With the M-103 debate out of gas, we reflect on a squalid exercise in democracy

2017/03/25 Leave a comment

Campbell Clark of the Globe on M-103 – identity politics alive and well among the federal Conservatives (Liberals not completely innocent either, but better inclusion-based identity politics than the opposite):

This was a squalid exercise in democracy. Many parliamentary motions come and go unnoticed such as one condemning Islamophobia adopted unanimously Oct. 26 – it was adopted by a half-empty Commons, but the Conservative leadership had advance notice it would be proposed.

But the second one, Ms. Khalid’s, sparked a frenzy.

Even if you accepted the notion that Islamophobia is a term so ill-defined or even tainted with dangerous connotation, that still never explained the high-pitched claptrap that followed, with folks claiming that adopting the non-binding motion will not only mean a gutting of free speech but a slippery slope to the imposition of sharia law.

That’s right. Boom! Sharia! One day, you’re happily eating bacon and drinking beer and the next day, sharia law. You’d think that might not be the Liberals’ best re-election plank, but still, that was the theory. But there was nothing in the motion that led there.

Another claim was that M-103, a symbolic motion of no legal effect, would inexorably lead to a gutting of freedom of speech so one could not criticize Islam or any Islamic religious practice – apparently evading our Charter of Rights, but somehow not requiring actual legislation, or an opportunity for MPs to vote against it.

There were the conspiratorial suggestions. Columnist Tarek Fatah tweeted a photo of Ms. Khalid sitting next to Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Canada, asking why she met the diplomat before tabling motion M-103 – but it was a cropped shot from a dinner that included another Liberal MP and Conservative Salma Ataullahjan, six weeks before Ms. Khalid came up with her motion.

All this fuelled a campaign that filled the inboxes of Conservative MPs. An Angus Reid Institute poll found 42 per cent of respondents would vote against, and only 29 per cent would vote for it.

In the Commons, many Conservative MPs argued that the word Islamophobia was ill-defined – that some people had used it to argue against any criticism of Islam. They offered their own motion, condemning hatred against Muslims instead of using the word Islamophobia. But the Liberals voted against it – insisting their motion was better.

Ms. Khalid made a good argument that one shouldn’t shy away from naming the thing you want to condemn, and refused to remove the word Islamophobia. In a speech, she even offered her own simple definition, that “Islamophobia is the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination.”

So why not put those words right into the text of her motion, defining Islamophobia? It would either allay the fears of Conservative MPs, or call their bluff. If you want to name the prejudice you condemn, why not go all the way? She dodged that simple question over and over on Thursday, then made the preposterous assertion that defining Islamophobia would have watered down the motion.

There was so much hysteria around this motion that the Liberals started to enjoy the idea that Tories would trap themselves in it. But the Liberals were derelict in their duty: When you’re facing phantoms of conspiracy, suspicion and misinformation, the response should be simple clarity.

Source: With the M-103 debate out of gas, we reflect on a squalid exercise in democracy – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

The Tories approach a point of no return and other commentary on M-103

2017/02/18 Leave a comment

Terry Glavin’s usual trenchant commentary:

During the debate on the motion in the House, Khalid said she defines Islamophobia as “the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination.” That’s perfectly fine, too, but what makes no sense was Khalid’s statement that she refused Conservative MP (and party leadership hopeful) Erin O’Toole’s offer to help win unanimous consent for her motion by tightening it up, because that would have meant “watering it down.”

In a parallel topsy-turviness, Joly has objected to David Anderson’s alternative motion, which replicates Khalid’s motion except for the ambiguous term Islamophobia, because it’s a “weakened and watered down version.”

It’s true to say, as Scott Reid does, that seemingly benign injunctions against “Islamophobia” have been put to the squalid purpose of placing the Muslim religion and the practices of authoritarian Islamic regimes off limits to criticism. But it’s also fair to say that “anti-Muslim bigotry” doesn’t sufficiently capture the full-throated paranoid lunacy animating the nutcase wing of the Conservative support base these days.

“Racism” doesn’t quite cover it. “Hatred” doesn’t quite get at it. Whatever term you like, it’s more than merely ironic that those who make the most hysterical claims about clandestine Islamic conspiracies at the centre of Justin Trudeau’s government are also the ones shouting the loudest that an irrational fear of Islam isn’t even a thing.

It’s not as though the Liberals are blameless in all this. They could have welcomed O’Toole’s efforts at reaching out to find a compromise, but they didn’t. And the Liberals do seem quite content to have the Conservatives squirming and chafing against the appearance that the reason they object to the term Islamophobia is that they themselves are Islamophobic, whatever that might mean. It is not as though it bothers the Liberals that the Conservatives are stuck with the crazy talk coming from several of the leadership candidates these days.

Trudeau may have given away more than he intended last week when he was confronted at a community meeting in Iqaluit about why he reneged on his electoral reform promises. Raising the spectre of proportional representation opening the door to “fringe” parties, Trudeau asked, rhetorically: “Do you think that Kellie Leitch should have her own party?”

Clearly, Trudeau doesn’t want that. For starters, it would mean decent Conservatives couldn’t be tarred so easily with the indecencies committed by the party’s fringe factions. It would mean bigot-baiting the Conservative Party would be that much harder to do. In the meantime, it’s up to the Conservatives to get themselves sorted, and after the sordid events of the past few days, their options are limited:

Isolate, quarantine, amputate or purge.

Source: The Tories approach a point of no return – Macleans.ca

Campbell Clark in the Globe:

It’s one thing for MPs to say they oppose the motion. But it’s another to accept the bogus reasoning.

One is the slippery-slope argument. Mr. Levant is telling Canadians that once a Commons committee starts studying the vague notion of Islamophobia and what to do about it, they’re going to propose laws that make it illegal to criticize Islam, and restrict free speech.

The obvious weakness in that is that Motion M-103 doesn’t even ask the committee to propose laws, nor could it force them – let alone the kind that stifle free speech. If they ever did, MPs could vote against it then. And it still could not violate constitutional guarantees on free speech.

If Conservative objections really were about a vague term, some deal-making would be in order. There are arguments that in some countries the term has been used to refer to any criticism of Islam.

Of course, this motion calls for MPs to study it, so they could define it.

But Liberals were unwilling to compromise when the Conservatives asked them to change “Islamophobia” to “hatred for Muslims.”

But it’s not about the word. Ironically, it’s about fear.

All this began when Montreal-area MP Frank Baylis started a petition last year to assert that all Muslims should not be equated with a few extremists. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair later asked for unanimous consent for a motion condemning Islamophobia – and got it on his second attempt on Oct. 26.

Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen responded to Mr. Mulcair’s motion with her own, condemning religious discrimination.

Both were adopted. The word Islamophobia was fine for Conservatives then, before they got scared.

Source:  Conservative MPs are afraid of Motion 103, and things it can’t do 

The contrary view, and the conflation of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hate with free speech concerns, comes from Farzana Hassan in the Sun, who appears not to have understood what the motion covers and what it does not:

When we challenge a certain Islamic practice, we are careful to exclude the moderate majority and focus our attention on a small segment of the Muslim community. Yet some claim that even such discussion conflates the radicals with the moderates.

If Khalid believes such discussions include all Muslims, she is unwittingly admitting that all Muslims are indeed like the fundamentalists.

Khalid is mistaken if she believes any rational discussion on Islamic practice castigates all Muslims. She must understand that any well-intentioned and constructive discussion on a religious practice or ideology is a fundamental right of every Canadian.

There is no phobia of Islam in Canada. There is genuine resentment toward orthodox Islam. But it has little to do with the usual public discourse.

Some practices, whether we discuss them in public or not, are commonly known to be associated with orthodox Islam, such as polygamy, wife battery and ostracism of religious minorities.

It is up to moderate Muslims to distance themselves from these outrages as much as possible. So far no robust public challenge to such practices has emerged from moderate segments of the community.

Without such a grassroots challenge any social observer, professional or amateur, can form any opinion on orthodox Islam, whether positive or negative.

We know some Muslims are working to institute gender equality, and others are partners with the government in fighting terror. However, these efforts need to become the norm rather than the exception. Once this takes place, the world will automatically begin to see Muslims in positive light.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has talked about finding the right balance between protecting a religious minority and also protecting our Charter rights.

The answer to his dilemma is simple: Do not put the slightest dent in our right to free speech.

To balance this, the prime minister can take more measures to protect the security of all minorities with tighter law enforcement and stricter punishments for alleged offenders like Alexandre Bissonnette.

Source: I’m a liberal Muslim and I reject M-103

Lastly, an article on Iqra Khalid’s reading out the hateful emails and tweets she has received, providing proof of the validity of M-103 and its specific reference:

The Liberal MP who tabled an anti-Islamophobia motion says she has been inundated with hate mail and death threats.

Mississauga, Ont. MP Iqra Khalid told the House of Commons today she received more than 50,000 emails in response to M-103, many of them with overt discrimination or direct threats.

“I have asked my staff to lock the office behind me as I now fear for their safety,” she said. “I have asked them not to answer all phone calls so they don’t hear the threats, insults and unbelievable amount of hate shouted at them and myself.”

She described a “chilling” video posted on YouTube that called her a terrorist sympathizer and disgusting human being.

“‘I’m not going to help them shoot you, I’m going to be there to film you on the ground crying. Yeah, I’ll be there writing my story with a big fat smile on my face. Ha ha ha. The Member got shot by a Canadian patriot,'” she read, quoting from the video.

And that, she said, was just tip of the iceberg. Here are some other messages she received and read in the House:

  • “Kill her and be done with it. I agree she is here to kill us. She is sick and she needs to be deported.”
  • “We will burn down your mosques, draper head Muslim.”
  • “Why did Canadians let her in? Ship her back.”
  • “Why don’t you get out of my country? You’re a disgusting piece of trash and you are definitely not wanted here by the majority of actual Canadians.”

Khalid said she has also received many messages of support.

Source: ‘Kill her and be done with it’: MP behind anti-Islamophobia motion reads out hate mail

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism, Religion Tagged with , , , , ,

“Keeping the price of latte low” – Why the Conservatives need to make changes to the foreign worker program fast

2014/05/31 Leave a comment

Good piece by Campbell Clark in the Globe on Temporary Foreign Workers. Latte line is priceless:

Temporary foreign workers really shouldn’t be part of any company’s basic business model, especially if it’s their strategy to fill jobs that don’t require training. Governments should be expecting wages to rise, not stepping in to provide thousands of visas for low-paid workers.

But the government has watched that grow into a common practice over several years. Freezing it has just added unpredictability.

The moratorium won’t kill Canada’s economy. Most consumers will spend their dollars elsewhere in Canada if a restaurant with a labour shortage has a long wait. But the tourism industry does have some reason to worry that the sudden freeze just as their busy season starts will cause problems for some businesses, and perhaps hurt the sector….

But whatever the government decided to do, it should have provided a transition program so the sector wasn’t hit suddenly, he [Garth White, Restaurants Canada] said. And the government should stop moving its deadline and announce its plans to reform the program, he said….

The president of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, David Goldstein, said most in the industry don’t like the current program, but they do need the workers. There are some jobs it’s just hard to fill with Canadian workers, he said.

“The inconvenient truth is that in a Richard Florida society, somebody still has to make him his latte,” he said.

It’s not clear that Canadians should make it a policy priority to keep the price of the latte low, by making it easy to recruit lower-paid workers from abroad.

Why the Conservatives need to make changes to the foreign worker program fast – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Temporary Foreign Workers Commentary

2014/04/25 Leave a comment

Terry Glavin’s well-placed rant in the Citizen on the temporary workers program. The government in its efforts to please its small business and franchisee base is surprised that the program has encouraged hiring foreign workers, as it would appear, at the expense of Canadians:

But harder still is the work of believing all those things we are told in order to dissuade us from the reasonable conclusion that the entire edifice of the Temporary Foreign Workers program has been subverted to the purpose of a racket, and the whole point of it is to defraud the Canadian public, suppress the wages of the people and distort the national labour markets to the unearned advantage of some employers.

You will be expected to believe that the stagnation of real median wages since the 2008-09 recession is by some voodoo mechanism wholly unrelated to the roaring trade in easily-exploitable foreign temps that has been underway, simultaneously, as documented by the Labour Market Assessment 2014 report the Parliamentary Budget Office released last month.

You will be asked to take it as normal that there are nearly a half million foreign workers in Canada, and that a quarter of all the new jobs filled across Canada last year were taken by these vulnerable migrants, and similarly there is somehow nothing especially worrisome about the rate of temporary foreign workers in Canada exceeding the number of permanent residents being admitted into this country as prospective citizens.

You will be further obliged to agree that the routine eruption of all those scandals is merely a matter of an otherwise proper system being gamed and foully abused, spoiled by a few grifters and bad apples, and that in actuality the program is unfair to employers owing to its burdensome encumbrances by way of inordinate fee-paying and form-filling and application-submitting, and Employment Minister Jason Kenney is just being mean.

You need not be more than a run-of-the-mill moron to believe such propositions, but you would have to be uniquely possessed of a special type of gall to actually traffic in them, and whatever name you want to give that rare quality it is in no short supply around the offices of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

How to fix the foreign-workers program.

Campbell Clark has a more reasoned approach in the Globe, but essentially comes to the same conclusion:

The number of people in Canada under those labour-market opinions grew from 82,210 people in 2005, before the Conservatives took power, to 202,510 in 2012, according to statistics from Mr. Kenney’s department, Employment and Social Development Canada.

The number one occupation group isn’t engineers, it’s” food counter attendants, kitchen helpers, and related occupations,” with 17,755 people. Waiters, cooks, and cashiers are all in the top 20.

Immigration policy does play a role in the labour markets, by determining the number who come and the qualifications they need to come. But the government should have a good public-policy reason before it intervenes to tinker with supply and demand at employers’ request.

There could be a gap in a highly-specialized or highly-skilled profession that Canadians just can’t fill for the time being. There’s always been a separate stream for agricultural workers, and that’s perhaps justified because it’s back-breaking seasonal work and the farm sector can’t risk a labour-shortage at harvest….

But there’s no compelling public-policy reason to help a fast-food franchise find workers at the wage they want to pay. Can a McDonald’s in Victoria really claim no Canadian will take a job there, no matter what the wage?

Yes, some employers like this program. Dan Kelly, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said a lot of employers say it’s increasingly difficult to “find people who are available to work and will show up with a smile on their face, and not be on their phone for half the shift.” But the government can’t justify guest-worker programs because some employers think these kids today have the wrong attitude.

Politically, it’s not going to be easy to justify the expansion of temporary foreign workers. Most Canadians thought it was a program to fill temporary skills shortages, not to have the government micro-manage the labour pool in jobs Canadians can do. Each case of alleged abuse underlines not simply that the program is open to abuse, but that it’s gone off the rails.

Foreign worker abuses expose Harper’s hollow commitment to free markets

Terrence Corcoran in the Financial Post notes the CD Howe study showing that the program led to an increase in unemployment:

And now comes a heavy-duty economic analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute claiming that the TFWP caused increased unemployment in Alberta and British Columbia. The paper could put a serious crimp in the federal government’s program that has proven wildly successful. As of December, an estimated 338,000 temporary foreign workers held jobs in Canada.

The increase in unemployment in Alberta and B.C. is said to have occurred between 2007 and 2010 when the program was relaxed and a pilot project introduced to allow “cheaper access to foreign workers because of purportedly deep shortages of labour in some occupations.” The program worked, but maybe too well.

The author of the C.D. Howe report does not condemn the TFWP as a whole. Dominique Gross, a professor at the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University, says in her study, Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: Are They Really Filling Labour Shortages, the idea is economically sound but only if the program is well designed. In an interview, Ms. Gross said the unemployment rates in B.C. and Alberta were on average 1% higher per year over the 2007-10 period than they would have been had the government not relaxed the rules of the TFWP.

To fix the problem, Ms. Gross calls for a number of reforms, including collecting much better data on whether shortages actually exist, increasing the corporate cost-per-worker of a TFW permit (now $275 each compared with $2,500 in the United States) and imposing tougher rules that would force companies to prove the labour shortages are real.

Pending reforms, Ms. Gross says Ottawa should impose a “temporary quota” on the total number of temporary workers allowed into Canada.

Ms. Gross’s reforms may be hard to implement without gutting much of the initiative. Temporary worker programs are a relative success in Europe, she says, in part because labour supply and demand is vigorously monitored through detailed employment vacancy surveys. Europe also makes use of expensive government-run “local labour offices” that serve as matchmakers between workers and employers. Canada has never been hospitable to greater state involvement in day-to-day management of the labour market, whether provincial or federal.

Bit odd however that Corcoran should be citing temporary worker programs in Europe as a relative success given some of the longer-term integration challenges resulting from these programs.

Terence Corcoran: How Canada’s temporary foreign workers program became a victim of its own success

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Newer posts →