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 , ,

Todd: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

More on birth tourism, based on some of my analysis:

“Birth tourism” is on the rise again in Canada.

In the past year, 5,219 babies were born in Canada to travelling foreign nationals.

In B.C., 102 non-resident births were at Richmond General Hospital; 99 were at Surrey Memorial; 97 were at Vancouver’s St. Paul’s Hospital; and another 85 were at Children’s Hospital, according to Andrew Griffith, a former senior director in Canada’s immigration department who is now an immigration analyst.

At the same time that Griffith was releasing data showing non-resident births are returning to 2019 levels in an article published in Policy Options last month, entrepreneurs in Richmond said there has been an uptick in inquiries from women in China and other parts of East Asia who want to have their babies in Canada now that President Donald Trump aims to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.

The ethical debate over birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli (right of the soil), is coming to a head as Democratic U.S. states challenge Trump’s initiative and non-resident births rise again in Canada with the easing of COVID-19 restrictions.

Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows the percentage of non-resident births in Canada fell from 1.6 per cent of total births in 2019-20 to 0.7 per cent in 2020-22. It rebounded to 1.5 per cent in 2023-24.

A majority of countries forbid birthright citizenship, including virtually every country in Europe, Asia and Africa. It’s permitted in only about 33 nations.

Even though 160 years ago the U.S. enshrined the 14th Amendment to protect the constitutional rights of those born on its soil, particularly former slaves, Griffith said Canada’s laws on birthright citizenship could be more easily changed than in the U.S.

While most countries mandate that a child’s citizenship depends on the passport held by the parents, Canadian academics argue that birthright citizenship should be a “global human right.”

Today, one of the most common rebuttals to such a stand is that babies who receive citizenship only because they were born on Canadian territory are jumping the country’s immigration queue, which others must go through to qualify to become permanent residents and access universal education, health care and social services.

Two Canadian scholars who have obtained federal government grants to research birth tourism insist it must be protected in the name of “reproductive autonomy.” They say those who oppose it are “demonizing” and “criminalizing” non-resident pregnant people.

University of Carleton law professor Megan Gaucher believes critics of birthright citizenship are engaging in “settler-colonial” thinking that reflects “long-standing racist ideas.”

Ottawa’s Gaucher co-wrote an article on the subject with Lindsay Larios, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Manitoba who has obtained a federal grant to do collaborative research on birthright citizenship with B.C.’s Migrant Workers Centre.

Gaucher and Larios maintain attempts to portray birth tourists “as queue jumpers and citizenship fraudsters ignores the real-life obstacles they encounter within the health-care system and the Canadian immigration system.”

Larios argues that opponents who say offspring shouldn’t get citizenship because of their birth parent’s “precarious” immigration status are ignoring what she calls “reproductive justice.”

Opposition to the position set out by Gaucher and Larios has come from politicians, and medical and immigration professionals.

Rather than being disadvantaged, Griffith said, most women who engage in birth tourism come to North America with enough wealth to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for travel, accommodation (including in so-called “birth hotels”), and hospital deliveries.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada has said birth tourism needs further investigation. And Dr. Jon Barrett, head of obstetrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, has written that Canadian hospitals should have “absolutely zero tolerance” for it.

Doctors “should unite in a firm stand against birth tourism,” Barrett said, arguing it stresses Canada’s health-care system and puts pregnant foreign nationals at risk of being “fleeced by unethical individuals.”

An Angus Reid Institute poll found that in 2019, when Richmond Hospital was the epicentre of Canada’s birth tourism industry, that two-of-three Canadians believed “a child born to parents who are in this country on tourist visas should not be granted Canadian citizenship.”

Births to non-residents now make up 6.9 per cent of all deliveries at Richmond Hospital, which is down from 24 per cent before the pandemic. Despite this year’s jump in inquiries from people seeking to have babies in Canada because of Trump’s threat, Griffith believes the overall decline over the last few years at Richmond Hospital is owed largely to China restricting its citizens’ travel.

There is no data on whether international students in B.C. have given birth in hospitals here. International students in this province can join the Medical Services Plan by paying $75 a month. In Ontario, said Griffith, some non-resident mothers who have paid for hospital deliveries could be foreign students as that province doesn’t allow them to receive subsidized health care.

In light of a lack of government oversight of birth tourism, Griffith said there is need for more research, including like one study from Calgary. Four-of-five non-resident mothers who delivered babies in that city said their primary motivation was to give their newborn Canadian citizenship. The largest group, one-of-four, was from Nigeria.

Given the ethical issues at stake, Griffith suggests Canada, whose citizenship rules aren’t bound by a Constitution like in the U.S., take a responsible middle way in regard to birthright citizenship.

To reduce the chances of exploitation, he recommends Canada follow the lead of Australia, which allows a baby born on its soil to receive citizenship only if at least one of the child’s parents already has that status.

Source: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Krishnan | DEI was always flawed. It’s being replaced with something much worse

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

Valid comment:

…Personally, I would welcome a true meritocracy. I was raised mostly on a single income by immigrant parents who grew up extremely poor in Fiji. I went to an unknown college in Vancouver, and still made it to New York, won an Emmy, and currently hold an “extraordinary ability” work visa. I did all of that without the connections and wealth of many others at the top of the dying media industry. 

With the pushback against DEI, however, we’re not getting a meritocracy though, despite the rhetoric insisting we are. Rather it’s an obnoxious and defiant return to the old world order — with the added feature of obscene wealth. Something tells me when the powerful white billionaires now controlling the world run things into the ground they won’t be looking inward. DEI will be long gone, but their failures will still be everyone else’s fault.

Source: Opinion | DEI was always flawed. It’s being replaced with something much worse

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Kay: Explaining Canada’s Cult of ‘Decolonial Futurity’ to Americans

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

Does appear to be a waste of time compared to more practical training with respect to indigenous health and needs of Indigenous patients:

Last month, I received a tip from a nursing student at University of Alberta who’d been required to take a course called Indigenous Health in Canada. It’s a “worthwhile subject,” my correspondent (correctly) noted, “but it won’t surprise you to learn [that the course consists of] four months of self-flagellation led by a white woman. One of our assignments, worth 30 percent, is a land acknowledgement, and instructions include to ‘commit to concrete actions to disrupt settler colonialism’… This feels like a religious ritual to me.”

Canadian universities are now full of courses like this—which are supposed to teach students about Indigenous issues, but instead consist of little more than ideologically programmed call-and-response sessions. As I wrote on social media, this University of Alberta course offers a particularly appalling specimen of the genre, especially in regard to the instructor’s use of repetitive academic jargon, and the explicit blurring of boundaries between legitimate academic instruction and cultish struggle session.

Students are instructed, for instance, to “commit to concrete actions that disrupt the perpetuation of settler colonialism and articulate pathways that embrace decolonial futures,” and are asked to probe their consciences for actions that “perpetuate settler colonial futurity.” In the land-acknowledgement exercise, students pledge to engage in the act of “reclaiming history” through “nurturing…relationships within the living realities of Indigenous sovereignties.”

My source had no idea what any of this nonsense meant. It seems unlikely the professor knew either. And University of Alberta is not an outlier: For years now, whole legions of Canadian university students across the country have been required to robotically mumble similarly fatuous platitudes as a condition of graduation. It’s effectively become Canada’s national liturgy….

Source: Explaining Canada’s Cult of ‘Decolonial Futurity’ to Americans

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Ottawa boosts immigration officers’ ability to cancel visitor visas, travel permits 

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

Of note and overdue:

Canadian immigration officers have been given broader powers to cancel travel permits and visitor visas under new rules designed to bolster border security and clamp down on fraud.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has issued “strengthened” regulations, including the ability to revoke visitor visas if their holders destroy their passports. Officers can also rescind authorization to travel to Canada if they believe a visitor may not leave the country.

Airlines have been informed of the new rules, which could also mean some people will not be allowed to board flights, according to a notification of the new regulations in the federal government’s Canada Gazette.

“A small portion of travellers may be turned back at the airport or at a port of entry in the case of their document being cancelled prior to their entry to Canada,” the notification says.

The changes “enhance the integrity of Canada’s temporary residence programs and are expected to strengthen security at the border and within Canada,” according to an online posting from IRCC.

The regulations expand current powers to cancel immigration documents – for example, if someone has concealed a criminal history – and aligns Canada with practices in the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand….

Source: Ottawa boosts immigration officers’ ability to cancel visitor visas, travel permits

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

While definitions, preferably robust, are helpful, not sure the degree to which they “stem the tide of hate.” This definition, while generally helpful, sidesteps issues when religious or ethnic cultures conflict with what most would consider fundamental human rights:

…The criteria proposed by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia(CBMI) provide a valuable framework for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobic discourse. These criteria address key dimensions that help us assess the nature and intent behind the critique. These dimensions are organised into eight key areas:

  • Monolithic versus diverse: Legitimate criticism acknowledges the diversity of thought and practice within Islam, avoiding generalisations. Islamophobia, on the other hand, often portrays Islam as monolithic and static.
  • Other versus interdependent: Legitimate critique recognises that Islam is part of a complex, interconnected world; whereas Islamophobia often portrays Islam as separate, “other” and irreconcilable with Western societies.
  • Inferior versus different but equal: Legitimate criticism considers different cultures as equal and different. Islamophobia, on the other hand, positions Islam as inferior to other cultures and religions.
  • Aggressive enemy versus cooperative partner: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some elements of some Islamic traditions may be problematic while still recognising that Muslims as a community are generally peaceful. Islamophobia paints Islam and Muslims as fundamentally aggressive and hostile.
  • Manipulative versus sincere: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some people use any religious tradition for personal and political gains, but does not to assume that all adherents of those traditions are dishonest. Islamophobia assumes that all Muslims are manipulative or insincere in their beliefs and practices.
  • Rejection versus reciprocal exchange and critique: Legitimate criticism must be open to engaging with and debating Muslim criticisms of Western societies. Islamophobia often dismisses Muslim voices altogether.
  • Defending discrimination versus its opposition: Legitimate criticism would oppose all forms of discrimination — including those directed at Muslims. Islamophobia defends or ignores discriminatory behaviour against Muslims.
  • Rational criticism versus problematic anti-Muslim discourse: Legitimate criticism recognises that criticism of ideas is one thing, but anti-Muslim hate speech is a problem. Islamophobia, on the other hand, normalises and promotes anti-Muslim discourse.

These criteria are crucial in understanding what constitutes Islamophobia and what does not. For example, while criticising specific Islamic doctrines is valid, using such critiques to stereotype all Muslims as violent or fanatical crosses the line into Islamophobia. Similarly, while a discussion of the role of religion in politics is important, denying the basic human rights of Muslims is clearly Islamophobic.

The importance of clarity and cooperative action

The CBMI criteria offer an important framework that helps us differentiate between fair critique and prejudiced bigotry. Just as a clear definition of Islamophobia and criteria for legitimate criticism of Islam are crucial for combating prejudice against Muslims, a similar effort is required to establish a robust and well-understood definition of antisemitism — along with an understanding of what constitutes legitimate criticism of Judaism and of the State of Israel — in order to combat antisemitism effectively. I believe that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism(JDA) is one such definition.

Clear definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism — along with adherence to the CBMI criteria and JDA guidelines — are not just an abstract academic concern but a practical necessity. Without such robust definitions, it is difficult to identify and counter Islamophobic and antisemitic acts and rhetoric. When Islamophobia is not recognised, its consequences can be dire, as is evidenced by the tragic events in Christchurch.

Source: If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

May: Is the public service ready for a big Trump policy shift?

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

Well worth reading. The how is the hard part, given takes time and needs strong political support across two governments:

…Alex Benay supports the concept of Musk’s AI-first strategy but not the human costs of his tactics.  

“We should be striving for a zero-bureaucracy government in Canada by putting our national AI capabilities to the test in our public sectors first,” he said last week in a post he specified was a personal view, not an official position.  

Benay is a former CIO once dubbed Canada’s “disruptor-in-chief.”   

The government is quietly studying public-service productivity through a working group that will examine technology and AI. But that’s not enough, Lee argues.  

He thinks what’s needed is a “super-charged Glasco Commission” – the 1960s royal commission on government organization. A small, fast-moving blue-ribbon panel of public- and private-sector experts — including a disruptor — needs to draft a plan to overhaul the public service and be ready for the next government’s first mandate 

“People will be screaming bloody murder. But we’re in this crisis now, having to respond to Trump, the demands he’s making, as well as AI changing everything in government. Nothing can stop that train. They need money for border and defense spending, and there’s going to be a huge downsizing coming.” 

So far, none of the Liberal leadership contenders or Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has talked about a strategic review or public-service reforms to ready the federal workforce for a new world order.   

Poilievre has said he will cut the public service by attrition – not replacing those who retire, leave or quit – and through the “powerful mathematics of attrition, we will reduce the morbidly obese back-office bureaucracy.” 

But that math doesn’t work, says Wernick. The savings are too small. Productivity takes a hit. And managers have no control over selecting talent or ensuring the right people are in the right jobs. 

“You cannot solve your fiscal problem by cutting the public service. The arithmetic doesn’t work. So, where the politicians are not being honest with people is: we need more revenue,” he says. 

Governments, however, want to move fast. Strategic reviews take time.

“If you want a serious overhaul or renovation, you need two years, two budgets, and a lot of help to figure out what the federal government should look like by the end of your first mandate in 2029.”  

Source: Is the public service ready for a big Trump policy shift?

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , , ,

SUN EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada, Himmelfarb’s call to action

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

We did as it was and is a good non-partisan initiative. The Sun’s take on what it means to love Canada (agree with many of the points listed, without necessarily some of the jingoist and partisan language):

Joe Clark, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper issued a statement urging Canadians to show some love for our country on Flag Day.

It’s something we should all get behind.

Unless, of course, you’re one of those people who told us not to celebrate Canada Day in 2021 because this country should be ashamed of its “genocidal” past.

This country has a proud history of upholding democratic rights and freedoms. Have we got it wrong at times? Sure. The answer isn’t to wallow in grief, but to move on with determination to do better.

Don’t wave the flag if you persist in calling people “settlers” or “colonialists.” For centuries, immigrants have come to this country from around the world seeking refuge from oppression, poverty, discrimination and war. Once they’re Canadians, that’s all they are. Calling them settlers is insulting and divisive. We’re all Canadians. Full stop.

Don’t wave the flag if you demand this country change the names of our schools and institutions to erase the history of those who built this country. Ironically, those who mock President Donald Trump for changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America think it’s just fine to arbitrarily rename our public infrastructure. They have a sketchy knowledge of history and use a flawed process.

Don’t wave the flag if you have wrecked a statue. You cannot simultaneously destroy the leaders and educators who built this land and pretend you’re honouring it.

If you’ve been on the streets of our cities for the last 18 months waving a Palestinian flag in support of Hamas, don’t now wave the Canadian one. Hamas is a culture of hatred, antisemitism and bigotry. Those aren’t Canadian values.

And don’t wave the flag if you have referred to this country as a “post-national state with no core identity.” We’re looking at you, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Over your nine years in office, you’ve turned this country into a place where those who wave the Canadian flag are arrested.

You may call it Turtle Island. We’ll call it Canada. It’s our home and native land. And, yes, we’re immensely proud to wave its flag.

Source: EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada

On the left, Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk, has a call for action:

This flag day is different. The threats of economic coercion from Trump and his gang of oligarchs are meant to intimidate and divide Canadians and subjugate Canada to the will of the US regime. Instead they have ignited a surge of patriotism rarely seen in Canada. 

Inevitably some voices argue for appeasement or at least negotiation but as Churchill once said, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” And someone else once said, I’m not sure who, “an appeaser is simply trying to convince the crocodile to eat them last.” In any case most Canadians seem to understand that this is a time to stand up for Canada and fight for our sovereign right to shape our own destiny, to say no to bullying, to stare down the threats even as we understand the risks. To cite one more wise soul, Bob Marley, “We never know how strong we are until being strong is our only choice.”

We can also draw some lessons on how to build the Canada we want as we witness the unraveling of democracy in the US and the assault on democracies everywhere, indeed the assault on the idea of democracy. We can see the dangers of a plutocracy in which a few individuals and corporations accumulate so much wealth and power that they can shape and pollute public discourse, use public institutions for their own purposes, influence world affairs, including war, and accumulate yet more wealth and power. We can see how paralyzing it is when our tools for self-governing, taxes, regulations, the state itself are demeaned and undermined. We can see the dangers to civilization and the planet when private interests trump the need to preserve the commons. We can see the horrible human costs of using hate and division to advance a political agenda. We can see the importance of robust inclusive democracy and strong countervailing institutions – unions, civil society organizations, social movements, the courts, a free press – to keep government in check. We can see the importance of international cooperation for climate action, for human rights, for peace and security.

Equality, inclusion, sustainability, solidarity – that’s what’s needed not simply to defend democracy we but to build the democracy we need, in our politics, in our workplaces, in our everyday lives. This is a time for building public power, for collective enterprise, for revitalizing industrial policy, for developing new forms of public ownership, for environmental stewardship and resolute action on the climate crisis, for strengthening the care economy, for building the social, cultural and economic infrastructure for a more resilient Canada, for taking the lead in a new internationalism. Over 65000 Canadians have so far signed the Canada pledge calling on our leaders – federal, provincial, indigenous, municipal – to work together to fight the threats and fight for the Canada we need.  Add your voice. Happy Canada Flag Day. 

Source: https://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/2025/02/15/this-flag-day-is-different/

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →