Banning the niqab harms an open society. So does wearing it: Omer Aziz

Omer Azis on the niqab debate:

Assuming it is genuine modesty and not an ostentatious display of conservative religiosity that motivates a woman to wear a black veil sequestering her from the rest of society, a cultural practice that demands of one sex to cover up is inherently misogynistic. If anyone should be required to cover their faces, it is the men who torture and kill their daughters and sisters for marrying of their own free will. Let us not mince words here: Women are certainly ‘free’ to wear the niqab, in the same sense as they are ‘free’ to enter the mosque from the side and ‘free’ to stand behind the men while praying. This is a blinkered idea of freedom, but liberalism requires tolerating and legally protecting illiberal attitudes.

The main problem with the niqab, though, is that it diminishes liberal democracy. What separates liberal societies from dictatorships is that the former are open, allow for face-to-face consultation, encourage dissent, and recognize individuals as equals. Liberal societies must allow one citizen to see another citizen’s face when in conversation or contact. When only one party’s face is visible, the informalities of open conversation disappear, body language is eliminated, the natural empathy we humans feel when looking at our fellow human’s face is extinguished. A veil over the face of one citizen permanently alters the terms of the discussion, which is why niqabs have no place in classrooms and other institutions where free discourse is designed to flourish. Imagine a society where all women covered their faces, as some of the more totalitarian Islamists would impose. Call this society what you like, but it would be the farthest thing from liberal democracy.

The enemy of the open society, the late Czech playwright-president Vaclav Havel once wrote, ‘is a person with a fiercely serious countenance and burning eyes.’ Both the politician who seeks to ban what a woman may wear, and the patriarch who seeks to dictate what a woman must wear, are not friends of the open society.

Neither, however, is the niqab.

One of the most articulate commentary yet.

Banning the niqab harms an open society. So does wearing it – The Globe and Mail.

Immigration: la CAQ veut resserrer les exigences

The CAQ continues its focus on identity politics in the current consultations on immigration, with probationary residency and a test on Quebec values:

«Il faut être prudents, c’est un sujet qui est complexe, c’est délicat, il ne faut pas faire des amalgames, il faut être respectueux, a-t-il dit. Mais il faut aussi être francs, et je pense que la société québécoise sortirait gagnante qu’on se donne des balises très claires quant à la sélection et l’intégration des immigrants.»

M. Legault a expliqué que ses propositions, dont il espère que les libéraux s’inspireront, visent notamment à répondre aux préoccupations soulevées par les attentats de djihadistes à Paris.

«Il y a actuellement une inquiétude fondée au Québec, a-t-il dit. Veut-on avoir des futurs immigrants qui pourraient devenir des prédicateurs, qui viendraient dénigrer des valeurs fondamentales comme l’égalité entre les hommes puis les femmes? Je pense que les Québécois ne souhaitent pas ça, donc je pense que c’est important.»

Cette nouvelle procédure serait disponible pour les travailleurs qualifiés, qui comptaient pour 58 pour cent des 52 000 immigrants accueillis au Québec en 2013.

M. Legault croit qu’il est souhaitable d’autoriser plus rapidement les immigrants à venir s’établir au Québec quand leurs qualifications correspondent aux besoins du marché du travail québécois.

En contrepartie, la CAQ rehausserait les exigences de connaissance du français en plus d’imposer la réussite d’un cours portant sur les valeurs québécoises véhiculées notamment par la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés.

Trois ans après leur arrivée, les travailleurs qualifiés devraient ainsi répondre à ces exigences de manière satisfaisante en plus de prouver leurs efforts d’intégration du marché du travail, a expliqué le chef caquiste en conférence de presse.

«De la même façon qu’un touriste qui vient ici, au Québec, à un moment donné, ne peut pas rester de façon permanente, de la même façon qu’une personne qui reçoit un permis de travail temporaire ne peut pas rester ici de façon permanente, effectivement, si, dans ce qui est proposé, l’immigrant ne reçoit pas son certificat permanent, bien, oui, il devra retourner, a-t-il dit lors d’une conférence de presse. Puis le gouvernement fédéral devra s’assurer que cette personne retourne chez elle.»

Immigration: la CAQ veut resserrer les exigences | Alexandre Robillard | Politique québécoise.

National Muslim group warns C-51 posturing ‘giving fodder to extremists’

Valid points:

“I quite honestly wanted to tell Ms. Ablonczy, ‘please, stop helping the terrorists win’,” NCCM Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee told iPolitics of their tense exchange.

In the exchange Thursday night, Ablonczy said she wanted to “put on the record” what she said was as “a continuing series of allegations” that the NCCM is linked to groups that have expressed support for “Islamic terrorist groups,” including Hamas. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former spokesman, Jason MacDonald, is already being sued by the NCCM for similar comments.

At the time, Gardee bristled at the comments, calling them “McCarthy-esque.”

Gardee later elaborated, warning that, “Violent extremists will now use this kind of thing to say to the young and to the vulnerable and uninformed that ‘See? Even if you are trying to be a part of Canadian society, your country will never accept you’ and that despite what they say, they are in fact at war with Islam and Muslims.”

“It’s seems to be open season,” he said.

National Muslim group warns C-51 posturing ‘giving fodder to extremists’

And in related news, it seems to be open season for inappropriate language by Conservative MPs (see earlier John Williamson apologizes for ‘offensive’ comment on temporary workers program):

“If you aren’t willing to show your face in a ceremony where you’re joining the best country in the world, then frankly … stay the hell where you came from,” he said.

“I think most Canadians feel the same. I may be saying it a little harshly, but it’s the way I feel. I’m so sick and tired of people wanting to come here because they know it’s a good country and then they want to change things before they even officially become a Canadian.”

In a statement released Tuesday, Mr. Miller said some of his comments were “inappropriate.”

“I stand by my view that anyone being sworn in as a new citizen of our country must uncover their face. However, I apologize for and retract my comments that went beyond this.”

Carl Vallée, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office, said Mr. Miller’s comments went “beyond our clear position.”

Mr. Miller’s comments went further than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said last week that the niqab, a face-covering veil worn by a small minority of Muslim women in Canada, was “rooted in a culture that is anti-women.”

Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said recent comments from the Conservative government were “seemingly designed to keep the electorate focused on identity politics in order to distract them from broader issues in an election year.”

“Even with an apology, the damage has been done, and continues to be done, by elected officials who seem intent on debating an issue that has already been fully addressed in our courts and which does little to address the real concerns Canadians have about their day-to-day lives,” Mr. Gardee said in a statement. “It further creates a climate in which Muslim women may be subjected to anti-Muslim sentiment and discrimination.”

Again, quick apology but damage done.

Remarks on women wearing niqabs were ‘inappropriate,’ Tory MP says – The Globe and Mail.

:

 

Family, friends of radicalized persons wary of reporting: experts

Some of the challenges in encouraging families and friends to play a greater part in de-radicalization:

Part of the problem is that friends and family members of individuals who are radicalized believe their only resort is to report their loved one to the police, which might then lead to criminal charges, according to Dr. Lorne Dawson, a terrorist radicalization expert and professor of sociology at the University of Waterloo.

“They (family members) have conflicting loyalties. They don’t know where to report the individual except for the police and they don’t want to be responsible for their loved one being arrested.”

As well, he says, family members may not take the threat seriously. “Maybe the person has a reputation for being over-the-top, or exaggerating things, or being rather extreme in their judgment and views on things.”

Calling the authorities is not ideal for a family that believes it may simply have an emotionally strung-out individual on their hands, he says.

Staff Sgt. David Zackrias heads the Diversity and Race Relations Section of the Ottawa Police Service, which aims to provide outreach and build bridges between police and diverse ethnic communities in Ottawa. He’s also the vice co-chair on the policing side of the Community and Police Action Committee (COMPAC), a community-police advisory body in Ottawa that meets once a month.

He urges family and community members to report an individual who is seemingly in the early stages of radicalization so the person can get help before a violent threshold is crossed.

“If public safety is in jeopardy, we need to make sure the right people are notified,” he says. “But if this is something that we could work with in terms of engagement and there’s an issue with a certain person who is in the infancy stage of being radicalized, then we engage the community and address those issues and share what resources are out there in the community.”

Such community resources may include a psychiatrist or social worker with the skills to help the person address the issue.

Most of Zackrias’ work within the Muslim community involves taking part in panel discussions with imams and Muslim community leaders, in which their concerns and grievances are brought forward.

“When the community comes and informs us about certain things in terms of they’re concerned that certain people are coming to town and giving hate speech, we provide them with the information to make an informed decision,” he says.

Last year, Public Safety initiated a strategy for countering violent extremism with a major focus on engaging and interacting with communities and individuals in order to research the root causes of terrorism and how to combat them, according to the department’s website.

Bessma Momani, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a non-partisan international governance think-tank based in Waterloo, Ont., says one of the biggest challenges facing a CVE strategy is building trust between communities and law enforcement.

“The RCMP and different municipal police forces have worked with vulnerable communities and leaders,” she said. “They’ve reached out and some of these programs are really fantastic.”

As well, she says that having an open dialogue among family members about the risks of extremism is vital, because young people are adept at hiding their lives on the Internet from others, and many people may not believe that radicalization could happen in their own homes.

“Having parents and families involved is a really important tool for not only deradicalization but also in preventing wannabe foreign fighters. Like any social problem, dialogue, bringing it to the fore, and having a conversation can be helpful,” she said.

According to a Dec. 2013 study in the Journal of Forensic Science of 119 lone-actors who engaged in or planned to commit acts of terrorism in the United States and Europe, in about 64 per cent of cases friends and family members knew of the individual’s intent to commit terrorism-related acts because the individual had verbally told them.

In more than 65 per cent of the cases, the individual expressed intent to hurt or harm others while in almost 80 per cent of the cases, others knew of the individual’s commitment to an extremist ideology. These findings suggest “friends and family can play important roles in efforts that seek to prevent terrorist plots.”

Of course, recent federal government messaging makes it harder for this kind of outreach and engagement.

Family, friends of radicalized persons wary of reporting: experts | Ottawa Citizen.

How can we help Jews stay in Europe despite anti-Semitism: Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article doesn’t answer that question.

Interesting take by William Salatan on antisemitism in Europe:

I don’t mean to suggest that Muslims don’t understand anti-Semitism. They do. But the anti-Semitism they’re familiar with is the anti-Semitism of resentment, not the anti-Semitism of genocidal success. Goldberg describes a French Jew whose parents fled Tunisia in 1967, “driven out by anti-Jewish rioters who were putatively distressed by Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War.” The key word in that sentence is victory. If Israel had lost—if the Jews of Palestine had been annihilated—Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa might understand anti-Semitism the way Europeans do. Anti-Semitism isn’t about a chant or a salute. It’s about piles of corpses.

Nor do I mean to exonerate the majority of Europeans who are neither Muslim nor Jewish. They’ve played their part in the intimidation of Jews by not playing their part in stopping it. Goldberg credits leaders of Germany, France, and Britain for denouncing anti-Semitism. But he points out that “the general publics of these countries do not seem nearly as engaged in the issue as their leaders. The Berlin rally last fall against anti-Semitism that featured Angela Merkel drew a paltry 5,000 people, most of whom were Jews.” And the silence of the majority leaves Jews feeling isolated. “Everyone is saying ‘Je suis Charlie’ today,” a Jewish student in Paris tells Goldberg, alluding to outrage over the murder of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. “But this has been happening to the Jews for years and no one cares.” Another student, using the French term for “Jewish,” suggests: “It would be nice if someone would say ‘Je suis Juif.’ ”

Why don’t non-Muslim Europeans care more about the new anti-Semitism? One reason is that they aren’t Jews. But another reason is that they aren’t Muslims. They’re neither the victims nor the perpetrators. They feel neither the threat nor the responsibility.

…If I were a Jew in Europe, I don’t think I’d leave. Growing up in Texas, I had many encounters—slurs, threats, occasional minor violence—similar to those described by Goldberg as anti-Semitic. They were anti-Semitic. I just had to deal with them. One thing that helped me get through it was the belief that my tormentors represented an ignorant, dying past. The best way to help today’s European Jews is to give them the same confidence, by working on the ignorance at the heart of Muslim anti-Semitism. To do that, you have to focus on the ignorance, not the Islam.

How can we help Jews stay in Europe despite anti-Semitism: Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article doesn’t answer that question..

CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam

A reminder that the threats are broader than government messaging and labelling would suggest:

“Lone wolf” attacks more often come from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologies than from Islamic radicalism, internal CSIS documents say.

Citing recent academic research, the unclassified documents note extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideology has been the “main ideological source” for 17 per cent of so-called lone wolf attacks worldwide.

Islamic extremism accounted for 15 per cent of such attacks, the document noted, while left-wing extremism and “black power” groups followed with 13 per cent. Anti-abortion activism (8 per cent) and nationalism/separatism (7 per cent) rounded out the list, while in 40 per cent of cases there was no clear ideological motivation.

“Lone actors tend to create their own ideologies that combine personal frustrations and grievances, with wider political, social, or religious issues,” note the documents prepared for Michael Peirce, assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

“This study confirms that lone actor terrorism runs the gamut of ideological persuasions.”

CSIS highlights white supremacist threat ahead of radical Islam | Toronto Star.

Trevor Phillips Says Multiculturalism Is ‘A Racket’ Ahead Of Channel 4 Race Documentary

Trevor Phillips on the dangers of excessive political correctness and the need for more open and frank discussion:

The perverse and unintended consequences of our drive to instil respect for diversity is that our political and media classes have become terrified of discussing racial or religious differences.

“Our desperation to avoid offence is itself beginning to stand in the way of progress. And all too often the losers are minority Britons.

“Preventing anyone from saying what’s on their minds won’t ever remove it from their hearts. People need to feel free to say what they want to without the fear of being accused of racism or bigotry.”

He listed ’10 true things’ it is taboo to say, including “Romanians are far more likely to be pickpockets” and “Jewish households are twice as wealthy as the rest”.

He cited the child sex abuse scandals in towns including Oxford, Rotherham and Rochdale and the murder in 2000 of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie as examples of institutions failing to act for fear of offending minority groups.

Phillips, a Labour London Assembly Member, also admitted he felt he bore some responsibility for the July 7 bombings in 2005 because, as then head of the CRE, he failed “to see what was coming”.

He said: “Because I had made it my business to spend part of each week in a community outside London, I already knew some groups were becoming so isolated that values and ideas which most people would find alien were tolerated and even encouraged.

“But we had said little about it and done even less. After 12 months at the CRE I had come to the conclusion that, while beautiful in theory, multiculturalism had become a racket in which self-style community leaders bargained for control over local authority funds that would prop up their own status and authority.

“Far from encouraging integration it had become in their interest to preserve the isolation of their ethnic groups. In some, practices such as female genital mutilation — a topic I’d made films about as a TV journalist — were regarded as the private domain of the community.

“In others, local politicians and community bosses had clearly struck a Faustian bargain: grants for votes.

“And I saw a looming danger that these communities were steadily shrinking in on themselves, trapping young people behind walls of tradition and deference to elders.

“Of course none of this was secret. But anyone who pointed the finger could expect to be denounced for not respecting diversity.”

Phillips criticised the public reaction to “pefectly reasonable” comments by Benedict Cumberbatch about the lack of roles for black actors in the UK.

He said Cumberbatch was making the “much-needed case for the employment of black actors in greater numbers”.

Trevor Phillips Says Multiculturalism Is ‘A Racket’ Ahead Of Channel 4 Race Documentary.

Immigrants Looking Beyond Big City Living – New Canadian Media – NCM

Saskatchewan_ImmigrationLet’s not exaggerate: the numbers are still small, both in Saskatchewan as a whole and the communities listed, but it is part of a trend, helped by the growth of provincial nomination programs, towards more dispersion of immigration across the country:

The research, based on the 2011 National Household Survey, revealed the top five non-metropolitan towns with the highest number of immigrants as a per cent of total population were all in Saskatchewan. Although the number of immigrants moving to rural areas are smaller, the impact on the local population is significant. For example, topping the list was the town of Englefeld, Saskatchewan, with a total population of 225 people, 80 of them being immigrants – about 35.6 per cent of the population.

“Over time, the labour markets in the larger centres become particularly saturated, so immigrants will perceive more opportunities in smaller jurisdictions and that will bring them outward.” – Dr. Michael Haan

Ontario still attracts the most in sheer numbers, but the prairie provinces rank higher per capita for several reasons says Dr. Michael Haan, the Canada research chair in population and social policy at the University of New Brunswick. He describes the recent trend to rural Canada as a natural progression of a country’s immigration movement.

“When a country initially welcomes immigrants, they tend to cluster in particular regions, here the largest cities received the most,” he explains. “Over time, the labour markets in the larger centres become particularly saturated, so immigrants will perceive more opportunities in smaller jurisdictions and that will bring them outward.”

Immigrants Looking Beyond Big City Living – New Canadian Media – NCM.

The Canadian High Commission, the revered historian and the dinner invite never sent

More of the sordid details behind the Government’s efforts to undermine the mandate of the Foundation for Canadian Studies in the UK. A long but interesting read, and consistent with earlier Government decisions to cut funding international for the Canadian studies abroad program (see Foreign Affairs Cuts Canadian Studies Abroad Program):

The foundation’s original mandate was “the advancement of the education of the public in the United Kingdom in matters relating to Canada,” primarily through the funding of Canadian Studies research chairs at several UK universities. Following the fracas, the foundation’s website was amended to say it is “now expanding this to consider research that is directed at issues that are of strategic importance to both Canada and the UK, such as energy, transport, communications, the sustainable use of natural resources, multiculturalism and the welfare of indigenous peoples.”

The squabble has seen Mr. Campbell accused of bullying and suggestions raised of interference by either the Prime Minister’s Office or the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa. Critics accuse the High Commission of wanting to use the foundation’s money – all of it raised via private donations – to carry out programs the High Commission can no longer afford to pay for after funding cuts by the federal government.

The Canadian High Commission, the revered historian and the dinner invite never sent – The Globe and Mail.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’

How does the Government seriously think that this ongoing line of unsubstantiated allegations helps increase cooperation with Canadian Muslim groups and Canadian Muslims in generally in helping reduce the risk of radicalization and violent extremism?

Just reinforcing previous examples of divisive language and the lack of a de-radicalization strategy on “soft” measures to reduce what are real risks:

During a question-and-answer session following National Council of Canadian Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee’s presentation to the House public safety committee on Bill C-51, Diane Ablonczy used her allotted time to “put on the record” what she described as “a continuing series of allegations” that the NCCM has ties to groups that have expressed support for “Islamic terrorist groups,” including Hamas.

“I think it is fair to give you an opportunity to address these troubling allegations,” Ablonczy said.

“In order to work together, there needs to be a satisfaction that, you know, this can’t be a half-hearted battle against terrorism. Where do you stand in light of these allegations?”

Gardee pushed back.

Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told Diane Ablonczy that her line of questioning Thursday was “entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.” (CBC News)

“First and foremost, I’ll say on the record that NCCM has condemned violent terrorism and extremism in all of its forms, regardless of who perpetrates it for whatever reason,” he told the committee.

“However, the premise of your question is false, and entirely based on innuendo and misinformation.”

Gardee pointed to the group’s history as an independent, non-profit, grassroots Canadian Muslim civil liberties organization with a “robust and public” track record.

“These are precisely the types of slanderous statements that have resulted in litigation that is ongoing,” he said, including a defamation lawsuit launched last year against the Prime Minister’s Office over “false statements” linking the group to Hamas made by now-former spokesman Jason MacDonald.

“The NCCM is confident that the courts will provide the necessary clarity on these points to ensure they are never repeated again,” he said. “The NCCM is not going to submit to a litmus test of loyalty used against Canadian Muslims and their institutions… which underlie such offensive questions.”

“McCarthyesque-type questions protected by parliamentary privilege are unbecoming of this committee,” he said, referring to a style of questioning used by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, imputing guilt with little or no evidence to back it up.

In response, Ablonczy mused that Gardee seemed to have been prepared for her question — as, she said, she thought he might be — before switching topics to hear his thoughts on effective anti-radicalization initiatives.

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy’s questions to Muslim group ‘McCarthyesque’ – Politics – CBC News.