Chris Selley: If Canadians want to fight for ISIL, why stop them? Because we take care of our own garbage

Chris Selley on stopping would-be jihadist travel:

It’s understandable some are wondering why we’re implementing these de facto exit controls on people determined to bring down the West and all for which it stands. If they want to leave, should we not thank them and wish them a speedy demise? Would we not prefer these people wreak their havoc overseas?

In a word: no. No because Canada is at war with ISIL; it is on the side of the people for whom life is a living hell thanks to ISIL; and we can hardly shrug if our own citizens decide they want to sign up with the enemy. No because grown-up countries take care of their own garbage. And no because it’s reasonable to hope the havoc they can wreak here is vastly less than they could in Syria or Iraq.

It’s certainly disturbing that ISIL’s savage nihilism strikes anyone in the West as an enticing prospect. But accepting that reality, the news (fingers crossed) is mostly good: Canadian police are clearly aware of the threat; they are clearly seized with nipping it in the bud, and apparently not wanting for legal measures to do so; and in at least one of the cases from Montreal over the weekend, they reportedly had help from someone close to the suspect. This suggests those who oppose terrorism (i.e., very nearly everyone) are willing to cooperate with authorities to prevent it. This should hardly be surprising, given the stakes — “My son is now in a butcher shop,” the father of one of Quebec’s ISIL volunteers told CBC in March. “We do not eat, we do not sleep …. Our lives have plunged into horror” — but it is reassuring nevertheless.

It’s also worth considering the havoc we fear. It is not to diminish their crimes or the sacrifice of their victims to remember that Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Parliament Hill gunman, killed one man each. According to a newly launched public database created by several Canadian universities, in the last roughly 50 years there were 469 fatalities in Canada from terrorist and extremist events. Of those, 329 were on Air India flight 182. Only 10 others were religiously motivated, according to the database, and only one of those — Couture-Rouleau’s attack — was motivated by Islamic extremism. Add Zehaf-Bibeau if you prefer and you get a whopping total of two victims of this ostensibly mortal threat to the Canadian homeland. Ever.

Yes, those victims were recent. Yes, the threat is global. Yes, it is reasonable to think that a movement capable of enticing young Canadians to immigrate to hell on earth could convince them to kill a few people here at home. Yes, it would only take one well-planned or lucky attack to add significantly to the tally. Yes, it is reasonable to demand vigilance.

But evidence suggests we are being vigilant, and that it’s working. In a world with ISIL in it, that’s about all you can hope for. Among the many knocks against the Conservatives’ anti-terrorism legislation is that it could actually impede frontline anti-terror efforts: speech restrictions could deter terrorists from helpfully sharing their plans online, or an imam from inviting the RCMP’s counter-violent extremism team to interact with a parishioner who’s going off the rails. The successes we see this week highlight just what’s at stake.

Chris Selley: If Canadians want to fight for ISIL, why stop them? Because we take care of our own garbage

Quebec to table anti-radicalization bill after 10 teens arrested at Trudeau airport

Will be interesting to see and contrast with federal government approach and if it includes greater emphasis on “softer” prevention measures, not just security provisions:

“We always are concerned about this, given the fact that it seems to be our youth — born here — in our learning institutions,” said Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard on Wednesday. “That is why we will come very soon with a policy that is going to be broad, that will also include the prevention, detection and also other measures from the legislative point of view.”

The government did not elaborate on any details about the proposed legislation, but said it plans to table its bill before June 12.

Quebec to table anti-radicalization bill after 10 teens arrested at Trudeau airport – Montreal – CBC News.

Steep rise in citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and Afghanistan under PM Modi-led government

Interesting and something little reported outside of India:

At the end of April 2015, the BJP government has approved citizenship for 4,230 Hindus and Sikhs from these two countries who have sought refuse in India, compared with 1,023 granted by the Congress-led UPA-II.

The increase in citizenship grants is in line with BJP’s declared aim of positioning India as a refuge for Hindus fleeing persecution anywhere in the world, much like Israel’s stance towards Jews. In its election manifesto for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP had declared India as “a natural home for persecuted Hindus” who “shall be welcome to seek refuge”.

“The numbers of those granted citizenship are miniscule as compared to the country’s population. Government has taken a call resolve the problems being faced by people of Indian origin who in anyway were staying in the country for long,” a home ministry spokesperson said.

Government officials told ET that the number of Hindus from neighbouring Islamic countries getting Indian nationality could see a sharp spike in the months ahead, with the home ministry stepping up efforts to expedite long-term visas and citizenship to those fleeing Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

After the BJP government took charge in Delhi last May, nearly 19,000 migrants have already been given long-term visas in Madhya Pradesh. Some 11,000 persons have been granted visas, which precede citizenship, in Rajasthan, while in case of Gujarat, the figure is around 4,000, said officials familiar with the drive.

Steep rise in citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and Afghanistan under PM Modi-led government – The Economic Times.

Steve Campana, Canadian biologist, ‘disgusted’ with government muzzling

Confirmation of previous stories, with a human face:

A recently retired Fisheries and Oceans Canada biologist says the muzzling of federal government scientists is worse than anyone can imagine.

Steve Campana, known for his expertise on everything from great white sharks to porbeagles and Arctic trout, says the atmosphere working for the federal government is toxic.

The Halifax-based scientist, who only agreed to talk to CBC after he retired from the department, says federal scientists have been working in a climate of fear.

“I am concerned about the bigger policy issues that are essentially leading to a death spiral for government science,” he said in an exclusive interview.

“I see that is going to be a huge problem in the coming years. We are at the point where the vast majority of our senior scientists are in the process of leaving now disgusted as I am with the way things have gone, and I don’t think there is any way for it to be recovered.”

Public-sector unions have organized rallies in a number of locations across the Ottawa area on Tuesday to protest the alleged muzzling of public scientists.

“We have very strict directives of what we can say and the approval steps we have to go through, and very often that approval seems to be withheld for totally arbitrary reasons,” Campana says.

He says government scientists often have to find their own funding, travel is often turned down and they are rarely allowed to talk to the media, even about their own groundbreaking research.

via Steve Campana, Canadian biologist, ‘disgusted’ with government muzzling – Nova Scotia – CBC News.

Immigration guide for detecting marriage fraud called ‘racist and offensive’

More on the training guide on marriage fraud (Immigration officers told to pay close attention to Chinese/non-Chinese marriages). The Department’s case would be strengthened if it released the current instructions rather than asserting that these have been changed.

In any case, these revised instructions will likely come out later as I assume somebody or organization as requested the revised instructions under ATIP:

The three-page training guide, titled “Evidence of Relationship,” lists clues officers should look for in assessing a spousal sponsorship application. Ostensible warning signs that it’s a sham marriage include: couples who are not depicted kissing on the lips in their wedding photos; university-educated Chinese nationals who marry non-Chinese; a small wedding reception in a restaurant; a Canadian sponsor who is relatively uneducated, with a low-paying job or on welfare.

Other red flags include couples who don’t take a honeymoon trip, perhaps because they were students or lack the financial resources to do so; no diamond ring; and photos of activities together taken in Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto.

The training material, obtained under an access to information request and posted online by immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens, has created an uproar on social media among some Canadians and their foreign-born spouses.

“We all thought it was a joke. There’s no way this was real. Then we found out the guide was real and it was like, ‘Oh, my God, this is discriminatory. It’s against the Charter,’” said Saulnier, 37, who met his wife, Juliana, 35, while she was studying English in Toronto in 2011.

“I was born in Canada. This is racist and offensive. I’m just floored that this is accepted as criteria Immigration uses in judging the validity of my relationship,” added the software executive, whose wife is among thousands of foreign spouses waiting for long periods — the current average is 26 months — to be granted permanent residency.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada denied that the training material was racist and insisted all spousal applications from around the world are assessed equally, against exactly the same criteria, regardless of country of origin.

“The specific document you are referencing was an ad hoc document issued to officers nearly five years ago in response to an observed temporary spike in cases of marriages of convenience,” department spokesperson Nancy Caron told the Star.

“The instruction has not been active for more than three years, as the conditions that led to the instruction being issued subsequently changed.”

Immigration guide for detecting marriage fraud called ‘racist and offensive’ | Toronto Star.

Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea

Encouraging:

The Burmese government has so far disclaimed any responsibility for the fate of the thousands of Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea. But now the spokesman for the National League for Democracy, Burma’s most important opposition party, has demanded a long-term solution to the problem: giving them citizenship.

In an interview with The Independent, U Nyan Win said: “The problem needs to be solved by the law. The law needs to be amended. After one or two generations [of residence] they should have the right to be citizens.”

The statement was a bold break with the NLD’s usual ultra-cautious approach to an issue regarded as highly inflammatory in this Buddhist-majority country – Buddhists constitute 85 per cent of the population – in which atavistic fears of Muslim domination have been whipped up by chauvinistic Buddhist preachers.

Speaking to AFP earlier, he said: “If [the Rohingya] are not accepted as citizens, they cannot just be sent onto rivers. They can’t be pushed out to sea. They are humans. I just see them as humans who are entitled to human rights.”

Burma’s opposition demands government gives citizenship to Rohingya refugees adrift on the Andaman Sea – Asia – World – The Independent.

Why Islam doesn’t need a reformation | Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan on the intellectual laziness of those who call for an Islamic reformation and the uncomfortable facts behind Luther’s reformation:

The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation of sorts, in the sense of a stripping of cultural accretions and a process of supposed “purification”. And it didn’t produce a tolerant, pluralistic, multifaith utopia, a Scandinavia-on-the-Euphrates. Instead, it produced … the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Wasn’t reform exactly what was offered to the masses of the Hijaz by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the mid-18th century itinerant preacher who allied with the House of Saud? He offered an austere Islam cleansed of what he believed to be innovations, which eschewed centuries of mainstream scholarship and commentary, and rejected the authority of the traditional ulema, or religious authorities.

Some might argue that if anyone deserves the title of a Muslim Luther, it is Ibn Abdul Wahhab who, in the eyes of his critics, combined Luther’s puritanism with the German monk’s antipathy towards the Jews. Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s controversial stance on Muslim theology, writes his biographer Michael Crawford, “made him condemn much of the Islam of his own time” and led to him being dismissed as a heretic by his own family.

Don’t get me wrong. Reforms are of course needed across the crisis-ridden Muslim-majority world: political, socio-economic and, yes, religious too. Muslims need to rediscover their own heritage of pluralism, tolerance and mutual respect – embodied in, say, the Prophet’s letter to the monks of St Catherine’s monastery, or the “convivencia” (or co-existence) of medieval Muslim Spain.

If we are to fight extremism we must bring people together, not silence and ban them

What they don’t need are lazy calls for an Islamic reformation from non-Muslims and ex-Muslims, the repetition of which merely illustrates how shallow and simplistic, how ahistorical and even anti-historical, some of the west’s leading commentators are on this issue. It is much easier for them, it seems, to reduce the complex debate over violent extremism to a series of cliches, slogans and soundbites, rather than examining root causes or historical trends; easier still to champion the most extreme and bigoted critics of Islam while ignoring the voices of mainstream Muslim scholars, academics and activists.

Hirsi Ali, for instance, was treated to a series of encomiums and softball questions in her blizzard of US media interviews, from the New York Times to Fox News. (“A hero of our time,” read one gushing headline on Politico.) Frustratingly, only comedian Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, was willing to point out to Hirsi Ali that her reformist hero wanted a “purer form of Christianity” and helped create “a hundred years of violence and mayhem”.

With apologies to Luther, if anyone wants to do the same to the religion of Islam today, it is Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who claims to rape and pillage in the name of a “purer form” of Islam – and who isn’t, incidentally, a fan of the Jews either. Those who cry so simplistically, and not a little inanely, for an Islamic reformation, should be careful what they wish for.

Why Islam doesn’t need a reformation | Mehdi Hasan | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com

Assume similar pattern likely exists for Canadian immigrants who decide to return to their country of origin:

No overall statistics are available for how many people return to their native countries to retire, but consultants, real estate agents and others who help immigrants make the journey say the numbers are increasing.

They leave for many reasons: They worked in menial jobs in the United States and can afford a much higher standard of living in their native countries; they want to be around their relatives as they age for emotional and practical reasons; the spouses they immigrated with or married in the United States have died or they have divorced.

Federico Mejia, the general manager of Su Vivienda Internacional, a consulting and international real estate company catering to Colombians, said his business had doubled in the last decade.

“An increasing number want to go back to Colombia to retire,” Mr. Mejia said. Demographics is one reason. One of the big waves of Colombian immigrants hit American shores in the 1970s, so most are reaching retirement age.

Also, Colombia, like some other Latin American countries, has become more economically and politically stable in recent years, so it is a more appealing place to return to. And, like many immigrants, Colombians feel a deep emotional pull.

But the economics should not be underestimated. Alfredo Padilla, director of Expresito Carga, a shipping business in New York that specializes in working with returning immigrants, said that in the last five or six years, an increasing number of retirees were moving back to Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

On an income that can barely sustain one person in New York, “you can live like a king in Ecuador,” Mr. Padilla said.

That is because people not only have the money they have saved, but if they have paid into the Social Security system while working in the United States, they can continue to receive payments abroad. But some exceptions apply, so it is wise to check the Social Security website.

While Social Security is portable, those returning to their home country will not be eligible for Medicare, which can be a major disadvantage, Mr. Rigor said. Medicare is generally not available outside the United States and its territories, even for American citizens who have paid into the system.

“People want to be covered by the benefits they accrue,” said Mr. Rigor, who moved to the United States from the Philippines in 1982. The Center for Medicare Portability, a nonprofit research organization,lobbies to get Medicare laws changed so Americans living overseas can receive benefits.

For some, however, losing Medicare is more than offset by their native country’s health care system. Janet Todosychuk, 59, returned to Vancouver, British Columbia, last month after living in Los Angeles for 35 years. A divorce prompted the move, but the fact that most health care is almost free in Canada has been a huge relief, Ms. Todosychuk said.

“I was paying $615 a month for health insurance,” in Los Angeles, she said. “It was definitely a factor in moving.”

Paul Kurucz, an instructor of marketing at Vancouver Island University, runs a website for returning Canadian natives. It started as a hobby, and although much of the information is free, he now offers a planner and guide for $25.

He said about 50 people a year inquire about returning to Canada to retire — mostly Canadians who immigrated to the United States but some who left for other countries.

Having relatives in Canada is probably the No.1 reason older people want to return, he said, but health care is the second. And the third is fear about the future of Social Security and their retirement income if they stay in the United States into old age.

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com.

ICYMI: Beware of the Muslim Brotherhood, expert warns

US security expert on the Muslim Brotherhood activities and strategies in North America and the narrative used that he argues prepares the ground for violent extremism:

Authorities should be concerned about the unseen hand of the Muslim Brotherhood gripping sections of Canada’s diverse Muslim community, says a U.S. security expert.

The movement has planted its revivalist interpretation of Islam, political ideology and activism among some Muslims here and sees itself as a minder and broker between them and the rest of society, Lorenzo Vidino, who specializes in Islamism and political violence, told the Senate’s national security committee recently.

“They basically aim to be the gatekeepers to Muslim communities, that whenever politicians, governments or the media try to get the Muslim voice, if there were such a thing, they would go through them, sort of the self‑appointed leaders of Muslim communities,” he said.

Vidino is director of the program on extremism at George Washington University and author of The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (Columbia University Press, 2010). He sees no direct links to terrorism among the group’s western supporters. In fact, some work to prevent violent radicalization, he said.

“It would be an analytical mistake to lump them, as some do, with al-Qaida or ISIL. These are not organizations that plan attacks in the West, and actually in many cases they do condemn them.”

The problem is more indirect, Vidino said. “Generally speaking, the movement has not abandoned violence as a tool to advance its agenda.” Tactically, it doesn’t pursue violence, “but it’s not heartfelt,” he said.

“They have this narrative where they lump together foreign policy issues with issues like cartoons and so on as part of a big narrative that proves this point that the West hates Muslims and Islam. It’s that mainstreaming of this narrative which is very much the staircase to violent radicalization and the brotherhood does mainstream that. It provides somewhat of a fertile environment.

“That kind of narrative in the mind a 16- or 18-year-old is extremely dangerous, because violence is justified when Muslims are under attack. If it’s OK in Gaza and Afghanistan, why is it not OK in the West, where you’re also telling me that Islam is under attack?”

…. To start, there is no group calling itself the “Muslim Brotherhood” in North America. Instead, a few hundred sophisticated, politically savvy and well-funded supporters in Canada have over the past 50 years created vocal and visible organizations that represent a very small part of the Muslim community. They exert a disproportional influence over mosques, schools and spaces where Muslims come together, said Vidino.

While they don’t take orders from any Arab capital, they “are part of an informal network where you have strong links based on personal and financial connections, and at the end of the day what matters the most: ideology. They all embrace a certain world view.”

Groups sometimes go to great lengths to sever or hide such ties, Vidino told the committee. He said they include the Muslim Association of Canada and what used to be called CAIR-CAN, now the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

Another group he identified is The International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy – Canada, IRFAN. Its charitable status was revoked after the government alleged the organization sent almost $15 million to groups affiliated with the Palestinian terror outfit Hamas between 2005 and 2009. IRFAN has since been listed as a banned terrorist organization in Canada.

Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the NCCM, said Vidino is misinformed.

“The NCCM is an independent, non-partisan and non-profit grassroots Canadian civil liberties and advocacy organization with a public track record spanning 15 years,” said Gardee. “The NCCM is not a religious group and does not and has never had any affiliations, links, ideological or of any other kind, with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other overseas group.”

Beware of the Muslim Brotherhood, expert warns | Ottawa Citizen.

Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Savoie

More on the inappropriate use by Employment Minister Poilievre use of government video services for partisan purposes (taking a lead from the PM’s 24/7 videos).

Should there be a change in government, there will likely be questions regarding whether or not deputies and senior officials provided any advice on the ethics of such advertising, particularly in the pre-writ period. There is also a risk that an incoming government may choose to emulate this approach rather than limiting it.

While Savoie is right that not all responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the Clerk and that all executives have a role in questioning such practices, the Clerk and deputies need to set the tone and provide space for other executives to challenge such requests:

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre’s taxpayer-funded video to promote the Conservatives’ universal childcare benefit shows the traditional line between politics and the public service is a “no man’s land” where there are no rules, says a leading public administration expert.

Donald Savoie, a Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at Université de Moncton, said the online video “smacked” of partisanship to which public servants should have been “hyper-sensitive” coming only four months before a federal election.

“If anyone should know and be sensitive to the partisan line that should not be crossed, it’s the public service,” said Savoie. “They should not get involved in initiatives or measures that can viewed by Canadians, or opposition politicians, as partisan. They are guardians of the public interest, not the political interest.”

But Savoie said the rules and boundaries that once separated politicians and bureaucrats, and the workings of politics and administration have been “thrown out the window” — setting the stage for a creeping politicization of the public service.

There are still rules like those laid down in the communication policy and values-and-ethics code that are supposed to ensure that public servants don’t stray into partisan territory. And the department argued that it followed government policies in making the video.

But Savoie argues codes and policies don’t fill the void of rules that guided the traditional bargain between Canada’s non-partisan public servants and politicians. As a result, public servants don’t know what their roles are anymore in policy-making, operations or communications.

“No values and ethics code can paper over this no man’s land. The minister should have basic respect for public service, and senior public servants should have it too. It takes two to have a bargain. That old bargain is gone and we are searching for a new one,” said Savoie.

“So what’s the role of the public service in contemporary government? We haven’t defined the new rules. All we have are values and ethics and they have no teeth. We absolutely need a frank and open discussion on the role of the public service in policy making, operations and communications.”

Academics have for years warned that the traditional role of the public service was radically shifting as power gathered at the centre in the Prime Minister’s Office and its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.

That shift has accelerated by rapidly changing technology, the 24-hour news cycle, and governments obsessed with managing the message.

But critics argue that nothing has strained the neutrality of public servants like the Conservatives’ highly centralized and partisan approach to government communications.

Liberal MP David McGuinty argued that Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette, who heads the public service, should justify how public servants could work on what he called Poilievre’s “taxpayer-funded vanity video.”

The video was produced by department funds, and public servants were called in on a Sunday to work on it, including filming Poilievre glad-handing constituents.

But Savoie questions why the clerk should be on the hook when every public servant has been immersed in the values-and-ethics code.

“Don’t point the finger at the clerk,” said Savoie. “If you are an EX-1 or above you should know the importance of the value-and-ethics code and when you see a red flag like this a few months before a general election, live by it. You should be asking if this is appropriate. Values and ethics code covers everybody, not just the clerk.”

But Savoie said Poilievre, as a minister, should have known better.

“Ministers have a responsibility to back off and respect the line and realize what’s in the public interest and what’s in their own interest. It’s not all on the shoulder of the public service — the ministers shouldn’t be making inappropriate demands.”

Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Expert | Ottawa Citizen.