Jen Gerson: The Conservative case for the CBC

2024/05/02 Leave a comment

Comments on immigrant communities and their media consumption from country of origin sources as a reason to revitalize the CBC. Her reform suggestions have merit:

It was at the recent Canada Strong and Free Network conference — formerly known by the much less awkward title the “Manning Centre” conference — in which I overheard one of those conversations that is so often considered taboo in tête-à-têtes that are more Liberal or NDP-adjacent. It was a discussion on immigration, and specifically, on the obstacles to cultural integration that rapid immigration can sometimes entail. 

The speaker noted with some dismay the number of satellite TV dishes affixed to the balconies of apartments in urban areas that tend to become the first homes of new arrivals to the country. With the advent of affordable global satellite television, those who had relocated to Canada could keep abreast of news at home, in the languages they were most comfortable with. This influx included not only the plethora of private television networks, but also their public counterparts: RT, IRA, CCTV — virtually every country in the world invests in some content offering, and makes that offering widely available both domestically and abroad. 

In liberal democracies, public broadcasting tends to value at least a degree of journalistic independence. In authoritarian nations, well, not so much. But they broadcast just the same. 

Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with seeking news and entertainment from one’s homeland. Nothing could be more natural than the desire to seek out the familiar, especially while adapting to a new culture and a new home. My fellow conversationalist was not unsympathetic to that desire, yet those satellite dishes concerned him, nonetheless. Canada is welcoming a nearly unprecedented number of new immigrants at the same moment in which its sense of itself as a nation has, arguably, never been weaker. Or, as Justin Trudeau himself once put it “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” 

If that’s so, how do we expect this influx of new Canadians to cohere to the vacant identity of their adopted homeland? Is the move to Canada a thing that exists in the body only; the spirit to remain entrenched in the values, language, news and entertainment of the citizen’s soul? His homeland? How does a nation as widely dispersed and malleable as ours, one that welcomes people from around the world, create some kind of pan-Canadian values and identity? How the hell do we actually work together?  

I don’t have an easy answer to that question, but I did note at the time that this individual had unwittingly articulated the best Conservative case for the CBC. 

And he had done it in a place where promises to “defund the CBC” generated unabashed whoops of glee. 

“Perhaps don’t defund the CBC” is a contrarian position in my circles, of late. Conservatives hate this institution — and I don’t use the word “hate” lightly. It may be too late to make an appeal for reform, caution or reason. Blood is high. 

They are angry that the CBC sued the Conservative party — and only the Conservative party — for a fair use of news material in political advertising. They are angry at an organization that seems to be ideologically driven to, and hell bent on, closing the Overton window on a range of policy positions and values that many of them care about. They resent being forced to pay for a public broadcaster that they feel has alienated them. 

While I think some of these positions are clouded by the poor judgment that inevitably accompanies anger, many of these grievances are valid. And, privately, I know at least some employees in the CBC will admit to it. The CBC is not what it ought to have been in recent years, and calls for it to be defunded are a predictable and inevitable consequence of adopting a set of cultural values that are openly at odds with a plurality of the taxpayers that fund it. 

The organization still does necessary work, and employs many hundreds of diligent and grounded journalists. However, at least some sections of the organization do come off as high handed and patronizing, as if the outlet sees its role as imposing a set of Canadian Values onto a benighted populace eager for the Call On High of the Annex, rather than as an institution whose fundamental role is to serve those very masses. 

Take the carbon tax, MAID, government spending, contentious protests, gender identity, sex work, safe supply, diversity and inclusion, homelessness, and crime — these are some of the most pressing and contentious issues facing Canadians today. These are complicated issues, often morally fraught, and offer rich opportunities for real debate, reporting, and investigation. I don’t think that’s what we’re getting from the CBC right now. That is a problem, and an abrogation of the CBC’s duty to inform and serve a geographically and ideologically diverse public. Hence the anger. 

However, I cannot pin this failure solely on the CBC. 

If our public broadcaster is not producing the kind of journalism that we want, need and expect, then the negligence lies also within ourselves. We taxpayers, political leaders, and citizens have failed to communicate to the CBC what we expect. And weak management, poorly guided by a vague mandate, has been unable to establish a clear vision of what the outlet needs to prioritize — and, more crucially, what it must deprioritize. 

What I see when I look at the CBC is a Byzantine hall, ruled by competing fiefdoms, and dug five stories deep into the forbidding earth. What I see is mandate creep.

Is there anyone in senior management who can seriously blank-face defend CBC Gem? Or CBC Comedy? Why is the CBC replicating widely available language learning apps with their own version, Mauril? Or how about its vertical devoted to first-person opinion pieces? In an era of Substack and Medium and X, is there market failure that a public broadcaster really needs to address, here? A real lack of opportunity to write articles like: After coming out as trans, my return to sex work has been unexpectedly rewarding.

I could go on, but you get the point. Is there anyone, anywhere, within the CBC hierarchy who can say: “No”? 

All of these efforts reek of a senior management that so lacks a sense of self direction that it instead tries to be everything to everybody, and then blames its lack of adequate funding when it fails to do anything particularly well. And that’s before we get into the management bonuses, and last minute budget top ups. This isn’t sustainable. And it’s why I don’t find arguments for increasing funding right now compelling — absent a clear mandate and strong internal management, the government could double or even triple the CBC’s funding and not create anything better; all we’d get is an even more sprawling bureaucracy trying to churn out more #content in categories that are already amply if not ably served by the private sector. 

So, yeah, I understand the emotion, here. I understand how gratifying it is for Conservatives who squeal with delight when Pierre Poilievre screams “defund the CBC.” Whatever that means. 

All I’d ask is for such people to consider that this is, indeed, an emotional response generated by feelings of grievance and alienation. It’s not a rational policy position. Shut down the CBC tomorrow, and Canada is not suddenly going to host 1,000 ideologically grounded private media organizations. That’s a fantasy, totally detached from a solid understanding of the modern media market. The only problem defunding the CBC solves is the continued public funding of the CBC. 

Local news — real reporting that involves sending actual people to write about quotidian court cases and city hall meetings week after week — is a very hard business case in an environment that generates revenue by virality and clicks. There are going to be some successes in this sphere, but not enough to replicate a tenth of even the current skeletal coverage. 

Privatizing the CBC will do nothing other than to create another failing private media outlet. And defunding or shuttering it outright is only going to eliminate what’s left of an already battered local news system at the very moment that the private media sector is heading into its senescence. This is going to contribute to already expansive news deserts, with citizens turning to things like Facebook groups and closed group chats in order to share local knowledge. 

Some of these quasi-outlets will be fine, and even useful. Ordinary journalism doesn’t require special training or a credential. 

But it does mean that more Canadians over time are going to grow increasingly reliant on sources of information that may or may not have any attachment to how the world around them actually functions. Not only is this going to have an impact on our concepts of a shared national identity, but in some cases, even consensus reality. 

We don’t have to peer too deep into the darkness of our hearts to get a sense of where this is going. Travel just a little ways outside a major city and you’ll quickly run into news deserts where a significant subsection of the population already believes that the Canadian government is controlled by Klaus Schwab for the benefit of Satanic, adrenochrome-swilling pedophiles. 

To put it more bluntly: Conservatives, it’s one thing to burn CBC’s downtown Toronto HQ. By all means, paint your bodies in the ashes and scream at the moon until she hears your victory. Revel in it. But then you’re actually going to have to govern people. How long do you think the current crop of “hang the elites” stand by you when you’re the elite

The CBC in its current state is not sustainable. It needs a radical overhaul that includes an extensive mandate review that sets clear expectations for content, tone, and objective outcomes. Personally, I’d cleave everything related to entertainment and leave that to die. The CBC ought to be an exclusively journalistic organization, with a particular focus on local news, beat reporting, and investigations. I’d take the CBC’s mandate out of the Broadcasting Act and create a standalone statute that enshrines objective journalistic standards and practices in law so internal committees can’t dick around with journalistic fads. (I have no objection to “activist” journalism, or concepts like “moral clarity” in private business, or even grant-supported niche outlets; but a national public broadcaster ought to adopt broadly unobjectionable and historically grounded journalistic standards when serving an audience that cannot escape footing the bill.)

I’d demand the CBC create a functional, independent newsroom in every city over 100,000 people in this country. I’d assign specific beats like health, upper courts, legislatures and the like, and I’d write those expectations straight into the mandate. 

Most importantly, I’d have both the CBC and its critics understand that it is one of the most important repositories of institutional knowledge in this country — it is not only a reservoir of Canada’s culture and history, but also an irreplaceable living resource for the craft and practice of journalism itself. I wish the CBC considered itself not as a competitor to private journalistic enterprise, but more like a public service, akin to a library. An institution whose role is to help foster regional journalistic talent — perhaps through workshops, internships, or even equipment or facility rentals. 

If a local journalism student wants to start a podcast in, say, Medicine Hat, the local CBC outlet ought to be a resource to help her make that project a success. The local CBC outlet ought to be her champion. 

In this lurid dream vision, I would make all the CBC’s written and audio-visual materials freely available to any Canadian media outlet. Further, the CBC should be allergic to private advertising. 

I would also put some serious thought into the CBC’s role as a guardian of this country’s digital and physical news archives. If much private media is about to collapse, we risk losing an extraordinary amount of our shared cultural heritage, unless some entity is willing to take on the care, organization, and access of historic documents and material. 

All the above is a napkin sketch for a sustainable CBC mandate. One that fosters an innovative private media sector while ensuring that Canadians will be reasonably well served by a grounded and objective information environment. If Canadians want to wander into QAnon conspiracy land, that’s not for me, or for any government, to restrict. However, in the face of market failure — and objective news reporting is one such imminent failure — there is room for the public sector to act. We should ensure that Canadians have real choices. 

Funnily, when I spelled out that vision of a CBC, most of the Conservatives I spoke to at the conference in Ottawa could get behind it, or some version of it. And that didn’t surprise me. Most Conservatives in this country are not libertarians or even, frankly, true populists. Most, I think, grant that there is some role for a federal government to play in the promotion of a Canadian culture and identity, particularly where the preservation of history and institutions are concerned. I am aligned to the role of a free market in media, as in anything else (like and subscribe!), but I would remind everybody that the media industry doesn’t exist in a pure free market in the Platonic world of ideal forms, and never has. There are bad ways to intervene in it (ahem, the Online News Act) and there are good ways — ways grounded in historic success, both here and in other countries. Public broadcasting is tried and true, which is why almost every country has some version of it in accordance with its national values, needs, and insecurities. 

Ironically, the cultural conditions that prompted the creation of the CBC in 1936 are more prevalent now than at any time previous in living memory. There is more need now for a shared sense of Canadian identity. We need a revitalized social understanding about how to mediate access to information and power in a democracy. I would remind Conservatives of this, and I would ask: if you destroy the CBC, would you have to replace it with something else? I would ask you to put a pin in the anger, and consider how Canada and her people will be best served after the impending collapse of traditional media infrastructure. Lastly, I would remind you of all those satellites on all those apartment blocks and ask: if the CBC, or something like it, isn’t going to fill the gap, who will? 

Source: Jen Gerson: The Conservative case for the CBC

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canada needs to do more to prepare for an aging, and more diverse population

2024/05/01 Leave a comment

Good analysis and prescription:

….Since 2018, Andrew Pinto and his team at Upstream Lab at the University of Toronto have been working on a tool called SPARK, a list of standardized questions designed for primary caregivers to collect information from patients, including race and ethnicity. Dr. Pinto hopes the questionnaire becomes standard in healthcare settings across the country.

It also includes socioeconomic questions – about income, education, disability status, housing, food security – recognizing that race and ethnicity are just part of the many factors that influence a person’s health outcomes.

“We all come from different cultures, with different ways of relating to health providers, and have different needs,” Dr. Pinto said.

“By asking these questions, we can get a better understanding of what people need.”

Source: Canada needs to do more to prepare for an aging, and more diverse population

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Paul: PEN America Has Stood By Authors. They Should Stand By PEN.

2024/04/30 Leave a comment

Agreed. Money quote: “I prefer to stand by PEN America and by all its members, though perhaps quite now, who would wish to see PEN’s mission upheld and strengthened rather than dismantled. Who does it really serve to keep tearing things down?”

All strong institutions stand to benefit from internal dissent and external pressures. But too often, recent efforts to reform institutions have meant reconstituting them in ways that distort or fundamentally undermine their core mission.

Nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, university departments and cultural institutions have ousted leaders and sent their staffs into turmoil in pursuit of progressive political goals. In the wake of the 2016 election and the 2020 murder of George Floyd and in a rush to apply sweeping “In this house we believe” standards unilaterally, organizations have risked overt politicization, mission drift, irrelevance and even dissolution. And now the war in Gaza is ripping its way across American universities.

The latest target is PEN America, a nonprofit organization dedicated to free expression by journalists and authors. Last week, after an increasingly aggressive boycott campaign by some of its members, PEN canceled its annual World Voices Festival, which was conceived by Salman Rushdie and was to mark its 20th anniversary in May. This followed a refusal by several writers to have their work considered for PEN’s annual literary awards. The ceremony awarding those prizes was also canceled.

An open letter sent to PEN America’s board and trustees and republished on Literary Hub, now the de facto clearinghouse for pro-Palestinian literary-world sentiment, accused the organization of “implicit support of the Israeli occupation” and of “aiding and abetting genocide.” It demanded the resignation of PEN’s longtime C.E.O., Suzanne Nossel, and current president, Jennifer Finney Boylan. According to its 21 signatories, mostly up-and-coming authors, “among writers of conscience, there is no disagreement. There is fact and fiction. The fact is that Israel is leading a genocide of the Palestinian people.”

In response and in keeping with its mission of independence and free expression, PEN America accepted the writers’ willingness to voice their conscience. It has also made clear that there is room for more than one point of view on what constitutes genocide and on the current conflict in Gaza.

“As an organization open to all writers, we see no alternative but to remain home to this diversity of opinions and perspectives, even if, for some, that very openness becomes reason to exit,” PEN America stated in an open letter to its community.

That doesn’t mean PEN’s critics are without a point. I have also heard dissent from inside PEN that the organization has not been as strong in its advocacy for Palestinian writers since Oct. 7 as it has been for Ukrainian writers since the Russian invasion. I have seen internal letters describing this disparity in detail. Those grievances may well be legitimate, and PEN should respond appropriately, advocating on behalf of all writers caught up in conflict, repression and censorship, regardless of geopolitical circumstance.

But for those advocating that PEN America reform itself in the service of a single political agenda, the organization’s efforts to accommodate a range of views count against the organization. “Neutrality,” the authors of the most recent letter contend, “is a betrayal of justice.” Nothing short of total capitulation will serve their purpose. And they are conducting an intimidation campaign among other members and authors to join their ranks or shut up about it. According to PEN leaders, writers have expressed fear in openly supporting the organization in the onslaught of this latest campaign.

Since 2006, I’ve been one of PEN America’s 4,500-plus members, which includes writers, journalists, activists and professionals involved in the world of letters. I joined well before I joined The Times, after the publication of my second book, a liberal critique of the effects of online pornography, which met with a certain amount of pushback. As a freelance journalist and author who covered politically sensitive topics, I appreciated the protection PEN America offered. PEN takes a firm stand, for example, against online abuse, something every working journalist today experiences to one extent or another. PEN is also firmly committed to fighting book bans in schools, libraries and prisons, something that grew increasingly relevant to me when I became the editor of The New York Times Book Review.

Of course, these conflicts are minor compared with a war in which lives are at stake. But whatever my personal views on the Middle East, I don’t expect or even want all its members to conform to my brand of politics.

PEN brooked dissent before. In 2015 it honored the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after its members were brutally attacked and in spite of opposition from some of its members. I appreciate that the organization has named a prominent transgender writer and activist as its president even if I do not share all her views when it comes to gender politics. I don’t have to agree with everything PEN does; in fact, I prefer that I don’t agree, because that opens me up to protection in kind from members who may not agree with me on all issues.

Even if we’ve grown inured to organizations losing their way under political pressure, we shouldn’t be indifferent to the potential consequences. Especially now that there are so few truly independent organizations left.

According to its charter, PEN “stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and between all nations, and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in the country and community to which they belong, as well as throughout the world wherever this is possible.” I prefer to stand by PEN America and by all its members, though perhaps quiet now, who would wish to see PEN’s mission upheld and strengthened rather than dismantled. Who does it really serve to keep tearing things down?

Source: PEN America Has Stood By Authors. They Should Stand By PEN.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Anita Anand first aimed to transform Canada’s military culture. The public service is next

2024/04/30 Leave a comment

A bit of a puff piece. And equating the military with the public service is misleading, as the public service is miles ahead of the military in improving representation at all levels for all groups.

Corporate boardrooms. Military barracks. Federal government offices.

They’re not locales with a reputation for fostering diversity.

Anita Anand has been trying to change that.

Ensuring people of all backgrounds feel accepted and heard no matter the venue is a mission that has followed her at every stage in her life and career, she said in a recent interview.

“This is a very personal issue for me,” said Anand, who is the first person of colour to hold the federal government’s purse strings as Treasury Board president.

“I still walk into rooms and look at tables that are not diverse.”

Case in point: in February, Anand walked into a briefing regarding mental-health counselling for Black public-service workers.

There were no Black employees in the room, she said.

“I said to the individuals briefing me: ’Why aren’t there any Black individuals facing me?’ This is not acceptable.”

Part of her mandate is to dismantle systemic barriers in the federal public service that allow workplace harassment, bullying, racism and other forms of discrimination and violence to fester.

It needs to happen at all levels, she said.

“We actually want to ensure we see diversity in briefing rooms for the minister, at the deputy minister level, at the assistant deputy minister level.”

Anand is no stranger to what racial discrimination can feel like.

Before she became the member of Parliament for Oakville, Ont., in 2019, she worked as a lawyer and law professor.

At one workplace, she said, people would often ask if she was in the accounting department.

“That struck me because there were more South Asians in the accounting department than there were in the school of lawyers,” she said.

“Often I would get confused with other Indian women that were working in the same work environment that I was.”

Rather than focusing on such events, she said she has put far more energy toward understanding how to improve the situation.

That included working at the United Nations, writing a thesis on racial discrimination in Canada, and researching the number of racialized individuals on boards of directors when she was a professor.

“At every stage of my life, I have tried to incorporate my views about diversity and inclusivity in everything I am doing,” Anand said.

“It’s not that I have to try to do it. It is a natural part of the way I think.”

Anand said it’s difficult to pick out a point in time when she became aware of her own racial identity.

“I’ll just say that was very stark for me growing up.”

Her Indian parents met in Ireland in the 1950s as physicians, got married in England, then lived in India and Nigeria before immigrating to Canada.

“They raised their three daughters in a predominantly white province with very few South Asians when they moved,” she said.

“We had a wonderful upbringing in Kentville, Nova Scotia, but the fact that I was racialized never left my consciousness. There weren’t very many people who looked like me and my sisters at my school.”

Part of her goal now is to make sure racialized children can see themselves in all manner of jobs, including in high-ranking government and military roles.

As defence minister, Anand said she told her team that cultural change was a file that “should not leave the centre of my desk.”

In the months before she took the file in fall 2021, a string of senior military leaders were accused of sexual misconduct.

And just over half a year into her tenure, Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour released the results of an external review, saying the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces was “deeply deficient.”

Anand accepted Arbour’s recommendations for change, admitting in a statement upon its anniversary in May 2023 that “change does not happen overnight, and it will not continue without effort.”

She was assigned to oversee the public service last July.

About 80,000 people are in the Canadian Forces, Anand said, but the number is closer to 275,000 for the entire public service.

The problems of that larger group seem to have flown under the radar, Anand said.

“Maybe it’s the (sexual misconduct) cases, maybe that it’s more stark because of the hierarchy that is so evident in uniforms and badges in the Canadian Armed Forces, compared to the public service, where we’re not wearing uniforms,” she said.

“But the issues are palpable.”

A panel of experts the Treasury Board tapped to help with workplace culture has recommended major changes, including instituting mandatory racism, discrimination and harassment training.

The panel also said employees must have mental-health counselling supports, and managers need to be trained in trauma-informed leadership.

As she reviews the recommendations, Anand said she will develop a path forward, with an action plan ready to go before the summer.

It won’t leave the centre of her desk, she said.

“This is not something that I have to worry about whether I will remember,” Anand said.

“It is as a function of who I am.”

Source: Anita Anand first aimed to transform Canada’s military culture. The public service is next

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Visible minorities have difficulty accessing the labour market

2024/04/29 Leave a comment

While some interesting comparisons between Quebec and the rest of Canada, some of the methodology is odd. Why pick the 15-24 cohort given than many are in college or university rather than the 25-34 cohort which I and others use to avoid that issue.

While the general contrast between visible minorities and not visible minorities is valid, it ignores some of the equally significant differences between visible minority groups.

Still interesting to note the persistence of gaps between Quebec and Canada:

…More and more newcomers to the job market will be members of a visible minority. The case of young Canadian-born visible minorities merits special attention, with the goal of preventing their socioeconomic exclusion and the potential consequences for social cohesion.

In a context where Quebec and the rest of Canada rely on immigration to address the labour shortage, logic would dictate that we first realize the full potential of those already present. The integration into the workforce of Canadian-born individuals from ethnocultural minority groups, particularly the young, must be among the priorities of policymakers so as to avoid a situation where integration difficulties are passed on from one generation to the next. Failing this, a growing share of the population risks being marginalized.

Governments, the business community and all relevant stakeholders must work together on this in order to permanently eliminate the barriers hindering the economic integration of these young individuals and preventing them from fully contributing to the progress of society.

Source: Visible minorities have difficulty accessing the labour market

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

StatsCan: Employment by choice and necessity among Canadian-born and immigrant seniors

2024/04/29 Leave a comment

Noteworthy difference between immigrant and non-immigrant seniors as well as among different visible minority groups:

As Canada’s population gets older and life expectancy keeps increasing, Canadian-born and immigrant seniors may alleviate downward pressures on the overall employment rate through their involvement in the labour market. 

Many seniors work past their mid-60s for various reasons. Some find it necessary to keep working because of inadequate retirement savings, mortgage payments, unforeseen expenses, or the responsibility to support children and other family members in Canada or abroad. Others choose to work to provide a sense of personal fulfillment, stay active and remain engaged. 

Working by choice rather than necessity may have important implications for the well-being of seniors. Furthermore, data on employment by choice and necessity may help employers and policy makers understand the factors that influence seniors’ retirement decisions.

To shed light on this issue, this article uses data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and examines the degree to which Canadian-born and immigrant seniors aged 65 to 74 worked by choice or necessity in 2022.Note 

One in five seniors aged 65 to 74 worked in 2022—almost half of them by necessity

Of all Canadian-born and immigrant seniors aged 65 to 74, 21% were employed in 2022. Nine percent reported working by necessity and 12% reported working by choice. Those working by necessity represented 351,000 individuals that year.Note 

Immigrant seniors were more likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to work by necessity in 2022. Of all immigrant men aged 65 to 74, 15% reported working by necessity in 2022 (Table 1). The corresponding percentage was 9% for Canadian-born men.Note  Immigrant women (9%) were also more likely than Canadian-born women (6%) to report working by necessity.

….The degree to which immigrants worked by necessity in 2022 varied across population groups. About 20% of Black, Filipino or South Asian immigrant men reported working by necessity that year, compared with 8% of Chinese immigrant men and 12% of White immigrant men. Black immigrant women (12%) and Filipino immigrant women (13%) were also more likely than Chinese immigrant women (6%) to report working by necessity…

Source: Employment by choice and necessity among Canadian-born and immigrant seniors

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Phillips: Kaffiyeh ban unites all leaders, who are aware of Muslim voter influence in Ontario

2024/04/27 Leave a comment

Hard to maintain the argument that the kaffiyeh is primarily cultural given context, the statements of Sara Jama and the nature and discourse of protests. And as to Phillips using turbans and kirpans as a counter example, these are primarily religious, even if for some they also have a political significance.

Being sensitive to community concerns does not necessarily mean agreement given conflicting concerns among communities, as the current Jewish Palestinian tensions illustrate, and thus Speaker Arnott made the right call which needs of course, to be implemented with rigorous consistency for all political symbols:

The Speaker of Ontario’s legislature, Ted Arnott, has done something rare: he’s managed to get the leaders of all four parties at Queen’s Park united on a controversial issue.

Of course, they’re united against him — specifically against the ban he’s imposed on wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs in the provincial parliament, indeed anywhere in the legislative precinct that he oversees.

His decision has ignited a fierce debate: is the kaffiyeh, the checkered head scarf worn by Palestinians since time immemorial, cultural or political?

The answer to that binary question must be yes. It’s both — depending. The kaffiyeh has long been a cultural symbol of Palestinian identity. But wearing it has become more political, especially since the outbreak of the Hamas-Israel war last October.

That’s basically what Arnott said when he announced his ban. Wearing kaffiyehs “at the present time in our assembly,” he said, has become political. Arnott presumably thinks he’s just being consistent by banning kaffiyehs in line with established rules against wearing anything that “is intended to make an overt political statement.”

But what an unnecessary mess he’s created. This was a non-issue at Queen’s Park until Arnott issued his ban, apparently in response to a complaint by one unidentified MPP. It’s not as if there was a rash of kaffiyeh-wearing in the legislature. The only member who regularly wears one is independent Sara Jama, who was thrown out of the NDP caucus last year for her stand on the Mideast conflict.

Now we have the spectacle of Jama being told to leave the chamber for wearing a kaffiyeh. And a group of Arab-Canadian lawyers denied entry to the legislature when they wore kaffiyehs to a meeting with NDP Leader Marit Stiles.

I’m with the party leaders (including Premier Doug Ford) on this one. No doubt there’s a political dimension to wearing a kaffiyeh these days, but the long-established cultural tradition can’t be denied either. Why make an issue out of it at a time when feelings are running so high? Remember the fuss years ago about turbans and kirpans worn by Sikhs? In hindsight it seems like a fight about nothing.

Focusing on the kaffiyeh raises questions of consistency as well. What about wearing a tie or scarf in Ukrainian national colours? One of the Conservative MPPs who refused unanimous consent to overturn Arnott’s decision, Robin Martin, wore a necklace in the legislature emblazoned with “bring them home” in solidarity with Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Good for her, but wasn’t that also “political?”

Some have made much of the fact that party leaders opposing the ban may not be acting entirely for principled reasons, given the byelection set for May 2 in Milton where Muslim voters could make the difference.

I find it hard to be shocked by the notion of politicians acting for political reasons, and in this case the lesson to be drawn is “get used to it.” What’s happening in Milton is just a taste of how Muslim voters may have an impact in key ridings in the next federal election.

All provincial parties are courting Muslim voters in Milton, where 23 per cent of the population identified as Muslim in the 2021 census. The Liberal candidate, Galen Naidoo Harris, who isn’t Arab or Palestinian, has even made a point of wearing a kaffiyeh in social media postings.

Muslim voters are already an important factor in our politics. An organization called The Canadian-Muslim Vote identified more than 100 ridings in 2021where the Muslim vote exceeded the expected margin of victory. Many (including Milton) are in the GTA and will be fiercely fought over in the next federal election.

All the more reason for political leaders to be sensitive to the concerns of Muslim voters, as they’ve learned to be sensitive to the concerns of Sikh, Italian, Ukrainian, Jewish, you-name-it voters who aren’t shy about mobilizing their communities around issues that matter to them.

Banning the kaffiyeh is that kind of issue for an increasingly influential slice of voters. There are good reasons of principle to drop the ban. The politics of it point in that direction too.

Source: Kaffiyeh ban unites all leaders, who are aware of Muslim voter influence in Ontario

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Paul: You’ve Been Wronged. That Doesn’t Make You Right.

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

Increasing common thread in commentary these days on the “Oppression Olympics:”

We are living in a golden age of aggrievement. No matter who you are or what your politics, whatever your ethnic origin, economic circumstance, family history or mental health status, chances are you have ample reason to be ticked off.

If you’re on the left, you have been oppressed, denied, marginalized, silenced, erased, pained, underrepresented, underresourced, traumatized, harmed and hurt. If you’re on the right, you’ve been ignored, overlooked, demeaned, underestimated, shouted down, maligned, caricatured and despised; in Trumpspeak: wronged and betrayed.

Plenty of the dissatisfaction is justified. But not all. What was Jan. 6 at heart but a gigantic tantrum by those who felt they’d been cheated and would take back their due, by whatever means necessary?

People have always fought over unequal access to scarce resources. Yet never has our culture made the claiming of complaint such an animating force, a near compulsory zero-sum game in which every party feels as if it’s been uniquely abused. Nor has the urge to leverage powerlessness as a form of power felt quite so universal — more pervasive on the left, if considerably more threatening on the right.

Against this backdrop, reading Frank Bruni’s new book, “The Age of Grievance,” is one sad nod and head shake after another. Building on the concept of the oppression Olympics, “the idea that people occupying different rungs of privilege or victimization can’t possibly grasp life elsewhere on the ladder,” which he first described in a 2017 column, Bruni, now a contributing writer for Times Opinion, shows how that mind-set has been baked into everything from elementary school to government institutions. Tending to our respective fiefs, Bruni writes, is “to privilege the private over the public, to gaze inward rather than outward, and that’s not a great facilitator of common cause, common ground, compromise.”

Consider its reflection in just one phenomenon: “progressive stacking,” a method by which an assumed hierarchy of privilege is inverted so that the most marginalized voices are given precedence. Perhaps worthy in theory. But who is making these determinations and according to which set of assumptions? Think of the sticky moral quandaries: Who is more oppressed, an older, disabled white veteran or a young, gay Latino man? A transgender woman who lived for five decades as a man or a 16-year-old girl? What does it mean that vying for the top position involves proving how hard off and vulnerable you are?

Individuals as well as tribes, ethnic groups and nations are divvied up into simplistic binaries: colonizer vs. colonized, oppressor vs. oppressed, privileged and not. On college campuses and in nonprofit organizations, in workplaces and in public institutions, people can determine, perform and weaponize their grievance, knowing they can appeal to the administration, to human resources or to online court where they will be rewarded with attention, if not substantive improvement in actual circumstance.

The aggrieved take to social media where those looking to be offended are fed at the trough. Bruni refers to those who let you know that some representative of a wronged party is under threat the “indignity sentries of Twitter.” Ready to stir the pot, let the indignation begin and may the loudest complainer win!

But goading people into a constant sense of alarmism distracts from actual wrongdoing in the world. Turning complex tragedies into simple contests between who ticks more boxes rarely clarifies the situation. In San Francisco, when a Black Hispanic female district attorney chose not to file charges against the Black Walgreens security guard who shot Banko Brown, a Black, homeless transgender man who was accused of shoplifting, the entire episode was read not only as a crime and a referendum on arming security guards but also as a human rights crisis, simultaneously anti-trans, anti-homeless and racist.

In Brooklyn, when a man presumed to be homeless and mentally ill reportedly killed a golden retriever and the police did not immediately arrest him, the dog owner’s fears and efforts by some in the community to get the police to respond were read as racist vigilantism. The ensuing finger-pointing, name-calling and outrage did nothing to address the problems of homelessness, public safety or mental health.

The compulsion to find offense everywhere leaves us endlessly stewing. Whatever your politics, it assumes and feeds a narrative that stretches expansively from the acutely personal to the grandly political — from me and mine to you and the other, from us vs. them to good vs. evil. And as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff warned in their book, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” the calculus is that if you’re hurt or upset, your feelings must be validated. You can see this reductive mind-set in action in protest after protest across America as a contest plays out between Jews and Palestinians over who has been historically more oppressed and should therefore have the upper hand now.

But as Ricky Gervais says, “Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right.” Being oppressed doesn’t necessarily make you good, any more than “might is right.” Having been victimized doesn’t give you a pass.

If it felt like any of the persecution grandstanding led to progress, we might wanly allow grievance culture to march on. Instead, as one undergraduate noted in the Harvard Political Review, “In pitting subjugated groups against one another, the Oppression Olympics not only reduce the store of resources to which groups and movements have access, but also breed intersectional bitterness that facilitates further injustice.” Rewarding a victim-centric worldview, which we do from the classroom to the workplace to our political institutions, only sows more divisiveness and fatalism. It seems to satisfy no one, and people are more outraged than ever. Even those who hate Tucker Carlson become Tucker Carlson.

The acrimony has only intensified in the past few years. The battlefield keeps widening. What begins as a threat often descends into protests, riots and physical violence. It’s difficult for anyone to wade through all of this without feeling wronged in one way or another. But it wrongs us all. And if we continue to mistake grievance for righteousness, we only set ourselves up for more of the same.

Source: You’ve Been Wronged. That Doesn’t Make You Right.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

Lubomyr was one of my interlocutors when negotiating the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund and was the more activist of the three so not totally surprising to see this controversy:

The largest library association in the world has pulled an award for a book co-edited by a Royal Military College professor over concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators and war criminals.

In late January, the American Library Association honoured the book, Enemy Archives, edited by Royal Military College professor Lubomyr Luciuk and Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Viatrovych, on its list of the best historical materials for 2022 and 2023.

But the book has been criticized by a Jewish organization and Holocaust scholars who have raised concerns it whitewashes Nazi collaborators in Ukraine during the Second World War.

The association has now retracted the award and is investigating how the book came to be honoured in the first place.

“We apologize for the harm caused by the work’s initial inclusion on the list,” Jean Hodges, director of communications for the library association, said in a statement.

“The committee will be reviewing the award manual and procedures,” she added.

Luciuk, in an email to this newspaper, noted the library association’s decision was “perplexing” and added that journalists should read the book lest they “misrepresent” it.

Viatrovych did not respond to requests for comment.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which promotes Holocaust education, welcomed the decision by the American Library Association.

“It is very disappointing to see that some are willing to use this moment of great public support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression as an opportunity to re-write Ukrainian history, and specifically to whitewash the involvement of Ukrainian nationals in the commission of genocide against Ukrainian Jewry,” said Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, senior director for policy and advocacy at the center. “This book got a platform it never deserved given the outright misinformation it contains, and we are glad to see this problem being rectified as institutions take a closer look at the book and its dangerous and outrageous claims.”

Enemy Archives: Soviet Counterinsurgency Operations and the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement – Selections from the Secret Police Archives discusses the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists as well as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Some Ukrainians see those who belonged to those organizations as heroes who fought against the Soviets.

Some Holocaust scholars, Jewish organizations, and the Polish government have labelled those individuals as Nazi collaborators who were involved in the murders of up to 100,000 Poles and Jews.

The National Post published an excerpt from Enemy Archives on Feb. 9, 2023, prompting criticism from the news agency, the Jewish News Syndicate, as well as the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Rob Roberts, editor-in-chief of the National Post, told the Jewish News Syndicate at the time that “the excerpt included a paragraph disputing the view that the Second World War era Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists were Nazi collaborators. However, we recognize that this collaboration has been established by prior scholarship.”

Luciuk told JNS that “the so-called ‘Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’ should read the book. They obviously haven’t.”

McGill-Queens University Press, which published the book, stated that Enemy Archives was rigorously examined before being released. “The path of Ukrainian nationalism, and its intersections with Jewish history over the past century, is often challenging and difficult to reconcile, with significant impacts on current political events in the region,” noted Lisa Quinn, executive director of McGill‐Queen’s University Press. “There are inherent yet necessary risks in this area of study, and to participating in the contentious academic and public debates about how to tell these histories to advance understanding of both the past and present.”

Per Anders Rudling, a professor at Lund University in Sweden who has extensively studied the issue of Nazi collaborators, issued a statement about the book, noting “I am frankly surprised McGill Queen’s Press (would) lend itself to this form of memory activism.”

National Defence sent an email noting the views expressed are entirely those of Luciuk and his co-authors and the professor has the right of academic freedom.

Supporters of the book have focused much of their anger on Ukrainian-Jewish writer Lev Golinkin, who they blame for the American Library Association’s decision to pull the award.

Golinkin wrote an April 10 article in the U.S. publication, The Nation, arguing the book was whitewashing Nazi collaborators.

The Council of the Ukrainian Library Association and another related group launched an appeal of the American Library Association’s decision. They claimed Golinkin, who has taken part in protests against Russia, is pushing pro-Russian propaganda.

Viatrovych also shared a social media response in which a Ukrainian pointed out that Golinkin is a Jew and a parasite.

That same account also accused another Ukrainian Jew, who has spoken out about the history of Nazi collaborators, of being a parasite.

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler referred to Jews as parasites to justify their destruction.

Source: Library Association pulls award for RMC professor’s book

Filed under Historical Recognition, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

2024/04/26 Leave a comment

More of an explainer than advocacy although notes the difficulty of separating out halal mortgages from other banking products and, for the purists, of obtaining a halal mortgage from a non-halal financial situation:

Le nouveau budget fédéral a annoncé des mesures visant à améliorer l’accès à la propriété. Parmi les mesures annoncées figure l’option d’offrir aux consommateurs intéressés de confession musulmane des produits financiers parallèles comme les prêts hypothécaires dits « halal ». Le document du budget n’a pas offert plus de détails à ce propos, laissant la porte ouverte à des interprétations multiples. Nous proposons dans ce qui suit de répondre à des questions d’importance sur le sujet, que ce soit pour le consommateur ou pour les institutions financières et les organismes de réglementation provinciaux et fédéral.

Qu’entend-on par hypothèque « halal » ?

Il s’agit d’un contrat d’hypothèque « spécial » dans la mesure où ses dispositions sont conformes aux préceptes et à la doctrine de la religion musulmane. Le principe de base est que l’institution financière émettrice du prêt hypothécaire ne doit pas facturer explicitement de l’intérêt (ou l’usure) parce qu’il s’agit d’une pratique qui n’est pas permise par l’islam. La doctrine explique que l’interdiction de la pratique de l’usure vise à protéger les gens qui se trouvent dans le besoin d’emprunter de l’argent parce que cela empirerait leur situation financière et les maintiendrait dans la pauvreté.

Il importe de mentionner que même si la pratique de l’intérêt n’est pas permise, la structure du prêt « halal » est construite de façon que les institutions financières puissent quand même faire de l’argent. Par exemple, la formule dite « Ijara » est équivalente à un contrat de location-achat où l’emprunteur paierait des mensualités équivalentes à un loyer jusqu’à paiement complet du prix de la propriété. Ou encore la formule « Musharaka », selon laquelle l’emprunteur gagne progressivement un pourcentage de la propriété à mesure qu’il effectue ses paiements. Il y a également une formule connue sous le nom « Murabaha », où l’emprunteur achète la propriété à un prix majoré dès le départ, puis paie des mensualités pour rembourser cette somme majorée.

Dans tous les cas mentionnés ci-haut, les paiements seront du même ordre que ceux d’un prêt hypothécaire traditionnel, avec un petit supplément qui reflète le coût engagé par l’institution financière pour offrir ce type « spécial » de produits financiers. C’est comme consommer bio ou végétalien ou écolo : ça coûte un peu plus cher que consommer de façon classique. Au fond, le consommateur accepte de payer une prime pour satisfaire ses préférences, qu’elles soient gastronomiques ou écologiques ou religieuses.

Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral a-t-il choisi précisément ce type de produits financiers pour l’inclure dans son budget ?

Une partie des musulmans du Canada seraient certainement bien disposés à payer un peu plus cher pour avoir une hypothèque halal. Plus le marché des produits financiers est compétitif, moins cher il sera. Ce type de produits financiers est surtout important pour les musulmans pratiquants, puisqu’ils sont plus orthodoxes dans la pratique de leur foi. Ceux-ci représenteraient moins de 1 % de la population canadienne.

Dans ce sens, l’effet de cette disposition sur le marché de l’immobilier, sur la rentabilité bancaire et sur l’accès à la propriété serait plutôt mineur. Par ailleurs, ces produits visant plutôt la faction pratiquante des musulmans du Canada, cela permettrait de les intégrer au système bancaire canadien, dont les opérations sont assujetties au suivi et à la surveillance des autorités réglementaires pertinentes (BSIF et CANAFE au niveau fédéral, en plus des organismes provinciaux).

L’intégration financière est importante pour les organismes de réglementation puisqu’elle augmente la transparence des transactions effectuées par les différents opérateurs financiers. Si une partie de la population n’a pas accès aux services financiers sur un certain marché, le marché canadien dans notre cas, elle tendra à aller chercher un autre marché qui la servira. Les marchés de la finance islamique dans les pays de l’Asie du Sud-Est ainsi qu’au Moyen-Orient sont prolifiques et offrent des services financiers conformes à la charia.

C’est précisément ce genre de scénarios où des consommateurs canadiens sont servis par des marchés hors Canada que les organismes de réglementation essaient d’éviter.

Qu’est-ce que cette nouvelle disposition dans le budget implique, une fois implantée ?

Des coûts, des coûts et des coûts !

Les institutions financières devront se doter de l’infrastructure technologique pour intégrer ces produits dans leurs systèmes. Elles devront aussi se doter de l’expertise juridique et financière pour pouvoir servir cette clientèle. La facture sera vraisemblablement refilée aux clients.

Les organismes de réglementation devront également se doter de ressources ayant l’expertise en la matière afin de pouvoir exercer efficacement leurs mandats de surveillance. Un aspect essentiel dans les produits financiers islamiques est le partage du risque entre le prêteur et l’emprunteur (« profit and loss sharing).

Cette dimension a des implications sur le risque pris par les institutions financières et, par ricochet, sur leurs niveaux de capitalisation, qui demanderaient à être rajustés pour tenir compte du risque lié à ces produits nouveaux. Les coûts engagés par les organismes de réglementation sont d’habitude refilés aux institutions financières afin que les contribuables n’en héritent pas. Les institutions financières les refileront aux consommateurs en fonction des produits financiers offerts à leurs clients.

En somme, comment peut-on évaluer cette initiative énoncée dans le budget fédéral ?

Sur le plan politique, elle envoie certes un signal attrayant à la population de confession musulmane, indépendamment de son intention d’avoir (ou pas) une hypothèque halal. L’initiative serait perçue comme un signe de considération envers les musulmans canadiens, surtout dans le contexte global où le Canada avait offert son soutien à Israël dans le conflit qui a suivi l’attaque perpétrée par le Hamas en octobre. Il s’agit ainsi d’une tentative habile de se racheter auprès de la communauté musulmane, qui se sentirait plutôt trahie par la politique étrangère canadienne plutôt pro-israélienne.

Par ailleurs, sur les plans économique et financier, l’incidence est mineure puisque la population visée par cette disposition du budget ne représente pas plus de 1 % du marché des prêts hypothécaires.

Enfin, il faut dire que l’approche adoptée par le gouvernement fédéral est un peu hâtive, ce qui explique les limites de l’initiative. En fait, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire, si l’on se fie à la doctrine, par une banque non islamique. C’est comme faire un ragoût avec de la viande halal et non halal mélangée : le tout combiné n’est évidemment plus halal. Ensuite, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire sans l’ouverture d’un compte chèques ou d’un compte d’épargne. Ces comptes seraient-ils halal ? Il faudra donc créer ces produits au même titre que les hypothèques halal.

En outre, tout compte d’une institution financière canadienne est protégé par le système d’assurance-dépôts du Canada (ou l’équivalent provincial). Le fait est que l’assurance est un concept non halal, ce qui implique qu’il faudrait créer l’équivalent islamique (appelé « takaful »).

Tout cela pour dire que l’initiative des hypothèques halal proposée par le fédéral n’est que la pointe de l’iceberg de tout un système, et que pour qu’un consommateur pratiquant accepte d’y adhérer (toujours selon la doctrine du texte coranique), il faudra lui proposer le « combo » halal : il n’acceptera pas un produit islamique par-ci et d’autres non islamiques par-là.

Source: Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →