Tony Abbott tells Sydney Islamic protesters to ‘lighten up’

2015/01/26 Leave a comment

I think Abbott has a point:

The group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, planned to rally in south-west Sydney on Friday evening against the kind of images that proliferated in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings.

Abbott told 2GB he hoped there would be only a few protesters.

“Frankly I don’t think any of us really want to be in the business of insulting anyone, but on the other hand we all believe in free speech, and I have to say some people are a bit thin-skinned about free speech,” he said.

“I just hope the organisers of this protest lighten up a bit, and accept that in our robust democracy, a lot of people say a lot of things, and sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong, and we just have to accept the rough and the smooth together.”

A spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir likened Abbott’s comments to being asked to “discard the sacredness of our values”.

“It’s quite disingenuous to suggest a people, ie Muslims, lighten up over something that is provocative and quite derogatory to their core values and beliefs, the centre of which is obviously the prophet Muhammad,” he said.

Tony Abbott tells Sydney Islamic protesters to ‘lighten up’ | Australia news | theguardian.com.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Republicanism vs. Multiculturalism in France | The Nation

2015/01/26 Leave a comment

Good observations of Katha Pollitt in The Nation from her short visit to Paris in the aftermath of the killings:

What was most striking to me was the amount of sheer outrage that the French people I spoke with bring to these largely symbolic issues. Take the controversy over ham and halal meat in public-school lunchrooms. I’m an atheist, and my daughter went to public school, but if most of the students were Muslim and lunch was thus halal, with pork omitted from the menu, I can’t imagine getting all worked up about it—as I would if that lunch was preceded by even the most nondenominational of prayers. Food, after all, is not proselytizing. “You don’t understand,” said Corinne. “It means the government, the taxpayer, is paying for halal meat! It’s collective bullying, but the minute you object, you’re a racist.”

…It would be good to know more—a lot more—about the situation of Muslims in France, but a 1946 law prevents the collection of statistics by race, religion or ethnicity. As with laïcité, a rule invented to address one situation—the Vichy law forcing Jews to register with the police was later used to deport them to the death camps—has had unintended consequences over time. This lack of information is also part of “republicanism,” a concept of national unity that papers over differences due to poverty and racism. Almost the first thing that Catherine, my husband’s cousin, wanted to tell us when we showed up at her apartment was that the news media were reporting that some Muslim schoolchildren—she claimed 25 percent—had refused to stand for the national moment of silence for the Charlie Hebdo victims. Were they indicating their approval of the murders, as she assumed? Or did the children mistakenly believe that they were being asked to honor the caricaturing of Muhammad, as Nilüfer Göle suggested, and no one had taken the time to explain what the ritual was really about? Maybe, as a much older friend suggested, they were just being rude and noisy, the way kids are these days.

Göle seemed to have the most nuanced and subtle but also the most generous perspective of anyone I’d met. “It’s not a question of ‘national unity,’” she told me, “but of many communities coming together. In practice, republicanism is negation and multiculturalism is avoidance. The European public treats Islam through the lens of secularization and freedom of expression, but this excludes ordinary Muslims, who want to be integrated and yet are different. Why, after all, do people want to build mosques in France? It’s because their life is here.”

Republicanism vs. Multiculturalism in France | The Nation.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Débat sur la laïcité: Charles Taylor redoute de nouvelles divisions sociales

2015/01/24 Leave a comment

As always, sensible commentary by Charles Taylor:

«Puisqu’il y a des gens qui veulent surfer là-dessus pour faire avancer leur projet de laïcité, là, c’est dangereux parce que se sont deux questions complètement différentes. Si on commence le débat en pointant du doigt une partie de la population comme étant des terroristes en puissance, on ne pourra jamais régler ce problème, le problème de diversité», a déclaré M. Taylor.

Selon le professeur émérite, laïcité et lutte au terrorisme sont deux choses différentes et tracer un lien entre les deux thèmes risque de mener le Québec tout droit vers de nouveaux déchirements.

«Ce serait une erreur monumentale de mélanger les questions de terrorisme et les questions du vivre-ensemble dans la diversité dans une société comme la nôtre. Du moment où on fait un amalgame comme ça, on est tout droit sur le chemin de la division sociale. Si les gens croient que le moment est propice à cause des événements de Paris, ils ont grandement tort», a-t-il dit.

Sans détour, M. Taylor a exprimé sa méfiance envers le député péquiste et candidat à la direction du Parti québécois Bernard Drainville, revenu à la charge il y a une semaine avec une nouvelle mouture – moins restrictive – de son projet de charte des valeurs.

Le philosophe estime que le député de Marie-Victorin est «un mauvais porteur de ballon» dans ce dossier à cause de son passé marqué par la confusion entre la diversité religieuse et l’intégrisme.

Durant le débat sur la première version de la charte en 2013-2014, M. Drainville, alors ministre responsable, «a constamment fait l’amalgame», a soutenu M. Taylor.

«Il entretenait un contexte flou d’intégrisme religieux qui voulait dire à la fois se pencher sur la violence et interdire les signes ostentatoires. Quelqu’un qui croit que les gens qui portent des signes ostentatoires sont des terroristes en puissance ignore tout de la vie religieuse très diverse de notre pays, de notre société. Il agite des slogans très dangereux», a-t-il soulevé.

Le professeur est d’avis que les Français ont fait preuve de plus de sagesse à la suite de l’attentat perpétré contre l’hebdomadaire satirique en rejetant les amalgames et en prenant soin de ne pas montrer du doigt leurs concitoyens de confession musulmane.

Bien au contraire, «ils se sont tous dits: on est tous ensemble, toutes les religions, ne faisons pas d’amalgame, ne blâmons pas les musulmans pour ce qui s’est passé», a-t-il relaté.

Débat sur la laïcité: Charles Taylor redoute de nouvelles divisions sociales | Martin Ouellet | National.

Filed under Charte de la laïcité, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with ,

Radicalization a growing risk in Canadian prisons, experts warn

2015/01/24 Leave a comment

Not an easy issue to address. Comments by former prison chaplam Imam Dwyer worth noting:

Imam Yasin Dwyer worked as a chaplain in federal prisons for 11 years, but left his formal role after CSC moved to a privatized model for chaplaincy services. Dwyer says the chaplains had proven successful in building trust relationships with inmates, and the change severed critical ties to community.

“If the community is not speaking with authority about what religion is, in our case about what Islam is — especially in a correctional context — if the community doesn’t have that authority, then perhaps that authority may fall to voices that have not been granted that authority by the faith community,” he warned.

While most Muslims behind bars use faith to find meaning and guide them through incarceration, some are dealing with issues that make them vulnerable to radicalization.

Dwyer, who provided pastoral services to six of the Toronto 18 terror cell members, says he had success despite a lack of government support.

“It’s not even a matter of doing enough — it’s are we doing anything at all?” he says. “As the Muslim chaplain, I was looked upon to deal with these particular offenders, minus the resources to do it effectively.”

Dwyer says he does not want to contribute to fear-mongering, but wants to raise a red flag.

“Prisoners are in a very adversarial environment. It is a potentially violent environment where people are quite jaded and there is a real absence of consistent light. So in that situation, in that state of anger and isolation, you may have the potential of those falling into some sort of alternative dysfunctional narrative of what Islam is. That’s the flag that I would put out.”

Last month, CSC hosted an international roundtable and symposium on managing radical offenders that brought in experts from the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, Israel, France, Spain and the Netherlands.

While there are publicly available statistics on aboriginal prisoners, have not seen statistics broken down by visible minority or religion.

Radicalization a growing risk in Canadian prisons, experts warn – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with ,

Winnipeg rises to a challenge – Macleans – Wells

2015/01/24 1 Comment

Aboriginal - Black comparisonPaul Wells on the impressive open response to the Macleans story on racism in Winnipeg. All too rare in Canadian politics:

“Ignorance, hatred, intolerance, racism exists everywhere,” Bowman said. “Winnipeg has a responsibility right now to turn this ship around and change the way we all relate: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, Canadians alike, from coast to coast to coast.”

Already this was surprising. Bowman was not demanding Maclean’s apologize, or indeed anyone. “We are here together to face this head-on as one community,” he said.  He was careful to note what nobody would deny: that racism exists everywhere, not only in Winnipeg, and that the city is full of people who work hard to combat racism and its effects. But neither he nor the other speakers sought any bogus refuge in the fact that Maclean’s isn’t published locally or that it used nasty words in its article.

Mercredi also emphasized that racism is a big problem that ignores municipal borders, but added: “I want to thank Maclean’s magazine for the story that they did. And to challenge them to follow up with other stories of where individuals and groups have combatted racism in their particular communities and cities and have made a difference in race relations in their communities.”

I suspect we’ll be taking up Mercredi’s challenge over the next few weeks. It was, on the whole, an inspiring and morally serious response from officials who know very well that slogans won’t begin to heal the wounds Nancy Macdonald and Scott Gilmore document this week.

It’s so common to find public officials shifting blame instead of lifting burdens. That’s not the path Brian Bowman and his colleagues chose today. It was heartening.

Winnipeg rises to a challenge – Macleans.ca.

And the report of the press conference:

Winnipeg leaders vow to face racism head-on In response to this week’s Maclean’s cover, Brian Bowman, backed by indigenous leaders, promised to change Winnipeg’s reputation

Filed under Racism Tagged with , , ,

The Origins of Fox’s Favorite Muslim No-Go-Zone Myth – The Atlantic

2015/01/23 Leave a comment

Good take down of the ‘no-go-zone’ myth, with the following conclusion (and for those who know French, this parody on Le Petit Journal is both amusing and effective):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1421201170:

Meanwhile, the meme can be seen extending to the United States. Truth Uncensored reports, incorrectly, that there are no-go zones stateside, including in places like Dearborn, Michigan, a Detroit suburb with a large Muslim population. Conservative Tribune even posts a map that allegedly shows no-go zones controlled by Islamists across the United States. I can’t tell where the map originally came from, but it cites data from Steven Emerson, the Fox expert who apologized for his no-go-zone comments. And the map is posted elsewhere on the Internet, labeled as everything from a map of terrorist camps (apparently al-Qaeda is big in Boca Raton—alert your grandparents!) to areas with concentrated Muslim populations.

Erroneous beliefs such as these concentrate along partisan axes, and once an idea has taken seed it’s difficult to root out.

Bottom line: You don’t need to worry about Muslim no-go zones if you live in the United States. And if you’re planning a tourist expedition to Europe, it’s a good idea to avoid high-crime areas, regardless of their demographics. But why, if there’s no evidence for no-go zones and some of the highest-profile propagators of the idea have repudiated it, do such myths survive and thrive?

It probably has a lot to do with the conservative media ecosystem. Erroneous beliefs such as these tend to concentrate along people’s partisan or ideological axes. (The same is true of liberal media, though not in this particular case.) And once an idea has taken seed, it’s extremely difficult to root out. As political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown, corrections can actually backfire, increasing holders’ faith in their incorrect beliefs.

Unfortunately, even reporting on these misconceptions can worsen the problem, so I am part of the problem. But it seems important to note that Jindal is plainly wrong. These sorts of distortions and exaggerations don’t help to fight the very real threat of Islamist terror. They don’t serve the cause of creating an informed, reasoned democratic society. And they don’t help the political prospects of guys like Jindal, who has previously demanded that his GOP stop being “the stupid party.” Maybe this meme is the real no-go zone.

The Origins of Fox’s Favorite Muslim No-Go-Zone Myth – The Atlantic.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , ,

Judging The Beards Of Believers – SCOTUS decision

2015/01/23 Leave a comment

The latest US SC ruling on religious freedom, this time with respect to beards. Similar to Canadian approach. Commentary below by Carrie Severino:

[This ruling] emphasizes that it is the religiously-motivated view of an action, not the unbelieving bystander’s judgment of its importance, that determines whether a burden is substantial. That is particularly important where, as here, courts are dealing with a minority or unpopular religion.

The Court also clarified some key points respecting substantial burdens. First, it noted that permission to engage in many other aspects of religions exercise – here, praying daily, keeping a prayer rug, corresponding with religious advisors, keeping a halal diet, and observing religious holidays – does not cancel out the effect of denying Holt the ability to carry out his simultaneous religious obligation to grow a beard. Additionally, the Court corrected a misunderstanding below that only “compelled” religious practices could be substantially burdened or that disagreements within the Muslim community about the necessity of growing a beard meant curtailing that ability was not a substantial burden. After all, courts have no business making a judgment call about the fundamentally theological questions of how much religious practice is “enough” or which view of a certain religion is correct.

Judging The Beards Of Believers « The Dish.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Laïcité: un éventuel projet de loi d’ici juin

2015/01/23 Leave a comment

More on the debate over the Liberal government’s plans for a charter, and Premier Couillard’s cautious approach:

Le premier ministre a également balayé d’un revers de main les critiques du Parti québécois (PQ) et de la Coalition avenir Québec, qui l’accusent d’avoir profité des attentats de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ainsi que ceux survenus en France pour repousser le débat entourant la neutralité de l’État.

«Il faut s’avoir s’ajuster aux circonstances, a répliqué M. Couillard. Les événements (…) montrent clairement que les esprits sont tournés vers cette question et que l’on peut facilement glisser vers la stigmatisation.»

Le premier ministre ne croit pas avoir créé des attentes trop élevées en affirmant, en campagne électorale, vouloir agir «rapidement» dans les dossiers de la neutralité de l’État et de la lutte contre l’intégrisme.

«On ne va pas présenter un projet inconstitutionnel comme au PQ, a affirmé M. Couillard. Ils (les péquistes) ont agi de manière imprudente et négative pour la société en proposant dans le passé des politiques sur la discrimination à l’emploi.»

Laïcité: un éventuel projet de loi d’ici juin | Julien Arsenault | Politique québécoise.

And the likely next leader of the PQ, Pierre Karl Péladeau, reverts back to Bouchard-Taylor’s approach, laïcisme ouvert, along with the latest poll:

Dans son rapport de 2008, les commissaires préconisaient l’interdiction du port de signes religieux ostensibles chez les juges, les procureurs de la Couronne, les policiers et les gardiens de prison. «Tout le détail je ne peux pas vous dire, mais tout ce qui est en autorité, c’est quelque chose d’important», a dit le magnat des médias à l’entrée du caucus présessionnel de son parti à Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.  Il pense qu’«une pièce législative» sur la question des valeurs et l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes doit être adoptée par le gouvernement.

…Un sondage SOM-Cogeco Nouvelles publié ce matin indique que 68% des Québécois – après répartition – seraient en faveur de la création d’une charte de la laïcité. Les résultats montrent aussi que 16% des Québécois affirment que leur perception des immigrants et des musulmans a changé négativement depuis les évènements de Paris.

Péladeau en faveur des recommandations de Bouchard-Taylor

But Le Devoir, indicates it is actually Bouchard-Taylor plus, given that Péladeau also supports banning religious symbols and headgear on teachers:

Puis, à la question «Le port de signes religieux par les enseignants?», le député de Saint-Jérôme a répondu du tac au tac: «Moi, j’ai une opinion là-dessus. Je pense que ça ne devrait pas avoir lieu. Mais, encore là, ça va être une question qui va être débattue.»

PKP opte pour la neutralité

Filed under Charte de la laïcité, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise

2015/01/22 Leave a comment

Good commentary by David Butt on Canada’s hate speech law:

For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:

1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;

2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;

3. It must be public;

4. It must be deliberate, not careless;

5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;

6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;

7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.

Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression. But the Supreme Court has not struck it down. Why? Four main reasons. First, our constitution protects not only free expression, but multiculturalism and equality as well. So to read the constitution holistically, we cannot permit one protected freedom to undermine other rights and freedoms enjoying equal status.

Second, the Supreme Court recognized the insidious impact of propaganda campaigns that gain social traction and incrementally dull our rational faculties and empathy. Perhaps paternalistic, but the court is saying sometimes we need to be protected from our baser and stupider selves.

Third, the courts have said that even if a hate speech prohibition is never used, it has symbolic value, like that framed mission and values statement on the wall of most businesses, that stares silently down at the workers while they work.

Fourth, hate speech has no redeeming value.

….So it may be that our hate speech law was a silent point of resonance with the values, not the legal obligations, that motivated the media outlets who chose not to publish.

Is that sufficient reason for our hate speech law to exist? Sufficient reason for a law that can impose jail for speaking out? If we take these questions back to our social media haunts, our office water-cooler chats, and our classrooms, freedom of expression in Canada will come out a winner regardless of how opinion is, or is not, divided.

Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Why Orwell Still Matters – De-radicalization Example

2015/01/22 2 Comments

On the enduring importance of Orwell:

Maajid Nawaz, however, claims a different Orwell novel – Animal Farm – led him away from radical Islam:

It was while in prison, surrounded by several prominent jihadist leaders, that Nawaz realized he wanted to take a different path. He was reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm and came to a new understanding of “what happens when somebody tries to create a utopia.”

“I began to join the dots and think, ‘My god, if these guys that I’m here with ever came to power, they would be the Islamist equivalent of Animal Farm,” Nawaz says. He says he began to see that it’s “impossible to create a utopia.”

“I’m living up close and seeing [the radicals’] everyday habits and lifestyle, I thought, ‘My god, I wouldn’t trust these guys in power,’ because when I called it, back then, and said, ‘If this caliphate, this theocratic caliphate, was ever established, it would be a nightmare on earth,’” Nawaz says.

Why Orwell Still Matters « The Dish.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →