Keller: The MAGA fight over the future of American immigration, and the Canadian connection

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

More on the internal MAGA debates:

…However, as is par for the course with Mr. Trump, his words and his actions tend to work different sides of the street. According to an analysis by The New York Times, his businesses have rarely used the high-wage H1-B program. Instead, over the last 20 years, he has employed more than 1,000 foreign workers through the low-wage H-2 program, which brings temporary workers such as gardeners and housekeepers.

Mr. Trump’s business practices may be the opposite of what most voters want, but his words, and those of Mr. Musk, are closer to what Americans of all stripes say they would prefer.

Democratic and Republican voters are far apart on immigration, except on two crucial questions. A Pew Research Center poll released during the election found that 96 per cent of Trump voters were in favour of “improving security along the country’s borders,” but so were a whopping 80 per cent of Kamala Harris voters. The poll also found that 87 per cent of Harris voters favoured “admitting more high-skilled immigrants” – as did 71 per cent of Trump voters.

The Musk position – less illegal immigration, less immigration by people with high-school educations, but more immigration by the world’s brightest engineers, computer scientists and other skilled workers – is popular with voters. It also makes a lot of economic sense.

Source: The MAGA fight over the future of American immigration, and the Canadian connection


Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Kansas once required voters to prove citizenship. That didn’t work out so well

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

Always helpful to consider and learn from earlier attempts:

Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there’s one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas.

That’s because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory.

The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rarerisks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn’t touch it.

“Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.”

Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas.

“The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.”

A small problem, but wide support for a fix

Kansas’ experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year.

Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November.

In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election.

Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions’ provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible.

To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught.

“There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press.

Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule

After Kansas residents challenged their state’s law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That’s an issue Congress could resolve.

The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn’t justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year.

In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.”

Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved.

Source: Kansas once required voters to prove citizenship. That didn’t work out so well

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

Two minds on this decision. On the one hand, the judge was emphasizing the welfare of children, on the other hand, clearly fraudulent refugee case. And will the family be actually deported once the school year is over?

…Ministers have the power to step in and block deportations — I have no problem with that — but the government shouldn’t be obligated to carry out lengthy procedures designed to give those here illegally every shot at staying. In a country with supposedly fixed borders and social supports, it shouldn’t take this much state capacity to remove those who aren’t cleared to be here.

On the criminal front, it’s just as bad. Due to court precedent, Canadian judges are obligated to consider “immigration consequences” when sentencing non-citizen offenders. In some cases, it results in a sentence discount: nightclub gropers and drunken burglars from abroad have received lighter sentences under this rule to give them a greater shot at remaining in Canada.

There are plenty more legitimate refugees, and otherwise law-abiding non-citizen newcomers who are eager to adapt to Canadian life and get on the path to citizenship. Let state resources go to supporting them, and not people who abuse our rules to harm others and extend their already illegal stays.

Canadians deserve a system that works for them, not outsiders. Let that be a change that graces us in 2025.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

Not exactly great preparation for the future and progress:

They draw millions of poor Pakistani children with the simple promise of free education, meals and housing. For devout families, they offer Islamic learning rooted in ancient tradition.

But to the Pakistani government and Western counterterrorism officials, the religious seminaries known as madrasas also represent a potential threat. The institutions have long been accused of contributing to violence and radicalization, supplying recruits for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.

Now, Pakistan’s Islamic schools are at the center of an intense political clash — one that jeopardizes years of hard-won progress toward bringing the seminaries under the government’s regulatory umbrella.

The conflict goes back to 2019, when the government enacted a sweeping overhaul requiring madrasas to register with the Ministry of Education. The effort, meant to increase accountability for institutions that have historically operated with minimal state oversight, was strongly backed by Pakistan’s military but faced vehement resistance from Islamist political parties.

In October 2024, the largest of those parties, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, secured a deal with the government to end the registration requirement. Under the agreement, madrasas would be registered as they had been before 2019, under a colonial-era law governing charitable, scientific and educational groups. That law provides little oversight of curriculums, activities or funding.

In exchange, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam agreed to support unrelated constitutional amendments on judicial appointments that had set off a firestorm of controversy.

As the end of the year approached, however, the government had still not implemented the change. It cited concerns that reverting to the older system could undermine counterterrorism efforts, weaken oversight and breach international commitments to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

The delay triggered threats of anti-government protests in Islamabad, the capital, adding to the government’s challenges amid frequent marches by supporters of Imran Khan, the ousted prime minister.

“We are firm on the agreed madrasa registration terms and will ensure they are upheld,” Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, warned in Parliament last month. “If the government deviates, the decision won’t be made in Parliament, but on the streets.”

Late last week, the government finally approved the new registration provision, allowing madrasas to choose between modern oversight and the colonial-era framework. The move, in effect, discards the 2019 efforts to reform religious schools in favor of short-term political stability.

When Pakistan was created 77 years ago, madrasas numbered in the dozens. They gained prominence and grew significantly in the 1980s, when U.S. and Arab funding transformed them into recruitment hubs for Islamic volunteers to fight Soviet forces in neighboring Afghanistan. Today, there are about 30,000 madrasas in Pakistan…

Source: A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

DEI commentaries, emboldened by Trump and Poilievre

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Seems like the discourse South of the border on DEI has emboldened right leaning media in Canada, with three articles in the National Post over the last week or so. Most of these ignore the necessity to improve representation and assume that “old stock” backgrounds are inherently stronger than other backgrounds. However, there are legitimate concerns regarding viewpoint diversity.

Starting with the overly partisan, Terry Newman: Poilievre’s plan to ‘defund’ woke antisemitism can’t come soon enough:

This week marks the 10th Christmas Canadians have endured under Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government — 10 years of our Dec. 25th-born prime minister acting as if he’s our very own personal Jesus, without the humility, common sense, or moral clarity his birthday might suggest. From the get-go, Trudeau’s been a means to an end for Liberal party power — a famous name, flowing hair, a convenient professionally-good-looking object many lonely Canadian wives cast their adoring gazes upon — but otherwise, intellectually and morally vacuous. Thankfully, there is a solution. Pierre Poilievre will bring the common sense and moral clarity Canada so desperately needs.

On Christmas eve, Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Opposition, tweeted out a promise to Canadians and we should hold him to it: “I will defund wokism and fight antisemitism. And stand with our friends in Israel against terror.” It included a link to a statement from a telephone interview he gave last week to the Winnipeg Jewish Review.

An even sharper ideological focus can be found in Leigh Revers: Universities better get prepared for Poilievre’s anti-woke agenda, almost pathological in his salivating over the “Mump administration” crusade against DEI:

Pull the other one. Recent propaganda sheets such as The Bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Academic Matters, the journal of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, which purport to represent professors like myself, are awash with racist DEI and tout a slavish fealty to obsessive and damaging social justice ideology. If you belong to the editorial team of either of these absurd political pamphlets, please drop me from your mailing list.

There is hope for students. Jordan Peterson has lately launched his academy, which, though limited to the social sciences so far, has breached the universities’ monopoly and comes at a bargain price. And the content is excellent, featuring such stellar authorities as Andrew Roberts, James Orr, John Vervaeke, Eric Kaufmann and a host of others. I’ve signed up.

Time is running out for legacy universities across Canada. I have a fancy next year we will see the same wave of comedy meltdowns that followed Trump’s re-election, just this time by an army of capitulating academics. “We didn’t mean to indoctrinate you with our untested ideology — Please give us more money.” Clink-clink. Too bad. It’s not in the cards.

Lastly, a more evidence-based approach to criticizing left-wing predominance at universities, Stéphane Sérafin: Defunding threats will not be enough to rid universities of systemic wokeism, who however cites the flawed survey and analysis of Dummitt, The Viewpoint Diversity Crisis at Canadian Universities (see following note):

Students have also suffered as a result of the ideological monoculture that now reigns on most university campuses. During the “great awokening” of 2020-2021, many students who refused to conform were subjected to attacks from their classmates and even formal disciplinary proceedings, as was the case with a student at my own faculty who dared to make Facebook posts mocking the Canadian federal public service’s affirmative action-style hiring policies.

Still more concerning incidents took place over the past year that appear to confirm the confluence between wokeism and antisemitism that Poilievre referenced. According to reports, Jewish students at multiple universities were subject to harassment on campus, their only apparent crime being that they were cast as members of an “oppressor” group and thus held to be personally complicit in “genocide” under the prevailing “woke” intersectional framework.

So, while some hold out hope that Canadian universities can bring themselves back in line with prevailing public opinion, there are significant reasons to doubt that this is possible, at least in the short term. This is highly unfortunate, given that it could cause them to lose funding.

While universities play an essential role in Canada’s intellectual and cultural life, the value that should be ascribed to that role is directly dependant on their ability to act in a manner that is conducive to the overall public good. We can hope against all hope that Canada’s universities will get their houses in order, but we should not be surprised if they face a reckoning instead.

HESA valid critique of the Dummitt/MLI study:

Look, this is a bad study, full stop.  The methodology and question design are so obviously terrible that it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that its main purpose was to confirm the authors’ biases, and clearly whatever editorial/peer review process the Macdonald Laurier Institute uses to oversee these publications needs major work.  But if a result is significant enough, even a bad methodology can find it: might this be such a case?

Maybe.  Part of the problem is that this paper spends a lot of effort conflating “viewpoint diversity” with “party identification diversity”, which is absurd.  I mean, there are countries which allocate academic places based on party identity, but I doubt that those are places where many Canadian academics would want to teach.  Further, on the specific issues where people apparently feel they have a need to “not share their opinions” on issues concerning race and gender, there are in addition to a censorious left a lot of bad faith right-wing concern trolls too, which kind of tempers my ability to share the authors concern that this is a necessarily “bad thing”.  And finally, this idea that the notion of being an academic means you should be able to say whatever you want without possibility of facing criticism or social ostracism – which I think is implicitly what the authors are suggesting – is a rather significant widening of the concept of academic freedom that wouldn’t find universal acceptance.

I think the most you can say about these issues really is first that viewpoint diversity should be a concern of every department, but that to reduce it to “party identification” diversification or some notion of both-sidesism (anti-vaxxers in virology departments, anyone?) should be seen for the grotesquerie that it is.  Second, yes, society (not just universities) is more polarized around issues like gender and race and finding acceptable and constructive common language in which to talk about these concepts is difficult, but, my dudes, banging on about why someone who happens to have a teaching position is absolved from the hard work of finding that language because of some abstract notion of academic freedom is not helpful. 

Source: Viewpoint Diversity




Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Biden Made the Judiciary More Diverse—but Not More Liberal

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Interesting analysis. Would be useful to have a similar systematic analysis of Canadian judicial appointments under Trudeau (may have missed one:

President Biden left his mark on the federal judiciary by installing a large number of appointees from diverse backgrounds, but he made few inroads on changing the ideological balance of courts that Donald Trump made more conservative during his first term.

Now, Trump’s return to office could ensure that the federal courts lean solidly in a conservative direction for years to come.

In terms of raw confirmation numbers, Biden edged Trump’s first term by a nose, appointing 235 judges to Trump’s 234. But the Democrat had the opportunity to appoint just one Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and he installed nine fewer judges than Trump to the powerful U.S. courts of appeals, which sit one level below the high court. 

Many of Biden’s appointees to those courts succeeded other like-minded judges, meaning that the overall ideological dynamics didn’t change much.

Where Biden made a lasting impact, however, was in appointing judges that represent a broader swath of America. About 60% of the judges he installed were people of color, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. And more than 60% were women. 

Biden noted in December that he appointed more Black women to the courts of appeals than all other previous administrations combined. He also appointed the first openly LGBTQ woman to the appeals courts, as well as the first Muslim-American to a life-tenured judicial post.

Another Biden priority was selecting nominees with a broader array of professional experience, including by appointing former federal public defenders to a judiciary that has been disproportionately represented by former prosecutors. 

That focus resulted in a new batch of judges who are distinctly different “in terms of the types of clients they’ve represented and the cases they have been exposed to,” said retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who now directs the Berkeley Judicial Institute, a center at the UC Berkeley School of Law….

Source: Biden Made the Judiciary More Diverse—but Not More Liberal

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Of note:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it would not move forward with a new version of the naturalization test

In a Federal Register notice published Monday, the agency said it would scrap the redesign after critics said the redesign would create unnecessary barriers, making the process harder for applicants. In 2022, USCIS announced plans to trial a new version of the test after subject matter experts reviewed the current version and suggested changes.

“The objective of the trial was to determine an efficient way to reduce undue barriers to taking the naturalization test and the majority of the feedback received revealed concerns that the trial version of the test may increase burdens on applicants,” the agency said in the notice. “Therefore, USCIS has decided to terminate the previously proposed trial test altogether.”

The citizenship test is one of the final stages of the naturalization process. It consists of two parts: an English test that evaluates an applicant’s reading, writing, and speaking abilities, and a civics test that assesses the applicant’s knowledge of U.S. government and history.

Proposed changes included:

  • For the speaking portion of the test, applicants would be asked to describe three color photographs depicting everyday life, such as the weather or food. Currently, the immigration officer asks the applicant questions about their citizenship application and eligibility to test their speaking ability.
  • During the current civics test, the immigration officer reads questions about U.S. government and history out loud. The applicant must answer six out of 10 questions correctly to pass. As part of the proposed redesign, applicants would instead answer ten multiple-choice questions and select the best answer from four choices. The questions would be displayed on a tablet.

USCIS said it received more than 1,300 public comments about the test redesign, with the majority opposing the changes, arguing the new test would create new barriers to naturalization rather than make the process easier. For the speaking part of the test, commenters said the changes:

  • Introduced a new testing requirement, adding more preparation and tasks for applicants.
  • Offered a less effective way to evaluate English proficiency compared to the current speaking test.

For the civics portion of the test, commenters argued the new version:

  • Required higher-level reading comprehension and vocabulary skills than currently needed.
  • Introduced a multiple-choice format, demanding test-taking skills not previously required.
  • Presented challenges for adult learners with low literacy who rely on oral learning.
  • Created obstacles for individuals without formal education.

USCIS said it will continue to use the 2008 version of the naturalization test.

Source: USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Useful overview:

Plusieurs étapes ont été franchies au cours des ans pour une laïcité de l’État au Québec. On n’a qu’à penser à la création du ministère de l’Éducation lors de la Révolution tranquille, à la déconfessionnalisation des Commissions scolaires en 2000, ou encore à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi 21) en 2019. Cette grande épopée n’est pas encore arrivée à terme. Voici, en rappel, quelques événements survenus en 2024.

5 février 2024. Le Bloc québécois dépose un deuxième projet de loi pour éliminer l’exception religieuse du Code criminel canadien, lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande haineuse (C-373). Le 14 juin dernier, ce projet de loi a été ajouté à l’ordre de priorité du gouvernement, mais il est toujours en attente d’une date pour être considéré en deuxième lecture.

29 février 2024. La Cour d’appel du Québec confirme la constitutionnalité de la Loi 21 et rejette ainsi le jugement de la Cour supérieure qui en avait exempté les Commissions scolaires anglophones.

21 mars 2024. La Cour supérieure autorise Droits Collectifs Québec et le Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) à intenter un recours en justice (via un mandamus) contre le Conseil de la magistrature du Québec pour lui enjoindre d’établir des règles traduisant les exigences de la laïcité de l’État auprès des juges. Cette cause est importante car elle concerne le droit de toute personne vivant au Québec de bénéficier d’institutions judiciaires laïques.

26 avril. Le gouvernement fédéral crée tout un émoi au Québec en indiquant, dans son budget 2024, explorer de nouvelles mesures pour élargir l’accès aux prêts hypothécaires islamiques. La Coalition avenir Québec, le Parti québécois, le Bloc québécois à Ottawa et des organisations civiles, dont le Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL) montent aux créneaux pour s’opposer à cette initiative contraire aux principes de la laïcité de l’État.

29 avril. La décision de la Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) d’amener la Loi 21 devant la Cour suprême est vivement critiquée par des enseignants qui s’opposent à ce que leurs cotisations syndicales servent à financer ce recours juridique et réclament une véritable consultation sur cette démarche.

19 juin. L’arrondissement d’Ahuntsic-Cartierville autorise un groupe religieux à organiser une prière collective musulmane dans un parc, en contradiction avec son règlement qui y interdit toute cérémonie religieuse. Cette décision crée des remous puisque l’événement, réservé aux adeptes de cette religion tout en reléguant femmes et fillettes dans un espace cloisonné loin derrière les hommes, prive les citoyens de leur espace public.

9 juillet. À la demande du gouvernement du Québec et du MLQ, le juge Mahmud Jamal de la Cour suprême se retire du dossier sur la Loi 21.

Juillet. Le choix de la Ville de Montréal d’inclure une femme voilée sur le panneau de bienvenue de son hall d’entrée crée polémique. Selon le MLQ et Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, cette affiche porte atteinte à la laïcité de l’État et au droit des femmes à l’égalité. La mairesse Valérie Plante annoncera, en octobre, que cette affiche sera retirée en raison du « malaise » qu’elle suscite, mais essentiellement pour réitérer que le Québec est une société laïque.

Septembre. Les manuels du nouveau programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise, qui devaient faire la « promotion de l’État de droit laïque » dans nos écoles, comportent de sérieuses lacunes. Ils contiennent des définitions et principes de la laïcité qui ne reflètent pas les principes de la Loi 21 et ils ne s’appuient pas sur les considérants de la loi pour expliquer ses motifs.

22 octobre. À la suite de la publication du rapport de l’école Bedford, le premier ministre Legault confie aux ministres Drainville et Roberge le mandat de trouver des moyens de renforcer les contrôles et la laïcité dans les écoles du Québec. Ce rapport faisait état de plaintes et de signalements concernant des enjeux liés au non-respect d’obligations en matière de laïcité. Le PM a aussi mentionné être disposé à débattre de bonne foi de l’abolition du financement des écoles privées religieuses quoique ce ne soit pas sa priorité. Quelques jours plus tard, les ministres amorcent des vérifications dans 17 écoles du Québec.

27 novembre. Le Comité consultatif sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne recommande de doter le Québec d’une constitution codifiée qui inclurait les lois fondamentales actuellement en vigueur, dont la Loi 21.

29 novembre. Le gouvernement du Québec demande au fédéral la fin de l’exemption religieuse inscrite au code criminel concernant la propagande haineuse, demande aussitôt appuyée par RPL et le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes (CIJA). Comme le dit si bien la philosophe Louise Mailloux : « cette immunité accordée aux croyants est une aberration et rien ne peut justifier que ceux-ci puissent jouir d’un pareil privilège au détriment de tous les autres citoyens ».

6 décembre. Le premier ministre Legault dit songer à légiférer pour interdire la prière dans l’espace public et à un projet de constitution pour inscrire la laïcité, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et l’intégration des immigrants en toutes lettres dans un texte fondamental.

Il n’y a pas à dire, l’année 2025 s’annonce fructueuse en discussion quant à la laïcité de l’État.

Marie-Claude Girard L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

Several steps have been taken over the years for a secularism of the state in Quebec. We only have to think of the creation of the Ministry of Education during the Quiet Revolution, the deconfessionalization of School Boards in 2000, or the Law on the Secularism of the State (Law 21) in 2019. This great epic has not yet come to an end. Here are, as a reminder, some events that occurred in 2024.

February 5, 2024. The Bloc Québécois is filing a second bill to eliminate the religious exception of the Canadian Criminal Code when it comes to hate propaganda (C-373). On June 14, this bill was added to the government’s order of priority, but it is still waiting for a date to be considered in second reading.

February 29, 2024. The Quebec Court of Appeal confirms the constitutionality of Bill 21 and thus rejects the ruling of the Superior Court, which had exempted the English-speaking School Commissions.

March 21, 2024. The Superior Court authorizes Droits Collectifs Québec and the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) to bring an action (via a mandamus) against the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec to order it to establish rules reflecting the requirements of the secularism of the State with judges. This cause is important because it concerns the right of any person living in Quebec to benefit from secular judicial institutions.

April 26. The federal government is creating a stir in Quebec by indicating, in its 2024 budget, to explore new measures to expand access to Islamic mortgages. The Coalition avenir Québec, the Parti québécois, the Bloc québécois à Ottawa and civil organizations, including the Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL), are stepping up to oppose this initiative contrary to the principles of state secularism.

April 29. The decision of the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) to bring Bill 21 before the Supreme Court is strongly criticized by teachers who oppose their union dues being used to finance this legal recourse and call for a real consultation on this approach.

June 19. The borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville authorizes a religious group to organize a collective Muslim prayer in a park, in contradiction with its regulations that prohibit any religious ceremony. This decision creates a stir since the event, reserved for followers of this religion while relegating women and girls to a compartmentalized space far behind men, depriving citizens of their public space.

July 9th. At the request of the Government of Quebec and the MLQ, Justice Mahmud Jamal of the Supreme Court withdrew from the Bill 21 file.

July. The City of Montreal’s choice to include a veiled woman on the welcome sign in its entrance hall creates controversy. According to the MLQ and Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, this poster violates the secularism of the state and the right of women to equality. Mayor Valérie Plante will announce in October that this poster will be removed because of the “unease” it causes, but mainly to reiterate that Quebec is a secular society.

September. The manuals of the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship program, which were supposed to “promote the secular rule of law” in our schools, have serious shortcomings. They contain definitions and principles of secularism that do not reflect the principles of Bill 21 and they do not rely on the recitals of the Act to explain its reasons.

October 22. Following the publication of the Bedford School report, Prime Minister Legault entrusted Ministers Drainville and Roberge with the mandate to find ways to strengthen controls and secularism in Quebec schools. This report reported on complaints and reports regarding issues related to non-compliance with secular obligations. The PM also mentioned that he was willing to debate in good faith the abolition of the funding of private religious schools whatever was not his priority. A few days later, the ministers began checks in 17 schools in Quebec.

November 27. The Advisory Committee on the Constitutional Issues of Quebec within the Canadian Federation recommends that Quebec be given a codified constitution that would include the fundamental laws currently in force, including Bill 21.

November 29. The government of Quebec asks the federal government to end the religious exemption inscribed in the criminal code concerning hate propaganda, immediately supported by RPL and the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA). As the philosopher Louise Mailloux says so well: “this immunity granted to believers is an aberration and nothing can justify that they can enjoy such a privilege at the expense of all other citizens”.

December 6th. Prime Minister Legault said he was thinking of legislating to prohibit prayer in public space and a draft constitution to include secularism, equality between women and men and the integration of immigrants in full in a fundamental text.

There is no need to say, the year 2025 promises to be fruitful in discussion about the secularism of the State.

Marie-Claude Girard The author is retired from the Canadian Commission on Human Rights. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Order of Canada Appointments: 2024 Update

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

This analysis, conducted over the past decade, examines the diversity of Order of Canada appointments. Appointments are contingent upon nominations and typically reflect contributions over an extended period. This updates the analysis in my analysis of last year, How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? Key findings include:

  • Women are significantly underrepresented across all periods.
  • Visible minorities are underrepresented, while Indigenous peoples are slightly overrepresented relative to their population share.
  • Visible minority representation has increased over time.
  • Contributions to the arts have generally constituted the largest share of appointments, followed by health, business, public service, and activism.
  • The share of appointments by rank and group follows the typical pattern in most diversity analyses, where diversity decreases with increasing rank. However, this pattern is only observed for women. In contrast, the share of Indigenous companions is higher than for officers, which in turn is higher than Indigenous members. The share of visible minority officers is greater than the share of visible minority members.
Order of Canada 2013-24 Diversity – Key slidesDownload

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Not cheery but realistic:

To the esteemed members of the public service,

As the calendar prepares for its switch to 2025, it is time to take stock of 2024 and what it portends for the new year.

First, the obvious: There is likely to be a change in the political control of the government. To put things bluntly, it would take a miracle (Christmas or otherwise) for Pierre Poilievre to not become prime minister in the first quarter of the new year, now that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated his intention of moving a vote of no confidence in the Liberal government.

What’s more, the current Conservative advantage in the polls translates into a size and strength of government that will be unlike anything we have seen in the modern age. Forget the first minority Harper government in 2006. Forget even the 2011 Harper majority. It is likely to be a record majority. As a result, Canadians are going to expect significant change and they will be expecting the public service to deliver that change.

And the public service is likely going to have to do so as a smaller team. Its numbers have grown — and grown enormously — under the current Liberal government. In 2015, the number was under 258,000. As of today, it is just under 368,000, which represents an expansion of some 43 per cent. Expect the headcount to come down, in some places significantly. There is no point bemoaning this fact.

It doesn’t matter what your politics are. Yes, you are here to advise the government of the day. But in the end, and after providing that fearless advice, you are also here to deliver the mandate of the government elected by the Canadian people. So public servants would do well to pay particular attention to the policy priorities of the modern Conservative Party of Canada. The carbon tax will go. Housebuilding will become (even more of) a priority. Budgets will be reduced. And criminal justice policy will once again become more aggressive.

Government workers will, of course, be busy elsewhere too. Canada’s foreign policy, for one, will take on a new posture. And those of you working in immigration are already toiling hard to reshape our core programs. We can expect this work to continue at pace. We have lost the pan-Canadian acceptance of our historically high immigration levels and we will have to work hard to re-establish control over the numbers, especially if the incoming American administration does what it says it will do with respect to a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Indeed, the incoming Trump administration will provide a number of challenges to our country’s government. Many of you are already seized with tariff policy and border security measures. Many more of you will be seized by Canada’s reactions to the other whims of the former and soon-to-be president. An already increasingly unpredictable world is going to throw up even more wild cards.

It is perhaps trite to observe at this point that we are now a long way from the heady days of 2015, which is the last time this vast team of bureaucrats faced a change of administration. Ten years ago, public servants felt that their efforts were about to be more fully appreciated. Ten years on, many are sitting down with their families in apprehension this holiday period.

What I propose is to make this challenge an opportunity. For there is an advantage to be had. What the current prime minister has described as a “post-national state,” i.e. Canada, is once again about to feel acutely aware of its Canadianness in the face of Donald Trump. There is work everyone can do to make Canada (even) great(er) again.

As Marcus Aurelius once said: “The blazing fire makes flames and brightness out of everything thrown into it.” As Friedrich Nietzsche put it: “Amor fati”, i.e. love your fate. And if that’s too high-brow for you, you can try this: “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

Source: MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →