Review: The underlying philosophy of Black Lives Matter

2023/07/03 Leave a comment

Of interest:

In 1923, amid a wave of lynchings, Claude McKay wrote the sonnet “If We Must Die.” He was faced with a society structured by white supremacy and anti-Blackness, a society that wanted Blacks “to die like hogs/ hunted and penned in an inglorious spot.” Confronted with this uniquely American form of death, McKay proclaimed that “we’ll face the murderous cowardly pack/ Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back.” For McKay, the nobility and humanity of Black people was forged in fighting the monsters of white supremacy.

A similar vision animates Vincent Lloyd’s Black Dignity: The Struggle Against Domination. For Lloyd, dignity is not something abstracted from a notion of “humanity.” It is wrested from the teeth of domination. It is asserted in the struggle against oppression. It is born the moment the slave seizes his master and throws him down. Perhaps most important for Lloyd, dignity is Black.

Much of Lloyd’s book is about looking at centers of ontological resistance to domination, such as Black love, Black family and Black magic.

Begun while he participated in protests in Ferguson, Mo., and continued in seminars and libraries, Lloyd’s book focuses on the words of generations of Black freedom fighters. To the struggle, he offers the contribution of a keen intellect articulating the underlying philosophy of Black Lives Matter. While I disagree with aspects of his book, his core argument is a profound challenge to anyone who takes seriously the struggle for human dignity, antiracism and the work of dismantling white supremacy.

Lloyd’s philosophy depends on some fundamental claims. The first is that we must understand the “depths of anti-Blackness shading America” such that anti-Blackness “is at the center of everything, for everyone.” It is not an incidental, localized or past reality. It is reality. For Lloyd, philosophy is meant to help us understand reality and, more important, to resist and overthrow that reality. Resistance to domination is not on behalf of some antecedent given of human dignity that does not say anything about actual reality. Such abstracted claims about dignity (“all lives matter”) cannot resist anti-Black reality.

Instead, dignity is “something you do, a practice, a performance, a way of engaging the world…. It necessarily means struggle against domination.” The world is oppression; dignity is the refusal of the world. It is dying but fighting back. Black dignity is found in that fighting back. Since anti-Blackness is the primary form of domination, Black dignity is the primary form of enacted dignity.

Philosophers must begin from that fighting back in order to understand reality. Thus Lloyd places a great deal of importance on the distinction between the ontic and the ontological. Generally, these terms would refer to questions about the being of a specific object (ontic) and the being of beings (ontological). You might say the former is small-picture metaphysics and the latter is big-picture. For Lloyd, both have to do with the struggle against domination. The ontic struggle has to do with specific sites of struggle, a struggle against a particular center of domination. The ontological has to do with “struggle aimed at domination” itself. As with McKay’s poem, fighting is not only specific to instances. In asserting Black dignity, one fights the whole system of domination.

Much of Lloyd’s book is about looking at centers of ontological resistance to domination, such as Black love, Black family and Black magic. Each chapter leans into the claim that racism is not just personal or even systematic; it is the being of reality. According to Lloyd, multiculturalism, liberalism and the American project are to be discarded as expressions of that ontology. Since domination is reality, abolitionism is about abolishing everything.

It is here that some of the weaknesses of the book appear. First, Lloyd seems uninterested in Black voices that differ from his more radical approach, voices that show a majority of Black Americans want serious reform of the police and criminal justice system but do not want the abolishment of either. Those voices see arguments like those for defunding of the police as a form of political colonization by urban elites. What does Lloyd think of the majority of African Americans, who agree that “Black dignity” is a non-negotiable struggle and as a consequence want more and better policing? In his book, Black conservatives go unmentioned while establishment Black liberals are depicted as the purveyors of vacuous expressions of multiculturalism.

Perhaps these Black voices belong to those who are just “dreamers” or are trapped by respectability. But then what to make of Martin Luther King Jr., Frederick Douglass or Rosa Parks? They wanted America to live up to its ideals, not abolish them. Lloyd doesn’t let these voices disturb his text. Rather, he states that “Black dignity is the philosophy of Black Americans.” But whose philosophy of Black dignity? Which vision of antiracism? For Lloyd, “One view is right, others might seem right but are wrong.” Ironically, this sentiment seems to feed into what Lloyd, in Compact magazine, has criticized as an antiracist cult that seeks to silence dialogue.

Lloyd argues we should center dignity discourse on Black dignity. He rightly recognizes other forms of intersecting oppression, but his account still centers on Black dignity as the first philosophy, such that “all philosophy must be routed through the Middle Passage” and understood in light of “domination’s chief paradigm, Blackness.” But shouldn’t we also center dignity on the Indigenous, the refugee, the unborn or the disabled? Lloyd is right that dignity is something struggled for. However, that struggle does not fabricate a dignity not already there; it brings to light the truth of dignity that is always already there.

If white supremacy is to be overcome, anti-Blackness cast down as sin and blasphemy, and Black dignity centered as fundamental reality, we will need books like Lloyd’s.Black dignity is an ethical, even ontological, preferential option for dignity. But if we hold this at the expense of intrinsic human dignity, then other voices and other ways of asserting dignity will be lost. This means we lose the grounding of natural law that Lloyd powerfully presents in his book Black Natural Law. The danger in losing this is that the struggle may devolve into centers of competing power with little orientation to a justice beyond power.

Making dignity entirely performative—and thus downplaying intrinsic dignity and natural law—is likely tied to how ontological Lloyd makes domination. Domination, as reality, is not a privation of a more original good but is instead the original and ultimate position and thus the position that is never overcome. “The object of ontological struggles is,” Lloyd tells us, “impossible to achieve.” More than 500 years of racial domination speak to the truth of this claim. But there are other stories of when people cast down domination. In this, I wish that Lloyd had been willing to be more than a philosopher by being a theologian. As King puts it: “the ringing cry of the Christian faith is that our God is able.” Believing domination can be overcome is not “a fantasy of domination itself,” as Lloyd puts it, but a conviction about God and humanity.

If white supremacy is to be overcome, anti-Blackness cast down as sin and blasphemy, and Black dignity centered as fundamental reality, we will need books like Lloyd’s. For all my criticisms, he does the work of philosophizing on behalf of Black dignity. He is right that dignity must be found and asserted in the struggle for dignity.

But there is a grace beyond assertion. Later in his life, Claude McKay converted to Catholicism, finding in it the only source of racial unity. He “turned to God for great strength to fight” while holding to “the Sacred Light.” We should, too. Starting from Black dignity and from the dignity of all who are oppressed, we may someday—by that sacred light and our efforts—find ourselves with human dignity, achieved.

Terence Sweeney is a professor in the honors program at Villanova University.

Source: Review: The underlying philosophy of Black Lives Matter

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , , ,

Here’s what happened when affirmative action ended at California public colleges

2023/07/03 Leave a comment

Useful case study:

For decades, the question of affirmative action — whether colleges should consider race when deciding which students to admit — has been the subject of national debate.

And as the nation’s highest court has grown more conservative in recent years, court-watchers wondered if it would reverse decades-old precedents allowing affirmative action.

This week, it happened: The Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions practices at public and private universities and colleges.

Supreme Court justices ruled that the admissions policies at the University of North Carolina, one of the country’s oldest public universities, and Harvard University, the country’s oldest private university, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

As college admissions offices prepare to tailor their policies to the Supreme Court ruling, California offers lessons on what may be in store for the rest of the country.

Here’s the upshot: A quarter-century after California banned race-based admissions at public universities, school officials say they haven’t been able to meet their diversity and equity goals — despite more than a half billion dollars spent on outreach and alternative admissions standards.

In an amicus brief sent to the Supreme Court in support of Harvard and UNC’s race-based admissions programs, University of California chancellors said that years of crafting alternative race-neutral policies have fallen short.

“Those programs have enabled UC to make significant gains in its system-wide diversity,” the brief said. “Yet despite its extensive efforts, UC struggles to enroll a student body that is sufficiently racially diverse to attain the educational benefits of diversity.”

The shortfall is especially apparent at the system’s most selective schools, the university leaders said.

An affirmative action ban first caused a huge drop in diversity at top California universities

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, an affirmative action ban at public universities in the state. Before the ban, UC Berkeley and UCLA were roughly representative of the California high school graduate population who were eligible for enrollment at universities, according to Zachary Bleemer, an economist at Princeton University.

The ban first took effect with the incoming class of ’98. Subsequently, diversity plummeted at UC’s most competitive campuses. That year, enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%, according to a 2020 study by Bleemer. As a result of the ban, Bleemer found that Black and Latino students who might have gotten into those two top schools enrolled at less competitive campuses.

“Black and Hispanic students saw substantially poorer long-run labor market prospects as a result of losing access to these very selective universities,” Bleemer told NPR. “But there was no commensurate gain in long-run outcomes for the white and Asian students who took their place.”

Black and Latino students were also less likely to earn graduate degrees or enter lucrative STEM fields.

“If you follow them into the labor market, for the subsequent 15 or 20 years, they’re earning about 5% lower wages than they would have earned if they’d had access to more selective universities under affirmative action,” Bleemer said.

The ban has in fact acted as a deterrent to prospective Black and Latino students, Bleemer said. His study found that high-performing minority students were subsequently discouraged from applying to schools where minority students were underrepresented.

“Most do not want to attend a university where there’s not a critical mass of same race peers,” said Mitchell Chang, the associate vice chancellor of equity, diversity and inclusion at UCLA. That’s because attending a school made less diverse by an affirmative action ban, “puts them at greater risk of being stereotyped and being isolated,” he said.

These findings “provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities,” Bleemer’s study said.

A learning curve

Faced with plummeting minority enrollment, admissions offices began a years-long effort to figure out ways to get their numbers back up.

Admissions offices pivoted to a more holistic approach, looking beyond grades and test scores. Starting in the early 2000s, the UC system implemented a couple of initiatives to increase diversity: The top-performing students graduating most high schools in the state were guaranteed admission to most of the eight UC undergraduate campuses. It also introduced a comprehensive review process to “evaluate students’ academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them” – using an array of criteria including a student’s special skills and achievements, special circumstances and location of high school.

In 2020, the UC system eliminated standardized test scores as an admission requirement, nixing a factor that advocates say disadvantages underserved students.

However, the effort to boost diversity has come with a heavy price tag. Since Prop 209 took effect, UC has spent more than a half-billion dollars on outreach programs and application reviews to draw in a more diverse student body.

It’s taken 25 years of experimentation through race-neutral policies, for UC schools have begun to catch up to the racial diversity numbers lost in the wake of the affirmative action ban, says UCLA vice chancellor Chang.

“There was no magic bullet. Some things worked better than other things. And this is also work that doesn’t happen overnight,” Chang said.

Still, the California schools are unable to meet their diversity goals systemwide. Chang says his school is not where it wants to be. It still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates — a problem it didn’t have before the affirmative action ban.

As with the UC system, experts think that across the country, similarly competitive universities will be most affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Gabrielle Starr, president of Pomona College, a small Southern California school that wasn’t subject to the state ban, fears the selective, private university will lose its racial diversity under the nationwide affirmative action ban.

Starr says that being able to consider race has allowed her school to ensure its ability to put together a diverse class.

“Having a campus that looks like the world in which our students will go onto live is really important just as a bedrock value,” she said.

Source: Here’s what happened when affirmative action ended at California public colleges

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Supreme Court Decisions on Education Could Offer Democrats an Opening

2023/07/03 Leave a comment

Interesting take. Welcome return to “class” as a differentiator, although there is intersectionality with race and identity:

Ever since President Bill Clinton advised “mend it, don’t end it,”affirmative action has had an uneasy place in the Democratic coalition, as omnipresent as the party’s allegiance to abortion rights and its promises to expand financial aid for higher education — but unpopular with much of the public.

Now, in striking down race-conscious college admissions, the Supreme Court has handed the Democrats a way to shift from a race-based discussion of preference to one tied more to class. The court’s decision could fuel broader outreach to the working-class voters who have drifted away from the party because of what they see as its elitism.

The question is, will the party pivot?

“This is a tremendous opportunity for Democrats to course-correct from identity-based issues,” said Ruy Teixeira, whose upcoming book “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” looks at the bleeding of working-class voters over the last decade. “As I like to say, class is back in session.”

Conservative voters have long been more animated by the Supreme Court’s composition than liberals have. But the last two sessions of a high court remade by Donald J. Trump may have flipped that dynamic. Since the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, energized Democratic voters have handed Republicans loss after loss in critical elections.

Republicans’ remarkable successes before the new court may have actually deprived them of combative issues to galvanize voters going into 2024. Several Republican presidential hopefuls had centered their campaigns on opposition to affirmative action. And the court’s granting of religious exemptions to people who oppose gay marriage, along with last year’s Dobbs decision, may take the sting out of some social issues for conservatives.

In that sense, the staunchly conservative new Supreme Court is doing the ugly political work for Democrats. Its decision last year to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion elevated an issue that for decades motivated religious conservatives more than it did secular liberals.

Friday’s decision to strike down President Biden’s student debt relief plan enraged progressive Democrats, who had pressed the president to take executive action on loan forgiveness. A coalition of Generation Z advocacy groups, including Gen-Z for Change and the climate-oriented Sunrise Movement, said on Friday that the court “has openly declared war on young people.”

But while the Supreme Court made retroactive higher education assistance far more difficult, it may have boosted the Democratic cause of financial aid, through expanded Pell grants and scholarships that do not saddle graduates with crushing debt burdens. Democrats have long pushed expanded grant programs and legislative loan-forgiveness programs for graduates who embark on low-paid public service careers. Those efforts will get a lift in the wake of the court’s decision.

The high court’s declaration that race-based admission to colleges and universities is unconstitutional infuriated key elements of the Democratic coalition — Black and Hispanic groups in particular, but also some Asian American and Pacific Islander groups who said conservatives had used a small number of Asian Americans as pawns to challenge affirmative action on behalf of whites.

“They were using the Asian community as a wedge,” said Representative Judy Chu, Democrat of California, after the decision was handed down on Thursday. “I stand with the unified community.”

But while they have expressed anger and disappointment over the conservative decisions, Democrats also acknowledge their inability to do much to restore affirmative action, student loan forgiveness and the right to an abortion in the foreseeable future, as long as the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court holds.

“There’s a constitutional challenge in bringing it back,” said Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a longtime Democratic leader on the House education committee.

Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist pressing his party to expand its outreach to the working class, said adding a new emphasis on class consciousness to augment racial and ethnic awareness would fit well with Mr. Biden’s pitch that his legislative achievements have largely accrued to the benefit of workers.

Infrastructure spending, electric vehicles investment, broadband expansion and semiconductor manufacturing have promoted jobs — especially union jobs — all over the country but especially in rural and suburban areas, often in Republican states.

“By next year, Democrats will be able to say we’ve invested in red states, blue states, urban areas, rural areas,” he said. “We’re not like the Republicans. We’re for everybody.”

But bigotry, discrimination and the erosion of civil rights will remain central issues for Democrats, given the anger of the party base, Mr. Rosenberg said. The Supreme Court’s siding on Fridaywith a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages cannot be separated from the affirmative action, student loan and abortion decisions.

Mr. Teixeira said Democrats were not likely to see their new opportunities at first.

“If you want to solve some of the underlying problems of the party, this should be a gimme,” he said of pivoting from racial and ethnic identity to class. But, he added, “in the short term, the enormous pressure will be not to do that.”

Indeed, the initial Democratic response to the Supreme Court’s actions was not to elevate economic hardship as a key preference in college admissions. Instead, Democrats seemed focused on striking down other areas of privilege, especially the legacy admission preference given to the children and grandchildren of alumni of elite institutions.

“What we’re fighting for is equal opportunity,” said Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas. “If they get rid of affirmative action and leave rampant legacy admissions, they’re making merit a slogan, not a reality.”

Republicans saw a political line of attack in the Democratic response to the court’s decision. Even before 1990, when a campaign ad by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina featured white hands crumpling a job rejection to denounce “racial quotas,” Republicans had used affirmative action to their political advantage.

Mr. Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” formulation came after a 1995 speech before California Democrats in which he said of affirmative action programs: “We do have to ask ourselves, ‘Are they all working? Are they all fair? Has there been any kind of reverse discrimination?’”

A June survey by the Pew Research Center found that more Americans disapprove than approve of colleges and universities’ using race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, and that Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters are largely unified in their opposition, while Democratic voters are split.

After Mr. Biden expressed his opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision, the campaign arm of the Senate Republicans issued a statement calling out three vulnerable Senate Democrats up for re-election in Republican states: Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

“Democrats are doubling down on their racist agenda and want to pack the Supreme Court to get their way,” said Philip Letsou, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Will Democrats like Joe Manchin, Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown denounce Joe Biden’s support of racial discrimination and state unequivocally that they oppose packing the court?”

The House Republican campaign arm called Democratic outrage “the great limousine liberal meltdown.”

But the Supreme Court has offered Democrats a way forward with many of its decisions — based on class. The affluent will always have access to abortions, by traveling to states where it remains legal, and to elite institutions of higher education, where they may have legacy pull and the means to pay tuition.

Those facing economic struggles are not so privileged. Applicants of color may have lost an edge in admissions, but poor and middle-class students and graduates of all races were dealt a blow when the court declared that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally forgive their student loans.

Representative Marilyn Strickland, Democrat of Washington, said her party now needs to recalibrate away from elite institutions like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the defendants in the high court’s case against affirmative action, and “respect all types of education and all types of opportunity,” mentioning union training programs, apprenticeships, trade schools and community colleges.

Mr. Scott agreed. “This is going to cause some heartburn,” he said, “but what we need to campaign on is that we’re opening opportunities for everybody.”

Source: Supreme Court Decisions on Education Could Offer Democrats an Opening

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Canada is getting bigger. Are we setting the country and its newest citizens up for success?

2023/07/03 Leave a comment

Good overview of some of the issues:

Debbie Douglas was 10 when she came from Grenada to join her parents in Canada.

On her first day of school in 1973, her family had to fight with the principal, who wanted to put her back a year and have her take ESL because she spoke English with a Grenadian accent. In the end, she was allowed to attend Grade 5.

“But by the end of the first week on the playground, I got called the N-word, and it shook me to my core,” Douglas recalls. “And I looked around to see if anybody had heard and nobody said anything … In a school of 500, there were three Black kids and I don’t recall any other kids of colour.”

Despite a degree in economics from York University, her stepfather could only find a job as a financial planner. Her mother, a teacher back home, ended up working in a nursing home. 

But if you were to ask Douglas’s mother what her migration experience has been, Douglas says, she would say Canada has been very good to her family.

“My parents worked hard. We went to school. We now have a middle-class life. It’s a great migration story,” Douglas, executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, told a forum about Canada’s immigration narrative this past May.

“Great” has never meant “easy” for newcomers arriving in this country. Douglas says the stories of immigrants’ struggles and sacrifice were just often not heard.

Yet Canada has long maintained its status as a destination to which newcomers aspire. The immigration story that’s told has, for decades, been one of perceived success — both from the perspective of those forging new lives here, and from the viewpoint of a country eager to grow.

Today, that national narrative appears to be under new strains that are threatening the social contract between Canada and its newcomers.

Canada’s population has just passed the 40-million mark, and it’s growing thanks to immigration. 

Immigration accounts for almost 100 per cent of the country’s labour-force growth and is projected to account for our entire population growth by 2032.

Governments and employers from coast to coast have been clamouring for more immigrants to fill jobs, expand the economy and revitalize an aging population. The more, the merrier, it seemed, even during economic recession of recent years.

Post-pandemic, Ottawa is set to bring in 465,000 new permanent residents this year, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025 to boost Canada’s economic recovery after COVID.

Amid this push, there have been critiques that immigrants are too often being reduced to numbers — to units meant to balance the equations of our economy. While it is clear our economy needs immigration, what is it that newcomers need of Canada to ensure they can settle and thrive here? Are those needs being met?

Meanwhile, the federal government’s plan to bring in a historic level of immigrants has been met with some reservations domestically, as Canadians struggle with stubbornly high inflation amid global economic uncertainty resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and volatile geopolitics.

There is a sense of scarcity emerging in Canada, despite the country’s seemingly great wealth — whether it manifests in the housing crisis, a strained health-care system, or in the lack of salary increases that keep up to inflation. 

While a national dialogue about Canada’s immigration strategy is overdue, some fear anti-immigrant or xenophobic backlash amid news, op-eds and social-media conversation that ties immigration to the strains already being felt.

One poll by Leger and the Association of Canadian Studies last November found almost half of the 1,537 respondents said they believe the current immigration plan would let in too many immigrants. Three out of four were concerned the levels would strain housing, health and social services.

“Canada is at a crossroads in terms of being able to continue to be a leader in immigration. It’s at a crossroads in its ability to provide the Canadian dream to those who move to the country,” says University of Western Ontario political sociologist Howard Ramos. 

“It’s at a crossroads in terms of the infrastructure that’s needed to support this population, and it’s at a crossroads potentially at having widespread support for immigration.”

How Canada got to 40 million

Canada’s immigration strategy has long been about nation-building to meet both the demographic and economic aspirations of the country.

In 1967, Canada introduced the “points system,” based on criteria such as education achievements and work experience, to select economic immigrants. It was one of a series of measures that have gradually moved the immigration system away from a past draped in racism and discrimination.

The point system shifted a system that favoured European immigrants and instead helped open the door to those from the Global South for permanent residence in this country. The 2021 Census found the share of recent immigrants from Europe continued to decline, falling from 61.6 per cent to just 10 per cent over the past five decades. 

Ottawa had turned the immigration tap on and off depending on the economic conditions, reducing intake during recession, until the late 1980s, when then prime minister Brian Mulroney decided to not only maintain but to increase Canada’s immigration level amid high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. 

“There are real people behind those numbers — people with real stories, real hopes and dreams, people who have chosen Canada as their new home,” Mulroney’s immigration minister, Barbara McDougall, said back in 1990 of a five-year plan to welcome more than 1.2 million immigrants.

The plan, too, was met with what today sound like familiar criticisms of the country’s ability to absorb the influx of people.

“We don’t think the federal government is taking its own financial responsibility seriously. The federal government is cutting back. They’re capping programs,” Bob Rae, then Ontario’s NDP premier, commented.

“They’re not transferring dollars to match the real cost, whether it’s training, whether it’s (teaching) English as a second language, whether it’s social services.”

Another big shift under Mulroney’s government was the focus on drafting well-heeled economic and skilled immigrants to Canada, which saw the ratio of permanent residents in family and refugee classes drop significantly from about 65 per cent in the mid-1980s to about 43 per cent in 1990s, and about 40 per cent now.

Mulroney’s measures severed Canada’s immigration intake from the boom-and-bust cycle of the economy. Successive governments have stuck to the same high-immigrant intake, regardless of how good or bad the economy was performing.

It has set Canada apart from other western countries, where immigration issues are often politicized. Coupled with the official multiculturalism policy introduced by the government of Pierre Trudeau in 1971 in response to Quebec’s growing nationalist movement, it has contributed to Canada’s image as a welcoming country to immigrants.

Public support for immigration has remained fairly high and Canada seemed to have fared well despite such economic challenges as the burst of the dot-com bubble from the late 1990s to mid-2000s, the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, and the economic downturn driven by the oil-price slump in the mid-2010s.

Observers, however, note the challenges and circumstances of those economic fluctuations were different than what we see today: there was enough housing stock in the 1990s and the impacts of the crashes in the financial, tech and oil markets since were sectoral, regional and temporary.

Canada’s infrastructure problem

Except in Quebec, which has full control over its newcomer targets and selection, immigration is a federal jurisdiction in Canada, planned in silo from other levels of governments that actually deliver health, education, transportation and other services. Yet the impacts of immigration are felt locally in schools, transits and hospitals. 

A lack of infrastructure investments and the rapid immigration growth have finally caught up with the country’s growth. “We spent decades not s upporting our communities,” says Douglas.

“We were not paying attention to building infrastructure. We were all under-resourcing things like community development and community amenities. We haven’t built adequate affordable housing.

“It’s now become a perfect storm. We have all these people and not enough of what is needed for everybody.”

While the majority of newcomers have historically settled in the big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, a growing number are moving to smaller cities and towns that in some cases are not ready for the influx. The share of recent immigrants settling in the Big Three dropped from 62.5 per cent in 2011 to 53.4 per cent in 2021, with second-tier cities such as Ottawa-Gatineau, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London and Halifax seeing significant growth.

“I don’t think it occurred to them that they need to build infrastructure to be able to welcome people in. It’s a lack of planning. It is a lack of funding,” Douglas says.

“We’ve raised these immigration numbers without paying attention to what it means, what it is that we didn’t have. We are already facing a crisis and we are bringing in more people without addressing the crisis.”

Canadian employers are champions for more economic immigrants. Half of employers surveyed told the Business Council of Canada they were in favour of raising the annual immigration targets — provided there are greater investments in the domestic workforce, as well as in child care, housing and public transportation.

Goldy Hyder, the council’s president and CEO, says many of the day-to-day challenges Canadians and immigrants face are in fact driven largely by labour shortages, whether it’s in health care, housing, or restaurants and retail.

Around the world, he says, countries build infrastructure to spur population — and economic — growth, but in Canada, he contends, it’s been vice-versa.

Hyder sees this moment as a crucial one for raising immigration targets and maintaining public support. “We are at a seminal moment in the life of this country, because we’re at a seminal moment in the life of the world right now,” he says.

Hyder says the country’s immigration policy shouldn’t be just about bringing in people, it should be part of a bigger workforce and industrial strategy to ensure skills of all Canadians and immigrants are fully utilized in the economy in order to maintain the public support for immigration.

“We need to plan better. We need to be more strategic in that plan. And we need to work together to do that: federal, provincial, municipal governments, regulatory bodies, professional bodies, business groups,” he says.

“Let’s address the anxieties that Canadians are facing. You don’t sweep them aside or under a rug. We must have honest discourse with Canadians, fact-based about what we’re trying to do to make their lives better.”

The tradeoffs that come with population growth

The case made for increased immigration is often an economic one. That said, research has generally found the economic benefits of immigration are close to neutral. That’s because when it comes to population growth, there are always tradeoffs.

While bringing in a large number of immigrants can spur population growth and drive demand for goods and services, it will also push up prices even as the government is trying to rein in out-of-control costs of living, warn some economists. 

When more workers are available, employers don’t have to compete and can offer lower wages. Further, just adding more people without investing into social and physical infrastructure such as housing and health care is going to strain the society’s resources and be counterproductive, economists say.

“For housing and health care, it takes a long time to catch up with the increased demand,” says Casey Warman, a professor in economics at Dalhousie University in Halifax, whose own family doctor is retiring. (He is now on a wait list seeking a new one, with 130,000 ahead of him.)

One of the main metrics of economic success has traditionally been a country’s overall GDP. Immigration and population growth can fuel the pool of labour and consumers and boost the overall GDP.

But there’s an emerging chorus of economists arguing that there is a better reflection of the standard of living and economic health in a country. That’s GDP per capita — productivity per person. The growth of Canada’s GDP per capita has been quite flat over the recent years, growing marginally from $50,750.48 in 2015 to $52,127.87 last year. Despite the recovery and high inflation amid the pandemic, it’s still below the $52,262.70 recorded in 2018.

Uncertainty about rapidly changing economic conditions, as well as the fast pace of technological adjustments, have also created uncertainty about what skills and labour will be in demand as the country moves forward.

“One big unknown now is how automation and especially AI is going to change the landscape for labour demand in the next five, 10 years … Is it going to decrease demand for labour?” Warman asks. 

How to adapt in the face of this uncertainty, and how immigration should be approached in light of it, is a conversation Canada needs to have, experts say.

Ivey Business School economics Prof. Mike Moffatt says that who Canada is bringing in matters as much as immigration levels, and what’s happening with the economy is nuanced.

Economic, family and humanitarian classes are the three main streams of permanent residents coming to Canada, and each group has different impacts on the economy, generally with those who come as skilled immigrants having the highest earnings and weathering economic downturns best.

The profiles of the incoming immigrants and their ability to integrate into the economy matter, says Moffatt. Bringing in foreign-trained doctors and nurses who can’t get licensed from stringent regulators, for example, won’t help address the health-care crisis.

Still, Moffatt says his critique of Canada’s immigration plan is less about the ambitious targeted numbers than the pace of the increases, as well as the short notice for provinces and cities in planning for the influx.

“Whether it be on education, immigration support programs, labour market programs, all of these things, there’s no time to adjust,” says Moffatt, senior director of policy and innovation at the Smart Prosperity Institute, a think tank with a stated goal of advancing solutions for a stronger, cleaner economy.

“I do think we can have robust increases in the targets. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, but let the provinces and cities know what you’re doing.

“There’s no collaboration. There’s no co-ordination. They are not working with the provinces and municipalities and the higher-education sector in order to come up with any kind of long-term thinking. It’s very short-term in nature.”

Should Canada cap international students and migrant workers?

Aside from questions about the immigration plan Canada has, there are also questions about the plan it doesn’t have.

The national immigration plan sets targets for the number of permanent residents accepted yearly, but leaves the door wide open for temporary residents. 

That has become a bigger issue over the years as Canada has increasingly shifted to a two-step system to select skilled immigrants who have studied and worked in Canada, bringing in more international students and temporary foreign workers than permanent residents.

According to Statistics Canada, there were close to a million (924,850) temporary residents in Canada in 2021, making up 2.5 per cent of the population.

The majority of them, including asylum-seekers, can legally work here; the remaining 8.7 per cent who don’t have work permits includes visitors such as parents and grandparents with the so-called super visa, who can stay for up to five years.

Temporary residents, who don’t have credit history for loans and mortgages in Canada, are more likely to be renters and public transit users (but eligible for some provincial health care), says Anne Michèle Meggs, who was the Quebec Immigration Ministry’s director of planning and accountability before her 2019 retirement.

“In the past, it wasn’t an issue, because we had a relatively small temporary migrant population, so we managed, even though we took the approach that we just bring them in and we don’t look after what happened to them afterwards,” says Meggs, whose book “Immigration to Quebec: How Can We Do Better” was recently published.

“That’s fine. That population wasn’t out of control. So that’s why we still successfully managed and it didn’t become a crisis.”

However, under tremendous pressure from post-secondary institutions to recruit international students, and from employers to quickly bring in foreign workers, she said the balance has tipped. To not set targets for temporary immigration is to get into trouble, Meggs warns.

“We want people to come and we want people to stay. You want things to be good for everybody, including immigrants and including children. And I think the objective has to be to make sure that everyone gets treated with dignity,” she says.

“Immigrants are not just sources of labour or sources of financing of institutions or spending money to increase our national GDP. These are people. We have to get back to talking about the immigrants and not just immigration.”

Canada ‘cannot afford to allow for polarization’

Canada immigration overall has been a success in terms of forging positive public attitudes toward immigration and the political participation by immigrants, says Andrew Griffith, a retired director general of the federal immigration department.

He feels Canada now has the maturity to have an honest and informed conversation about immigration without the fear of being labelled as racist and xenophobic. The focus of the discussion, he says, should be on Canada’s capacity to ensure a good quality of life for those who are already here and those who will be coming.

“It’s not about keeping the immigrants out. It’s more that if we’re going to do this, we have to do it right,” says Griffith. “We have to make sure we have the right infrastructure, the right housing policies and everything like that.”

Any immigration plan, Griffith says, should go beyond the intake levels but study the potential socio-economic impacts and include inputs from provincial and municipal governments.

Canada has grown to become a country of 40 million, and it has not always been smooth sailing.

But Canadians have worked hard to make immigration work for everyone and the success has come down to how the growth has been managed and how the public support for immigration has been maintained.

“We cannot afford to allow for polarization, populism and xenophobia to kick in here because it’s a very slippery slope,” says Hyder, whose family arrived in Calgary from India in 1974 when he was seven. “Other countries have seen it. It can go downhill very fast.

“Immigration is part of the arteries of our soul. It is who we are as a people.”

Source: Canada is getting bigger. Are we setting the country and its newest citizens up for success?

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

Happy Canada Day!

2023/07/01 Leave a comment

Filed under Multiculturalism

Adams: Canada is sorry – a lot. We shouldn’t apologize for that

2023/07/01 Leave a comment

Appropriate Canada Day commentary:

A lighthearted stereotype of Canadians holds that we’re prone to apologizing, and under an absurdly broad array of circumstances. When someone steps on the toes of a Canadian, the joke goes, it’s the Canadian who will say sorry.

Moose Jaw-born PGA Tour golfer Adam Hadwin just offered a textbook example of this cultural tendency at the 2023 Canadian Open. Even after being tackled by a security guard as he attempted to join compatriot Nick Taylor on the green to celebrate his winning putt, Mr. Hadwin apologized to the guard who had taken him to the ground, assuming he was an overzealous fan. They even hugged.

But Canadians also show a penchant for more serious apologies, recognizing that their country is responsible for deep historical wrongs that continue to inflict injustice today. In these cases, a serious and meaningful apology is warranted – and Canadians have tended to be supportive of such contrition. Brian Mulroney apologized for the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. Stephen Harper apologized for the country’s Chinese head tax, and for its program of residential schools. Justin Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s role in the 1914 turning-away of the Komagata Maru, a ship bearing migrants from India; for turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the ocean liner St. Louis in 1939; and for decades of federal government discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community.

I’m not a historian, but I believe Canada is a world leader in issuing apologies – at least in quantitative terms. Other countries have undergone deep reckonings around particular periods of violence, oppression or genocide, such as apartheid and the Holocaust. But when it comes to national apologies for multiple harms against multiple groups, Canada may well be the most prolific.

More recently, the presence of unmarked graves was confirmed on the grounds of several former Indian residential schools. Although, as mentioned, Mr. Harper had already apologized for the schools in 2008, many Canadians experienced fresh regret over their country and its churches for having taken many Indigenous children away from their homes and parents, in a systematic effort to obliterate Indigenous languages and cultures that has been called genocidal. After the first graves were reported in Kamloops, flags were lowered to half-mast on Canada Day from sea to sea to sea, in a national gesture of grief and remorse.

In the aftermath of these events, there was a dip in the extent to which people in this country say that they are proud to be Canadian, according to the most recent survey that Environics has done around that question since 1985. Most Canadians still feel proud to some degree – but more were feeling only “somewhat proud” rather than “very proud.” Pride in country became more muted – perhaps more apologetic.

What explains our cultural penchant to apologize? I think it is the tradition of compromise that is in much of our political history. After the British conquest of the French in Quebec City in 1759, the Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteed French Canadians their right to retain their language, civil law and religion, rather than be assimilated into English Canada.

When the Lester B. Pearson government responded to Quebec nationalism with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the 1960s, Canadians whose heritage was neither French nor British demanded recognition. Biculturalism became multiculturalism, an implicit apology for an obvious oversight. The neologism “multiculturalism” is one of Canada’s gifts to the world, and has since 1970 become central to our national identity.

For much of our history, most Canadians have experienced peaceful co-existence in a bicultural, then multicultural society (albeit one that is just beginning to work toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples). Perhaps for this reason, a large share of the population tends not to see politics and identity as a zero-sum game, where making room for someone else means taking away space from “me” and “my group.”

Over time, Canadians have become more likely to believe there is room enough for everyone – for different peoples, cultures, histories and perspectives. That opens the door to compromise, but also makes it less risky to apologize. For what is an apology, if not an acknowledgment that there is another perspective, a valid version of the story in which one is not always the admirable hero but sometimes someone who is flawed and has done harm? If one is consumed by “status anxiety” – the fear of being diminished relative to others in society – then the lowering of oneself through apology becomes unpalatable.

When it comes to the way Canadians respond to socio-cultural change, the strain of British understatement and irony that runs through our culture is also worth noting. Wry humour and oblique expressions of dissent suit us well in our often-precarious position north of the American powerhouse. To gender our relationship (and I apologize for the stereotyping), we are the little sister to the American big brother. We must exercise our power by being smarter, not stronger, often saying the opposite of what we really mean to get a point across. This is a kind of repressed aggression in which the subtext of a “sorry” from someone whose toe has been stepped on is less “I’ve done something wrong” than “Something is wrong here, in case you haven’t noticed.”

Of course, as Isaac Newton observed centuries ago, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We see forces of backlash: people who are “sorry, not sorry” about their wealth, power and privilege, or about the misdeeds of their ancestors. In Canada, these forces certainly exist, but they are more muted and less prevalent than they are in the United States, where even some state governments now forbid the mention in school curricula of ancestral misdeeds in the form of centuries of enslavement and segregation.

From broadly accepting how Canada’s history is taught to the understanding that various minority groups do experience discrimination, Canadians over all seem less sharply divided than Americans are about apologizing for past injustice. But while apologies might be a sign of self-awareness and a step toward redress, many would prefer that Canada move toward apologizing less with words and more with action – for example, with speedier implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Time will tell whether a national willingness to apologize for the past is merely a cultural quirk, or a resource we can draw on to create a better future.

Source: Canada is sorry – a lot. We shouldn’t apologize for that

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Go and See: When can Chinese Canadians stop being foreigners in our home?

2023/07/01 Leave a comment

While written from the perspective of Chinese Canadians, they note the commonality of experience among visible minority groups and potential threats from foreign are legitimate concerns:

This July 1 marks the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a racist law that for 24 years excluded all but a few Chinese from coming to Canada. Numerous events are being held to commemorate the occasion.

Many would suggest this is a time for celebration. After all, isn’t everything much better now, and aren’t there so many successful Chinese Canadians?

If so, how do you account for the fact that the Chinese Canadian community experiences higher than average poverty rates, including higher than Black and South Asian Canadians? How do we respond to social-science studies that show job seekers with Chinese or Asian-sounding last names have a 28-per-cent lower chance of getting interviews, as compared to those with Anglo names? And how do we explain the consistent themes of anti-Asian racism that can be traced from over a century ago to our modern manifestations of individual and systemic racism.

As Chinese Canadians, in addition to combating the “model minority myth,” we face constant challenges to our sense of belonging. At best, it comes as a microaggression in the form of a “friendly” query asking, “Where are you from?” However innocent these inquiries may sometimes sound, they reinforce assumptions about who is a “real” Canadian, and are a reminder that we are seen as the “other.” At worse, this stereotype of Asian Canadians as perpetual foreigners fuels xenophobia and hateful attacks that are trying to drive us, the “foreigners,” to “go back to where we came from.”

Telling Chinese Canadians, regardless of where we were born, to “go back to China” is sadly nothing new. The Canadian government took the lead in 1885 by imposing the infamous Chinese Head Tax on every Chinese person entering Canada as soon as Chinese railway workers finished building the Canadian Pacific Railway connecting our country from coast to coast. When that did not stop enough Chinese coming here, the Canadian government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923, to essentially exclude all Chinese from entering until this racist Act was repealed in 1947.

Different governments’ racist actions have reverberated throughout Canadian history, marching in step with the dehumanization of the Chinese, as shown by the public violence of the 1907 riots by white mobs in Vancouver’s Chinatown, and the 1919 ransacking of Toronto’s Chinatown. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed racist hate and violent attacks aimed at Chinese across the country, driving home the same message of who belongs and who is the “other.”

The current public discourse about foreign interference by China has added a layer of complexity to the already precarious discussion around anti-Asian racism. We know that negative views about China can contribute to more racism against Chinese Canadians, especially because of the perpetual foreigner stereotype, where our loyalty to Canada may be questioned. At the same time, concerns about anti-Chinese racism should not be abused as a tool to suppress legitimate discussions about potential threats from foreign regimes. As Canadians, we all have the same concerns about protecting our democracy. To achieve this shared goal, we must confront the threats posed both internally by the white supremacy movement and externally by foreign regimes. We must not play politics with our national security.

We must also respect the diverse communities of our 1.8 million Chinese Canadians, including many who have been here for generations and many who were not born in China. By dehumanizing a group and stripping away individual identities, racism affects our sense of belonging in different parts of our lives. For example, when some of us enter a meeting or an event, we scan the room for those who look like us: another person of colour, or better yet, another Chinese. More often than not, we are faced with a sea of mostly white, male faces, who are likely oblivious to our sense of being “othered,” even as they point to the presence of “minorities” as a sign of their commitment to diversity. Meanwhile, we gravitate toward the handful of racialized people in the room and wonder how our token representation might actually make a difference. Likewise, we look to important announcements like judicial appointments and ask if the one or two Chinese Canadians who get the nod will be the last ones as the government fills their unspoken quota.

Ultimately, discrimination and racism is not unique to Chinese Canadians. As we mark our community’s long history of exclusion on July 1, let us take the opportunity to collectively call upon our governments and all those with power and influence to combat racism and oppression of all forms.

If only one day we could walk into any room, and not have to ask ourselves again: Are we here as tokens, or do we truly belong?

Amy Go is president and Gary Yee is vice-president of the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice.

Source: When can Chinese Canadians stop being foreigners in our home?

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Lisée: Solidarité obligatoire

2023/06/30 Leave a comment

Interesting discussion on activism, education, freedom of conscience in the context of LGBTQ in schools:

Parmi les mille raisons qui me rendent fier d’être Québécois figure notre tolérance précoce, puis notre défense résolue, des homosexuels. Ne dit-on pas que, sans nous, le Canada aurait été beaucoup plus lent à légaliser le mariage pour tous ?

Cette particularité québécoise ressortait d’un monologue prononcé lors d’un gala Just For Laughs par l’humoriste américaine Sarah Silverman. Je cite de mémoire : « Aux États-Unis, on utilise des codes pour désigner nos quartiers gais. Le “District Castro” [San Francisco] ou “Greenwich” [New York]. Pourquoi ? Pour que les rednecks, qui sont des imbéciles, ne sachent pas où les trouver. Mais vous, votre village gai s’appelle “le village gai” ! Vous faites exprès ou quoi ? »

L’adhésion des Québécois à la cause gaie fut progressive, dans la société, la culture, les familles. Un processus d’acclimatation, d’adhésion, de normalisation. Mais il nous vient désormais de notre environnement nord-américain des signaux dont il faut se préoccuper. Il s’agit de l’injonction de solidarité. Il ne suffit pas d’accepter, mais d’afficher obligatoirement son appui à la cause. Parfois sous peine de sanctions.

On célèbre à Montréal la fierté gaie en août, mais cette année, aux États-Unis et au Canada, la tradition de faire de juin le Mois de la fierté gaie a pris de l’ampleur, notamment dans les écoles. En Ontario, le ministre (conservateur) de l’Éducation a produit une directive affirmant qu’il « incombe à tous les conseils scolaires de veiller à ce que tous les élèves — plus particulièrement les élèves 2SLGBTQ+ — se sentent soutenus, reflétés dans leurs écoles », ce qui est admirable. Mais il a ajouté : « Cela inclut la célébration du Mois de la fierté. »

La nuance est cruciale entre l’acceptation et la promotion, entre l’éducation et le prosélytisme. Nos chartes protègent la « liberté de conscience », ce qui inclut le droit de ne pas être d’accord avec la norme, pour peu qu’on ne commette aucun geste illégal. Sur les bancs d’école, on est certes tenus d’apprendre la norme et de la respecter. Mais est-on obligé de la célébrer ? Si la fête nationale du Québec tombait le premier juin, obligerait-on tous les enfants à porter des macarons fleurdelisés et de marcher dans les rues, drapeau en mains ? C’est ce qu’on a demandé à des enfants du primaire de Vancouver, l’an dernier, pour le Mois de la fierté.

On a assisté cette année, en Ontario, à un refus massif de parents musulmans de laisser leurs enfants participer à ces célébrations. Ce qui a notamment valu à ceux d’Ottawa une directive stricte des autorités scolaires interdisant le droit de retrait aux enfants. « Les droits de la personne ne sont pas ouverts au débat ou à la participation sélective » est-il écrit. En Nouvelle-Écosse, l’enregistrement d’une enseignante sermonnant un étudiant musulman qui refusait de participer aux activités de la Pride a fait grand bruit. Elle y affirme que « nous croyons que les gens peuvent épouser qui ils veulent, c’est dans la loi, et si tu ne penses pas que ça devrait être la loi, tu ne peux pas être Canadien. Tu n’as pas ta place ici, et je suis sérieuse ».

L’imam Sikander Hashmi rapporte dans le National Post que « les élèves d’une école secondaire d’Ottawa ont déclaré que le personnel gardait les portes lors d’une assemblée du Mois de la fierté pour s’assurer que personne ne partait, tandis que d’autres patrouillaient dans les couloirs et qu’un autre vérifiait même le stationnement pour trouver les élèves qui refusaient d’y assister. Un parent a rapporté que son enfant de 3e année dans une autre école s’était fait dire qu’il ne pouvait pas aller en récréation à moins qu’il ne dessine un arc-en-ciel. Des parents m’ont dit que d’autres élèves avaient été menacés d’expulsion s’ils ne participaient pas aux activités du Mois de la fierté ».

L’imam est particulièrement remonté contre un livret conçu spécialement pour ses jeunes ouailles intitulé « Je suis musulman mais je ne suis peut-être pas hétéro ». Pas moins du tiers des élèves du primaire de la ville de London, à forte concentration musulmane, se sont absentés durant une journée consacrée à la dénonciation de l’homophobie en mai. Puis, on a vu un petit groupe de mères musulmanes encourager leurs enfants à piétiner de petits drapeaux arc-en-ciel. Une scène qu’on peut résumer en deux mots : haine et obscurantisme.

Chers lecteurs, vous me savez très critique des religions, notamment pour leur misogynie et leur homophobie. Je suis à la fois favorable à l’arrêt des subventions pour les écoles à vocation religieuse et je tiens, pour le bien des enfants, à ce qu’aucun ne soit exempté de l’enseignement commun. Cependant, on ne peut vivre ensemble sans respect de la liberté de conscience. Je récuse donc l’embrigadement dans des causes, fussent-elles les miennes. Comme la religion, le militantisme doit s’afficher et se pratiquer à ses heures, pas à l’école ou dans l’État. Le refus d’appliquer ce principe nourrit puissamment le ressac conservateur dont nous sommes témoins et qui arrivera sous peu dans une école près de chez vous.

En fait, cela y est déjà. Au Québec, des comités formés d’élèves et soutenus par des profs et des administrateurs volontaires se donnent le mandat de faire appliquer la théorie du genre, dont je parlais dans une précédente chronique, dans l’école en entier. Les demandes pour des toilettes non binaires au primaire et au secondaire sont courantes et il arrive que des surveillantes plus pointilleuses sur le respect de l’intimité des unes et des autres se fassent « traiter de transphobes par des enfants de 12 ans », me rapporte un enseignant.

Il existe dans plusieurs de nos écoles des AGIS, pour Alliance genres, identités, sexualités. Leur création est recommandée par le gouvernement canadien. Elles ont pour but de transformer l’école entière en un « lieu sûr ». Les trousses pédagogiques mises à la disposition par l’organisme AGIS reprennent les thèmes et le vocabulaire d’usage sur la théorie du genre. C’est chouette : les étudiants intéressés à mettre un comité sur pied peuvent facilement recevoir une subvention de 500 $. Desjardins fait d’ailleurs partie des commanditaires de l’initiative.

J’ai sous les yeux une lettre envoyée ce printemps aux parents par un directeur d’école secondaire de Laval. Il les invite à soutenir l’initiative visant à « susciter la solidarité et mobiliser les élèves et le personnel scolaire à devenir des personnes alliées ». La Fédération autonome de l’enseignement organise un « défi des personnes alliées » pour ses syndicats enseignants qui déploieront dans leurs écoles le drapeau arc-en-ciel, des macarons, des kiosques de promotion. Dans les deux cas, nous ne sommes pas en présence du langage de l’éducation, mais de celui du militantisme.

Source: Solidarité obligatoire

Filed under LGBTQ, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Débats sur la laïcité et sentiment d’appartenance chez les immigrants racisés au Québec : Mieux comprendre l’impact des « événements focalisateurs»

2023/06/29 Leave a comment

Of note. The laïcité ironically have reduced the “belonging deficit” of Quebec compared to other provinces among non-religious minorities and Francophones

Résumé

« Certaines études suggèrent que le projet de Charte des valeurs du PQ et la loi 21 ont nourri un sentiment d’exclusion chez les membres des religions minoritaires. Cependant, aucune étude ne permet à ce jour de comparer le sentiment d’appartenance des minorités religieuses avant et après la mise à l’agenda de ces projets législatifs. Ancrée dans la recherche sur les « événements focalisateurs » et reposant sur des données de trois sondages réalisés en 2012, 2014 et 2019, notre étude examine l’impact des débats sur laïcité sur le sentiment d’appartenance des immigrants racisés au Québec. Nos résultats démontrent qu’un déficit d’appartenance au Québec par rapport au Canada existait déjà en 2012, mais qu’il était circonscrit à certains groupes, notamment ceux de dénominations non chrétiennes et les non francophones. Nos analyses montrent aussi qu’avec les débats sur la laïcité, le déficit d’appartenance au Québec s’est étendu aux minorités non religieuses et aux francophones. »

Abstract 

“Some studies suggest that the PQ’s proposed Charter of Values and Bill 21 have fostered a sense of exclusion among members of religious minorities. However, there is no study to date that compares the sense of belonging of religious minorities before and after these legislative projects were put on the agenda. Grounded in research on “focusing events” and drawing on data from three surveys conducted in 2012, 2014 and 2019, our study examines the impact of the secularism debates on racialized immigrants’ sense of belonging in Quebec. Our results show that a deficit of belonging to Quebec relative to Canada already existed in 2012, but that it was circumscribed to certain groups, notably those of non-Christian denominations and non-French speakers. Our analyses also show that with debates on secularism, the Quebec belonging deficit has extended to non-religious minorities and Francophones.”

Read or download the full article (in French) | Consulter ou télécharger l’article complet : 

Débats sur la laïcité et sentiment d’appartenance chez les immigrants racisés au Québec : Mieux comprendre l’impact des « événements focalisateurs » | Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique | Cambridge Core

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Statements by Prime Minister and NDP leader on Canadian Multiculturalism Day, No statement by Conservative leader Leader

2023/06/28 Leave a comment

For the record, starting with the PM:

“Today marks Canadian Multiculturalism Day, an opportunity to reflect on and embrace the idea that no matter our background or where we come from, we are all Canadian. Communities across Canada weave our identity through a tapestry of languages, traditions, and faiths.

“Canada was the first country in the world to officially recognize multiculturalism as a fundamental value in 1988 by adopting the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as a guiding principle for our country. The Act aims to foster a society where everyone can thrive and where our diverse cultures and heritage, including Indigenous languages, customs, history, and practices, are celebrated.

“Our work is far from over to truly build a country where racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, and religious minorities can live free from systemic racism and discrimination. That is why the Government of Canada is renewing Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and creating a new Action Plan on Combatting Hate. The new strategy will build on the work we began in 2019 to remove systemic barriers and promote equal opportunity for all Canadians, including our commitment to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, the Mental Health of Black Canadians Fund, and our National Housing Strategy.

“As we celebrate Canadian Multiculturalism Day, we celebrate Canadians of all backgrounds, and we recommit to fostering an inclusive and welcoming society, where everyone has equal opportunity. Let’s stand together, united in our commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and equity for all.”

Source: Statement by the Prime Minister on Canadian Multiculturalism Day

By the NDP leader:

“On Canada’s Multiculturalism Day, we celebrate the strength and beauty of our diverse nation. On this day, we come together to recognize and appreciate the rich tapestry of cultures, languages, and traditions that make Canada a truly remarkable place to call home. This is a day to honour our commitment to inclusivity, respect, and understanding that have shaped our society and fostered an environment of acceptance and harmony.

As Canadians, we take pride in our multicultural heritage. We understand that our diversity is not a challenge to be overcome, but rather a tremendous asset that fuels progress. By embracing different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds, we can learn from one another, grow together, and build a stronger and more prosperous society.

Today, let us celebrate the contributions of the countless individuals and communities who have enriched the Canadian mosaic. Whether they arrived here generations ago or recently, each person brings their unique talents, knowledge, and perspectives, contributing to the vibrant fabric of our multicultural nation.

Multiculturalism Day is also a reminder that more work is required to ensure equality and inclusivity for all. It is an invitation to engage in meaningful conversations, promote intercultural dialogue, and foster connections that transcend boundaries.

By working together, we can create a society where every person feels valued, respected, and empowered in our country. On behalf of all New Democrats, we wish you happy Multiculturalism Day, Canada!”

Source: NDP Statement on Multiculturalism Day

No statement by the Conservative leader, who did issue a statement for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →