Jamie Sarkonak: He mildly questioned DEI. His law school calls that ‘misconduct’

Of note. May not have been from a neutral position but nevertheless a cautionary tale. Court case to watch:

…Tim Haggstrom’s crime? Writing an open letter to his fellow students, from a neutral position, to foster dialogue and attempt to inject reason into the debate. His punishment? A campaign by other students to sabotage his career, culminating in an official finding of misconduct by a spineless university that appears to have forgotten its role in protecting free expression on campus.

That campaign, at least, didn’t work. Now a lawyer (and the national director of the Runnymede Society, whose local chapter events I often attend) Haggstrom, via his legal team at civil liberties charity Freedoms Advocate, is asking the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench to have the misconduct ruling thrown out — along with the university policies that work to deny procedural fairness to those who don’t emphatically agree with diversity, equity and inclusion.

For the university’s own sake, Haggstrom better win.

He alleges unfair, Charter-infringing treatment in his court filings, and he’s got a strong argument. At the time Haggstrom expressed the need for discussion over affirmative action at the law school, the University of Saskatchewan had already adopted an identity-based worldview, aimed at elevating certain groups in the university.

The institution had, since 2020, a diversity, equity and inclusion policy that implored the entire campus to uphold DEI values, cementing identity-based thinking — and with it, the idea that procedures are only fair when they result in equal outcomes between groups — into campus culture. That year, the university president committed himself to the “dismantling of institutional structures, policies and processes that contribute to inequalities faced by marginalized groups.”

In 2021, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the student union, committing to deliver anti-oppression and anti-racism training to staff, which was being rolled out by the next year. That initiative was led by anti-racist scholar Verna St. Denis, who has openly called for biasing university education to favour her own progressive, deeply racial worldview. St. Denis also contributed to the university’s Indigenous strategy, also released in 2021, which planned for institution-wide decolonial change.

Further, according to the originating application filed in court by Haggstrom, the university had made training materials available on the topic of “power and privilege.” The materials are no longer on the university website, but were archived online. They teach a hierarchical understanding of race (specifically, that white people have better access to education and success); they characterize meritocracy as a feature of “settler mindsets”; they state that internalized colonialism causes oppressed people to commit sexual assault; they instruct readers to “refute colonialism” (that is, the very basis of our nation) to assist in making Canada “the friendly, open, welcoming country it espouses to be.” They remark that anti-oppressive education “ought to be uncomfortable as white students begin to unlearn what they have been taught through their previous learning experiences.”

The course ends on a question: “As an individual how can you decolonize yourself and what can you do with your power and privilege to help in the betterment of Canada?”…

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: He mildly questioned DEI. His law school calls that ‘misconduct’

Jamie Sarkonak: Federal bureaucrat-activists strike again with ‘Understanding Islamophobia’ guide

Unfortunate but typical framing by the NP.

It is valid for the federal government to prepare such a primer, just as it was valid for the government to prepare its Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.

One of the omission in these types of documents is that they tend to discount, arguably overly so, the extremist elements within communities and their impact on the social fabric. Given the nature of some of the Gaza demonstrations and rhetoric, the primer should be more nuanced and note the presence of extremists (not unique to Muslims).

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do a comparative analysis, side-by-side of the Islamophobia and Antisemitism primers but hopefully some others will do so (would make great undergrad essay!):

…It concludes by asking that more Canadians do more to assist the good image of Islam in Canada: audit workplaces and engage in “anti-racist leadership”; collect data on the religion of one’s employees; launch awareness campaigns for religious rights; provide workplace training; include Islam as an identity promoted within diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

The report altogether sends the message that any cool sentiment towards Islam, or at least lack of warmth, is a problem that needs to be fixed, just like anti-Muslim violence. But, it’s not the government’s job to ensure that a satisfactory number of people like any certain religion. This is Canada. While discrimination is wrong, and hate-motivated violence should be fully prosecuted by the law, individuals are allowed to have opinions, negative or positive, about religious groups.

It also maligns non-Muslim Canadians as a collective for the wrongdoing of individuals, which, hypocritically, is exactly what it asks Canadians not to do of Islam.

No other religious group gets this level of treatment from government, with dedicated federal appointees, equity initiatives, and heaps of funding for community groups and phobia-dispelling initiatives: not Sikhism, or Judaism, or Hinduism. Not even Christianity, even though it’s engrained into Canadian society as a result of history and forms the moral foundation of the West. Indeed, anyone with eyes knows that Christianity is frequently bashed in the public sphere for all sorts of reasons.

This report is an attempt at progress, but it’s anything but. It’s up to the public to think what it thinks, it’s up to employers to treat employees of all religions fairly, and it’s up to the government (and its courts) to punish violent, hateful criminal activity.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Federal bureaucrat-activists strike again with ‘Understanding Islamophobia’ guide, The Canadian Guide to Understanding and Combatting Islamophobia

The Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, however, did note:

….But there was a shadow over the Forum that did not go unnoticed in the impromptu discussions taking place. The Prime Minister said he is a Zionist and we cannot normalize treating Zionism as a pejorative term. However, shortly before the Forum was held, the Canadian Guide to Understanding and Combatting Islamophobia was released by the Federal government. 

The Guide was led by the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, Almira Elghawaby. Much of it is unproblematic. But it devotes a section to anti-Palestinian racism (APR) noting that, in Canada, the understanding of APR is growing, with initiatives like the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association’s 2022 framework. It also states that “some school boards have also developed or are in the process of developing their own definitions of anti-Palestinian racism to address this issue and its harmful effects.” 

These passages are footnoted to include, among other things, the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association’s report that defines APR in a way that makes all Zionists racists. For example, it claims that those who “fail to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine” are racists. We also know that there is a call for filmmakers on Instagram respecting a film project on anti-Palestinian racism. It appears to be sponsored by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, the authors of the troubling definition of APR discussed above and funded by the Government of Canada (Employment and Social Development Canada).

A Call for Consistent Policies

No one should condone or permit discrimination against Palestinians because they are Palestinian, against Arabs because they are Arabs, or against Muslims because they are Muslim. Nor should anyone discriminate against those who wish to express “pro-Palestinian” views or criticize Israel in the same way that other countries are subjected to criticism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism and its illustrations make that clear. 

However, the federal government cannot have it both ways. Issuing a guide that incorporates by reference a definition of APR that demonizes all Zionists and Israelis is incompatible with what the Prime Minister told those assembled at the Forum, and incompatible with true Canadian values. If the Canadian government truly wishes to show its commitment to combatting antisemitism, it should immediately withdraw the objectionable passages of the Guide to Combatting Islamophobia and reconfirm its commitment that Zionists and Israeli-Canadians will not be demonized for their beliefs.

Source: The National Forum on Antisemitism and Mixed Messages

Jamie Sarkonak: P.E.I.’s Dennis King was the only premier with the guts to tackle immigration

Parallels with the federal reversals:

…Once a province with a stable population, P.E.I.’s growth has reached a crescendo in recent years. From 2000 to 2010, total residents ranged from 136,000 to roughly 140,000. From 2010 to 2020, that figure rose to 159,000. Since 2020, it reached a whopping 179,000.

In other words, it once took a whole decade for the province to gain 4,000 people. Now, it takes five years to gain 20,000 people.

The consequences? Crowding in virtually every system. Housing is stretched to its limit, with vacancy rates in the province ranging from two to 0.1 per cent, depending on the quarter, in 2023 and 2024 (for comparison, 2012 vacancy rates hovered at about five per cent).

Health care, meanwhile, hasn’t fared much better. One-fifth of Islanders were without a doctor in 2024 and wait times are long. While P.E.I. has attempted to tackle backlogs by all sorts of means — it’s worked with the telehealth platform Maple to increase access to primary care, for example — capacity remains slim. In 2023, the province’s health minister pinned much of the blame on impossible-to-keep-up-with population growth.

While most immigration is within the federal government’s sphere of control, the provinces can alter the number of immigrants coming in through the provincial nominee program (subject to federal limits), and this is where King found an opportunity to make cuts.

He would have known that outrage would follow when he announced the cuts — and indeed, it did. A loud contingent of foreign workers and students, who believed the provincial nominee program was their ticket to permanent Canadian residency, organized a protest that lasted for months.

They marched and chanted. They set up encampments. They held on-and-off hunger strikes. They spoke to the legislature. They found support among pro-immigration non-profits and in the media — CBC’s coverage naturally focused on the plight of the protesters and the loyalty of their allies rather than their critics, creating an illusion of popularity (online forums, like Reddit, generally featured far more contempt for the protesters than sympathy)….

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: P.E.I.’s Dennis King was the only premier with the guts to tackle immigration

Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

…Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.

The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child)…

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Two minds on this decision. On the one hand, the judge was emphasizing the welfare of children, on the other hand, clearly fraudulent refugee case. And will the family be actually deported once the school year is over?

…Ministers have the power to step in and block deportations — I have no problem with that — but the government shouldn’t be obligated to carry out lengthy procedures designed to give those here illegally every shot at staying. In a country with supposedly fixed borders and social supports, it shouldn’t take this much state capacity to remove those who aren’t cleared to be here.

On the criminal front, it’s just as bad. Due to court precedent, Canadian judges are obligated to consider “immigration consequences” when sentencing non-citizen offenders. In some cases, it results in a sentence discount: nightclub gropers and drunken burglars from abroad have received lighter sentences under this rule to give them a greater shot at remaining in Canada.

There are plenty more legitimate refugees, and otherwise law-abiding non-citizen newcomers who are eager to adapt to Canadian life and get on the path to citizenship. Let state resources go to supporting them, and not people who abuse our rules to harm others and extend their already illegal stays.

Canadians deserve a system that works for them, not outsiders. Let that be a change that graces us in 2025.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Jamie Sarkonak: Expect more injustice from the Liberals’ forthcoming Black Justice Strategy

Sarkonak continues her focus on the excesses of some advisory panels in recommendations that cross the line between recognizing different experiences and issues and developing separate bodies or processes to accommodate them:

…The report amounts to a socialist manifesto advancing cliché policy ideas that were all the rage during the Summer of George Floyd. Which is probably what the Liberals hoped to get out of the process: some kind of document that allows them to run the “experts said” defence when they ultimately propose to vandalize the Criminal Code.

Indeed, Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of colourblind (rather than colour-conscious) policy at a rate of 70 to 30. When it comes to drugs and crime, a 2023 Leger survey found that nearly 80 per cent believe that too many violent offenders are being given bail, and about the same amount believe that the justice system is too lenient on criminals. About 70 per cent wanted more policing and tougher laws on drugs.

Beyond being plain offensive to the general public’s sense of justice, the ideas currently being weighed in Minister Arif Virani’s office likely miss some number of their target audience, too. One prominent voice, Conservative MP Jamil Jivani, is one example in the “no” camp.

“Black Canadians, like all Canadians, deserve a justice system focused on community safety,” he wrote last week on X.

“If the policies contained in the so-called ‘Black Justice Strategy’ report are adopted, there will surely be more crime, drugs and disorder in our communities. There will also be more victims of crime, and black Canadians will be affected along with the rest of the country.”

If the final Black Justice Strategy looks anything like what handpicked experts envision, it will be painfully out of touch. It will cost. It will reek of unfairness, diverting even more public resources to a fraction of Canadians to the detriment of everyone else. And it will be genuinely harmful by hamstringing the state’s ability to separate bad actors from the law-abiding public — by imprisonment or deportation.

Perhaps worst of all, it will promote the corrosive conception of Canada as a confederacy of racial groups rather than a unified state for Canadian citizens.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Expect more injustice from the Liberals’ forthcoming Black Justice Strategy

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

While there is a diversity of perspectives among right leaning media, Sarkonak represents the consensus:

…Applying the court’s logic to any other situation reveals the absurdity of it all. If withholding citizenship from Canadian spawn two generations removed from home is discrimination, why not three? Four? And if any rule somehow can be perceived by a judge to reinforce a negative stereotype, what else violates equality rights?

Any reasonable government would have appealed, but not our feds. This decision granted legalistic cover to hand out more passports Oprah-style, and a higher court may not have been so generous.

The PR campaign to advance C-71 has taken care to focus on the saddest, most sympathetic stories that can be found: the cases of Type-A parents whose children have high “Canadian-ness” — speak our language, participate in our culture, share our values — but can’t, for whatever administrative reasons, obtain citizenship. These individual cases could be resolved through ministerial intervention today by Miller, which he knows and admits, but his government wants a rule so broad to include all.

On the other hand, there are others who barely have a Canadian connection at generation zero. Some are passport babies, whose mothers travelled to Canada for the purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. According to Canadian Institute for Health Information data, compiled by analyst Andrew Griffiths for Policy Options magazine, there have been more than 40,000 of such births from 2010 to 2022.

Others have obtained Canadian privileges but have returned home. This was especially apparent in 2006, when the Lebanon civil war broke out that July. Some 40,000 people in Lebanon were registered with the Canadian embassy at the time, and $94 million was spent to evacuate about 14,000 of them to Canada; by September, the government estimated that 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon, providing the catalyst for the Harper government to tighten citizenship rules in the first place.

New conflicts shake out new numbers. After fighting erupted in Sudan last year, prompting Canada to evacuate 175 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, Post columnist John Ivison spoke with a government source who estimated that up to half of the evacuees were “refugees who were granted status in Canada and then returned to Sudan, with some continuing to claim welfare and child benefits.”

“Most of these people have been living in Sudan for years,” said the source. “Sometimes they never really lived in Canada and don’t speak English or French.”

And who knows what the tally in Gaza is; in November, the foreign affairs department estimated that 600 Canadians, permanent residents and family members were in the strip. Some of these no doubt include aid workers, but by news reports, they also include young families who are clearly being raised intentionally abroad.

Those children can grow up elsewhere, without learning any English or French, without becoming attuned to our ways of life, our common sense of right and wrong; without ever paying Canadian taxes. Without giving anything in return, they can turn to the Canadian state for help — rescue, health care, and so on. The same can be said for their children, who only need to spend a few years in Canada to be eligible to pass on the same to their children.

The Liberal bill would ensure that the rest of Canada — those of us who have received the Canadian tradition and intend to preserve it for our children, who have a direct interest in our state’s success, who pay income taxes throughout our lives — could be obligated to support three whole generations of convenience-citizens as if they were our countrymen the whole time. It would do so under the guise of helping a narrow group of expats who can, at best, receive help from the minister, and, at worst, have their children apply for citizenship the normal way.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Captures the perspective and views of what a possible Conservative government thinks about DEI and what they might do with respect to employment equity:

…The next place DEI intends to colonize is the foundational set of themes that underpin physician training in Canada, the CanMEDS framework. Last revised in 2015, CanMEDS is up for renewal in 2025. The most radical change? DEI.

Doctors involved in the revision are proposing to make progressive-left values standard in physician training, including anti-racism, social justice, cultural humility, decolonization and intersectionality — all concepts coined by progressive, redistributive racialists who tend to despise western culture.

Health equity experts are all-in on this stuff, so expect the “experts say” coverage to be overwhelmingly positive. A preview is offered by Kannin Osei-Tutu, a medical professor at U of C, who recently hailed the upcoming CanMEDS revision as an “unprecedented opportunity” for transformation.

“Transformative change in medical education and practice demands explicit integration of anti-oppressive competencies,” he wrote in last month’s issue of the Canadian Medical Journal of Health (which only ever seems to publish one side of this great debate).

“Progress hinges on cultivating a critical mass of physicians committed to this change, thus paving the way for more equitable and just health care.”

Wondering where all this goes? Look to New Zealand, a fellow British colony that has taken to reconciling with extreme self-flagellatory policies. In 2023, some of the island nation’s hospitals began prioritizing Indigenous Māori and Pacific patients on elective surgery wait lists on the basis of race.

“It’s ethically challenging to treat anyone based on race, it’s their medical condition that must establish the urgency of the treatment,” one anonymous doctor told the New Zealand Herald.

Plenty more like-minded doctors exist in Canada, but they are drowned out by heavy-handed administrations that insist on turning their profession into another stage of ideological performance. Their best recourse? Their provincial ministers of health and post-secondary education, who are uniquely empowered to turn things around.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Advocates, union applaud legislative commitment for groups for Black, LGBTQ+ workers, Sarkonak: Liberals to mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for Black, LGBT people

Two contrasting takes, starting with predictable support from advocates:

A news release by Employment and Social Development Canada said that, on top of creating the two new groups, “initial commitments to modernize the Act” included replacing the term “Aboriginal Peoples” with “Indigenous Peoples,” replacing “members of visible minorities” with “racialized people” and making the definition of “persons with disabilities” more inclusive.

Adelle Blackett, chair of the 12-member Employment Equity Act Review Task Force, said the recommendations were designed to address a lack of resources, consultation and understanding of how legislation should be applied.

Blackett noted that the report offered a framework to help workplaces identify and eradicate barriers to employment equity.

Nicolas Marcus Thompson, executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat, a group that in 2020 filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming systemic workplace discrimination against Black Canadians, said the commitment marked a “historic win” for workers.

He added this could not have been done without the work of the Black Class Action.

…….

Jason Bett of the Public Service Pride Network said that group “wholeheartedly” endorsed the report’s recommendation to designate Black people and 2SLGBTQIA+ people as designated groups under the Employment Equity Act.

“Our network has been actively engaged in the consultation process with the Employment Equity Review Task Force, and we are pleased to note our contribution to the report,” Bett said. “The PSPN is committed to collaborating on the effective implementation of the recommendations, contributing to a more inclusive and equitable employment landscape in the federal public service.”

Source: Advocates, union applaud legislative commitment for groups for Black, LGBTQ+ workers

Equally predictably, the National Post’s Jamie Sarkonak has criticized the analysis and recommendations (valid with respect to a separate category for Black public servants given that disaggregated data in both employment equity and public service surveys highlight that 2017-22 hiring, promotion and separation rates are stronger than many other visible minorities groups and indeed, not visible minorities: see ee-analysis-of-disaggregated-data-by-group-and-gender-2022-submission-1):

Why would the task force recommend a special category for Black people when the law already privileges visible minorities? The report writers largely cited history (slavery and segregation), as well as employment data. Drawing attention to hiring stats, it said that when comparing Black people to other visible minorities in the federal government, “representation between the period of job application, through automated screening, through organizational screening, assessment and ultimately appointment fell from 10.3 per cent down to 6.6 per cent.”

This analysis ignored the fact Black people, accounting for only four per cent of the population, apply and are hired at higher rates compared to Chinese (five per cent of the population) and Indian minorities (seven per cent). Because Black people are comparatively overrepresented in hiring, this should satisfy DEI mathematicians. The numbers also don’t explain why failed applicants were screened out: were these applicants simply unqualified?

The report also finds that Black employees from 2005 to 2018 had a negative promotion rate relative to non-Black employees — another non-proof of racism, because it’s possible those employees simply didn’t merit a promotion. Federal departments, noted the report writers, have nevertheless wanted to make up for these discrepancies by focusing their efforts on hiring Black people — but were unable to, because the diversity target law targets the broader “visible minorities” group.

The task force also pointed to Canada’s “distinct history of slavery,” abolished by the comparatively progressive British Empire in 1834 before Confederation, as another reason for special status

Slavery was objectively wrong, but it is much less clear why it should factor into special hiring considerations today. There were relatively few slaves in Canada and not all of them were Black. It would be notoriously difficult to determine who in Canada is still affected by this history — and impossible to hold others living today responsible. Additionally, the majority of Canada’s Black population is made up of immigrants who are unlikely to trace family lines back to enslaved Canadian ancestors.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals to mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for Black, LGBT people

Link to full report: A Transformative Framework to Achieve and Sustain Employment Equity – Report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force (on my reading list)

Jamie Sarkonak: Multicultural ‘awareness months’ fail to raise awareness

Unfortunately, she has a point. But they are important to specific communities and provide opportunities for political announcements and events.

Was essential part of the job when working at multiculturalism, drafting press releases and ministerial and other speeches and talking points:

October is Women’s History Month. It’s also Latin American Heritage Month. And German Heritage Month. And Canadian Islamic History Month. And 2SLGBTQQIA+ History Month (though this has not been recognized by the federal government — yet). Some provinces recognize this to be Canadian Library Month.

It’s a fairly busy time in our modern update to the old liturgical calendar. Instead of numerous saintly feasts, we get cultural awareness months, remembrance days and the like. Paradoxically, there are now so many of these observances that they don’t seem particularly worth observing at all. Everyone is special, so no one is.

Who actually celebrates these things? I don’t. October, to me, is simply “Halloween Month.” For the most part, these events — which don’t come with the benefit of time off, as statutory holidays do — seem to be an opportunity for corporations to market themselves and for public-sector communications staff to have something to write about.

In the federal government, efforts to fill the multicultural calendar are fairly recent. A 2017 list of Canada’s “important days” marked only 26 special events (back then, October’s only observance was Women’s History Month). In 2023, that number has more than doubled to 62, with many of the additions recognizing some flavour of cultural heritage. The number of LGBT-related observances on the list went from zero to six, indicating a new significance for the once under-the-radar demographic.

The list of “commemorative days” on the federal government’s website picks and chooses what to highlight, which makes it a decent gauge for identifying the priorities of whoever is in the driver’s seat. Other observances have been officially designated, but they aren’t on the list.

Examples include the obscure National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day in September and Pope John Paul II Day in April, both of which were established in 2014. Also established in 2014 was Lincoln Alexander Day, which actually did make the cut for the current federal government’s calendar. It celebrates the first Black member of Parliament (Alexander had many other achievements).

Why an emphasis on identity? Probably because of our national multiculturalism policy. Government departments and Crown corporations are beholden to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that Canadian policy involves the “recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society” — hence, awareness months.

In their annual accountability forms to prove to Canadian Heritage that they’ve been adhering to the multiculturalism policy, departments must provide examples of actions taken to “promote and celebrate the historical contribution and heritage of communities of all origins to Canadian society.”

In its latest set of responses, CBC explained that it complied with the law by observing Asian Heritage Month, National Indigenous History Month and Black History Month. The Bank of Canada noted the same occasions, with the addition of Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Canadian Heritage dutifully carries out Parliament’s instructions to grow the list of observances. Irish Heritage Month and Emancipation Day (celebrating the abolition of slavery) were the “two new commemorative date initiatives” of 2021.

“These commemorative dates present an excellent opportunity for Canadians to learn more about the richness of the cultures and the historical contributions of these communities, and reflect upon both the proud moments in our history as well as the darker moments, to better shape our futures,” the department wrote in its annual report. “The Government of Canada looks forward to celebrating these new dates which play an important role in raising awareness of the richness of Canada’s cultural diversity.”

That is, the more calendar days celebrated, the better we’re upholding multiculturalism.

Holocaust remembrance and the end of slavery mark historical events of significance — they make sense to recognize. It’s important to keep memories of the Canadian past alive. In a similar vein, there’s a day dedicated to the first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and a day dedicated to a Swedish man who became Canada’s first honorary citizen for helping save more than 100,000 Jews from Nazi persecution. These additions to the calendar are worthwhile.

But broader heritage celebrations seem odd to build the national calendar around. Black History Month, one of the older awareness months intended to highlight stories that often went untold, seemed much more significant back when it was fairly unique. Now, it’s lost in the crowd.

Going forward, the list can still grow. We still lack heritage months celebrating the English (though we have one for the Irish), the Spanish (though we have one for the Portuguese) and the Japanese (though we have one for the Philippines). There are months that celebrate Jewish, Islamic and Hindu heritage — but nothing for the Buddhists or Christians.

More days could be added, which would be consistent with government policy. But to what end? As the calendar grows, the significance of each day shrinks. Anyway, happy Halloween Month.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Multicultural ‘awareness months’ fail to raise awareness