‘Risks posed by AI are real’: EU moves to beat the algorithms that ruin lives

Legitimate concerns about AI bias (which individual decision-makers have), also need to address “noise,” variability among decision-making by people for comparable cases:

It started with a single tweet in November 2019. David Heinemeier Hansson, a high-profile tech entrepreneur, lashed out at Apple’s newly launched credit card, calling it “sexist” for offering his wife a credit limit 20 times lower than his own.

The allegations spread like wildfire, with Hansson stressing that artificial intelligence – now widely used to make lending decisions – was to blame. “It does not matter what the intent of individual Apple reps are, it matters what THE ALGORITHM they’ve placed their complete faith in does. And what it does is discriminate. This is fucked up.”

While Apple and its underwriters Goldman Sachs were ultimately cleared by US regulators of violating fair lending rules last year, it rekindled a wider debate around AI use across public and private industries.

Politicians in the European Union are now planning to introduce the first comprehensive global template for regulating AI, as institutions increasingly automate routine tasks in an attempt to boost efficiency and ultimately cut costs.

That legislation, known as the Artificial Intelligence Act, will have consequences beyond EU borders, and like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, will apply to any institution, including UK banks, that serves EU customers. “The impact of the act, once adopted, cannot be overstated,” said Alexandru Circiumaru, European public policy lead at the Ada Lovelace Institute.

Depending on the EU’s final list of “high risk” uses, there is an impetus to introduce strict rules around how AI is used to filter job, university or welfare applications, or – in the case of lenders – assess the creditworthiness of potential borrowers.

EU officials hope that with extra oversight and restrictions on the type of AI models that can be used, the rules will curb the kind of machine-based discrimination that could influence life-altering decisions such as whether you can afford a home or a student loan.

“AI can be used to analyse your entire financial health including spending, saving, other debt, to arrive at a more holistic picture,” Sarah Kocianski, an independent financial technology consultant said. “If designed correctly, such systems can provide wider access to affordable credit.”

But one of the biggest dangers is unintentional bias, in which algorithms end up denying loans or accounts to certain groups including women, migrants or people of colour.

Part of the problem is that most AI models can only learn from historical data they have been fed, meaning they will learn which kind of customer has previously been lent to and which customers have been marked as unreliable. “There is a danger that they will be biased in terms of what a ‘good’ borrower looks like,” Kocianski said. “Notably, gender and ethnicity are often found to play a part in the AI’s decision-making processes based on the data it has been taught on: factors that are in no way relevant to a person’s ability to repay a loan.”

Furthermore, some models are designed to be blind to so-called protected characteristics, meaning they are not meant to consider the influence of gender, race, ethnicity or disability. But those AI models can still discriminate as a result of analysing other data points such as postcodes, which may correlate with historically disadvantaged groups that have never previously applied for, secured, or repaid loans or mortgages.

And in most cases, when an algorithm makes a decision, it is difficult for anyone to understand how it came to that conclusion, resulting in what is commonly referred to as “black-box” syndrome. It means that banks, for example, might struggle to explain what an applicant could have done differently to qualify for a loan or credit card, or whether changing an applicant’s gender from male to female might result in a different outcome.

Circiumaru said the AI act, which could come into effect in late 2024, would benefit tech companies that managed to develop what he called “trustworthy AI” models that are compliant with the new EU rules.

Darko Matovski, the chief executive and co-founder of London-headquartered AI startup causaLens, believes his firm is among them.

The startup, which publicly launched in January 2021, has already licensed its technology to the likes of asset manager Aviva, and quant trading firm Tibra, and says a number of retail banks are in the process of signing deals with the firm before the EU rules come into force.

The entrepreneur said causaLens offers a more advanced form of AI that avoids potential bias by accounting and controlling for discriminatory correlations in the data. “Correlation-based models are learning the injustices from the past and they’re just replaying it into the future,” Matovski said.

He believes the proliferation of so-called causal AI models like his own will lead to better outcomes for marginalised groups who may have missed out on educational and financial opportunities.

“It is really hard to understand the scale of the damage already caused, because we cannot really inspect this model,” he said. “We don’t know how many people haven’t gone to university because of a haywire algorithm. We don’t know how many people weren’t able to get their mortgage because of algorithm biases. We just don’t know.”

Matovski said the only way to protect against potential discrimination was to use protected characteristics such as disability, gender or race as an input but guarantee that regardless of those specific inputs, the decision did not change.

He said it was a matter of ensuring AI models reflected our current social values and avoided perpetuating any racist, ableist or misogynistic decision-making from the past. “Society thinks that we should treat everybody equal, no matter what gender, what their postcode is, what race they are. So then the algorithms must not only try to do it, but they must guarantee it,” he said.

While the EU’s new rules are likely to be a big step in curbing machine-based bias, some experts, including those at the Ada Lovelace Institute, are pushing for consumers to have the right to complain and seek redress if they think they have been put at a disadvantage.

“The risks posed by AI, especially when applied in certain specific circumstances, are real, significant and already present,” Circiumaru said.

“AI regulation should ensure that individuals will be appropriately protected from harm by approving or not approving uses of AI and have remedies available where approved AI systems malfunction or result in harms. We cannot pretend approved AI systems will always function perfectly and fail to prepare for the instances when they won’t.”

Source: ‘Risks posed by AI are real’: EU moves to beat the algorithms that ruin lives

Nicolas: Les mythes et réalités de la loi 21

Good analysis and observations regarding this ACS/Leger study (see earlier New research shows Bill 21 having ‘devastating’ impact on religious minorities in Quebec [particularly Muslim women]):

Pendant qu’on débat pour la millionième fois sur le port du hidjab au Québec — cette semaine à cause de réactions à une publicité de HEC Montréal —, une nouvelle étude sur la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État vient d’être publiée.

Produite par l’Association des études canadiennes, en collaboration avec SurveyMonkey et la firme de sondage Léger, cette étude a été menée auprès de 1828 adultes québécois, dont 632 musulmans, 165 juifs et 54 sikhs. Léger a utilisé les données de Statistique Canada pour que l’échantillon sondé soit représentatif de la population étudiée.

L’étude confirme que la majorité de la population (63,7 %) appuie la « loi 21 ». Ce chiffre tombe à 60 % si on inclut l’option « je ne sais pas », et à 57 % si l’on spécifie « telle qu’elle s’applique aux enseignants ».

Mais l’étude innove en comparant les arguments souvent entendus pour défendre la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État avec les données amassées. L’effet de contraste est saisissant.

D’abord, on avance souvent que la « loi 21 » est « neutre » — c’est-à-dire qu’elle ne vise aucune religion en particulier — et que ses appuis ne sont pas liés à une animosité particulière envers une religion ou une autre. Or, l’étude calcule que 75 % des partisans convaincus du texte législatif ont une opinion négative de l’islam ; 66 % du sikhisme ; 49 % du judaïsme ; 36,5 % du christianisme.

Il se dégage donc ici, selon la chercheuse principale de l’étude, Miriam Taylor, une « hiérarchie de négativité » envers les religions particulièrement marquée.

Parallèlement, la proportion des opposants convaincus à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État qui ont une opinion négative de ces quatre mêmes religions oscille entre 18 % et 20 %, sans conviction que certaines valent mieux que d’autres.

Ensuite, on dit souvent que les appuis à « loi 21 » sont motivés par une méfiance particulière envers la religion en général ; l’étude a par conséquent voulu mesurer si les personnes elles-mêmes peu religieuses étaient plus nombreuses à soutenir cette législation. Or, on n’a trouvé aucun lien majeur entre la religiosité des répondants et leur appui ou opposition à la loi. Même qu’au contraire, les Québécois qui s’identifient comme catholiques seraient « légèrement plus favorables » à la loi que ceux qui se disent athées.

Fossé hommes-femmes

Par ailleurs, on entend souvent que la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État québécois est profondément féministe, et que c’est au nom de l’égalité hommes-femmes qu’elle a été mise en avant. L’enquête s’est donc intéressée à l’écart dans les appuis à la loi selon le genre.

On a calculé que 68,5 % des hommes et 59 % des femmes au Québec appuieraient la loi, un écart de près de 10 points de pourcentage. Chez les plus jeunes, l’écart est encore plus marqué : 51,7 % des hommes de 18 à 24 ans appuient la loi, alors que seulement 31,5 % de leurs consoeurs font de même. Seules les femmes de 75 ans et plus sont plus favorables à la loi que les hommes de leur groupe d’âge.

L’étude avance également que les femmes québécoises sont plus nombreuses à trouver que « la loi est discriminatoire envers les femmes », que les femmes sont « plus touchées » par cette mesure législative, et que la loi « divise les Québécois ». Les femmes seraient aussi moins nombreuses à trouver que les Québécois qui s’opposent à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État sont « déloyaux » et à souhaiter qu’une personne qui ne s’y conforme pas perde son emploi.

Existe-t-il une seule autre politique publique dite « féministe » moins appuyée par les femmes que par les hommes ? Ou serait-ce que, dans ce cas-ci, les femmes savent moins bien discerner que les hommes ce qui est bon pour elles ?

Vivre-ensemble

De plus, on répète souvent que la « loi 21 » exprime une volonté collective, et donc que les tribunaux ne devraient pas se « mêler » des décisions de l’Assemblée nationale sur la question.

Pourtant, 64,5 % des Québécois sondés croient qu’il serait important « que la Cour suprême émette un avis sur la question de savoir si la loi 21 est discriminatoire », et seuls 46,7 % des répondants continueraient à l’appuyer si les tribunaux « confirment » qu’elle « viole les chartes des droits et libertés ». On parlerait donc ici d’une chute de 18 points de pourcentage dans les appuis en cas d’une décision négative des tribunaux sur la question.

Finalement, la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État est souvent présentée comme un outil favorisant l’harmonie sociale et le vivre-ensemble.

Or, en sondant spécifiquement les Québécois musulmans, juifs et sikhs, l’étude a trouvé qu’une majorité dans les trois groupes rapporte « un déclin dans leur sentiment d’acceptation en tant que membres à part entière de la société québécoise » depuis l’adoption du texte législatif. Quelque 64 % des femmes musulmanes, 67 % des hommes sikhs et 87,5 % des femmes sikhs qui ont participé à l’étude ont dit avoir senti leur capacité à participer à la vie sociale et politique du Québec se détériorer depuis 2019. Et 67 % des femmes musulmanes, 50 % des hommes juifs et 67 % hommes sikhs ont aussi déclaré avoir été exposés à des incidents et à des crimes haineux.

Cette portion de l’étude inclut d’ailleurs des témoignages qui donnent froid dans le dos. Bien qu’il s’agisse de la plus vaste enquête sur cette question conduite auprès des minorités religieuses québécoises depuis l’adoption de la loi, l’échantillon total reste modeste.

Espérons que d’autres recherches encore plus ambitieuses seront mises en avant pour faire la lumière sur ces enjeux cruciaux.

Source: Les mythes et réalités de la loi 21

More Canadians report strong attachment to their language than to Canada: poll

Not surprising that language attachment stronger in Quebec and among Indigenous peoples. The margin of 3 percent among all Canadians not significant given online poll:

A new survey finds more Canadians report a strong attachment to their primary language than to other markers of identity, including the country they call home.

The survey, which was conducted by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies, found 88 per cent of respondents reported a strong sense of attachment to their primary language, whereas 85 per cent reported the same for Canada.

The greater importance of language was especially notable among francophones and Indigenous Peoples.

Reports of strong attachment to primary language exceeded all other markers of identity, including geography, ethnic group, racialized identity and religious affiliation.

Of the markers of identity considered in the survey, Canadians were the least likely to report a strong sense of attachment to a religious group.

Association for Canadian Studies president Jack Jedwab said the survey’s findings highlight the important role language plays in people’s identities.

“I think many Canadians may be surprised by it, who may not think intuitively that language is as important as other expressions of identity that get attention,” he said.

Jedwab said people should be mindful of not downplaying the importance of language given how significant language can be to a community. He said language has a dual function of facilitating communication and being an expression of culture.

“There can be a tendency for people to diminish the importance of other languages,” he said.

“We’ve not paid historically sufficient attention to Indigenous languages, which we’re now seeing our federal government invest considerably in, trying to help sustain and revive Indigenous languages,” he added.

The online survey was completed by 1,764 Canadians between July 8 and 10. It cannot be assigned a margin of error because online polls are not considered truly random samples.

For Canadians whose primary language is French, 91 per cent reported a strong sense of attachment to their language, in comparison to 67 per cent who reported the same sentiment for Canada.

In Quebec, more people reported a strong sense of attachment to their primary language than to the province.

Only 37 per cent of Canadians reported a strong sense of attachment to a religious group.

The findings come ahead of Statistics Canada’s latest census release on languages in the country, which is set to be published on Wednesday.

Jedwab said the census release will be especially important to Quebec, where there’s a close monitoring of the state of the French language in comparison to other languages.

The Leger survey also found more than half of francophone Quebecers say they know English well enough to hold a conversation. That’s in contrast to less than one in 10 English respondents in all provinces except Quebec and New Brunswick who say they can hold a conversation in French.

According to the last census, English-French bilingualism rose from 17.5 per cent in 2011 to 17.9 per cent in 2016, reaching the highest rate of bilingualism in Canadian history. Over 60 per cent of that growth in bilingualism was attributable to Quebec.

Source: More Canadians report strong attachment to their language than to Canada: poll

New immigration detention bill could give Australia a fresh chance to comply with international law

Of interest:

Last week, independent MP Andrew Wilkie reintroduced to federal parliament the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2022. This bill gives Australia the chance to bring its immigration detention regime in line with basic international law requirements for the first time since 1992.Wilkie’s bill presents a timely opportunity for the new federal government to reform a regime that leading legal and human rights organisations have called “inhumane, unnecessary, and unlawful”.

Australia’s human rights commitment

Australia has committed to uphold human rights and protect refugees, including committing to not arbitrarily or indefinitely detain adults or children. Despite this, under Australia’s current mandatory detention regime, non-citizens without a valid visa must be detained as a first resort for potentially indefinite periods and without access to review by a court.Australia’s commitments under international law are not enforceable under Australian law unless they are implemented through legislation. This means that in the absence of legislation that fully protects the right to liberty, the Australian High Court has consistently held that indefinite immigration detention is lawful under Australian law.

International criticism

The UN has repeatedly condemned Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees as contrary to Australia’s international obligations and “an affront to the protection of human rights”. This includes statements and decisions from:

  • UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet in 2018
  • the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, in 2017
  • the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, in 2015 and 2017
  • UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi in 2017
  • The UN Human Rights Committee in 2013.

International criticisms have largely focused on Australia’s failure to respect the rights of individuals to not be detained arbitrarily or indefinitely; subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; or returned to a place where they will face a real risk of harm.Despite widespread condemnation of Australia’s system of mandatory and indefinite detention, over 1400 people remain in onshore immigration detention facilities today. A further 217 people remain on Nauru and Manus.In April 2022, the average period of time people were held in immigration detention facilities in Australia was 726 days. Of those in onshore detention, 136 have been detained for more than five years.

“Detention without charge or guilt”

Wilkie’s bill proposes abolishing the existing system of mandatory detention. Under the bill, detention of non-citizens without valid visas could only be ordered where it is necessary and proportionate to the circumstances. This would require an individual assessment.Detention would be authorised in Australia only (not offshore) for certain purposes, and only as a measure of last resort after all alternatives have been considered. Adults could only be detained for a maximum of three months and children for seven days. While extensions may be necessary in certain circumstances, detention would be subject to independent oversight and judicial review by the courts.When introducing the bill, Wilkie argued this legislation was urgently needed as

we face the bizarre and outrageous situation in this country where someone, in some circumstances, can be detained indefinitely, without charge and without having been found guilty of anything.

He described this as a punitive arrangement that is immoral and shows “a terrible indifference and arrogance to international law”.In seconding the bill, independent MP Kylea Tink said“Australia’s immigration regime is unique in the world. It is uniquely cruel.” Tink also noted Wilkie’s point that the regime came with a vast financial and human toll, costing Australian taxpayers between $360,000 – $460,000 per year to hold a person in immigration detention in Australia.Independent MP Monique Ryan recognised that

Australia’s immigration detention regime causes severe and widespread mental and physical health impacts on people seeking refuge.

Australia’s negative human rights record also affects its ability to hold other countries to account for human rights violations. China accused Australia of human rights hypocrisy after it criticised China’s repression of the Uyghur ethnic minority. And China is certainly not alone in its criticisms.While legislation alone is not enough, it could provide a significant first step in bringing Australia’s immigration detention regime in line with its human rights obligations.Both major political parties in Australia have historically supported onshore and offshore mandatory detention of non-citizens.However, with the current make-up of the parliament and a new government committed to uniting Australians around “our shared values of fairness and opportunity” and “kindness to those in need”, this is an opportunity for Australia to demonstrate a renewed commitment to international law and the fundamental principles on which the UN system is based.

Source: New immigration detention bill could give Australia a fresh chance to comply with international law

ICYMI: ‘Waiting for our death’: Afghan military lawyers beg Canada for help to escape

Sigh… As always, apart from the substance, lack of transparency and predictability on timelines cross-cut virtually all IRCC administrative problems:

A former Canadian military legal officer says a group of Afghan lawyers and other staff who helped his mission in Afghanistan have been “left in the dark,” and is urging Canada’s Immigration Ministry to act quickly to help them escape the Taliban.

It’s been one year since Canada began accepting fleeing Afghans through its one-year special immigration program for Afghans who helped the Canadian government, set up a few weeks before Kabul fell to the Taliban in August 2021.

To date, roughly 17,170 Afghans have arrived in Canada. Last month, the Liberal government closed its immigration program to new applicants, less than halfway toward its goal of bringing 40,000 Afghans to Canada.

“If [Canada] would not act upon my request and as soon as possible, I could lose my life,” said Popal, one of the Afghan military prosecutors who applied for this program, and whom CBC has agreed not to identify.

“When Popal called me for help, it was very heart-wrenching,” said retired major Cory Moore, a former military legal officer with the Canadian Armed Forces who was deployed three times to Afghanistan.

Moore is helping 12 applicants and their families apply for this program, and is still waiting for word from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) on the fate of these 66 people. Their applications were filed between September and December 2021.

The group includes military prosecutors, criminal investigators, security staff, recruitment video participants, a doctor and a journalist. 

All 12 Afghans were involved in various capacities during Moore’s mission to help bolster the Afghan National Army’s legal branch. He created a project to recruit Afghan law grads, making a recruitment video which aired nationally from 2012 to 2021.

As a result, eight female military lawyers were hired as prosecutors and criminal investigators with the military, in what Moore calls a “historical precedent.”

“During the period in time in which we were doing the video shooting, it was a particularly dangerous time in Kabul when I had a target on my back,” he said. 

“They never left my side. They never cut and run…. It’s why Canada can’t turn its back on them now.”

‘We are getting hopeless’

Popal, who appeared in that recruitment video, was an Afghan army prosecutor for 10 years.

Through WhatsApp video chat, Popal said he and his family are in “extreme danger” because of his involvement with the recruitment project.

“We are getting hopeless and … we are just waiting for our death,” he said in Dari, through an interpreter.

Popal, who was reduced to tears during the conversation, said it’s been a year of hardship for his family. His kids can’t go to school or appear in public spaces, and he’s unable to work so it’s been difficult to put food on the table. The family is facing “serious threats,” he said.

“The danger we are facing is because we helped Canadians.”

Maryam, whose identity CBC has also agreed to protect because she’s also in hiding, is the first of the eight female lawyers hired as a result of Moore’s project. (Three of the lawyers have not yet been accounted for, Moore said.)

She prosecuted Taliban members accused of infiltrating the Afghan National Army. She also criminally investigated sexual assault cases involving Afghan military members who committed offences against army nurses.

“I’m in danger because of that position,” she said in Dari, through an interpreter. 

Maryam spoke about the mental health impact the wait has had on her and her family. 

“We’ve all got kind of psychological issues, psychological problems,” she said, pleading through tears: “Justin Trudeau … please get us out of here. Please, evacuate us from here…. We cannot live here anymore.” 

Silence from department

Moore contacted IRCC several times this spring about the status of the 12 applications.

“I wasn’t hearing anything,” he said. “They explained that none of the 12 applicants … were coming up in their system.”

After seeking clarity from other agents, Moore said one of them told him this: “She explained that if you had been screened out at the initial review stage, you’re not invited formally to make [an] application … and if you don’t receive an email like that, then your case just disappears.”

To date, none of the 12 Afghans received an email from IRCC about their application status. The government website instructs applicants to “wait for us to contact you” once an application has been submitted. 

“They don’t receive anything. They’re just left in the dark,” said Moore.

“[For Canada] to shut the door on a group of people who were so intimately involved in helping me succeed with my project, it’s unfathomable.”

By speaking publicly, Moore wants to stress how each applicant played a critical role in helping him and the Canadian military. 

“There’s no question that Afghanistan was made better by their work with me,” said Moore. “And quite honestly, I think Canada is a better place with this fine group of people in it.”

Tight timeline a ‘slap in the face’

Tamar Boghossian, an immigration lawyer with Boghossian Morais LLP, is helping Moore with the case. Last week, she refiled and updated all 12 applications.

Boghossian said all 12 applicants meet the government’s eligibility requirements, which she called “very vague.” The government lists just two examples of who can apply — Afghan nationals who worked at the Canadian embassy, or interpreters — but adds the program “is not limited to” those professions.

The issue, Boghossian said, is that the program has “no transparency.” The short timeline is also problematic, as the one-year program has already expired, she added.

“It’s a slap in the face … to those who actually helped the Canadian government,” said Boghossian. “Why can’t we help these individuals in return?”

She explained that most individuals who’ve applied to this special program don’t have proper documentation or passports, and are having difficulty obtaining them because they’re in hiding. 

She’s urging the Trudeau government to not only extend the deadline for applications, but to also expand the number of people Canada will receive. 

“40,000 applicants is not a lot for, you know, Canada being in Afghanistan for almost 15 years,” Boghossian said.

Government decision ‘shameful,’ says MP

During a news conference last month, Conservative MP and IRCC shadow minister Jasraj Singh Hallan called the Liberal government’s decision to wind down its one-year program “shameful.”

The Conservatives are among those calling on the government to reopen the special immigration program, and Hallan said it’s Canada’s “moral responsibility to help those who served alongside our country.”

“The government’s decision to shut down the [special program] is unconscionable,” Hallan said.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan has said the government’s claim that other immigration avenues remain open to Afghans is “deceptive.”

“That is just a rejection,” she said.

Ministry working ‘as quickly as possible’

On behalf of IRCC, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser’s office said it could not comment on the 12 applicants’ cases for privacy reasons. 

The ministry said it’s received 15,210 applications under the special program, and has approved about two-thirds of them so far.

“We are working to process applications as quickly as possible,” wrote Aidan Strickland, the minister’s spokesperson, noting the resettlement initiative for Afghans is uniquely challenging.

Strickland said the eligibility requirements are meant “to be as inclusive as possible,” and can include cooks, drivers and other staff who helped Canada’s military.

“We have accomplished much, but there is still more work to be done,” she wrote.

The office did not say whether it will reopen the program.

Source: ‘Waiting for our death’: Afghan military lawyers beg Canada for help to escape

New research shows Bill 21 having ‘devastating’ impact on religious minorities in Quebec [particularly Muslim women]

Would be interesting to see the breakdown between Montreal and the rest of Quebec, where immigration is low as is the number of visible and religious minorities:

New research shows that three years after Quebec’s secularism law — commonly known as Bill 21 — was adopted, religious minorities in the province are feeling increasingly alienated and hopeless.  

“Religious minority communities are encountering — at levels that are disturbing — a reflection of disdain, hate, mistrust and aggression,” Miriam Taylor, lead researcher and the director of publications and partnerships at the Association for Canadian Studies, told CBC in an interview.

“We even saw threats and physical violence,” Taylor said.

Bill 21, which passed in 2019, bars public school teachers, police officers, judges and government lawyers, among other civil servants in positions of authority, from wearing religious symbols — such as hijabs, crucifixes or turbans — while at work.

Taylor and her colleagues at the association worked with polling firm Leger to gather a unique portrait of attitudes toward Bill 21 in Quebec.

The association surveyed members of certain religious minority communities including 632 Muslims, 165 Jews and 56 Sikhs.

Those results were folded into a Leger survey of the Quebec population as whole, and then weighted to ensure the sample was representative of the entire population.

That allowed Taylor to compare and contrast the attitudes toward Bill 21 of Quebecers who are religious minorities with the attitudes of Quebecers as a whole.

In total 1,828 people were questioned in the online survey.

Taylor shared an advance copy of her final report, which is being released today, with CBC.

Muslim women most affected

Although all three religious minority groups surveyed said they’ve experienced negative impacts due to Bill 21, the effects are being most acutely felt by Muslims and, in particular, Muslim women.

“We saw severe social stigmatisation of Muslim women, marginalization of Muslim women and very disturbing declines in their sense of well-being, their ability to fulfil their aspirations, sense of safety, but also hope for the future,”  Taylor said.

Of the Muslim women surveyed, 78 per cent said their feeling of being accepted as a full-fledged member of Quebec society had worsened over the last three years.

Fifty-three per cent said they’d heard prejudicial remarks about Muslims from family, friends or colleagues.

People surveyed were given the opportunity to share examples of comments they’d heard or behaviours they’d experienced.

One reported hearing: ”These Muslim women with rags on their heads, if they are not able to integrate, let them return to their country.”

Forty-seven per cent of Muslim women said they’d been treated unfairly by a person in a position of authority. 

One person reported being called a “dirty immigrant” by a police officer in Quebec City.  Another reported that a teacher told disparaging anecdotes about Islam in class.

Two thirds of Muslim women said they’d been a victim of and/or a witness to a hate crime. Seventy-three per cent said their feeling of being safe in public had worsened.

Taylor found that nearly three quarters of Muslim women surveyed felt their comfort about safety in public had worsened in the three years since Bill 21 was adopted. (Association for Canadian Studies)

People surveyed offered examples ranging from racist remarks to death threats, having hijabs ripped off and being spat on. One person reported that a man deliberately tried to run over them and their three-year-old daughter with a pickup truck.

A majority of Muslims also reported feeling less hopeful, less free to express themselves in public and less likely to participate in social and political life.

“For a law that’s supposed to be very moderate and only touch a very small number of people, we were shocked at the responses,” Taylor said.

She said the response she found most upsetting was that 83 per cent of Muslim women surveyed said their confidence in their children’s future had worsened since Bill 21 passed.

Taylor said the figure that most upset her was the lack of hope Quebec Muslims have for their children’s future. (Association for Canadian Studies)

“It’s one thing to say: ‘you know what, I’m experiencing a lot of unfair treatment because I’m not understood,'” Taylor said. “It’s another thing to project forward and have no hope for your children.”

Law reinforces existing prejudices

Taylor believes Bill 21 alone isn’t responsible for the feelings of alienation and insecurity Quebec Muslims and other religious minorities feel.

She said prejudicial attitudes have been gestating in Quebec for nearly 20 years, when the debate over so-called “reasonable accommodations” for religious minorities first took hold.

“Malaise, fear and anxieties get provoked over time,” Taylor said.

She said often those anxieties are based on ignorance.

“By their own admission, Quebecers in general have very little contact with members of religious minorities,” Taylor said. “All of these negative opinions are based on lack of knowledge.”

Taylor said Bill 21 has enabled those prejudices — rooted in ignorance — to become the norm.

“We end up with a situation where the malaise of the observer trumps the deep convictions of the person actually wearing the religious symbols,” Taylor said.

“We’re validating and reinforcing those opinions, and then we’re politicizing the symbols. Those symbols are lightning rods,” she said.

“And so we end up dehumanizing the people wearing the symbols,” Taylor said.

Women generally less supportive of Bill 21

Taylor said that Bill 21 has consistently maintained the support of about two thirds of Quebecers since it was adopted, with a dip last January after the high-profile case of a hijab-wearing teacher in Chelsea who was removed from the classroom and reassigned.

But she said that support is nuanced and full of contradictions.

Women in Quebec, for example, are generally less supportive of Bill 21 than men. Sixty-eight per cent of men support the law compared to 58 per cent of women.

Taylor said the research showed that women, and in particular young women, are less supportive of Bill 21 than men. (Association for Canadian Studies)

And the younger women are, the less likely they are to support the law.  Just 31 per cent of women aged 18-24 support Bill 21.

Taylor said that raised questions for her.

“It’s touted as a feminist law by the people who support it. So why is it that particularly the younger women of Quebec are so much less in favour of it when one would expect the reverse proportion?” she said.

Support for the law but not for enforcement

Another statistic that surprised Taylor: even Quebecers who support the law don’t necessarily want to see it enforced.

Only 40 per cent of people surveyed believe a public servant who does not comply with the law should lose their job. 

“The law is supported and liked by Quebecers. But they seem much less keen to see it actually applied,” Taylor said.

“I think that we’re a human society and we care about people. We all need income to survive and I think people are aware of what a heavy price that would be to pay,” she said.

Quebecers care about what courts say about Bill 21

Taylor was also surprised that the survey showed that Quebecers care deeply about what courts have to say about Bill 21.

When drafting the law, the Quebec government, recognizing that it would likely violate both the Canadian and the Quebec charters of rights, pre-emptively invoked the constitutional notwithstanding clause, and altered the Quebec charter to try to shut down court challenges.

But those challenges came anyway, and now both the government and groups that oppose the bill are challenging a 2021 Quebec Superior Court ruling that upheld most of the law before the Quebec Court of Appeal.

It’s widely expected the law will eventually be challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The bill’s architect, Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, has argued that it’s up to elected politicians in the National Assembly — and not the courts — to decide how they want to organize relations between the state and religion.

But Quebecers seem to feel differently.

Sixty-four per cent, roughly the same percentage that support the bill, also feel it’s important for the Supreme Court to issue an opinion on whether Bill 21 is discriminatory.

And if the courts were to confirm the law is discriminatory, support for the bill would plummet.

Only 46 per cent of people surveyed — less than half — said they would continue to support the law if the courts confirmed it violates the Charter of Rights.

Debate not over

Jolin-Barrette has portrayed Quebecers as united in support of the bill, and has accused detractors of trying to divide Quebecers.

But Taylor’s survey shows that a majority of Quebecers — 56 per cent — believe the law itself is divisive.

When Bill 21 was adopted, Jolin-Barrette said it would “permit a harmonious transition toward secularism” for Quebec.

Taylor said that clearly hasn’t been the case.

“The debate is very far from closed,” she said. “Bill 21 is having devastating impacts on citizens in our province. It’s tearing apart our social fabric and I think it’s undermining our democracy.”

“If national unity is achieved at the expense of labelling minorities as in some way harmful or a threat, these are signs of the degeneration of democracy,” she said. 

Taylor said as a Quebecer, she finds this distressing.

“We live in a very distinct province. We’re different. It’s an experiment that on some level should never have succeeded: a thriving French society on an English continent,” she said.

“In all my years, I associate that distinct nature with a humanity, with understanding how important identity is,” Taylor said.

She said Bill 21 threatens that.

“I feel like we’re doing major harm to those values that we hold dear and that make us special,” Taylor said.

Source: New research shows Bill 21 having ‘devastating’ impact on religious minorities in Quebec

USA: Board Diversity Is Sacrificed When Companies Underperform, Study Finds

Of note but not particularly surprising:

Companies that are underperforming in comparison to their competitors or to their goals are more likely to experience a decrease in racial and gender diversity rates on their boards, a newly released study has found.

Researchers at Imperial College Business School in London tracked data from more than 700 U.S. firms from 1996 to 2013 to make the assessment.

Dr. HeeJung Jung, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Imperial College Business School, and lead researcher of the study, tells TIME that this phenomenon is not deliberate, but rather a result of the pressure firms face to better adapt and begin performing well. Leaders search for a quick solution, but boards can become less inclusive as executives minimize their boards, or unconsciously seek directors that have similar ascriptive backgrounds.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The board deliberately seeks new expertise and new perspectives among a variety of industries and backgrounds in the belief that it might rescue the company. But while this expertise came from a range of sectors, that’s as far as the diversity goes, in terms of race and gender,” Jung says.

Despite ongoing conversations about racial equity becoming more prevalent across the U.S., particularly after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, when companies made public pledges to better address racial inequality, Jung says that there is still a lot of fluctuation when looking at racial and gender diversity rates across corporate America.

In 2021, women comprised just 27% of board seats among the 3,000 largest publicly traded companies incorporated in the U.S., and only 6% of those seats were held by women of color, according to a report by the Women Business Collaborative. Men of color held 9% of board seats in the same year. Black board membership increased by nearly a third in 2021, but accounted for only 6.4% of directors overall.

Jung notes that companies will always experience periods of growth and decline, making more consistent strides for diversity and inclusion among the workforce difficult. The problem is, diversity is not a priority for companies when profits decrease, Jung says. “In their view, diversity efforts or DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] matters last, it becomes a second matter or a second goal.”

Some countries in Europe have safeguards in place that would prevent progress on board diversity being rolled back. Gender diversity quotas are common in nations like France, Norway, Spain and Iceland, where women must make up at least 40% of boards at publicly traded companies, according to the Harvard Business Review.

While research about the benefits of gender-based diversity in the U.S. has shown mixed results, Jung says this may be because, despite great strides in female leadership, American corporate culture has not yet normalized it. One of the roadblocks to progress that female CEOs often face is pushback from teams, including constant cross-checking of their decisions to verify that they are acting “correctly,” Jung says.

“That causes an efficiency problem, and in a time of crisis where speed is important for any corporation, having this is a delay in decisions [and] makes directors [from underrepresented backgrounds] doubt their leadership too,” Jung told TIME.

Diversity efforts in corporate America

Currently, the U.S. has no federal policy that mandates inclusivity, though that has not stopped local governments from attempting to implement changes. States like Washington, for instance, require at least a quarter of a public company’s board to be women. In California, a law, passed in 2020, requiring public companies to have greater racial and gender diversity on their boards, was struck down in April, according to the New York Times, but the state still has a 2018 law in effect that forces companies to have at least one woman on their board.

In some cases, business leaders have created their own solutions. Last year, Nasdaq secured regulatory approval for plans to require listed companies to share diversity data about their boards of directors. Companies without at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as a woman and one who identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+, are required to explain their lack of diversity.

Having executives from underrepresented backgrounds in positions of leadership helps too. Jung’s study found that when board member chairs come from underrepresented groups, they are less likely to sacrifice the gender and racial diversity of their board in response to a downturn.

But, as Jung states, retaining diverse talent requires companies to take the important first step of creating corporate norms that recognize the value of having diverse teams. “It’s not only about bringing [diverse candidates] in but also making them play an important role in the board and change the norms,” she says. “There’s a lot of positive benefits and corporations have to be very sensitive about and must pay attention to make a better strategy for their boardroom structures and who they are going to appoint.”

Source: Board Diversity Is Sacrificed When Companies Underperform, Study Finds

La publicité de HEC Montréal provoque une nouvelle réaction

Sigh… The usual over-reaction over what should be a non-issue:

Une publicité de HEC Montréal montrant une femme qui porte le hidjab et dénoncée par l’ex-politicien Jean-François Lisée a continué de susciter de nombreuses réactions mardi.

Alors que deux avocates de confession musulmane témoignaient dans nos pages de leur désaccord avec la position de M. Lisée, qui considère que la publicité présente un « signe religieux misogyne », la présidente du Rassemblement pour la laïcité, Nadia El-Mabrouk, abonde plutôt dans le sens de l’ex-politicien et dénonce la publicité.

[Montrer le voile dans la publicité], c’est un point de vue favorable à l’islam intégriste, c’est mettre de l’avant des pratiques intégristes

« Ce n’est pas neutre de faire ça. Ça vient avec une vision de la diversité et de la représentativité des signes religieux », plaide-t-elle en entrevue téléphonique. La Québécoise d’origine tunisienne, qui est aussi professeure au Département d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle à l’Université de Montréal, croit qu’« on n’a pas à représenter toutes les idées » dans des campagnes publicitaires. « [Montrer le voile dans la publicité], c’est un point de vue favorable à l’islam intégriste, c’est mettre de l’avant des pratiques intégristes, assène-t-elle. Quand les femmes disent “c’est mon choix” [de porter le voile], ça ne répond pas à la question “pourquoi c’est mon choix ?” »

En entrevue avec Le Devoir la veille, l’avocate de formation et autrice Dania Suleman a soutenu que « certaines femmes portent le hidjab par choix, et ça leur permet de se sentir beaucoup plus libres ». Elle a également estimé la position de M. Lisée « désolante », jugeant qu’elle « continue à aliéner les femmes qui portent le voile ».

Mme El-Mabrouk, autrice du livre Notre laïcité, paru en 2019, est fortement en désaccord. « On ne peut pas prendre un symbole clair de l’islamisme et prétendre que ça dit exactement le contraire », soutient-elle.

Sur les réseaux sociaux

De nombreux citoyens se sont indignés du tweet de Jean-François Lisée, tandis que plusieurs lui ont apporté leur appui, dont notamment Ensaf Haidar, ex-candidate du Bloc québécois dans Sherbrooke et femme du blogueur Raif Badawi. « En tant que musulmane pacifique, j’insiste sur le fait que le voile ne vient pas de l’Islam et qu’il est un symbole de l’esclavage et de l’oppression des femmes. Arrêtez d’abuser des femmes avec des publicités aussi stupides », a-t-elle écrit sur Twitter.

Le député néodémocrate de Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, s’est néanmoins montré très critique de la position de M. Lisée. « Donc science et islam seraient incompatibles ? Alors que science et pas de signe religieux apparent de christianisme serait correct ? » a-t-il questionné. M. Lisée a répondu : « Tu crois que le Coran est fondé sur la science? La Bible? La Torah? Qu’une institution de haut savoir scientifique doit promouvoir leurs symboles ? »

Par courriel, la conseillère principale en relation avec les médias de HEC Montréal, Émilie Novales, a confirmé que la femme dans la publicité est une « étudiante au parcours international » et que l’institution accueille « un nombre croissant d’étudiants internationaux » chaque année. « Nous tenons à ce que tous les membres de notre communauté étudiante puissent être mis en valeur sur nos plateformes, reflétant toute notre diversité », ajoute-t-elle.

Source: La publicité de HEC Montréal provoque une nouvelle réaction

Canada opens new PR pathway for overseas family members of air disasters

Yet another pathway. Could this not be better handled by H&C rather than adding further complexity and multiplicity of pathways when IRCC has large backlogs?

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has created a new permanent residency program for families of the Canadian victims of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.

The new permanent residency pathway applies to those who wish to come to Canada to settle and support members of their family who lost their spouse, common-law partner or parent, according to a government media release.

To ensure that extended family members have close ties to the surviving family member, the family member who is in Canada will need to provide a statutory declaration. There is a limit of two extended family members per family unit.

The victim of the air disasters must have been a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, or foreign national who had been approved for permanent residence. In the Ethiopia Airlines crash, 22 victims were Canadian, and the Ukraine International Airlines aircraft had 85 victims who were Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

This new measure follows IRCC’s May 2021 policy, which offered a pathway to permanent residence for family members of these air disaster victims who were already in Canada. That policy ended on May 11, 2022. Eligible immediate and extended family members can now apply even if they are outside Canada.

The public policy for families outside Canada is in effect from August 3, 2022, until August 2, 2023.

Eligibility criteria

To be eligible to apply, you must be outside Canada. You and your family members must also not be inadmissible to Canada.

You must be related to either a Canadian victim or their spouse or common-law partner who passed away on flights Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 or Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. You must provide a complete and signed statutory declaration (IMM 0171) from a surviving family member in Canada. Family members can only sign a statutory declaration for a maximum of two principal applicants.

You can also be related to a person who got permanent residence under the Temporary public policy to facilitate permanent residence for in-Canada families of Canadian victims of recent air disasters, if you were either declared as a non-accompanying family member on their application, or are a child of theirs and were born after your parent became a permanent resident.

Eligible relatives of the victim include the following:

  • spouse or common-law partner
  • child (of any age)
  • parent
  • grandparent
  • grandchild
  • sibling (including half siblings)
  • aunt or uncle (their mother or father’s sibling)
  • nephew or niece (the child of their sibling)

Eligible relatives of a victims’ spouse or common-law partner include:

  • child
  • parent
  • grandparent
  • grandchild
  • sibling (including half-siblings)
  • aunt or uncle (the sibling of a victim’s parent)
  • nephew or niece (the child of a victim’s sibling)

You can include members of your family in your application if they meet all the admissibility requirements to become Canadian permanent residents.

Even if your family members do not plan to come to Canada, you must declare them on your application. Otherwise, you will not be able to sponsor them later.

Source: Canada opens new PR pathway for overseas family members of air disasters

ICYMI: Iranian-Canadians feel like ‘2nd-class citizens’ as many continue to be stopped while travelling to the U.S.

For better or worse (as in these cases), all countries exercise sovereignty over who is admitted and who is not. Not “offloading responsibility” to the USA, just a reflection of reality:

Amir Abolhassani sold his house in Saskatoon when his U.S.-based employer asked him to relocate to North Carolina. But at the Calgary airport this January, his family was not allowed to cross the border.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer told Abolhassani, who is a Canadian citizen, that it was because of time he spent as a conscript in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) more than a decade ago. The family was subjected to a secondary screening involving a long interview and an extensive search of their belongings, cellphones and social media.

“It’s like we are not Canadians and our lives, our suffering is not important to anyone,” Abolhassani said.

“Am I not Canadian enough? The stress to be linked to a terrorist organization is the worst thing.”

The Trump administration labelled the IRGC as a terrorist organization in 2019. Abolhassani said all men in Iran above the age of 18 have to do mandatory service with one of the arms of the military.

“One in every three Iranians will be assigned to IRGC because it is one of the biggest branches of the military.”

Abolhassani said refusing conscription would prevent a man from getting a passport or accessing civic amenities, and can sometimes lead to further punishment.

“I know around 500 cases, almost 150 are Iranian-Canadians and others are Iranians that are facing the same situation.”

CBC News spoke with 15 Iranian-Canadians, all of them Canadian citizens, who continue to be stopped and detained while crossing into other countries due to their names being flagged as people who have helped a terrorist organization. All say they feel they are treated as second-class citizens.

“The officer said my wife can’t go to the U.S. either because she may have received military training from me. It’s disastrous,” Abolhassani said. “In two months of training, I held a weapon for three days. I have just fired four bullets in my life. A typical American teenager may have fired more.”

‘We’re not real Canadians yet’

Worried about losing his job, the 41-year-old applied for a visa to the U.S., but he is worried because he knows some people have been waiting for U.S. visas since 2019.

“We’re not real Canadians yet. Once you are flagged at the U.S. border, your name enters a list that when you are travelling to or from Canada and any other ally of the U.S., you will be flagged,” he said.

Maryam Ghasemi, a research assistant professor at the University of Waterloo, was supposed to begin a new research position at Augusta University in Georgia on Aug. 1. When Ghasemi went to the Rainbow Bridge border office in Niagara Falls, Ont., in May to apply for a TN Visa, she was denied.

Ghasemi said officers from Homeland Security searched through her family’s social media then escorted them to their car without giving any reasons.

“A CBP officer told me having a passport of the country doesn’t give me the nationality. She said my background is something else and that I’m not Canadian. That was really rude,” she said.

The family was given a letter of inadmissibility to the U.S. with no further explanation and was asked to consult the consulate in Toronto to get approved. An officer later told her it was because her husband had served in the IRGC.

“The university has decided to postpone my position until next semester. But if the visa process doesn’t work out, I will lose the position. The future is not clear to us.”

Canada offloading responsibility to the U.S.

Ghasemi, like many others, contacted members of Parliament and the Prime Minister’s Office, only to be told that it is not Canada’s responsibility.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) told CBC News in an email statement that though it is aware of instances of Iranian-Canadians being denied entry to the U.S. and other countries, there is not an internal mechanism for tracking them.

“The CBSA does not possess any power or authority to intervene in the immigration decisions made by other nations,” the statement said.

Global Affairs Canada shared a similar response.

“As a sovereign state, the U.S. retains the prerogative to determine the admissibility and the screening procedures for the entry of foreign nationals,” a spokesperson said.

But Iranian-Canadians like Abolhassani and Ghasemi say it is very much a Canadian problem.

“We feel we are second-class citizens. I thought Canada would support us, but we are not very important. This is shameful,” Ghasemi said.

“We want the government to stand up for us because they can solve it if they want to as they did with the Muslim ban. No one is taking action.”

CBC News reached out to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and CBP for a comment, but did not receive a response before publication.

4S on boarding pass

Iranian-Canadians with past conscription with IRGC often receive a “4S” designation, which stands for Secondary Security Screening Selection, on their boarding passes.

Javad Mokhtarzadeh, a business owner in Montreal, said that on a recent trip to Europe his family was screened upon arrival and when they returned to Canada, their boarding passes had 4S on them.

“Officers talk to us as if we aren’t Canadian citizens. You granted me citizenship [and] my daughter was born here. I told my five-year-old daughter, it’s part of the game when passing airports,”  Mokhtarzadeh said.

“It was so frustrating and infuriating they asked my little girl to raise hands for body inspection and remove her shoes. In my own country, I’m treated this way and asked whether I have something to hide.”

Calgary resident Kamran Farzamfar said the problem affects even Canadian-Iranians, those born in Canada but of Iranian descent.

Farzamfar’s family of four visited the U.S. multiple times before 2019, for both leisure and work. But when they went to the airport for their first vacation since the pandemic this past February, they were denied entry.

“I tried to ask the officer if they can let my sons go for holiday at least, but [they] refused us entry that day,” Farzamfar said.

A few days later, the family tried again to have their sons allowed in for the trip.

“My son, who was born here, was denied entry. This issue is not only affecting Iranian-Canadians but also Canadian-Iranians,” he said.

On another occasion, when coming back from Frankfurt, a friend accompanying Farzamfar was also given a 4S designation, as they were on the same booking reference.

‘Zero rights as a Canadian’

Toronto resident Samin Kalhor tried to drive into the U.S. with his girlfriend, who had newly obtained Canadian citizenship, her mother and two little dogs. They were planning on celebrating Thanksgiving with family.

All three were stopped at the Buffalo border.

“They took my phone, credit cards, searched the car thoroughly and even the dogs. For five hours, they collected biometrics, fingerprints, retina scans and copied all the data from my phone including social media,” he said.

“My girlfriend, who I’d known for two months, was also denied entry.”

The couple met the same fate when travelling to Mexico for the new year holiday.

Kalhor said he was interrogated for seven hours in Cancun, in a room with glass walls with other “bad guys.”

“All the passengers passing by could see me sitting there as if I did something wrong. They asked questions about my religion, sexuality, and everything you can imagine,” he said. “It was probably one of the worst days of my life. I’m a very self-confident person but it crushed me.”

Kalhor said he came to Canada to make a better life for himself, but feels stuck. He said the issue will affect more Iranian-Canadians as travel picks up.

“If I want to plan my honeymoon, where should I go? Wherever I’ll go, I’ll get flagged. This is forever,” Kalhor said.

“I have zero rights as a Canadian. If other countries put IRGC on their lists, we’re doomed.”

Source: Iranian-Canadians feel like ‘2nd-class citizens’ as many continue to be stopped while travelling to the U.S.