Hashmi, Delic and Sherazi: Muslim families concerned about Pride activities in Ottawa schools deserve a voice

Bit of a stretch to make a parallel to colonial mindsets with respect to Indigenous peoples but a policy and practical challenge as most multiculturalism issues are in fact religious diversity issues, and involve assessing what is reasonable accommodation:

A few days before the start of June, our inboxes started filling up with messages from parents in our communities who were concerned about what their children would be taught during Pride month. They had contacted their children’s schools but were told there was a no opt-out policy in effect because participating in Pride month activities was a human rights issue.

The federal government describes human rights as “how we instinctively expect to be treated as persons. They define what we are all entitled to — a life of equality, dignity and respect, to live free from discrimination and harassment.”

When some Muslims felt their parental rights taken from them and their dignity dwindling, many decided to keep their children home on the first day of June.

When the influx of messages became so great, we created an online form to allow parents to share their concerns.

The results were disheartening. Of just under 500 responses, almost 30 per cent reported that their child had either been targeted for being a Muslim, had been taught age-inappropriate material or had their religious rights infringed upon. Another 22 per cent said they weren’t sure.

Parents shared stories about children being berated for being absent, being told they were ungrateful for having Ramadan recognized in school and being forced to attend Pride month activities. From a child being penalized with no recess for not wanting to colour in a rainbow in grade 3, to another child in junior kindergarten being asked whether she would like to be male or female, the anecdotal evidence piled up. Others reported that teachers debated religious beliefs with students to the point where the students felt targeted.

Multiple parents reported that a teacher at a Kanata school distributed a booklet to students in her Grade 5/6 class that specifically targeted Muslim students in her class, promoting the very practices and beliefs that most Muslim families find objectionable.

In one alarming incident, staff stood at the doors during an assembly to ensure no one left and even searched the parking lot for students. The irony that this took place during National Indigenous History Month should not be lost on us.

While the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has committed to — and indeed has made great strides in — fostering a safe and inclusive environment for all students, these experiences suggest there is much more to be done.

Concerns raised by parents about Pride don’t have to do with LGBTQ+ individuals. Not one parent suggested that Pride should not be celebrated. They simply had reservations about their own children’s participation in the celebrations.

Cross-dressing and changing one’s birth gender are forbidden under mainstream Islamic teachings, as they are in some other religions, except in rare cases where there is physiological evidence to justify such a change. Active participation in activities and celebrations, whether it be a celebration of same-sex relationships, pre-marital relationships, or those involving alcohol, are largely understood to be prohibited by many Muslims.

For many parents, having their children stay home was a civil way of registering their helplessness in the face of a system that did not want to listen.

Stomping on Pride flags and other such actions are explicitly prohibited in Islamic teachings and we were quick to denounce such hurtful acts in protests. However, we are deeply concerned that our youth and some parents are being contacted by extreme right-wing groups interested in having our community be the so-called champions of this cause. People who are unheard and who feel frustrated are vulnerable to the whisperings of extremists.

We sincerely hope lessons can be learned from what has occurred to prevent it from happening again. For our part, we are committed to continuing our denunciations of hate and bullying against LGBTQ+ people, speaking out against dehumanization, and condemning disrespectful acts. Principled disagreements must not lead to hate, bigotry or disrespect.

The school board will need to calm fears, through the development of clear procedures for staff on how to navigate cases of gender dysphoria and nonconformity with age-appropriate care and professionalism. Parents need to be a part of those discussions, not an afterthought.

Recognizing that gender identity and sexual orientation are deeply personal matters, and that people choose to approach them in different ways, can help all students feel included without any judgments on personal choices or beliefs as well as help rebuild lost trust.

Raising awareness about the struggles people face, and sharing their lived experiences and histories, is an important part of fighting hate and intolerance. Both LGBTQ+ communities and Muslim communities face discrimination and hatred. But history has shown that when ideas are forced upon people, the effort often backfires and causes more damage. If our government is serious about human rights meaning living a life free of discrimination, Muslim parents and students need to stop being treated as haters.

As National Indigenous History Month comes to a closing, we would do well to remember the tremendous harm caused by teachers with colonial mindsets, demeaning the traditional and ancestral beliefs of children while isolating them from their parents. It would be wise for our public school system to not repeat similar mistakes.

Sikander Hashmi serves as imam in Kanata. Zijad Delic serves as imam in Barrhaven. Aisha Sherazi is a local writer and educator. The authors are part of the Muslim Leaders Working Group liaising with the OCDSB on this issue.

Source: Hashmi, Delic and Sherazi: Muslim families concerned about Pride activities in Ottawa schools deserve a voice

Cinq ans après «SLĀV», les minorités visibles se taillent une place 

Of interest, increased diversity in Quebec cultural sector:

Depuis la controverse entourant la création des spectacles SLĀV et Kanata, il y a cinq ans, les artistes issus de minorités visibles foulent plus que jamais les planches des théâtres québécois. Au cinéma toutefois, leur présence évolue en dent de scie, montrent des données inédites compilées par Le Devoir.

« On sent que les théâtres se sont emparés de cet enjeu plus radicalement. Malheureusement, ça bouge moins vite au cinéma, où seuls quelques projets tirent la moyenne vers le haut », constate la présidente de l’Union des artistes, Tania Kontoyanni, à la vue de nos chiffres. Selon elle, on peut tout de même parler « d’un avant et d’un après » SLĀV et Kanata dans le milieu culturel.

Il y a cinq ans, ces deux pièces du metteur en scène Robert Lepage ont engendré un débat enflammé sur l’appropriation culturelle et la place des minorités visibles dans les productions culturelles d’ici. La première, SLĀV, s’inspirait de chants d’esclaves afro-américains, mais ne comptait que deux comédiennes noires sur six. La seconde, Kanata, se voulait une relecture de « l’histoire du Canada à travers le prisme des rapports entre Blancs et Autochtones », mais ne comptait pas un seul comédien autochtone.

En 2020, Le Devoir avait mesuré l’impact de la polémique et constaté que la proportion d’acteurs, de réalisateurs, de metteurs en scène et d’auteurs de minorités visibles au cinéma et au théâtre avait quasi doublé entre 2017 et 2019. Mais qu’en est-il aujourd’hui ? Est-ce que les efforts dans ces milieux se poursuivent ?

Notre équipe a répété l’exercice pour l’année 2022, en utilisant la même méthodologie, soit d’éplucher la programmation de sept théâtres et les génériques des 10 films les plus populaires en salle durant l’année. Malgré les limites de ce genre d’exercice, les chiffres compilés sont tout de même révélateurs.

En théâtre, 21 % des metteurs en scène, auteurs et interprètes des compagnies recensées étaient issus de minorités visibles pour la saison 2022-2023. Cette proportion était de 14 % en 2018-2019 et de 9 % en 2017-2018.

En cinéma, selon l’analyse des 10 films les plus vus en 2022, 11,5 % des scénaristes, réalisateurs et acteurs étaient issus de minorités visibles. Une proportion qui a plus que doublé en comparaison avec la période avant SLĀV et Kanata, où l’on ne comptait que 4 % d’artistes de minorités visibles. Mais c’est bien moins que 2019, où l’on se retrouvait avec une proportion de 18,7 %.

Fait à noter : le gouvernement canadien définit comme « minorité visible » toutes « personnes, autres que les Autochtones, qui ne sont pas de race blanche ou qui n’ont pas la peau blanche ». Pour notre exercice, nous avons inclus les Autochtones dans cette définition.

Selon le recensement de 2021 de Statistique Canada, 16,1 % de la population du Québec s’identifie à une des minorités visibles, et il y a 2,5 % d’Autochtones dans la province.

On sent que les théâtres se sont emparés de cet enjeu plus radicalement. Malheureusement, ça bouge moins vite au cinéma.

— Tania Kontoyanni

Le théâtre dans la bonne voie

« On est vraiment rendus ailleurs, je trouve ça très encourageant », commente Charles Bender, comédien d’origine autochtone.

Selon lui, depuis le congrès du Conseil québécois du théâtre (CQT) en 2015, il existait déjà un mouvement pour plus de diversité au théâtre. L’affaire SLĀV et Kanata a permis de faire connaître ces enjeux à l’ensemble de la population et d’accélérer le changement.

« Les membres de la communauté sont plus sensibles aux réalités de tout le monde, on se pose des questions à chaque étape de création sur nos façons de faire. On va dans la bonne direction », renchérit la coprésidente du CQT, Rachel Morse. Mais beaucoup reste à faire, selon elle, pour rendre le milieu encore plus inclusif.

Elle pointe du doigt le déséquilibre d’une institution théâtrale à l’autre. « Certains ont besoin de temps. On a lancé une trousse d’outils sur l’appropriation culturelle [la semaine dernière], c’est quelque chose qui pourra les aider à mettre en marche ce changement », espère-t-elle.

Si la proportion de minorités visibles parmi les auteurs ou les metteurs en scène aug, ente sans cesse depuis 2017 en théâtre, cela va bien plus lentement que du côté des interprètes. Or, de l’avis de Charles Bender, il faut néanmoins continuer de porter le regard au-delà de la distribution sur scène. « Il reste encore beaucoup de travail pour faire davantage de place aux créations des minorités visibles », plaide-t-il.

« Les espaces pour les accueillir existent, les diffuseurs sont au rendez-vous, les spectateurs aussi. Maintenant, il faut leur donner le temps et les moyens de créer. Il faut encourager la relève et grossir le bassin de créateurs autochtones ou issus de la diversité », insiste-t-il, rappelant que la pandémie en a découragé plus d’un à continuer dans ce domaine.

Le cinéma à la traîne

Du côté du cinéma, le portrait est un peu moins reluisant, considérant la baisse enregistrée en 2022 du pourcentage de minorités visibles à l’écran selon notre exercice. « Ça montre que ça dépend vraiment des projets et que cette volonté de faire de la place à la diversité n’a rien de généralisé », commente Tania Kontoyanni. Parmi les films analysés, Chien blanc et 23 décembre tirent en effet la moyenne vers le haut.

La présidente de l’UDA retient tout de même une amélioration depuis l’affaire SLĀV et Kanata. « Il y a aujourd’hui une plus grande préoccupation pour cet enjeu. On le voit pour les rôles, et il faudrait maintenant le percevoir aussi du côté de l’écriture et de la réalisation », ajoute-t-elle, réagissant à nos chiffres qui montrent qu’en 2022 — dans le palmarès de films analysé — aucune production ne comptait un scénariste ou un réalisateur issu de minorités visibles.

Proportion d’interprètes issus de minorités visibles parmi les dix films les plus vus au Québec

L’auteur-compositeur-interprète Ricardo Lamour invite quant à lui à regarder plus loin que les chiffres : « Oui il y a plus grande représentation [des minorités] sur scène et à l’écran, mais quelle est la qualité de leur expérience ? » Les personnes noires — et ça vaut aussi pour les autres minorités visibles — décrochent rarement des premiers rôles, constate-t-il. Elles se retrouvent encore beaucoup dans des rôles stéréotypés ou se font offrir de petits rôles dans l’unique but de montrer qu’une production est inclusive, selon lui.

« La place des personnes noires dans l’industrie culturelle reste très fragile. […] Même lorsqu’elles ont trouvé une place, beaucoup marchent sur la pointe des pieds dans ce qu’elles peuvent vraiment dire au sujet d’une production. […] Je m’attends à plus de notre milieu, on peut vraiment faire mieux. »

Avec Sandrine Vieira, Alex Fontaine, Janie Dussault et Charles-Olivier L’Homme

Source: Cinq ans après «SLĀV», les minorités visibles se taillent une place

Sen. Victor Oh says Chinese Canadians need to fundraise to sue ‘messy reporters’

Odd and disturbing:

A Canadian senator said he wants Chinese Canadians to set up a national foundation that would focus on raising money to fund lawsuits against “messy reporters” and politicians who “try to smear” the community.

A video of Conservative Sen. Victor Oh making the remarks was uploaded to the social media platform WeChat on June 5, showing him addressing a group at what was described as the Montreal Chinese Community United Centre.

The Canadian Press obtained the video, which showed Oh saying in Mandarin that “we need to raise money to cover costs for (people affected) by all of these unreasonable reporters who try to smear Chinese and discredit Chinese.”

The senator said “we need to take legal action to deal with the messy reporters, newspapers and politicians” and that a national foundation would also help support young people to get involved in politics, including through scholarships.

The comments were first reported in English by Found In Translation on Substack.

Oh was not made available to answer questions at an event he attended in Ottawa on Friday that marked the 100th Anniversary of the introduction of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

A spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

“I hope, I wish we can set up a nationwide Chinese Canadians foundation. We will draft it to see how can build a national foundation. Why do we need a national foundation? We must have donations, we must have (a) certain amount of energy and financial resources,” Oh said in Mandarin in the video.

“Because you all know these journalists, these newspapers suppress us every day. One wave after another. They will smear you by reporting a little bit of the facts about you, right?”

In the video, Oh said journalists have not accepted the findings in an initial report from former governor general David Johnston, whom Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed to investigate allegations of foreign interference in the past two federal elections.

Johnston’s report found that some media reporting around allegations that China meddled in the 2019 and 2021 elections lacked context.

It also acknowledged that some intelligence confirmed attempts by Chinese officials to gather information about Canadian parliamentarians. But Johnston said the intelligence he reviewed cannot not be shared publicly.

He announced earlier this month he would resign as special rapporteur, citing a politically charged atmosphere around his work. Johnston is set to release his final report this month.

“Long story short, they don’t believe governor (general)’s finding (about foreign interference) is transparent, (that) there are no Chinese spies in Canada in this case. They just don’t believe that,” Oh said in the video.

He suggested that “if a judge rules someone is not guilty,” then reporters would think: “It’s impossible and he must be guilty!”

He said the foundation would be “very important.”

“If it will be set up in the near future, first we will train young people to discuss and get involved in politics, give scholarships to the young generation and encourage them to study.”

He said such a foundation would also need to raise money to cover the costs affected by “unreasonable reporters” who try to smear Chinese people.

“If we don’t stand up this time, they will always suppress us just like what they did to the Black people. Now the Black people stand up and voice their opinions, now the Black people’s lives matter. Right? So, we must show solidarity and work together to protect our own interests and our next generation,” Oh said in the video.

“We are already here. We can’t be uprooted. We can’t return back to home anymore, not to mention our children.”

Oh, who emigrated from Singapore 45 years ago, was appointed to the Senate in 2013 by former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Source: Sen. Victor Oh says Chinese Canadians need to fundraise to sue ‘messy reporters’

We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

Good question:

The political right’s exhausting and cruel war on “wokeness” is now aligning with the efforts of some Muslim Americans to attack the L.G.B.T.Q. community under the guise of protecting religious freedoms and parental rights.

After enduring a gantlet of scapegoating after 9/11, you’d think we Muslims would have learned.

As a practicing Muslim American raising three children, I don’t find it in conflict with my faith to recognize that in a pluralistic, democratic society, all our communities must be able to live with security, dignity and freedom, even when there are profound differences on certain issues.

Last month a group of Muslim scholars and preachers published a joint statement titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam.” In the name of helping families, the statement reiterates what is considered by many scholars to be traditional Islamic views on homosexuality but trades compassion, political foresight and pastoral care in favor of fear, panic and legalistic double talk.

It says that “there is an increasing push to promote L.G.B.T.Q.-centric values among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent and denying both parents and children the opportunity to express conscientious objection.” It appears to uncritically accept the zero-sum notion, pushed by right-wing politicians, that acceptance of the L.G.B.T.Q. community comes at the expense of giving up religious freedoms. It seems oblivious to the reality that if you replaced “L.G.B.T.Q.-centric” with “Shariah,” it would mimic the sentiments that have often been directed at devout Muslims in our country.

It’s also remarkable that so many religious leaders came together to speak with one voice on this particular issue, which one could falsely assume from the current political hysteria is the leading threat facing children. But as anyone who’s been part of recent debates within broader Muslim American communities knows, you’d probably never get this kind of concerted public statement from Muslim leaders on the issue of gun violence — the leading cause of death for American children — or climate change, which ultimately threatens all life. Somehow, though, this issue has managed to rally an array of Muslim scholars.

In Montgomery County, Md., outside Washington, D.C., the group Moms for Liberty, which has been designated an extremist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has united with some Muslim parents who are protesting that the public school system no longer allows their children to opt out of reading books with L.G.B.T.Q. stories. “It’s not bigoted to want a safe space for all children, nor is it bigoted to provide reasonable accommodations to those with sincerely held religious beliefs,” says Raef Haggag, a Montgomery County public school parent and former high school teacher. When we exchanged emails, he told me that Muslim parents in Montgomery County had never called for a book ban, but that he believed an opt-out option would reflect parental rights and also be a reflection of “genuine tolerance, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

But is it truly inclusive and tolerant to signal to L.G.B.T.Q. kids or L.G.B.T.Q. parents that simply reading a book or learning about their existence might be so threatening and offensive that it requires an opt-out option in schools? How would Muslim parents feel if this was applied to children’s books about Ramadan or hajj?

Kareem Monib, a Muslim parent and a founder of the opt-out group Coalition of Virtue, recently appeared on Fox News and bonded with the host Laura Ingraham over what they saw as their fight for religious freedoms, apparently forgiving Ingraham for her past anti-Muslim bigotry: “Five years ago, Laura was saying we shouldn’t have Muslims in this country,” Mr. Monib told Semafor, “Now she’s saying: Thank God, the Muslims are here!” He seems to be referring to comments Ms. Ingraham made eight years ago, but either way, the irony is lost on him.

Muslims have also joined this campaign in Hamtramck, Mich., which has an all-Muslim City Council. Last week the council voted unanimously to bar Pride flags from being displayed on city properties — apparently forgetting that their Muslim immigrant forebears faced discrimination when they arrived in the city.

The increasing political demonization of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans is following the same script that has been used to marginalize Muslims and drum up fears about the supposed dangers of Shariah finding its way into the American legal system, all to pander to a constituency that is terrified of pluralism.

Let’s take a DeLorean back to the post-9/11 years, during which Islam, especially the specter of Shariah, was frequently made the villain.

Much like the recent deliberate efforts to mischaracterize critical race theory, Shariah was deliberately misdefined as a legal-political-military doctrine and the pre-eminent totalitarian threat of our timeThanks to a well-funded right-wing machine, Shariah became a litmus test for Muslim American citizens to prove their moderation and loyalty.

In 2011 the presidential aspirant Herman Cain said he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to his potential administration or the federal courts because he feared they would “force their Shariah law onto the rest of us.” In 2015, Ben Carson echoed those talking points, saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim American for president unless he or she renounced Shariah. Ultimately, Donald Trump ran on a Muslim ban and put in place a modified travel ban with the help of the Supreme Court. By 2017, according to one report, over 200 anti-Shariah bills had popped up in 43 states over nearly a decade, based on trumped-up claims that Islamic law was infiltrating the U.S. judicial system.

Compare all that with now: Before the 2024 elections, the L.G.B.T.Q. community has emerged as the boogeyman du jour. Right-wing media and G.O.P. elected officials are routinely accusing liberals of being groomers. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently said that transgender people are “sexual predators,” and the Texas G.O.P.’s new platform explicitly rejects trans identity and refers to homosexuality as an “abnormal lifestyle choice.” In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis defended his “Don’t Say Gay” law by saying his critics support “sexualizing kids in kindergarten.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who remains the Republican front-runner for 2024, said that providing gender-affirming care to minors was equal to “child abuse.” As a result of this ginned-up hate, there are over 520 anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills that have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Now that queer Americans are being singled out, why are some Muslims so willing to go along?

We often forget that there are people whose lives are directly affected by these hateful words, statements and policies. I reached out to several L.G.B.T.Q. Muslims to ask them if they had any words for fellow Muslims who are supporting the right wing’s political attacks on L.G.B.T.Q. literature, rights and identities. “Don’t let Islamophobes and evangelical Christians vying for political power dictate the contours of your Islam,” Ramish Nadeem and Hanan Jabril, young Muslim activists, wrote in an emailed statement. “Is learning about L.G.B.T.Q.+ people, who do exist in the world we live in and even in our Muslim traditions, really gonna harm your kids’ faith? Is your Islam really that fragile that it must lead with exclusion, isolation and hate instead of mercy, openness and community?”

As Muslims in America, we have the capacity to be true to our faith and to embrace our neighbors — including members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community who may not share all our beliefs. And as citizens aware of how we’ve been treated, we should have better recognition of how the scapegoating of people for their sexual orientation or gender identity is a play from an old divide-and-conquer playbook. As the Times columnist Michelle Goldberg recently wrote, “Nothing drives conservatives to reach out to groups they once feared as much as another group that they fear even more.”

As a Muslim parent, I understand how difficult it is to raise our children in a political environment that still views them as perpetual suspects because of their religion and, in many cases, their skin color. However, we still have religious freedoms in this country that allow us to live our lives according to our values, even if they aren’t shared by the majority.

Ultimately, living in a pluralistic society requires reciprocity and respect, even if we occasionally make one another uncomfortable. It’s hypocritical, shortsighted and cruel for Muslims to align with hateful forces targeting vulnerable communities that, like us, are still fighting against bigotry and for acceptance. The way forward is to opt into a country where all our kids have a chance to be the heroes of their own stories.

Source: We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

Bit naive to assert that “if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system” given the difficulty in obtaining evidence and the like.

And of course hard to find any sympathy for these men or “to see what human rights concerns they may be facing” after they were part of a group that violated all or virtually all human rights:

The federal government has rebuffed an offer from a civil society delegation to travel to northeastern Syria on Ottawa’s behalf to repatriate detained Canadians.

Instead, a scaled-down group, including Sen. Kim Pate, intends to head to the region in late August to gather information about Canadians held in squalid camps and prisons.

The delegation is also to include Alex Neve, former secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, and Scott Heatherington, a former Canadian diplomat.

Participants plan to discuss details of the initiative at a news conference in Ottawa this morning.

Late last month, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s declaration that four Canadian men being held in Syrian camps are entitled to Ottawa’s help to return home.

The May ruling set aside a January decision by Federal Court Justice Henry Brown, who directed Ottawa to request repatriation of the men as soon as reasonably possible and provide them with passports or emergency travel documents.

The Canadians are among the many foreign nationals in Syrian camps and jails run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the strife-torn region from the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

On April 19, Sally Lane — mother of Jack Letts, one of the four Canadian men — wrote to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly requesting that she promptly authorize a seven-member delegation to Syria in late May.

“I am convinced that in the current circumstances, authorizing this delegation is essential to saving Jack’s life and protecting the rights of all Canadian detainees,” Lane wrote. “As such, I will be a member of this delegation.”

In an interview, Lane said the government declined to provide support to the delegation. “They didn’t actually give a reason. All they said was that repatriation will be done by government members only.”

Given that the revamped mission set for August will be more of a fact-finding trip, Lane does not plan to go.

“It’s not actually going to be a repatriation trip,” she said. “I mean, it’s going to be preparatory to repatriation, but there won’t actually be any people coming back. And I just thought, I can’t face the idea of seeing Jack and leaving him there. I just think it would kind of break me, and I believe it would break him. So I’m not going on this trip.”

Asked why the government would not support the proposed delegation, Global Affairs Canada spokesman Jean-Pierre Godbout said Ottawa advises against all travel to Syria.

“Due to privacy and operational security considerations, we cannot comment on specific cases or potential future actions,” he added.

The identities and circumstances of the other three Canadian men are not publicly known.

Amid the court proceedings, lawyer Lawrence Greenspon reached an agreement with the federal government earlier this year to bring home six Canadian women and 13 children from Syria who had initially been part of the legal action.

Neve said in an interview that the government’s “seemingly implacable refusal” to assist the return of the men to Canada “is in our view, frankly, disgraceful.”

The three-member delegation plans to fly to Mosul, in northern Iraq, then travel overland to northeastern Syria.

The members hope to speak with as many of the Canadians — men, women and children — in the camps and detention centres as possible, said Neve, a senior fellow with the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

“We want to see about their welfare, we want to see what human rights concerns they may be facing,” he said. “So from that side of things, it’s a welfare and humanitarian mission, really.”

But the delegation also wants to meet with local officials to see if steps can be taken to help facilitate release of Canadians, Neve added.

Canadian government officials should be playing that role, as they have with some of the women and children brought home from Syria, he said.

“Many other countries have much more actively been involved in facilitating and carrying out the repatriation of their nationals, so Canada continues to very notably be a laggard in the international community,” Neve said.

“And I think that’s disappointing, especially for a country like Canada that that proudly asserts that we believe in human rights.”

Neve said if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system. But leaving citizens to languish overseas for years on end “is simply not acceptable.”

Source: Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

McWhorter: Reparations Should Be an End, Not a Beginning

Thoughtful discussion of the issues and approaches, and the need to shift the focus to class and class-based orientation to race:

For a long while, reparations for Black Americans has been more a debate topic than a reality. But of late, the reality may be catching up with the debate. Since last year, Evanston, Ill., has been granting $25,000 payments to be applied to housing to Black people and their descendants who were discriminated against during the redlining era. This year, the program has been extended to enable grantees to take simple cash payments. In San Francisco, a task force has suggested that eligible Black people receive onetime payments of $5,000,000 each; a statewide task force has proposed a somewhat more modest plan with a sliding scale of payments topping out at $1.2 million. The New York State Legislature has passed a bill that would create its own commission to consider reparations, and there will doubtless be more such proposals nationwide.

I’ve never been a fan of the idea of reparations. I know that various groups of Americans have been granted reparations in the past, such as the descendants of Japanese Americans placed in internment camps during World War II. And I certainly believe that Black Americans have deserved reparations. It’s more that I have questioned the idea of what I would regard as newreparations. I see us as having already been granted reparations on multiple occasions.

Affirmative action can be seen as an enormous reparations policy, although the term is rarely used in that context. In the late 1960s, welfare payments were made easier to receive and maintain at the behest of organizations such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, in what we would now call reparation for past injustices. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, if we rolled the dice again, could well have been called a “Reparation Act,” linking banks’ requests for mergers and new branches to their assisting the credit eligibility of people in lower-income neighborhoods.

And there are, of course, thorny questions that prevail in any discussion of reparations: If payments are to be made to individuals, what would qualify a person as Black and discriminated against? (William Darity Jr. and A. Kirsten Mullen’s “From Here to Equality” has a proposal for this.) If payments are to organizations, which ones could we designate as best for Black people and on what basis? (The pioneer analyst of the subject, Boris Bittker, raised this question decades ago.)

But one does not wish to ossify. I’m not interested in contrarianism for its own sake; I seek what is good for Black people. And if 77 percent of Black people approve of something — as a recent Pew poll suggested — I had better have solid grounds to oppose it.

If your opinions never evolve, you’re either not paying attention or not genuinely interested. One example: School vouchers looked very promising for Black kids 20 years ago, and I used to speak up for them despite it making me seem as though I were a Republican. But they do not seem to have had much effect on achievement in the long run, and my enthusiasm has decreased. There’s a reason I haven’t devoted a newsletter to vouchers lately.

Opposition to reparations would make sense if they were actively harmful — for instance, by encouraging a sense of dependence or entitlement — but that seems unlikely of a one-time dispersal. It would also make sense to oppose reparations if the funds seemed likely to go to waste, such as those given with insufficient directives as to what they were to be used for. But the most common idea now, largely sparked by Ta-Nehisi Coates’s landmark 2014 article in The Atlantic, is to focus on housing assistance specifically to compensate for the redlining era, decades in which residents of “Black” neighborhoods were denied mortgages, insurance and other benefits that lead to homeownership.

This newer focus is different from simply sending a check in the mail for racial injustices writ large that were suffered in a distant past. Redlining was not all that long ago. It played a major role in the wealth gap that exists between white and Black people today. And being able to afford better-quality housing would be of concrete and immediate benefit to Black people, enabling them to escape many of the manifestations of inequity based on race.

So I am open to experiments with this new conception of reparations. I could imagine supporting them with articles, talks, podcast appearances and the like. But I would do so only under an impression of a general consensus that these reparations would also offer a form of closure, a signature turning of the corner in American race relations.

Brilliant work by Black intellectuals such as Barbara Fields and Adolph and Touré Reed has long argued that fixing today’s America will require a focus on class rather than race. After reparations, it would be time to stop sidelining this work. Racism and inequity would not disappear. Policies that address those issues and help Black people succeed would of course continue, but they would focus less on race than on specific economic needs, such as fostering jobs that don’t require a college degree, giving preferences in admissions and hiring based on socioeconomics, rethinking the War on Drugs and teaching reading via the phonics method that science has demonstrated to be the strongest tool.

In a scenario such as this one, reparations would serve not only as a compensation for past injustice but also as the start of a new, class-based orientation toward the nation’s progress on race. Is such a compromise possible, as opposed to a continuation of the mantra that “America doesn’t want to talk about race”? I have my doubts. But I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Source: Reparations Should Be an End, Not a Beginning

U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Of note:

A new Biden administration policy has dramatically lowered the percentage of migrants at the southern border who enter the United States and are allowed to apply for asylum, according to numbers revealed in legal documents obtained by The Times. Without these new limits to asylum, border crossings could overwhelm local towns and resources, a Department of Homeland Security official warned a federal court in a filing this month.

The new asylum policy is the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s border efforts.

Under the new rules, people who cross through a third country on the way to the U.S. and fail to seek protections there are presumed ineligible for asylum. Only people who enter the U.S. without authorization are subject to this new restriction.

The number of single-adult migrants who are able to pass initial screenings at the border has dropped from 83% to 46% under the new policy, the Biden administration said in the court filing. The 83% rate refers to initial asylum screenings between 2014 and 2019; the new data cover the period from May 12, the first full day the new policywas in place, through June 13.

Since the expiration of Title 42 rules that allowed border agents to quickly turn back migrants at the border without offering them access to asylum, the administration has pointed to a drop in border crossings as proof that its policies are working.

But immigrant advocates and legal groups have blasted Biden’s new asylum policy, arguing that it is a repurposed version of a Trump-era effort that made people in similar circumstances ineligible for asylum. (Under Biden’s policy, certain migrants can overcome the presumption that they are ineligible for asylum.) The ACLU and other groups have sought to block the rule in federal court in San Francisco, in front of the same judge who stopped the Trump policy years ago.

The new filing provides the first look at how the Biden administration’s asylum policy is affecting migrants who have ignored the government’s warnings not to cross the border.

“This newly released data confirms that the new asylum restrictions are as harsh as advocates warned,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “The data contradicts conservative attacks on the rule for being too lenient. Less than 1 in 10 people subject to the rule have been able to rebut its presumption against asylum eligibility.”

The numbers show that, thus far, 8,195 asylum-seekers who crossed the border have had the new rules applied to them and 88% had the policy limit their chance at asylum. These migrants were forced to pass a higher standard of screening reserved for different forms of protection under U.S. law. Some 46% of migrants who were forced to go through the new approach either cleared the higher standard or established an exception to the rule, like a medical emergency.

These individuals will now have the chance to seek asylum, and other protections, in immigration court.

“As intended, the rule has significantly reduced screen-in rates for noncitizens encountered along the [Southwest border],” Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior DHS official, wrote in the filing. “The decline in encounters at the U.S. border, and entries into the Darién Gap, show that the application of consequences as a result of the rule’s implementation is disincentivizing noncitizens from pursuing irregular migration and incentivizing them to use safe and orderly pathways.”

Reichlin-Melnick said that the few who did get past the new rule probably would not succeed in getting asylum in immigration court due to the policy but could still gain the other, lesser forms of protections offered under U.S. law.

Nuñez-Neto said that without the policy, DHS expects to see an increase in border crossings that would hurt local border communities and overstretch government resources.

He explained that DHS intelligence indicates that there are an estimated 104,000 migrants in northern Mexico and that many of these migrants appear to be “waiting to see whether the strengthened consequences associated with the rule’s implementation are real.”

Nuñez-Neto said the population in northern Mexico is within eight hours of the U.S. border. He cited the increase in arrests at the border in the run-up to the end of Title 42 earlier in May, when border agents were seeing upward of 10,000 migrants cross in a single day.

“DHS anticipates that any interruption in the rule’s implementation will result in another surge in migration that will significantly disrupt and tax DHS operations. This expectation is not speculative. DHS needs only to look back to the pre-May 12 surge, which was only blunted by the application of strengthened consequences at the border and expanded access to lawful pathways and processes, in large part as a result of the rule’s implementation on May 12, to identify the repercussions of losing the rule,” he wrote.

The Trump administration barred asylum for migrants who crossed the U.S. border and did not seek protections in another country on their journey. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar later blocked the policy. The Supreme Court stayed the order.

The Times interviewed migrants in Mexico who said they were still assessing the border changes in May — including some who were worried about the new policy and its potential consequences. The Biden administration has advertised deportations and the immigration consequences for those who cross the border without authorization on social media and in statements.

Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the data revealed the policy changes at the border were making a difference in who was able to access asylum, though she noted that families were not included in the statistics presented by Nuñez-Neto.

“These data show that a much smaller share of single adult migrants are able to get into the United States to seek protections than before Title 42,” she said. “This represents a significant narrowing of the possibility of asylum for single adults coming to the border.”

Source: U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Barutciski: Quebec’s caution about immigration is a lesson for all of Canada

I wouldn’t necessarily characterize as this driven by ideology as much as misplaced emphasis on demographics and overall GDP growth, along with siloed approaches that ignore the impacts of high levels of permanent and temporary immigration across all levels of government. And if driven by ideology, it is more by economic ideology than anything else.

But the demographic impact on lower levels in Quebec compared to the rest of Canada is significant, as it is with respect to Indigenous peoples:

Plans to boost immigration levels in Canada are raising questions. The recent suggestion that Canada will become a country of 100 million inhabitants created controversy particularly in Quebec. Large increases in permanent and temporary residents at a time when there is a housing shortage suggests federal policy is increasingly influenced by ideology, in contrast to past pragmatic approaches.

Although temporary permits increased under the Harper government, they exploded under the Trudeau government. Quebec’s new French language commissioner recently pointed out the impact of large numbers of foreign students in Montreal, a city worried that the use of French is being replaced by a generic North American culture and its English language. As a key actor in the historic compromise that established the federation, Quebec’s concerns should be taken seriously by any Canadian committed to successful immigration outcomes.

Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stated that the 100 million is not governmental policy, it is impossible to ignore the context. Immigration is simply a more sensitive issue outside the English-speaking world. European countries such as Germany and France are open to immigration, but they handle language and culture prudently because of their stronger sense of identity. For example, nobody in Hamburg would accept basic demographic shifts that result in the local population being born largely outside of Germany, let alone brag about this development as a symbol of openness to diversity. While inclusive Torontonians have been doing this for years, it is clear that Quebec’s sensibilities are closer to continental Europe’s than to the rest of Canada.

The modern version of the ambitious 100-million project has been debated for more than a decade. It was notably proposed as a geopolitical project that focused on the multi-faceted benefits of a larger demographic base. The idea was then appropriated by the Toronto-based advocacy group known as the Century Initiative. This influential group focused on economic liberalization and transformed the goal into a more one-dimensional project responding to issues such as labour supply.

Yet two important constituencies were absent from the early stages of the Century Initiative’s deliberations: Quebec and Indigenous peoples. Their concerns about demographic submersion were ignored. This was the “diversity is our strength” approach within a Toronto-centric worldview that emphasized certain economic benefits while excluding other perspectives.

Congruence with the agenda of progressive ideologues was just a matter of time. As soon as Trudeau came to power in late 2015, some cabinet members pushed for a massive increase in immigration. In the burgeoning atmosphere of identity politics, anyone opposed to increased immigration could be accused of racism. Trudeau’s first minister of immigration, John McCallum, proved to be a moderate voice to the extent that the increases in overall immigrant numbers under his watch were a fraction of what was advocated by some other cabinet ministers. He even expressed reservations, acknowledging the risk that newcomers would converge on the country’s largest urban centres, thereby creating the impression of saturation which could in turn undermine public support for future increases.

Yet Trudeau’s ideological instincts tend to align more with establishment thinking in Toronto than in Quebec City. A clash with Quebec was inevitable given that it has more difficulty attracting immigrants who can integrate within its distinct francophone society. While steady increases may be possible, as recently suggested by Premier François Legault, demographic submersion is a real threat if the rest of Canada enjoys population growth that largely outpaces other G7 members.

The underlying tension results from English-speaking Canada’s overconfident multicultural policy, which allows the short-term welcoming of massive numbers of immigrants while dismissing potentially destabilizing effects of long-term demographic shifts. Just as for Quebec, this may prove to be an existential issue for Indigenous people who risk carrying even less weight in overall population numbers and accompanying political representation.

Any national party genuinely committed to unity should consider these challenges if the vast country is to remain pro-immigration. With regard to Quebec’s hesitations, it would help national cohesion to understand the challenges faced by francophone jurisdictions that are competing with the Anglosphere for immigrants from around the world. Condescension in relation to the specific integration difficulties experienced by Quebec is misplaced.

After all, no country has ever transformed its demographic base in such a way that the numerically dominant ethnic group voluntarily cedes its leading position to migrants invited from culturally diverse places. Canadians could be reassured that the transformation is not driven by ideology if the unique nature of this societal experiment were to be acknowledged and openly debated.

Michael Barutciski is coordinator of Canadian Studies at Toronto’s Glendon College, York University. He spent the spring in both Quebec and Germany comparing migration policies.

Source: Barutciski: Quebec’s caution about immigration is a lesson for all of …

Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots

A justification from the Dean of an Islamic Centre to provide some context to Canadian and American protests and highlighting an alignment among the religious right across religions. Ingenuous to argue that it is not political given today’s environment:

We are witnessing a unique and welcome phenomenon: Muslims in the West are at the forefront of a social movement that transcends any one faith or ethnicity. For those following the news, protests led by parents have erupted across the United States and Canada against school boards that wish to teach schoolchildren content about the acceptability of LGBTQ lifestyles.

While parents of all ethnicities and religions are involved, Muslim parents have been playing a central role in all of these cases, both as organisers and protesters, and their highly visible presence is creating waves on social media.

It is understandable for parents to be concerned. In Maryland, for example, a school district has approved books that discuss homosexuality and transgenderism as normal realities for children as young as three years old. This is state-sponsored ideological indoctrination of toddlers who can barely form complete sentences, much less think critically.

Parents have a God-given duty and legal right to provide moral instruction and guidance to their children. This includes the right of parents and their children to reject ideologies that contravene their beliefs.

Yet, supposedly secular institutions like public schools are now dictating that students must accept and affirm LGBTQ ideology, at times with the threat that if they refuse to do so, they “do not belong” in their country, as one teacher in Edmonton, Canada, recently said to a Muslim student.

As Muslims, we refuse to be coerced into believing something our faith categorically condemns. This is not a political stance. It is a moral principle.

recent statement I helped draft, titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam”, has been signed and endorsed by more than 300 Islamic scholars and preachers across North America. In this document, we explicitly and clearly lay out the non-negotiable, normative Islamic position on sexuality and gender ethics.

We believe this statement will allow Muslim parents, educators, students and professionals to establish their right to hold their religious views without fear of legal reprisal. All too often, those who wish to live in accordance with mainstream, family-based morality are accused of being bigoted and “homophobic” if they refuse to endorse LGBTQ events. Many suffer social repercussions for holding such beliefs.

Worse still, children are expected to attend events in which drag shows and other actions deemed immoral by many people of faith are showcased.

This statement seeks to be a reference point to demonstrate to school boards and employers why Muslims must preferably be excused from activities that contradict our religious ideals.

The statement is explicitly non-partisan and states that the signatories are “committed to working with individuals of all religious and political affiliations to protect the constitutional right of faith communities to live according to their religious convictions and to uphold justice for all”.

Despite such clear declarations of non-partisanship and though the protesters, from Maryland to Ottawa, have insisted they are asserting moral agency rather than political allegiance, certain groups insist on turning this into a partisan issue.

Those who have committed themselves to a left-wing liberal ideology (including some progressive Muslims) are outraged and ashamed of anything short of the full affirmation and acceptance of all LGBTQ demands. They point to our own experience of oppression as a Muslim minority and say we should thus show reciprocity to other marginalised groups, even as LGBTQ advocates often refuse to show the same sensitivity on issues we hold sacred.

The fact that conservative media outlets have provided a platform for Muslim parents to share their grievances is supposedly conclusive proof that these protesters, and all of us who oppose the teaching of the LGBTQ agenda in schools, are aligning themselves with the far-right, including white supremacists. That is simply not the case.

To be sure, the sudden friendliness of politically-conservative groups and media outlets towards Muslims is indeed tempting some in the community to rush to forge new alliances with the political right after previously flirting with the left. They are making a mistake. Again.

Muslims across North America should firmly root their moral values in their faith, not in a specific political ideology. To understand why this distinction is so critical, we ought to heed a lesson from our recent past.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Islam in North America faced an existential crisis. Muslims were widely portrayed as the enemy. Scholars were deported. Bearded Muslim men and hijabi women were harassed, randomly questioned and detained at airports. Many worshippers avoided praying in masjids and some Muslims even changed their first names. The reality of Muslims in North America in the first decade of this century was one of fear, anxiety and extreme alienation.

The open hostility of the North American political right towards Islam and Muslims sharply contrasted with the comparatively sympathetic left. As a matter of pragmatic political (and in some cases, literal) survival, Muslims flocked to the liberal political parties of Canada and the United States. These left-wing institutions gave Muslims the best chance to survive against anti-Muslim forces largely represented by the conservative right. But embracing the left meant accepting an entire package of causes, some of which aligned ideologically with Islamic ethics (such as combatting racism), while others did not (such as the legalisation of certain drugs).

Many Muslims began approaching politics not as a tool but as an ideology. They felt motivated to resolve the cognitive dissonance between their political commitments and their religious beliefs, even if it meant radically reinterpreting the faith to allow for such accommodation.

Some progressives who identified with Islam began claiming, for the first time in our 14 centuries of scholarship, that the Quran has been misunderstood and that in its correct interpretation, it endorses alternative sexual lifestyles and sanctions same-sex marriages.

To be clear, Islamic law differentiates between a desire, which is in itself not sinful, and the deed, which could be a sin. Those struggling with same-sex desires but wishing to abide by Islamic law are our full brethren in faith and deserve all the love and rights of believers. They stand in contrast to those who flout Islamic law and take pride in disobedience. Muslim politicians and influencers, in particular, should be careful not to make religious claims on behalf of our faith.

In an authentic narration, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says: “believer is not bitten from the same hole twice”. Muslims who are rightly indignant about the moral decay sweeping our society in the name of inclusivity ought to be cautious not to be a pendulum that swings from one extreme to another.

Our politics is not our ideology and our ideology is neither left nor right. Our ideology is centred in our unshakeable faith, grounded in our immutable creed, and firmly rooted in the timeless words of God and the teachings of His final Messenger. We are a “Middle Nation” and, as the Quran says (2:143), our role is to be moral exemplars for mankind.

Yasir Qadhi Dean of The Islamic Seminary of America and Resident Scholar of East Plano Islamic Center

Source: Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots

Egypt Spars With Dutch Museum Over Ancient History

Of interest, cultural appropriation dispute and the complexities of history and identities.

I remember I once made the mistake of telling an Egyptian diplomat that I found Egypt and Iran both the most sophisticated societies in the Mid-East, intending it as a compliment (I have lived in both) and she was horrified by the comparison:

A new Dutch museum exhibit declares, “Egypt is a part of Africa,” which might strike most people who have seen a map of the world as an uncontroversial statement.

But the show at the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden goes beyond geography. It explores the tradition of Black musicians — Beyoncé, Tina Turner, Nas and others — drawing inspiration and pride from the idea that ancient Egypt was an African culture. The exhibit is framed as a useful corrective to centuries of cultural erasure of Africans.

What might sound empowering in the United States and thought-provoking in the Netherlands, however, is anathema to Egypt’s government and many of its people, who have flooded the museum’s Facebook and Google pages with complaints — occasionally racist ones — about what they see as Western appropriation of their history.

Many Egyptians do not see themselves as African at all, identifying much more closely with the predominantly Arab and Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa, and many look down on darker-skinned Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans. And some feel that it is their culture and history that are being erased in the Western quest to correct historical racism.

The exhibit “attacks Egyptians’ civilization and heritage” and “distorts Egyptian identity,” a member of Parliament, Ahmed Belal, said in a speech on May 2, soon after the exhibit opened and around the time similar fireworks erupted over a Netflix docudrama portraying the ancient Greek-Egyptian queen Cleopatra as Black.

Within weeks, perhaps aware of the appeal to its nationalist supporters, Egypt’s government acted. The authority that oversees all things ancient Egypt informed the Leiden museum’s team of archaeologists, including the show’s half-Egyptian curator, that they could no longer excavate in Egypt. Until then, Dutch Egyptologists had been working in the ancient tombs of Sakkara since 1975.

“If you don’t respect our culture or our heritage, then we will not cooperate with you until you do,” said Abdul Rahim Rihan, an Egyptian archaeologist who leads a group called the Campaign to Defend Egyptian Civilization.

Suggestions that ancient Egypt is a cultural ancestor of modern-day Black people are central to some forms of Afrocentrism, a cultural and political movement that arose to push back against often racist, colonialist ideas about supposed inferiority of African civilizations to European ones. Black people, in this telling, could be proud of their roots in the ancient kingdom that built some of the world’s greatest splendors.

But for Egyptians, it all adds up to a wounded sense that, just as Westerners plundered antiquities like the Rosetta Stone from Egypt and hogged the credit for discovering them in centuries past, they are once again seizing control of ancient Egypt from Egyptians themselves.

The museum exhibit, “Kemet: Egypt in Hip-Hop, Jazz, Soul & Funk,” looks at how Afrocentrism has played out in music. Beyoncé and Rihanna have adorned themselves as Nefertiti, the ancient queen of Egypt; Nina Simone said she believed she was Nefertiti reincarnate; and Ms. Turner once sang about being Queen Hatshepsut — an ancient Egyptian pharaoh — in a past life.

The cover art for Nas’s 1999 album “I Am …” sculpts his features into King Tutankhamen’s famous golden mask. Miles Davis, Prince and Erykah Badu have all borrowed inspiration from the pharaohs for lyrics, jewelry and more.

“Kemet,” the ancient Egyptians’ word for their country, even commissioned an audio tour in Dutch, English and Arabic narrated by Typhoon, a Dutch rapper, as well as a new song by the Dutch rapper Nnelg about his connection to ancient Egypt.

Typhoon acknowledges on the tour that the musicians’ perspectives are “not the only way to think about ancient Egypt,” but he goes on to present the exhibit nonetheless as a correction of history.

“Although television programs and films in the Netherlands and in the U.S. often project only a certain image of Egypt to the public, dark-skinned people lived there as well, both in the past and the present,” he says.

The show, whose curator, Daniel Soliman, is half-Egyptian, appended a statement to the exhibit’s description online in response to the “commotion” on social media. It said it was seeking to explain “why ancient Egypt is important to these artists and musicians and from which cultural and intellectual movements the music emerged.”

Representatives for the museum declined to comment beyond the statement. But those defending the show have pointed out that most of the critics have not visited it.

For Egyptians, just how touchy this subject is became clear during the controversy over Netflix’s “Queen Cleopatra” series, when an Egyptian lawyer called for banning the streaming service in Egypt and the government dismissed the show as a “falsification of Egyptian history.”

Part of their anger may also stem from colorism: Some Egyptians tend to identify light skin with the elite, perhaps the result of age-old beauty standards that prize light skin and of centuries of rule by lighter-skinned conquerors from Europe and Turkey.

Egyptians’ fury centers in part on one Afrocentrist idea, by no means embraced by all who subscribe to Afrocentrism, that the Arabs who invaded Egypt in the seventh century displaced the true African Egyptians.

“This is an attack on the Egyptian identity,” said Dr. Rihan, the Egyptian archaeologist. “It’s not about skin color,” he added. When you say things like that,” he said, “you’re taking the Egyptians out of their own history, against all evidence.”

Dr. Soliman began working on excavations in Egypt as a student before joining the museum. He is one of the leaders of the museum-affiliated team that normally spends weeks each year in the village of Sakkara, just south of Cairo, excavating tombs of the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis.

Unlike European- or American-led archaeological digs of the past — witness the photographs of Howard Carter’s famous discovery of King Tut’s tomb — the Leiden archaeological team is careful to highlight the contributions of Egyptian workers, featuring them prominently in photographs and online diaries about each season’s excavations. Those efforts are in keeping with a growing trend in Egyptology toward giving Egyptians, once overlooked in the study of their own country’s history, more prominence in the field.

But that mattered little after word of Dr. Soliman’s exhibit spread.

The Dutch museum appeared slightly stunned by the tone of the social media criticism, noting that, while it welcomed “respectful dialogue,” racist or offensive comments would be removed.

Scholars tend to study ancient Egypt as a part of the Mediterranean world, with cultural and political links to Greece and Rome, as well as with Nubia, which roughly coincides with modern-day Sudan.

Though there is no scientific consensus on ancient Egyptians’ appearance or ethnic ancestry, many classicists say it is inappropriate to talk about race in that era at all, given that the ancients did not classify people as we do now.

Modern-day Egyptians, like the dialect they speak, descend from a family tree of many branches. Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks and Albanians all conquered Egypt centuries ago. Circassians arrived as slaves, Levantine Arabs and Western Europeans as businesspeople. Nubians still live in southern Egypt.

But it is Islam and the Arabic language that predominate now, uniting Egypt with the mostly Arab and Muslim Middle East and North Africa rather than with the rest of the continent it sits on.

“Egypt is in a category of its own,” said David Abulafia, a Cambridge University historian who studies the ancient world. “With the lumping of everyone together, nuance has often been lost in the way African history is presented, as a bloc.”

But for Typhoon, the Dutch rapper, Egyptian exceptionalism feeds on discredited European theories that were “used to determine which ancient cultures were deemed important and thus couldn’t belong to Africa,” he says in the audio tour.

Such theories, he says, “separated ancient Egypt from its African context.”

Source: Egypt Spars With Dutch Museum Over Ancient History