testament to the perceived consequences of the phrase “hate crime” that the alleged killer’s wife held a press conference to assure the public that the murders of which her husband is accused were in fact not motivated by hatred for the victims’ religion. In a bit of a non sequitur, she backed this claim by mentioning that many of Mr. Hicks’s posts on Facebook were in support of such causes as abortion and gay rights. She did not mention his many anti-religion posts, but their content suggests one torturous defence may ultimately be that the killings he is alleged to have committed were not hate crimes against his Muslim victims because he hates all religious equally).

In many ways, the volume and tenor of the Muslim American community’s reaction to the killing is similar to the outcry that sparked the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Multifaceted, it is nonetheless a response anchored in the belief that injustices, when perpetrated against victims of a particular minority, are simply considered less serious. But whereas the Black Lives Matter movement drew on hundreds of years of examples, the Muslim-American response is focused almost solely on the events of the past 14 years.

Broadly, the grievances of many Muslim Americans exist in one of two categories – the grand geopolitical outrages over two full-scale wars and their myriad repercussions, and the more immediate, day-to-day frustrations to which belong such issues as the Duke prayer controversy, the uproar over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque in New York City and the spike in accusatory harassment that tends to follow every barbarity committed by terror groups half a world away.

The two categories are related, but for most Muslim Americans, the former is relatively abstract – the chances of any American being shipped off to the Guantanamo Bay detention camps today is essentially nil. But the latter complaints – harassment, accusation, a sense of otherness – are not. And, once extrapolated, such concerns reach their sad apex in the prospect of a hateful neighbour at the front door, gun in hand. Like the killing of Mr. Brown in Ferguson last summer, the murder of the three Chapel Hill students is a single rock that, dislodged, triggers a landslide.

Student killings a rallying cry for alienated Muslim Americans – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Travailler avec un intégriste: la ministre Weil se ravise

2015/02/13 Leave a comment

Reminds me of a discussion I had with some of my former staff during 2008 Quebec niqab and related debates, and I challenged my staff, who argued for accommodation, would they feel comfortable having a co-worker wearing a niqab? The body language discomfort was palpable:

Kathleen Weil a marché dans les mêmes traces mercredi, lorsqu’elle commentait la conception de son plan d’action pour la lutte au radicalisme, et le projet de loi péquiste sur un observatoire de l’intégrisme. Elle affirmait qu’il y avait de l’intégrisme qui pouvait être soit inoffensif ou soit dangereux, quand les échanges ont alors glissé, à savoir si elle aurait un problème à travailler avec un intégriste dans son propre cabinet.

«Intégriste, ça dépend jusqu’où (sur le plan) religieux, a-t-elle d’abord répondu au cours d’un point de presse en matinée. S’il est rigoriste, mais ne fait pas de mal à personne… C’est ça l’inquiétude pour une société démocratique, c’est la sécurité des gens.»

Elle a alors été appelée par un journaliste à préciser sa pensée, avec un exemple hypothétique d’un collègue qu’elle côtoierait au quotidien, un intégriste rigoriste qui respecte strictement ses préceptes religieux en privé.

«On n’a pas de jugement à porter sur cette personne en autant que la sécurité publique est protégée», a-t-elle confirmé.

Elle a soutenu que l’intégrisme en soi n’est pas dangereux et qu’elle ne connaît pas de pays disposant de plans d’action contre l’intégrisme. Toutefois, à la sortie du conseil des ministres en après-midi, son discours avait changé.

«Ce serait impossible que quelqu’un comme ça se retrouve dans mon cabinet, vraiment impossible», a martelé Mme Weil.

Sa définition de l’intégrisme s’était soudainement étoffée, pour justifier son rejet, et il ne s’agissait plus simplement d’un rigoriste et de ses pratiques religieuses en privé: un intégriste est devenu quelqu’un qui ne partage pas les valeurs démocratiques, qui ne croit pas en l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et qui fait la promotion de l’homophobie.

«C’est plus que de la rigueur (sic), a-t-elle justifié. C’est quelqu’un qui conteste la démocratie. C’est ce qui est ahurissant dans ce qu’on entend ces temps-ci. Je réagis fortement à ça.»

L’intégriste est «extrêmement conservateur», a-t-elle poursuivi, et n’a pas une «mentalité moderne». À la première entrevue d’embauche on verrait que cette personne n’a pas une «mentalité ouverte, progressiste».

Selon elle, il y a des gradations jusqu’au fondamentalisme, mais le lexique est «complexe» et elle veut rester simple pour être comprise. «C’est plus important de parler des vraies choses, c’est ce que les gens comprennent, je pense qu’il faut parler un langage simple», a-t-elle dit.

Travailler avec un intégriste: la ministre Weil se ravise | Patrice Bergeron | Politique québécoise.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: Lutte au terrorisme: Québec doit agir et rassurer les gens, dit Gérard Bouchard

2015/02/13 Leave a comment

Gérard Bouchard on radicalization and security, and advocating for stronger anti-hate speech laws:

«Je pense que c’est important qu’il agisse maintenant, ne serait-ce que pour rassurer la population. La population est inquiète et elle a de bonnes raisons de l’être», a commenté l’historien et sociologue de l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi.

M. Bouchard était de passage à Québec avec l’autre coprésident de la Commission, Charles Taylor, pour formuler des recommandations à la commission parlementaire qui se penche sur la future politique à adopter en matière d’immigration.

Il a convenu que l’équilibre à trouver entre l’adoption de mesures musclées de prévention d’actes terroristes et le respect des droits individuels, tels que définis dans la charte québécoise des droits et libertés, s’annonçait pour être un exercice complexe et difficile pour le gouvernement.

«Quelles sont les mesures qu’on va mettre en oeuvre, qui respectent le droit, qui sont conformes à notre charte, et qui, en même temps, vont être suffisantes pour repousser la menace terroriste? Ce ne sera pas facile», a-t-il conclu.

Parmi les instruments envisagés, il se montre ouvert à l’idée d’amender la charte pour préciser l’interdiction de tenir des propos haineux au Québec.

«Le discours contre la haine pourrait être plus explicite, à son avis. On pourrait être plus affirmatif, en termes juridiques.»

Lutte au terrorisme: Québec doit agir et rassurer les gens, dit Gérard Bouchard | Jocelyne Richer | National.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with ,

Germany’s xenophobic anti-Islam movement shocked the world. Then, it defeated itself

2015/02/12 Leave a comment

Good analysis of why Pegida has become weak:

Only a few weeks ago, Germany’s Pegida movement attracted tens of thousands of supporters every Monday and was on its way to become a political power.

Then, however, things started to go poorly for the German anti-Muslim protesters.

Authorities canceled one of the marches due to a terror threat, briefly after the attacks in Paris. Then, it was revealed that Pegida’s leader, Lutz Bachmann, had posed as Hitler. Bachmann said he would resign, but then he changed his mind. Instead, Pegida’s more moderate organizers left in protest and founded a new, more moderate movement that has so far failed to attract substantial support.

By Feb. 9, the number of Pegida supporters in Dresden had dropped from 25,000 (Jan. 12) to 2,000. Monday’s march could mark the beginning of the end of a movement that shocked domestic and foreign observers with its loud, anti-Islam message, but also with the more hidden, xenophobic and sometimes openly racist remarks of its supporters.

Why did Pegida lose so many supporters so quickly?

1. Infighting within Pegida’s leadership.

2. National opposition was too strong, and the gains of the movement were minimal.

3. Many Pegida supporters wanted to voice local criticism, and were shocked when they found themselves on international front pages.

4. Similar, smaller protest marches in other cities failed.

5. The protesters could not agree on a common agenda.

6. Furthermore, neo-Nazis dominated several Pegida offshoots.

Germany’s xenophobic anti-Islam movement shocked the world. Then, it defeated itself. – The Washington Post.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →