McWhorter: Don’t Call Ibram X. Kendi a Grifter and Paul: An Overdue Lesson on Antiracism

2023/10/06 Leave a comment

Starting with the more charitable take by McWhorter:

The headlines lately have been full of the news that Ibram X. Kendi of Boston University has dismissed about half of the staff of the Center for Antiracist Research, which he has headed since 2020. Meanwhile, the university has initiated an investigation into the operations of the organization, which has taken in tens of millions of dollars in funding with almost no research to show for it.

Kendi, after three years of megacelebrity as America’s antiracist guru of choice, is being widely described as having imploded or fallen. Many are evincing a painfully obvious joy in this, out of a conviction that he has finally been revealed as the grifter or hustlerhe supposedly is. But this analysis is a strained and even recreational reading of a story that’s much more mundane.

I am unaware of a charge that Kendi has been lining his pockets with money directed toward the center. Rather, the grift is supposed to be that he has profited handsomely from the dissemination of his ideas, including best-selling books, especially “How to Be an Antiracist” and its young reader versions; high speaking fees (reportedly over $30,000 for a lecture at this point); and various other media projects.

But Kendi’s proposals seek to face, trace and erase racist injustice in society to an unprecedented degree. What makes it sleazy that he be well paid for the effort? How many of us, if engaged in similar activity and offered fat speaking fees and generous book royalties, would refuse them? (As someone in the ideas business, too, I certainly wouldn’t.)

The idea that Kendi is wrong to make money from what he is doing implies that his concepts are a kind of flimflam. In this scenario, he is a version of Harold Hill out of “The Music Man,” using star power to foist shoddy product on innocent people to make a buck. The River City residents now are educated white people petrified of being called racists and susceptible to the power of books and speeches that encourage them to acknowledge and work on their racism in order to become better people.

Surely, one might think, Kendi doesn’t actually believe that one is either racist or antiracist with nothing in between or that, as he wrote, “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination” or that all discrepancies between white and Black people are due to racism or that the United States should establish a Department of Antiracism with “disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”

There is no mutual admiration society between Ibram Kendi and me. He has criticized my writings in his book “Stamped From the Beginning” and in several harsh social media posts. To say that I find his ideas less than compelling would be an understatement, and I’ve publicly expressed as much.

The thing is that, whatever one makes of his beliefs, there is all evidence that Kendi is quite sincere in them. If some of us perceive duality and circularity in his thinking, that’s fine. A public intellectual is entitled to his views, and if an interested public wants to pay, in some form, to consider those views, then that should be fine, too.

He became a celebrity by chance. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd, America developed a sudden and passionate interest in racial justice, sustained by the lockdown’s affording Americans so much downtime to reflect on the issue, as well as conditioning a yearning for connection in a common purpose.

Kendi happened to write “How to Be an Antiracist” in 2019, and it stood out as a useful guide to the new imperative. It became a runaway best seller, assisted by his star power, and he became one of the most in-demand public speakers in the country, soon founding the new Center for Antiracist Research. He simply ran with what he was given, as any of us would have.

Deliberate immorality is exceptional. It should be a last resort analysis, not the first one. Accusing Kendi of being a bad man is symptomatic of how eager we tend to be to see bad faith in people who simply think differently from us. To delight in Kendi’s failure as the head of the Center for Antiracist Research is small.

Source: Don’t Call Ibram X. Kendi a Grifter

And the harsher take by Paul, both with respect to Kendi and his enablers:

The recent turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with more than half its staff laid off and half its budget cut amid questions of what it did with the nearly $55 million it raised, led to whoops of schadenfreude from Kendi’s critics and hand wringing from his loyal fans.

Kendi had become a symbol of what was right or wrong with America’s racial reckoning since the police murder of George Floyd. To some, he was a race-baiting grifter; to others, he was a social justice hero speaking harsh truths.

With little administrative experience, Kendi may simply have been ill equipped to deal with a program of that magnitude. He may have been distracted by a nonstop book tour and speaking engagements. Or maybe he just screwed up.

More interesting is that many major universities, corporations, nonprofit groups and influential donors thought buying into Kendi’s strident, simplistic formula — that racism is the cause of all racial disparities and that anyone who disagrees is a racist — could eradicate racial strife and absolve them of any role they may have played in it.

After all, this reductionist line of thinking runs squarely against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives. As one Boston University professor wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, that academia backs Kendi’s mission amounts to a “violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles,” ones that betray “the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing.”

Yet Kendi’s ideas gained prominence, often to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Kendi was a relatively unknown academic when his second book, “Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America,” was a surprise winner of a National Book Award in 2016. It helped catapult him from assistant professorships at State University of New York campuses, and the University of Florida, to a full professorship at American University, where he founded the Antiracist Research and Policy Center.

In 2017, The New York Times Book Review, which I was then editing, asked Kendi to create a reading list, “A History of Race and Racism, in 24 Chapters,” for our pages. I interviewed Kendi, who is a very charismatic speaker, about the essay on the Book Review’s podcast and again, about his reading life, on a panel, in 2019.

In “Stamped From the Beginning,” Kendi asserted that racist ideas are used to obscure the fact that racist policies create racial disparities, and that to find fault with Black people in any way for those disparities is racist. People who “subscribed to assimilationist thinking that has also served up racist beliefs about Black inferiority,” no matter how well-meaning and progressive, were themselves racist. In Kendi’s revisionist history, figures who had been previously hailed for their contribution to civil rights were repainted as racist if they did not attribute Black inequality solely to racism. Kendi accused W.E.B. Du Bois and Barack Obama of racism for entertaining the idea that Black behavior and attitudes could sometimes cause or exacerbate certain disparities, although he notes that Du Bois went on to take a what he considered a more antiracist position.

In 2019, Kendi took the ideas further, pivoting to contemporary policy with “How to Be an Antiracist.” In this book, Kendi made clear that to explore reasons other than racism for racial inequities, whether economic, social or cultural, is to promote anti-black policies.

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination,” Kendi wrote, in words that would be softened in a future edition after they became the subject of criticism. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” In other words, two wrongs do make a right. As practiced, that meant curriculums that favor works by Black people over white people is one way to achieve that goal; hiring quotas are another.

Among the book’s central tenets is that everyone must choose between his approach, which he calls “antiracism,” and racism itself. It would no longer be enough for an individual or organization to simply be “not racist,” which Kendi calls a “mask for racism” — they must instead be actively “antiracist,” applying a strict lens of racism to their every thought and action, and in fields wholly unrelated to race, in order to escape deliberate or inadvertent racist thinking and behavior. “What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what — not who — we are,” Kendi writes.

Kendi’s antiracism prescription meant that universities, corporations and nonprofits would need to remove all policies that weren’t overtly antiracist. In the Boston University English department’s playwriting M.F.A. program, for example, reading assignments had to come from “50 percent diverse-identifying and marginalized writers” and writers of “white or Eurocentric lineage” be taught through “an actively antiracist lens.” Antiracism also requires a commitment to other positions, including active opposition to sexism, homophobia, colorism, ethnocentrism, nativism, cultural prejudice and any class biases that supposedly harm Black lives. To deviate from any of this is to be racist. You’re either with us or you’re against us.

Yet, as the psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt points out, Kendi’s dichotomy is “incorrect from a social-science perspective because there are obviously many other remedies,” including ones that address social, economic and cultural disparities through a more fair distribution of resources.

When a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in May 2020, Kendi’s book, with its propitious, here-is-what-you-must-do-now title, became the bible for anyone newly committed to the cause of racial justice. Schools and companies made it required reading. So many campuses made it their “class read” “all-school read” or “community read” that the publisher created a full set of reading and teaching guides to help foster them. (Employees at the publishing house, Penguin Random House, were told to read it as the first “true companywide read” to begin “antiracism training mandatory for all employees.”) Universities used Kendi’s antiracist framework as the basis by which applicants’ required “diversity statements” would be judged.

Kendi’s vision of antiracism had considerable influence in shaping the national conversation around race. As Tyler Austin Harper wrote in The Washington Post last week, “No longer a mere ambassador for academic antiracism, Kendi became a brand.”

Yet the same year “How to Be an Antiracist” was published, Henry Louis Gates’s “Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow,” presented a more nuanced assessment of the relationship between past and present. With its vivid examples of crude prejudice (the photos are not for the fainthearted), Gates’s historical excavation allows the reader to see a clear line between the pervasive bigotry of the past and the kind of ugly but marginal brand of white supremacy on display in 2017 Charlottesville. In contrast to Kendi’s contention that racial progress is consistently accompanied by racist progress, numerous memoirs, firsthand accounts, biographies and histories of the civil rights movement also document clear progress on race.

Contra Kendi, there are conscientious people who advocate racial neutrality over racial discrimination. It isn’t necessarily naïve or wrong to believe that most Americans aren’t racist. To believe that white supremacists exist in this country but that white supremacy is not the dominant characteristic of America in 2023 is also an acceptable position.

And while a cartoon version of colorblindness isn’t desirable or even possible, it is possible to recognize skin color but not form judgments on that basis. A person can worry that an emphasis on racial group identity can misleadingly homogenize diverse groups of people, at once underestimating intra-racial differences and overemphasizing interracial ones. The Black left-wing scholar Adolph Reed, for example, decries the emphasis on race-based policies. “An obsession with disparities of race has colonized the thinking of left and liberal types,” Professor Reed said in an interview with The New York Times. “There’s this insistence that race and racism are fundamental determinants of all Black people’s existence.”

In short, a person can oppose racism on firm ethical or philosophical or pragmatic grounds without embracing Kendi’s conception of “antiracism.” No organization can expect all employees or students to adhere to a single view on how to combat racism.

Kendi asserts that whether a policy is racist or antiracist is determined not by intent, but by outcome. But the fruits of any efforts toward addressing racial inequality may take years to materialize and assess.

In the meantime, the best that could come out of this particular reckoning would be a more nuanced and open-minded conversation around racism and a commitment to more diverse visions of how to address it.

Source: An Overdue Lesson on Antiracism

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

‘It’s a new party’: How Conservatives try to rebuild trust among Muslim communities

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

Of note. Repeat of the Bricker-Ibbitson and Jason Kenney arguments, but targeted towards a group traditionally less inclined to vote Conservative. But opportunistic given the controversies among some members of religious groups regarding LGBTQ+ and gender issues in the school system:

When Pierre Poilievre pitches the Conservative party to Muslim Canadians, he talks about “faith, family and freedom.”

For months he has been pointing out what he sees as their overlapping values during visits to mosques, at community celebrations, with businesses and in conversations with ethnic media outlets.

It’s part of an effort to grow the party’s presence, particularly in larger cities that are home to many racialized Canadians whose support for the Conservatives plummeted during the final months of Stephen Harper’s government and his divisive 2015 campaign.

Poilievre has also fine-tuned his message to appeal to growing concerns from some parents, echoed by several prominent Muslim organizations, about what their children are learning about LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

He is gaining some traction with his acknowledgment of such worries, but whether he will take action through party policy remains unclear, given his firm view that education is a provincial matter.

Some also wonder what he would do to address the Islamophobia that many feel his party exacerbated the last time it was in power. “This is where we have that sort of cautious optimism,” said Nawaz Tahir, a lawyer who chairs Hikma, an advocacy group for Muslims in southwestern Ontario. Tahir met Poilievre with other community leaders this summer.

“While it might be resonating in the short term, there are long-term questions about whether or not people will continue to listen, or latch on, in the absence of some concrete policy proposals.”

Poilievre has chosen to walk a careful path on the issue of “parental rights.” The term, which speaks to the desire by parents to make decisions regarding their children, has been popularized by people with wide-ranging concerns about efforts to make schools more inclusive for LGBTQ+ students, such as by raising Pride flags or including discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the curriculum.

New Brunswick and Saskatchewan now require parental permission for transgender and nonbinary students to use different names or pronouns at school. Court challenges have ensued, with teachers’ unions and provincial child advocates saying the policies put vulnerable students at risk.

The Conservative leader has said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should “butt out” of the issue and “let parents raise kids,” but otherwise Poilievre has stayed mum on how he might respond.

At last month’s policy convention in Quebec City, Conservative party members voted overwhelmingly in favour of a policy change to prohibit minors experiencing gender dysphoria from receiving “life-altering” pharmaceutical or surgical treatment.

A video posted online shows that Poilievre said during a Punjabi media event in Surrey, B.C., several days later that he was “taking some time to study that policy to come to the right solution.”

He said the party would have to consider “jurisdictions,” in the sense of “which level of government is responsible for it” — but ultimately, “I will be making my position clear.”

Poilievre’s office did not respond to a question about whether he has come to any conclusions.

His office was also silent in July when a photo circulated online that showed Conservative finance critic and Calgary MP Jasraj Singh Hallan with two men who wore T-shirts that read “leave our kids alone.” The shirts featured an image of stylized figures beneath an umbrella shielding them from the rainbow of colours associated with LGBTQ+ Pride flags.

One of the men in the photo, Mahmoud Mourra, a Muslim father of five, has for months been protesting school policies and activities that acknowledge students’ sexual orientation and gender identity.

As he and thousands of others took to the streets in recent countrywide demonstrations against “gender ideology” in schools on Sept. 20, Trudeau posted on X, the platform previously known as Twitter, that “transphobia, homophobia, and biphobia have no place in this country.”

Poilievre’s office, meanwhile, instructed MPs to keep quiet.

Two days later, Poilievre also posted on X, accusing Trudeau of “demonizing concerned parents” with his statement about the protests.

The Muslim Association of Canada also condemned Trudeau’s remarks, saying Muslim parents who participated in protests showed up “to be heard, not to sow division.” The organization said it feared Muslim kids would face “increased bullying and harassment” at school —a statement Poilievre and many of his MPs shared online.

Dalia Mohamed, who leads public affairs at the Canadian chapter of the Islamic Society of North America, said her organization has heard from parents who worry their children face pushback when opting out of certain lessons or activities related to LGBTQ+ issues.

“What they’re seeing more and more is that their kids are facing repercussions,” she said.

An audio recording surfaced online in June alleged to be an Edmonton school teacher chastising a Muslim student about missing class to avoid Pride events. The unidentified teacher says respect for differences “goes two ways,” adding that if the student thinks same-sex marriage should not be legal, then he “can’t be Canadian” and does not “belong here.”

The National Council of Canadian Muslims called it “deeply Islamophobic, inappropriate and harassing behaviour.” The school board said it was dealing with the issue.

Tahir, with Hikma, said it comes down to respecting religious freedom, adding that it is “not part of our faith teaching” to hate the LGBTQ+ community. “We condemn that,” he said.

Tahir said he and other community leaders told Poilievre the Conservatives have an opportunity to regain the support of Muslim Canadians.

He argued that the “vast majority” of Muslims voted for Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives in the 1980s and early ’90s.

“There was a lot of alignment on a number of issues. And that seems to have gone by the wayside,” he said.

Still, while there is frustration that the governing Liberals have failed to take enough action against Islamophobia,including within its own government agencies, Poilievre faces an uphill battle against long memories.

“He was around the table during the Harper years when there were some things that happened that were not well received by the Muslim community,” said Tahir.

In 2011, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney brought in a rule requiring Muslim women to remove face coverings, such as niqabs, when swearing the oath during citizenship ceremonies. During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Conservatives asked the Supreme Court to hear a request to appeal a court decision to overturn that policy, and Harper mused about extending it to all public servants. The Conservatives also promised to create a tip line to enforce a law against “barbaric cultural practices,” which they said at the time included forced marriages.

Eight years later, Conservatives are still apologizing.

“Mistakes were made. No doubt about that,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said in August of the 2015 campaign at a Greater Toronto Area breakfast meeting with members of the Pakistani community.

“There’s rebuilding of trust,” he said in a video shared online. “And I understand people saying, ‘Well, we’re not sure yet because of some of the things that happened in the past.'”

He described a “deep fundamental connection” between the Conservative party and the wider Muslim community. He said a “renaissance” of that relationship is underway.

“We’re trying to reach out to the community and tell them, ‘It’s a new party, that was eight years ago,'” Conservative Sen. Salma Ataullahjan said at the same event. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.

In a written statement, Genuis said the party’s message around lower prices, affordable housing and safer communities is “resonating with Canadians of all walks of life.

So is its defence of “faith, family and freedom,” he added.

Poilievre addressed the criticism of the Conservatives’ unsuccessful 2015 campaign during last year’s leadership race. Rival candidate Patrick Brown, who at the time was counting on heavy support from Muslim communities, accused Poilievre of having never “publicly stood against” the divisive policies, such as a “niqab ban.” Poilievre pushed back by noting the policy was limited to swearing the citizenship oath.

Since winning the leadership, Poilievre has travelled extensively to meet with immigrant and racialized communities that Conservatives had long ago credited with delivering them a majority victory in 2011.

Historically, the party has believed that many in these groups tend to be more religiously conservative, that they will prioritize public safety and that they are looking for policies, such as lower taxes, that can help them gain an economic foothold in Canada.

Tahir said Poilievre was told during his meeting this summer that if he comes back with concrete plans to address Islamophobia, there would be “a strong willingness” from the community to vote Conservative.

In 2017, Poilievre voted alongside other Conservative MPs against a motion from a Liberal MP to condemn Islamophobia, citing concerns it could infringe on free speech.

During Ramadan this spring, Poilievre said in an interview with Canada One TV that he believes the country must “combat bad speech with good speech, not with censorship, but with good speech.”

He also spoke of bolstering a security fund for mosques and talked about combating Islamophobia through a stronger criminal justice response, part of a broader push by the Conservatives for tough-on-crime policies.

Earlier this year, Poilievre addressed long-standing allegations that the Canada Revenue Agency is discriminating against Muslim charities.

The agency “has been abusing our Muslim charities and the immigration system has been discriminating against our Muslim immigrants,” he said in a video shared by the Muslim Association of Canada.

The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency announced in March it would be investigating allegations of bias and Islamophobia at the CRA.

Saleha Khan said she believes Poilievre is using the debate around LGBTQ+ issues in schools to his advantage. She also worries the surrounding rhetoric could ultimately bring more harm to the community.

The London, Ont., woman and nearly 700 other people, many of whom are members of the Muslim Canadian community,have asked in an open letter that their leaders “help separate fact from fiction” by speaking out about misinformation they see fuelling a lot of the discourse, placing both Muslim and LGBTQ+ students at risk, as well as those who identify as both.

She said the debate is “gut-wrenching” and risks making life even more dangerous for average Muslim families and their children, who already experience Islamophobia and live their life under high alert.

“We will become the poster children for transphobia and homophobia when we are not the poster children for homophobia and transphobia.”

In the Ramadan interview with Canada One TV, Poilievre acknowledged that his party has done a lousy job of fostering better ties.

He pledged to be different.

“I’m coming here with my hand extended in a spirit of friendship,” he said. “It’s not the duty of the Muslim community to come to us. It’s our duty to come to you.”

Source: ‘It’s a new party’: How Conservatives try to rebuild trust among Muslim communities

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

McKinnon: The India debacle should prompt Canada to rethink the naive way we engage with the world

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

From a former colleague of mine.

Always been a challenge with large diaspora communities and will likely remain so, to a greater or lessor cost depending on the issue and situation:

The implosion of the Canada-India relationship, only months after our Indo-Pacific Strategy described India as a “critical partner,” is stunning. Canada’s relationship with a democratic and pluralistic India was intended, at least in part, to be a counterweight to our troubled relationship with authoritarian China. But after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last month that there were “credible allegations” that the Indian government was involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C., the two countries engaged in a tit-for-tat expulsion of senior diplomats; now, Delhi is reportedly further demanding the removal of 41 of Canada’s 62 remaining envoys.

The immediate cause of the breakdown may rest with Delhi, but the dysfunction has deep roots. A serious rethink is needed to get the relationship back on track. This includes consciously balancing national interests – Canada’s security and prosperity – against special interests, including the diasporas, in our relationship with India.

If the allegations are true, there will be implications for India’s international standing. It would no longer be seen as a largely benign democratic counterweight to China and Russia. Instead, it would prove that it is what it has always been: a complex giant focused on taking its place in the world and advancing its interests, albeit now under a leader in Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has overtly sidelined Jawaharlal Nehru’s original vision of a secular and tolerant democratic India. Canada and its allies must grapple with the contradictions of developing closer relations with an important country with an increasingly illiberal leadership – a more difficult task if there is serious evidence India is behind extrajudicial killings abroad.

A real challenge for Canada is that our allies have enough at stake in their own relations with India that they are unlikely to countenance their own serious ruptures with Delhi, even if they accept our version of events and want to be supportive. Despite tough talk in Canada, holding Indian officials accountable will be hard, to say the least, particularly if no one is put on trial. Nonetheless, a message needs to be sent that this cannot happen again.

But while I am shocked by this turn of events, I am not surprised that the long-standing misalignment in the relationship led to a deep cleavage.

As Canada’s trade and investment relationship with a booming India grew in the 2000s, a visit to the country became a priority for politicians from all levels of government. In my experience from that time, it was clear that for the most part, their interests were at least as much in the prospect of photos from an India trip playing well with voters in Canada than in seriously engaging the country. Politicians from across the spectrum wanted to see the country and the relationship in terms they could understand easily and convey to audiences at home, especially from Indian-originating diasporas. And so official visitors routinely described the Canada-India relationship as based on shared values of democracy and human rights, as well as strong people-to-people links.

Indeed, those links were seen by most Canadians to be an undiluted positive. From the Indian perspective, though, it was much more complex – the Indian diaspora, like the country itself, is diverse. The Indian diaspora in Canada is very large, with perhaps half of it Sikh, even as Sikhs represent only 2 per cent of India’s population. I recall reminding politicians who were heading to photo-ops in the city of Amritsar that it was important to remember that Sikhs, an impressive and distinguished community, made up about the same percentage of India’s population as that of their home provinces, so they needed to appreciate how much of India they were not seeing.

Even then, though, little attention was given to the complex history of the relationship, or our more substantive and enduring interests (economic, geopolitical, etc.) in a growing country that is home to 20 per cent of humanity. Or that it is in Canada’s interest to develop a substantive relationship with India, whether or not our values are precisely aligned. Instead, we mistakenly assumed that, because the relationship was based on shared values and our large India-originating diaspora, our relationship was assured.

But whatever pleasantries the Indian hosts might have offered visiting Canadians, you can be sure that they were much more focused on the hard edge of their interests and advancing them. Our view of the relationship would inevitably conflict with those of a country located in a difficult region where national interests were seen as paramount, and where the focus of the otherwise limited relationship with Canada touched on India’s national security.

Indeed, while the Canada-India relationship has difficult elements to its history – including the discovery that a Canadian nuclear reactor provided to India for peaceful purposes in 1954 had been used to launch India’s nuclear weapons program in 1974 – the most significant continuing irritant is the support in Canada for the cause of Khalistan, the concept of a separate Sikh homeland. In the 1970s, Canada developed a reputation as a base for the Khalistani movement. While simply voicing support would clearly be protected speech under Canadian law, violence in Canada quickly became a problem, including the 1986 attempted murder of Punjab minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu, who was visiting Vancouver Island, and the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight travelling from Montreal to London in which 329 people were killed, overwhelmingly Canadian citizens. The failures of the Canadian security services to disrupt the plot and the ultimate inability of the Canadian justice system to hold the perpetrators to account are well-known in India; at the same time, memory of the bombing in Canada is shamefully weak.

Those failures are exacerbated by Canadian politicians frequently being photographed at events where violent Khalistani extremists are lauded as martyrs. By and large, this is excused as carelessness while in pursuit of votes in diaspora communities. In India, it is viewed altogether differently, and not just by the hardline Hindu nationalist supporters of Mr. Modi.

Diasporas are an important part of Canada’s diversity and dynamism, and they reinforce our links overseas. But they also complicate them. Members of diasporas from other countries often have their perspectives frozen at the time they left, without full appreciation of current realities. This is not to say the views of diasporas should not be heard; of course they should be. But politicians and policymakers need to have a broader and up-to-date understanding of a country into which they can contextualize the views of individuals or groups from whom they are hearing. That’s especially true if those groups are advocating for the breakup of their country of origin. We need to tread very carefully around separatism, particularly given our own experience.

While the Sikh population in Canada is the largest in the world outside of India, other countries that have significant Sikh populations and active groups of Khalistan supporters – notably the U.K., Australia and U.S., – still manage to have constructive strategic bilateral relationships with India. That is essentially because those countries have developed substantial political, economic and security links to New Delhi that underscore their importance to a broader set of India’s interests. They have not simply rested on the naive assumption that (supposedly) shared values and having a diaspora are a sufficient base for an enduring relationship.

Canada’s lack of broader links with India means that Delhi believes it can act in a heavy-handed way on this file. Little else is at stake for the Indian government; in fact, the domestic political benefits to taking action against Canada are potentially significant for Mr. Modi. Our long-term interests in the purely bilateral relationship are relatively greater than India’s, given its size and status as a rising global power, and so we need to find a way out. That said, the stakes for India rise considerably as this becomes a global reputational issue that has the potential to damage its broader interests, and so at the end of the day, it must realize it cannot act with impunity in Canada or other countries.

So how do Canada and India get out of this situation?

Diplomacy, supported by high-level political engagement, is crucial to limit the broader fallout as much as possible. Effective diplomacy requires a clear understanding and acknowledgment of the issue at hand, along with a thoughtful strategy to make progress. Integral to this will be a willingness to listen more, and not just to friends, but also those with whom we do not regularly see eye-to-eye.

Our team in India needs to be able to do its job. The same is true for Indian representatives here, who can help Delhi understand better the situation in Canada. Hopefully, Delhi will soon realize how counterproductive a forced, rapid and significant drawdown of our diplomatic staff in India would be.

Ottawa needs to work with friends to whom Delhi will pay attention. We also need to understand, at the highest level, what Canadian interests are at stake, and to lift these above transactional or very short-term considerations. Presumably, our allies and other potentially influential countries (beyond our Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partners) have been made aware of the evidence we have about alleged Indian complicity in the murder, and if not, they should be, because we will need support from more than just the usual “like-minded” countries. Ideally, there should be at least some cross-party understanding of the way forward too, as this will be a long game. It also goes without saying that the police investigation into the Nijjar murder and any subsequent legal process must continue unhindered here.

The credibility and reputations for both India and Canada are now at stake, but perhaps especially for us. We make a lot of assertions about our importance, but our lack of substantive commitments compared to our rhetorical flourishes on the global stage over the years has been noticed.

Our governments – both politicians and officials – need to engage with Canadians about our national interests and international priorities, not just deliver pre-scripted sound bites or limit engagement to special interest groups or particular diaspora communities. Such engagement can encourage Canadians to think about the challenges that our country faces and to be supportive of serious debate about Canada’s place in the world, including what we need to secure our future as a country. The Indo-Pacific Strategy provides a good basis for such a discussion about the region with Canadians, but there must be an openness to differing views.

Values are important, but they should guide how we pursue our interests, rather than define them. Too much focus on values rather than other common interests inevitably marginalizes Canada’s influence in the very relationships where we might want to encourage improvement in human rights or governance. We are taken less seriously because we are seen as primarily interested in broadcasting our judgments rather than engaging with other countries to find common ground.

The world has dramatically changed, and it will continue to do so. Without a serious rethink of how we engage internationally, it will be difficult to ensure Canada’s security and prosperity in an ever more uncertain world.

David McKinnon is a former Canadian diplomat who has been posted to New Delhi, Canberra, Bangkok and, most recently, Colombo, where he served as Canada’s high commissioner to Sri Lanka.

Source: The India debacle should prompt Canada to rethink the naive way we engage with the world

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise répond davantage à une commande politique qu’éducative

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

Plus ça change. But experts also need to be aware of how their background and ideological leanings can influence their expertise:

L’instauration d’un programme éducatif représente le bien commun d’une nation et concerne tous les citoyens. Il est donc particulièrement important de suivre un processus démocratique et transparent pour décider de ses orientations et de ses contenus. 

Ainsi, dans le cadre de changements à apporter à un programme d’enseignement, il est nécessaire de s’appuyer sur des avis d’experts reconnus de cette discipline, afin de comprendre les éventuels dysfonctionnements et les améliorations à y apporter, et ce, à partir d’une démonstration scientifique rigoureuse. Or, la transition du programme d’éthique et culture religieuse (ECR) vers le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise (CCQ) constitue un intéressant contre-modèle de ces principes, d’autant plus surprenant qu’il se présente comme un modèle d’éducation à la citoyenneté. 

Professeure en éducation à l’Université de Montréal et spécialiste du programme d’éthique et culture religieuse, je souhaite partager ici quelques réflexions sur la façon dont celui-ci, au Québec, a récemment été supprimé et remplacé par le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise. Certaines écoles ont déjà fait le choix d’offrir ce programme depuis septembre 2023, mais ce n’est qu’en 2024 qu’il sera enseigné de façon obligatoire dans toutes les écoles.

Une absence de délibération politique et citoyenne transparente

En janvier 2020, le ministre de l’Éducation du Québec d’alors, Jean-François Roberge, déclare sa volonté de réformer le cours ECR et, en particulier de réduire la culture religieuse qui occupe à ses yeux une place trop importante. Il souhaite la remplacer par l’éducation à la sexualité de même que par un ensemble de nouvelles thématiques. 

Il annonce mettre aussitôt en place un processus de consultation citoyenne par la diffusion d’un questionnaire en ligne et la possibilité pour toute personne de déposer un mémoire. Or, tout ce processus est marqué à chaque étape par une grande opacité de la part du ministère de l’Éducation. Il refuse non seulement de communiquer les résultats du questionnaire, mais aussi de rendre public les mémoires déposés par les citoyens et les associations et de diffuser les conclusions du bilan qu’il a lui-même réalisé sur l’enseignement du programme ECR dans les écoles. 

De plus, contrairement à ce qui avait été fait pour l’instauration du programme ECR, aucune commission parlementaire avec des auditions publiques n’est organisée, ni aucune délibération politique et citoyenne transparente n’est engagée pour discuter des contenus du nouveau programme CCQ. 

Cette façon de procéder, plutôt inhabituelle, témoigne d’une volonté du ministre d’imposer ses propres choix sans les soumettre à la discussion. Elle tend à accréditer l’idée que les résultats et les analyses qui ne vont pas dans le sens de ce que le gouvernement souhaite sont mis de côté. Le témoignage de la première responsable de la révision du programme au ministère de l’Éducation, qui a choisi de démissionner suite aux interventions répétées du cabinet ministériel, le montre clairement.

La délégitimation des experts

Lors de l’annonce de sa volonté de réviser le programme ECR et d’en supprimer la culture religieuse, le ministre Roberge affirme s’appuyer sur des avis d’experts. 

Cependant, il ne révèlera jamais qui sont ces spécialistes, sur quoi repose leur expertise et en quoi consistent précisément leurs analyses critiques. L’ouvrage que je viens de publier à ce sujetanalyse le contexte de ces critiques, tout particulièrement les différentes conceptions de la laïcité et des libertés de conscience et de religion, ainsi que les nombreux défis éducatifs que représente l’implantation d’un nouveau programme scolaire. 

Il montre que bon nombre d’études critiques du cours ECR, s’affranchissant aisément des critères qui guident la recherche scientifique, relèvent du discours militant et du registre de la dénonciation : le programme est tour à tour accusé d’inviter au relativisme religieux, mais aussi d’être un outil de propagande confessionnelle. Il est vu comme une imposition du multiculturalisme et une promotion des accommodements raisonnables, et est jugé comme portant atteinte aux libertés de conscience et de religion. 

Malgré leurs faiblesses, en particulier méthodologiques, ces discours ont tellement saturé l’espace médiatique qu’ils en sont venus à s’imposer comme une parole de vérité. Au même moment, dans les décisions ministérielles de modifier le programme ECR, on assiste à une mise à l’écart délibérée des spécialistes qui possèdent une réelle expertise, tant les universitaires experts de ce domaine que les enseignants, en particulier du secondaire. Ce sont pourtant eux qui mettent en œuvre au quotidien le programme dans les écoles. Ils ne sont ni consultés ni même informés en amont des décisions du ministre de l’Éducation. 

Même un avis d’une institution aussi importante que le Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, qui a pris le temps de mener une consultation sérieuse, est ignoré. Or, un programme d’enseignement devrait être élaboré sur la base d’analyses rigoureuses et bien informées. Ce n’est clairement pas le cas ici. Pour quelles raisons alors ignorer l’avis des experts et refuser la délibération scientifique et démocratique ? 

Un projet éducatif politique

Le but de cette réforme du programme ECR est à la fois d’exclure la culture religieuse du champ des connaissances scolaires et de réaffirmer un certain type de laïcité. 

Cette décision s’appuie sur les discours des associations militantes que sont le Mouvement laïque québécois et le groupe féministe Pour le droit des femmes, qui portent sur les religions un regard fort négatif, les considérant comme irrationnelles, archaïques, inégalitaires, sexistes. Ces groupes considèrent qu’il est préférable de ne plus en parler à l’école. 

De plus, ces associations jugent que la Loi 21, votée en 2019, qui proclame que l’État du Québec est laïque, est incompatible avec le cours ECR, comme si le respect de la laïcité exigeait l’invisibilisation du religieux, y compris dans le champ des connaissances scolaires. Pourtant, historiquement, l’étude des faits religieux comme objets de culture s’inscrit dans une perspective scientifique, voire laïque, qui la détache de ses ancrages confessionnels.

Par ailleurs le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise cherche à répondre à un grand nombre de problématiques sociales qui se trouvent dans l’air du temps : écocitoyenneté, citoyenneté numérique, prévention de la violence sexuelle, engagement politique, etc. Il s’inscrit dans une perspective où l’école est vue comme devant remédier à des problèmes de société jugés prioritaires à un moment donné. Il s’agit alors de promouvoir le développement chez les élèves de compétences comportementales et sociales, plutôt que cognitives, dans le but de favoriser des conduites considérées comme acceptables. 

Ce modèle relève davantage de la mission de socialisation de l’école que de celle de l’instruction. Le principe même de transmission aux élèves d’un noyau significatif de connaissances dans l’élaboration d’une culture humaniste, par exemple sur les religions, semble alors dépassé au profit du développement des compétences des jeunes, afin qu’ils deviennent des citoyens efficaces dans leur siècle.

Source: Le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise répond davantage à une commande politique qu’éducative

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

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 ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →