Anti-hate initiatives have not been able to stop the surge in crimes

My latest:

Police-reported hate crimes keep rising in Canada, no matter which party is governing, and no matter what initiatives have been used to combat the problem. Hate crimes rose 39 per cent between 2008-15, when the Conservatives were in government. But they soared by 239 per cent between 2016-23 with the Liberals in power.  

The true numbers are higher yet, no doubt. Black and Muslim Canadians can be more reluctant than other groups to report hate crimes. We know there is under-reporting. But the rise also reflects a lessening reluctance among others to report such incidents. The latest numbers are some of the most reliable data available. 

The rise comes in an era of high-profile hate crimes including the 2017 Quebec City mosque killings, a spike in incidents against synagogues and Jewish institutionsanti-Asian sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic and the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020 in Minneapolis.  

The sharp rise has also come despite increased funding for multiculturalism and anti-racism programs under the federal Liberals. The apparent lack of impact of the initiatives does not bode well for their continuation in the years to come.   

Anti-Asian sentiment and the pandemic  

East or Southeast Asians report the greatest increase, as table 1 shows. What is striking is the rise in incidents relative to their share of the population, likely a reflection of the impact and discourse around the pandemic, which sparked anti-Asian sentiment.  

https://e.infogram.com/9eb8007d-6f46-439a-acef-9606167a2a1c?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Faugust-2024%2Fhate-crime-policies%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The increase in incidents reported by Black Canadians might reflect a greater willingness to report such crimes after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. An increase in reporting among Indigenous Peoples could reflect the aftermath of the 2012 Idle No More protests. These increases might also reflect a backlash against some of these activist movements. And the corrosive language used by Donald Trump has also increased prejudiceamong his supporters and contributed to increasingly divisive politics in the U.S. with some spillover effects in Canadian discourse.  

The number of reported incidents increased sharply in 2023 for both Jews and Muslims, reflecting the Israel-Hamas conflict and the related protests in Canada (table 2). The large number of antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel demonstrations is reflected in the higher rate per 100,000 among Jews, although the overall increase has been greater for Muslims. 

https://e.infogram.com/32874b76-8a91-4d84-bbd7-d2d6cf17b662?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Faugust-2024%2Fhate-crime-policies%2F&src=embed#async_embed

Anti-racism initiatives 

In the years between 2008-15, the Conservative government hollowed out the federal multiculturalism program after transferring it to then-Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  

Over the ensuing years (2016-23), the Liberals reversed the move, returning the program to Canadian Heritage. They also doubled funding to $36 million, brought in Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019-22 and created a Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat.  

Through all this, reported hate crimes have surged. 

Limited outcomes were revealed in the evaluation of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, 2017-18 to 2021-22. Weak reporting of results and a lack of performance data were also highlighted.  

The extent to which Canadian Heritage has implemented these recommendations is unclear. Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2024-2028 includes recommendations to improve performance reporting in response to these weaknesses. 

Effective outcome and results reporting is particularly challenging for programs like multiculturalism and anti-racism.  

Societal and group relations are complex. Combatting hate crimes involves the reinforcement of social norms against hate and discrimination. Political, business and civil-society leaders play more of a role than government programs. 

The highlighted weaknesses of the federal programs will make it easy for the Conservatives to reverse or severely cut funding if the party is elected next year, a likely outcome. 

Significant or effective pushback is unlikely apart from advocacy organizations that receive government funding. 

Methodological note: Data was taken from the annual police-reported hate crimes reports by Statistics Canada. For the per-capita rates, the year prior to the census was used, e.g., 2010 for the 2011 National Household Survey, and 2020 for the 2021 census (religious affiliation is only counted in the census every 10 years). 

Source: Anti-hate initiatives have not been able to stop the surge in crimes

Ford gov’s anti-racism plan doubles down on funding for DEI, left-wing groups

Ford government being accused of being too progressive by right-wing media:

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has published a new anti-racism strategic plan that doubles down on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives and funding for left-wing organizations.

The plan, published on the Government of Ontario’s website on Aug. 24, commits millions of dollars towards anti-racist initiatives and highlights several recent anti-racist policies implemented by Ford’s PCs.

“Too many individuals are denied opportunities or face discrimination because of the colour of their skin, their cultural identity or their beliefs,” says Ontario’s minister of citizenship and multiculturalism Michael Ford.

The Ford government believes anti-black racism “is deeply entrenched in Canadian institutions, policies and practices,” such that it is “either functionally normalized or rendered invisible to the larger white society.” 

It hopes the new plan will help “break down barriers and address systemic challenges to ensure every Ontarian — from every corner of the province, urban and rural — can participate, contribute and succeed.”

True North has compiled noteworthy initiatives highlighted in the plan. 

The government is doubling down on DEI training, saying it “heard from community members that there is a need for students, teachers, staff and school boards to learn more about anti-racism and the diversity of culture in Canada.” It is currently “working with community partners to enhance and provide culturally relevant and responsive supports, services and resources to students and educators to combat racism, hate and discrimination.”

Ford’s PCs are spending $1 million on, among other things, anti-racist lesson plans and classroom materials while also investing $3 million over 2 years in “anti-hate initiatives that include development of classroom resources to promote diversity.”

The Ford government plans to work in collaboration with several organizations on anti-hate training, including trans rights group Egale Canada.

Among other things, the government funded group opposes parental rights policies and is pushing for restrictions on protests against drag shows for children. As previously reported by True North, Eagle also made headlines for a campaign calling on the CRTC to ban Fox News and for pushing for Christian blue jays player Anthony Bass to be cancelled over a video he made discussing the biblical foundation for boycotting companies that promote gender ideology to children.

Other organizations listed as partners on anti-hate training include the Muslim Association of Canada, African Canadian Coalition against Hate, Oppression and Racism, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, FrancoQueer, L’Association Canadienne pour la Promotion des Héritages Africains and the Indigenous Trustees’ Council Chair.

The Ford government is also giving an additional $303,500 to Parents of Black Children – a race-focused organization supportive of Critical Race Theory that opposes the presence of police in schools. As previously reported by True North, the group previously received over one million dollars in government funding, including from Ford’s PCs.

The organization was previously chaired by the founder of controversial DEI consultancy KOJO Institute, Kike Ojo Thompson. A lawsuit against the TDSB alleges late principal Richard Bilkszto was bullied, shamed, humiliated, and accused of upholding white supremacy at an “anti-racism” session by the KOJO Institute after he challenged a claim that Ojo-Thompson made. 

Bilkszto died of suicide two years later, with his family claiming he was dealing with plaguing stress stemming from the incident. 

The allegations have not been proven in court and Ojo-Thompson has denied them.

Parents of Black Children have been strongly defending Ojo-Thompson and her organization amidst blowback, saying she’s being used as a scapegoat by the right wing

Ontario’s anti-racist plan also highlights a “strengthening (of) standards and anti-racist education for teachers” through the creation of anti-black racism qualifications and anti-black racism professional advisories for teachers. Ford’s PCs have also made DEI training a mandatory PA day activity for teachers.

The province also amended Regulation 437/97 on Professional Misconduct to recognize “hateful remarks and behaviour” as misconduct and modified teacher hiring practices to ensure teacher hiring is dictated by merit, diversity and unique needs.

Other initiatives listed in the Ford government’s anti-racism plan include changes made to trades programs to “increase the representation of Indigenous People and Black and other racialized individuals” by among other things, giving employers “additional milestone payments” for sponsoring apprentices from under-represented groups.

It is also giving $3 million to community organizations that offer sport and recreation programming – placing emphasis “on the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.”

DEI ideology has been criticized by many as woke, racist and counter productive.  Several U.S. states, including Florida, have moved to ban both DEI ideology and CRT. Some had hoped Ontario would follow suit following the death of Bilkszto. 

While Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce has ordered a review of the circumstances surrounding Bilkszto’s suicide and a review of school trainings, his office told CP24 that DEI training in Ontario schools would continue, calling it “important work.” 

The Ford PCs opting to abet wokism rather than fight it, especially in the education system, has been criticized by many – including members of Ontario’s black community. 

In a 2021 National Post op-ed, author Jamil Jivani, who was appointed as Ontario’s first community opportunities advocate and is now a federal Conservative candidate, accused Lecce of being “a woke liberal in conservative clothing who has turned his back on parents.”

Jivani resigned from the position last year, criticizing the Ford government’s policies.

True North reached out to Minister Ford’s office for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Source: Ford gov’s anti-racism plan doubles down on funding for DEI, left-wing groups

B.C. creates anti-racism data committee, releases research priorities

Reasonable research priorities:

The British Columbia government has released 12 priorities for anti-racism research in its first update since the Anti-Racism Data Act came into effect last June.

The province says the focus will be in areas such as racial diversity within the public service, interactions with the justice system and how health care and education differs for various demographic groups.

The act allows for the safe collection and use of personal information for the purposes of identifying and eliminating systemic racism, and requires the province to release statistics annually while establishing research priorities every two years.

Attorney General Niki Sharma says the priorities for 2023 to 2025 were identified by people of various racialized groups and will provide “a road map for how government can meaningfully improve services” for them.

The province has also released its first-year progress report outlining the work done under the act, including the creation of an 11-person anti-racism data committee appointed last September.

Mable Elmore, the parliamentary secretary for anti-racism initiatives, says the province will also develop “broader anti-racism legislation,” which is expected to be introduced next year.

“The work we’re doing not only outlines a path forward, but it illustrates our commitment to transparency and collaboration every step of the way as we work together to eliminate systemic racism,” she told a news conference Monday.

“The next step is to move us beyond identifying barriers and to hold governments accountable.”

June Francis, chair of the anti-racism data committee, said she welcomes updated legislation, but hopes the government begins taking action on anti-racism initiatives now.

“I think that there is no reason for all … governments to not take action. These 12 areas will model, will work hard, will focus, but all governments should be paying attention and starting their own process of anti-racism and decolonization,” she said.

“There’s no reason to pause. I hope this will model the change, and that this change will trigger and ripple across all of government.”

Research priorities identified by the anti-racism data committee include:

1. Racial diversity within the B.C. Public Service;

2. Interactions with the justice system and analysis of complaints model;

3. Health outcomes and understanding of how the system is performing for different demographic groups;

4. Understanding how students across demographic groups access and use education supports and their outcomes;

5. Children, youth and family wellness at home and away from home;

6. Economic inclusion;

7. Homelessness, housing supply and security.

Research priorities identified by Indigenous Peoples:

1. Health outcomes for Indigenous Peoples to understand experiences from an intersectional and holistic perspective;

2. Education outcomes for First Nations, Métis and Inuit students from kindergarten to Grade 12 to understand experiences, including their access to and use of available supports;

3. Social determinants of safety from a holistic lens and fill related data gaps;

4. Commitment to advance the collection and use of disaggregated demographic data;

5. Conduct research in a way that acknowledges, respects and upholds the rights of Indigenous groups.

Source: B.C. creates anti-racism data committee, releases research priorities

Black Class Action Secretariat expressing sharp disapproval of new Canadian Heritage hire for multiculturalism, anti-racism

Suspect this is driven as much by the need to keep the organization and its issues in the public spotlight as substantive concerns. Not a political appointee unlike Amira Elghawaby, the special representative on combatting Islamophobia:

An organization working to eliminate systemic discrimination in Canada’s public service is concerned about a new hire for the Department of Canadian Heritage’s acting director general of multiculturalism and anti-racism.

Melanie Mohammed, a former leadership member at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), took on the job at Canadian Heritage in April.

The Black Class Action Secretariat (BCAS) is expressing sharp disapproval of the decision to appoint Mohammed to the role, as the CHRC was recently found to have discriminated against its Black and racialized employees.

Mohammed’s hiring came less than a month after Treasury Board made a ruling that the CHRC, the mandate of which is to deal with complaints of discrimination, had itself breached the “no discrimination” clause of a collective agreement between the Treasury Board and the Association of Justice Counsel, the bargaining agent for approximately 2,600 lawyers employed by the government.

BCAS executive director Nicholas Marcus Thompson said last month that the appointment of Mohammed, who was the CHRC’s chief of staff, is “disturbing” and “reckless” as it sends a message to Canadians that there is no accountability or consequence for discrimination.

“If the government has moved an employee from an organization that was deemed to be discriminatory to now an even bigger organization to address anti-racism, it’s not only hypocritical, but it’s a farce,” Thompson said. “There’s zero credibility in this type of leadership.”

The role of the director general of multiculturalism and anti-racism is not only to provide funding to organizations led by Black and racialized people but to address racism and hate through federal multiculturalism and anti-racism strategies, including Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat.

“Employees report being harassed and facing retaliation from Ms. Mohammed after speaking up,” a statement from BCAS stated. “Therefore, it is completely unacceptable for the Government of Canada to appoint this individual as Director General of anti-racism for the entire government.”

This newspaper reached out to Mohammed, who declined to comment on the matter via her lawyer.

Dominique Collin, a spokesperson for Canadian Heritage, said in an email statement last month that the department was taking BCAS’ statement “very seriously” and was looking into the organization’s concerns.

“We remain committed to improving the experiences of Black public servants, but while progress is being made, we know there is still more to do to make our workplaces inclusive and equitable for all equity-seeking employees,” Collin said.

Canadian Heritage confirmed Monday that Mohammed remains in the position.

Thompson added last month that he’d like to see the prime minister take ownership of the issue, and re-affirmed his concern about the lack of accountability within the government in an address to the Senate last week regarding anti-Black racism, sexism and systemic discrimination in the CHRC.

“We have this vicious cycle within the federal public service where there’s no accountability, wrongdoers are often either transferred when it comes to discrimination or promoted,” Thompson told the Senate.

In its statement, BCAS called on the government to rescind Mohammed’s appointment and issue an apology. The group also urged the feds to appoint someone with no connection to CHRC’s leadership and who has demonstrated “an understanding of systemic anti-Black racism.”

BCAS said the appointment also speaks to the “urgent need” to transfer the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat to the Privy Council Office in order for it to have independence and power to implement its mandate.

The organization also called for Mohammed’s appointment to the Federal Executive Leadership Development Program to be revoked and said it would like to see the government mandate that senior Canadian Heritage executives undergo anti-Black racism training and meet with Black employees and address their concerns within the department.

“This appointment is completely counter to the government’s promise and commitment to create a diverse and inclusive workspace that is free from discrimination and harassment,” Thompson said.

Source: Black Class Action Secretariat expressing sharp disapproval of new Canadian Heritage hire for multiculturalism, anti-racism

Bouchard: La lutte contre la discrimination II – Pour une politique québécoise

Always worth reading. Of course, équilibre, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. And interculturalism, like multiculturalism, also has variants ranging from status quo to the more woke and activist:

Il presse pour la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) de mettre en oeuvre une politique énergique de lutte contre la discrimination, une politique alignée sur les grands objectifs à atteindre et qui s’inspire des principes en vigueur, mais les traduit et les applique à notre façon. On devrait viser une approche originale qui s’accorde avec notre tempérament, nos traditions, notre culture, tout en nous affranchissant de la dépendance fédérale et de son moralisme intolérant.

Notre histoire offre plusieurs exemples de formules collectives novatrices que nous avons mises au point, parfois à l’encontre des voies convenues. Pensons à la façon dont, à partir des années 1960, nous avons conjugué l’essor de l’entreprise privée avec l’État partenaire, d’où a résulté une forme originale de capitalisme. Pensons aussi à l’adoption, durant les décennies qui ont suivi, de pratiques économiques néolibérales conjointement avec l’expansion du filet social (seulement pour la fin des années 1990, époque triomphante du néolibéralisme : assurance médicaments, garderies, congés parentaux, logement social). Nous avons également mis au point un modèle de gouvernance qui fait largement appel à la concertation générale sous la forme de sommets. Sur ces trois plans, le Québec a fait bande à part en Amérique.

Parallèlement, le syndicalisme grossissait ses rangs, la taille de l’État se maintenait, le chômage déclinait, l’économie sociale continuait son essor, la pauvreté et les inégalités diminuaient.

On trouve un phénomène similaire dans l’ouverture de la culture québécoise à la mondialisation, une manoeuvre audacieuse pour une culture inquiète de son avenir. Le Québec y a trouvé une voie pour démontrer sa créativité et exporter ses productions culturelles à travers la planète.

L’exemple le plus éloquent, peut-être, réside dans la façon dont nous avons étroitement conjugué un nationalisme fervent avec une philosophie libérale et des politiques progressistes. Peu de nations y sont arrivées. Aux yeux de nombreux Européens, ce genre de mariage est impossible.

Je peux en témoigner. À l’occasion de conférences en Europe, notamment en France, je faisais état de ce que nous avions réalisé. Le public manifestait un profond scepticisme. Dans la plupart des esprits, le nationalisme, c’était les horreurs des deux guerres mondiales : le racisme, la xénophobie, le génocide et la guerre (c’est une formule que le président Mitterrand affectionnait : « le nationalisme, c’est la guerre »). Puisque notre exemple ne convainquait pas, j’évoquais aussi les nationalismes écossais, finlandais, néo-zélandais… Rien à faire.

En matière d’intégration et de relations entre majorité et minorités, l’interculturalisme relève du même esprit : une formule qui bouscule certains tabous, prône la solidarité, les rapprochements et les interactions entre cultures. En se fondant sur une quête d’équilibre, d’équité, de pragmatisme, elle s’applique à raccorder des impératifs concurrents tout en laissant une grande autonomie aux acteurs sociaux. Pourtant, aucun de nos gouvernements n’a voulu jusqu’ici mettre cette formule à l’essai alors qu’entre-temps, le multiculturalisme canadien gagne rapidement du terrain à Montréal (voir La métropole contre la nation ? de David Carpentier, 2022).

La lutte contre la discrimination appelle un effort de même nature : poursuivre en matière d’équité et de protection des droits les mêmes objectifs, les mêmes valeurs, mais en suivant nos voies. Cependant, il faudrait d’abord dégager le terrain de certains obstacles, notamment l’aversion de M. Legault pour la notion de racisme systémique, coupable apparemment de faire passer tous les Québécois pour des racistes, ce qui n’est évidemment pas le cas.

Si l’expression choque au point de freiner le combat contre le racisme, il n’y a qu’à la contourner. Parlons d’une forme spécifique de discrimination qu’on pourrait qualifier de banalisée, au sens que, souvent inconsciente, elle est incrustée dans les mentalités, les stéréotypes, les coutumes, les pratiques courantes, d’où découle une forme d’institutionnalisation de facto.

Rappelons-nous qu’autrefois, le dimanche était un jour de congé réservé au culte. Mais il s’agissait du culte chrétien, sans égard pour les autres. C’était aussi l’époque où les femmes étaient tenues pour faibles, émotives, inaptes à exercer diverses responsabilités. De nombreux Noirs et musulmans sont présentement soumis à un traitement analogue. Et tout récemment, nous avons appris de la bouche de nos gouvernants que les immigrants sont réfractaires à nos valeurs, rejettent le français, refusent de travailler et menacent la cohésion sociale… C’est sur de telles bases que se construit la discrimination banalisée.

Un autre obstacle réside dans une conception radicale du racisme systémique (ou banalisé). Ici, le danger est de provoquer dans la population des effets dissuasifs similaires aux excès du nouveau multiculturalisme. Il ne s’agit nullement de diluer la notion de racisme ou d’édulcorer les politiques destinées à le contrer. Il s’agit simplement de ne pas susciter des résistances pour de mauvaises raisons.

En somme, oui pour les valeurs EDI (équité, diversité, inclusion), bien sûr, et pour les objectifs de développement durable de l’ONU, mais modelés et appliqués à notre manière. Ce serait le bon moment pour une offensive gouvernementale dont la première étape consisterait à inventorier les réflexions et les propositions déjà mises en avant chez nous pour en extraire les prémisses d’un modèle québécois. Un exemple : agir contre la discrimination en aval, certes, mais plus encore en amont, comme l’a suggéré Patrick Moreau dans Le Devoir du 7 février.

C’est une tâche qui demandera un effort collectif, incluant celui des administrations universitaires dont certaines se font très conciliantes avec les diktats du multiculturalisme afin de conserver les subventions fédérales. La mise en garde adressée récemment par la ministre Pascale Déry dans Le Devoir du 17 janvier était donc bienvenue, tout comme l’objectif d’« équilibre » qu’elle préconise.

Source: La lutte contre la discrimination II – Pour une politique québécoise

McWhorter: Trying to Prove You’re Not a Racist

Useful overview by McWhorter of his sensible views. From a Canadian perspective, some of the issues that he flags also have relevance with respect to Indigenous peoples:

Since I started writing this newsletter, once about every couple of weeks I have received a missive from someone troubled by a controversy involving race, usually in the workplace.

These readers feel that their opponents in these fusses are unfairly tarring them as racist. Typical disputes they find themselves embroiled in include whether a school program should devote itself centrally to antiracism, whether it is fair to hire people ranking skin color over qualifications, whether reparations for slavery in a local context are appropriate and what they should consist of, and whether a piece of art should be deemed racist.

They seek my confirmation that they are in the right, that they are not racist, and presumably want to take that judgment back to the ring as proof that their position is not anti-Black. Sometimes they are under the impression that it would help if I addressed their colleagues over Zoom.

It has occurred to me that I should provide, in this space, an all-purpose response to this kind of letter I get. For starters, I’d like to offer a guide to my positions on the debates my correspondents seem to find themselves in.

To wit:

I do not support treating the word “Negro,” as opposed to the “N-word,” as a slur. “Negro” was not a slur when it was current, and the case for classifying it as one now because it is archaic is quite thin. Why look for something to be offended by?

I do not support calling something “racist” because outcomes for it differ for the (Black) race. For example, I take issue with the idea that there is something “racist” or “biased” about the questions on the SAT.

I do not condemn white authors writing Black fictional characters who speak Black English so long as it’s a respectful and realistic rendition.

I think the idea that it is cultural appropriation when whites take on Black cultural traits is ahistoric — human groups sharing space have always shared culture — and also pointless, given that Black American culture has always, and will continue to, infuse mainstream America. I also do not think arguments about power relations somehow invalidate my position. I think that it is in vain to decree that culture cannot be borrowed by people in power from those who are not.

I think the idea that only Black people should depict Black people in art and fiction is less antiracist than anti-human, in forbidding the empathy and even admiration that can motivate respectful attempts to create a literary character.

I revile any concept of equity that allows for appointing Black people to positions over more highly qualified non-Black ones.

I know that racism exists both on the personal and structural levels. But I also feel deep disappointment that the tenor of our times seems to encourage some Black people to exaggerate racism’s effects, to enshrine a kind of charismatic defeatism as a substitute for activism. And then there are those who outright fabricate having suffered racist mistreatment. I also worry that these kinds of things desensitize many observers from acknowledging the real racism that exists.

I think reparations are important — and happened already, decades ago with the Great Society, affirmative action, the expansion of welfare benefits in the late 1960s and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which encouraged banks to extend credit in low-income neighborhoods. I would not stand implacably opposed to new reparations today in the form of various kinds or even cash payments but am highly skeptical that a critical mass of Black commentators would accept them as true compensation. I can’t help thinking the race debate would stay where it is now.

condemn notions that there are white ways of thinking (such as being precise and stressing individualism) and Black ones (such as being intuitive and stressing the communal), such that Black people resisting “assimilation” is taken as a kind of higher wisdom. That vision of Blackness would birth no useful inventions, yield only the occasional out-of-the-box insight and is alarmingly close to tacky, Dionysian depictions of Blackness, such as those in Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro.”

I consider it anti-intellectual performance art to retool educational institutions as antiracist academies that “center” the discussion of discrimination and other abuses of power in the instruction of all subjects.

Now that I’ve laid out a primer on my opinions, people who write me seeking support should keep in mind that quite a few Black people consider my stances on race to be a revolting kind of heresy.

Rather, as I have learned in my now lengthy experience with this kind of criticism, it’s that those who disagree with me feel — or perhaps have been taught to feel — that opinions like mine amount to giving white people a pass on racism, that they distract whites from engaging in the kind of thinking and activity that will help Black America. As such, they do not think of people like me as having opinions different from theirs but legitimate. They think opinions like mine are dangerous. I can imagine that to my critics, white people writing me for counsel is exactly what Black America doesn’t need. I am basing this on 25 years of receiving this kind of critique from various directions.

To witness a demonstration of the vigor and tone of this sentiment, please see the negative reactions that are sure to be part of the social media response to this newsletter — from people of all races. No Zoom talk could even begin to cut through such heated resistance.

Be under no illusion, then, that telling your colleagues my opinion about a race issue will be received by them as emanating from some kind of guru. You may suppose that it will be effective to say, “See? There are Black people who feel the way I do.” But to some of your opponents, those Black people may be seen as not just a different kind, but a wrong kind.

If people who don’t see race things my way continue to call you names and get in your way, you have my full sympathy. (And an overprivileged college professor like me isn’t the only one who would come to your defense. “Unwoke” views on race are quite common among Black people of all levels of education.)

But I consider myself engaged in a gradual process of — I hope — shaping our general consciousness on race via constant argument over decades of time. This is a long-game business. Views change slowly, incrementally, and writing is part of making it happen.

If you choose to present my take on race issues amid tense occasions anyway, you should understand that the issue is less my opinion than what you intend to do amid the response to it. My dear correspondents: Please know that it will require a degree of intestinal fortitude to withstand your opponents’ calling you a racist for agreeing with me. Know also, though, that if you’re up for that, you are joining me in that work I am committed to.

Source: Trying to Prove You’re Not a Racist

‘Powerful tools of White Supremacy’: Embattled anti-racism group speaks out to supporters

Their website is certainly on the extreme woke side, with no information on the board of directors or consultants (which may have been scrubbed following the justified criticism of its orientation and tweets of Marouf).

Hard to understand how their public website info didn’t raise any flags, even if Marouf’s racist tweets were not known:

The organization embroiled in a scandal after receiving a $133,000 government contract for an anti-racism project, even though one of its founders had sent a slew of bigoted tweets, has finally spoken out, issuing an email to supporters that says “online and mainstream media are powerful tools of White Supremacy.”

In the email, the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC) says it received a letter from the Department of Canadian Heritage suspending the anti-racism project for the broadcasting sector they had been working on.

It marks the first time CMAC has spoken publicly about the scandal.

The scandal first broke last week when The Canadian Press reported on a series of anti-Semitic tweets from Laith Marouf, a senior consultant with CMAC. At the time, Ahmed Hussen, the minister of diversity, inclusion and youth, said the government would “look closely at the situation involving disturbing comments made by the individual in question.”

Still, months earlier, in April 2022, when the project was announced, Hussen praised it in a press release: “In Canada, diversity is a fact, but inclusion is a choice. Our government is proud to contribute to the initiative,” Hussen said.

While Marouf’s tweets are private, The Canadian Press reported on screenshots. One such tweet said: “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.”

Marouf’s lawyer, Stephen Ellis, asked that The Canadian Press quote Marouf’s tweets “verbatim,” and said there was a difference between Marouf’s “clear reference to ‘Jewish white supremacists,’” and Jews or Jewish people in general.

Marouf does not harbour “any animus toward the Jewish faith as a collective group,” The Canadian Press reported.

By Monday, Hussen announced the government had cut funding to the CMAC project.

“The antisemitic statements made by Laith Marouf are reprehensible and vile,” Hussen said in a statement posted to Twitter. “We call on CMAC, an organization claiming to fight racism and hate in Canada, to answer to how they came to hire Laith Marouf, and how they plan on rectifying the situation given the nature of his antisemitic and xenophobic statements.”

Then, Anthony Housefather, a Liberal member of Parliament, said he had warned Hussen about Marouf’s statements prior to the media catching wind of them.

“I said the contract had to be cancelled. I alerted him and I persistently communicated with the minister in his office, from the day I learned about it, until today, and aggressively demanded that action be taken,” Housefather told the National Post. “Action could have been taken more quickly.”

Housefather also said there needs to be a “thorough review in the department of Heritage as to how this happened” and processes need to be put in place to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Friday’s statement does not address the questions raised by Housefather or Hussen.

“From Turtle Island to Palestine, CMAC continues to see the need for an anti-racism strategy for broadcasting that disrupts settler-colonialism and oppression in the media,” it said.

The email also urges patience on the part of organizers for events across Canada, and said it would be suspending events for the time being while it considers how to respond to Canadian Heritage.

Marouf has a long history of edgy tweets: He has claimed Israel was the creation of “White Jews who adopted Nazism,” and said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the head of an “Apartheid” colony.

Irwin Cotler — a Jewish-Canadian and former Liberal justice minister — was called the “Grand Wizard of Zionism” and a man who “looks like a d–k without makeup.” In 2021, Marouf said “Jewish White Supremacists” deserve only a “bullet to the head.”

Source: ‘Powerful tools of White Supremacy’: Embattled anti-racism group speaks out to supporters 

When they came to power in 2015, the Trudeau Liberals promised to ‘build a government that looks like Canada.’ Now those words have slowly been transformed into actions

Nice profile of a former IRCC colleague and her leadership in anti-Black racism both within IRCC and more broadly.

The percentage of visible minority executives is incorrectly stated at 4.6%, not the 11.1% in the latest employment equity report (for the numbers, see https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2020/what-new-disaggregated-data-tells-us-about-federal-public-service-diversity/):

As she watched the George Floyd story and anti-Black-racism movement unfolding worldwide last summer, Farah Boisclair emailed her colleagues at Canada’s immigration department and called a town-hall meeting to talk about racism.

“I was going through a lot of emotions showing up to work. There’s a global movement and it was plastered all over the media, but no one was talking about it at work,” says Boisclair, director of the anti-racism task force at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

“Part of me saddened, part of me frustrated. Why isn’t anybody saying anything? That’s when I woke up and said, ‘You are a leader. You have the power. You have people who work with you, who look like you and who may be feeling a certain way, like you.”

With the blessing of her boss, she made her first presentation to more than 300 of her colleagues on topics such as experiences of microaggression, white privilege and racism.

Boisclair, whose mother is Haitian and father Guyanese, is now a member of the Federal Speakers’ Forum on Diversity and Inclusion, a platform where public servants share their lived experience with colleagues and management.

Trying to have a conversation about race and racism is tough, let alone at work in a professional setting. However, it’s one of the many initiatives the federal government is banking on in its attempts to make strides in creating and promoting a diverse and inclusive public service.

Earlier this year, with little fanfare, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat unveiled the government’s priorities to increase diversity in hiring and appointments within the public service — a commitment that was reaffirmed in the federal budget in April.

Collecting and breaking down its employee data by disability, ethnic backgrounds and executive roles, and ensuring the statistics are made public;

Launching the Centre for Diversity and Inclusion to lead and keep track of departments and agencies in their efforts to address systemic racism and boost diversity representation through collaboration with diverse community groups;

Revamping the government’s existing mentorship program and starting a sponsorship program to groom civil servants from under-represented groups into leadership and executive roles in their organizations; and

Setting up a speakers’ bureau, to help raise awareness about diversity and inclusion within the public service through a roster of speakers who share their experience across departments and ministries.

“There is good momentum across the government and a desire to make significant progress on diversity and inclusion,” said Paule-Anny Pierre, executive director of the new Centre for Diversity and Inclusion.

“Our actions will help ensure that decisions, initiatives and programs across the public service foster and promote a workplace that is respectful, diverse and inclusive, that represents the population it serves and that enables each employee to feel valued and contribute at their full potential.”

There’s a lot of work to be done to boost diversity in the public service, especially among those in the leadership roles. The latest government data shows visible minorities made up only 4.6 per cent of all executives and Blacks accounted for 1.6 per cent in those roles. [Note: Correct figure is 11.1 percent]

The 2020 Public Service Employee Survey, its results released in May, also added new questions to measure employees’ perceptions of anti-racism in the workplace.

Almost 80 per cent of the 188,786 respondents said they would feel free to speak about racism in the workplace without fear of reprisal and felt comfortable sharing concerns about issues related to racism in the workplace with a person of authority.

Born and raised in Ottawa, Boisclair said no one around her worked for government. However, a co-op opportunity with the federal government while studying finance at the University of Ottawa opened the door for her.

In her 13 years with the government, she has worked in various departments, including Industry Canada (now Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada), Natural Resources Canada and Infrastructure Canada.

On many occasions, she said, she would find herself one of the few or the only person who was a visible minority in her teams.

“I felt hyperaware of myself in these environments. I was constantly like, ‘Be careful what you say, be careful what you do, be careful how you interact.’ With that, I think, I held myself back a lot (in terms of) speaking up on my ideas and my thoughts,” said Boisclair.

“It’s very much like: ‘I’m here to do a job. They’re going to tell me what to do and I’m going to do it.’ … I knew I was different from the others. You don’t want to stick out too much. You try to go along to get along.”

As a Black woman, Boisclair said, she has experienced microaggression at work many times and felt invisible in board rooms.

“I will be joined by a white colleague, a woman around the same age, same group in level, both managers from the same team. I remember the treatment of my colleague when I was working with her for three years, it was very different,” she recalled.

“When we’d go to meetings together, I felt like it’s her race and even the standard of beauty in the North American context, she got very different treatment, more eye contact, more interaction with her. It’s hard and you don’t want it to get into your head.”

The experience, she said, made her feel less important and less valued.

Although the faces in the rank and file of the federal public service are changing, she said all her managers, until now, were predominantly white.

Periodically, Boisclair would have a mentor in her department but only recently was she assigned a Black woman as her official sponsor at work.

“It’s really important to have mentors from different groups and genders, because they each offer different perspectives and each can relate to you on different levels,” she said.

“I have had mentors who professionally give you really good advice but when it came to some of those deeper conversations about race and my identity in the workplace, that’s a bit tough with the white mentors,” she noted.

Dahabo Ahmed Omer, a policy development and employment equity expert, says mentorship/sponsorship and speakers’ bureau initiatives are important tools in building understanding and trust in order to create awareness and cultural change within the organization.

A former human resources specialist with the federal government herself, Ahmed Omer said government mandates, strategies and practices are set by senior leaders who play a key role in the building of an inclusive public service.

“There’s the history of slavery, anti-Indigenous racism. You build trust by listening actively and by implementing solutions that directly come from the community,” said Ahmed Omer, now the executive director of BlackNorth Initiative, an effort led by the Canadian Council of Business Leaders Against Anti-Black Systemic Racism.

“The voices of the most marginalized have to be at the forefront.”

Organizations must pick the right mentors, give access to as many mentees as possible and make sure the under-represented groups have opportunities to apply what they’ve learned so they can seize those opportunities when they arise at work, she noted.

From reviewing staffing plans to budget priorities and resource allocations through a diversity lens, Ahmed Omer said the effort must be “deliberate” and she is liking the federal plan she has seen so far.

Boisclair said she is grateful to have a sponsor at work, who gives her pointers in her career development, sends her articles to inspire and equip her, expand her network and champion her in the immigration department, which had 8,500 employees in 2020.

Last year, after seeing her anti-racism presentation with her staff, her sponsor invited her to speak to a couple of dozen deputy ministers from different departments in October. Since then, she has done about 25 townhalls within the federal public sector to share her experience and stories.

These conversations are difficult, said Boisclair, because they are “too raw” for a lot of people.

“You are talking about deep, deep, deep emotions, trauma and, in a lot of cases, some people just don’t know how to deal with emotions in the workplace. When some of the people are sharing some of the more intimate experiences, it’s hard,” she said.

“A lot of people don’t want to deal with the feelings of guilt. People don’t like to get uncomfortable,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense for them. Why would I put myself in an uncomfortable position?”

The experience from these candid conversations has also been refreshing and empowering.

“At the time, I was feeling like, I’m just tired of putting on a filter. I need to show my lived experience as a woman, as a Black person, as a Canadian, the full essence of who I am. That doesn’t often happen at the workplace for racialized people,” said Boisclair.

“I have had these dialogues for many, many years in close circles at home. You would never, never have these conversations at work. For me, it’s time to open people’s minds up to the reality of systemic racism and the harmful impacts of it.”

While these conversations, along with the mentorship/sponsorship program, can drive awareness of racial understanding and organizational cultural change, Ryerson University professor Wendy Cukier says disaggregated data can provide the barometer to identify gaps and measure results.

“We need good data to tracking things like what works and what doesn’t work. We need to apply the same gender and diversity lens to how government spends money and who it’s serving. There’s the inward piece but also the outward reaching piece,” said Cukier, founder and academic director at Ryerson’s Diversity Institute.

“It’s not that anybody deliberately puts up bars or gates, but you need the data to see if certain segments of the population are applying for jobs in my department and what I can do to increase engagement.”

The latest statistics on employment equity populations published by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provide a glimpse at the diversity representation of the federal public service:

Overall, visible minorities made up 656 or 4.6 per cent of all executives;

Black people made up 96 or 1.6 per cent of all executives;

Indigenous peoples made up 239 or 4.1 per cent of all executives;

There were 1,387 persons with disabilities working in administrative support, which was 7 per cent of all these employees; and

People who are blind or visually impaired made up 767 or 0.4 per cent of all employees.

“Leaders have to represent the people they are leading, otherwise they are not going to be very effective. When organizations have leaders who look like the people they are leading, they have higher levels of engagement,” said Cukier.

“People tend to associate with people who look like them. If you’re from a racialized population, you are less likely to have a social network that will help you understand the unspoken rules that will mentor you and promote you at work.”

Cukier said the dominant group in the workforce should not feel threatened fearing that the progress for their under-represented peers will be made at their expense, given the civil service is full of boomers, many of them will be retiring in the near future.

“There is a huge challenge in digital and technological transformation in the public sector, which has one of the most acute skill shortages. This is not a question of new people pushing the established group out, this is a question of meeting concrete need for skills and new thinking,” she said.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense to rely on the same kind of people if your goal is to drive transformation. We know there’s a strong link between diversity and innovation.”

Quebec MP Greg Fergus, parliamentary secretary to Treasury Board President Jean-Yves Duclos, agreed.

“You don’t make this a ‘I win, you lose’ kind of equation. It’s not an ‘either or.’ It’s a ‘both and.’ We all benefit by growing the pie. We’re better together,” said Fergus. “This is not about cutting anybody’s career short. This is about building a more resilient public service.”

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/05/23/when-they-came-to-power-in-2015-the-trudeau-liberals-promised-to-build-a-government-that-looks-like-canada-now-those-words-have-slowly-been-transformed-into-actions.html

Lisée – Et maintenant: l’endoctrinement [on federal antiracism training guide]

Jean-François Lisée picks up on Brian Lilley’s critique (LILLEY: Feds’ anti-racism training deals with political agendas, nothing else), albeit in a more sophisticated mannner:

Les fonctionnaires fédéraux ont-ils droit à la liberté de conscience ? Pour peu qu’ils soient respectueux des normes et des lois et de leurs collègues de travail, ont-ils droit à leurs propres opinions sur l’histoire de leur pays et sur l’état des relations raciales ? La réponse est désormais non. Il existe une doctrine d’État que les fonctionnaires doivent apprendre et internaliser, quelles que soient leurs expériences de vie ou leurs visions du monde. Un document fédéral officiel obtenu par le Toronto Sun grâce à la Loi sur l’accès à l’information est à la fois fascinant et scandaleux. Il s’agit du Parcours d’apprentissage dans le cadre de la lutte contre le racisme. La chose irait de soi si l’apprentissage en question portait sur les pratiques discriminatoires à éviter, les bienfaits des politiques d’accès à l’égalité, les normes, les recours et les sanctions. Mais le document s’attaque aux opinions qu’on peut avoir — et qu’on ne doit pas avoir — sur les causes, l’histoire et la définition du racisme. Les participants sont appelés à « apprendre, [à] désapprendre et [à] réapprendre ».

Par exemple, peut-être avez-vous la conviction que le Canada fut fondé sur une volonté de créer un pays distinct de l’expérience états-unienne, mettant en équilibre les intérêts de plusieurs anciennes colonies, dont le Québec francophone, et voulant maintenir un lien fort avec la couronne britannique ? Peut-être pensiez-vous que, parmi les graves imperfections du pays, il y eut la mauvaise part faite aux Autochtones et des pratiques répréhensibles envers des minorités de couleur ?

Si vous jugiez que, contrairement à l’impact structurel de l’esclavage dans l’histoire états-unienne, ces événements malheureux ne constituaient pas l’essence même de l’existence du Canada, l’État canadien vous rabroue officiellement. Vous êtes porteurs d’un « mythe » et de « déformation des faits historiques » qu’il faut désapprendre. La réalité, présentée comme un « fait » qui n’est pas ouvert au débat, est que le racisme est au cœur de l’expérience canadienne, un de ses fondements. L’existence même du Canada est une agression.

Trudeauiste bon teint, peut-être oserez-vous faire valoir que le multiculturalisme est une politique officielle depuis un demi-siècle et que le Canada est en passe de s’affranchir de son passé honteux ? Vous avez tort. Je cite : « Chaque institution était et est toujours utilisée pour prouver que la race existe et pour promouvoir l’idée que la race blanche est au sommet de la hiérarchie des races et que toutes les autres lui sont inférieures. » Chaque institution était et est toujours, en 2021, raciste. Et si vous tiquiez devant le concept de racisme systémique, cramponnez-vous, car la doctrine officielle a franchi un nouveau cap. Le document décrit ainsi la situation actuelle du racisme canadien : « Un groupe a le pouvoir de pratiquer une discrimination systématique au moyen des politiques et pratiques institutionnelles. » Oui, on est passés de systémique à systématique.

La doctrine vous rabroue doublement si vous osez procéder à des comparaisons avec les États-Unis sur le nombre des victimes ou sur l’intensité du dommage causé. Le document est explicite : « Le racisme est tout aussi grave au Canada. » Fin de la discussion. C’est un dogme.

Il y est aussi question d’esclavage, et le document prend bien soin d’indiquer que ce fléau fut répandu au Canada, y compris en Nouvelle-France, ce qui est vrai. Les fonctionnaires qui l’ignoraient peut-être sont aussi informés que les Autochtones furent victimes de l’esclavage. Mais le document omet de signaler que les nations autochtones pratiquaient l’esclavage entre elles avant l’arrivée des Européens, et après, et qu’elles ont participé à la traite des Noirs sur le continent. Je souhaite bonne chance au fonctionnaire qui oserait soulever ce fait historique lors d’une formation.

Puisque le racisme est défini étroitement, comme l’oppression d’une race par une autre, et jamais d’une ethnie par une autre, il n’est nulle part question du fait que les Britanniques, des Blancs, ont voulu déporter d’autres Blancs, des Acadiens, ou que les Canadiens français furent pendant deux siècles victimes de discrimination. Le colonialisme est un élément fondateur du pays (c’est incontestable), mais pas la Conquête (c’est loufoque). Notons que l’antisémitisme est aussi passé sous silence, un angle mort problématique dans la culture woke.

On y parle évidemment du privilège blanc, qui peut être personnel, institutionnel ou structurel, intentionnel ou non. Tous les fonctionnaires blancs doivent donc apprendre qu’ils sont, par défaut, coupables de racisme. C’est dans leur nature. Le caractère univoque et culpabilisateur de la formation est à couper le souffle.

Prenons un instant pour réfléchir à l’existence même de ce document officiel.

Nous avions entendu Justin Trudeau déclarer à plusieurs reprises qu’il avait, lui, la conviction que toutes les institutions canadiennes étaient coupables de racisme systémique. Il est rare que le premier ministre d’un pays accable ainsi la totalité des institutions qu’il a pour charge de diriger, de représenter et, au besoin, de réformer.

Mais bon, c’était son avis personnel. Que ces notions soient débattues dans les universités, dans les panels, à la radio ou dans les journaux est une chose. Mais il ne s’agit plus désormais d’opinions discutables parmi d’autres. Les fonctionnaires fédéraux sont désormais contraints de participer à des formations où on leur dit que cette vision du monde est la bonne, que c’est la ligne juste, et que s’ils pensent autrement, ils doivent désapprendre, pour mieux apprendre. Il s’agit ni plus ni moins que d’endoctrinement.

On voudrait savoir qui a décidé que la théorie critique de la race était devenue doctrine d’État ? À quel moment et dans quel forum ? Qui a acquiescé à cela ? Et surtout, comment infirmer cette décision absurde qui est une atteinte frontale à la liberté de conscience ?

Source: Et maintenant: l’endoctrinement

LILLEY: Feds’ anti-racism training deals with political agendas, nothing else

While not a great fan of Lilley’s commentary, I do give him credit for bringing this GAC/Foreign Service Institute guide to public attention.

While his criticism is overstated, some of the guide is overly simplistic, woke or splitting hairs (e.g., that reverse racism against white people doesn’t exist because of power dynamics, racism in Canada is the same as USA while there are both commonalities and differences) and doesn’t acknowledge some of the progress, albeit imperfect, that has taken place over the last few generations. Government training material should be more balanced in its treatment:

Wearing blackface is an act of white supremacy but so is seeking to be objective. These are some of the things you will learn if you happen to work for the federal government and are taking their latest anti-racism course.

Documents obtained under access to information show a real stretch on the definition of racism.

Source: LILLEY: Feds’ anti-racism training deals with political agendas, nothing else