Bruni: The Most Important Thing I Teach My Students Isn’t on the Syllabus

2024/04/22 Leave a comment

Thoughtful approach, recognizing the complexity of issues and viewpoints and the need for humility:

I warn my students. At the start of every semester, on the first day of every course, I confess to certain passions and quirks and tell them to be ready: I’m a stickler for correct grammar, spelling and the like, so if they don’t have it in them to care about and patrol for such errors, they probably won’t end up with the grade they’re after. I want to hear everyone’s voice — I tell them that, too — but I don’t want to hear anybody’s voice so often and so loudly that the other voices don’t have a chance.

And I’m going to repeat one phrase more often than any other: “It’s complicated.” They’ll become familiar with that. They may even become bored with it. I’ll sometimes say it when we’re discussing the roots and branches of a social ill, the motivations of public (and private) actors and a whole lot else, and that’s because I’m standing before them not as an ambassador of certainty or a font of unassailable verities but as an emissary of doubt. I want to give them intelligent questions, not final answers. I want to teach them how much they have to learn — and how much they will always have to learn.

I’d been on the faculty of Duke University and delivering that spiel for more than two years before I realized that each component of it was about the same quality: humility. The grammar-and-spelling bit was about surrendering to an established and easily understood way of doing things that eschewed wild individualism in favor of a common mode of communication. It showed respect for tradition, which is a force that binds us, a folding of the self into a greater whole. The voices bit — well, that’s obvious. It’s a reminder that we share the stages of our communities, our countries, our worlds, with many other actors and should  conduct ourselves in a manner that recognizes this fact. And “it’s complicated” is a bulwark against arrogance, absolutism, purity, zeal.

I’d also been delivering that spiel for more than two years before I realized that humility is the antidote to grievance.

We live in an era defined and overwhelmed by grievance — by too many Americans’ obsession with how they’ve been wronged and their insistence on wallowing in ire. This anger reflects a pessimism that previous generations didn’t feel. The ascent of identity politics and the influence of social media, it turned out, were better at inflaming us than uniting us. They promote a self-obsession at odds with community, civility, comity and compromise. It’s a problem of humility.

The Jan. 6 insurrectionists were delusional, frenzied, savage. But above all, they were unhumble. They decided that they held the truth, no matter all the evidence to the contrary. They couldn’t accept that their preference for one presidential candidate over another could possibly put them in the minority — or perhaps a few of them just reasoned that if it did, then everybody else was too misguided to matter. They elevated how they viewed the world and what they wanted over tradition, institutional stability, law, order.

It’s no accident that they were acting in the service of Donald Trump, whose pitch to Americans from the very start was a strikingly — even shockingly — unhumble one. “I alone can fix it,” he proclaimed in his 2016 speech accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for president; and at his inauguration in January of the following year, the word “humbled,” which had been present in the first inaugural remarks of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush, was nowhere to be found. Nor were any of its variants. That whole sentiment and politesse were missing, as they had been during a campaign centered on his supposed omniscience.

There are now mini-Trumps aplenty in American politics, but anti-Trumps will be our salvation, and I say that not along partisan or ideological lines. I’m talking about character and how a society holds itself together. It does that with concern for the common good, with respect for the institutions and procedures that protect that and with political leaders who ideally embody those traits or at least promote them.

Those leaders exist. When Charlie Baker, a former Massachusetts governor, was enjoying enormous favor and lofty approval ratings as a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state, he was also stressing the importance of humility. He was fond of quoting Philippians 2:3, which he invoked as a lodestar for his administration. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit,” it says. “Rather, in humility value others above yourself.”

That’s great practical advice for anyone in government, where most meaningful success hinges on teamwork and significant progress requires consensus. Governing, as opposed to demagoguery, is about earning others’ trust and cooperation. Exhibiting a willingness to listen to and to hear them goes a long way toward that.

“Insight and knowledge come from curiosity and humility,” Mr. Baker wrote in a 2022 book, “Results,” coauthored with his chief of staff, Steve Kadish, a Democrat. “Snap judgments — about people or ideas — are fueled by arrogance and conceit. They create blind spots and missed opportunities. Good ideas and interesting ways to accomplish goals in public life exist all over the place if you have the will, the curiosity, and the humility to find them.”

Humble politicians don’t insist on one-size-fits-all answers when those aren’t necessary as a matter of basic rights and fundamental justice. Humble activists don’t either. The campaign for same-sex marriage — one of the most successful social movements of recent decades — showed that progress can be made not by shaming people, not by telling them how awful they are, but by suggesting how much better they could be. Marriage-equality advocates emphasized a brighter future that they wanted to create, not an ugly past that they wanted to litigate. They also wisely assured Americans that gay and lesbian people weren’t trying to explode a cherished institution and upend a system of values, but instead wanted in.

“I don’t want to disparage shouting and demands — everything has its place,” Evan Wolfson, the founder of the pivotal advocacy group Freedom to Marry, told me when we revisited the movement’s philosophy and tactics. At times, he acknowledged, champions of a cause “need to break the silence, we need to push, we need to force.”

“But I used to say, ‘Yes, there’s demanding, but there’s also asking,’” he recalled. “And one is not the enemy of the other. People don’t like being accused, people don’t like being condemned, people don’t like being alienated. It’s a matter of conversation and persuasion.”

That’s consistent with the message delivered by Loretta Ross, a longtime racial justice and human rights advocate, through her teaching, public speaking and writing. Troubled by the frequent targeting and pillorying of people on social media, she urged the practice of calling in rather than calling out those who’ve upset you. “Call-outs make people fearful of being targeted,” she wrote in a guest essay for Times Opinion. “People avoid meaningful conversations when hypervigilant perfectionists point out apparent mistakes, feeding the cannibalistic maw of the cancel culture.” Instead, she advised, engage them. If you believe they need enlightenment, try that route, “without the self-indulgence of drama,” she wrote.

She was preaching humility.

She was also recognizing other people’s right to disagree — to live differently, to talk differently. Pluralism is as much about that as it is about a multiracial, multifaith, multigender splendor. That doesn’t mean a surrender or even a compromise of principles; a person can hold on to those while practicing tolerance, which has been supplanted by grievance. Tolerance shares DNA with respect. It recognizes that other people have rights and inherent value even when we disagree vehemently with them.

We all carry wounds, and some of us carry wounds much graver than others. We confront obstacles, including unjust and senseless ones. We must tend to those wounds. We must push hard at those obstacles. But we mustn’t treat every wound, every obstacle, as some cosmic outrage or mortal danger. We mustn’t lose sight of the struggle, imperfection and randomness of life. We mustn’t overstate our vulnerability and exaggerate our due.

While grievance blows our concerns out of proportion, humility puts them in perspective. While grievance reduces the people with whom we disagree to caricature, humility acknowledges that they’re every bit as complex as we are — with as much of a stake in creating a more perfect union.

Source: The Most Important Thing I Teach My Students Isn’t on the Syllabus

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

OPINION: University of Ottawa equity, diversity, inclusivity discussion ‘an abject failure’

2024/04/22 Leave a comment

Does appear to be an unbalanced selection of panelists:

Let’s say you are the vice president of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive (Excellence?), VP EDI, at a Canadian university and you organize an event to have a “courageous conversation” about anti-Palestinian racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism that ends up being a uniform rant against Israel and Zionism with no equity, no diversity, or inclusion for Jews.

This is exactly what happened on March 27 during the two-hour Zoom panel convened by the Vice-Provost of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence at the University of Ottawa, professor Awad Ibrahim.

With the declared goal of addressing in a balanced and unbiased manner the problem of increasing discrimination against Muslims, Palestinians, and Jews in Canada, especially in light of the conflict between Israel and Hamas after the massacre perpetrated by Palestinian Islamists on Oct. 7, the convened panel theoretically sought a balance: two people would discuss issues linked to anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, and two would talk about anti-Semitism.

In reality, the four speakers spoke with a unified biased voice minimizing the precipitous rise in anti-Semitism in Canada and around the world, because, according to them, many of the events that are reported as anti-Jewish are simply “legitimate” (sic) expressions against Zionism, Israeli colonialism, and the defense of the struggle of the Palestinians against the “Zionist occupation” and do not really target the Jewish community.

The activist Dalia El Farra (senior advisor, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion – Centre for Human Rights, York University) and professor Jasmin Zine (Wilfrid Laurier University) represented the pro-Palestinian and anti-Islamophobia views. Two members of the Jewish Faculty Network (an anti-Israel organization), professor Sheryl Nestel and professor Alejandro Paz (University of Toronto), both anti-Zionists Jews, were invited to talk about anti-Semitism.

The main function of both Jewish panelists was to assert that the increase in antisemitic incidents is inflated by the “Jewish lobby,” because they dare to count as anti-Jewish events those that are actually demonstrations against the “Western colonial enterprise” (sic) known as Zionism and against Israeli “genocide” (sic).

Although Vice-Provost Ibrahim was asked during the event’s Q&A why he had decided to invite only two anti-Zionist Jewish speakers to talk about anti-Semitism, the VP EDI made only brief mention of the question towards his closing remarks and did not answer the question…

…In French, one might have described the event by exclaiming, “Quel gâchis!” (What a flop!) to qualify this EDI event (by the way, if we are talking about inclusion, it should be noted that only English-speaking panelists were invited, thus failing the bilingual mandate of the University of Ottawa). It was certainly not a courageous conversation, nor was it diverse, not equitable, and lacked the inclusiveness of multiple viewpoints. It offered only a single, ahistorical, hateful chorus of anti-Israel propaganda.

Perhaps professor Ibrahim, the vice president of Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, thought he was promoting balanced perspectives because he had hosted an event as part of the same series on March 21 about Anti-Semitism in Healthcare, University and our Larger Society. Instead, the panel on Demystifying Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Semitism of March 27 was a missed opportunity for the University of Ottawa’s EDI office to fulfill its mandate, failing to meet the most basic standards of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

The false moral equivalence between these two events, the former being grounded in scholarly research and fact, the latter being grounded in one-sided bias attempting to delegitimize Judaism and Israel, undermines inclusive excellence in the academy and further contributes to Jew hatred on Canadian campuses.

This is an abject failure of leadership of the VP EDI at the University of Ottawa and a direct assault on the protection of all minorities on Canadian campuses. It is a betrayal of trust with the Jewish community, and it undermines the core mission of the University to reveal and disseminate truth.

— Isaac Nahon-Serfaty is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa and Deron Brown is an MD in Toronto

Source: OPINION: University of Ottawa equity, diversity, inclusivity discussion ‘an abject failure’

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

Ontario Legislature bans keffiyehs, premier calls for reversal: Need for consistency

2024/04/22 Leave a comment

This story continues to evolve, with the lack of unanimous support to overturn the speakers decision.

What has been lacking in the various discussions and limited op-eds is how does one decide objectively what should be considered as primarily identity vs what is primarily political in nature and the degree to which context plays a role. And how to apply any criteria objectively given that most identities also have political aspects and vice versa.

Religious symbols, while not without political significance to some, are primarily about identity.

Should members be allowed to have scarves or visible symbols with the colours of the Ukrainian flag? The Israeli flag? The Khalistan flag? The Russian flag etc?

Certainly, in the current political context, all could be argued as being interpreted as being more political in nature than just expressions of identity and the speaker made, IMO, the right call but needs to ensure consistency in any rulings:

The Ontario Legislature has banned the wearing of keffiyehs with its speaker saying the scarves are a “political statement,” while the premier along with opposition leaders are calling for a reversal of the move.

In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”

“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.

Arnott’s email did not provide specifics on who drew keffiyehs to his attention or when.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said in a statement on Tuesday night that he doesn’t support the ban and the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.

“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said in the statement.

Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas war continues.

NDP, Liberal leaders also call for reversal

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.

“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.

Ontario NDP Leader Marit Stiles urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter to the speaker, saying she considers it unacceptable.

“The Assembly has always permitted Members, staff and guests to openly celebrate their culture, including wearing traditional clothing that represents their history, culture or faith, and I don’t believe it is your intention to change that precedent,” Stiles said.

Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”

She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance. 

“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.

“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”

Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”

Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP

Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part. 

Jama added that “state powers” have suppressed Indigenous cultural dress, language, ceremony and beliefs “as tools of genocide” at various points in Canada’s history.

“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.

Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.

Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.

“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.

Arnott added that he reminded the legislature in a statement on Feb. 22 of its standard practice of decorum, saying: “It has long been the established practice of this House that members should not use props, signage or accessories that are intended to express a political message or are likely to cause disorder. This also extends to members’ attire, where logos, symbols, slogans and other political messaging are not permitted.

“This Legislature is a forum for debate, and the expectation in the chamber is that political statements should be made during debate rather than through the use of props or symbols,” he said.

Source: Ontario Legislature bans keffiyehs, premier calls for reversal

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

‘The Antisemitism Is Absolutely Disproportionate’ – Intv with UC Regent John Pérez

2024/04/20 Leave a comment

Worth reading:

….UC Berkeley, in particular, is in the national imagination as a place of protests — during the Vietnam War in particular. Do you feel like these current protests on campus are different than protests in the past? And if so, how?

I do think they’re different.

In each of those waves of previous protests, there was a notion from students that engaging in the protest had to serve the purpose of bringing people along in an area of debate, creating space to protest, but also to change minds and bring people in the direction of the justice that they were trying to seek. But there was also a concept of consequences associated with protest. If you want protest without consequence, what you really want is performance. And I think that right now we’re seeing folks engaging in disruption, without an understanding or appreciation for what consequences can come up with it, which I think can sometimes be performative.

Second, it feels like much of the protest now isn’t, at least from my perspective, effective in trying to move debate and create space to find a new common ground that aligns with the justice that the protesters are seeking. When it’s disruption for the sake of disruption, as opposed to civil disobedience to capture attention and create space for debate, I think it serves a fundamentally different [purpose].

When you look at the Free Speech Movement, it was about creating the space for all debate, including debate that one disagrees with. What we’ve seen of late is something very different, which is shutting down debate. Last year, at Berkeley Law School, student groups passed a series of resolutions, essentially banning debate, saying that holders of “Zionist viewpoints” would not be allowed to come [to their events]. That’s very different. It’s one thing to say any given organization shouldn’t be compelled to invite somebody who has a viewpoint that’s contrary to theirs. But to say that we want to ban a whole section of debate is inherently problematic in society. It’s particularly problematic in law school, and particularly problematic in a law school centered in a place that in many ways was the birth of the free speech movement on university campuses.

There has been a horrible spike in antisemitic activity across college campuses across the country, but particularly at elite universities, and there’s been a spike in the community more broadly as well. And I don’t think that we, societally and we, as university leaders, have done enough to push back against this spike in antisemitism.

Source: ‘The Antisemitism Is Absolutely Disproportionate’ – POLITICO

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with ,

Recent immigrants think Canada’s immigration targets are too high, prefer Tories to Liberals: poll

2024/04/20 Leave a comment

Not that surprising but some interesting variations among different visible minority groups (although the sample size by group may be too small to be definitive):

…Leger vice-president Andrew Enns says the numbers offer an intriguing snapshot into the current state of Canadian politics.

“It sends along a pretty interesting insight in terms of how things might be shifting within ethnic communities, and what people tend to assume and admittedly what we saw over the past couple of elections,” he said.

“The Liberals typically do quite well with the newcomer vote.”

When asked about which political party they support more generally, 24 per cent of those who gave an answer reported agreeing with the Conservatives most often, followed by 22 per cent for the Liberals, and eight per cent for the NDP.

The Conservatives’ biggest share of support came from Chinese immigrants, of whom 30 per cent said they support the Tories, compared to just 10 per cent who said they mostly agreed with the Liberals.

Of the ethnic categories in the poll, all but Latinos, Blacks and Filipinos say they agreed with Conservatives over the Liberals, with Black immigrants reporting 27-per-cent support for the Liberals compared to 13 per cent for the Tories.

Professed support among Southeast Asian immigrants was evenly split between the Conservatives and Liberals at 25 per cent each, while 31 per cent of South Asian immigrants prefer the Conservatives compared to 22 per cent for the Liberals. (Southeast Asian refers to those from nations including Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, while South Asian countries include India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.)

Thirty-eight per cent said they didn’t know what party they agreed with the most.

A little over a quarter of poll respondents were Canadian citizens, 41 per cent were permanent residents, 15 per cent were here on work permits, 10 per cent were international students and a small number said they were refugees.

….Among poll respondents who said the latest immigration targets are too permissive, Southeast Asian immigrants represented the highest numbers in that cohort at 64 per cent, followed by the Chinese community (55 per cent,) South Asian (50 per cent,) Filipinos (45 per cent,) White (41 per cent,) Latinos (38 per cent,) Middle Eastern/North Africans (32 per cent,) and Black (17 per cent.)

Of those who felt the new policies were too loose, 47 per cent arrived in Canada between six and 10 years ago, compared to the 38 per cent who immigrated within the past five years.

Black respondents were most likely to say the new policies will admit the right number of immigrants (47 per cent,) followed by Filipinos (40 per cent) and those from Latin American nations (39 per cent.)

Less than 10 per cent of respondents from all categories felt the new targets wouldn’t let enough immigrants into Canada.

While margins of error cannot be applied to online panels, a comparable probability sample would yield a margin of error no greater than +/- 2.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Source: Recent immigrants think Canada’s immigration targets are too high, prefer Tories to Liberals: poll

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Australia: Grattan – Ethnic tensions will complicate the Albanese government’s multicultural policy reform

2024/04/20 Leave a comment

On the ongoing Australian multiculturalism review and similar political dynamics with Australian Muslims as in Canada:

When ASIO boss Mike Burgess delivered his annual threat assessment earlier this year, he stressed the rising danger posed by espionage and foreign interference.

“In 2024, threats to our way of life have surpassed terrorism as Australia’s principal security concern,” he said.

But ASIO also remained concerned about “lone actors” – individuals or small groups under the radar of authorities with the potential to “use readily available weapons to carry out an act of terrorism”.

It was a concern “across the spectrum of motivations – religious and ideological”.

With minor variations, Burgess might have been describing what allegedly happened at Sydney’s Wakeley Assyrian Orthodox Church on Monday night, where Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel was attacked with a very “readily available weapon” – a knife.

Monday’s incident would have set off shock waves in ordinary times, especially given it was followed by an ugly riot as an angry crowd converged on the scene, trying to get at the alleged perpetrator, a 16-year-old boy (who has since been charged with a terrorism offence).

In this case, the fear the attack triggered was dramatically heightened by context.

Tensions, especially in western Sydney, are much elevated because of the Middle East conflict. And the Wakeley attack came just two days after the Bondi Junction shopping centre stabbings, which killed six people. While that atrocity did not fall under the definition of “terrorism”, inevitably the two incidents were conflated by an alarmed public.

The mix, further stirred by incendiary social media, increases the difficulty of keeping a sense of proportion about the church incident, which isn’t the first instance of a terrorist act in Australia and presumably won’t be the last.

We don’t know the background of the attack on the bishop. We do know that the wider pressures on our social cohesion – including dramatic rises in antisemitism and Islamophobia – are deeply troubling. Australia’s multiculturalism is enduring unprecedented strains, with all the difficulties that brings for political and community leaders.

When there are security crises, terror-related or not, the default call is, not surprisingly, for authorities to DO SOMETHING. More police (or security guards). Greater law enforcement powers. Tougher penalties. New controls on social media. (After the church incident, the eSafety commissioner ordered tech companies to take down images of the attack. These were widely available, because the church service had been live-streamed.)

Sometimes calls for action may be warranted, but often they’re little more than a knee-jerk response – and can open other debates (for example, over the justification for censoring certain images but not others).

The challenge for political leaders is not just dealing with the immediate increasing threats to cohesion, but with longer term policy.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently flagged, when he met a Jewish youth group, that the government planned to appoint an envoy against antisemitism (a post existing in other countries) and a matching envoy against Islamophobia. There’s no timetable for these appointments.

Looking to the future, what’s unclear, given the present tensions, is the likely trajectory of Australia’s multiculturalism.

Will the strains worsen, seriously fracturing the society? Or will they ameliorate in the years to come? Multiculturalism is likely in transition, but what will be its pathway? And what are the political implications?

Labor is particularly worried about the erosion of its support among Muslim voters in western Sydney seats.

The cat was belled on the suburban multicultural vote in 2022, ironically not by a Muslim candidate but a Christian of Vietnamese heritage. Dai Le, whose family fled the Vietnam war, seized the previously safe Labor seat of Fowler in Sydney’s outer south-west.

It remains to be seen whether this is a one-off, or if more strong independent candidates will start to emerge as people from multicultural communities fight for a bigger direct presence in politics, or to exert more influence through strategic voting.

A recently-registered group called Muslim Votes Matter styles itself as “shaping our future through informed voting and collective influence”. It says on its website, “There are over 20 seats where the Muslim community collectively has the potential deciding vote”.

Kos Samaras, from the RedBridge Group, a political consultancy, says “the fire” has been raging for some years in multicultural communities in areas such as north-western Melbourne and western Sydney. The Israel-Hamas war has obviously fuelled it.

Samaras says the Muslim political alienation from the major parties has been strongest among members of the those communities who were born in Australia – people in their 20s, 30s and 40s.

This week, after the church attack, NSW premier Chris Minns called in faith leaders. But it is a moot point whether this consultation with predominantly older people reaches the younger, more alienated generation.

Young Australian Muslims grew up in a post-September 11 world, Samaras says, with a sense of being outsiders in the country. We saw this feeling during the pandemic, in the complaints about the different treatment of people in Sydney’s eastern and western suburbs.

Notably, Muslim community leader Jamal Rifi, speaking this week to Sky on behalf of the 16-year-old’s family, referenced the fact the Bondi Junction killings were not labelled “terrorism” by the authorities while the church incident was. “I understand there is a difference between the two but unfortunately the overwhelming feeling in the community [is] that it is, you know, Tale of Two Cities,” he said.

Andrew Jakubowicz, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Technology Sydney, highlights the three separate elements of multiculturalism. These are

  • “Settlement policy, which deals with arrival, survival and orientation, and the emergence of bonding within the group and finding employment, housing and education
  • “Multicultural policy, which ensures that institutions in society identify and respond to needs over the life course and in changing life circumstances, and
  • “Community Relations policy, which includes building skills in intercultural relations, engagement with the power hierarchies of society and the inclusion of diversity into the fabric of decision-making in society – from politics to education to health to the arts.”

Australia has been fairly good at the first, not so good on the second and “very poor” on the third, he says.

The Albanese government last year commissioned an independent review of the present multicultural framework. The report has recommendations for the short, medium and long terms. It envisages changes to institutions as well as policies and at federal and state levels.

Although the review is not due for release until mid-year, the May budget is likely to see some initiatives.

But there are differences between ministers about how far and how fast reform should go. A febrile combination of local and international factors is making crafting a multicultural policy for the next decade a much more sensitive operation than might have been envisaged when the review was launched.

Source: Grattan on Friday: Ethnic tensions will complicate the Albanese government’s multicultural policy reform

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Le PQ associe Justin Trudeau aux déportations et aux exécutions de francophones

2024/04/20 Leave a comment

Stay tuned. André Pratte also has commentary on the relative extreme positions PSPP: André Pratte: Quebec separatism is resurging, and Trudeau isn’t taking the threat seriously

Justin Trudeau poursuit l’oeuvre de son père et des architectes de la « déportation » et des « exécutions » de francophones par ses politiques migratoires et ses incursions dans les champs de compétence du Québec, a plaidé mardi le chef du Parti québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon.

Mardi, le chef péquiste a accusé le premier ministre du Canada de mener une « charge offensive » contre le Québec. « Justin Trudeau est en continuité avec son père, Pierre Elliott Trudeau », a-t-il soutenu avant de reprocher aux commentateurs de l’actualité de ne pas déceler des « intentions » derrière cela.

« C’est vraiment oublier l’histoire récente, comme le rapatriement unilatéral de la Constitution canadienne sans le Québec, oublier l’oeuvre de Pierre Elliott Trudeau, oublier ce que les francophones ont vécu dans les déportations, les exécutions, l’interdiction d’avoir de l’éducation en français. Ce régime-là a été constant durant toute son histoire », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon voit les signes de cette charge dans « l’immigration temporaire, qui est passée de 80 000 en 2016 à 560 000 [personnes] », ainsi que dans les récentes incursions du fédéral dans les compétences du Québec, notamment en logement.

« Radical » et « conservateur »

Lors du conseil national de la fin de semaine dernière, le chef péquiste avait déjà évoqué une « charge frontale » en provenance d’« un régime qui ne sait qu’écraser ceux qui refusent de s’assimiler ». Des propos qui ont beaucoup fait réagir les oppositions à l’Assemblée nationale mardi.

Le chef intérimaire du Parti libéral, Marc Tanguay, a qualifié ce discours de « déconnecté », d’« exagéré » et de « radical ». Ce n’est pas crédible, a-t-il dit « que le fédéral se lève tous les matins pour planifier notre déclin ».

Du côté de Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois a dit ne pas avoir « souvenir d’un chef du Parti québécois avec un discours aussi conservateur ». « Ce que j’ai entendu, c’est un discours empreint de ressentiment. »

Quant au gouvernement caquiste, il s’est aussi inscrit en faux contre cette lecture. « Nous, on fait des gains concrets », a dit le ministre de la Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, en évoquant notamment la loi 96 et après avoir dit ne pas être « résigné ». « On est conscients des risques, mais on agit », a-t-il affirmé.

Source: Le PQ associe Justin Trudeau aux déportations et aux exécutions de francophones

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Regg Cohn: Peel school board should learn a lesson in controversy over Nakba Day

2024/04/19 Leave a comment

Peel SB has a habit of controversial policies and stands. Money quote: “A better way for educators to navigate modern times and historical legacies would be to always remain mindful of unity in diversity — and the reality of complexity. Find ways to bring people together rather than drive them apart:”

Nakba Day is coming to schools in two of Ontario’s biggest cities.

Not familiar with the term?

It takes place on May 15, the day after the anniversary of Israel’s founding day in 1948 — not celebrating but commiserating over the Jewish state’s creation.

Al-Nakba is an Arabic term that translates as “the catastrophe.” Yasser Arafat, in his heyday as head of the Palestinian Authority, declared it an official day of mourning across the West Bank and Gaza in 1998.

Now, the Peel District School Board is bringing it from the Middle East into schools it controls across the GTA — in Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga.

The revelation of Peel’s preoccupations has stirred fresh controversy — including demands that the board rescind its move and counterdemands to keep it in place. That very controversy tells the story of why it’s such a bad idea to keep bringing back the world’s problems to the modern multicultural metropolis that is Greater Toronto.

To be clear, there is not much about Nakba Day that is contentious for Palestinians or disputed by historians. It marks the undeniably catastrophic impact of Israel’s creation on hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were ended or upended in 1948.

How you see the world’s epochal events — and historical terminology — depends on who you are, where you live and when you’re talking.

When the late Arafat belatedly proclaimed Nakba Day, I was the Star’s Middle East correspondent, watching him work hand-in-glove with Israel. Their shared goal was two states for two peoples.

Today, on the streets of the GTA, you don’t hear protesters talk much of two states. You’ll hear slogans such as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — implying a new Palestinian state should displace the old Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, dismantling the so-called colonial enterprise they believe Israel to be.

The world has changed, and political agendas have changed with them. Which brings us back to the Peel school board.

As part of its multicultural mission, it has a committee that curates a long list detailing “days of significance” for “secular and creed-based days.” It begins with Canada Day last year and ends with Boxing Day this year.

In between those bookends, the list catalogues celebrations of relevance and reverence in chronological (not spiritual) order — Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Bahaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Wicca, Christianity and so on. And then there are worldly listings for Emancipation Day, Labour Day, Literacy Day and the like.

Since Canada Day is top of the list, let’s consider the Canadian context.

Some bemoan any recognition of Confederation, condemning it as a celebration of colonization; some have absented themselves from July 1 fireworks events in solidarity with Indigenous critics. That said, I cannot imagine the Peel school board voting to recognize a Canada Catastrophe Day on July 1, for it would surely spark disagreement and disunity.

That tension — between celebration and condemnation — reminds us that the creation of one nation can easily diminish another people at home and abroad. The point is that it should be possible to be both pro-Canada and pro-Indigenous, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, to be mindful and respectful of people on both sides, all sides.

As for Israel, it emerged from a vote of the United Nations, which partitioned the Holy Land into two nations, Jewish and Arab (retaining special status for Jerusalem). History tells us that Arabs rejected that compromise, and the resulting catastrophe was undeniable; historians have also documented episodes of ethnic cleansing, although Arab minorities endured in Israel and gained citizenship.

In the aftermath, Nakba Day makes perfect sense in Palestinian schools, but it is surely misplaced in Peel schools. For unless the board is about to declare a day of celebration for the creation of Israel on May 14 — and I don’t see it on the list, nor do I foresee it down the line — why must Peel pick a side?

When the UN General Assembly decided in 2022 to formally mark Nakba Day — three quarters of a century after birthing the state of Israel — Canada joined many nations in opposing the gesture. What qualifies Peel’s school board to reach the opposite conclusion?

A better way for educators to navigate modern times and historical legacies would be to always remain mindful of unity in diversity — and the reality of complexity. Find ways to bring people together rather than drive them apart.

Source: Peel school board should learn a lesson in controversy over Nakba Day

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Nicolas | Compétitions traumatiques

2024/04/19 Leave a comment

Good arguments on the risks of avoiding blind spots (which we all have to varying degrees) and the risks of leaving such debates to political partisans or single interest groups with little to no curiosity for other perspectives and experiences:

Je suis d’accord avec Paul St-Pierre Plamondon sur au moins une chose : il est indéniable que le colonialisme britannique et sa violence ont profondément marqué, voire forgé, l’histoire du Canada.

Il y aurait beaucoup de choses à dire sur la maladresse avec laquelle le chef du Parti québécois a fait rejaillir cette question dans l’espace public, appel du pied (dog-whistle) en prime. On y reviendra.

Mais plusieurs observateurs lui ont aussi reproché le simple fait de parler du passé. « Il ressasse de vieilles histoires », « le Québec est rendu ailleurs », lui a-t-on rétorqué. Je comprends et respecte le réflexe. Cette chronique s’adresse à ceux que l’héritage du colonialisme britannique intéresse.

Ma vie professionnelle me donne l’occasion de sillonner le pays. Partout, je cherche à comprendre comment les gens voient le Canada ou leur province, leur histoire familiale, les liens qu’ils font entre leur récit personnel et les récits nationalistes. Et partout, dès qu’on gratte un peu, la question du colonialisme britannique ressort, explicitement ou implicitement, dans les rapports que les gens entretiennent les uns aux autres, avec le territoire et l’État.

Ce que je constate toutefois, c’est que la compréhension qu’on a de l’histoire canadienne est souvent prise dans des angles morts qui suivent à peu près les trous dans les curriculums d’histoire de nos provinces respectives.

Je vais me souvenir toute ma vie d’une conversation surréelle avec une personnalité politique pourtant sénior de l’Ouest canadien qui associait systématiquement le français au Québec — seulement le Québec. Je lui avais demandé si l’agacement des Prairies à l’endroit de la différence québécoise pouvait être un héritage de la violence d’État envers les Métis, les Premières Nations et les francophones de l’Ouest à la suite de la pendaison de Louis Riel. Comme si, après avoir « travaillé » si fort à stigmatiser la différence locale, on s’étonnait qu’une autre partie du pays ose la revendiquer. Elle n’y avait jamais réfléchi.

C’est aussi là une démonstration de la manière dont on peut atteindre les plus hauts postes politiques dans l’Ouest et parler de « l’aliénation » des gens de l’Ouest (en vertu de l’exigence de bilinguisme à Ottawa) sans jamais s’être demandé pourquoi l’Ouest n’est-il pas plus bilingue, ou multilingue, et comment cela est-il advenu 

L’absence de réflexion témoignait d’un important angle mort. En associant la francophonie canadienne exclusivement au Québec, on s’était privé d’une clé de compréhension centrale pour sa propre région. Parce que les gens, fondamentalement, cherchent à se comprendre eux-mêmes, mes questions ne pouvaient être reçues autrement qu’avec beaucoup d’ouverture.

De la même manière, j’espère qu’on a assez de recul pour sourire de la façon dont la génération de leaders qui a mené la saga constitutionnelle des années 1980 et 1990 s’est étonnée de voir la perspective autochtone surgir, un peu comme un cheveu sur la soupe, dans son bras de fer entre « peuples fondateurs ». Quel ne fut pas l’émoi collectif lorsqu’Elijah Harper, leader cri et député de l’Assemblée législative du Manitoba, a bloqué l’adoption de l’Accord du lac Meech, qui n’incluait aucune reconnaissance constitutionnelle pour les Premiers Peuples. On avait cru pouvoir régler la place du Québec dans le Canada sans qu’aucun Autochtone ne lève le doigt pour dire : et nous ?

C’est incroyable, quand même, avec le recul. L’épisode reste un symbole du trou béant dans l’éducation politique et historique de nos dirigeants de l’époque.

Je pourrais donner encore beaucoup d’exemples. Les perspectives autochtones, celles des communautés immigrantes provenant d’autres ex-colonies britanniques, celles des communautés noires et asiatiques qui ont encaissé de plein fouet le racisme de l’Empire, celles immigrant du sud ou de l’est de l’Europe qui ont essuyé le chauvinisme protestant, des familles irlandaises et écossaises qui avaient déjà une longue histoire avec Londres avant de débarquer au Canada viennent compléter les récits familiaux qui continuent de circuler dans bien des familles francophones et acadiennes.

Mais il est rare que l’on considère ces mémoires et ces perspectives comme des éléments qui se complètent. J’ai souvent l’impression que chacun tient à son bout de casse-tête régional, linguistique ou culturel et tente de démontrer aux autres l’importance du morceau qu’il a en main. Très rares sont ceux qui cherchent à développer une vue d’ensemble du casse-tête.

Ainsi, les mémoires traumatiques entrent en compétition : chacune tire la couverture, personne ne s’écoute véritablement. Et on normalise une vision de la politique où la seule manière d’être respecté, c’est de faire la démonstration de sa force, quitte à écraser plus petit que soi comme on craint soi-même de se faire écraser.

Je ne sais pas si on comprend que chaque fois qu’on dit que la seule manière d’être respecté, c’est de redessiner les cartes pour se créer un espace majoritaire, on avoue implicitement ne pas croire qu’il puisse exister un pays où chaque groupe est respecté, peu importe son nombre. Il y a bien sûr plusieurs raisons de vouloir fonder un pays. Mais lorsque l’on justifie son désir par une aspiration à jouir à son tour de la force du majoritaire, le message est bien entendu par les gens qui resteront minoritaires. J’avais dit que j’allais revenir à l’appel du pied.

Je pense qu’un exercice de dialogue sur les cicatrices laissées un peu partout par l’histoire de ce pays est nécessaire pour que chacun puisse mieux se comprendre et mieux se respecter. Il se fait d’ailleurs déjà tranquillement, au fil de rencontres portées par la société civile — souvent loin des parlements, des caméras et des réseaux sociaux. Vous me permettrez toutefois d’avoir peu confiance en la réussite d’un exercice aussi délicat lorsqu’il est accaparé par la politique partisane ou par des gens qui démontrent peu de curiosité pour l’ensemble du casse-tête.

Source: Chronique | Compétitions traumatiques

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Budget 2024: Statement on Gender, Diversity, and Inclusion, varia

2024/04/18 Leave a comment

Definitely worth a look, for the richness of the data as well the insights into the government’s diversity and inclusion priorities and how it stitches the narrative together with political and Canadian public priorities.

Intro has the key messages:

  • “Early Learning and Child Care, which is supporting better economic outcomes for women, by making it possible for more women to participate in the workforce, while securing access to quality child care and learning, thus contributing to positive childhood development and the future well-being of children.
  • The interim Canada Dental Benefit has helped hundreds of thousands of children get the oral health care they need, and once fully implemented in 2025, the new Canadian Dental Care Plan will improve the long-term health of 9 million Canadians, who may have previously been unable to visit an oral health professional due to the cost.
  • The National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence provides targeted action to protect Canadians who experience or are at risk of experiencing violence because of their sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or perceived gender.
  • The Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan advances the rights and equality for Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other sexually and gender diverse people in Canada.
  • The Implementation of the National Action Plan to End the Tragedy of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is providing targeted, culturally-appropriate supports to Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, while working to address the root causes of the violence they face.

In Budget 2024, the government is making investments to close the divide between generations. For younger Canadians, the government is taking new action to reduce tax advantages that benefit the wealthy, is investing to build more homes, faster, is strengthening Canada’s social safety net, and is boosting productivity and innovation to grow an economy with better-paying opportunities.

These efforts will improve the lives of all younger Canadians, and their impacts will be greatest for lower-income and marginalized younger Canadians, who will benefit from new pathways to unlock a fair chance at building a good middle class life.

This starts with a focus on housing. Resolving Canada’s housing crisis is critical for every generation and the most vulnerable Canadians. The government is building more community housing to make rent more affordable for lower-income Canadians, including through:

  • The $618.2 million Federal Community Housing Initiative;
  • The $15 billion Affordable Housing Fund, including a $1 billion top-up in Budget 2024;
  • The $1.5 billion Co-Operative Housing Development Program; and,
  • The $4.4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund, including a $400 million top-up in

These investments provide Canadians and younger generations with opportunity ––finding an affordable home to buy or rent; having access to recreational spaces, amenities, and schools to raise families.

Having a place to call home creates a broad range of benefits. When survivors of domestic partner violence can find affordable housing, this creates a safe home base for their children to break cycles of violence and poverty. When Indigenous people can find affordable housing that meets their specific needs that means they can access culturalsupports to help heal from the legacy of colonialism. When persons with disabilities are able to find low-barrier or barrier-free housing, this enables them to utilize the entirety of their homes.

To ensure that young people and future generations benefit from continued actions for sustained and equitable prosperity for all, this budget makes key investments to guarantee access to safe and affordable housing, help Canadians have a good quality of life while dealing with rising costs, and  provide economic stability through good-paying jobs and opportunities for upskilling.”

Interestingly, no mention of the employment equity task force and its recommendations, although it is mentioned in the Budget.

Immigration aspects are limited to “continued funding for immigration and refugee legal aid” (but the Budget has significant funding for immigration and reflects the government’s pivot away from unlimited temporary workers and international students and post 2015 ending annual increases).

The Budget also has a reference to “Permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity; and, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada’s citizenship process (with little to no detail).”

No surprise, but the 2019 and 2021 election platform commitments to eliminate citizenship fees remain unmet.

The Government’s proposed reduction in the public service by 5,000 public servants over four years (1,250 per year) is meaningless as the 2022-22 EE report shows annual separations more than 10 times that:

One thought that crossed my mind while browsing this close to 40 page document is whether this level of detail and effort would survive a change in government. Unlikely IMO, given the pressure to reduce spending and the CPC general aversion to excessive employment equity reporting and measures.

Source: Budget 2024, Statement on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion

Filed under Citizenship, Government, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →