Johnson: Ye and the Limits of Free Speech Online

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Good and balanced:

…When social media first became mainstream, many dismissed it as a playground for personal photos and status updates. Today, it’s a communication hub where politicians campaign, businesses market and journalists break news. Without professional moderation, it’s too easy for toxicity to flourish, for people with intent to harm to take advantage and for foreign bots to hijack the national conversation. Even deleted content lingers, retweeted and screenshot, fueling bigotry that can embolden others. Community Notes might eventually offer context, but context isn’t always enough to quell the harm done.

As users, we, too, must be vigilant. We should report content that crosses the line, scrutinize sources before sharing dubious claims and support policies that uphold the free exchange of ideas without enabling abuse. But, just as we expect a city to have traffic lights, fire departments and emergency services, we should expect and demand that online environments are similarly protected.

Companies must invest in professionals who understand cultural context, language nuances and how threats evolve online. They should leverage emerging advanced A.I. systems that can examine text, images and other forms of communication, and also the context in which they are shared, to more accurately and consistently identify dangerous content and behavior. They should invest in getting this right, rather than scaling down moderation to cut costs or acquiesce to a particular political movement. And regulators or independent oversight bodies need the power and expertise to ensure these platforms live up to their responsibilities.

This isn’t about nostalgic longing for the old days of moderation; it’s about learning from failures and building a system that’s transparent, adaptive and fair. Whether we like it or not, social media is the public square of the 21st century. If we allow it to devolve into a battlefield of unchecked vitriol and deception, first the most vulnerable among us will pay the price, and then we all will.

Free speech is essential for a healthy democracy. But social media platforms don’t merely host speech — they also make decisions about what speech to broadcast and how widely. Content moderation, as flawed as it has been, offers a framework for preventing the loudest or most hateful from overshadowing everyone else.

Fay M. Johnson, a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, has run product teams at Meta’s Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor focusing on trust and safety.

Source: Ye and the Limits of Free Speech Online

Filed under Multiculturalism, Social Media Tagged with , , ,

Sarwal: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Similar commentary could apply to Canada:

In response to Nick Cater’s recent Sky News op-ed on the Bankstown Hospital anti-Semitic outbursts, I feel compelled to address a common misconception about Australia’s multicultural experiment. While Cater rightfully condemns the vile actions of the nurses involved, his assertion that the entire Australian multicultural model is failing misses a crucial point.

Cater’s article highlights the deeply disturbing incident in which two nurses were caught on video making anti-Semitic remarks. It is, without question, a chilling example of hate and prejudice that has no place in any society, least of all in a country like Australia that prides itself on tolerance and diversity. However, Cater’s conclusion that this event signals the failure of Australia’s multiculturalism oversimplifies a far more complex issue.

While these nurses’ actions were reprehensible, the underlying issue is not the multicultural model itself, but rather the harmful ideologies that certain migrant groups may bring with them. Cater himself notes that “the demoralising conclusion from this incident is that hatred of Israelis is unremarkable in Bankstown and in the suburbs where Nadir and Abu Lebdeh live.” This, however, is not indicative of the failure of Australian multiculturalism as a whole. Instead, it exposes the reality that there are pockets of isolation where radical and extremist views take hold. These communities, driven by political, social, or religious ideologies, often fail to fully engage with mainstream Australian values. This does not mean that multiculturalism is inherently flawed—it simply highlights that certain groups may resist assimilation or integration into the broader social and cultural fabric of the nation.

Cater’s article points to the existence of “Ethnoburgs”—areas where ethnic communities live in relative isolation from the rest of society and, as he suggests, may be more susceptible to radical ideas. These communities may struggle with the integration process for various reasons, whether due to language barriers, limited economic opportunities, or entrenched cultural beliefs. It is important to recognise that such challenges are not exclusive to any one ethnic or religious group. Every migrant community faces its own struggles in adjusting to life in a new country. However, the focus should not solely be on these challenges but also on the solutions that encourage better integration and shared understanding.

The key issue at hand is not multiculturalism itself but the failure of some individuals or groups to embrace the fundamental values of Australian society—values that prioritise equality, respect, and non-violence. As Cater rightly points out, “Australian citizenship is not just a flag of convenience. It is an obligation to put our shared identity as Australians first.” The challenge is ensuring that all migrants, regardless of background, understand that the key to a successful Australian society lies in mutual respect, coexistence, and commitment to the shared ideals that unite us as citizens.

It’s crucial to remember that multiculturalism has been an overall success in Australia. The vast majority of migrants who arrive here do so with a genuine desire to build better lives for themselves and their families while embracing the core values of this nation.

Multiculturalism in Australia thrives because the majority of migrants and their descendants understand that diversity does not mean division but the enrichment of society. We should not allow the actions of a few individuals or communities who have failed to adapt to sour our perception of the broader multicultural project.

Moreover, it’s important to acknowledge that not all migrant groups face the same struggles. As Cater mentions, “Pakistani migrants are not at war with Indians, and Serbian and Croatians no longer fight proxy wars in the grandstands at soccer games.” Similarly, it is wrong to generalise or scapegoat entire communities based on the actions of a few. Just as past waves of migrants—such as the Irish and Italians—integrated into Australian society and contributed to the country’s cultural fabric, so too will those from more recent migrant communities, provided we offer them the right support and opportunities.

In fact, Indian-Australians are one of the fastest-growing and most vibrant communities in Australia, contributing significantly to the country’s cultural, economic, and social landscape. They are among the highest taxpayers in Australia, particularly within the skilled migration sectors, as many in the community work in high-paying professions such as healthcare, information technology, engineering, and finance. Despite occasional challenges such as racial discrimination, Indian-Australians continue to thrive, making significant contributions to Australian society.

That said, when extreme ideologies take root within any community, the responsibility falls on both the government and society to address them head-on. This means confronting hate speech, educating about Australian values, and ensuring that radical ideologies are not allowed to fester unchecked. The incident at Bankstown should serve as a wake-up call not to abandon multiculturalism, but to double down on our efforts to create a more inclusive society where extremism has no place.

Australia’s multicultural identity has always been about more than just tolerance; it’s about actively embracing diversity and promoting inclusion. But for that to work, all members of our society must be willing to accept the underlying principles that make Australia the fair and just country it is. These principles demand mutual respect, a commitment to social harmony, and the understanding that, while our differences make us unique, we all share the responsibility to uphold the values that unite us.

The real threat to multiculturalism lies not in the model itself, but in the failure of some individuals and groups to integrate into it. It is not the diversity of cultures that threatens our social fabric, but the intolerance and extremism that, when left unchecked, undermine the very foundation of the Australian way of life.

Ultimately, the way forward is not to abandon the ideals of multiculturalism but to ensure that those who come to our shores are willing to adopt and uphold the values that make Australia the inclusive, tolerant, and prosperous society that it is. It’s time to confront these challenges directly, rather than dismissing the entire multicultural experiment based on the actions of a few.

Amit Sarwal is Melbourne-based academic, writer, translator, and former radio broadcaster. He is the Founding Convenor of Australia-India Interdisciplinary Research Network (AIIRN), Co-founder of the Australia Today news network and Founder of Kula Press.

Source: Australian multiculturalism isn’t failing; radical ideologies threaten our shared values

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Interesting study (similar studies could be conducted for other groups):

…Ultimately, the group’s best efforts identified about 380 Black Canadians who have run for or been elected to office, largely from the past two decades. Of those, 75 people ran federally, with former Progressive Conservative MP Lincoln Alexander’s 1968 election in Hamilton West, Ont., being the earliest such entry. But as the report highlights, Black Canadians have been involved in politics for more than 150 years, going back to Wilson Ruffin Abbott’s participation in local Toronto politics in the late 1840s and 1850s, and abolitionist and civil rights activist Abraham Doras Shadd’s election to Raleigh,Ont.’s town council in 1859.


“Part of the reason for focusing on compiling these lists and acknowledging who has run for office, and who has served is to help in that process of excavating that history and providing an archive of those contributions and those achievements to rewrite that historical record and to rewrite the narrative that Black Canadians haven’t had a long-standing and durable presence in Canadian politics,” said Tolley.
Still, Tolley stressed that the lists are not complete, and highlighted theironline call for people to submit information about individuals who may have been missed.


“That’s a really important part of the project because a lot of times in the country’s political history, Black Canadians really just don’t appear in those historical records,” she said.


Thirty-three Black Canadians who have run for or served in public office were interviewed for the project. On top of that, a survey was sent to 212 individuals across Canada, garnering 95 responses.


Survey respondents were split almost evenly by gender—with 52 per cent identifying as women,and 48 per cent as men—and 60 per cent had run for office within the past year. Of those surveyed, 45 per cent had been elected to office at some point.


The survey found a majority of respondents had run at the local level—for school boards, local or regional councils, or for mayor—while 19 per cent had run provincially, and 21 per cent federally. Local levels of government were also where a majority of respondents made their first run for office, with only 17 percent starting at the federal level.


Of the roughly 380 past candidates identified through research, a majority similarly ran or were elected at the local level, with 46 per cent of that poolhaving run for school boards or municipally, while 20 per cent ran federally.


Tolley said she suspects there’s an “element of accessibility” at play as local races don’t require the same “fundraising capacity and volunteer base that you might need to have at the federal and provincial level[s]”—two key hurdles highlighted through the survey. Tolley also noted that 52 percent of respondents cited a desire to address a policy problem as a factor that influenced them to run for office, and policy problems “might be … more evident” at the municipal level…

Source: New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

Filed under Multiculturalism, Peel, Politics Tagged with ,

Khan: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause 

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Unlikely to become an election issue, provincially or federally, but good points:

…Constitutional clauses that grant considerable powers can become destabilizing over time. Down south, the rule of law is being threatened by the rule of the presidential pardon. Here, we are morphing into the “True North, Strong and Free – Notwithstanding.”

We can reverse the trend through sustained public engagement. We must demand that our elected officials refrain from using the notwithstanding clause – and if they do use it, to not to do so pre-emptively. We must ensure that laws with the potential to harm basic freedoms are fully challenged in court in the light of day so that the public is fully aware.

We can also make it an election issue. As premier, Mr. Ford has threatened to use or has used the clause four times: in 2018, to reduce the size of Toronto’s municipal council; in 2021, to restrict third-party spending before an election; in 2022, to prevent education workers from negotiating or striking; and in 2024, to clear homeless encampments. If he truly cares about fairness for all Ontarians, make him pledge not to use this threat again. Other provincial and federal leaders should also be challenged on their views on the clause.

During this period of intense patriotism, let’s define who we are: a generous, centrist people who believe in fairness. Especially when it comes to our basic freedoms.

Source: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Akbar: Canadian immigrants are overqualified and underemployed — reforms must address this

2025/02/20 Leave a comment

Well, labour economists would disagree regarding competitiveness given the current mix of temporary workers and students but interesting that CERC academics recognize the value of AI without automatically expressing concerns of algorithmic biases. Kahneman argues convincingly that such systems ensure greater consistency, albeit with the risk of coding of biases:

…Canada’s long-term competitiveness is hindered not by immigration, but by systemic labour market discrimination and inefficiencies that prevent skilled newcomers from fully contributing to the economy. 

Eliminating biases related to Canadian work experience and soft skills is key to ensuring newcomers can find fair work. The lack of recognition of foreign talent has a detrimental effect on the Canadian economy by under-utilizing valuable human capital.

To build a more inclusive labour market, a credential recognition system should support employers in assessing transferable skills and experience to mitigate perceived hiring risks related to immigrants. 

For international students, enhanced career services at educational institutions are critical. Strengthening partnerships between universities, colleges and employers can expand internships, co-op placements and mentorship programs, providing students with relevant Canadian work experience before graduation. 

Such collaboration is also key to implementing employer education initiatives that address misconceptions about hiring international graduates and highlight their contributions to the workforce. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can also play a role in reducing hiring biases and improving job matching for new immigrants and international graduates. Our recent report, which gathered insight from civil society, the private sector and academia, highlights the following AI-driven solutions:

  • Tools like Toronto Metropolitan University’s AI resume builder, Mogul AI, and Knockri can help match skills to roles, neutralize hiring bias and promote equity.
  • Wage subsidies and AI tools can encourage equitable hiring, while AI-powered programs can help human resources recognize and reduce biases.
  • Tools like the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council Mentoring Partnership, can connect newcomers with mentors, track their skills and match them to employer needs.

Harnessing AI-driven solutions, alongside policy reforms and stronger employer engagement, can help break down hiring barriers so Canada can fully benefit from the skills and expertise of its immigrant workforce.

Source: Canadian immigrants are overqualified and underemployed — reforms must address this

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Of interest. Not quite Gillead but alarming nevertheless:

Amanda Tyler didn’t need President Donald Trump to tell her that Christian nationalism was on the rise. She had seen it reshape churches, rewrite textbooks and realign politics.

But when Trump took the podium last month for his second inaugural address, claiming divine intervention in the assassination attempt — “I was saved by God to make America great again” — she saw something even more unsettling.

The standing ovation.

It wasn’t just applause for a president. It was a moment of ecclesiastical fervor, a collective confirmation that America had not just an elected leader, but an anointed one.

Tyler, a lifelong Baptist and executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, was unsettled but unsurprised. She is leading a growing movement within Christianity that is resisting Christian nationalism — not from the outside, but from inside the church itself. “We’re disgusted to see our faith being used to justify discriminatory policies of all kinds,” Tyler said in an hour-long phone conversation.

A fight from within

Christian nationalism — the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed accordingly — has always been woven into the country’s DNA. But in recent years, it has moved from the margins to the mainstream, carried by Trump’s presidency and a base that sees his political survival as divinely ordained.

For decades, opposition to Christian nationalism came mostly from secular organizations, civil rights groups and religious minorities. Now, Christians themselves are leading the charge.

Across denominations — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even conservative evangelicals — a coalition of faith leaders is pushing back against a movement they believe is not just a political threat, but a theological one. They argue that Christian nationalism doesn’t just corrupt democracy — it corrupts Christianity.

Tyler’s campaign, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, has drawn over 40,000 signatories, many from churches that once considered themselves apolitical. Her position, she believes, carries unique weight. “Our Jewish and Muslim colleagues tell us, ‘You can speak with more authority on how Christian nationalism is not reflective of Christianity.’”

For Tyler, 47, the fight is also personal. She is married to a Jewish man, and together they are raising their son in an interfaith household. “I feel a different sense of vulnerability for them than I do for myself,” she said.

That vulnerability has been heightened by the growing push to codify Christian nationalist ideas into law. She has seen firsthand how Christian privilege manifests in ways that marginalize others. “It’s a form of othering,” she said, pointing to the fact that public schools close for Christian holidays but not for Jewish or Muslim ones.

Texas as a test case

The push to codify Christian nationalism into law is accelerating. Texas, where Tyler lives and fights these battles daily, has become a proving ground.

In 2021, the state passed a law requiring public schools to display donated “In God We Trust” posters. Two years later, lawmakers approved unlicensed religious chaplains to counsel students.

Now, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants to mandate the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a proposal modeled after a Louisiana law that has already been blocked in federal court. In Oklahoma, parents are suing the state superintendent — the son of a Christian minister — for ordering schools to teach the Bible.

Last fall, Tyler joined Jewish community leaders to challenge the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to infuse Bible lessons into subjects as varied as math and poetry with their Bluebonnet curriculum. The board approved Bluebonnet by a single vote.

Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has seen these battles escalate. “If the public school can play religious favorites,” he said, “then my tradition might benefit this week and be demonized next week.”

Chancey, a United Methodist who also works with Christians Against Christian Nationalism, added: “Christians differ theologically among themselves. The schools might not teach the Bible stories the way that parents would like.”

From the pulpit to the White House

The movement is no longer just shaping school curriculums — it is influencing federal priorities.

A 2023 poll found that 52% of Americans who attend religious services weekly either identify as Christian nationalists or sympathize with the movement; a separate survey the year before showed 45% think the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Now, with Trump’s return to power, those numbers aren’t just statistics — they are a governing blueprint.

The ideological framework for much of this agenda is detailed in Project 2025, a conservative guidebook that overlaps significantly with Christian nationalist priorities. It calls for aggressive immigration crackdowns, the rollback of LGBTQ+ rights, bans on abortion and pornography. These policies are designed to enshrine biblical principles and a particular moral order into law.

Several high-profile lawmakers have openly embraced Christian nationalism. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene wear the label proudly. House Speaker Mike Johnson promotes many of its tenets. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, sports tattoos inspired by the Christian Crusades — the medieval wars against Muslims.

Jesus as ‘political mascot’

The belief that America was divinely chosen has deep roots. Political leaders in the early 1800s mythologized the Founding Fathers as quasi-prophetic figures, with George Washington often recast as a Moses-like prophet. During the Cold War, as the United States sought to distinguish itself from the “godless” Soviet Union, Congress added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and declared “In God We Trust” the national motto.

But this moment feels different for Tyler. She believes Christian nationalism now poses an existential threat to American democracy itself. She argues that it undermines pluralism and twists religion into a tool of power. “It’s a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus,” she said. “Jesus was all about love — loving our neighbors, loving everyone without regard to difference. Christian nationalism takes Jesus and turns him into a political mascot.”

Despite being the dominant religious group in the country — 68% of Americans who identify with a religion are Christian, as have been all 45 U.S. presidents — Christian nationalists insist they are under attack as an embattled minority.

“It isn’t logically consistent,” Tyler said, exasperated. “One can’t both be a majority faith in the country and also be a persecuted minority.”

A test for religious freedom

Now, that belief in persecution is shaping federal policy. This month, Trump announced a new federal task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias,” led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Critics say the initiative is more about advancing Christian nationalism than protecting religious freedom.

“If Trump really cared about religious liberty,” said Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “he’d be addressing antisemitism in his inner circle, anti-Muslim bigotry, and hate crimes against religious minorities.”

Tyler, meanwhile, sees the political contradictions. “I’m concerned about how this task force could be weaponized to enforce a particular religious viewpoint by the government,” she said. She finds it hypocritical that this initiative is happening at the same time the administration is dismantling DEI offices, under the guise of eliminating bias.

A test of church and state separation

For many, opposing Christian nationalism is not just a political stance — it is a theological necessity. Tyler knows that many American Christians see no contradiction between their faith and politics. That’s why she tries to meet them with empathy.

“It’s important to resist and reject Christian nationalism as an ideology,” she said, “without demonizing individuals who hold to some of its principles.”

She sees her new book, How to End Christian Nationalism, as both an extension of her faith and a call to action. The founders, she argues, got it right. “The best arrangement, the arrangement that they chose, was to disestablish religion,” she said. “To be sure that the government would not take sides when it comes to picking between religions, or even picking religion over no religion.”

As Trump embarks on his second term, Tyler believes the next four years will test the strength of the separation of church and state. “I think all Americans, regardless of religious belief, should defend free speech and freedom of religion in these moments,” she said. “But also religious leaders and communities really need to have the courage to continue to speak from their traditions, including when it’s unpopular or challenging of power.”

Source: Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

Filed under Religion Tagged with , , , ,

HESA: How We Choose to Respond to Crises

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Some good questions where universities and academics should make a contribution regarding current and future challenges, some driven by Trump, some long-term. Surprising no immigration questions (e.g., how to manage population demographics without relying solely on immigration, how do we come up with a balanced immigration policy that incorporates pressures on housing, healthcare and infrastructure):

…The first and most important way that could happen? By putting the collective brainpower of Canadian academia to work on very specific problems that our governments—with their brutally short-term focus—cannot hope to answer quickly. Imagine if all Canadian universities got together right now and said: we are putting our best minds together for the next 12 weeks (which is about how long it will take for an election to occur, assuming the Liberals lose a confidence vote in late March) and we’re going to answer the following questions about the future of Canada.

  • What does a post-NATO foreign policy look like. Who are our allies now?
  • What does an independent defense policy look like now? What can we learn from, say, Finland’s posture with the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s? Is universal national service an option?
  • How can Canada improve the status of its domestic knowledge-based industries? How do we make “smart” pay?
  • What would it take for Canadian businesses to genuinely pivot to new markets? What are the barriers and how can they be overcome?
  • More generally, how do we once again generate economic growth?
  • How can we best balance the protection of our democracy with the maintenance of norms of free speech?

It’s obvious the country needs answers to all of these hard questions. It’s equally obvious that the country’s universities are collectively the largest source of expertise to answer them. So let’s do it, now. Get a couple of hundred of the best minds in the country, relieve them of whatever other duties they have for the next few weeks and put together a lightning Royal Commission the likes of which we’ve never seen. It would be tough to organize, but who knows? It might remind people that universities are worth funding (Lord knows nothing else seems to be working on that score).
 

  •  But I think universities will also need to go further. They will also need to look critically at whether what universities currently do is aligned with the new priorities. So maybe a second group of top minds could answer questions such as:
  • What would be the impact on national productivity if we re-shaped the bachelor’s degree to be default three years instead of four?
  • Would we be more growth-oriented if we had more bachelor’s graduates, or fewer? What about graduate degrees?
  • How would postsecondary education change if we introduced a form of national service?
  • What role could business faculties play in promoting trade diversity? Would requiring students to take more foreign language courses help?
  • How might more specialist outfits like Citizen Lab contribute to Canadian domestic and foreign policy?

I suspect many will recoil from even posing such questions. Sacred cows, etc. But we have to. We can either, as a sector, act to protect and improve the state we have, or we can leave it easier prey to the bullies, liars, and thieves that are currently assaulting democracies around the globe. Those are the choices.

Canada made difficult choices and took bold action thirty years ago. I am certain we can do it again. But the country—and the higher education sector—first has to take the threat seriously. Will we?

Source: How We Choose to Respond to Crises

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec [laïcité in education]

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Legitimate concerns regarding Bedford and the influence of more fundamentalist Muslim educators:

L’école Bedford nous a offert un concentré des dangers qui guettent l’école québécoise : déni de laïcité, refus de l’égalité hommes-femmes, gouvernance scolaire anémiée, mépris des besoins particuliers de certains élèves et incompétence pédagogique. Ce quintette délétère est au cœur du plan d’action rendu public vendredi. Les experts Jean-Pierre Aubin et Malika Habel invitent le gouvernement Legault à faire de Bedford l’aiguillon d’une réforme qui dépasse les frontières de cette école prise en otage par un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine principalement maghrébine.

Leur ambition est justifiée. Un si grand mal ne saurait s’accommoder d’une réponse simpliste. Même s’il constitue un cas atypique tant par sa gravité que par son intensité, Bedford n’est pas un cas unique, comme en témoignent la poignée d’enquêtes ouvertes dans la foulée de la mise au jour du scandale, et alors que 11 de ses professeurs sont toujours en examen, avec plein salaire. Cela en fait au contraire le laboratoire idéal pour tester les limites des leviers prévus à la Loi sur l’instruction publique (LIP).

Si on arrive à Bedford à faire en sorte de clarifier une fois pour toutes la différence « entre discipline et violence », entre « bienveillance et laxisme », entre « difficultés d’apprentissage et paresse intellectuelle », comme le prescrivent les deux experts, c’est qu’on sera en mesure de faire de même partout au Québec. Qui s’élèverait contre cet objectif à l’heure où l’école connaît une telle crise de confiance ?

L’accent a été largement mis sur la proposition de soumettre l’ensemble des enseignants québécois à une évaluation de leurs compétences tous les deux ans. À raison, c’est l’épine dorsale de ce plan, qui cherche à rétablir les équilibres délicats entre la nécessaire préservation de l’autonomie professionnelle de l’enseignant et l’indispensable assurance de sa responsabilisation.

De telles évaluations sont courantes dans la plupart des milieux de travail. Pour les parents comme pour les élèves, cette mesure fait miroiter la promesse d’un programme enfin suivi à la lettre et d’un climat en classe conforme aux attentes. Pour les enseignants eux-mêmes, elle ouvre la porte à une uniformisation des pratiques professionnelles, ce qui évitera, par effet de domino, qu’une majorité ait à souffrir les guerres de chapelle que des groupes minoritaires voudraient leur imposer, comme ce fut le cas à Bedford.

Bien accueillie par le ministre de l’Éducation comme par le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, la mesure, et plus largement le plan d’action qui l’encourage, a suscité quelques réticences, notamment de la part de la Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), qui s’élève contre l’imposition généralisée de solutions forgées sur mesure pour Bedford. À ses yeux, les leviers législatifs existants sont suffisants pour superviser et évaluer adéquatement le travail des enseignants. Si cela n’a pas été fait à Bedford — et si ce n’est pas toujours fait ailleurs, comprend-on entre les lignes —, c’est « faute de temps et de ressources », argue la CSQ.

Il est vrai que la pénurie de personnel et les compressions dans les services aux élèves mettent en péril la qualité éducative du réseau. Le ministre de l’Éducation aurait tort de s’imaginer qu’il peut effacer ces facteurs fragilisants de l’équation. Mais ce que conclut le rapport d’enquête comme le plan d’action, c’est qu’il est aussi trop facile pour les directions d’écoles de passer outre aux leviers législatifs actuels, que ce soit par manque de temps, faute de conviction ou même sous la pression d’un corporatisme malavisé.

C’est pourquoi vouloir mettre les écoles à l’abri de dérives comme celles qui ont permis l’instauration d’un climat de peur et d’intimidation à Bedford passe par un dépoussiérage législatif, défendent les deux experts. Ceux-ci prescrivent notamment l’ajout d’une clarification des concepts de culture et de religion dans la loi. Partisans d’une ligne franche, ils recommandent d’y inscrire noir sur blanc que l’école doit être préservée de toute manifestation du fait religieux, pendant et après les classes. Ils suggèrent aussi d’évaluer la possibilité d’y intégrer l’obligation de parler français dans tous les espaces susceptibles d’être fréquentés par les élèves.

Ce faisant, le duo fait preuve d’une bonne dose de courage en affirmant sans détour ce que plusieurs, y compris des intervenants en éducation, se refusent à reconnaître. À savoir que les leviers prévus dans la LIP ne suffisent plus, dans le contexte explosif de 2025, à offrir aux élèves un milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire à l’abri de toute forme d’intimidation ou de violence.

Ce plan, qui s’accompagne d’un projet pilote pour en tester les grandes lignes, compte, en plus de ses impératifs législatifs costauds, des appétits financiers qui risquent de poser de grands défis au ministre. Bernard Drainville jongle déjà avec la « discipline » prescrite par le ministre des Finances pour affronter un contexte budgétaire jugé difficile, sinon sombre. Il ne faudrait pas que cette ligne dure ait le dessus sur un dépoussiérage dont on ne devrait pas faire l’économie pour les élèves du Québec.

Source: Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

This new Canadian immigration program [caregivers] is being heavily promoted by recruiters. Here’s why that’s causing concern

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

As always, recruiters see a business opportunity, taking advantage of desperate migrants:

It’s bound to be one of the most appealing immigration programs for earning permanent residence in Canada.

The requirements, released to date, appear simple:

  • Basic English skills at Canadian Language Benchmark Level 4 to understand instructions and have a conversation;
  • The equivalent of a Canadian high school diploma;
  • Recent and relevant work experience; and
  • A full-time home care job offer.

However, while the home care worker immigration program, which the government promised would “improve support” for migrant caregivers, is still awaiting details, recruiters are stepping up to take on applicants to fill the spots, with some promising to connect them with employers.

Advocates fear that predatory agents are going to take advantage of migrants desperate for permanent residence, and the money could be all for naught when the rules are unclear and misinformation abounds….

Source: This new Canadian immigration program is being heavily promoted by recruiters. Here’s why that’s causing concern

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Chrystia Freeland’s housing plan ties immigration to supply, cuts development charges

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Remarkable and somewhat comical, depressing and revealing, walking back from previous government positions where she was Deputy PM. I don’t disagree with the changed policy thrust, just wonder why it took so long….:

Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland’s plan to fix the housing shortage would tie the number of newcomers Canada admits to housing availability.

The former finance minister made the promise in a 10-point policy document her campaign issued Monday morning. Freeland said the move would slow down population growth until housing affordability stabilizes.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been promising for some time now to tie immigration numbers to housing starts.

Under the federal government’s current immigration plan, the number of permanent residents being admitted is set to decline annually until it reaches 365,000 in 2027. The previous goal was to admit upwards of 500,000 permanent residents annually from 2024 to 2026.

The link between immigration and housing starts isn’t the only thing the Freeland and Poilievre plans have in common….

Source: Chrystia Freeland’s housing plan ties immigration to supply, cuts development charges

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →