Phillips: Storm over Elghawaby appointment proof of need for someone like her in the job

2023/02/01 Leave a comment

Representative of the favourable commentary to her appointment. I agree, if she hadn’t been public on her opposition to Bill 21 and the public attitudes behind it and previous Quebec debates, she would have no credibility. It is more with respect with her other positions that questions can be asked:

It took 18 months for the Trudeau government to carry through on its promise to name a “special representative” to combat Islamophobia. It took just 24 hours for that appointment to blow up in its face.

Last Thursday the government announced it had named Amira Elghawaby to the position. Elghawaby is well known to us at the Star; she’s been contributing thoughtful, insightful articles to our opinion pages for several years on all sorts of subjects, with a focus on social justice issues.

It was an excellent and well-deserved appointment. The government patted itself on the back for making it a few days before the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque massacre. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it an “important step” in the fight against “hatred in all its forms.”

But no good deed, as they say, goes unpunished. Elghawaby has been outspoken, as you’d expect, against Quebec’s Bill 21, the frankly discriminatory law that bars people wearing religious symbols (notably Muslim women) from holding certain government jobs. So Montreal’s La Presse reported that Trudeau had just appointed someone who portrays Quebecers as “anti-Muslim.”

Cue the outrage in Quebec. A federal Liberal minister (Pablo Rodriguez) professed to be “profoundly insulted” as a Quebecer by Elghawaby’s comments. Trudeau called on her to “explain” them. By Monday, the Quebec government was demanding her resignation. And Pierre Poilievre found the time to craft a video attacking Trudeau for appointing someone he smeared as “anti-Quebec, anti-Jewish and anti-police.”

Poilievre’s attack is particularly sleazy. His real target isn’t Elghawaby. She’s just road kill in his assault on the Trudeau government and all its works.

It’s also BS. The idea that Elghawaby thinks Quebecers are Muslim haters is based on an article she co-wrote in 2019 for the Ottawa Citizen with Bernie Farber, who is a human-rights activist as well as being Jewish. They cited a poll showing 88 per cent of Quebecers who hold anti-Muslim views supported Bill 21, and wrote that “unfortunately” most Quebecers seemed at that moment to be swayed “by anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Frankly, viewed in the context of the time, when Quebec had just passed the most discriminatory law in modern Canadian history, the article is remarkably moderate. It decries the “tyranny of the majority” and ends with an appeal to uphold “basic human rights and dignity” for all. 

Elghawaby’s other supposedly offensive comments have also been twisted out of shape. As for being “anti-Jewish,” her appointment was welcomed by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the country’s leading Jewish organization, as well as by Irwin Cotler, Canada’s special representative on antisemitism. If she’d taken anti-Jewish positions, you’d think they’d have noticed.

I don’t agree with quite a bit of what Elghawaby has written, such as her view that Canada should abolish the monarchy. But so what? I haven’t seen a thing she’s written that goes beyond the bounds of reasonable debate (and no, I don’t include the occasional badly worded tweet). 

As a human-rights activist she challenges Canadian complacency, but that hardly disqualifies her from serving (in the words of the government’s announcement) as a “champion, adviser, expert and representative” on fighting anti-Muslim hatred. On the contrary.

Some will argue that, regardless of all this, her appointment is “divisive” — the evidence being the reaction to it in Quebec. But the truth is that while hatred of all sorts knows no political boundaries, there is a particular problem with the way Quebec handles issues of religious tolerance and minorities.

The evidence for that is plain for all to see in Bill 21 itself, which is blatantly discriminatory and racist in effect if not in intent. Sure, there’s a complicated history behind all this. But if Islamophobia can’t be frankly confronted in Quebec, of all places, there’s no point in having a national representative on the issue.

On Monday, the prime minister said he’s satisfied with Elghawaby’s explanation of her past remarks and she will remain in place. That’s absolutely the right decision. In fact, the uproar around her appointment is the best possible demonstration of the need for putting someone like her in the job.

Source: Phillips: Storm over Elghawaby appointment proof of need for someone like her in the job

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Chris Selley: Liberal anti-Islamophobia does not include Quebec

2023/02/01 Leave a comment

Valid contrast. One does have to question the Liberal’s vetting process and their political understanding of Quebec as this reaction among the Quebec commentariat and politicians was likely:

One of the more astonishing scenes in Canada’s recent political history occurred over the weekend as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his Quebec lieutenant and Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne took turns wagging their fingers at Amira Elghawaby. She had been installed only the day before as Canada’s first official representative to combat Islamophobia, on the eve of the anniversary of the 2017 massacre at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City.

Champagne said he was “worried.” He suggested Elghawaby should take time to reflect upon what she had done. From his fainting couch, Rodriguez declared himself “wounded and shocked as a Quebecer.”

“I certainly don’t agree with her words and I expect her to clarify them,” Trudeau tutted.

Elghawaby’s crime? Elghawaby’s campaigning against Islamophobia actually extends to Quebec.

The controversy began Friday when La Presse unearthed a 2019 op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, co-written by Elghawaby and fellow Canadian Anti-Hate Network board member Bernie Farber, lamenting the recent passing of Bill 21 — the Quebec legislation, now in force, banning civil servants in certain positions of state authority (notably teachers) from wearing religious garb on the job.

“Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment,” Elghawaby and Farber argued. “A poll conducted by Léger Marketing earlier this year found that 88 per cent of Quebecers who held negative views of Islam supported the ban.”

This is not a controversial statement — certainly not by the standards of those who campaigned against Bill 21, as any reasonable appointee to Elghawaby’s new position would have done, Bill 21 being the most Islamophobic thing going in this country.

The pointless 15-year “reasonable accommodations” psychodrama that produced the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, the Parti Québécois’ failed “values charter” and eventually Bill 21 had some Jewish content, particularly around the issue of kosher food at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital. The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision allowing Sikh students to wear kirpans at school is somewhere in the primordial ooze of this debate.

But no one can honestly deny that the vast majority of the angst was over Islam, and what some of its adherents choose to wear. The notion that the hijab (as opposed to the niqab or burqa) represents a radical, political and evangelical form of Islam is commonly heard in Quebec, and almost never anywhere else in Canada.

The aforementioned 2019 Léger poll found Quebecers’ “net positive” view of Catholics — i.e., positive minus negative – was 66 per cent; of Jews, 55 per cent; of Muslims, 37 per cent. Moving on to personal religious symbols, the net positive view of crucifixes was 59 per cent. The net positive view of kippas was 37 per cent. Of hijabs, 28 per cent. (Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you Bill 21 was a principled extension of the Quiet Revolution. It’s a neat trick, casting off the shackles of the Catholic Church while remaining resolutely pro-crucifix.)

When put on the defensive, Bill 21 supporters will often point out that the idea has support in the Rest of Canada. It’s true to a point: An Abacus Data poll last year found 30 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec liked the idea. But the figure in Quebec was 53 per cent. And rather crucially, Quebec is the only province where any politician in any party has even proposed such a law, never mind followed through on it to popular acclaim.

Elghawaby, an activist and journalist, has committed other rhetorical crimes, especially from the Quebec-nationalist point of view. In 2021, she declared herself nauseated by University of Toronto historian Joseph Heath’s contention that “the largest group of people in this country who were victimized by British colonialism, subjugated and incorporated into confederation by force, are French Canadians.” She has advocated for prayer rooms in public schools, and for including non-Christian holidays on official Canadian calendars. You could hardly pick two better positions to empurple a nationalist with a newspaper column or a seat in a legislature.

“One wonders how this person, with so many prejudices against Quebecers and clearly incapable of understanding the importance of secularism in the historical and social development of Quebec, could help improve the ambient climate and mutual understanding,” professors Nadia El-Mabrouk and François Dugré argued this weekend in La Presse.

She can’t. Almost certainly, no one can. Discussions in this country about Islamophobia, racism, minority rights and everything in that neck of the woods exist in two hermetically sealed chambers: One for Quebec, and one for everyone else. It’s basically impossible to speak to both worlds at once. But if anyone were capable of it, the minimum they would need is to be appointed by a government willing to support her when one world or the other got a bit offended.

As it stands, both the Quebec government and the opposition Conservatives in Ottawa are demanding Elghawaby’s resignation. The Liberals, having denounced her for no good reason, are making it easier, not harder, for them to do so. And they look as ridiculous doing it in Quebec as in the Rest of Canada. Asked Monday by reporters how he responded to the calls for Elghawaby to resign, Trudeau offered up some typically tawdry bafflegab: “She is there to speak for the community, with the community, and build bridges across. Obviously she has thought carefully over many years about the impacts that various pieces of legislation, various political positions, have had on the community. Her job now is to make sure that she’s helping the government and helping everyone.”

Not for the first time with the Trudeau gang, we are left with two simple but baffling questions: What the hell do they think they’re doing? And why haven’t they heard of the internet?

Source: Chris Selley: Liberal anti-Islamophobia does not include Quebec

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Quebec commentaries on the Elghawaby Islamophobia appointment

2023/02/01 Leave a comment

Le Devoir had three commentaries on the appointment, highlighting how this appointment and her comments on Bill 21 and anti-Muslim sentiment have resulted in a “cue the outrage” response, even if her comments were in line with what other commentators and public figures have and continue to state.

Some go beyond the Quebec aspect in highlighting her tweet on Joseph Heath’s critique of the American term BIPOC in favour of FIVM (Francophone, Indigenous and Visible minorities) which reflects the Canadian reality better (Elghawaby stated “I’m going to puke“).

Interestingly, there has also been some pushback by members of the Iranian Canadian community, partly driven by their visceral reaction to the hijab, given that the Iranian regime forced it on women and the recent protests against the mandatory hijab and regime. Kaveh Shirooz has been active on twitter pointing out that Elghawaby has argued that “People who are angry with the government in Iran are taking it out on Canadian citizens that are Muslims here,” rather than criticizing the Iranian regime for its repression (Google search does not show any other commentary on the Iran protests unless I missed it).

I suspect that her appointment may be more divisive within the Canadian Muslim community than might first meet the eye, between the more secular and more religious.

Will be interesting to see whether these reactions continue or fade out:

Kaveh Shahrooz کاوه شهروز  @kshahrooz4d

.@HonAhmedHussen: in 2021, I told the CBC that we need to distinguish between anti-Muslim hatred [obviously bad] and opposition to Islam as an ideology [which is everyone’s right]. This was Ms. @AmiraElghawaby‘s reply. Will she make that distinction in her new role? twitter.com/HonAhmedHussen…

.@HonAhmedHussen I note that as people were (and continue to be) slaughtered in Iran for the right to live free of religion, this was Ms. @AmiraElghawaby ‘s contribution. I’ve been close the protests in the diaspora: to suggest that targetting Muslims represents anything but the absolute most minor fringe in these protests is absolutely dishonest. And yet that’s what Ms. Elghawaby chose to focus on. This was a poor choice, Minister.

Lisée: “I want to puke”

Elle m’a eu au mot « vomir ». En anglais, puke. Je parle d’Amira Elghawaby, la nouvelle conseillère spéciale de Justin Trudeau en matière d’islamophobie et d’antiracisme. C’était il y a huit mois. Le Globe and Mail avait mis sur son fil Twitter le texte d’opinion d’un professeur de philosophie de l’Université de Toronto, Joseph Heath, affirmant que les concepts utilisés par les militants antiracistes canadiens, importés des États-Unis, ne pouvaient s’appliquer correctement à l’histoire canadienne du racisme.

Mme Elghawaby a commenté le tweet, choisissant et retranscrivant spécifiquement le passage qui suit : « Enfin, il convient de noter que le plus grand groupe de personnes dans ce pays qui ont été victimes du colonialisme britannique, subjugué et incorporé à la confédération par la force, sont les Canadiens français. » Au-dessus de cette citation, la militante a écrit : « I’m going to puke » (« Je vais vomir »).

Croyez-moi, j’ai tenté de trouver une autre explication. Mais la seule qui s’impose est la suivante. Mme Elghawaby était à ce point outrée que quelqu’un rappelle qu’en nombre, sinon en intensité, les francophones ont été les plus grandes victimes du colonialisme que sa réaction ne fut ni de contre-argumenter, ni d’affirmer Lison désaccord, ni d’ignorer simplement ce point de vue. Non. Elle a souhaité que tous ses abonnés sachent que la seule évocation de l’importance de l’oppression vécue par les Canadiens français lui causait une violente réaction, physique — au sens propre, « viscérale » — de rejet.

Justin Trudeau, qui était fier de présenter sa nouvelle recrue dimanche à la commémoration de l’horrible tuerie de la mosquée de Québec il y a six ans, a déclaré qu’elle était la personne choisie pour « bâtir des ponts avec les Québécois et les autres Canadiens ». Si c’est vrai, on aimerait avoir la liste de ceux qui n’ont pas été retenus. Don Cherry ? Amir Attaran ?

Pablo Rodriguez qui est, comme l’a dit récemment M. Trudeau au sujet d’un autre de ses ministres, un « bon Québécois », s’est déclaré « profondément insulté et profondément blessé » par un autre propos formulé par écrit par Mme Elghawaby. En effet, dans un texte, toujours en ligne, dans l’Ottawa Citizen, cosigné par l’ex-président de la section ontarienne du Congrès juif canadien Bernie Farber et s’opposant à la loi 21, on lit : « Malheureusement, la majorité des Québécois semblent influencés non pas par la primauté du droit, mais par des opinions négatives envers l’islam. Un sondage réalisé par Léger Marketing plus tôt cette année a révélé que 88 % des Québécois qui avaient des opinions négatives sur l’islam appuyaient l’interdiction. » (Je dois avouer que j’ai moi-même des opinions négatives envers le christianisme, l’islam et toutes les autres religions.)

Cela voulait-il dire que Mme Elghawaby estimait que les Québécois sont islamophobes, selon le mot désormais accepté à Ottawa et qui signifie à la fois sentiment anti-musulman et toute critique de l’islam, quelle qu’elle soit ? Mais non ! Qu’allez-vous chercher là ? Sur son fil Twitter, la dame nous a rassurés vendredi dernier : « Je ne crois pas que les Québécois sont islamophobes ; mes commentaires passés faisaient référence à un sondage au sujet de la loi 21. » Affirme-t-elle maintenant que ce sondage était fautif ? A-t-elle de nouvelles données ?

Si elle s’est trompée dans ce texte, elle a récidivé dans un autre, de 2020, du Toronto Star. Après avoir cité un membre de la communauté musulmane de Québec, Rachid Rafah, affirmant qu’« au Québec, les gens ne peuvent pas admettre qu’il y a des problèmes dans cette société. Je ne sais pas pourquoi ». Elle ajoute : « Il n’y a pas que la plupart des Québécois qui sont dans le déni », trop de Canadiens le sont aussi.

Si on prend le temps de lire ses écrits un peu plus vieux, on ne peut que déceler une constante dans son appréciation des Québécois, superbement étalée dans ce texte de 2013 du Star sur la charte des valeurs. Elle cite d’abord le livre A Fair Country, de John Ralston Saul : « Dans tout le monde occidental dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, les civilisations de la classe moyenne, enchaînées et obsédées par l’empire ont progressivement glissé vers les peurs paranoïaques du XXe siècle. Peur de quoi ? Peur de la perte de pureté — sang pur, pure race, purs traits nationaux et valeurs et liens. »

Son commentaire : « Il aurait pu écrire cela au sujet du Québec d’aujourd’hui. Les sondages favorables à la charte indiquent que [Pauline] Marois a puisé dans une paranoïa viscérale de l’autre qui hante parfois les communautés avec un effet tragique. » Elle se désole ensuite que certains se résignent à ce que « la province ne changera jamais, restant un bastion forcé et statique de la culture et de l’identité françaises ; un rêve partagé qui nie le rôle et la présence des Premières Nations au départ, et celles des minorités qui sont venues plus tard ? ».

Plus près de nous, son texte de l’Ottawa Citizen recèle une autre pépite. Elle y donne un avis bien senti, spécifiquement sur François Legault : « Le premier ministre de la province continue de nier l’existence de l’islamophobie, y compris les expériences des Québécoises qui disent avoir ressenti un racisme croissant au cours des derniers mois. Les politiciens qui flattent les tendances xénophobes doivent être appelés sur le tapis. » Bang !

Avis à ceux qui assisteront à leur première rencontre : apportez vos sacs à vomir.

 

Source: «I want to puke»

Dutrisac: Des excuses? «No thanks.»

Il faut croire que c’est en toute connaissance de cause que Justin Trudeau a nommé la militante Amira Elghawaby à titre de « première représentante spéciale du Canada chargée de la lutte contre l’islamophobie ». Même s’il avait su ce qu’elle avait écrit, il l’aurait nommée quand même, a-t-il soutenu.

Interprétant de façon abusive un sondage sur l’attitude des Québécois à l’égard de l’islam, Amira Elghawaby a écrit en 2019 que « la majorité des Québécois semblaient influencés non pas par la primauté du droit, mais par un sentiment antimusulman ». Il est difficile de savoir ce qui est pire : que les Québécois s’opposent à la règle de droit ou qu’ils soient antimusulmans. On peut constater que la représentante spéciale, pur produit de l’idéologie multiculturaliste canadienne, a pris quelques libertés avec les faits. Le communiqué du premier ministre la décrit d’ailleurs comme une journaliste primée et une militante, comme s’il n’y avait pas là contradiction dans les termes.

Un passage d’une chronique publiée dans The Globe and Mail par le professeur de philosophie Joseph Heath, de l’Université de Toronto, lui a donné envie « de vomir », avait-elle écrit spontanément sur Twitter en 2021. Un passage où l’universitaire faisait observer que le plus grand groupe de personnes qui furent victimes du colonialisme britannique au Canada, c’étaient les Canadiens français.

La thèse de Joseph Heath est pourtant intéressante. Il relève qu’au Canada anglais, on utilise l’acronyme américain BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color), qui ne correspond à la réalité canadienne des relations raciales. Aux États-Unis, les Noirs représentent la minorité raciale la plus importante, et de loin, que ce soit en nombre ou en raison de son poids historique. Dans l’énumération, les Autochtones, qui représentent 5 % de la population canadienne, devraient venir avant les Noirs, qui sont trois fois moins nombreux, et les francophones avant les Autochtones en raison de leur nombre. Donc, au lieu de l’acronyme américain BIPOC, le professeur Heath propose l’acronyme FIVM (pour Francophone, Indigenous and visible minority) pour désigner les plus importants groupes minoritaires au Canada. Il souligne que contrairement aux États-Unis, où on analyse les conflits sociaux à travers « une lentille raciale », le Canada n’a pas cherché à « racialiser » les différences ethniques entre ses citoyens. L’idée qu’un immigrant débarquant au Canada en provenance d’Éthiopie a vraiment quelque chose en commun avec un descendant d’esclaves africains présents sur le continent depuis 300 ans est « non seulement une fiction : c’est une fausse représentation pernicieuse ».

Il faut croire que l’influence américaine est forte puisque, dans le communiqué du premier ministre, la description de tâches de cette nouvelle représentante spéciale amalgame la religion — la lutte contre l’islamophobie — au racisme systémique et à la discrimination raciale.

Certains voudraient qu’Amira Elghawaby s’excuse — c’est le cas du chef parlementaire du Parti libéral du Québec, Marc Tanguay — ou retire ses propos. Mais ce ne serait là que parfaite hypocrisie. La représentante spéciale du Canada incarne un courant de pensée fort répandu au Canada anglais, où l’on est viscéralement contre la conception québécoise de la laïcité et de l’équilibre recherché entre différents droits qui, dans une société, peuvent entrer en conflit.

Au débat des chefs en anglais, lors de la dernière campagne électorale fédérale, la question posée au chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, dont la prémisse était que « le Québec a un problème de racisme » parce que le gouvernement caquiste a fait adopter la loi 21 sur la laïcité et la loi 96 sur la langue témoignait de ce consensus au Canada.

On peut être en désaccord avec des aspects de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État — c’est la position du Devoir, d’ailleurs —, mais ce n’est pas une loi xénophobe ni antidémocratique. Comme le soulignait le juge Robert M. Mainville dans une décision partagée de la Cour d’appel du Québec sur une requête interlocutoire demandant la suspension de la loi 21 (présentée par l’ancien employeur d’Amira Elghawaby, le National Council of Canadian Muslims), « la conception de la symbolique religieuse et sa place dans l’espace public ne sont d’ailleurs pas perçues de façon identique par chaque société, la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État en est un exemple frappant au sein du Canada ». Et encore : « On peut constater que la question de l’égalité des sexes en regard du foulard islamique ne se prête pas à des réponses simples ou évidentes. »

Justin Trudeau a dit que la nouvelle représentante resterait en poste. Soit. Mais puisqu’elle crache (ou vomit) sur la société québécoise, que, manifestement, elle méconnaît, qu’elle reste chez elle. Le phénomène de l’islamophobie au Canada anglais devrait amplement l’occuper.

 

Source: Des excuses? «No thanks.»

David: L’huile sur le feu

Il serait absurde de nier que l’islamophobie, tout comme le racisme, existe au Québec, au même titre qu’ailleurs au Canada et un peu partout sur la planète. Le premier ministre Legault convient lui-même que nous ne sommes pas à l’abri de ces maux, même s’il réfute leur caractère systémique.

Cela dit, non seulement le raccourci pris par Amira Elghawaby pour affirmer que « la majorité des Québécois » est animée par un sentiment anti-musulman était insultant, mais il témoignait au surplus d’une malhonnêteté intellectuelle qui ne plaide pas en faveur de la nouvelle représentante spéciale du gouvernement Trudeau dans la lutte contre l’islamophobie.

S’il était vrai, comme l’indiquait un sondage Léger, que 88 % des islamophobes appuyaient la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (loi 21), on ne pouvait pas inverser la proposition et affirmer que la majorité des partisans de la loi étaient islamophobes. Mme Elghawaby a parfaitement le droit de ne pas aimer la loi 21 et de la combattre, mais cela ne l’autorise pas à faire un procès d’intention aussi gratuit qu’injuste à ceux qui la soutiennent.

Même si on voulait lui donner le bénéfice du doute en invoquant un manque de disposition pour les mathématiques, elle a tenu dans le passé d’autres propos qui laissent peu de doute sur les sentiments qu’elle éprouve envers le Québec.

Le député péquiste des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Joël Arseneau, s’est montré passablement indulgent en parlant d’une « incompréhension » de la société québécoise. Cela ressemble davantage à une détestation. Même le ministre fédéral du Patrimoine, Pablo Rodriguez, s’est dit « blessé et choqué comme Québécois ». C’est dire.
• • • • •
On ne peut pas s’opposer à la vertu. Toute mesure visant à lutter contre l’islamophobie et à faciliter l’intégration des musulmans à la société canadienne est assurément la bienvenue.

La question est de savoir pourquoi Justin Trudeau a choisi une militante « pure et dure » comme Mme Elghawaby pour occuper un emploi qui va exiger beaucoup de doigté pour favoriser les rapprochements, au Québec comme dans le reste du pays. Lancer des anathèmes n’est assurément pas la meilleure façon d’y parvenir.

Les « clarifications » qu’elle a apportées n’ont pas satisfait le gouvernement Legault, qui exige son départ, mais M. Trudeau est tout disposé à s’en contenter. D’ailleurs, il l’aurait nommée de toute façon, a-t-il reconnu. S’il a pu être agacé par la maladresse de sa recrue, le fond de ses déclarations ne l’a manifestement pas troublé.

Le premier ministre et Mme Elghawaby partagent la même aversion pour la loi 21. Dans l’exercice de ses nouvelles fonctions, elle persistera sans doute à dire tout le mal qu’elle en pense, avec la bénédiction de son patron. M. Trudeau aurait voulu jeter de l’huile sur le feu qu’il n’aurait pas pu faire un meilleur choix.

Toute attaque contre la loi 21 provoque maintenant une réaction épidermique chez M. Legault, comme on l’a vu encore dernièrement quand son homologue canadien a réitéré son intention de la contester et de limiter l’utilisation préventive de la disposition de dérogation.

Dimanche, il brillait par son absence lors de la commémoration du massacre de la grande mosquée de Québec. Il n’avait sans doute pas très envie d’entendre les porte-parole du Centre culturel islamique lui reprocher une loi qui « vient chambarder tout ce qu’on fait comme travail pour le vivre-ensemble ».
• • • • •
L’indignation provoquée par la nomination de Mme Elghawaby rappelle celle qui avait accueilli, en janvier 2021, la nomination de la géographe Bochra Manaï au poste de commissaire à la lutte et à la discrimination systémiques à la Ville de Montréal, Mme Manaï ayant été précédemment porte-parole du Conseil national des musulmans canadiens.

M. Legault avait aussi qualifié cette nomination d’« erreur » en raison de la « croisade personnelle » de Mme Manaï contre la loi 21 qui, selon elle, avait fait du Québec « une référence pour les suprémacistes extrémistes ».

Le chef du Parti québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, avait déploré que la mairesse Plante utilise des fonds publics pour « imposer son idéologie » et prédit que la nouvelle commissaire allait semer la division. Manifestement, ses propos étaient insultants. Depuis deux ans, on n’a cependant entendu personne se plaindre de son travail.

Il est sans doute de bon ton de réclamer le départ de Mme Elghawaby, mais il est clair que M. Trudeau ne reviendra pas sur sa décision. Dès lors, la meilleure attitude à adopter est peut-être celle du chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, qui a réclamé une rencontre avec la représentante spéciale.

Sans se faire trop d’illusion sur son acte de contrition, le chef du Bloc se dit prêt à entendre de plus amples explications. Qui sait, lui-même pourra peut-être lui expliquer certaines choses qu’elle ignore sur le Québec. Il sera toujours temps de déchirer sa chemise si elle ne veut toujours pas comprendre.

Source: L’huile sur le feu

 

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Adams, Khanji: Canada must continue modelling its refugee efforts on its response to the Syrian crisis

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

Indeed. Unfortunate that increased administrative requirements are making it more difficult for private sponsors (Federal changes could make it impossible for private groups to sponsor refugees, say faith leaders):

The arrival of Syrian refugees in Canada a few years ago is a well-known “feel-good” story. Images of Justin Trudeau greeting refugees at the airport and private citizens stepping up as sponsors are etched in the minds of many Canadians. The compelling stories of particular refugees and families who suffered hardship and became successful, such as Tareq Hadhad of Peace by Chocolate in Antigonish, N.S., and Abdulfatah Sabouni of Aleppo Savon in Calgary, have been showcased as wonderful examples highlighting the resilience and entrepreneurial spirit of Syrian newcomers. But what about the other refugees who arrived with them, most of whom are living outside the media spotlight?

Canada acted quickly to take in 40,000 Syrian refugees in a short span of time between November, 2015, and December, 2016, and it is important to know how they are doing today (and not just through the success stories captured by the media). This is the question that the Environics Institute sought to answer in a national study with a representative sample of Syrian refugees on their lived experience since arriving in Canada.

The answer is that Syrian refugees who arrived in the first wave are doing remarkably well. Our study shows that most Syrian refugees who arrived in 2015 and 2016 have established new lives for themselves and their families in Canada, largely overcoming the initial hurdles that face all refugees (and especially those who come from societies with different languages and cultures). The research shows that most are supporting themselves financially and have achieved functional fluency in English or French. Their children are doing well in school, they feel accepted by other Canadians and identify strongly as Canadian, and are active members of their local communities. These refugees, having had only a few years to create new lives in a foreign place, are notably optimistic about the future for themselves and their children.

Not everyone is doing equally well and many continue to face challenges, most notably with employment and underemployment, along with other immigrants who find their native credentials of little value in the Canadian workplace. Achieving financial security and accessing affordable housing are issues for some refugees, as they are for many Canadians. And many of these refugees miss having family nearby and struggle to become comfortable with an unfamiliar culture.

But the big picture is positive. Canada rose to the occasion through an unprecedented effort by governments, civil society and citizens, to open the country and make it home for Syrians fleeing a horrendous humanitarian crisis. And these refugees are now contributing to their communities and the country in important ways. Only now are other countries taking our lead, with the U.S. announcing a similar program just last week.

It is important to remember the tragic story of Alan Kurdi, a two-year-old Syrian boy pictured lying face down on a Mediterranean beach in 2015, which helped spark the Canadian response to the Syrian refugee crisis. Alan’s story continues to serve as a powerful reminder of the dangers and hardships facing many refugees, and how a country and its people can respond in a meaningful way. We did so once before on a large scale, in the late 1970s, when Canada stepped up to accept more than 60,000 people fleeing war and persecution in Southeast Asia.

These examples demonstrate that Canadian society – not just our governments – has both the interest and the capacity to get directly involved in making this country a welcoming refuge. Canada was the first country to make it possible for private citizens and faith-based institutions to sponsor refugees. Our research highlights the essential role that private sponsors played in Syrian refugees’ successful resettlement. And we know from one of our other studies that many Canadians across the country – estimated to be around four million – are interested in getting directly involved in helping refugees in this way. Our governments can and should do whatever they can to enable and support this goodwill.

Doing so requires a more robust level of focus and effort. The scale of support provided to Syrians has not been sustained, with subsequent waves of refugees now arriving from Afghanistan and elsewhere. The effort put into Syrian resettlement, compounded by the protracted COVID-19 pandemic, has pushed government agencies, settlement support services and private sponsors to their limits.

There is much to be learned from our recent experience in welcoming Syrian refugees, and we now have the opportunity – and responsibility – to repeat this accomplishment on a sustainable basis. Canadian institutions and citizens stepped up in a big way to welcome Syrians. Let’s find a way to make this an enduring feature of our country’s future.

Michael Adams is the founder and president of the non-profit Environics Institute for Survey Research. Jobran Khanji is the community outreach co-ordinator for the Institute’s Syrian Refugee Lived Experience Project. Keith Neuman is a senior associate with the Environics Institute.

Source: Adams, Khanji: Canada must continue modelling its refugee efforts on its response to the Syrian crisis

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Yazidis plead with Canada not to repatriate ISIS members

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

In contrast to the overly sympathetic article on efforts to rehabilitate ISIS returnees, a needed counterpoint from the experience of Yazidi women who were raped, tortured and otherwise abused by ISIS men and women. Not sure if Justice Brown and the court considered this context in his ruling:

The looming return of alleged ISIS members to Canada has brought trauma, worry and fear to people who were invited to Canada as a safe haven after the terrorist group all but destroyed their ancient community in northern Iraq.

“When I first heard the news, I felt the strength leave my body,” Huda Ilyas Alhamad told CBC News in her Winnipeg apartment. She is one of 1,200 survivors of the Yazidi genocide who were resettled in Canada; she spent years as a slave of ISIS members.

“I had to sit down right away. I was heartbroken and terrified at the same time because on one hand they had promised to protect us and bring us here and give us safety, and on the other hand they’re offering that same entryway for these very people who raped and tortured us on a daily basis.”

Source: Yazidis plead with Canada not to repatriate ISIS members

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , ,

Canada has planned for years to handle returnees from the Islamic State. Now the plan has to work

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

It all strikes me as a bit too trusting and naive. Money quote:

“The women “all seem pleased to be back home,” the report noted, but there were “worrying reports that the majority of women refuse or are unable to take responsibility for their decision to travel to Syria, to have exposed their children to life in a war zone.””

They started disappearing a decade ago.

Slowly and mysteriously, then in a growing wave, young Canadians left behind their homes and families to join fellow Muslims fighting in Syria and Iraq or to experience the radicalized utopia of an Islamic caliphate promised by the Islamic State terrorism group.

Five or so years ago, psychologists such as Michael King and Ghayda Hassan began preparing for their imminent return — one that is expected only now, with a judge’s ruling last week that the federal government must bring Canadian citizens home from overseas detention camps.

“When the caliphate kind of crumbled and lost all its territory,” said King, of Alberta’s Organization for the Prevention of Violence, “there was this massive fear that everyone was going to come back to their countries of origin and charges wouldn’t be laid because it was hard to collect evidence in foreign countries.”

Like surfers in a strange sea, psychologists, social workers, police and radicalization experts waited in vain for that wave of returning male ISIS fighters, female adherents and their children.

Now it is taking shape. Six women, between the ages of 27 and 40. Among them are 13 children between the ages of two and 14.

Separately, there are four Canadian men who range in age from late 20s to early 40s. They have been detained for years in makeshift Syrian prisons on suspicion they fought with or supported ISIS, but they have never been charged with a crime.

One of them — Jack Letts, the 28-year-old son of a British mother and Canadian father — was reportedly being held with up to 30 other men in a cell built for six. Claiming to have been tortured, he is seeking the protection of the Canadian government after the U.K. revoked his citizenship.

“None of them have been heard from since 2019,” Justice Henry Brown noted in deciding that Ottawa was violating the men’s right to return to Canada by not negotiating their repatriation.

The government has already struck a deal to bring home the Canadian women and children. The fate of the men is unclear; meanwhile, officials have also offered repatriation to 10 other Canadian children, though not to their mothers — the primary caregivers — because they do not have citizenship.

In the long wait for this mass repatriation, those tasked with helping them reintegrate and rehabilitate have been preparing by studying other countries’ successes and failures in dealing with citizens who went to fight or live with terrorist groups active in the region. Countries such as Kazakhstan and Kosovo have become the unlikely proving grounds for the theories and techniques used to handle those who, in the academic lingo, are referred to as foreign fighters.

In Canada, this knowledge has been put to work in a handful of cases of radicalized individuals: People who travelled to the lands controlled by the Islamic State and returned under the radar. People who were caught and prevented from committing the crime of leaving to join the overseas terror group. People who have served jail sentences for terrorism offences and participated in court-ordered counselling as a condition of their release.

But for Hassan, a psychologist who founded Montreal’s Canadian Practitioners Network for the Prevention of Radicalization and Extremist Violence, the first true test of all that she had been preparing for came one day last October.

British Columbia’s Kimberly Polman, Montreal’s Oumaima Chouay and Chouay’s two children were repatriated from a Kurdish-run detention camp in northeastern Syria. They touched down in Montreal and there, along with the RCMP national security investigators, was an expert team of health professionals to start the complex and delicate process of reintegrating and rehabilitating the returned Canadians.

“It was the first time that this plan, which had been developed, was put in motion,” Hassan said.

The police were there to look for breaches of the law committed on Canadian soil or abroad.

Upon her arrival in Montreal, Chouay was arrested for terrorism offences and arrested. She was released on bail after a Jan. 6 hearing with several conditions, including that she wear a GPS tracking bracelet, not use social media and not contact several potential witnesses who could testify in her eventual criminal trial.

For others, the legal reckoning can take years.

Hussein Borhot, a Calgary man, was only in arrested in 2020, seven years after he travelled to Syria to join ISIS. He pleaded guilty last year to two charges, including participating in a terrorist group and a kidnapping for the purposed of a terrorist group, and was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

A spokesperson for the RCMP did not say how its national security investigators were specifically preparing for the return of the six women and 13 children who were part of the Federal Court case, or whether any of those returning will face criminal charges here.

“The RCMP conducts criminal investigations to the fullest extent that they are able, with a view to ensure public safety, to determine if a criminal offence was committed and to gather evidence,” Cpl. Kim Chamberland in response to questions. “The RCMP will lay criminal charges when there is supporting evidence and when it is deemed in the public interest to proceed.”

The health professionals providing psychosocial support — there are teams in Montreal, Edmonton, Toronto and Vancouver — operate in concert with, but separately from, law enforcement. Upon arrival back in Canada, they will examine the physical and mental health of the adults and assess the needs of young children whose life experiences may be limited to the brutality of ISIS or the squalid conditions of the detention camps, which hold tens of thousands of individuals, most of whom are Syrian or Iraqi.

“The person who left is coming back with a different set of experiences,” Hassan said. “Of course, there is the euphoria of reuniting, but things can be challenging.”

“We all have some experience with people returning from overseas, so that’s a good thing,” says King. “It’s no one’s first rodeo, but it’s going to be everyone’s biggest rodeo.”

However, the returnees have varying experiences, beliefs and needs. King suggests discarding any assumptions that adults being repatriated to Canada, having joined the Islamic State, now stand behind the atrocities — including beheadings, crucifixions and other violent executions — that the terror group committed and used as tools of recruitment.

“Some of these people will have disavowed the ideology a few hours after arriving in ISIS-controlled territory all those years ago and probably said, ‘This is the biggest error of my life,’ but it was unsafe to leave,” King said.

“Others, however, will still espouse that ideology.”

Therapists take the view that an individual’s extremism is an outward symptom of deeper problems. To resolve the grand issues, they start by tackling the smaller challenges in the hope of rebuilding people’s lives one concrete step at a time.

For example, steps are taken to ensure the individual has a place to live and the necessary documents, like health cards or social insurance numbers, to access public services. Children are enrolled in schools and granted the necessary educational supports to help them bridge the divide the likely exists between them and their Canadian peers.

Another urgent issue, and a longer-term one, is ensuring returnees obtain medical treatment for post-traumatic stress or mental-health problems that may have gone untended or worsened for years while living in a war zone and in the camps.

A 2021 report looking at the reintegration of women and children from Kosovo who were repatriated from Syria found “clear signs of PTSD, characterized by sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, panic triggered by loud noises such as airplanes flying overhead or firecrackers.”

A second report looking at the reintegration of people from across the western Balkans said that children also showed similar signs of traumatic stress, including screaming in panic and running for shelter at the sound of approaching planes, parental separation anxiety and selective mutism — refusing to speak in certain environments and situations despite being physically capable.

The women “all seem pleased to be back home,” the report noted, but there were “worrying reports that the majority of women refuse or are unable to take responsibility for their decision to travel to Syria, to have exposed their children to life in a war zone.”

King said the psychosocial teams try to work with individuals, rather than confronting them on matters of ideologies or religious belief.

“If you take an argumentative or adversarial stance where you’re trying to convince them that they are wrong or the ideology they espouse is wrong … it’s going to elicit some sort of reaction,” said King. “No one wants to be told they are wrong, so you might be entrenching them in that world view.”

Deprogramming someone who holds or espouses radical views does not enter into the equation.

“It’s not that we don’t do (deradicalization). It’s just that it’s not the top priority,” said Hassan. “For me, deradicalization is more the end outcome of the process. The person ends up being deradicalized and ends up giving up their ideologies … but it’s not because we’ve sat and spent hours discussing ideology.”

None of it is expected to be simple or comfortable.

Returnees are coming back to a secular western society that they once rejected and fled and that they may still believe is sinful, evil and corrupted. Beyond that, there’s the harsh reality that many in this country may have little sympathy for their current plight.

“They will come back to face a society here that stigmatizes them because they’re still being considered by many people — sometimes quite wrongfully, actually — as terrorists,” Hassan said. “Many of them have been kind of drawn into this and mostly been victims, actually. Some may have been perpetrators, of course. I’m not denying that.”

In Quebec, there have been more than 100 cases involving people who have been or are at risk of radicalization, and Hassan said the majority of their interventions have had successful outcomes, which she measures in terms such as improved mental health conditions, reduced post-traumatic stress and the establishment and maintenance of long-term relationships.

“Many of our clients may be socially disconnected from work, school or family, so success looks like they are improving this,” she said. “For example, managing to get a job and to keep it or improving relationships with family members.”

Some countries, particularly Muslim-majority ones, have placed an emphasis on theology and the need for radicalized individuals to adopt more tolerant and inclusive religious views. But all recognize the need to prioritize the social reintegration of repatriated citizens.

“I think the model that we are watching, because it may be problematic, is the French model, where they were systematically detained and children are systematically placed in foster care, which is not, fortunately, the model we use here,” said Hassan.

Being a violent extremist, or having espoused radical views, does not automatically mean the person is a bad parent, said King.

“I know that’s a paradox, but they can still be a warm and loving parent, and provide emotional and psychological safety to the child,” he said.

But Hassan added that health professionals would not hesitate to contact child welfare authorities if they believe that the well-being of a young person is threatened by the radical beliefs or extremist behaviour of a parent.

“If we removed children from their parents because of their history of beliefs or behaviours,” she said, “then most of the Mafia parents would have their children removed.”

Source: Canada has planned for years to handle returnees from the Islamic …

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , , , ,

IRCC’s reliance on McKinsey explains a ‘disconnect’ between money spent and value added, immigration lawyers say

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

More on McKinsey and IRCC. Hearing some concerns from within IRCC as well:

The decision by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada to hire McKinsey and Company to mobilize its digital transformation explains what immigration lawyers are calling a ‘disconnect’ between the resources being put into IRCC and the results it’s produced.

Barbara Jo (BJ) Caruso, an immigration lawyer speaking on behalf of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA), said when she heard about contracts IRCC had with McKinsey, “a light bulb went on.

“We were then able to sort of connect the dots and say, ‘Okay, now maybe this makes sense why everything’s been sort of haphazard, and pieced together,’ ” she said. 

At the beginning of January, a Radio-Canada report revealedthat the Canada branch of global consulting firm McKinsey and Company had seen a marked increase in the number of contracts it had been awarded by the federal government since 2015. In fact, the government later confirmed it had awarded McKinsey a total of 23 contracts at a cost of $101.4-million since 2015. By comparison, Stephen Harper’s government had spent $2.2-million on the firm throughout its nine year tenure. 

There’s been a disconnect, Caruso said, between the amount of money going into the department and the results it’s been able to produce, adding there’s been a lot of changes made, but “essentially no consultation from our vantage point.” 

“We’ve been perplexed by the amount of money that has been designated to the department and yet, we’re not really reaping the benefits of those financial contributions. We’ve got bigger backlogs than we’ve ever had, and probably the lowest client service standards, ever. And a diminishing trust from the public in the whole immigration system,” she said. 

The House Government Operations and Estimates Committee (OGGO), headed by Conservative MP Kelly McCauley, agreed over the break to undertake a study of the government’s contracts with McKinsey, particularly given this government’s relationship with Dominic Barton, who was Canada’s ambassador to China from 2019 to 2021, head of the Trudeau government’s advisory panel on economic growth, and prior to both those appointments, global managing director at McKinsey and Company between 2009 and 2018. It’s expected to call a total of seven ministers to testify before the committee, as well as top McKinsey executives, and Barton. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) said he welcomes the committee’s probe to determine whether there was “value for money” in the work McKinsey did. 

McKinsey spokesperson Alley Adams said the firm “welcomes the [committee] review of the services we deliver to the federal government.” 

“We look forward to working with the committee to resolve its questions and clarify relevant issues. We are proud of the contributions our firm has had across the public sector and are focused on working with the committee to discuss our impact in detail,” Adams said in an emailed statement. 

McKinsey and Company was a key player in the department’s “transformation agenda” since 2018, when it was awarded a $2.9-million contract to assess the department’s operations and “recommend a way forward for its transformation agenda,” according to IRCC.

Based on McKinsey’s assessment, “and IRCC’s own analysis of its operating context,” IRCC launched its transformation program in 2019, with the overarching goals of improving its operations. 

In 2019, McKinsey and Company was hired for a second contract to set “the service transformation agenda in motion.” According to IRCC, the contract focused on “reviewing, developing, and implementing digital tools, processes, and services.” It was initially valued at $16.37-million, but was later amended to add $8.47-million, bringing the total to $24.8-million. 

“Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, IRCC was faced with an immediate need to further accelerate the development and implementation of digital products and services. That is why the contract was amended in 2021 to help IRCC respond to these pandemic-driven pressures, manage increased volumes, and sustain core client services,” the department added. 

For its part, McKinsey has stressed that it was only involved in non-partisan, government operations, and did not influence policy.

“We work on independent research, economic and sector-based insights, in addition to core management topics such as the reduction of document processing backlogs, digitization of processes, technology strategy, operational improvements, and change management. This work does not include policy development and/or political advice. We support the service delivery objectives pursued by
the professional public servants who lead the departments and agencies we serve,” McKinsey said in a statement issued to media. 

However, Toronto-based immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff—a former decision-maker at IRCC herself—said she doesn’t think the distinction between the two is so obvious. 

“I’m not sure that there’s really a bright line that can be drawn between the immigration policies and the immigration systems,” said Silcoff, who also sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. “In the immigration context, [systems] necessarily impact the way laws and policies are implemented, or operationalized.” 

“Efficiency is crucial, but whatever measures are put in place, and have been put in place, have to be alert to the sensitivities of the population affected, which we know involves, very often, racialized people and vulnerable people,” she added.

The move towards digitizing and automating processes at IRCC has already proven to be a sticky process. 

The department has already been the subject of systemic racism allegations, and as the House Citizenship and Immigration Committee heard last March, artificial intelligence, and immigration expert witnesses expressed concern that systemic racism and bias would be embedded in any automated processes the department employs. 

“There’s advantages to algorithms, to artificial intelligence, to web-based portals, but they do come with a cost, and if attention is not paid to the frailties, there could be serious human rights implications,” Silcoff said. 

“A digitized refugee portal, for example. Is that accessible to vulnerable people, people arriving in Canada who have been subjected to torture or remain traumatized, who are new to the country and the systems?” 

An element that further exacerbates this challenge is who can access the portals on behalf of the applicant. 

One complaint Caruso and CILA have with IRCC currently is that lawyers cannot access certain online portals on behalf of their clients. 

According to IRCC, as part of its work on the department’s “digital transformation,” McKinsey helped design, develop, and launch an online citizenship application, which “enabled clients to apply digitally and IRCC to continue business throughout the pandemic.” 

However, Caruso said lawyers have not been able to access this portal on behalf of their clients, which she said is an impediment not only to their work, but to the efficiency of the department as well. 

“In our dialogue with the department, they absolutely recognize the role that counsel plays, that we can add value to the process, eliminate applications that have missing documents, because typically with good counsel, it’s a more complete application. There’s less back and forth and it means they can get to a decision sooner,” she said. 

It struck her and CILA as strange, then, when the department decided to roll out a portal that didn’t allow lawyers to access it. 

“For us, there has been this disconnect with the rollout of the technology and our role in the process. And now it sort of makes sense that it wasn’t the department, but an external player that maybe doesn’t appreciate the role that legal counsel can have in simplifying and ensuring efficiency,” she said. 

NDP MP Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, B.C.), her party’s immigration critic, said she’s eager to hear more about exactly what work McKinsey was contracted to do for IRCC, but added that overall, departmental work should be done in-house. 

Kwan said the fact that IRCC, along with the Canada Border Services Agency, spent the most money on McKinsey contracts of any department tells her “there’s very little transparency within IRCC.” 

“It’s just so concerning that there’s this discovery of these contracts and the government is anything but transparent about it,” she said, after describing a lack of transparency at IRCC as a “black hole.” 

“It just really speaks to the black hole that exists within IRCC. And it is deeply concerning,” she said.

Source: IRCC’s reliance on McKinsey explains a ‘disconnect’ between money spent and value added, immigration lawyers say

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Nadeau: Ouvrir le chemin Roxham

2023/01/31 Leave a comment

Of note, different from most Quebec commentary. And telling critique of those who adopt positions to increase reader and view ship (click bait):

Qu’est-ce qui rend nos idées acceptables ? Il est toujours plus facile d’adhérer à ce qui nous est familier. Aussi nos idées sont-elles souvent enracinées dans la pauvreté de simples réflexes. Nous reproduisons, dans le présent, des idées conventionnelles héritées du passé, sans songer à les actualiser. Nous portons, ce faisant, les oeillères de nos pères et de nos mères.

Rien d’étonnant à ce que les idées conventionnelles aient la cote. Dans les grands médias, cela se voit, cela s’entend. À la télévision en particulier, devant des animateurs qui se posent, pour la forme, en arbitre du temps de parole, des intervenants répètent sensiblement tous la même chose. Plongé dans ces lieux formatés et huilés pour être glissés entre deux publicités, l’auditeur peut-il en tirer quelque chose de neuf ?

Il y a bien des raisons pour expliquer cette uniformité chez ceux qui font métier de leur image en nous montrant avant tout leurs beaux habits et leurs habitudes. À commencer par le fait qu’il est toujours plus facile de faire passer une idée qui a mille fois été rabâchée que de se mettre à disserter de nouvelles dans un espace réduit. Quand il est répété en boucle, même sur le ton de l’indignation, le banal n’a guère besoin d’être expliqué. Le prédigéré — le préjugé, si vous voulez — est ainsi plus facilement assimilé que n’importe laquelle autre nourriture intellectuelle télévisée.

En matière d’idées, voilà pourquoi le conservatisme a toujours, du moins en apparence, une longueur d’avance. Pourtant, la postérité est cruelle avec de telles idées, à mesure que le présent fait irrésistiblement en sorte d’en miner les fondements. Jusqu’au jour où tout le monde admet que de tels jugements sont dépassés.

Il est encore difficile de parler d’immigration aujourd’hui sans que la discussion soit infléchie par des idées anciennes.

Autrefois, à l’ère du protectionnisme et d’un nationalisme frileux, le refus de l’immigration pouvait se comprendre en partie. Mais au jour où presque tous nos biens de consommation sont fabriqués à l’étranger, au nom du libre marché, en vertu de quoi faudrait-il repousser l’entrée chez nous de cette part d’humanité vers laquelle nous avons délocalisé nos industries autant que nos ennuis ?

L’hémisphère Nord accapare de plus en plus les richesses de la planète, à une vitesse jamais vue. Mais nous ne voulons pas voir apparaître chez nous les conséquences de problèmes que nous avons contribué à ériger ailleurs. Peut-on sincèrement en vouloir à une partie de l’humanité de vouloir prendre ses jambes à son cou pour tenter de profiter d’une assiette au beurre que nous avons tirée de notre côté ?

Il est répété que les réfugiés doivent être rentables pour être acceptés. Qui plus est, ils devraient parler français. Au jour où mon ancêtre Nadeau est arrivé en Nouvelle-France, il parlait seulement, comme bien d’autres immigrants, un patois occitan. Du monde, il ne connaissait qu’une vieille voie romaine capable de le conduire jusque sur un rafiot voguant sur l’océan. Au Québec, moins de 3 % de la population — les Autochtones répartis en onze nations — ne sont pas le fruit de l’immigration.

Le français est important. Mais une langue, cela s’apprend. Encore faudrait-il commencer par se donner les moyens de la transmettre avec la culture qu’elle porte. Notre système scolaire apparaît aussi malade que notre système hospitalier. François Legault en est rendu à avaliser l’idée que des enseignants à peine formés peuvent tout de même enseigner. Les conséquences d’un manque de planification et de vision, nous en payons le gros prix devant l’avenir.

Le chemin Roxham, est-ce par là que nos idées prennent désormais la fuite quand il est question de repenser notre société ? Depuis des mois, tous les maux des Québécois — l’éducation, la santé, l’environnement, la pauvreté, l’inflation — semblent s’exorciser dès lors qu’est invoqué le chemin Roxham, comme si, d’ailleurs, il était le seul du genre. L’attention est sans cesse détournée de ce côté. Au point que le ministre Jean Boulet, collectionneur de grossièretés, a affirmé l’an passé que la fermeture de ce chemin éviterait le débordement d’un système de santé pourtant déjà surchargé depuis des années ! Le même avait laissé entendre qu’il existait un lien entre le chemin Roxham et la propagation du variant Omicron… Mieux valait compter sur des robots, disait-il aussi, que sur des immigrants pour résorber la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre !

Bien des commentateurs obsédés par l’immigration ont des allures d’agitateurs à force de chercher à tout prix à créer les conditions favorables à la croissance de leur nombre d’auditeurs et d’électeurs plutôt qu’à éclairer le débat public. Selon de vieux clichés, l’immigrant serait une menace et un danger, lorsqu’il n’est pas réduit à une simple marchandise. Au nom d’une vision étriquée de l’identité nationale, faut-il pourchasser et traquer ces gens comme des vaches, pour les enfermer, les terroriser, les maltraiter et les traire, au seul prétexte qu’ils viennent d’ailleurs ?

Le nombre de personnes qui migrent désormais au pays de façon temporaire, que ce soit pour labourer nos terres, assurer les récoltes ou soigner nos aînés, a été multiplié par trois. Pareilles portes tournantes, par lesquelles des personnes sont exploitées puis expulsées, est-ce là un meilleur gage d’humanité ?

Une immigration planifiée à gros prix par la firme McKinsey, au nom des puissances de la finance, puis avalisée par un béni-oui-oui d’une morale sans esprit à la Justin Trudeau, cela n’a évidemment pas de quoi rassurer qui que ce soit. Mais on ne peut pas jeter pour autant des gens comme des kleenex, sachant ce qu’est la faim, le froid, la misère, l’insécurité, la peur. Les problèmes majeurs qui pèsent sur notre monde ne tiennent pas à l’immigration, mais à ses causes. C’est à elles qu’il faut s’attaquer.

Il n’existe pas de meilleur des mondes. Mais un monde meilleur est possible. Encore faudrait-il, pour commencer à en envisager les termes, accepter de retirer nos oeillères des temps passés

Source: Ouvrir le chemin Roxham

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Lederman: Florida’s book ban takes censorship to the next level

2023/01/30 Leave a comment

Of note (age of ignorance):

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any weirder or more depressing on the U.S. book-ban front comes this plot twist from Manatee County, Fla. The school board near Sarasota recently issued an edict that prompted teachers to remove all books from classrooms in response to new rules from the Florida Department of Education.

That policy states that all books in schools must be approved by a librarian (called a “certified media specialist”), or staff risk third-degree felony charges. With some classroom libraries too large to dispose of quickly, teachers have had to physically cover them up, with construction paper in some cases – or risk possible jail time. Teachers are not allowed to choose books for their classrooms. And only vetted books are allowed, to ensure they are free of pornographic material, age-appropriate, and don’t contain “unsolicited theories that may lead to student indoctrination.” It’s effectively leading to negative-option reading, and that’s led to the removal of such dangerous books as Sneezy the Snowman and Dragons Love Tacos.

Imagine a classroom without books. This is a scene cooked up by fools – who are somehow in charge of education – trying to create a nation of more fools. And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed the bill into law, has presidential aspirations. Imagine edicts like this being issued nationally.

Is the Sunshine State also the most ignorant? There’s stiff competition for the title – led by Texas, according to a report released in November by PEN America.

And if it’s sex these censorious anti-intellectuals are worried about, they may want to have a seat while we break the news to them: Kids don’t need to learn this stuff from banned-book queen Judy Blume, or from Robie Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health, another frequently censored volume. They can learn it from the internet, from sources far less trustworthy and much more graphic.

Canadian Margaret Atwood is another targeted author; The Handmaid’s Tale is among the most frequently banned books in the U.S. This month, it was among 21 titles banned by the school board in Madison County, Va. Four books by Toni Morrison also made the list, along with three by Stephen King.

Mr. King, a vocal opponent of censorship, tweeted this month: “Hey, kids! It’s your old buddy Steve King telling you that if they ban a book in your school, haul your ass to the nearest bookstore or library ASAP and find out what they don’t want you to read.”

In the new documentary Judy Blume Forever, which just had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret author calls the resurgence of book bans – which often target her novels – shocking. It’s “as if time stood still and we’re back in the eighties.”

We’ve had a few book censorship controversies in Canada, too. Last year, the removal of three books from libraries in the Durham District School Board just east of Toronto, including David A. Robertson’s The Great Bear, was reversed after public outcry.

But book bans in the United States are becoming so rampant that they are now likelier to elicit heavy sighs rather than shock. Still, seeing the statistics in black and white is alarming. According to that PEN report, from July, 2021, to June, 2022, there were 2,532 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,648 individual titles. The two categories most frequently banned in schools were books with LGBTQ themes or prominent LGBTQ characters, and books with protagonists or prominent secondary characters of colour.

Students aren’t going to stop being gay – not that any right-thinking person would want them to – because a book that reflects their experience is no longer available in their classroom. Racialized children aren’t going to stop noticing they are racialized. While books are powerful, they are not so powerful that they can change a child’s identity. Their magic isn’t quite that literal. But they can help kids feel better, less alone.

This is not just about misguided parents. Book banning is a strategic political act, and well-connected advocacy organizations have been pushing it. PEN America has identified at least 50 such groups that are actively seeking these bans. And it is certainly a political choice to devote effort to protecting children from books, rather than guns.

Where does an anti-book culture lead? A recent essay in The Atlantic pointed to two prominent figures who have denounced books: Ye, the former Kanye West, who has called himself “a proud non-reader of books,” and Sam Bankman-Fried, who has said he would “never read a book.” A proud antisemite and a fallen tech bro facing multiple fraud charges, respectively.

I get asked a lot these days about misinformation, by people worried that youth are buying into lies about important issues and historical events. My answer always revolves around making sure young people have access to reliable information – the kind most easily found in books. The library over YouTube, always.

Kids, keep reading. Especially the books you’re being told not to read by villainous higher-ups. You’re the protagonist of your own story – and information is power.

Source: Lederman: Florida’s book ban takes censorship to the next level

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Le Bloc québécois dénonce un «manque d’humanisme» chez Immigration Canada

2023/01/30 Leave a comment

More criticism from a less frequent source:

« Manque d’empathie et d’humanisme », « structure dysfonctionnelle » : le porte-parole en matière d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté du Bloc québécois, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, ne mâche pas ses mots en parlant d’Immigration Canada, en entrevue avec Le Devoir.

Le Bloc québécois tient samedi un point de presse à l’aéroport Pierre-Elliot Trudeau afin de souligner l’arrivée au pays de Rose Eva, une Camerounaise expulsée du territoire en 2020. La jeune femme avait obtenu un permis d’étude pour compléter une technique en informatique à l’Institut Teccart.

Elle avait obtenu son diplôme précocement grâce à ses bons résultats, et avait ensuite continué à travailler dans une boutique de vêtements, où elle avait été embauchée pendant ses études.

Le visa que détenait Mme Eva lui interdisait cependant de travailler une fois son diplôme obtenu, ce qu’elle ignorait. Le ministère de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté du Canada l’avait donc renvoyée au Cameroun, en janvier 2020.

« Aujourd’hui, elle revient avec une résidence permanente et on en est bien heureux », se réjouit Rhéal Éloi Fortin, député bloquiste de Rivière-du-Nord, la circonscription dans laquelle résidait la jeune femme. « Mais c’est une situation que je déplore pour l’ensemble de la société québécoise et canadienne : on avait une immigrante qualifiée et intégrée, et on l’a retournée chez elle. »

Dans un communiqué, le Bloc indique que le bureau de circonscription de M. Fortin a aidé Mme Eva dans ses démarches administratives « depuis son exclusion en janvier 2020 jusqu’à son retour. »

Mme Eva devait initialement arriver à Montréal vers 11 heures du matin, mais elle aurait été « retenue à Toronto » et aurait manqué son vol, indique le Bloc québécois. Elle est finalement arrivée vers 15 heures à Dorval.

Un ministère « dysfonctionnel »

Pour le député de Lac-Saint-Jean, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, cette situation est symptomatique d’un « manque d’empathie et d’humanisme » chez Immigration Canada. « S’il y a bien un ministère qui se doit d’être humain et empathique, c’est celui-là, insiste-t-il. Les dossiers qu’on gère, c’est pas des statistiques, c’est des vraies personnes. »

Il invoque le cas de Rose Eva pour illustrer son propos. « Ils l’ont détenue, ont pris son téléphone, l’ont mise dans une pièce fermée. C’est bouleversant, […] c’est extrêmement humiliant. » Pour lui, le constat est clair : « Ce ministère est dysfonctionnel. »

Cet automne, le gouvernement a allégé certaines restrictions inhérentes au visa d’études. Certains étudiants peuvent désormais travailler plus de 20 heures par semaine, ce qui était auparavant interdit. Le Bloc québécois demande maintenant au gouvernement de lever le règlement qui a coûté son visa à Rose Eva, c’est-à-dire l’interdiction de travailler une fois le diplôme complété.

Le chemin Roxham, un sujet chaud

Questionné sur un sujet chaud de l’heure, le chemin Roxham, M. Brunelle-Duceppe n’a pas voulu se positionner en faveur ou non de sa fermeture. « Nous, on demande au gouvernement depuis 2019 de suspendre l’entente sur les tiers pays sûrs », a-t-il martelé.

Cette entente stipule qu’un migrant qui met d’abord le pied en territoire américain doit obligatoirement faire sa demande d’asile en sol américain, et vice-versa s’il est d’abord arrivé au Canada. Voilà pourquoi plusieurs migrants préfèrent arriver au Canada en empruntant le chemin Roxham, un passage non officiel où ils ne se feront pas contrôler par les agents frontaliers.

« Si on suspend cette entente, les migrants pourraient faire leur demande aux postes frontaliers de l’ensemble de la frontière canadienne, ce qui enlèverait la pression sur le Québec », croit M. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Il souligne que le gouvernement canadien aurait le pouvoir de suspendre l’entente sur les tiers pays sûrs pour une durée minimale de trois mois et ce, sans l’accord du gouvernement américain. « Un moment donné, il va falloir mettre ses culottes, assène-t-il. Mais le gouvernement canadien a peut-être peur de froisser les Américains. »

Rappelons que le 4 janvier dernier, le migrant haïtien Fritznel Richard avait été retrouvé mort à proximité du chemin Roxham, alors qu’il tentait de rejoindre les États-Unis.

Source: Le Bloc québécois dénonce un «manque d’humanisme» chez Immigration Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →