Australian deputy prime minister under citizenship cloud – ABC News

2017/08/15 Leave a comment

A more sensible approach would be to revise the law given the number of representatives from all parties that have been found in violation despite having lived in Australia for all their lives or close to it and not having meaningful connections to other countries:

Australia’s deputy prime minister on Monday became the latest lawmaker to reveal he might have breached a constitutional prohibition on dual citizens becoming lawmakers, after the New Zealand government declared he was a kiwi.

Barnaby Joyce told Parliament he would become the fifth lawmaker to be referred to the High Court since last month for scrutiny over whether he was entitled to remain in Parliament.

Joyce, who leads the conservative Nationals minor coalition party, said he had legal advice that he would be cleared by the court and would not stand down from Cabinet.

The 116-year-old section of the constitution that bans dual nationals is taking an extraordinary toll on the finely balanced Parliament elected in July last year. Before the careers of five came under a cloud since July, only two elected lawmakers were caught. Both were elected in the late 1990s and were quickly disqualified by the High Court, the first over New Zealand citizenship and the second for being British.

Critics of the constitutional rule argue it no longer suits the modern multicultural Australia in which almost half the population was born overseas or has at least one overseas-born parent.

If Joyce was disqualified, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s center-right government could lose its single-seat majority in the House of Representatives where parties need a majority to govern. The other four lawmakers are senators who if disqualified would be replaced by members of their own parties.

Joyce said he was notified by the New Zealand High Commission on Thursday that the New Zealand government had discovered “I may be a citizen by descent of New Zealand.”

“Needless to say, I was shocked to receive this information,” said Joyce, whose father migrated from New Zealand in 1947. Joyce was born in Australia in 1967.

New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English said he was told last week that Joyce was a New Zealand citizen.

“Unwittingly or not, he’s (Joyce) a New Zealand citizen and then it’s a matter for the Australian system to decide how Australian law applies in his case and how they deal with the issue,” English said.

The Australian opposition demanded that the government refuse to accept Joyce’s vote in Parliament and dump him from Cabinet until the court resolved his status. But Turnbull said he was confident that Joyce was eligible to sit in Parliament.

“We did not refer this matter to the court because of any doubt about the Member for New England’s (Joyce’s) position, but because of the need, plainly in the public interest, to give the court the opportunity to clarify the operation of the section (of the constitution) so important to the operation of our Parliament,” Turnbull told Parliament.

Source: Australian deputy prime minister under citizenship cloud – ABC News

Filed under Citizenship, Dual Citizenship Tagged with

Demandeurs d’asile: la communauté haïtienne ébranlée

2017/08/15 Leave a comment

Activists (and opposition members) always complain that not enough being done with limited recognition of the operational challenges involved. But that is the role they play in society:

Pourquoi avoir utilisé le Stade olympique ? Pourquoi des tentes ? Les gouvernements canadien et québécois n’auraient-ils pas pu faire mieux ?

Pour des Haïtiens réunis en colloque hier à Montréal-Nord à l’initiative de jeunes leaders de leur communauté, l’arrivée importante de migrants a été très mal gérée et la réaction gouvernementale, choquante.

« L’idée d’utiliser le Stade olympique a donné l’impression que le Québec était sous le coup d’une invasion », a dénoncé hier Frantz André, porte-parole du Comité d’action des personnes sans statut.

M. André, qui s’est rendu à Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, dit avoir été tout aussi choqué par toutes ces tentes qui ne font que replonger les Haïtiens « dans le traumatisme du tremblement de terre de 2010 ».

Amir Khadir, député de Québec solidaire, était présent au colloque. Lui non plus ne comprend pas que l’accueil des migrants soit aussi chaotique. « Nous avons de multiples édifices publics qui pourraient les héberger, notamment des hôpitaux vides. Je ne comprends pas qu’on n’ait pas recours à ces bâtiments et qu’on laisse les migrants à la frontière, dans des tentes, loin de la communauté qui est toute prête à offrir son soutien. »

À son avis, les gouvernements doivent envoyer des messages sans équivoque, « sans gêne et avec diligence », et démontrer qu’ils ne plient pas devant le ressentiment de certains.

Sacha-Wilky Merazil, qui s’est exprimé à titre de citoyen, a fait un vibrant plaidoyer pour les migrants « qui ont tout laissé dans l’espoir d’une vie meilleure. Ces gens ne s’attendent pas à une faveur, mais à ce qu’on les accueille dignement ».

FAUSSES RUMEURS ET COMMENTAIRES HAINEUX

Au micro, de nombreux intervenants ont corrigé certaines fausses perceptions, rappelant notamment que le fait que Montréal ait le statut de « ville sanctuaire » a été mal interprété.

La réalité, a dit Daphney Laraque, c’est que ce statut donne essentiellement aux migrants la possibilité d’avoir recours à certains services publics, d’envoyer leurs enfants à l’école, par exemple.

« Ça ne veut pas dire qu’on y est accueilli sans restriction. Ceux qui arrivent ici risquent tout aussi bien d’être arrêtés et expulsés. »

Mme Laracque a ensuite rappelé que chaque dossier est analysé à la lumière des règles en vigueur.

Les fausses rumeurs de toutes parts ont donc donné l’illusion aux uns que le Canada accueillait chacun à bras ouverts, et aux autres que le pays était une passoire, ce qui a valu à la communauté haïtienne son lot de commentaires haineux.

« Le racisme exprimé à l’égard de la communauté haïtienne sur les réseaux sociaux est inacceptable, a dit en entrevue Émilie Nicolas. Ce racisme témoigne certes du fait que la droite anti-immigration est de plus en plus organisée au Québec. Heureusement, beaucoup de Québécois prennent la peine de dire haut et fort qu’ils sont opposés à ce discours et ça, c’est important. »

Source: Demandeurs d’asile: la communauté haïtienne ébranlée | Louise Leduc | Actualités

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

I’m a White Man. Hear Me Out. – Bruni, The New York Times

2017/08/14 Leave a comment

Good thoughtful piece by Frank Bruni on the risks of a reductionist approach to identity to inclusion and integration:

Mark Lilla, a Columbia University professor, got a big, bitter taste of this late last year when he wrote, in The Times, about the presidential election and “identity politics,” which, he argued, had hurt the Democratic Party. He maintained that too intense a focus on each minority group’s discrete persecution comes at the expense of a larger, unifying vision.

Many people disagreed. Good. But what too many took issue with was, well, his identity. “White men: stop telling me about my experiences!” someone later scrawled on a poster that was put up to advertise a talk, “Identity Is Not Politics,” that he gave at Wellesley College.

“But I wasn’t talking about their experience or my experience,” Lilla pointed out when I spoke with him recently. “I was talking about an issue.”

In a new book coming out this week, “The Once and Future Liberal,” he asserts that “classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. This makes perfect sense if you believe that identity determines everything. It means that there is no impartial space for dialogue. White men have one ‘epistemology,’ black women have another. So what remains to be said?”

And where are the bridges?

Race, gender, sexual orientation, class: All of this informs — and very often warps — how we see the world. And for much too long, this country’s narrative has been scripted by white men, who have also dominated its stage and made its rules. Our advantage, as a class, is real and unearned.

The “check your privilege” exhortation asks us, rightly, to recognize that. It’s about “being aware of systemic injustice and systemic inequality,” Phoebe Maltz Bovy, the author of the recently published book “The Perils of ‘Privilege,’ ” told me. And she applauds that.

But she worries that awareness disclaimers and privilege apologies have ferried us to a silly, self-involved realm of oppression Olympics. They promote the idea that people occupying different rungs of privilege or victimization can’t possibly grasp life elsewhere on the ladder.

In her book she mocks the inevitable juncture in a certain kind of essay “where the writer (probably a cis White Lady, probably straight or bisexual, probably living in Brooklyn, definitely well educated, but not necessarily well-off) interrupts the usually scheduled programming to duly note that the issues she’s describing may not apply to a trans woman in Papua New Guinea.”

Should we really have say and sway only over matters that neatly dovetail with the category that we’ve been assigned (or assigned ourselves)? Is that the limit of our insights and empathies? During the Democratic primary, a Hillary Clinton supporter I know was told that he could not credibly defend her against charges of racism for her past use of the word “superpredators” because he’s white.

That kind of thinking fosters estrangement instead of connection. Lilla noted that what people in a given victim group sometimes seem to be saying is: “You must understand my experience, and you can’t understand my experience.”

“They argue both, so people shrug their shoulders and walk away,” he said.

Across a range of American institutions, we need more diversity. We need it to expunge and guard against the injustice that Bovy mentioned, and we need it because it’s indeed a portal to broader knowledge and greater enlightenment. That means that white people — men in particular, even Google engineers — must make room in that narrative and space on that stage.

But I question the wisdom of turning categories into credentials when it comes to politics and public debate. I reject the assumptions — otherwise known as prejudices — that certain life circumstances prohibit sensitivity and sound judgment while other conditions guarantee them. That appraises the packaging more than it does the content. It ignores the complexity of people. It’s reductive.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, the author of the memoir “Losing My Cool: Love, Literature, and a Black Man’s Escape From the Crowd,” got at this in an essay about privilege that he published last year, writing: “My black father, born in 1937 in segregated Texas, is an exponentially more worldly man than my maternal white Protestant grandfather, whose racism always struck me more as a sad function of his provincialism or powerlessness than anything else. I don’t mean to excuse the corrosive effects of his view; I simply wish to note that when I compare these two men, I do not recognize my father as the victim.”

At the beginning of this column I shared the sorts of personal details that register most strongly with those Americans who tuck each of us into some hierarchy of blessedness and affliction. So you know some important things about me, but not the most important ones: how I responded to the random challenges on my path, who I met along the way, what I learned from them, the degree of curiosity I mustered and the values that I honed as a result.

Those construct my character, and shape my voice, to be embraced or dismissed on its own merits. My gayness no more redeems me than my whiteness disqualifies me. And neither, I hope, defines me.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Douglas Todd: Canada struggling to ‘absorb’ immigrants, report says

2017/08/14 Leave a comment

Good account by Douglas Todd on one of the more thoughtful CIC policy decks  (possibly part of pre-2015 election transition planning given the date of June 2014). Lexbase was kind enough to provide me with a copy.

While some of the issues identified – housing, healthcare, public transit – affect both immigrants and non-immigrants, the deck provides a good overview of the main issues, identifies data gaps particularly at the local and municipal level and proposes an absorptive capacity index to help inform future levels planning (unclear whether this is being pursued):

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials are digesting a significant report that defines absorptive capacity as “a two-way process that encourages adjustment on the part of both the newcomer and the receiving society.”

Indeed, the internal report, obtained under an access to information request, shows that immigration analysts are worried that the “absorptive capacity” of Canada is going down.

“Declining outcomes of recent immigrants have shown that integration is not automatic,” says the report, which surveys emerging problems with immigration flows and the pressure it’s putting on Canadian sectors.

While some Canadians behave as if it’s xenophobic to question immigration policy, immigration rates and their results, the sweeping in-house government report, titled Evidence-Based Levels and Mix: Absorptive Capacity, does exactly that.

The report, obtained by Vancouver lawyer Richard Kurland, shows integration of immigrants into Canada, despite relative success here compared to most countries, is faltering ­– in regards to housing, jobs, health care, education, religious tensions, ethnic enclaves and transit.

With Canada now accepting 300,000 immigrants a year, in addition to accommodating 700,000 international students and temporary foreign workers, the 2014 report, which has no listed author, recognizes real problems. It wants policy makers to adapt.

Assimilation has been largely superseded by the word “integration” [always has been integration].And now Canadian government immigration officials are talking about a new concept: “absorptive capacity.”

Some pivotal points:

Immigrants are struggling with housing
Like millions of Canadian-born residents, immigrants are battling to afford adequate housing, especially in major cities. They face particular barriers because of their larger household sizes.

Many immigrants, however, do well in housing after a decade, though with risk.

Immigrant “home ownership rates rise significantly with time spent in Canada and surpass that of the native-born after 10 years in Canada, (but) newcomers tend to risk more capital and spend more of their income on housing costs, making them more vulnerable to market fluctuations.”

Language gaps are expanding

Despite language requirements for immigrants and the availability of free language classes in Canada, many may not be learning English or French nor passing it onto their young children.

The study found that in one large school district in Metro Toronto [Peel], three out of 10 children needing ESL training were born in Canada.

Language limitations also create obstacles in Canadian workplaces. “Skilled immigrants face labor market integration challenges such as limited language proficiency.”

Immigrants have difficulties getting health care

“Waiting for care is the number one barrier to access, although this problem is not specific to the immigrant community, as Canadians also mention long wait times as a critical problem,” says the report.

Immigrants are not dispersing across the country

Two out of three immigrants move to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

That means immigrants are almost 2.5 times more concentrated in Canada’s three largest cities than is the total population (only 27 per cent of whom live in these cities).

Despite a phrase often heard in discussion of immigration — “Canada is a large country” — the study makes clear “absorptive capacity” is being tested almost entirely in our large cities. And virtually no city-by-city data exists on how that’s working out.

Ethnic enclaves are expanding

There is a strong tendency for newcomers to settle with members of their own ethnicity in the core of cities and, more recently, their suburbs.

“Residential concentrations of newcomers is a growing concern,” the report says, suggesting self-chosen ethnic isolation can create further barriers to full integration. [Todd somewhat overstates the deck’s observations as the analysis is more nuanced.]

Tensions exist over religious differences

“Religious and cultural accommodation continues to be an issue regarding practices that are deemed in conflict with Canada’s institutions,” the report says, naming “forced marriages” and “family violence issues.” [may reflect the then Conservative government focus as these are not accommodation but criminal issues – more common ones being related to religious accommodation such as worship space, food requirements etc].

Transit hassles abound for immigrants

With Metro Vancouver residents debating whether to build a bridge or tunnel on the south arm of the Fraser River, the report shows public transit is a much bigger worry for Canada’s urban and suburban immigrants.

Although transit hassles are significant for all residents of cities such as Metro Vancouver, they’re worse in the suburbs, where many immigrants are moving.

“Recent immigrants are twice as likely to use public transit as their Canadian-born counterparts.”

What’s the way forward?

Despite trying to be frank about Canada’s immigration difficulties, the report notes the country is recognized as “a world leader in creating an environment than enables newcomers to settle and become active, productive and connected citizens.”

Canada is ranked third out of the 31 countries that welcome immigrants. The Migration Integration Policy Index rates only Sweden and Portugal as doing better at absorbing newcomers.

For obvious reasons, the index doesn’t bother comparing Canada to the majority of the world’s countries, like most of those in Africa and Asia, which either deny entry to any immigrants or allow in a trivial number.

Despite Canada’s strong ranking, the Immigration department’s report notes another disturbing finding, which could have long-term repercussions.

Second-generation visible minority immigrants, compared to first-generation immigrants, are more likely to “perceive” they’ve been subject to discrimination.

Poll results suggesting 43 per cent of Canada’s second-generation visible minority citizens are convinced they’re being treated unfairly may point to an expanding crack in the dream of cultural integration.

As for coming up with better policies, the report makes it clear Immigration officials are often in a fog about the overall effects of large-scale immigration on Canada, not to mention the impact of international students and temporary foreign workers.

There is “no comprehensive stock-taking on how Canadian institutions and cities are adapting” to immigrants and other foreign nationals, says the report. The knowledge vacuum exists across housing, health care, the regional job market, transit and more.

Source: Douglas Todd: Canada struggling to ‘absorb’ immigrants, report says | Vancouver Sun

Filed under Immigration, Integration Tagged with ,

Maher: If You’re Coming To The Melting Pot, “Melt A Little”; Dem Policy Seen As ‘Come One, Come All’ | RealClearPolitics

2017/08/14 Leave a comment

While not a fan of some of Maher’s blind spots on religion and Muslims, this line captures the concept of integration (mutual partial melting) in contrast to assimilation (completely newcomer melting):

“One of the first things I said on my old show (ABC’s Politically Incorrect) is if you’re going to come to the melting pot, melt a little bit. You’ve got to melt a little,” Maher said.

Of course, the definition of what ‘melt a little’ means is where the public debates occur.

Source: Maher: If You’re Coming To The Melting Pot, “Melt A Little”; Dem Policy Seen As ‘Come One, Come All’ | Video | RealClearPolitics

Filed under Multiculturalism

Langevin Renaming: Memo raises doubts about who was ‘architect’ of residential schools

2017/08/14 Leave a comment

Good analysis and advice by the public service, with apparent overly hasty political symbolism by government:

Federal officials raised doubts about accusations Hector-Louis Langevin was an architect of the residential school system four months before his name was ignominiously stripped from the prime minister’s building, as the Liberal government acceded to complaints from Indigenous groups.

An internal briefing note says Langevin had a “complex” relationship with Canada’s Indigenous peoples and even tried to spare the life of Métis leader Louis Riel, who was hanged in 1885 for leading a rebellion in Western Canada.

The Feb. 27 memo for Public Services Minister Judy Foote reveals the government grappling with a troublesome tangle of historical accuracy, Indigenous grievances over the tragedy of residential schools, and the symbolic significance of public building names.

Langevin

Hector-Louis Langevin, a Father of Confederation, was a prominent member of John A. Macdonald’s cabinet. In 1883, as public works minister, he allocated $43,000 for the construction of three schools for Indigenous boys, linking him to the residential school system. (Library and Archives Canada)

“While he has been referred to in the media as an architect of the Indian residential school system, a historian at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada indicates that his relationship with Indigenous peoples is more complex,” says the memo, obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act.

“Various histories and academic articles written on residential schools make no mention of his role or impact in the development or execution of the residential schools policy.”

“Moreover, during the 1885 Northwest Rebellion and the subsequent trial of Louis Riel, he attempted to intercede with the prime minister for Riel’s clemency and the commutation of his sentence.”

The memo, signed by deputy minister Marie Lemay, was triggered after National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations wrote to Foote asking that the Langevin Block, the building at 80 Wellington St. in downtown Ottawa that houses the Prime Minister’s Office, be renamed.

4 Indigenous MPs seek removal

Bellegarde’s Feb. 6 letter said that “key architects of the devastating Indian residential school system include prominent leaders of the past such as Hector Langevin.”

Ten days later, four Indigenous MPs also wrote to Foote, pressing for the removal of the name because “Langevin was also the creator of residential schools.”

“We do not believe this way of thinking should be celebrated by naming a building after Langevin,” said the letter, signed by the NDP’s Georgina Jolibois, Liberal Don Rusnak, the NDP’s Roméo Saganash and Hunter Tootoo, formerly a Liberal and now an Independent.

The memo to Foote suggested preserving the name of Langevin on the building, but adding a plaque about his contributions to Canada “while also highlighting the contested aspects of his legacy.”

‘It is reasonable to anticipate opposition.’— Memo from deputy pubic services minister

Lemay also said the name could be changed to that of an Indigenous person, a non-Indigenous person, a place or an event in Canada’s past.

“It is reasonable to anticipate opposition from those who wish to preserve the commemoration of the name and contributions of Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, as well as support from those who want the name changed, including Indigenous groups,” she wrote.

Government officials declined to release to CBC News material from the historian at Indigenous Affairs who is cited in the memo as unable to find evidence of any role Langevin played in establishing residential schools.

Source: Memo raises doubts about who was ‘architect’ of residential schools – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Aboriginal Tagged with

Une version « décolonisée » de l’histoire – Including Indigenous history and culture

2017/08/14 Leave a comment

Interesting and thoughtful approach to increasing awareness and understanding of Indigenous peoples:

Où étaient les autochtones avant l’arrivée des Européens ? Comment vivent-ils aujourd’hui  ? Connaissez-vous des artistes autochtones ?

Ce sont des questions auxquelles les élèves du collège John Abbott sont désormais confrontés. Depuis un an, un groupe de sept enseignants de ce cégep anglophone de Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue a entrepris un projet visant à « décoloniser » son programme.

« La décolonisation consiste à défaire les effets de la colonisation, désapprendre la pensée dominante colonialiste, inclure du contenu autochtone dans le curriculum, en apprendre davantage sur eux et reconnaître leur contribution dans la société », résume Debbie Lunny, enseignante en philosophie qui a dirigé le projet.

L’initiative a commencé de façon informelle. Les sept enseignants se sont rassemblés pour échanger des lectures et parler de différentes manières de décoloniser l’éducation au cégep. Par la suite, ils ont consulté des élèves et des experts autochtones pour connaître leur avis. Le projet était lancé.

« Dans le domaine de l’enseignement, la décolonisation consiste à questionner les relations de pouvoir, les hypothèses eurocentriques qui privilégient les perspectives eurocanadiennes. »

Dans ses cours, Debbie Lunny demande à ses élèves de nommer leur chanteur autochtone préféré, leur personnage de télévision autochtone préféré, leur auteur autochtone préféré. La plupart d’entre eux remettent une page blanche.

« On invite les élèves à réfléchir à travers des questions. Ce n’est pas que ces artistes n’existent pas, c’est qu’ils sont marginalisés des médias et de la société canadienne », estime l’enseignante.

UNE MEILLEURE COMPRÉHENSION

Lizzie Tukai est une élève inuite qui vient d’Inukjuak, au Nunavik. Elle vient d’obtenir son diplôme en sciences sociales à John Abbott. Pour elle, la mise en place de la décolonisation dans les cours permet aux élèves de mieux comprendre la réalité des autochtones. « Il y a souvent des gens qui sont mal informés, dit-elle. Ça cause des préjugés. »

Pour Lizzie, 41 ans, cette initiative est une occasion de réconciliation entre les autochtones et les allochtones.

« Lorsqu’on révèle la vérité de l’histoire, cela redonne du pouvoir à toutes les parties impliquées. »

« Ils nous ont appris l’histoire telle qu’elle s’est produite, révélé des choses qui étaient cachées, nous en ont appris davantage sur l’histoire des autochtones », dit-elle à propos de ses enseignants.

Les instigateurs du projet tâchent d’inclure dans la matière qu’ils enseignent des éléments des cultures autochtones. « Les autochtones ont besoin de trouver leur sens de soi, ils ont besoin de passer à travers la valorisation au lieu de l’humiliation », estime Jimena Marquez, enseignante en anthropologie qui fait partie de l’initiative. D’ailleurs, elle commence ses cours en reconnaissant la valeur de la chasse et de la lecture des étoiles, des valeurs importantes pour ces peuples.

UNE INITIATIVE À RÉPÉTER ?

Le cabinet de la ministre de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur, Hélène David, estime que l’initiative du cégep John Abbott est une bonne façon d’encourager les élèves des Premières Nations à se sentir inclus dans le système scolaire. Toutefois, aucune réponse n’a été fournie par le Ministère quant à l’application de mesures décolonialistes dans l’ensemble des établissements scolaires québécois.

Source: Une version « décolonisée » de l’histoire – La Presse+

Filed under Aboriginal Tagged with ,

Will Haitians force Trudeau into being hard-hearted? Andrew MacDougall

2017/08/12 Leave a comment

I always find MacDougalls’ (former Harper PMO Director of Communications) commentary valuable and thoughtful given his conservative perspective is expressed and argued in a largely non-partisan manner (in contrast to some former CPC staffers such as Candice Malcolm and Mark Bonokoski in Sun media).

This piece is no exception:

It’s summertime, and the border crossing is easy.

What was once a slow trickle of bodies from the United States to Canada threatens to become a steady flow. And instead of Muslims fleeing the imprecise scope of Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” across the Manitoba border, it’s now worried Haitians who form the majority of those seeking sanctuary this summer in Quebec.

Why Haitians? Why now?

Essentially, those who fled Haiti in the wake of the devastating 2010 earthquake have been spooked by a change to their status in the United States under the Trump administration. And so they’re fleeing again. But it’s to a place where a similar change has already been made; Canada sends its failed Haitian claimants back to Haiti.

The particulars don’t matter; the Haitians are here, and more are coming because they think Canada is a soft mark. The Big O(we) in downtown Montreal is even being converted to a shelter for their arrival. And if they come in stadium-sized numbers it means a hard choice is coming for Justin Trudeau.

And it’s a choice (somewhat) of the prime minister’s own making.

When President Donald Trump unveiled his inaugural “Muslim ban” Trudeau responded with a tweet declaring: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength. #WelcometoCanada.”

It got great headlines at the time, and isn’t strictly applicable to the Haitians now coming, but what Trudeau is now finding out is that tacking on a sieve or a barrier to the sentiment expressed in that tweet is hard to do, especially when your political brand is basically that of the world’s saviour.

The Haitians in question aren’t fleeing persecution, terror, or war; they’d mostly rather not go back to Haiti. And every place they occupy in our asylum system is one less for those who are genuinely suffering.

Trudeau, for now, is holding firm. “Canada is a country that understands that immigration, welcoming refugees, is a source of strength for our communities,” Trudeau repeated last week. He also added, “protecting Canadians’ confidence in the integrity of our system allows us to continue to be open.”

The second half of the prime minister’s statement was, in Liberal eyes, butt-covering. But for a lot of Canadians, including the opposition Conservatives, it’s the operative half of the equation.

And right now that half is showing signs of severe strain.

A recent memo on the state of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) released under access-to-information highlights a massive backlog of claims and a system starved of needed resource.

The Trudeau government will either need to increase funding massively, turn down more people at the border, or — more likely — some combination of both to maintain “confidence in the integrity of our system.”

Doing so will be a tricky proposition for a government that has carefully cultivated its tolerant political brand. Any tightening of Canada’s policy under Trudeau could be seen as betrayal, no matter how justified it might be.

Fortunately, for Trudeau’s image anyway, there are no good policy options to stem the flow, at least not with a recalcitrant President Trump in the White House. Canada cannot do a rewrite of the laws on its own, and closing the loophole that allows the current arrivals would only force more people to official border posts, where dealing with migrants is even more difficult politically.

This situation would then seem to favour more cash to the refugee system, but no such funding was included in the most recent federal budget. The Trudeau government has instead opted for a “wide-ranging” review of the system, with a report due in the summer of 2018.

It appears, then, the Trudeau government is hoping to ride out the current situation, hoping the word eventually gets back to the tens of thousands of Haitians in the United States that things really are no better in Canada and that they should stay where they are. Then again, a years-long backlog for processing might still be the better alternative.

For their part, the Conservatives would do well to suggest a fix in addition to keeping up pressure on the government to act.

Who knows? Coming up with a helpful solution could help redeem Tories in the eyes of voters who might not trust them on these and other matters.

Source: Will Haitians force Trudeau into being hard-hearted? | Toronto Star

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

We’ve studied gender and STEM for 25 years. The science doesn’t support the Google memo. – Recode

2017/08/12 Leave a comment

Of all the commentary written about Google’s firing of James Damore, this long read and assessment of the science and evidence appears to me the most comprehensive and convincing one given the range of studies cited.

Most of the op-ed type commentaries – Jon Kay’s The Google Manifesto contained truths that we can’t say, Debra Soh’s No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science, David Brooks’ somewhat hysterical Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O. – tend to be overly simplistic and selective in their presentation of the issues involved.

I am also less than convinced by free speech arguments, perhaps reflecting my time in government where it was clear that any public comment should not undermine, or appear to undermine, the government. While the rules may not be so ironclad in other organizations, employees in all organizations need to be mindful of the impact of their public commentary on the overall reputation, image and policies of their employer.

For the account of the Google board deliberations, see How CEO Sundar Pichai made the decision to fire James Damore was just as hard as Google’s all-hands meeting today will be which highlights the superficialiity of Brook’s piece in particular:

James Damore, 28, questioned the company’s diversity policies and claimed that scientific data backed up his assertions. Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote that Damore’s 3,300-word manifesto crossed the line by “advancing harmful gender stereotypes” in the workplace. Pichai noted that “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Damore argued that many men in the company agreed with his sentiments. That’s not surprising, since the idea that women just can’t hack it in math and science has been around for a very long time. It has been argued that women’s lack of a “math gene,” their brain structures, and their inherent psychological traits put most of them out of the game.

Some critics sided with Damore. For example, columnist Ross Douthat of The New York Times found his scientific arguments intriguing.

But are they? What are the real facts? We have been researching issues of gender and STEM (science, technology engineering and math) for more than 25 years. We can say flatly that there is no evidence that women’s biology makes them incapable of performing at the highest levels in any STEM fields.

Many reputable scientific authorities have weighed in on this question, including a major paper in the journal Science debunking the idea that the brains of males and females are so different that they should be educated in single-sex classrooms. The paper was written by eight prominent neuroscientists, headed by professor Diane Halpern of Claremont McKenna College, past president of the American Psychological Association. They argue that “There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students’ academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.”

They add, “Neuroscientists have found few sex differences in children’s brains beyond the larger volume of boys’ brains and the earlier completion of girls’ brain growth, neither of which is known to relate to learning.”

Several major books have debunked the idea of important brain differences between the sexes. Lise Eliot, associate professor in the Department of Neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School, did an exhaustive review of the scientific literature on human brains from birth to adolescence. She concluded, in her book, “Pink Brain, Blue Brain,” that there is “surprisingly little solid evidence of sex differences in children’s brains.”

Rebecca Jordan-Young, a sociomedical scientist and professor at Barnard College, also rejects the notion that there are pink and blue brains, and that the differing organization of female and male brains is the key to behavior. In her book “Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences,” she says that this narrative misunderstands the complexities of biology and the dynamic nature of brain development.

And happily, the widely held belief that boys are naturally better than girls at math and science is unraveling among serious scientists. Evidence is mounting that girls are every bit as competent as boys in these areas. Psychology professor Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin–Madison has strong U. S. data showing no meaningful differences in math performance among more than seven million boys and girls in grades 2 through 12.

Also, several large-scale international testing programs find girls closing the gender gap in math, and in some cases outscoring the boys. Clearly, this huge improvement over a fairly short time period argues against biological explanations.

Much of the data that Damore provides in his memo is suspect, outdated or has other problems.

In his July memo, titled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion,” Damore wrote that women on average have more “openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas.” And he stated that women are more inclined to have an interest in “people rather than things, relative to men.”

Damore cites the work of Simon Baron-Cohen, who argues in his widely reviewed book “The Essential Difference” that boys are biologically programmed to focus on objects, predisposing them to math and understanding systems, while girls are programmed to focus on people and feelings. The British psychologist claims that the male brain is the “systematizing brain” while the female brain is the “empathizing” brain.

This idea was based on a study of day-old babies, which found that the boys looked at mobiles longer and the girls looked at faces longer. Male brains, Baron-Cohen says, are ideally suited for leadership and power. They are hardwired for mastery of hunting and tracking, trading, achieving and maintaining power, gaining expertise, tolerating solitude, using aggression and taking on leadership roles.

The female brain, on he other hand, is specialized for making friends, mothering, gossip and “reading” a partner. Girls and women are so focused on others, he says, that they have little interest in figuring out how the world works.

But Baron-Cohen’s study had major problems. It was an “outlier” study. No one else has replicated these findings, including Baron-Cohen himself. It is so flawed as to be almost meaningless. Why?

The experiment lacked crucial controls against experimenter bias, and was badly designed. Female and male infants were propped up in a parent’s lap and shown, side by side, an active person or an inanimate object. Since newborns can’t hold their heads up independently, their visual preferences could well have been determined by the way their parents held them.

Source: We’ve studied gender and STEM for 25 years. The science doesn’t support the Google memo. – Recode

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

ICYMI: Canada has a border problem. Here’s how to fix it: Doug Saunders

2017/08/12 Leave a comment

Published in February but remains relevant given ongoing border crossings. Not convinced, however, re full suspension of safe-third country agreement with USA given signals it would send to future border crossers:

Stop illegal entries by creating a legal path. People aren’t making these crossings because they’re an easy way into Canada. In fact, illegal foot crossings are an exceptionally difficult and expensive way into Canada: Some migrants have paid drivers enough to buy business-class airfare.

People make them because they’re the only way into Canada. Under the 2004 Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, Canada does not allow foreign refugee claimants who landed in the United States through its official border crossings: You’re required to apply for asylum in the first country in which you arrive. But if they can get themselves physically onto Canadian soil, they will be arrested, detained, released and given an assessment, a hearing and a right to appeal.

This is not, as some have said, a flaw in the act; rather, it is a feature of the Canadian Constitution: Once in Canada, you are entitled to the full suite of rights – including due process and a fair hearing.

We can deal with this in two ways. One, as suggested by some MPs, would be to secure the border more, by adding hundreds or thousands more police and border agents. They would probably spend their days and nights processing a rising tide of border-crossers, at great expense.

The other would be to stop the illegal flow completely by creating a legal entry method, with processing centres at border crossings. The numbers would increase somewhat, but it would be far less expensive and much less dangerous – and it would look secure, fair and rational to Canadians.

Consider suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement. The treaty made sense when it was signed, because the United States and Canada both treated refugee claims similarly, and offered similar treatment to people pursuing those claims. (The worry then was that claimants would try to sneak from Canada into the United States.) That has changed under the Trump administration. Refugee claimants fear, first, that their claims will get a less generous hearing under the refugee crackdown, and second, that they might be held in awful detention centres while awaiting a decision.

Since the agreement no longer serves its intended purpose, it mainly creates perverse incentives. Illegal foot crossings are one. Another is an exemption provided in the treaty to “unaccompanied minors” – which might tempt someone to send a child alone across the border. Suspending the treaty wouldn’t overwhelm us with migrants: There’s a very limited supply of asylum seekers who’ve made it into the United States. And under current conditions, it is easier for them to fly directly to Canada.

Get people processed fast. Many of those border-crossers – perhaps most – won’t qualify as refugees. They’ll wait months for a hearing, then years for an appeal, before they go home or are deported (by which time they’ll have roots in Canada, creating a second set of crises). Those who are legitimate refugees will also wait, in ambiguous status, in border towns for long periods and possibly in large numbers.

To avoid this becoming an enduring, high-visibility crisis with grave political implications, Ottawa should bring on board extra Immigration and Refugee Board staff and judges to work the border stations, so hearings can be made in weeks rather than months and appeals in months rather than years. This would cost, but not as much as supporting thousands of ambiguous people for years, or rebuilding the reputation of our immigration system. By making it legal, rational and quick, we can make the border act like a border again.

Source: Canada has a border problem. Here’s how to fix it – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →