French:The Corporate Logo That Broke the Internet

The usual distraction and “flood the zone” tactics by the Trump administration and its enablers:

…The process of stoking outrage has another effect: It crowds out the news cycle. Most Democrats I know would be shocked at how little the average Republican knows about Trump’s actual conduct and his actual wrongdoing. Republicans can, however, cite chapter and verse about left-wing outrages and left-wing overreactions to Trump.

That creates a reality where they simply can’t conceive of how any reasonable, rational person would vote Democratic or oppose the president and his policies.

The Sweeney and Cracker Barrel stories highlight the new right’s theory of change. It sees the social liberalization of America as primarily an elite-driven phenomenon. According to this narrative, the left seized the most powerful institutions of American life and then imposed its delusional and unnatural ideas from the top down, in part through shaming, fear and bullying.

The solution, then, is obvious. Either seize or destroy left-dominated institutions, replace them with right-dominated institutions and elites and then impose conservative values on society, if necessary, through the same intolerant means.

This is why you see some figures on the right turning even to Marxists, such as Antonio Gramsci, to inspire them to “cultural hegemony.”

In this version of the right, cancel culture is only a problem if you’re not the one doing the canceling. The conservative argument for liberty for all is replaced by a populist will to power, one so all-consuming that it exercises veto power over corporate logo redesigns it does not like.

At the moment, MAGA’s cultural power is on the rise, but it’s ultimately on a fool’s errand. Can anyone look at the history of the last 10 years and say that bullying or intolerance helped the left? Or is it more accurate to say that the worst excesses of left-wing cancel culture helped trigger the public reaction that ushered MAGA back into power?

MAGA’s intolerance won’t fare any better. Constant outrage is energizing, at least for a while, for partisans and activists. It’s exhausting for everyone else. The more that MAGA tries to bully America, the more resentment it will build. Bullies only win for a while, and when the backlash to the backlash comes, MAGA will have only itself to blame.

Source: The Corporate Logo That Broke the Internet

Polk: Canadian business needs to walk the walk on productivity

Welcome commentary on the role and responsibilities of the private sector:

It is an annual rite of passage stretching back 30 years. Canadian business leaders sound a warning klaxon about the threat of Canada’s declining productivity. Then they will present a detailed list of policy asks to the federal government that, if implemented they say, will empower Canadian business to reverse our downward productivity trend. 

In many ways, federal governments — Conservative and Liberal — have answered the business call. Need free trade with the United States and Mexico? Done. Need to balance the federal budget to avoid national bankruptcy? Done. Need a low federal debt to GDP ratio? Done. Need corporate taxes rates that are competitive with the G-7? Done. Need business to be supported through the COVID-19 pandemic? Done.

Yet, year after year, Canadian productivity growth stagnates or declines. And year after year, the federal government is blamed by business and business media for failing to deliver a policy suite that will solve the productivity conundrum.

One could perhaps forgive a certain eye-rolling cynicism about business alarmism. And it sometimes seems to federal policymakers that businesses tend to shift the productivity policy goal posts for success in an effort to keep Ottawa the focus of criticism. 

On the flip side, there are quite legitimate business frustrations and complaints about how Ottawa operates. Canada’s inadequate depreciation rules, regulatory uncertainty, and slower project approvals can make capital projects less attractive. Programs like the SR&ED tax are rightly criticized as bureaucratic and more useful for tax planning than for encouraging real risk-taking.

Generational failure

At most, however, the federal government can create a pro-productivity framework. Improving productivity requires not just government policy shifts but also decisions made in boardrooms, shop floors, and offices across the country. On this score, while businesses have talked the talk on productivity for a generation, they have continually failed to walk the walk.

Canada has world-class researchers and scientists, yet business spending on research and development (R&D) is among the lowest in the OECD. Too often, Canadian companies rely on imported technologies rather than creating or adapting their own. This dependency leaves them vulnerable to foreign competitors and stifles the domestic innovation ecosystem.

A related difference between Canadian firms and their international peers lies in technology adoption. Businesses in Canada tend to delay or avoid major investments in automation, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and advanced analytics. This hesitancy often stems from cost concerns, risk aversion, or a “wait and see” mentality. But by holding back, firms are limiting their ability to produce more with the same resources.

Productivity is not only about machines — it is also about people. Workers equipped with up-to-date skills are far more likely to generate innovative ideas, master new technologies, and adapt to evolving markets. Unfortunately, Canadian businesses spend significantly less per employee on training and development than U.S. and European counterparts.

The point here is not to score governmental debating points against Canadian business in a seemingly endless passing of the productivity buck back and forth. The government-business productivity dialogue to which we have become accustomed is a luxury we can no longer afford in light of rising American economic nationalism.

Canada’s economic history has been defined by its privileged relationship with the two globally predominant economies of the last 150 years: the United Kingdom and the United States. Some may think that President Donald Trump’s assault on the global rules-based economic system will pass when he leaves the scene. However, it may also be the case that Trump has tapped into a political vein that has considerable staying power among Americans who feel dispossessed by globalization.

Profound shock

Prime Minister Mark Carnery has recognized this possibility and is trying to jolt Canadians into making big choices at a time when the nation may well be losing its privileged place under the American economic umbrella. This would be a profound shock to federal policy-making and to the way that Canadian companies do business.  

Carney has signalled what is coming federally by the breakneck speed with which he secured the Building Canada Bill Act, which seeks to remove the typical bureaucratic encumbrances that have held back major economy-building projects. His choice of Michael Sabia as a new Clerk of the Privy Council signals he will reward risk-taking and innovation above all else and penalize mere process management.  

Canadian businesses must meet this moment with equally bold thinking and action in a new, more uncertain economic reality. They must invest in a culture that rewards productive investment and upskills its workers. They must reward experimentation and tolerate calculated risk. They must uncover more efficient ways of doing things rather than copying existing models. Above all, they must adopt a true, globally competitive mindset beyond the comfortable habits ingrained during the now declining economic Pax Americana.

In other words, Canada is at an economic crossroads. The federal government seems to recognize this. 

But whether we travel the right road ahead will depend very much on whether Canadian businesses stop talking the talk on productivity and finally walk the walk.

Ken Polk is a public affairs counsellor at Compass Rose. Previously, Ken served as chief speechwriter, deputy director of communications and legislative assistant to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Source: Canadian business needs to walk the walk on productivity

In Trump’s Federal Work Force Cuts, Black Women Are Among the Hardest Hit

Not that surprising:

When President Trump started dismantling federal agencies and dismissing rank-and-file civil servants, Peggy Carr, the chief statistician at the Education Department, immediately started to make a calculation.

She was the first Black person and the first woman to hold the prestigious post of commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. As a political appointee, she knew there was a risk of becoming a target.

But her 35-career at the department spanned a half dozen administrations, including Mr. Trump’s first term, and she had earned the respect of officials from both parties. Surely, she thought, the office tasked with tracking the achievement of the nation’s students could not fall under the president’s definition of “divisive and harmful” or “woke.”

But for the first time in her career, Dr. Carr’s data points didn’t add up.

On a February afternoon, a security guard showed up to her office just as she was preparing to hold a staff meeting. Fifteen minutes later, the staff watched in tears and disbelief as she was escorted out of the building.

“It was like being prosecuted in front of my family — my work family,” Dr. Carr said in an interview. “It was like I was being taken out like the trash, the only difference is I was being taken out the front door rather than the back door.”

While tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs in Mr. Trump’s slash-and-burn approach to shrinking the federal work force, experts say the cuts disproportionately affect Black employees — and Black women in particular. Black women make up 12 percent of the federal work force, nearly double their share of the labor force overall.

For generations, the federal government has served as a ladder to the middle class for Black Americans who were shut out of jobsbecause of discrimination. The federal government has historically offered the population more job stability, pay equity and career advancement than the private sector. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal government aggressively enforced affirmative action in hiring and anti-discrimination rules that Mr. Trump has sought to roll back.

The White House has defended Mr. Trump’s overhaul of the federal government as an effort to right-size the work force and to restore a merit-based approach to advancement In July, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump could continue with mass firings across the federal government.

In a statement, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said that Mr. Trump was “ushering in an economy that will empower all Americans, just as it did during his first term.” He added that “the obsession with divisive D.E.I. initiatives reverses years of strides toward genuine equality.”…

Source: In Trump’s Federal Work Force Cuts, Black Women Are Among the Hardest Hit

Thousands in Australia march against immigration, government condemns rally

Of note. Hopefully will not be replicated in Canada:

Thousands of Australians joined anti-immigration rallies across the country on Sunday that the centre-left government condemned, saying they sought to spread hate and were linked to neo-Nazis.

March for Australia rallies against immigration were held in Sydney and other state capitals and regional centres, according to the group’s website.

“Mass migration has torn at the bonds that held our communities together,” the website says. The group posted on X on Saturday that the rallies aimed to do “what the mainstream politicians never have the courage to do: demand an end to mass immigration”.

The group also says it is concerned about culture, wages, traffic, housing and water supply, environmental destruction, infrastructure, hospitals, crime and loss of community.

Australia – where one in two people is either born overseas or has a parent born overseas – has been grappling with a rise in right-wing extremism, including protests by neo-Nazis.

“We absolutely condemn the March for Australia rally that’s going on today. It is not about increasing social harmony,” Murray Watt, a senior minister in the Labor government, told Sky News television, when asked about the rally in Sydney, the country’s most-populous city.

“We don’t support rallies like this that are about spreading hate and that are about dividing our community,” Watt said, asserting they were “organised and promoted” by neo-Nazi groups.

March for Australia organisers did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the neo-Nazi claims.

Laws banning the Nazi salute and the display or sale of symbols associated with terror groups came into effect in Australia this year in response to a string of antisemitic attacks on synagogues, buildings and cars since the beginning of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

COUNTER-PROTESTERS EXPRESS ‘DISGUST, ANGER’

Some 5,000 to 8,000 people, many draped in Australian flags, had assembled for the Sydney rally, the Australian Broadcasting Corp reported. It was held near the course of the Sydney Marathon, where 35,000 runners pounded the streets on Sunday, finishing at the city’s Opera House.

Also nearby, a counter-rally by the Refugee Action Coalition, a community activist organisation, took place.

“Our event shows the depth of disgust and anger about the far-right agenda of March For Australia,” a coalition spokesperson said in a statement. Organisers said hundreds attended that event.

Police said hundreds of officers were deployed across Sydney in an operation that ended “with no significant incidents”.

A large March for Australia rally was held in central Melbourne, the capital of Victoria state, according to aerial footage from the ABC, which reported that riot officers used pepper spray on demonstrators. Victoria Police did not confirm the report but said it would provide details on the protest later on Sunday.

Bob Katter, the leader of a small populist party, attended a March for Australia rally in Queensland, a party spokesperson said, three days after the veteran lawmaker threatened a reporter for mentioning Katter’s Lebanese heritage at a press conference when the topic of his attendance at a March for Australia event was being discussed.

Source: Thousands in Australia march against immigration, government condemns rally

Canadian Immigration Tracker First Quarter 2025

My regular update on key immigration programs. Given the various articles on whether or not the government is meeting the reductions announced earlier, here is where we stand for January to June for the current and previous two years:

Permanent residents admissions: From 255,015 in 2024 to 207,510 in 2025, decline 18.6 percent, (from 2023, decline 21 percent), about 50 percent of 2025 target  

TR2PR (Those already in Canada): From 148,020 in 2024 to 126,365 in 2025, decline of 14.6 percent (from 2023, decline 13 percent). 

TRs-IMP: From 420,070 in 2024 to 295,505 in 2025, decline of 29.7 percent (from 2023, decline 23.4 percent), already exceeds 2025 target

TRs-TFWP: From 110,910 in 2024 to 106,105 in 2025, decline of 4.3 percent (from 2023, decline 7.2 percent), already exceeds 2025 target for both agriculture and non-agriculture workers

Students: From 248,820 in 2024 to 152,775 in 2025, decline of 38.6 percent (from 2023, increase 26.1 percent), about 50 percent of 2025 target (likely to overshoot given third quarter has highest number of admissions (between 40-45 percent for post-secondary albeit only 34 percent in 2024)

Asylum Claimants: From 93,315 in 2024 to 57,810 in 2025, decline of 38 percent (from 2023, decline 3.7 percent)

Citizenship: From 205,363 in 2024 to 151,804 in 2025, decline of 26.1 percent (from 2023, decline 14.2 percent)

Visitor Visas: From 868,234 in 2024 to 568,195, decline of 34.6 percent (from 2023, decline 40.5 percent)

May: The Functionary on PBO expenditure review recommendations

Good discussion of the PBO recommendations:

WHY IT MATTERS
It’s about measurement and accountability

It introduces a methodology to track personnel spending using more frequent pay data. It separates projections for civilian and non-civilian staffing (military/RCMP included). It distinguishes head counts (actual people) from FTEs (work equivalent). This is critical because past cuts reduced head counts while FTEs actually rose.

It’s a baseline for expenditure review. It sets clear starting points for measuring cuts, which didn’t exist before. It allows tracking of whether the public service is truly shrinking under the expenditure review. It provides capacity for twice-yearly updates so parliamentarians can monitor progress.

It’s an operating split vs. a capital budget split. The government plans to balance the operating budget while splitting expenditures into operating and capital budgets.It creates an incentive to shift operating expenses into capital (childcare transfers, immigration programs, infrastructure) to make balancing easier. Without clear definitions, departments may label operating expenses as “productivity investments” and put them under capital.

There are risks for public-service managers. Operating budgets face greater restraint since balancing that budget is Carney’s fiscal anchor. There is uncertainty over what counts as operating vs. capital. There’s a need to deliver the same services with fewer resources. Previous cuts show departments often hire more permanent staff to maintain service despite headcount reductions.

POST-GIROUX
Whoever takes over, it will be temporary

Giroux’s term ends Sept. 2, five days after departments’ Aug. 28 deadline for proposed 15-per-cent spending reductions that will shape the next federal budget in October. He leaves with another 20 or so reports in the pipeline for his successor.

I wrote in July about the unknowns surrounding Giroux’s fate and the huge impacthe’s had on the office. At the time, the Privy Council Office said it was committed to appointing a “highly qualified individual” and noted the Parliament of Canada Actallows for an interim appointment in the event of a vacancy.

This week, it offered no timeline other than in to say “due course.” It didn’t say whether the position will be filled before the budget.

The only option now is a temporary appointment until the House and Senate return. A formal appointment requires approval from both chambers. Some suggest the government would prefer an interim watchdog rather than have its moves scrutinized by someone with Giroux’s experience and track record.

Source: The Functionary

Geoff Russ: Immigration is how Poilievre will get back on top

Reasonable foreshadowing of likely Conservative attack lines, some more valid than others:

Expect the Conservatives to come out swinging on immigration like never before when the House of Commons reconvenes next month.

Donald Trump gave the Liberals a lifeline to eke out another term in government in the spring, but the Liberals’ failure to get immigration under control is negatively impacting Canadians across the country.

In a statement released on August 25, the Conservatives pointed out that the government set an annual cap of 82,000 temporary foreign workers (TFW), but 105,000 had already been issued.

As for applicants to the International Mobility Program, they wrote 302,000 had been admitted by the first six months of the year in June, despite a promised cap of 285,000 permits.

“Moreover, their so-called caps on permanent residents were already among the highest in our history, yet they’re on track to exceed their own reckless targets, welcoming the equivalent of twice the population of Guelph and four times the population of Abbotsford,” read the statement, credited to Poilievre and Shadow Immigration Critic Michelle Rempel Garner.

This month, Poilievre released a series of graphics on social media highlighting the disparity between the Carney government’s promised targets, and how they are on-track to be exceeded.

This is a taste of what to expect for the fall session of Parliament, and Canadians will be receptive.

Sixty-two per cent of respondents in a Leger poll conducted in July believe there are too many newcomers arriving in Canada, and just 42 percent think they can be trusted. The poll also found that there was little disagreement between immigrant and native-born citizens in this regard.

Last year, Abacus Data found that 53 per cent of those surveyed had a negative view of immigration, and 72 per cent thought that the government’s immigration targets were “too ambitious”.

Abacus published the results of another survey earlier this month, finding that 25 per cent of Canadians now consider immigration to be the top issue facing Canada, and the Conservatives lead the Liberals 56 per cent to 15 per cent when respondents were asked which party was best equipped to handle the issue.

During the last federal election, young Canadians swung heavily towards the Conservatives, 44 percent to 31.2 per cent among 18 to 34 year olds, and with good reason.

Youth unemployment is the highest it has been since the late 1990s, with almost 15 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 24 unable to find work before returning to school in the fall.

Employers have been greatly incentivized by the TFW program to hire foreigners instead of hiring and training their fellow Canadians.

The reliance on surplus foreign labour is dragging down productivity, while suppressing wages and per-capita GDP. There is no long-term upside to flooding the country with low-skill labour that pushes Canadians out of the job market, and the short-term effects have been socially and economically undesirable.

Investigations by the Toronto Star in 2024 found that government officials in Ottawa told their staff to skip fraud checks on TFW applications. Predictable wrongdoing ensued, such as no confirmation with employers to confirm that posted jobs actually existed, while migrant workers paid up to $70,000 for fake jobs.

As of now, it is estimated that there are somewhere between 600,000 and over 1 million undocumented people within Canada, and federal and provincial agencies seem incapable of remedying the issue.

Expelling people from the country is not a pleasant task when so many people have been duped by villainous immigration consultants who sold them fake dreams. The job must still be done.

You cannot have trust in a government that fails to meet its own immigration caps and enforce deportations.

It is unfair to Canadians, and unfair to newcomers who went through the proper channels.

One of the most infuriating aspects of it all is that Canada should not have an immigration crisis. Our geography gives us the privilege of being generous, and up until 2015 we were more selective about newcomers.

Stephen Harper’s government ran a very tight ship on immigration, and this should be the expectation of every Canadian government, not an exception.

This all started going downhill when Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, and the numbers started climbing sharply. For example, his government lowered the benchmark for Express Entry from 866 out of 1200 points, to just 75.

Nearly five million people have entered the country since 2014, and few can say this country is fairer, more prosperous or more hopeful for it. Those who want Canada to continue as a welcoming country for new arrivals would do well to push for reform.

We are bordered by three oceans and an undefended border with the world’s most powerful economy. Our admission of newcomers is something we can control, and there is no reason why Canada should not have one of the most well-run, careful immigration systems in the world.

The idea that Canadians have been almost unanimously in favour of immigration since the Second World War is a pervasive myth. It has always been controversial among the public, but rarely has it been debated with ferocity in the House of Commons.

Canadians want a debate on current immigration levels to happen, and they will get their wish this fall.

Mark Carney will need creative excuses for why his government blew past its own caps, did not release immigration data for months, and presented no plan to end the economy’s dependence on cheap foreign labour.

For the Conservatives, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally turn immigration into an issue our politicians can openly and honestly debate.

The Liberals got us into this avoidable mess, and they must be held accountable for it.

Source: Geoff Russ: Immigration is how Poilievre will get back on top

Canada’s border agency plans to use AI to screen everyone entering the country — and single out ‘higher risk’ people

Inevitable given the numbers involved and the need to triage applications:

Canada Border Services Agency is planning to use AI to check everyone visiting or returning to the country to predict whether they are at risk of breaking the law. 

Anyone identified as “higher risk” could be singled out for further inspection.

The traveller compliance indicator (TCI), which has been tested at six land ports of entry, was developed using five years of CBSA travellers’ data. It assigns a “compliance score” for every person entering Canada. It will be used to enforce the Customs Act and related regulations.

The AI-assisted tool is expected to launch as early as 2027 and is meant to help border services officers at all land, air and marine ports of entry decide whether to refer travellers and the goods they are carrying for secondary examination, according to an assessment report obtained under an access to information request. 

“We use the obtained data to build predictive models in order to predict the likelihood of a traveller to be compliant,” said the report which was submitted by the border agency to the Treasury Board.

“TCI will improve the client experience by reducing processing time at the borders. The system will allow officers to spend less time on compliant travellers and reduce the number of unnecessary selective referrals.”

However, experts are alarmed by the lack of public engagement and input into the tool’s development. They worry that the system may reinforce human biases against certain types of travellers such as immigrants and visitors from certain countries because the quality of the analytics is only as good as what is inputted.

“If you’ve historically been very critical over a certain group, then that will be in the data and we’ll transfer that into the tool,” said Vancouver-based immigration lawyer Will Tao, who obtained the report.

“You look for the problems and you find problems where you’re looking, right?”

The government report said the border agency serves more than 96 million travellers a year, and trying to keep up with expected growth would require the addition of hundreds of border officers. In addition, physical limitations make it impossible to add extra booths at some points of entry.

The AI tool, the report said, will help keep border processing times at current levels even with an expected increase in the number of travellers. 

“No decisions are automated,” the report said. “Rather the current primary processing is being supported with a flag indicating whether a traveller’s information matches a compliance pattern.”

However, if an officer follows a mistaken recommendation from the tool, it could have impacts that could “last longer,” the report added.

“Once a risk score or indicator is presented to an officer, it can heavily influence their judgment, which in practice means the system is shaping outcomes even if the final authority is technically still human,” said University of Toronto professor Ebrahim Bagheri, who focuses on AI and the study of data and society.

“A false positive is when the system flags someone as risky or non-compliant even though they are in fact compliant. In the border context, that could mean a traveller is singled out for extra questioning or secondary examination even though they’ve done nothing wrong.”

The system is designed to display information of interest to an officer, such as a traveller’s means of transport and who accompanied them. 

It also captures “live determinants” which can include information such as whether the person is travelling alone, the type of identification they presented and the license plate of the vehicle they used, as well as any data from the traveller’s previous trips in CBSA’s records….

Source: Canada’s border agency plans to use AI to screen everyone entering the country — and single out ‘higher risk’ people

Nicolas: Voiler la rentrée

Another take on the latest Quebec secularism debate along with broader discussion of charter rights:

…C’est donc en cette semaine de rentrée — existe-t-il des hasards dans les calendriers politiques sur lesquels un gouvernement a le parfait contrôle ? — qu’on rend public le rapport du Comité d’étude sur le respect des principes de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État et sur les influences religieuses, créé en mars dernier.

La recommandation du rapport qui, nécessairement, attire toute l’attention : une proposition d’élargir l’interdiction du port de signes religieux aux éducatrices des centres de la petite enfance (CPE) et des garderies subventionnées. Profession où il y a déjà une pénurie documentée, qui affecte les parents exténués.

La Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) patauge dans le caniveau des sondages, une grande partie de la population se préoccupe de l’état de nos services publics et on semble dire : « Regardez, là-bas ! Un oiseau (voilé) ! »

Le débat sur les signes religieux a été fait, refait et surfait au Québec depuis 20 ans. Je ne sais pas s’il reste des alignements de mots inusités dans le dictionnaire pour décrire la contradiction béante entre la discrimination à l’emploi, par l’État, des femmes sur la base de leurs vêtements et de leur foi, d’une part, et l’objectif de l’égalité homme-femme, d’autre part. À ce stade-ci, je ne sais plus quoi dire de plus.

Mais je peux tout de même, peut-être, demander si l’on comprend que nos élus instrumentalisent cette obsession pour le voile pour faire de la diversion et de la manipulation politique ?

Qu’on soit pour ou contre la loi 21, on peut comprendre que de lancer ce rapport-là en pleine rentrée a quand même été pensé. Pour qu’on se chicane entre nous là-dessus et pour nous distraire du reste ?

Je pense aussi qu’on peut être à l’unisson peu impressionnés par le fait que les deux personnes chargées de rédiger un tel rapport sont Christiane Pelchat, qui a défendu comme avocate pro bono le groupe militant pour la loi 21 Pour les droits des femmes, et Guillaume Rousseau, qui était conseiller politique de Simon Jolin-Barrette au moment de l’adoption de la loi 21. Avec une couleur politique si lourdement affichée, on ne s’étonnera pas de la faible participation du public (323 réponses citoyennes sur 9,1 millions de Québécois) ou des organismes représentant des groupes minoritaires potentiellement affectés par les actions du gouvernement.

On a reproduit ici le modèle de « consultation » du Comité des sages sur l’identité de genre, où l’on pouvait deviner les conclusions du rapport en regardant la main qui tenait le crayon. Ce comité-là avait conclu, aussi sans grande surprise, que le gouvernement avait les « bonnes » orientations sur l’identité de genre — et ce, sans que les personnes appartenant aux minorités de genre se sentent entendues ou respectées par le processus. On manufacture ainsi de toutes pièces un avis « externe » qui nous invite à aller plus loin dans la direction qui nous chantait déjà.

Cette manière de « consulter » affecte pour le moment deux des principales minorités qui font l’objet d’une obsession politique — les communautés musulmanes et les minorités de genre. J’insiste : pour le moment. Si on ne lève pas de drapeau rouge sur cette manière de procéder maintenant, ne serait-ce que parce qu’on « aime » les conclusions de ce rapport-ci, la pratique s’étendra à d’autres aspects de l’action gouvernementale. Jusqu’à ce que certaines personnes qui ne se sentent pas concernées aujourd’hui par la méthode commencent à la trouver moins drôle.

C’est déjà le cas pour la clause de dérogation dite « nonobstant », qui permet de faire fi de certains pans de la Charte des droits et libertés canadienne. En l’utilisant de manière péremptoire dans l’adoption de la loi 21, Québec a empêché la société civile de faire valoir une bonne partie de ses arguments devant les tribunaux. Depuis, on a un effet de mode. La Saskatchewan a utilisé en 2023 la clause de dérogation pour limiter la capacité des parents d’enfants trans et non binaires de contester sa loi sur l’usage des prénoms et pronoms choisis par les élèves dans les salles de classe. L’Ontario l’avait déjà utilisé en 2022 pour suspendre le droit de grève des travailleuses du secteur de l’éducation.

On s’en est souvenu avec le cas d’Air Canada : le gouvernement fédéral utilise aussi ses propres mécanismes pour suspendre de plus en plus systématiquement le droit de grève des travailleurs — un droit qui découle de la liberté d’association, aussi protégé par nos Chartes des droits et libertés. Le gouvernement du Québec cherche aussi à limiter ce droit à sa manière, avec son projet de loi 89, adopté en mai.

Après le droit du travail, qu’est-ce qui suivra ?

Banaliser et fragiliser des droits fondamentaux sur lesquels le monde s’était mis de peine et de misère à peu près d’accord dans la Déclaration universelle de 1948, après le choc d’horreurs indicibles, c’est un boomerang qui finit par revenir dans le front des gens qui n’étaient pas d’abord ciblés. Potentiellement, à peu près tout le monde.

Peut-être que ça, avec la fragilisation de l’État de droit chez nos voisins du Sud, voire un peu partout dans le monde, on le constatera plus facilement aujourd’hui que dans les années 2000 ou 2010.

Source: Voiler la rentrée

… It is therefore in this back-to-school week — are there any coincidences in the political calendars over which a government has perfect control? — that the report of the Study Committee on Respect for the Principles of the Act on the Secularism of the State and Religious Influences, created last March, is made public.

The report’s recommendation, which necessarily attracts full attention: a proposal to extend the ban on the wearing of religious signs to educators in early childhood centres (EPCs) and subsidized daycare centers. Profession where there is already a documented shortage, which affects exhausted parents.

The Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) is wading in the polls gutter, a large part of the population is concerned about the state of our public services and we seem to say: “Look, over there! A bird (veiled)! ”

The debate on religious signs has been done, redone and overrated in Quebec for 20 years. I do not know if there are still any unusual word alignments in the dictionary to describe the gaping contradiction between discrimination against employment, by the state, of women on the basis of their clothing and faith, on the one hand, and the objective of gender equality, on the other hand. At this point, I don’t know what else to say.

But I can still, perhaps, ask if we understand that our elected officials exploit this obsession with the veil to make diversion and political manipulation?

Whether we are for or against Law 21, we can understand that launching this report in the middle of the start of the school year was still thought. So that we can quarrel with each other about it and to distract ourselves from the rest?

I also think that we can be unimpressed in unison by the fact that the two people in charge of writing such a report are Christiane Pelchat, who defended as a pro bono lawyer the group campaigning for Law 21 For Women’s Rights, and Guillaume Rousseau, who was Simon Jolin-Barrette’s political advisor at the time of the adoption of Bill 21. With a political color so heavily displayed, we will not be surprised by the low participation of the public (323 citizen responses out of 9.1 million Quebecers) or organizations representing minority groups potentially affected by government actions.

The “consultation” model of the Committee of Wise men on gender identity was reproduced here, where we could guess the conclusions of the report by looking at the hand that held the pencil. That committee had concluded, also without much surprise, that the government had the “right” guidelines on gender identity – and this, without people belonging to gender minorities feeling heard or respected by the process. We thus manufacture from scratch an “external” opinion that invites us to go further in the direction that was already singing to us.

This way of “consulting” currently affects two of the main minorities who are the subject of a political obsession – Muslim communities and gender minorities. I insist: for the moment. If we do not raise a red flag on this way of proceeding now, if only because we “like” the conclusions of this report, the practice will extend to other aspects of government action. Until some people who do not feel concerned about the method today begin to find it less funny.

This is already the case for the so-called “notwithstanding” exemption clause, which makes it possible to ignore certain parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By using it in a peremptory way in the adoption of Bill 21, Quebec prevented civil society from asserting a good part of its arguments in the courts. Since then, we have had a fashion effect. Saskatchewan used the exemption clause in 2023 to limit the ability of parents of trans and non-binary children to challenge its law on the use of first names and pronouns chosen by students in classrooms. Ontario had already used it in 2022 to suspend the right to strike for workers in the education sector.

We remembered this with the Air Canada case: the federal government is also using its own mechanisms to increasingly systematically suspend workers’ right to strike — a right that stems from freedom of association, also protected by our Charters of Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec government is also seeking to limit this right in its own way, with its Bill 89, adopted in May.

After labor law, what will follow?

Trivializing and weakening fundamental rights on which the world had put itself of pain and misery roughly agreed in the Universal Declaration of 1948, after the shock of unspeakable horrors, it is a boomerang that ends up returning to the front of people who were not first targeted. Potentially, just about everyone.

Perhaps this, with the weakening of the rule of law among our southern neighbors, or even everywhere in the world, we will see it more easily today than in the 2000s or 2010s.

Davis: When citizenship becomes a test and the tester is morally bankrupt

Strong and largely valid critique:

In August, journalist Mirandaa Jeyaretnam of TIME reported the Trump administration had expanded its definition of “good moral character” for citizenship applicants. The new policy directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to apply a “holistic” standard that screens not just for criminal history, but for subjective notions of “anti-Americanism,” including applicants’ social media posts, political opinions and community affiliations.

USCIS even stated that “America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies.” It is an extraordinary claim — not because citizenship should be cheapened, but because the arbiter is a president whose own moral record is anything but exemplary.

How can a leader with such a fractured moral compass sit in judgment of immigrants’ character? Worse, how can we allow the immigration system — long a pillar of America’s identity — to be transformed into an ideological loyalty test?

The return of the ‘Test’

This is not the first time America has demanded citizens prove their worthiness through arbitrary exams. History offers chilling parallels:

  1. Literacy tests — Introduced across the Jim Crow South, these tests were ostensibly neutral but were weaponized against Black Americans. Registrars could pass or fail applicants at will, asking absurd questions such as “How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?” The intent was clear: Disenfranchisement.
  2. Poll taxes — The requirement to pay a tax before voting disproportionately excluded Black citizens and poor whites. The 24th Amendment (1964) finally outlawed poll taxes in federal elections, and the U.S. Supreme Court extended the ban nationwide.
  3. The Boswell Amendment (1946, Alabama) — This law required prospective voters to “understand and explain” any section of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, registrars decided whether explanations were “good enough.” In Schnell v. Davis (1949), the Supreme Court struck it down, citing its discriminatory intent.

Each of these so-called “tests” was justified in the language of fairness, education or public order. In practice, they served to exclude people deemed undesirable by those in power. Today’s expanded “good moral character” standard belongs to this lineage of exclusionary devices. It is not about uplifting the nation; it is about narrowing it.

What ‘good moral character’ really means

For decades, USCIS has required naturalization applicants to show “good moral character.” Traditionally, this meant avoiding disqualifying offenses such as murder, aggravated felonies or repeated convictions. It was clear, factual and rooted in law.

“Under the Trump administration’s new directive, morality itself is being redefined.”

But under the Trump administration’s new directive, morality itself is being redefined. Applicants must not only avoid crime but also prove they possess “positive attributes,” such as stable employment, civic engagement and tax compliance. Officers are now instructed to weighconduct that may be “technically lawful” but still contrary to “average citizens’ behavior” in a given community.

That’s not a test of law — it’s a test of conformity.

And then comes the most troubling expansion: Screening for “anti-Americanism.” USCIS says it will investigate applicants’ support for “anti-American ideologies,” including antisemitism or pro-terrorist views. On paper, such goals sound defensible. But in practice, the term “anti-American” is undefined. Already, critics have documented how it has been applied to pro-Palestinian student activists, journalists and even lawful visa holders.

According to TIME, the Stanford Daily student newspaper has sued the administration, arguing the policy constitutes “thoughtcrime” and stifles free speech. As one immigration attorney put it: “Anyone who has any position that is against what the American government says they should think, they’re immediately labeled ‘anti-American.’”

The irony of the judge

This would be troubling under any administration. But under President Donald Trump, it is laced with bitter irony.

Here is a president who:

  • Attempted to overturn an election result through false claims of fraud
  • Was twice impeached — once for abuse of power and once for inciting an insurrection
  • Faces multiple indictments for fraud, obstruction and conspiracy over 30,000 lies during his first presidency alone
  • Publicly mocked military veterans, immigrants and even his own cabinet
  • Has more than 30 felonies on his criminal record

And yet, he presumes to sit in judgment of others’ “moral character”? The absurdity cannot be overstated. Yet it’s only a glorious supernatural happening when many don’t see or fail to observe righteously these ungodly offenses.

A president who courts authoritarian leaders abroad, flouts norms at home and has a decades-long record of dishonesty is now dictating the morality of immigrants whose greatest offense may be criticizing American foreign policy online.

This is not moral leadership. It is moral theater — a dangerous masquerade.

Citizenship as ‘privilege’ vs. citizenship as right

USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser declared: “Immigration benefits — including to live and work in the United States — remain a privilege, not a right.”

“Citizenship is not meant to be a privilege reserved for the elite or the ideologically pure.”

But history tells us otherwise. Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, was born out of the ashes of slavery. It was designed to guarantee full belonging to those once denied it. Citizenship is not meant to be a privilege reserved for the elite or the ideologically pure. It is a right grounded in America’s founding principle: equality before the law.

Trump already has tried to end birthright citizenship, raising alarms about dismantling constitutional guarantees. He has suggested denaturalizing U.S. citizens — even floating the idea of stripping Elon Musk of citizenship. A Justice Department memo in June directed officials to “maximize denaturalization proceedings.”

Imagine the precedent: Citizenship not as permanent, but as conditional — contingent on loyalty to a president’s worldview. What about Trump’s wife? Melania Trump’s immigration status (born Melanija Knavs of Slovenia) is that she came here on a work visa (an H-1B type and a green card) becoming a citizen in 2006. This is how the Einstein visa applies to a model?

That is not democracy. That is authoritarianism.

The slippery slope of ‘anti-Americanism’

The new directive makes “anti-Americanism” an “overwhelmingly negative factor.” Yet who defines “anti-American”?

Is criticizing U.S. foreign policy anti-American? What about supporting racial justice protests or writing a critical op-ed? Is being pro-Palestinian anti-American? The administration already has pledged to deport pro-Hamas students, conflating political dissent with terrorism.

By this logic, dissent itself becomes disloyalty. But dissent always has been America’s heartbeat — from abolitionists to suffragists to civil rights leaders.

If this policy had been in place in the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. — once accused of being a communist sympathizer — might have failed the test.

Lessons from history

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests, poll taxes and “understanding clauses” because they were subjective and discriminatory. They handed local officials the power to deny rights arbitrarily.

Today, USCIS officers hold similar discretion over immigrants’ futures. They can now decide not just whether an applicant obeys the law, but whether they “fit in.” That is not the rule of law — it is the rule of bias.

The same danger applies: selective enforcement, prejudice cloaked in procedure and systemic exclusion.

The real moral test

The true test of America’s character is not whether immigrants love us enough. It is whether we, as a nation, love our ideals enough to uphold them consistently.

If we allow subjective morality tests to dictate citizenship, we betray the very principles we claim to defend. We risk turning citizenship from a shield of equality into a weapon of conformity.

In the end, the question is not whether immigrants meet Trump’s definition of “good moral character.” The question is whether America can survive leaders who confuse moral judgment with political control.

Because when citizenship becomes a test — and the tester is morally bankrupt — it’s not immigrants who fail. It’s us.

Edmond W. Davis is a social historian, speaker, collegiate professor, international journalist and former director of the Derek Olivier Research Institute. He is an expert on various historical and emotional intelligence topics. He’s globally known for his work as a researcher regarding the history of the Tuskegee Airmen and Airwomen. He’s the founder of America’s first and only National HBCU Black Wall Street Career Fest.                                                  

Source: When citizenship becomes a test and the tester is morally bankrupt