Anti-Semitism Should Not Be Criminalized « Commentary Magazine

Commentary magazine on the dangers of criminalizing hate-speech and antisemitism. It was always interesting to listen to the US delegation at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance explain the US First Amendment, to general scepticism of the other countries, largely European but that like Canada, had hate speech laws or equivalent.

But in general, agree that antisemitism and other forms of racism and discrimination need to be defeated by society, and what is considered acceptable discourse, to have more widespread impact:

But those ideas–when they remain ideas, and not battlefield cries–should be defeated by a society, not outlawed by the government. Jailing anti-Semites for their opinions won’t reduce anti-Semitism. Incarceration can deter action, but it’s unlikely to alleviate grievance, and anyway it is an unjust method of changing minds. The same goes for the government banning “comedians” whose act offends basic notions of decency.

It’s also worth reminding the Jews of Europe that their religious beliefs contain ideas that the modern secular left consider offensive as well. They may find that a heavyhanded government enforcing a standard of righteous thought is on their side this time. If they think it will stay that way, then they, too, have unlearned the lessons of the past.

Anti-Semitism Should Not Be Criminalized « Commentary Magazine.

Religious freedom chief says he aids diplomats in supporting human rights abroad – The Globe and Mail

A few articles on the Office of Religious Freedom, under the direction of Ambassador, Andrew Bennett. The focus on religious freedom is understandable given the rise of religious intolerance and fundamentalism. Not surprisingly, given evidence of increased persecution as well as the Government’s political interests, is the emphasis on persecution of Christians.

Religious freedom ambassador not worried about ‘push back’ from abroad.

Religious freedom chief says he aids diplomats in supporting human rights abroad – The Globe and Mail.

Tiger Mom’s claim that cultures blessed with ‘triple package’ get ahead in America sparks uproar | National Post

Tiger Mom’s latest attempt to generate publicity and controversy, without a more sophisticated discussion of the factors that influence success. Clever packaging of  what she calls “the triple package” – superiority, insecurity and impulse control.

While it is no secret that different groups have overall different levels of economic success (see Table 5: Ethnic Community Specific Challenges and Table 6: Religious Group Specific Challenges), the explanations are more complex than a simple formula:

Asked about the controversy on Monday, sociologists and anthropologists said that despite its merits, the discussion of cultural difference inevitably becomes a minefield of assumptions, stereotypes and political correctness, especially when considered in the Western context.

“It should be possible to discuss cultural differences without evoking charges of racism,” said Morton Weinfeld, who holds the Chair in Canadian Ethnic Studies at McGill University.

“In my view, cultures are important and cultures can differ — otherwise, why are we discussing multiculturalism and reasonable accommodation?”

And yet that discussion quickly becomes “controversial” when groups as a whole are touted as successful, the way Ms. Chua and Mr. Rubenfeld present cultural groups in The Triple Package.

“The implication,” he said, “is that others aren’t.”

Kind of interesting that white Americans didn’t make the cut.

Tiger Mom’s claim that cultures blessed with ‘triple package’ get ahead in America sparks uproar | National Post.

Pellerin and Robson: Stephen Harper vs. Canada’s intellectuals | National Post

A good insight into conservative thinking on intellectuals, but rather than looking at the substantive policy issues and the evidence vs anecdote debate, Pellerin and Robson take a more shallow approach, focusing more on the personalities and perceptions.

It would have been more interesting if they had articulated the conservative rationale (as the government largely did not) for specific policy decisions and choices. Some policy decisions have managed to secure the opposition of intellectuals across the political spectrum decisions (e.g., cancellation of the census, weakening of science capacity and institutions like the Archives and research libraries). While they are right that most public intellectuals are more on the centre to left side of the spectrum, there has also been the welcome growth of conservative intellectuals and capacity, making for a more lively debate.

As Pellerin and Robson note, in a comment that could also apply to them:

There is an obvious and sometimes painful dislike of Stephen Harper’s brand of politics among intellectuals in this country. It is of course their right to feel this way and express their views however they choose. Indeed, we find some of those criticisms legitimate in some instances. But if intellectuals want to be taken seriously in their denunciation of the prime minister’s decisions and behavior, they ought to focus on ideas more and emotions less.

Pellerin & Robson: Stephen Harper vs. Canada’s intellectuals | National Post.

What Islam-bashers Can Learn From ‘The West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin | Mehdi Hasan

A funny by pertinent piece by Mehdi Hasan, citing Baroness Warsi’s use of the West Wing in response to UK Independence Party former leader Lord Pearson citing some of more extreme verses from the Quran:

In the show, President Jed Bartlet takes on a Christian evangelical radio presenter who had called homosexuality an “abomination”. “I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr President. The Bible does,” she replies, citing Leviticus 18:22. To which Bartlet responds:

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7… What would a good price for her be? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”

Makes the point that the issue is about fundamentalists and literalists, not religions per se.

What Islam-bashers Can Learn From ‘The West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin | Mehdi Hasan.

Why the world’s best and brightest struggle to find jobs in Canada – Business, Future of Jobs – Macleans.ca

Good overview of some of the reasons for the poor outcomes of recent immigrants, and the justification for the “expression of interest” system inspired by the Australian and New Zealand system. Like all major policy and program changes, will take a number of years following implementation before the results are known:

Critics contend that placing the short-term needs of employers at the heart of the skilled immigration system isn’t a cure-all, since the skills employers need today might not be the ones they’ll need in five or 10 years. But others warn the current system is far worse. “It’s an important discussion because we have a policy specifically designed to pick the immigrants that are most likely to succeed in the labour market,” says Oreopoulos, “and yet we’re completely failing them.”

More importantly, says Somerville, ensuring future generations of immigrants don’t end up underemployed and living in poverty will require a complete overhaul of what it means to immigrate to Canada. “It really means changing the mentality that Canada is entirely a land of opportunity,” she says. For Canadians and immigrants alike, that message will be hard to face.

Why the world’s best and brightest struggle to find jobs in Canada – Business, Future of Jobs – Macleans.ca.

Immigrants don’t turn ‘blue’ the moment they arrive – The Globe and Mail

A useful counterpoint to the thesis of John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker in The Big Shift, by Michael Adams and Robin Brown, nuancing the Ibbitson-Bricker argument that Canadian immigrants and new Canadians are inherently more conservative politically:

But the story is more complicated.

The idea that migrant attitudes are defined by a focus on economic mobility is outdated. These days, middle-class Chinese and Indians who are solely focused on material gain are better off staying in their home countries. Today’s migrants are often people who voluntarily accept a decline in status and even income to move to Canada. Young professional immigrants who choose Canada are often seeking gains in quality of life more than standard of living. Focus group participants have told us they want to raise their children outside the hierarchies and pressures of their home countries. South Asian immigrants, in particular, are attracted to Canada’s multicultural society, believing they and their children are enriched through exposure to diverse cultures. Many of the Chinese immigrants we speak to are tired of “striving” and are trading off more opportunity in China for less stress in Canada.

One of the success stories of Canada’s model of immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism is that all parties engage ethnic communities. Minister Kenney is the best illustration of this approach, given his extensive and energetic outreach.

Unlike in Europe or the US, there is no xenophobic political party. Immigration-related debates are over policy and program approaches, not the fundamental view of Canada as a diverse, multicultural society.

Immigrants don’t turn ‘blue’ the moment they arrive – The Globe and Mail.

The reply by Bricker and Ibbitson based upon a wider survey and the election results, showing gains for the Conservatives in ridings with a large proportion of ethnic voters:

 You have to figure immigrants out to win elections 

The counterpart to both articles is of course Susan Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes, which downplays macro trends given that parties, and the Conservatives have done that particularly well, are micro-targeting in terms of policies and programs, treating voters more as consumers than with fixed party preferences.

Meet Joe/Jose/Youssef Canada

A good overview of Canada from the National Voluntary Survey. While not as accurate as the Census cancelled by the current government (higher cost for poorer quality data, less comparability with previous data), at the national and provincial levels captures the major trends.

Meet Joe/Jose/Youssef Canada.

Citizenship Round-Up: Nine Trends from 2013

A good overview by Peter Spiro of some current citizenship trends:

  1. Citizenship is not priceless.

  2. Even the Germans can live with dual citizenship

  3. American no more.

  4. Foreigners have privacy rights, too.

  5. A human right to citizenship.

  6. Obama’s gives up on The New Citizenship.

  7. Ted Cruz may be a Canadian, but he is eligible for the presidency.

  8. The path to legal residency matters more than the path to citizenship.

  9. Recementing ties to long-lost brothers and sisters.

And a couple to watch for 2014: what would be the UK/EU citizenship mechanics of Scottish independence; will increasingly common birth tourism packages revive efforts to scale back birthright citizenship in the US; and how will citizenships of convenience play out in the Sochi Olympics.

Blog Archive Citizenship Round-Up: Nine Trends from 2013 » Opinio Juris.

Kevin Page dismisses Privy Council’s Blueprint 2020 as ‘empty vessel’, other commentary

Hard to disagree with these comments by Kevin Page, former Parliamentary Budget Officer and currently attached to University of Ottawa, and Donald Savoie of Université de Moncton:

“I don’t see a vision and I have been very critical of the Blueprint 2020, but there is a context for change,” said Page.

“Where is the state of policy and financial analysis in government and its capacity to deliver services? We should be true to our values and no one can say we have been true to accountability and transparency in the past five years, moving on big initiatives with no supporting analysis.

“The public service is accountable to the executive but it is also accountable to Parliament and they have dropped the ball on that, and that comes with the price of lost public trust.”

Donald Savoie, the Canada Research chair in administration and governance at the Universite de Moncton, is also pushing for reform but argues the problem lies with the public service’s relationship with ministers, cabinet and Parliament….

He said all the chatter and discussions generated by Blueprint 2020 may be invigorating, especially for young public servants eager to harness technology and open up government, but it won’t work unless that relationship with politicians changes.

“I can’t figure out Blueprint 2020. It’s like grabbing smoke. I don’t understand where it is going. Maybe something fundamental or important is taking shape in the system and if that’s the case, good luck, but for someone from the outside looking in, there’s nothing there. It seems vapid … and until you deal with the role of ministers, Parliament and their relationship with public servants … the vision is only sentences in a report and will not have any legs.”

Kevin Page dismisses Privy Council’s Blueprint 2020 as ‘empty vessel’.

And the official government and bureaucratic view, predictably more rose-coloured:

Public servants waiting to see which vision for the bureaucracy will prevail in 2014

Lawrence Martin in the Globe takes a similarly hard-hitting approach, highlighting the relationship issue between the government and the public service. He goes too far in asserting the independence of the public service, given its role to serve the government of the day. Codifying a “moral contract” as suggested by Ralph Heintzman beyond the general understanding of “fearless advice and loyal implementation” is unlikely to happen, and would likely be too rigid. As always, finding the right balance is a challenge:

In the face of all the problems, top bureaucrat Wayne Wouters, Clerk of the Privy Council, has unveiled Blueprint 2020, a vision for a reformed world-class public service. Many such reform and modernization schemes have been tried in the past with scant results. This one, which follows a commendable consultation process within the service, is full of fine-sounding stuff like citizen engagement, smart use of new technologies and a whole-of-government approach to improve service delivery and value for money…

But not much in Mr. Wouters’s plan appears aimed at restoring the degree of independence the public service has traditionally exercised. Its politicization, a most serious example being that of the Privy Council Office, must be stopped. The public service should be accountable not only to the executive branch but also to Parliament. On the latter, says Mr. Page, it has dropped the ball, at the price of a loss in public trust.

Meaningful reform would entail something like what’s been proposed by former Treasury Board executive Ralph Heintzman. What is needed, he says, is a “moral contract,” a charter that sets well-defined boundaries between ministers, public servants and Parliament.

 Time to renew Canada’s cowed, bloated bureaucracy 

In fairness to all, the challenge in any such PS renewal initiative is high, there are no formal evaluations of previous efforts at PS renewal that I am aware (some informal reflections, however),  the fundamental limits of what can be done given bureaucratic and political heirarchies (government works top down, not bottom up), not to mention the particular context of the current government-public service relations.