Radicalization, the Loss of Canadian Innocence and the Need for Perspective

2014/10/23 Leave a comment

With the two killings this week of Canadian soldiers, one by Martin Couture-Rouleau’s running over soldiers in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the other by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and his the attack on the War Memorial and Parliament Hill.

Surreal morning for me as I was downtown for meetings, about 8 blocks away from the Hill, learning about the shootings from TV monitors, along with others glued to TV monitors following developments. Felt very much, albeit on a much smaller scale, when I was in LA during the 911 attacks.

Some common points in recent commentary.

A note of caution on over-reacting and the need to maintain balance between freedom, access, and security. John Ivison: In response to Quebec terror attack we must remember a healthy balance between security and freedom, a point echoed by Andrew Coyne in Andrew Coyne: We can’t stop every little terror attack, so let’s brace ourselves and adapt where he recommends, not “a panicky search for false assurances, nor even defiance, but a collective insouciance.” Martin Regg Cohn praises the Ontario political leaders for keeping to the normal Parliamentary schedule in The democratic show must go on: Cohn.

While there was universal praise, and deservedly so, for Parliament’s Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Vickers, both for his quick and efficient handling of the attack as well as his philosophy of keeping Parliament a public space, Michael Den Tandt savages the overall handling of the attack in Michael Den Tandt: Ottawa shooting shows Canadian capital’s utter lack of readiness, and how information was not communicated. Haroon Siddiqui makes similar, but less well argued points, in Killings of two soldiers raise troubling questions: Siddiqui.

Margaret Wente takes the opposite tack, in an almost boosterish tone, contrary to much of the reporting, argues that Canadians will not change and that the attack was handled calmly and without hysteria in  Terrorists don’t have a chance in this country. Joe Warmington of The Toronto Sun takes the opposite tack in Canada will never be the same, as does Ian MacLeod in The Ottawa Citizen, in Analysis: Effects on Ottawa will be lasting and far-reaching (with video).

Also in the Post, which generally has some of the strongest reporting in this area, Tom Blackwell, their health reporter, reports on the “lone wolf” phenomenon and some of the factors that may result in some being open to radicalization in ‘Rhetoric and bluster’: Was attack on soldiers really terrorism, or just the violent act of a disturbed man? The Globe has a good profile on Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the War Memorial and Parliament Hill in Suspected killer in Ottawa shootings had a disturbing side, that reinforces some of these points.

From La Presse, a report on the local mosque in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and what appears to be a very conservative Imam in terms of social teachings but no indication that he preached violence, or whether Couture-Rouleau went to the mosque regularly (seems he was most active on social media) in Un imam controversé à Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

Listening to the RCMP outline what they did and what they could do, particularly in the case of Couture-Rouleau (as of writing not as fulsome an account for Zehaf-Bibeau) hard to see that any of the Government’s recent or planned initiatives would have made a difference. The RCMP monitored him, spoke to friends and families who shared their well-founded worries, confiscated his passport but as the RCMP officer at the press conference said, “We couldn’t arrest someone for having radical thoughts, it’s not a crime in Canada.”

Couture-Rouleau, like Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, were both born in Canada. Couture-Rouleau was not a dual-national and would not be subject, had he lived, for citizenship revocation. It is unclear whether Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, given his father was Libyan in origin, would be entitled to Libyan citizenship and thus theoretically subject to revocation.

And while tragedies for the families and friends of the soldiers killed, and (another) reminder that we have extremists among us, both reassuring and worrying that both of these appear to be “lone wolf” attacks rather than groups and more “sophisticated” plans and conspiracies that could result in significantly more casualities.

I tend to be between Wente and Warmington: no, not everything has changed but neither has everything remained the same. Our political leaders, of all stripes, as well as the media and others, will play a role in ensuring, or not, that we retain perspective and balance.

 

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Coyne: Conservatives’ incoherence really shows with Charter of Rights discontent

2014/07/18 Leave a comment

Good column by Coyne on the Courts, the Conservatives and recent cases:

“Judges don’t always get it right,” colleague Ivison observes. No, they don’t — neither do politicians, if you’ve noticed. But governments have lots of options in the face of an inclement ruling. They can redraft the law, for starters: It’s usually possible to preserve its purpose while removing the offending provisions. Beyond that? Amend the constitution. Appoint better judges. Make the case for a more restrained theory of jurisprudence. Change how the law is taught. Conservatives used to pride themselves on taking the long view of things.

Meantime, if Conservative MPs are so concerned about the powers of Parliament being usurped, I suggest they look closer to home. As defenders of Parliament, they’d be a lot more convincing had they not spent the past many years meekly surrendering one ancient Parliamentary prerogative after another, not to the courts, but to a far more voracious usurper: the executive.

Or if it’s the courts they’re worried about, there’s a simple way to remove them from the equation: Stop passing laws that are so clearly and flagrantly in violation of the Constitution see, for example, the prostitution bill. Insist, as the political scientist Emmett Macfarlane has suggested, that ministers screen bills for charter compatibility before introducing them in the House. Better yet, have committees of Parliament do the same.

As things stand, MPs seem content to abdicate this responsibility to the courts, so they can pick fights with them later. “Why elect people and pay them to do something the courts are doing,” Miller grumbles. Why, indeed.

Coyne: Conservatives’ incoherence really shows with Charter of Rights discontent.

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Stephen Harper’s Canada Day speech the latest volley in Ottawa’s pointless history wars – Coyne

2014/07/04 Leave a comment

Andrew Coyne on the history wars.

The Crown, likewise, is not some useless foreign ornament, as successive Liberal governments often seemed to imply: It is the very foundation of our constitutional order, as essential to our way of life as Parliament, the common law, and the rest of the British inheritance, and as quintessentially Canadian. To remain attached to these institutional underpinnings, to remind ourselves of their advantages, is not to retreat into the past. It is merely to decline to be cut off from it.

So, fine: thus far, the Tories could be said to be righting the balance. But true to the chips on their shoulders, they could not leave it at that. It was not enough to celebrate and affirm Conservative national icons: It was necessary to diminish and downplay Liberal ones. The 30th anniversary of patriation and the Charter of Rights, for example, came and went without any official celebration or even acknowledgment.

And so the history wars continue, pointlessly. Surely it is possible to honour both versions of our past, both sides of our selves, in a country so accustomed to duality — aboriginal and European, French and English, immigrant and native-born — in other respects. Surely we are both a constitutional monarchy and a rights-bearing democracy. Surely our history is distinguished both by war-making and by peacekeeping. Surely our national character is a result both of individual and collective enterprise.

When working on Discover Canada, we tried to make the same point in our “fearless advice” but the direction was more changing the narrative, as in so many other initiatives, than merely righting the balance.

Andrew Coyne: Stephen Harper’s Canada Day speech the latest volley in pointless history wars

Filed under Citizenship, Discover Canada Tagged with ,

Andrew Coyne: Free speech withers when we abandon judgment, proportion, open-mindedness and tolerance

2014/04/23 Leave a comment

Andrew Coyne’s more balanced take on recent free speech controversies:

People arbitrarily declaring issues “settled” about which there remains room for doubt, or at least for honest error, or trying to open issues that really are settled. How should we tell the difference? There are rules of thumb — whether it involves modelling highly complex phenomena decades into the future, like global warming, or whether, like evolution, it involves explanations of the existing order that have been tested and refined over 150 years. But mostly it is a matter of judgment.

Judgment, proportion, humility, open-mindedness, tolerance for human frailty: these are the soil in which free speech flourishes. Where we abandon them, it withers.

Andrew Coyne: Free speech withers when we abandon judgment, proportion, open-mindedness and tolerance | National Post.

Filed under Other, Public Policy Tagged with ,

Quebec Election – Initial Reactions

2014/04/08 Leave a comment

Quite an evening last night, watching the QC election results. Apart from the famous Peladeau raised fist for independence miscalculation, this election hopefully marks the end of divisive identity politics as exemplified in the QC Charter of Values. The gambit clearly did not work in combination with the referendum uncertainty and even Premier Marois’ overall gracious concession speech still played to les Québécois de souche, rather than the more inclusive messages of Couillard and Legault.

Clearly, the PQ needs a period of serious internal reflection and introspection. The leading candidates to replace former Premier Marois will need to get over their Kubler-Ross denial phase quickly (Drainville, Lisée and Peladeau were awful last night preaching to the shrunken PQ base) and it will be interesting to see the how the relative positions of the PQ and the CAQ evolved over the next few years.

I would not go so far as Andrew Coyne or Chantal Hébert as saying the PQ’s raison d’être of independence is completely dead, but it certainly would appear to be on life support.

From Le Devoir, a few articles on the magnitude of the PQ defeat:

À son premier test électoral, le chef libéral a fait des gains dans presque toutes les régions du Québec. Il a peint en rouge toute la ville de Laval et a arraché deux circonscriptions au PQ sur l’île de Montréal, en plus de remporter des sièges dans le Centre-du-Québec et dans la région de Québec, notamment. Le Dr Gaétan Barrette, candidat vedette parachuté contre l’indépendante Fatima Houda-Pepin, a facilement remporté la circonscription de La Pinière, sur la Rive-Sud.

Philippe Couillard met le PQ K.-O.

Avant même que ne commence le dévoilement des votes dans les circonscriptions, plusieurs membres du personnel péquiste concédaient la victoire au Parti libéral. Un consensus se dégageait : la campagne menée par Pauline Marois avait été désastreuse et on se promettait un bilan aussi exhaustif que sévère. Une majorité d’entre eux espéraient à tout le moins une défaite honorable, mais jamais les stratèges, appuyés par des sondages quotidiens faits selon les règles de l’art, n’avaient prévu pareille dégelée.

Catastrophe au Parti québécois

More commentary on the significance of the elections will come in the next few days but for some of the initial commentary:

Au Parti québécois, cette défaite provoquera de douloureux questionnements. La formation fondée par René Lévesque devra remettre en question le virage identitaire pris au cours des dernières années, virage qui, pour des raisons strictement partisanes, a fait un tort considérable au Québec.

Encore plus difficile sera la réflexion sur la raison d’être du PQ, l’indépendance. Quel que soit l’aboutissement de cette introspection, les résultats d’hier devraient inciter les péquistes à abandonner la stratégie de l’équivoque au profit de celle de la clarté.

Les Québécois ont dit NON (André Pratte, La Presse)

And finally, who leads this decimated party? Because the knives are already out. Drainville, Lisée and Péladeau prefixed Marois’s farewell speech with what amounted to stump speeches. This pack of restless egos all come with their own baggage: Péladeau is a capitalist boogeyman who derailed the whole campaign by declaring his sovereignist credentials. Drainville designed and executed the whole charter gambit, then thoroughly bellyflopped. Lisée went along with both, because he thought Péladeau and the charter was the one-two punch that, to paraphrase the title of his own book, would deliver a K.O. to the opposition.

Macleans. (Martin Patriquin)

It is impossible to overstate what a watershed this is. For thirty years after the Quiet Revolution, Quebecers were told the choice before them was either special status, under whatever name, or separation. At times the two were so blurred in definition that each could be made out to be the other. But what was clear was that they weren’t the status quo. They were better, in all sorts of fantastic ways….

But in the years since then, and in particular since the Secession Reference and the Clarity Act, it has slowly been dawning on Quebecers: neither of these choices is actually available. The choice is the status quo or the status quo. The rest of Canada is simply unwilling to make any more constitutional concessions, and wouldn’t be able to deliver them if it did, so tied up in knots has the constitutional amending formula become. Ditto separation: even if the rest of Canada tried to be helpful, the negotiations would go nowhere.

And as that realization has begun to sunk in, another, equally startling, has begun to take hold: The status quo is not so bad. We are not oppressed. We are not impoverished. We are not miserable. As Mr. Couillard said during the campaign, “we are happy in Canada.” What a revelation!

Quebecers have not only just said no to separation, but yes to the 1982 Constitution (Andrew Coyne)

Over the past month, that self-imposed tone-deafness has led to a campaign of false notes, from the second-coming atmosphere that attended the recruitment of media mogul Pierre Karl Péladeau as a star candidate, to Marois’s end-of-campaign mea culpa that she spent too much time entertaining the twin notions of sovereignty and a winning referendum.

One of the PQ’s worst fears has long been that it would turn out to be the party of a single generation.

Over their short time in office, Marois and her team have done much to turn that fear into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It has long been apparent that the so-called secularism charter that has been the signature initiative of the outgoing government repelled more young Quebecers than it attracted to the secessionist cause.

For the first time in its history, the PQ is more popular among older voters aged 55 and over than among any other age group.

Parti Québécois could be party of a single generation:  Chantal Hébert

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Andrew Coyne: Marois’ PQ joins ranks of those who would use notwithstanding clause to block minority rights

2014/04/02 Leave a comment

Cat out of the bag, as the PQ admits that the proposed Charter would require use of the notwithstanding clause in order to survive legal challenge:

How very Canadian: notwithstanding if necessary but not necessarily notwithstanding. Still, Ms. Marois has clarified matters, even if inadvertently. Not only do her remarks suggest the PQ knew all along that the bill it was proposing, the centrepiece of its platform, was unconstitutional, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it had no intention of amending it to bring it into conformity. Either it planned to deliberately blow it up, as in La Presse’s version [Le choc, la charge, la charte | Vincent Marissal], or it would invoke the constitutional override, a possibility it had never conceded until now.

Andrew Coyne: Marois’ PQ joins ranks of those who would use notwithstanding clause to block minority rights | National Post.

Chantal Hébert in L’Actualité:

1- Il n’a jamais fait de doute que la Charte serait contestée devant les tribunaux. Sa compatibilité avec les libertés fondamentales a toujours été matière à débat, et pas seulement à l’extérieur des rangs gouvernementaux. Autrement, le gouvernement aurait produit les avis juridiques que ses propres avocats lui ont certainement préparés au moment de son élaboration.

2- Un gouvernement curieux de savoir comment son projet cohabitait avec les libertés fondamentales aurait pris les devants et l’aurait soumis à la Cour d’appel du Québec pour avoir son avis.

3- Ce ne sont pas de lointains Canadiens qui vont contester la Charte, mais plutôt des citoyens ou, même, des groupes ou des organismes québécois. La Ville de Montréal et la plupart des universités, de même qu’un nombre conséquent d’associations professionnelles et même syndicales, s’opposent fermement à son application.

4- La clause dite nonobstant est renouvelable aux cinq ans sur un vote majoritaire de l’Assemblée nationale. S’il fallait y avoir recours pour appliquer une Charte de la laïcité, attendez-vous à refaire le débat.

Chantal Hébert : La Charte, les chartes et la clause nonobstant

Federal government reaction has been appropriately cautious on this point during the campaign, although all three parties were very strong when the Charter was announced:

Utilisation de la clause dérogatoire par le PQ: les députés fédéraux prudents OTTAWA

 

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

York U Accommodation: Quebec and Other Commentary

2014/01/13 Leave a comment

More on the York University accommodation case.

No surprise, but Minister Drainville tries to portray Quebec as ahead of the curve, and that similar debates over approaches will occur in English Canada. He misses the point: debate over what is reasonable will always occur, the question is whether, and how far, one can codify this or handle issues on a case-by-case basis, subject to laws, regulations, and values. Ontario rejected sharia (and other faith-based) religious tribunals and funding for faith-based schools. While the risk of ad hoc case-by-case approaches is that sometimes administrators will get it wrong (as did York), government charters will likely get it more wrong, impacting more people, as the QC charter indicates.

Religious rights controversy will spread across Canada, PQ minister warns – The Globe and Mail.

Drainville also has an interview stating that the Charter is an indispensable tool to against fundamentalism. But why such a broad approach if it is really the small percentage of fundamentalists in all religions?

Charte de la laïcité: «Indispensable» contre l’intégrisme

Andrew Coyne reminds us that judgement, not trying to codify everything, is a better approach. Professor Grayson exercised good judgement, York U administration did not, particularly given that part of their mission statement includes:

A community of faculty, students, staff, alumni and volunteers committed to academic freedom, social justice, accessible education, and collegial self-governance, York University makes innovation its tradition.

York accommodation and Quebec values charter aren’t opposites, in fact they are the same

The Globe editorial, while raising some valid points (the sky is not falling over this request) and ends up on the correct note, nevertheless views this as a complex case, in addition to slamming Justice Minister MacKay for his jingoistic – but correct – response:

What has been overlooked to some degree is the fact that, when the student was initially turned down, he accepted the decision and agreed to attend the online course’s group session. York officials were right to reconsider the student’s request after the professor’s refusal. Their decision to accommodate him, on the grounds that the course is online, is not something we support, but it’s not inherently objectionable – especially because the school implied it would not have made the same decision if the request had come from a student taking a regular, in-class course. This is a hard case, on which reasonable people can and do disagree. What cannot be in dispute is this: York’s decision is not a slippery slope leading to segregated classrooms.

Reasonable accommodation at York is not a slippery slope 

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

Charter of Values Round-Up

2013/10/05 Leave a comment

And then there were three – three former premiers joined in their critique of the proposed Charter (and Landry has changed from his initial support), in addition to former Prime Minister Chrétien, and another federal minister, Christian Paradis, unlike Denis Lebel, reinforces the government’s line against the Charter:

Bernard Landry joins Bouchard, Parizeau in charter critique – Montreal – CBC News.

Jean Chrétien weighs in on Charter of Quebec Values

La charte est un message hostile aux immigrants, selon Paradis

Mixed signals from the PQ government on how they will, if they will, respond to this strong political signal to back down, starting with Premier Marois who signals an opening but her Minister, Bernard Drainville, does not:

Charte des valeurs: Marois attentive à l’appel de Bouchard et Parizeau

Drainville garde le cap sur la Charte en dépit des dissensions

Some commentary advising the PQ government to follow the advice of the former premiers and go for the Bouchard-Tayor model of laïcité ouverte, and other commentary arguing for a broader debate, situated outside political and electoral considerations:

La voie de la raison

Charte des valeurs québécoises – Alors, que fait-on?

La Charte de l’inconfort collectif

And a piece by Stéphane Dion, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and Leader, on the difference between showing political allegiance and religious faith for public servants:

Signes politiques, signes religieux : une dangereuse analogie

A reminder from a former professor of Egyptian origin, Nadia Alexan, who has experience with fundamentalists, that our openness creates space for fundamentalists. One of the risks in an open, democratic society, but one that applies to all religions, not just Islam. Singling out one religion without acknowledging integration-related issues for the fundamentalist strains of all religions, and recognizing the balance between religious and other freedoms, is not tenable:

Arrêtons de dorloter l’intégrisme

And lastly, while I think Andrew Coyne goes too far in his portrayal of the internal contradictions of the PQ (and the Bloc), he does have a point of the challenge for a society like Quebec to define what “nous” means without it being reduced to Québécois de pure laine, or ethnicity.

There were significant efforts to enlarge the definition of “nous” to include the “cultural communities” and interculturalisme, the Quebec subtle variant of multiculturalism, does have an inclusive element:

There is a basic, unresolvable incompatibility between a pluralist, open, civic nationalism and a nationalism devoted to the interests of a particular ethnocultural group. No amount of careful obsequies can paper this over. Once you have freed yourself from the obligation, incumbent on governments in every other liberal state, to govern on behalf of all your citizens equally — once you have decided, frankly and unashamedly, to speak of and for “nous” — you have made your choice. If the province’s ethnic minorities have failed to respond to the PQ’s entreaties, that may explain why. If, after all, it were really about an inclusive nationalism, with equality for all, if that were the society you were trying to create, what need would there be to separate?

Péquistes, then, can be divided into two groups. Those who have persuaded themselves there is no contradiction, that they can be both inclusive and exclusive at the same time. And those who have shed the illusion.

Don’t be fooled, the Parti Québécois has never been inclusive

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Charte des valeurs québécoises – Round-up

2013/09/14 Leave a comment

Starting with some political analysis on how this is playing out on the national and provincial stage. Some good insights on the leadership styles – strengths and weakness – of both federal leaders in Quebec. My own take is that while both ended up in the same place, first mover advantage Trudeau.

On PQ charter, Trudeau and Mulcair take different paths to condemnation – The Globe and Mail.

John Ibbitson of The Globe notes the political challenges and calculations for the government, and why they have hewed to a more cautious approach while being clear on their fundamental opposition:

Can Tories put the heat on Quebec over its secular charter without getting burned?

Andrew Coyne argues that the PQ may have over-reached, and may have as much support in the end as it counted on. And bang on implications and implementation:

But not to worry, the minister responsible, Bernard Drainville, assures us: “It will be done humanely.” But of course. They will not be told to get out in a cruel way, but with care, compassion, or what the minister calls “good old common sense.” It will simply be made clear to these people, as kindly as the occasion permits, that, notwithstanding their years of blameless service, their continued employment is incompatible with Quebec’s common values — that their insistence on wearing the yarmulke or the turban, in accordance with the deepest teachings of their faith, has become a source of “tension” and “division,” and that for that reason they will have to find other work.

Far from certain Quebecers will side with PQ on values charter

Tabatha Southey does a funny yet serious take on the approach, citing her mother, following hair loss due to chemo, reached out to the Muslim Canadian community for help in wearing a scarf elegantly.

The Quebec charter: Maman, qu’est-ce qu’un turban?

 And Maria Mourani, former Bloc MP, who left the party and questions her faith in sovereignty given the divisiveness of the Charte and the implications for her vision of an open, inclusive and independent Quebec. Her action, and criticism of other indépendentistes like her of the Charte, may help Quebec get past the identity politics. One can aim for rural Quebec; one can’t ignore Montréal.

Mourani remet en question sa foi en la souveraineté

And a good summary in The Globe about Quebec’s francophone press reaction, largely negative:

What Quebec’s francophone media thinks of the secular charter 

Lastly, some general opinion pieces. Starting with Conrad Black reminding us of the role the Catholic Church played for most of Quebec’s history in preserving Quebec’s francophone culture and society (he glosses over the less savoury aspects):

Spurning Quebec’s proud Catholic roots

And a couple of opinion pieces (Brian Lee Crowley, André Schutten) that blur the lines between what people wear and performing their job. It is one thing to express one’s faith; it is another thing to expect that one’s duties on the job should accommodate those beliefs.

As public servants, we have an obligation to serve all citizens, and provide the required services of the government. We cannot pick and choose; we can likely however find alternative work within government without such matter of conscience issues. And if we can’t, we should work elsewhere.

Quebec charter wrong in execution, not principle

Who is calling the kettle black over Quebec values?

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Tolerating intolerance in Quebec- Round-up of Articles

2013/08/29 Leave a comment

Ongoing commentary on the proposed Charte des valeurs québécoises, starting with an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen criticizing the federal government for its relative silence:

Tolerating intolerance in Quebec.

Andrew Coyne, also in the Citizen, notes the ugly side of identity-based policies, and how that is a ‘hazard of nationalism’, and that it is not unique to Quebec given other examples (e.g., Canadian nationalism’s efforts to contrast everything with America, whether Obama was ‘black’ enough, difference feminism).

Coyne on Quebec: When minorities impose their will on other minorities

And some signs of weakness from the main opposition party in Quebec, the Liberals, in softening their earlier strong position opposed to the proposed Charte:

Signes religieux: la position du PLQ «évolue»

And a more positive opinion piece on the universality of humanity rather than the focus on difference, but overly so in not acknowledging that people have different ways, including faith, that bring them to the universal. Not one size fits all.

La réplique › Charte des valeurs québécoises – Le pare-brise est toujours plus grand que le rétroviseur

Filed under Charte des valeurs québécoise, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →