Douglas Todd: How to woo immigrant voters in Canada. And how not to

2023/10/04 Leave a comment

Suggestions on how to navigate or manage diaspora politics:

The number of federal ridings in which immigrants make up more than half of all voters has grown to 33 in Canada, almost all in pivotal Metro Vancouver and Toronto.

Politicians are desperate to find ways to appeal to the “immigrant vote” in those 33 exceptional ridings — as well as in 122 more electoral districts where the share of immigrants ranges from a consequential 20 to 50 per cent.

Efforts to woo immigrant groups were on display last month when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inflamed India with the accusation that its agents appeared to be involved in the slaying of a pro-Khalistan activist in Surrey.

One of Trudeau’s unstated aims seemed to be to show support for the country’s 770,000 Sikhs, most of whom are in immigrant families. Unfortunately, Trudeau also alienated many of Canada’s 828,000 Hindus.

Chasing after immigrant voters is a tricky, fraught business.

How best can politicians appeal to immigrants, who have become a force to be reckoned with in almost half of the country’s federal ridings? It’s not easy when immigrants come from disparate countries, ethnicities and religions. Political parties are constantly trying to figure out what appeals to immigrant populations through their private polling, which they resolutely decline to share with journalists.

Here are a few thoughts from experts on working with voters who are immigrants:

Focus on across-the-spectrum issues

Regardless of whether immigrants come from India, China or the Philippines, many issues affect both immigrants and non-immigrants in roughly the same way: All people relate to policies on taxation, employment, education and cost of living.

Defend immigrants against intimidation, foreign and domestic

Since many immigrants not only come to Canada to take advantage of economic opportunities, but also to escape discrimination in their homelands, Andre Machalski, whose company Mirens monitors Canada’s more than 800 ethnic media outlets, says politicians can benefit by defending immigrants’ rights.

That’s a tack Trudeau took when he declared there were “credible allegations” that Indian agents were involved in the June murder of a pro-Khalistan activist outside a Surrey gurdwara.

“Trudeau’s unassailable message to all immigrants is, ‘We will stand up for you,’” said Machalski.

That message can hit home for people who have left behind all sorts of conflict-ridden nations, whether China, Ukraine or Nigeria.

Andrew Griffith, a former high-level director in Canada’s immigration department, says politicians believe they benefit electorally by defending immigrants, 70 per cent of whom are people of colour, from hate or discrimination.

Be in power

It’s conventional political theory that a party draws votes by being in office when a newcomer obtains citizenship status, which includes the right to vote.

B.C. radio talk-show host Harjit Singh Gill is among those convinced one reason Trudeau has hiked migration to record levels is he realizes immigrants and refugees, whether from Iran, Syria or India, “will vote for him because of it. They will worship him, think he’s a hero.”

Since the Liberal party has been in power more than the Conservatives in the past three decades, many say that’s one reason polls generally show immigrants lean toward the Liberals.

The Liberals have raised the immigration target to 500,000 a year, double the number when they came into office. Canada’s population grew by a record 1.1 million last year, 98 per cent due to migrants. CIBC Capital Market economist Benjamin Tal adds Ottawa has also allowed in two million foreign students and guest workers, most of whom yearn to be citizens.

Recognize both pros and cons of migration policy can draw votes

It’s time for politicians to get over the idea immigration is a “third rail,” too controversial to touch, Griffith writes in Policy Options.

Many immigrant families, like many other Canadians, are concerned about immigration levels, Griffith says. While generally pro-immigration, they fear the negative effects of Ottawa inviting too many newcomers too rapidly, particularly because they contribute to demand on housing and medical services, both of which are in crisis.

Sponsoring older immigrants is a winner. And loser

Trudeau’s cabinet ministers often boast they have quadrupled the number of parents and grandparents that can be sponsored to move to Canada. The expanding program aims to bring in 28,500 older family members this year, 34,000 next year and 36,000 in 2025.

“It’s both a real vote getter, and a real vote loser,” says Griffith.

While many immigrants want to bring their parents or grandparents here, others worry about the drain on publicly funded health services, since they arrive as seniors and haven’t had the chance to pay significant taxes in Canada.

Informing parents on pronouns

Since polls show immigrants tend to come from socially conservative cultures, it’s not surprising many Canadian Muslims, most of whom are immigrants, have been at the forefront of opposition to school districts refusing to tell parents if their children want to change their gender pronouns at school.

An Angus Reid poll found 78 per cent of all Canadians believe parents should be informed if their child wants to change their gender identity or pronoun at school.

Support ethnocultural groups, and be honest

The ethnic media in Canada, Machalski says, is full of examples of politicians saying one thing to one ethnic group and another to the wider public. That plays out whether the contentious subject is Khalistan or attending a banquet hosted by an organization that is a mouthpiece for China. When courting immigrant groups, politicians should avoid speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Show up

The old-fashioned way of wooing a group, whether immigrant or otherwise, might still be best. Show up at town halls, shake some hands, get to know people. For what it’s worth, Machalski, who was born in Argentina, believes these days that Conservative party Leader Pierre Poilievre is showing up the most — “making serious inroads” into immigrant communities.

The timing for Poilievre is also auspicious, Machalski says. “He is going up in the polls, and like most people, immigrants like to back a winner.”

Source: Douglas Todd: How to woo immigrant voters in Canada. And how not to

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Should Color-Blind Thinking Be Taboo? 

2023/10/04 Leave a comment

Of note and the limits of meta-analyses:

A brouhaha broke out recently when it was revealed that TED treated a talk on color blindness by Coleman Hughes (who is black, if that matters), with surprising levels of hostility. Mr. Hughes and TED seem to agree on the broad outlines of what happened. Mr. Hughes argued in favor of color-blind thinking; this offended some staff at TED, resulting in delays, unusual scrutiny, and alleged failure to promote Mr. Hughes’ video. This raised familiar concerns that institutions are throttling free speech and rigorous debate in the name of satiating a few easily offended individuals.

One defense raised by TED for their actions was that Mr. Hughes’ defense of color blindness wasn’t scientifically grounded. They pointed to one particular meta-analysis, which analyzed the impact of color blindness and race consciousness in the form of multiculturalism on several outcomes. TED argued this meta-analysis questions the value of color blindness. Mr. Hughes countered that this meta-analysis actually supports color blindness. So, which is it?

I decided to have a closer look at the study in question. Upfront, it’s worth noting one thing: as I’ve argued before, meta-analyses are poor debate enders. Generally, they tend to artificially smooth over inconsistencies in the data (which the authors of this meta-analysis themselves acknowledge), they tend to overestimate support for hypotheses, and researcher choices can produce divergent meta-analytic conclusions. But, for the moment, we’ll ignore that.

Although the authors purport to compare color-blind to race-conscious approaches, I’m not convinced they actually isolated this. It’s well known that many race-conscious approaches, whether in DEI training, implicit bias training, microaggression awareness, etc., either don’t work or backfire. A thorough discussion of this appeared to be missing from the manuscript. 

Instead, the authors focus on a vaguer concept of multiculturalism which they define as “acknowledging differences by learning about, maintaining, or valuing them.” This seems to be a very soft version of identity consciousness, not nearly as likely to concern people as, say, the white fragility concept or segregating school kids by race for affinity groups. I’m not sure their definition of multiculturalism is even contradictory to color blindness. 

The authors consider four outcomes: prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, and what they call “policy support,” which they define as “positive attitudes toward policies aimed at increasing diversity by granting resources to non-dominant groups.” This later category, while undoubtedly good in intention, also appears to be explicitly racially discriminatory (as with affirmative action) and could reasonably be expected to be opposed by color blindness in good faith.

Some of the meta-analytic results appeared to be underpowered, particularly for studies of color blindness. Focusing on effect size, and consistent with Mr. Hughes’ read, color blindness tends to be associated with more positive outcomes, some more strongly than others. So was multiculturalism, with the exception that it was associated with more “neutral” stereotyping (a tendency to see groups as culturally different—an outcome I’d argue is actually rather negative for a multiethnic society).

Taken at face value, I think the authors could argue multiculturalism had a stronger impact on some outcomes such as prejudice and discrimination, but we’ll return to that face value in just a moment. Yet the main difference was regarding policy support. Color-blind approaches were associated with less policy support, whereas multiculturalism was associated with more policy support.

Whether that’s good or bad is a subjective evaluation—likely depending on whether the reader likes those policies themselves. I’m concerned that this has been something of a common rhetorical trick by progressive scholars. For instance, some economists claimed that 2016 Trump voters were motivated by “racism,” though the surveys they used for this claim tended to involve disagreement with specifically progressive views of race, such as support of affirmative action or belief that racism is widespread, rather than actually endorsing hateful views of others. 

Of course, there are also reasons not to take the meta-analytic results at face value. As mentioned, the authors used a rather vanilla definition of multiculturalism, and deftly avoided the most controversial areas of race-consciousness. This certainly affected effect sizes. Moreover, from the start (including the chosen quotes by Justices Day-O’Connor and Sotomayor at the beginning of the article), I had the sense that the authors really wanted multiculturalism to win, and this may have influenced their interpretations.

In short, there are reasonable debates about the meaningfulness of the comparisons between multiculturalism and color blindness. But there was nothing in this meta-analysis that should have been used to conclude Mr. Coleman’s TED talk was unscientific or contrary to the (very weak) scientific evidence.

Source: Should Color-Blind Thinking Be Taboo?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Malik: Suella Braverman’s bigoted attack on multiculturalism shouldn’t blind us to its problems

2023/10/03 Leave a comment

Valid reflections on the risks of deeper multiculturalism approaches rather than civic integration variants:

Has multiculturalism failed?” It is a debate that raged a decade ago but had seemed to have faded into the political background in recent years. Until, that is, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, attempted to light the fires again, in a speech she gave last week to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Multiculturalism, she argued, “has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it”.

Her real audience, as many commentators observed, were not the people sitting in the room but the Conservative party back home. Braverman did not engage seriously with any of the issues she raised, from asylum to multiculturalism, but sought rather to position herself as the right’s flagbearer in any upcoming Tory leadership battle.

Nevertheless, Braverman’s speech, and the debate it unleashed, provides an opportunity to think again about multiculturalism. Part of the difficulty in making sense of this debate is that the term is used in two distinct ways: a description both of the lived experience of diversity and of the policies necessary to manage such a society.

The experience of living in a society that is less homogenous and insular, more open and cosmopolitan, is something to welcome and cherish. As a political process, however, multiculturalism means something very different: a set of policies and practices, the aim of which is to manage diversity by putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes, and using those boxes to define people’s needs and obligations.

The conflation of lived experience and political policy has proved highly invidious. It has allowed many on the right – and not just on the right – to blame mass immigration for the failures of social policy and to turn minorities into the problem. It has also led many liberals and radicals to become more detached from classical notions of liberty, such as free speech, in the name of defending diversity.

All these issues, from immigration to free speech, are central to contemporary politics, but the context has changed as the old debates about multiculturalism have shifted. Partly, this is because multiculturalism, in both its meanings, is more embedded in our social fabric.

Source: Suella Braverman’s bigoted attack on multiculturalism shouldn’t blind us to its problems – The Guardian

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Orwell would have something to say about Canada’s moment in the global spotlight

2023/10/03 Leave a comment

On diaspora politics and national interests:

An old joke has it that the most boring possible news story would read: “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.” And yet in the past two weeks, Canada has managed the surprising feat of making global headlines not once but twice, though by now its leaders may well wish it hadn’t.

The first instance came when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly accused India of assassinating a Khalistan separatist on Canadian soil; the second, when it emerged that Parliament had hosted a Ukrainian veteran of the Nazi paramilitary Waffen-SS.

What is interesting about both cases – aside from the fact that they brought such attention to Canada – is that they each involve what George Orwell called “transferred nationalism,” in which people glorify a country to which they do not actually belong. This is an underappreciated phenomenon in world politics, being much more common than many realize. And it is one to which Canada may be especially prone given its own weakening national ties.

Canadians have long prided themselves on their “mosaic” model of a multicultural society, in contrast to the “melting pot” version on display to the south. Part of their self-understanding is that Canada’s multicultural democracy does not require assimilation as a precondition of peaceable coexistence. This easygoing cosmopolitanism goes hand in hand with a certain complacency, however, as Canada increasingly fails to supplement it with a positive account of its own national identity.

The Belgian writer Émile Cammaerts (in a remark widely attributed to G. K. Chesterton) said that a man who ceases to believe in God doesn’t believe in nothing but in anything. Something like this is increasingly borne out with respect to Canadian political life, as diaspora politics at home and foreign causes abroad rush into the vacuum that ordinary patriotism once filled.

For the former, Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a leader of a niche movement to establish Khalistan, a separate Sikh homeland in northern India. This is a cause that has found passionate (and at times violent) support almost entirely outside of India itself. This may seem surprising but is hardly unusual. Nationalisms often form in exile – famously (and ironically, given the present circumstances), Mahatma Gandhi developed his vision of Indian nationalism while in South Africa.

Of course, their right to peacefully organize is not in dispute. But it’s fair to say their geopolitical goals are separate from those of most Canadians and for that matter of Ottawa, and they have caused serious complications in Canada’s relationship with a major regional power.

Meanwhile, the case of Ukraine is on the surface quite different. The passion that Canadians have manifested for the Ukrainian cause is not limited to an ethnic minority, suggesting that it has fulfilled certain patriotic longings, even among our cosmopolitan elites. In Orwell’s words, such a person “still feels the need for a Fatherland, and it is natural to look for one somewhere abroad. Having found it, he can wallow unrestrainedly in exactly those emotions from which he believes that he has emancipated himself.”

Unsurprisingly, the feting of a Nazi fellow-traveller on Parliament Hill has brought condemnation and alarm from Jewish organizations. Speaking as a Jew myself, I don’t think this episode betrays some latent antisemitism among Canada’s governing class. But it does indicate the pitfalls that await those who attach themselves to foreign causes, the complex history of which they only dimly comprehend.

And it must be said that the embarrassments and complications of these recent weeks might have been avoided had Canada’s political elites better tended their obligations to address the real interests of the citizens they notionally represent. The point here is not that Canada needs to embark on a program of promoting its own homegrown nationalism (what would that even look like – ”freedom fries” but for maple syrup?). But it wouldn’t be amiss for its leaders to work on articulating their vision of the country’s national interests.

The language of national interests is admittedly in low repute these days, smacking as it does of amoral power politics. But because national interests are necessarily tied to the material concerns of the whole of a country’s citizens, they can have a moderating effect on both ideological passions and factional agendas, shaping a sense of shared democratic political community. And in the absence of such an account, we are likely to see more instances of transferred nationalism in Canadian politics going forward.

Thus, restoring the habits of reflecting on and speaking in terms of national interests could well prove salutary for elected officials and citizens alike. At a minimum, it might help keep Canada out of international news stories for a cycle or two.

David Polansky is a Toronto-based writer.

Source: Orwell would have something to say about Canada’s moment in the global spotlight

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Islam and the issue of parental rights

2023/10/03 Leave a comment

Of interest:

There’s a religion angle to pretty much every news event that happens these days. That’s one of the reasons why the Free Press continues to report about religion, even when most other daily papers in Canada have given it up.

This includes the 1 Million March for Children, which found thousands of Canadians rallying against what they see as inappropriate teaching about gender and sexuality in schools.

As it turns out, the key person behind the March was Kamel El-Cheikh, an Ottawa businessperson whose parents emigrated from Lebanon. El-Cheikh identifies as Muslim. His children attend a private Islamic school.

I watched a couple of interviews with him on conservative media to learn more about how his faith might be influencing his views on this topic.

In those interviews, El-Cheikh indicated he’d been watching this issue for a decade or more. He became active after a student was suspended from a Catholic school in Renfrew, Ont., last November for organizing a student walkout to protest biological males from accessing a women’s washroom.

That incident led him to explore what he called “the indoctrination” and “compulsion” that goes on in schools over sexual orientation and gender.

As a Muslim, he said, he wants to be kind and respect other views. But, he added, “when compulsion came into the country, that’s when we said it was getting out of hand.”

When asked if Canadian Muslims are being influenced on this issue by far-right Christian groups in the U.S., El-Cheikh said no. That notion, he said, was “disrespectful” and “demeaning” to Muslims in Canada, suggesting they are “gullible and naïve” and that they need Americans to tell “us what to think.”

And yet, while not using any of the far-right Christian nationalist rhetoric that is common in the U.S., El-Cheikh did use terms familiar to that movement — things like “the fabric of Canada is changing,” that we need to “get back to what Canada stood for,” and that he wants it to be “one nation under God.”

El-Cheikh spoke highly of diversity in Canada. But, he added, “diversity doesn’t just mean your sexual orientation. It also means straight families, that’s diversity too, Muslim and Christian.”

He emphasized he wasn’t opposed to adults deciding about their sexual orientation, noting he has had gay bosses and employees. “Who am I to judge?” he asked. “If you want to be gay or a drag queen, go ahead. The problem is if it involves kids.”

He also opposes things like being told to accept gender neutral pronouns, things that he said infringe on his beliefs. Doing so, he said, “is forbidden in my faith.”

El-Cheikh acknowledged that Christian groups have been active in this area for some time, and that Canadian Muslims “are late to the dance.” Muslims, he said, were “silent, we didn’t want to be rude or offend.” That silence, he added, was “taken for weakness.”

But now it has come to the point where “we had to say something about what is happening today,” he said, adding Muslims in Canada are “going to be active at all levels” on this issue as school trustees and in “every organization that involves our children.”

He disputed the notion, promoted by some Canadian Muslims, that Islam is not in conflict with homosexuality. That idea, he said, is “blasphemy.” Islam, he said, “is opposed” to homosexuality. “You can’t practise the faith and do that.”

At no point did El-Cheikh claim to represent any official Muslim group. Two Islamic organizations, the Muslim Association of Canada and the Canadian Council of Imams, did issue a joint statement saying they were not involved in the organization of or endorsed the marches.

They did add, however, that “Canada is regrettably moving in a direction where advocates of sexual and gender ethics contrary to Islamic faith are going beyond their limits by imposing their worldview on our children.”

Muslims aren’t the only religious group involved in this issue; Christian organizations like Canada Family Action and Action4Canada also are calling for enhanced parental rights and the elimination of gender and sexuality education in schools.

What to take away from this?

First, although El-Cheikh identifies as a Muslim, he doesn’t represent all Muslims in Canada — just as someone who is Christian who takes a strong stand on an issue doesn’t represent all members of that faith.

Second, it appears that people from religions other than Christianity are exercising their rights to express themselves about this issue. This likely won’t be the last time we hear from some Muslims about this.

Finally, the march and this issue has brought together right-wing Christians and Muslims in a single cause — who saw that coming? These two groups ordinarily don’t mix. I wonder where that might go in the future?

But one thing you can count on; the Free Press will continue to monitor it.

Source: Islam and the issue of parental rights – Winnipeg Free Press – Winnipeg Free Press

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Tribal Judge Rules in Favor of Citizenship for Descendants of Creek Slaves

2023/10/03 Leave a comment

Of note:

A judge for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma ruled that descendants of Black people who were enslaved by the tribe are eligible for tribal citizenship, nullifying a change to the tribe’s Constitution that had expelled Black members from the nation 44 years ago.

Judge Denette Mouser of the tribe’s District Court ruled on Wednesday in favor of two descendants of tribal slaves, known today as Freedmen, who had applied for citizenship in the Muscogee Nation but were denied because of their ancestry.

Judge Mouser reversed those decisions and ordered the tribe to reconsider the applications of the two plaintiffs, Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy, with the understanding that applicants with Black tribal ancestors are eligible for citizenship.

Geri Wisner, the attorney general for the Muscogee Nation, said in a statement that the tribe would appeal the decision to the nation’s Supreme Court, adding that the tribal Constitution “makes no provisions for citizenship for non-Creek individuals.”

The decision was a significant victory for Freedmen, who have been embroiled in a long political and legal battle to be recognized as tribal citizens.

Native American tribes in Oklahoma and the federal government have in recent years changed policies that discriminated against Freedmen, following a public pressure campaign by advocates, tribal officials and members of Congress. The Cherokee Nation in 2021 eliminated language from its Constitution that limited the rights of Freedmen in the tribe. And the Indian Health Service began providing care to Freedmen in the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma later that year.

In the Civil War era, many tribes in Oklahoma allied themselves with the Confederacy and fought to preserve the institution of slavery. After the war, a series of treaties in 1866 between the federal government and five tribes in Oklahoma — including the Muscogee Nation — abolished slavery and granted their former slaves “all the rights” of citizens in the tribal nations.

At the center of the dispute over tribal citizenship is a federal census of Native American tribes compiled in the early 1900s that divided members by race into Black and non-Black tribal rolls, respectively known as the Freedmen and “by blood” rolls.

In the 1970s, the principal chief of the Muscogee Nation at the time, Claude Cox, expressed fear that “blood” citizens of the nation would be outnumbered by Black citizens. At a meeting of the tribe’s National Council in 1977, he said that “full-bloods” had “lost control” of the tribe and that the nation needed “a Constitution that will keep the Creek Indian in control.”

Source: Tribal Judge Rules in Favor of Citizenship for Descendants of Creek Slaves – The New York Times

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

How Corporate America Kept Its Diversity Promise: It Actually Did

2023/10/02 Leave a comment

Of note (and despite the reduction of DEI staff):

Mass protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd in 2020 led to a flurry of company promises, both specific and vague, to hire and promote more Black people and others from underrepresented groups.

Overall job growth in 2021 included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.

The biggest shifts happened in less-senior job categories. White people held fewer of those roles in 2021 than they did in 2020, whereas thousands of people of color were added to the ranks. But the trend continued up the job ladder in top, high-paid jobs, too: Companies increased their racial diversity among executives, managers and professionals.

“Those are astounding percentages,” said David Larcker, the director of the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford University. Read the full analysis.

Source: How Corporate America Kept Its Diversity Promise: A Week of Big … – Bloomberg

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Racicot: J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones 

2023/10/02 Leave a comment

Quebec commentary on whether there is systemic discrimination or systemic racism. In some ways, more of a semantic distinction although systemic racism is arguably a deeper form of discrimination. But its use may contribute to greater polarization and may distract from addressing concrete issues as Racicot argues:

Dans ses deux derniers textes au Devoir, le pédiatre urgentiste et professeur à l’Université McGill Samir Shaheen-Hussain utilise l’expression « racisme systémique ». Ce faisant, il épouse la vision des chefs autochtones qui en font abondamment usage.

Or, il est important de rappeler que le juge à la retraite Jacques Viens, encore dans son récent témoignage devant la commission parlementaire sur le projet de loi 32 sur la sécurisation culturelle, a continué de s’en tenir à la notion de discrimination systémique et non à celle de racisme systémique, comme ce dernier l’avait prudemment mais rigoureusement fait dans le rapport de sa commission, en 2019.

Lors de son témoignage de la semaine dernière, le ministre responsable des Relations avec les Premières Nations et les Inuit, Ian Lafrenière, a rappelé l’importance des mots. Il a donc tenté d’obtenir du juge Viens un éclaircissement, à mon avis essentiel, sur son utilisation des expressions « discrimination systémique » et « racisme systémique ». Le juge n’y a pas répondu directement. Pourquoi ? Je ne sais pas. Il appelle plutôt le gouvernement du Québec à reconnaître « dès maintenant la discrimination systémique et le Principe de Joyce », a-t-il dit en visioconférence. Que comprendre de cette réponse sibylline ?

Essentiellement, j’y lis son refus du terme « racisme ». En effet, s’il était d’accord avec le diagnostic de racisme, il n’aurait eu qu’à inciter le gouvernement à reconnaître le Principe de Joyce, puisque ce dernier pose le constat de racisme comme prémisse… mais il a pris soin de préciser la discrimination systémique ET le Principe de Joyce.

La question ne se pose pas que sur le plan de la sémantique. Comme ne le serait pas, en cour de justice, un effort de choisir entre les termes « homicide involontaire » et « meurtre prémédité ». Les deux se distinguent par l’intention de l’accusé. L’effet est le même. Mais la justice demande de faire une distinction des intentions pour juger de la culpabilité et des mesures correctives à imposer.

C’est là toute la problématique engendrée par l’exigence des Attikameks que leur texte soit intégralement adopté comme condition préalable. Reconnaissons-le, la commission Viens l’a clairement exposé et conclu, les systèmes de santé, de justice et autres du gouvernement peuvent engendrer de la discrimination envers les Autochtones. Par exemple lorsque des lois destinées à protéger la langue commune du Québec ont pour effet indésirable de priver des communautés autochtones éloignées d’accès à des professionnels incapables de parler français. Reconnaissons tout de même qu’il y a alors discrimination systémique, mais pas racisme systémique.

Pour les Québécois soucieux de leur identité et fiers de leur histoire et de leur société, le fait qu’on affirme que leurs gouvernements successifs ont mis sur pied et entretiennent un système fondé sur une intention raciste est une insulte et une injure. Pour plusieurs, cette accusation injuste produit une colère qui ne peut que conduire à un blocage dans la résolution du problème dans le sens recherché par les six piliers du Principe de Joyce et par les 142 appels à l’action de la commission Viens.

J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones d’admettre que l’accusation de racisme à l’endroit du Québec est inappropriée et de modifier leur texte en conséquence. Ça ne pourra qu’aider à débloquer et à faire avancer les actions correctives concrètes, efficaces et durables réclamées par le juge Viens.

Source: J’en appelle aux chefs autochtones

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , , , ,

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

2023/09/30 Leave a comment

Filed under Multiculturalism

Douglas Todd: Hindu Canadians are distressed and politicians need to take heed

2023/09/30 Leave a comment

Of note. Also need to acknowledge the likely impact of PM Modi and his hindutva ideology as a likely contributing factor. But absolutely, a challenge for all parties to navigate these communities and the related diaspora politics.

And its Omer Aziz who recently raised the alarrm;

A man has been arrested for vandalizing two large Hindu temples in Surrey, say RCMP.

The suspect and his accomplices are accused of plastering the Hindu places of worship with yellow-red posters. The posters call for a separate Sikh homeland in India and declare that Indian diplomats in Canada are “wanted” for the June 18 “assassination” of Khalistani activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

These acts of intimidation at the Laxmi Narayan and Bhameshwari temples are only the latest strikes at more than a dozen Hindu sanctuaries across Canada. Indian consulates in Toronto and Vancouver have also been targeted.

And in a recent video, the head of the powerful secessionist group Sikhs for Justice, angrily tells all Hindus to leave Canada.

It is tragic that tensions are intensifying between two of Canada’s largest diaspora groups, the 772,000 Sikh population and the faster-growing Hindu population, which now numbers 828,000.

The escalations are occurring despite neither religious group being at all monolithic. Indeed, over the decades there have been countless examples of harmonious Sikh-Hindu relations across Canada.

And it must be noted that many Sikhs do not support activists’ aggressive, sometimes violent, push for an independent homeland in the Punjab called Khalistan.

However, the summer murder of Nijjar, a gurdwara leader in Surrey, reverberates with the sectarian divisions that also surfaced in this country in 2021. That’s when Sikhs in Canada were instrumental in leading the mass protests against attempts by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, to reform farming markets.

Canadian politicians, ever-focused on how to woo large ethnic voting groups, are being forced to try to figure out how to navigate increasingly volatile and complex divisions between the country’s Sikh and Hindu populations, who are concentrated in key ridings in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took a high-stakes political gamble, internationally and domestically, on Sept. 18 when he announced there are “credible allegations” that agents of the government of India had a hand in the slaying of Nijjar, whom India has accused of being a terrorist, including conspiring to murder a Hindu priest.

India has vociferously denounced Trudeau’s statement.

Nijjar’s lawyer, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who is frequently quoted in Canada’s mainstream media as the head of Khalistan referendums in Toronto and Vancouver, is among the most vociferous in spreading anti-India, anti-Hindu accusations.

It is Pannun who declared: “Indo Canadian Hindus, you have repudiated your allegiance to Canada. Your destination is India. Leave Canada. Go to India.”

Omer Haziz, who served as a foreign policy director in the government of Justin Trudeau, wrote on the weekend that most Canadian politicians, and Liberals in particular, will not take a position on any international issue, especially regarding Sikhs, until they have pored over every local electoral implication.

“What I saw in government was how Canada’s ethnic domestic battles were distorting our long-term foreign policy priorities, and politicians … were pandering in lowest-common-denominator ways in B.C. and Ontario suburbs, and playing up ethnic grievances to win votes,” Haziz wrote.

“Canadian Sikhs have kept the issue of Sikh justice on the agenda by continually advocating and pressuring politicians,” Haziz said. “The Sikh issue has an enlarged influence on our bilateral relations with India … Mr. Trudeau did not want to lose the Sikh vote to Jagmeet Singh.” Singh, a Sikh, leads the NDP.

As Haziz confirms, Sikhs are famous for their political activism. Their clout is especially manifested through their ability to employ gurdwaras to sway voters to their chosen candidates in a party’s local nomination battles. Despite representing 2.1 per cent of the population, Sikhs have a much greater proportion of MPs and provincial MLAs in elected office.

But members of India’s majority religion, Hindus, who now make up 2.3 per cent of Canadians, are increasingly becoming more bold in Canadian business, education, media and politics.

That’s one of the reasons Ontario Liberal MP Chandra Arya recently stressed the “real fear” that Hindus in Canada feel after the video emerged of the Sikhs for Justice leader warning them to leave the country.

“The risk of ethnic and sectarian bloodshed is real,” said Arya, who has been vilified by Khalistanis for speaking out. He has been joined, nevertheless, by Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman in denouncing rising “Hinduphobia.”

While the Liberal and Conservative parties also angle for Sikh votes, social media commenters point to Jagmeet Singh’s ability six years ago to draw up to 90 per cent of his political donations from the Punjabi-Sikh community, mostly in Brampton, Surrey and Mississauga.

The political tide appears to be shifting.

More Canadians of Hindu background are getting into politics. And given the high concentration of Hindus in urban Ontario (575,000 people), former immigration department director Andrew Griffith has data showing that, while many ridings in Brampton, Mississauga and elsewhere are made up of 20 to 50 per cent of voters who are Sikh, another 15 to 25 per cent are now Hindus.

Meanwhile, there are 81,000 Hindus in B.C. (and 78,000 in Alberta). Sikhs in B.C. number 290,000. While Sikhs comprise anywhere from 20 to 50 per cent of voters in several ridings in Surrey, North Delta and Abbotsford, the Hindu share of voters has steadily expanded into the eight per cent range in the same ridings.

With the number of Hindus in Canada now growing faster through immigration than the number of Sikhs, politicians will feel the need to become far more sophisticated about the complex realities of both religious groups, and others, if they want to appeal to their interests, fears and dreams.

Source: Douglas Todd: Hindu Canadians are distressed and politicians need to take heed

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →