Letters to Globe Editor on the Change to Self-Administered Citizenship Oath

2023/07/29 Leave a comment

Of note, letters in response to the Globe’s excellent editorial, What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony. Opportunity for Minister Miller to make his mark and reverse this counter-productive proposal:

Stand on guard

Re “Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath” (July 21): As is often the case, the bottom line is an influential factor for discouraging prospective Canadian citizens from having in-person swearing-in ceremonies, although the government prefers to highlight the speeding up of the procedure.

The government also wants to spare employees from having to take unpaid leave to attend. This should not be an issue. If voters in a national election are allotted three paid hours to do their duty, the same should be the law for citizenship ceremonies.

How underwhelming to sit at one’s computer, alone, after all the work entailed to pass the test, no one with whom to celebrate. Where is the government’s sense of occasion?

Ann Sullivan Peterborough, Ont.

I am appalled by the idea that our citizenship ceremonies should be reduced to a click on one’s computer.

I became a citizen at the age of 26. It was a proud event. I was born in a country where such things are important and respected, just like the flag.

There, the flag was treated with great respect and only hoisted for special days or events, then taken down at sundown. It really bothers me to see a row of faded Canadian flags at a car lot, a car with two flags to protest whatever or a homeowner proudly hoisting a flag, but only to see it faded and torn years later.

Another national symbol going down the drain. I am a proud Canadian. It hurts.

Vince Devries Ladysmith, B.C.

I became a naturalized Canadian many decades ago.

Because I was already a British subject, I swore an oath in a bureaucrat’s office, signed documents and I was done. As time went on and I attended friends’ public ceremonies, I developed a strong feeling of having been shorted.

A public ceremony, I think, would have made me feel more Canadian more quickly.

R. A. Halliday Saskatoon

My memory worsens by the day. But, although it happened decades ago, I will never forget my citizenship ceremony.

I recall the interesting mix of people who were there that sunny day in Vancouver. There was the smile and raised eyebrow of the citizenship judge when, feeling flustered, I told her that Canada Day was July 4. Immediately knowing my mistake, I said sorry. I became a Canadian.

As a retired university teacher, I know that nothing compares with the in-person experience. If that is true for birthdays and weddings, it is equally true for the life-changing event of becoming a citizen.

Richard Harris Hamilton

I arrived in Canada in 1968. Immediately after the required five years of residency, I applied for citizenship.

I remember my ceremony well. In those days, we were each given a Bible on which to swear allegiance to the Queen. It was the New Testament, and being Jewish I was not able to swear on it.

I asked if there was an Old Testament, and there began a good deal of searching. I was about to stop them, I would just affirm, but then a copy was placed into my hands.

With great pride and a swelled heart, I pledged my fealty to my new country and liege.

Michael Gilbert Toronto

Source: Trudeau’s cabinet shuffle plus other letters, July 28

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

2023/07/29 Leave a comment

The alternative reflexive perspective but one that discounts the assessment by the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board). And just as Paradkar can state “government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited,” the same can often be said for DEI consultants and activists:

One man’s fatal mental health crisis has been co-opted by political opportunists and turned into an attack on anti-racism training while also, chillingly, targeting one Black woman.

Former Toronto school principal Richard Bilkszto, 60, ended his life July 13. Suicide is a horrendous loss, no ifs, no buts. It’s terrible to contemplate the mental torture that leads to that decision and terrible to experience its crushing aftermath.

While experts say suicides are rarely caused by single factors, the man’s lawyer linked his death to a 10-minute interaction two years ago at a mandatory Toronto school board training run by the highly respected Kike Ojo-Thompson of the KOJO Institute, and her subsequent reference to that interaction.

His lawyer, Lisa Bildy, said in a tweet, “He experienced an affront to that stellar reputation” at that workshop and “succumbed to his distress.”

The predictable backlash from the right rested its moral might on two claims:

  • a statement of claim after Bilkszto filed a civil lawsuit against the TDSB in April for not defending him in that workshop; and
  • the opinion of an insurance case manager at the WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) that allowed Bilkszto to file a claim for mental stress injury in August 2021. The case manager wrote that Ojo-Thompson’s conduct “was abusive, egregious and vexatious, and rises to the level of workplace harassment and bullying.”

This was not a finding based on a credible investigation, but government organizations are often given credulity even when not merited. In a statement on the KOJO website Thursday evening, Ojo-Thompson, who has done training at the Star previously, said she only heard about the lawsuit through media enquiries. “Additionally, KOJO was not part of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) insurance claim adjudication.”

At issue, based on news reports, were two statements. One, Ojo-Thompson challenging a beloved Canadian myth by stating “Canada is more racist than the United States” and, two, “reacting with vitriol” when the former principal objected as well as “humiliating” him by calling him a “white supremacist” and a “resistor.”

The Star obtained a copy of the recording of the two sessions in question from a source who was present at the meetings. Based on it:

Ojo-Thompson never said: “Canada is more racist than the United States.”

She never called Bilkszto a “white supremacist and resistor.”

The recordings reveal for the first time a fuller picture of the conversation and disagreement that has been cherry-picked, shorn off context and nuance, and presented by those with an agenda to villainize diversity initiatives.

They show that the Canada-U.S. comparisons — although perfectly legitimate — were not initiated by Ojo-Thompson but were repeatedly brought up by participants in the “questions, comments, aha-s” that she invites.

For instance, one white TDSB leader says reflectively: “We as Canadians like to say we’re not as bad as our neighbours to the south and we need to stop.” Another leader brings up an example of a Black person from the U.S. moving to Canada “in hopes of a better future for her two sons,” and says “she was furious with me. She said, ‘I thought it was better up here. … I cannot believe it’s worse.’”

In response, Ojo-Thompson leans on her personal experience as a Black woman to say: “I felt more normalized as a Black woman there than I do here. We’re invisibilized from the cultural fabric of this nation. Canada has never reckoned with its anti-Black history,” and, “I lived in the South. And I’m saying this factually without any hiccup. The racism we experience is far worse here than there.”

There is a vast difference between a Black woman comparing her personal experiences of racism in two countries and a blanket statement that one is worse than the other.

About 10 minutes before the session ends, Bilkszto speaks for the first time. He says he spent a lot of time in the U.S. and, “I invite everyone here to do some research and look at things like education and look how you think about a system we have in Ontario where every student is funded equally. But go to United States, they’re funded based on their tax base.”

Ojo-Thompson replies: “What you’re saying is not untrue, but … all I’m saying is that the Jane and Finch kids are not having the same experience as the Forest Hill kids. They’re just not. And that’s despite our equal laws.”

Bilkszto responds by adding: “We have a health-care system here where everyone has access to health care. It is not the same way in the United States. So to sit here and say, in all honesty, we’re talking about facts and figures and to walk into the classroom tomorrow and say Canada is just as bad as the United States, I think we’re doing an incredible disservice to our learners.”

That’s not a help-me-understand question typically posed by workshop participants to trainers. That’s a man saying to a woman, an expert on anti-racism, at the end of a session that is replete with history, data, experience and nuance, that she’s flat-out wrong.

Ojo-Thompson points out a fallacy in his argument. “What I’m finding interesting is that this is in the middle of this COVID disaster, where the inequities in this fair and equal health care system have been properly shown to all of us.”

She then pivots to the principle of the point behind his original challenge of her experience of racism as a Black woman in Canada versus the U.S.

“So we’re here to talk about anti-Black racism, but you in your whiteness think that you can tell me what’s really going on for Black people? Like, is that what you’re doing? Because I think that’s what you’re doing, but I’m not sure. So I’m going to leave you space to tell me what you’re doing right now.”

Anti-racism training sessions are by definition challenging discussions. In every session, Ojo-Thompson references the normalcy of emotions coming up and the importance of accepting them rather than going into flight or freeze defensive postures.

At in-person sessions, defensiveness comes across in the body language, in whether an attendee is participating or avoiding engaging, in whether they choose to cry (you’ll be surprised). You can also tell by the tone of the questions.

Since this was a Zoom session, Ojo-Thompson made a note about that last point. She noted that there were people in the session who were Black, well-informed, well-educated. “Part of this work is listening to Black people,” she says. “Remember, as white people. There’s a whole bunch going on that isn’t your personal experience. … You will never know it to be so. So your job in this work as white people is to believe. And if what you want is clarification, ask for that. Truly. Not with a foot in the: ‘Yeah, but I’m going to tell you how you’re wrong.’ It’s the: ‘Help me understand further, please, because I actually don’t know.’”

She concludes by calling it “a profound and an appropriate teachable moment.”

That was 10 minutes done. Disagreement? Yes. Bullying and harassment? Not seeing it.

At a subsequent meeting the next week, Ojo-Thompson began by revisiting the concept of resistance that she mentioned even before the interaction with Bilkszto and how resistance upholds white supremacy. “I want to open by going back to the concept of resistance,” which “is going to be the most transformational, because we don’t talk enough about the many, many responses to the work, what they look like.”

Soon after she says, “One of the ways that white supremacy is upheld, protected, reproduced, upkept, defended is through resistance.”

Then she references the interaction with Bilkszto from the previous week, saying, “who would have thought my luck would show up so well last week that we got perfect evidence of a wonderful example of resistance that you all got to bear witness to. So we’re going to talk about it, because it doesn’t get better than this.”

This is Ojo-Thompson, doing the hard job of managing a zoom session with 199 people, training leaders on not just the presumptions that lead to discriminations but also how to recognize the resistance to it. This cannot be considered shaming Bilkszto by calling him “a resistor.” Nor is suggesting upholding white supremacy the same as calling someone a white supremacist.

In the previous session, before Bilkszto spoke, Ojo-Thompson had pointed out how one doesn’t even having to be white to uphold white supremacy, that there are “all kinds of kickbacks and rewards” for upholding white supremacy and “you see all kinds of non-white people, for example, attempting to uphold the values of white supremacy, even among Indigenous people, Black people.”

The far-right media ecosystem — organizations and commentators — quickly plumbed the depths of opportunism after Bilkszto ended his life and turned it into an international firestorm.

They martyred Bilkszto to their cause of villainizing diversity, equity and inclusion work and made a target of Ojo-Thompson not just by framing her as a bully but by suggesting her words drove him to suicide. They splashed her face across stories, sometimes multiple times in one story.

The malice spread, and in short order Ontario announced a review of these allegations with a view to “reform professional training.”

On Thursday, the TDSB said it launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bilksztoszto’s death.

Consider this: On the one hand, reams of data that show racism maims and kills. That the system of white supremacy has caused an epidemic of suicides among Indigenous peoples. That the risk of suicide among LGBTQ2+ people is rising.

On the other hand, an isolated tragedy, contentiously linked to a conversation the anti-anti-racists don’t want to have.

Guess which of the two the system comes down on.

If Canadians want to do nothing about our racism, then let’s be open about it. Otherwise, we better believe Black women. Protect Black women.

Source: A Toronto principal’s suicide was wrongly linked to anti-racism training. Here’s what was really said

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much, Juneau: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel

2023/07/29 Leave a comment

Significant contrast:

On the day Israel’s Knesset passed the Reasonableness Standard Law — a frontal assault on the independence of its judiciary — something strange and wondrous happened among America’s fractious Jews: they agreed, broadly speaking, that the law is a mistake and said so.

The chorus of disapproval came not just from progressive Jews but organizations representing mainstream Jews, and some conservative ones, too. The American Jewish Committee issued a statement expressing “profound disappointment” and lamenting that the new law was “pushed through unilaterally by the governing coalition,” causing “discord” in Israel and “straining the vital relationship” with the diaspora.

The committee argued that “dramatic changes” to the judicial system should come from “a deliberative and inclusive process” respecting checks and balances, minority rights and judicial independence. Other mainstream U.S. organizations echoed the criticism. The Anti–Defamation League said the law “could weaken Israeli democracy and harm Israel’s founding principles.” The Jewish Federations of North America was “extremely disappointed” the law had been passed “without a process of consensus,” despite “serious disagreement across Israeli society” amid strenuous efforts to forge “a compromise.”

Pointedly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, among the most stalwart pro-Israeli organizations, did not comment. But Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel committee within the Democratic Party, said it was “a serious mistake” for Israel to ignore the protests of “the majority of its citizens …”

This displeasure of the Jewish establishment, though not as strong as in other quarters, shows an evolution among American Jews. Criticizing Israel was once heretical among these groups. No longer.

None of these organizations is as angry as many among this country’s 5.8 million Jews, who are increasingly skeptical of Israel. A growing number think it’s time that President Joe Biden lean heavily on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his old, unreconstructed adversary. “Bibi” has fallen in with the hard right on judicial reform, from settlers who want to annex the West Bank to orthodox Jews who want to enshrine exemption from military service.

Biden has issued appeals but no threats. He never raises, for example, the $3.8 billion U.S. in assistance Israel receives annually from the United States. Interestingly, Israel, a wealthy country more secure than ever, no longer needs the money. Still, it is seen as untouchable.

While Jews in Britain, Australia and other countries have joined those here in opposition, it’s entirely different in Canada, an unserious country, where only progressives see the danger.

“This is a dark day,” declared Joe Roberts, chair of JSpaceCanada. “I cannot begin to explain how gutted I am.” He and others worry about an emasculated court that can no longer protect the rights of Palestinians, migrant workers, women and the LGBTQ+ community in Israel against an oppressive government.

The New Israel Fund of Canada has issued an urgent appeal. “Today we need you more than ever,” said executive director Ben Murane. “We will never back down.”

Astoundingly, though, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the “advocacy agent” that “represents the diverse perspectives and concerns of more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians,” there was not a peep of protest. Maybe it missed the news.

Then again, the director of CIJA’s office in Jerusalem is David Weinberg, who supported the judicial reforms in a published commentary. These are his personal views, CIJA insists. But it’s likely they are equally those of CIJA’s unelected and unaccountable executive, especially CEO Shimon Fogel. He knows that these are not those of Canadian Jews but hasn’t the courage to say so.

It raises the question: Why doesn’t CIJA stop hiding and come out and support the reforms? At least that would be honourable. For its part, the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto issued yet another purée of platitudes. It is concerned that Israelis are divided and hopes for “compromise.” What we need is more dialogue, it urges, finding solace in earnestness and ambiguity.

Oh. Lord. As Israel’s Supreme Court prepares to hear petitions on the new law — which may well spark an unprecedented constitutional crisis there this autumn — behold, once again, the sad silence of Canada’s Jewish establishment.

Source: Cohen: American Jews are loudly protesting Israel’s anti-judiciary law. In Canada — not so much

Thomas Juneau asking a needed question:

This week, the Israeli parliament approved a controversial law that constrains the Supreme Court’s ability to provide judicial oversight of government actions. According to many critics, this is only the first step in a plan by the coalition government led by Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu to concentrate power in the executive branch. The Netanyahu government, which includes Jewish supremacists and is the most extreme in the country’s history, has also taken steps, and will likely take additional ones, toward Israel’s further annexation of the West Bank.

This raises difficult questions for Canada: should we stand by as the assault on democratic norms and Palestinian rights continues? The easy answer would be to muddle along, perhaps offering timid condemnation. The status quo, however, is increasingly unsustainable.

Like its allies, Canada’s position is to support the two-state solution, according to which Israel and an eventual Palestinian state would co-exist. Yet it is now difficult to see how this outcome can be achieved. On the Israeli side, intransigent governments have expanded settlements in the West Bank, largely closing the door on a viable Palestinian state. The road has been further blocked by the fragmentation of the Palestinian leadership, with the incompetent Palestinian Authority barely governing in the West Bank and the extremist Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip with an iron fist. In the meantime, the status quo is deeply unfair to Palestinians and destabilizing for the region.

The case can certainly be made that maintaining the fiction of the two-state solution is the least bad approach given the absence of viable alternatives. It is one thing to recognize that the two-state solution is dead; it is another to come up with a better, realistic alternative. Moreover, proponents of the status quo argue that Israel is and should remain a close friend. This is partly valid: There is no serious proposal to jettison the partnership, which indeed is beneficial for Canada. To their discredit, some supporters of the status quo far too easily launch accusations of antisemitism in response to criticism of Israeli policies. This is dishonest and stifles constructive and necessary debate. The question here is not to reject Israel’s right to exist, but to criticize some of its policies and ask whether Canada’s current approach is optimal.

The broader objectives of Canada’s foreign policy matter. It is inevitable that Canada’s focus on the Middle East will diminish. Ottawa simply has other priorities: The most important one, and one which could come under severe strain in the near future, remains the management of its relations with the United States. In addition, Canada needs to boost its presence in Asia, while the war in Ukraine shows the necessity of continuing its contributions to transatlantic security. The remaining bandwidth, for the Middle East and other areas, will shrink.

In this context, Canada should publicly state that it refuses to deal with the more extremist ministers in the Netanyahu government. It should vocally express its opposition to the proposed reforms and freeze or reduce co-operation with Israel on some issues. Ottawa should also boost its support for Palestinian civil society and increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority to reform itself and organize fresh elections. More concretely, Canada should evaluate whether its longstanding mission to train Palestinian security forces should continue since doing so entrenches the status quo by allowing Israel to delegate to the Palestinian Authority the day-to-day administration of the occupation in the West Bank. Ottawa should also suspend its policy of almost systematically voting with Israel at the United Nations General Assembly on resolutions dealing with the conflict.

Given its marginal influence when it acts alone, Canada should also engage in serious conversations with like-minded allies and partners, including through the Group of Seven, about options to change the status quo in relations with Israel and the Palestinians. Canada’s partnership with Israel has been premised on shared values, and with Israel’s government now dominated by extremist elements who are undermining the two-state solution, we can’t keep acting like it’s business as usual.

Source: Canada must rethink its friendship with Israel

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Globe editorial: Ottawa can’t wash its hands of Toronto’s refugee crisis

2023/07/28 Leave a comment

Yet another critical Globe editorial:

Here’s a short list of things that Ottawa spends money on but has no constitutional responsibility for: health care, child care, new fridges for big grocery companies, and Gen Y tech consultants for small businesses.

…

Source: Ottawa can’t wash its hands of Toronto’s refugee crisis

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

2023/07/28 Leave a comment

Minister Fraser will learn that increasing housing supply is much more complex than raising immigration levels, with considerable time lags. Highly unlikely that any meaningful progress on the ground will be realized during the government’s mandate.

A cruel irony given his role as immigration minister in exacerbating the problem through high levels of permanent and temporary residents.

It is not a matter of “closing the door on newcomers” but rather more thoughtful immigration policies and levels that don’t worsen further housing, healthcare and infrastructure for new and old Canadians alike, and that take these into account when setting levels:

Canada’s new housing and infrastructure minister says closing the door to newcomers is not the solution to the country’s housing woes, and has instead endorsed building more homes to accommodate higher immigration flows.

Sean Fraser, who previously served as immigration minister, was sworn in Wednesday morning as part of a Liberal government cabinet shuffle aimed at showcasing a fresh team ahead of the next federal election.

He comes into the role at a time when strong population growth through immigration is adding pressure to housing demand at a time when the country is struggling with an affordability crisis.

“The answer is, at least in part, to continue to build more stock,” Fraser told reporters after being sworn in.

“But I would urge caution to anyone who believes the answer to our housing challenges is to close the door on newcomers.”

Instead, the minister said immigration would be part of the solution to the housing challenge.

“When I talked to developers, in my capacity as a minister of immigration before today, one of the chief obstacles to completing the projects that they want to get done is having access to the labour force to build the houses that they need,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to hand over the federal housing file to the Nova Scotia MP has been praised by experts who say that the Liberals need a strong communicator in charge as Canadians deal with an affordability crunch.

As part of the shakeup, the housing file has been merged with infrastructure and communities. Fraser said the goal is to look at housing and infrastructure projects together, rather than in isolation.

“If we encourage cities and communities to build more housing where infrastructure already exists or where it’s planned to be, we’re going to be able to leverage more progress for every public dollar that’s invested,” he said.

Ahmed Hussen, who became housing minister in 2021, has faced criticism for his handling of the file as the housing crisis worsened across the country.

Hussen is staying in cabinet as minister of international development.

“The selection of Sean, I think, is a recognition that the job requires fundamentally an energy and urgency and a passion in order to be able to effectively compete with the message that (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre has put forward,” said Tyler Meredith, a former head of economic strategy and planning for Trudeau’s government.

Meredith said the choice to shift Fraser from immigration to housing also signals the federal government knows the two files are linked.

“If they lose the argument on housing, they will lose the argument on immigration, and they will then lose what is frankly, some of the some of the most effective pieces of their economic strategy,” Meredith said.

Canada’s population grew by more than one million people in 2022, a pace that experts say is adding pressure to housing demand. That, in turn, pushes up prices even further.

A recent analysis by BMO found that for every one per cent of population growth, housing prices typically increase by three per cent.

The Liberals have been taking a lot of heat from Poilievre for the state of the housing market. He’s blamed Trudeau’s government for the crisis, as well as municipal “gatekeepers” for standing in the way of new developments.

Poilievre has focused on the need to build more housing and has not weighed in on whether Canada needs to change the number of people it lets into the country.

The Conservative leader has also been particularly focused on speaking to young people struggling with affordability, commonly referring to the “35-year-olds still living in their parents’ basements” in the House of Commons.

Fraser, 39, acknowledged during the news conference that housing affordability is a major challenge facing younger Canadians in particular.

“It’s a real challenge for people my age and younger who are trying to get into the market, but it’s also a challenge for low-income families,” Fraser said.

“There’s no simple solutions, but if we continue to advance measures that help build more stock, that help make sure it’s easier for people to get into the market and make sure we’re offering protections for low-income families, particularly in vulnerable renting situations, we’re going to be able to make a meaningful difference.”

The housing crisis that once was associated with Vancouver and Toronto is now affecting all corners of the country, and experts say a shortage of homes is at its root.

The Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation has warned the country needs to build 3.5 million additional homes — on top of the current pace of building — to restore affordability by 2030.

Carolyn Whitzman, a housing policy expert and adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, said the decision to combine housing and infrastructure is a good move.

“Housing is infrastructure. It’s essential, as essential as water and sewers and hospitals and schools, for the functioning of a society,” she said.

Whitzman also called Fraser a “fairly effective communicator” and noted his experience as immigration minister may also help inform his role in the housing file.

Source: New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Yakabuski: The renewal theme rings hollow even as Justin Trudeau names seven new faces to cabinet

2023/07/28 Leave a comment

Pointed comments on Ministers Fraser and Miller, likely understate the challenges. And of course, turning up the dial on the number of permanent and temporary residents much easier than new housing:

Conveying renewal and stability at the same time is a neat trick, if you can manage it.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tried to do both with a cabinet shufflethat featured a slew of new faces on Wednesday, all while relying even more heavily on a quartet of tested ministers – and likely future leadership contenders – to carry the load of a government living on borrowed time.

…

Source: The renewal theme rings hollow even as Justin Trudeau names seven new faces to cabinet

Filed under Immigration, Politics Tagged with , , ,

Citizenship in an independent Scotland – gov.scot

2023/07/28 Leave a comment

Of note for the approach and messaging:

Scotland could take a fairer, and more welcoming approach to citizenship as an independent nation, according to a new paper published by First Minister Humza Yousaf.

‘Citizenship in an independent Scotland’, the fifth paper in the Building a New Scotland series’, sets out who could automatically become a citizen of an independent Scotland, and the pathway for others to qualify for Scottish citizenship, including those with a close and enduring connection to Scotland.

Other proposals in the paper include a fairer fee system for citizenship applications, based on cost recovery rather than revenue generation, and a commitment to establish an independent Migrants’ Commissioner – a key recommendation of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.

The First Minister held a roundtable discussion at National Records of Scotland’s New Register House where he discussed the paper with representatives from migration policy organisations and individuals who may be eligible for citizenship under these proposals.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said:

“In this country, we are used to feeling a mix of identities. As a proud Scottish Pakistani, that’s something I understand and respect, and the policies in this paper would not require anybody to choose between being Scottish, British, or any other nationality.

“Instead, this paper proposes an open and inclusive approach to citizenship. One that welcomes people who want to settle in Scotland, rather than putting barriers and excessive fees in the way of individuals and their families.

“With our aging population, Scotland faces an urgent demographic challenge. That’s why we want to welcome more people, to join those who have already settled in communities across our country and are contributing to a better economy, higher living standards, and stronger public services like our NHS.

“Scottish citizens could also enjoy benefits such as the right to hold a Scottish passport, continued freedom of movement within the Common Travel Area, and eventually, following our commitment to re-join the EU as an independent nation, resumed rights as EU citizens.

“I hope this paper will help to answer questions people might have about citizenship in an independent Scotland, and I look forward to hearing people’s views on our proposals.”

Background

Building a New Scotland: Citizenship in an independent Scotland

Under these proposals, EU citizens resident in Scotland or the UK before 31 December 2020 would be entitled to receive settled status in Scotland, and a child born in Scotland after independence would automatically be a Scottish citizen if at least one of their parents was a Scottish, British or Irish citizen, or had ‘settled’ status in Scotland.

Those who want to become a Scottish citizen in future, including those with close and enduring connections to Scotland, could follow rules to apply for citizenship.

People resident in Scotland without Scottish citizenship would retain many of the same rights they currently hold, including rights to vote.

The previous four papers have set out evidence showing independent countries comparable to Scotland are wealthier and fairer than the UK; how Scottish democracy can be renewed with independence; the macroeconomic framework, including currency arrangements, for an independent Scotland; and how rights and equality could be at the heart of a written constitution developed by the people of Scotland.

Source: Citizenship in an independent Scotland – gov.scot

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

To blunt Poilievre’s outreach in cultural communities, Trudeau gives high-profile cabinet roles to MPs with diverse backgrounds, say some senior Liberals 

2023/07/28 Leave a comment

Of note. Of course, implementation and results count more than new faces around the table. But 29 percent of ministers are visible minority, a new high, and slightly higher than their share of the population:

In a major shuffle that is expected to set the stage as the prime minister’s election cabinet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promoted seven MPs to the front bench on Wednesday morning. He also shuffled some senior cabinet members with visible minority backgrounds, who were holding internationally focused portfolios to new portfolios with a domestic focus.

“This will help us re-solidify support within the visible minority communities,” said one Liberal MP who spoke with The Hill Times on a not-for-attribution basis to offer their candid views.

One of the biggest winners of the shuffle is three-term Liberal MP Arif Virani (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.) who joins the cabinet as the minister of justice and attorney general.

Liberal MP Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough-Rouge Park, Ont.) also received a big promotion, moving into cabinet as the minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Rookie Liberal MP Rechie Valdez (Mississauga-Streetsville, Ont.) joins cabinet as minister of small business. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Hochelaga, Que.) picks up the portfolios of tourism and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the region of Quebec. Ya’ara Saks (York Centre, Ont.) is the new minister of mental health and addictions and associate minister of health.

Virani is an Ismaili Muslim Canadian, Anandasangaree is Tamil Canadian, Valdez is Filipino Canadian, Ferrada is Chilean-Canadian, and Saks is Jewish Canadian. 

As for senior ministers who have been shuffled within cabinet, Anita Anand (Oakville, Ont.) leaves defence to become the Treasury Board president. Former international trade minister Harjit Sajjan takes on emergency preparedness, as well as responsibilities for the King’s Privy Council for Canada and the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada. Kamal Khera, the former minister for seniors, is now minister of diversity, inclusion, and persons with disabilities.

Sajjan and Khera are Sikh-Canadians, and Anand is Hindu.  

Traditionally, visible minority Canadians have been a strong base of support for the Liberal Party.

When Pierre Poilievre became Conservative leader last year, he quickly appointed Tim Uppal (Edmonton Millwoods, Alta.), a Sikh-Canadian, and Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, Ont.), a Jewish Canadian, as his deputy leaders. He also appointed Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, Altal), a Skih Canadian, as his finance critic. Recently, Arpan Khanna (Oxford, Ont.) and Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, Alta,), both Hindu-Canadians, were elected as MPs in byelections. Khanna had previously served as the party’s outreach chair.

“That’s the main thing,” said the Liberal MP who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis. “To confront Poilievre and to break into new territory. Tamils are very enthusiastic about us, but Gary [Anandasangaree] will help us in maintaining that enthusiasm. Filipinos like us, but there’s no anchoring, and Veldez will do that.”

Visible minority communities play a key role in the outcome of swing ridings in major urban centres like the GTA, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal. Conservatives believe that the next election is theirs to lose and are going all-in to secure support from visible minorities—an important part of the Liberal voter coalition.

“We need to go back to domestic local messaging. Bringing Sajjan, Anand back [to portfolios with domestic focus] is a good step,” said a senior Liberal. “They can be assets in the South Asian community. Arif [Virani] will be very helpful in the Muslim community.” 

Source: To blunt Poilievre’s outreach in cultural communities, Trudeau gives high-profile cabinet roles to MPs with diverse backgrounds, say some senior Liberals 

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , ,

Exil de mer et de vent 

2023/07/27 Leave a comment

Portrait of Ukrainian exiles in rural Quebec, their welcome into a small community of 100 people, and the challenges they face and how they adopt or not:

Mai dernier. Les trois fillettes sautillent sur le terrain dans le printemps tout neuf. Derrière la maison, il y a la baie immense, les îles, la somptuosité de la Basse-Côte-Nord. Artur exulte : l’épicerie de Tête-à-la-Baleine a enfin reçu des betteraves. Sa soupe borchtch est au feu. Snizhana, vêtue de jaune et de bleu, tient la petite dernière, la quatrième, dans ses bras. « C’est un hasard. Vous me voyez vêtue aux couleurs de l’Ukraine. »

Cet hiver, elle s’est longuement promenée sur la baie gelée, main dans la main avec les enfants et avec sa nostalgie. Ensemble, elle, les filles et la nostalgie, elles ont vu des corbeaux, des phoques, des belettes. Et des renards roux à la queue longue et touffue. En Ukraine aussi, il y avait des renards roux. Les enfants criaient leur joie. Snizhana étouffait son désarroi.

Les Levytskyi, Artur, Snizhana et leurs quatre enfants, sont ici depuis février. Si on les additionne aux membres de l’autre famille ukrainienne arrivée six mois auparavant, les deux maisonnées font gonfler la population de Tête-à-la-Baleine de 11 personnes. Sur une population de 100. C’est beaucoup !

Deux familles qui ont quitté l’Ukraine parce qu’elles étaient en train de devenir un peu folles. Fallait partir. Par tous les moyens. « Mon cerveau avait cessé de fonctionner, se souvient Snizhana, j’avançais comme un animal. » Un animal terrorisé. « Nous dormions tout habillés au cas où il faudrait vite décamper. Je ne suis pas brave, je l’avoue. Peut-être parce que je suis une mère. » Snizhana parle sans s’arrêter, en un flux précipité. « J’ai consulté une psy pour savoir comment cacher aux enfants mes propres angoisses. »

Des histoires qui ressemblent à tant d’autres, de fuites éperdues, d’attentes interminables, de frontières à franchir, de bagages à traîner. Marcher, marcher, exténués, avec le goût de flancher, de s’effondrer. Tenir bon, garder un semblant de moral pour les plus jeunes.

Un village entier mobilisé

Deux familles qui sont parvenues à Tête-à-la-Baleine par la même voie, celle d’un village qui s’est mobilisé pour les accueillir. On a trouvé à chacune une maison, un véhicule, une motoneige, des vêtements, des vivres. Des résidents ont envoyé des chèques pour leurs hôtes venus de loin. « C’était aussi, et peut-être principalement, un échange, une sorte de contrat », explique Michaël Lambert, qui a pris l’initiative de faire venir des familles ukrainiennes jusque dans cette contrée lointaine, désert de poissons et d’oiseaux que nulle route ne relie au reste du Québec et du continent. « On cherchait des familles pour renforcer la vitalité du village, fouetter son économie et empêcher l’école de fermer. » Du donnant-donnant, en quelque sorte.

Trouver des familles qui, en contrepartie d’une vie paisible, loin de la guerre, accepteraient d’y passer ne serait-ce que quelques années, consentiraient à apprendre le français, découvriraient qu’elles apprécient cette vie rudimentaire, loin des centres et de la consommation, dans la poussière grise des quatre-roues l’été, et celle, toute blanche, des motoneiges l’hiver. Avec une épicerie au contenu famélique, des transports impossibles, des bateaux aux horaires incertains ou des avions à prix exorbitants. Des familles qui acquiesceraient au système D, au bricolage, au rafistolage. « On a bien voulu essayer cette vie-là, essayer le Canada », poursuit Snizhana.

Imaginez la scène. Février dernier. Il fait moins 40. Michaël est parti chercher le ménage des Levytskyi entreposé à Kegaska, tandis que la famille, elle, est déjà arrivée en avion à Tête-à-la-Baleine. Une chevauchée en motoneige de 250 kilomètres sur la Route blanche, sentier balisé pour faciliter les déplacements l’hiver sur la Basse-Côte-Nord. Aveuglé par la lumière et frigorifié, Michaël fonce dans la blancheur, traînant le chargement derrière son engin. Et puis, oh ! malheur !, la motoneige s’étouffe, en panne. L’homme manque d’y laisser la peau. À moitié congelé, il sera sauvé par des gens de la côte partis à sa recherche.

L’une chante, l’autre pas

Deux familles, donc, venues d’une même Ukraine, échouées dans un même exil de mer et de vent, mais deux familles bien différentes. Avec chacune leur façon de voir la vie, avec des exigences distinctes, peut-être, face à l’existence et une quête du bonheur qui ne se ressemble pas. Si bien qu’aujourd’hui, l’une arrive à s’adapter, l’autre pas. L’une envisage de rester, l’autre pas. L’une chante, l’autre pas.*(1)

« Je me sens perdue dans un pays perdu, confie Snizhana. J’ai envie que les enfants aient des activités parascolaires, qu’ils connaissent autre chose pour leur développement intellectuel et spirituel. » À cela s’ajoute son tourment de décevoir ceux et celles qui, à Tête-à-la-Baleine, se sont démenés pour les accueillir. « Même si je comprends leur décision de partir, je suis déçu, dit Michaël, c’est un peu comme un contrat brisé. » « Je comprends leur déception, rétorque doucement Snizhana, mais c’est de notre vie et de notre avenir qu’il s’agit. »

La famille Lizunova, de son côté, envisage de s’acheter une maison à Tête-à-la-Baleine et de quitter le presbytère où elle est provisoirement logée. Les deux adultes, des cousines, Antonina Lizunova et Olga Kulyk, apprennent activement le français, l’une dans le but de travailler à l’aéroport, l’autre pour devenir cuisinière à l’auberge de l’Archipel, au coeur du village. D’ailleurs, Olga a fait cuire sa première morue hier, sous la supervision de Marco Marcoux, propriétaire du lieu, qui lui donnait ses instructions en usant de Google Translate. « Une morue apprêtée à la mode de chez nous ! lance Marco, avec une purée de pommes de terre et un quartier de citron. »

S’encourageant l’une et l’autre et transmettant leur force morale aux trois ados dont elles ont la charge, les cousines sont animées d’un optimisme à tous crins. Mais quand on leur demande si elles souffrent du mal du pays, leurs yeux s’embrument. Ah ! combien elles voudraient pouvoir m’ouvrir leur coeur et se faire comprendre au moins un peu, en français ou en anglais. Bon, à défaut, ne parlant ni l’une ni l’autre langue, elles m’offrent une petite crêpe « à la viande », une expression qu’elles ont apprise depuis leur arrivée à Tête-à-la-Baleine.

Partir dès que possible

Le village s’est mis en quête d’une autre famille ukrainienne. Aux dernières nouvelles, une mère, un père et leurs cinq enfants s’annonçaient pour bientôt.« On a déjà tenu deux activités de financement », se réjouit Michaël.

Snizhana, elle, veut quitter Tête-à-la-Baleine aussi vite que possible. C’est fou, elle le sait, elle veut partir avant que les mouches noires ne fassent leur apparition. Oui, elle en est consciente, c’est fou, elle qui a survécu aux bombes, aux explosions, aux tirs de mortier, est prise d’une peur obsessive des mouches noires. Comme si le ciel allait à nouveau l’attaquer et fondre sur elle. « L’exil ne prive pas uniquement l’individu de sa terre natale, écrit Marie Daniès, dans la revue Mémoires. L’exilé se perd car ce qui le définissait, son rapport à lui-même, aux autres, a disparu. Le sens de sa vie lui échappe. »

En songe, je vois Snizhana au bout du quai de Tête-à-la-Baleine, immobile, offerte aux vagues et aux oiseaux. Rêvant d’on ne sait quoi. Elle ne sait plus. Snizhana, d’autre part et de nulle part. Snizhana, en exil de tout ce qui est elle-même. Snizhana, l’errante des splendeurs et des malheurs de la terre.

Ailleurs le monde est doux

L’air est meilleur et de partout

Coulent des fleuves d’or et de musique

Ailleurs dormir mon coeur tragique*(2)

Source: Exil de mer et de vent

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Education Dept. Opens Civil Rights Inquiry Into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions

2023/07/27 Leave a comment

Logical result of the affirmative action decision, applying it to class and privilege of legacy admissions:

The Education Department has opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s legacy admissions policy, inserting the federal government directly into a fierce national debate about wealth, privilege and race after the Supreme Court gutted the use of affirmative action in higher education.

The inquiry into one of the nation’s richest and most prestigious universities will examine allegations by three liberal groups that Harvard’s practice of showing preference for the relatives of alumni and donors discriminates against Black, Hispanic and Asian applicants in favor of white and wealthy students who are less qualified.

The Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights has powerful enforcement authority that could eventually lead to a settlement with Harvard or trigger a lengthy legal battle like the one that led to the Supreme Court’s decision to severely limit race-conscious admissions last month, reversing a decades-long approach that had increased chances for Black students and those from other minority groups.

The move by the Biden administration comes at a moment of heightened scrutiny of college admissions practices following the ruling, which has resurfaced long-simmering anger about the advantages that colleges often give to the wealthy and connected.

Harvard gives preference to applicants who are recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff. As a group, they make up less than 5 percent of applicants, but around 30 percent of those admitted each year. About 67.8 percent of these applicants are white, according to court papers.

After the court’s decision, President Biden said legacy admission policies expand “privilege instead of opportunity.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, tweeted that the practice is “affirmative action for the privileged.” Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina and a presidential candidate, called for Harvard to eliminate “preferential treatment for legacy kids.”

At Wesleyan University, a liberal arts college in Connecticut, President Michael S. Roth announced earlier this month the end of legacy admissions at his school, saying the practice was a distraction and “a sign of unfairness to the outside world.” The federal inquiry comes after a formal complaint filed by three groups earlier this month.

Lawyers for the groups — the Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England, and the Greater Boston Latino Network — said Harvard’s practice gives an undeserved leg up to the children of wealthy donors and alumni.

“It is imperative that the federal government act now to eliminate this unfair barrier that systematically disadvantages students of color,” Michael Kippins, a litigation fellow at Lawyers for Civil Rights, said when the complaint was filed.

The Education Department said in a statement that “the Office for Civil Rights can confirm that there is an open investigation of Harvard University under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Title VI is a part of federal law that prohibits discrimination, exclusion from participation or denial of benefits “on the ground of race, color or national origin.”

Nicole Rura, a spokeswoman for Harvard, said in a statement that the university was already reviewing the way it admits students to ensure it is in compliance with the law after the court’s decision.

“Our review includes examination of a range of data and information,” she said, adding that the university will continue to “strengthen our ability to attract and support a diverse intellectual community.”

Ms. Rura added: “As this work continues, and moving forward, Harvard remains dedicated to opening doors to opportunity and to redoubling our efforts to encourage students from many different backgrounds to apply for admission.”

Harvard’s legacy preferences have been investigated before.

In the 1980s, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights investigated allegations that Asian American applicants were being discriminated against in favor of white students, according to court papers. The investigation blamed the difference in admission rates on legacy preferences, and found that the university had legitimate reasons for favoring legacies.

The Harvard trial that led to the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision revealed just how important legacy admissions are to Harvard. The plaintiffs described the final round of admissions, called the lop. Applicants on the cusp of admission or rejection were placed on a list that contained only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility and race. Based on this information, the admissions committee would decide which finalists to cut, or lop.

Harvard and other universities have defended legacy admissions.

They argue that giving preference to the children of alumni helps build a valuable sense of loyalty and belonging, and spurs alumni to volunteer their time and give money to the university, which can be used for scholarships. Harvard argued at trial that overall, legacy applicants were highly qualified.

But critics of legacy admissions said the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision underscores the need to end those preferences as well.

“Let’s be clear — legacy and donor admissions have long served to perpetuate an inherently racist college admissions process,” said Derrick Johnson, the president of the N.A.A.C.P. “Every talented and qualified student deserves an opportunity to attend the college of their choice. Affirmative action existed to support that notion. Legacy admissions exist to undermine it.”

A newly released study by a group of economists based at Harvard found that legacies at elite colleges were more qualified overall than the average applicant. But even when comparing applicants who were similar in every other way, legacy applicants still had an advantage. The study, by Opportunity Insights, which studies inequality, also raised the question of whether, by scuttling practices like legacy admissions, colleges could potentially diversify the leadership ranks of American society.

On Wednesday, Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and Representative Jamaal Bowman, Democrat of New York, plan to reintroduce legislation that would bar universities from giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni and donors.

A poll released last year by the Pew Research Center found that 75 percent of the people surveyed believed that legacy preferences should not be a factor in college admissions.

In his concurring opinion in the Harvard case, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch took a swipe at Harvard for its legacy admissions.

“Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most.”

Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff in the Harvard case, submitted a statistical analysis in court finding that Harvard could come close to achieving the racial diversity it wanted if it eliminated preferences for children of alumni, donors and faculty, and increased preferences for low-income applicants.

Harvard resisted, saying it would not get the academic caliber it wanted.

About 70 percent of legacy applicants admitted to Harvard are white, according to a 2019 study by Peter Arcidiacono, an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions.

Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, sounded a cautionary note on Tuesday. He suggested that however appealing, ending the tradition of legacy admissions might not be as simple as it seemed, given an absence over the years of related litigation brought by organizations representing minority groups.

“Like a significant majority of all Americans, S.F.F.A.’s members hope that colleges and universities end legacy preferences,” Mr. Blum said in a statement.

Officials at the Education Department declined to discuss the possible outcomes of the investigation, citing rules about not commenting on open investigations.

The vast majority of similar cases are resolved by reaching a resolution with the university to address the concerns of the department, according to Art Coleman, managing partner of EducationCounsel, which advises colleges and universities.

If a resolution cannot be reached, the matter can be referred to the Justice Department, which can initiate litigation and follow normal litigation rules. A case may also go to an administrative hearing, with the ultimate potential sanction being withholding all federal funds.

“That almost never happens,” Mr. Coleman said, because it would deprive tens of thousands of students of educational opportunities.

The Office of Civil Rights has an obligation to investigate plausible claims, Mr. Coleman said. “That’s not, as it might be couched, some judgment that’s being made for political reasons,” he said. “O.C.R.’s got an obligation under its regulations to investigate any complaint that states a viable legal claim with sufficient facts behind it.”

Source: Education Dept. Opens Civil Rights Inquiry Into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →