Donald Trump could happen in Canada. It’s already begun. – Macleans.ca

Some good analysis and questions regarding the resilience of Canadian politics to Trump-style politics, focussing on the ugliness in the Alberta PC leadership campaign and the Leitch/Blaney campaign approaches.

Starting with Charlie Gillis:

The question, say experts, is whether support for such ideas could galvanize into a Trump-style movement. Ice-breakers like Blaney and Leitch are exploiting the same rural-urban cultural divide that Trump did in the U.S., acknowledges Clark Banack, a Brock University political scientist who studies populist movements. But the kind of anti-elitist discontent that moves votes is seldom seen in Canada outside the West, Banack notes, and when it arises elsewhere, it tends to be short-lived. “We have sporadic examples of people emerging for a short time around a specific issue,” he says, citing Rob Ford’s rise to the Toronto mayoralty on the strength of working-class, suburban anger. “But overall, Canadian political culture is less susceptible to populism than American political culture.”

Another mitigating factor: the relative absence in Canada of a dispossessed working class in a mood to punish its leaders. David Green, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver School of Economics, believes Trump’s support base of white men with no college degree would be hard to replicate in this country because the commodities boom sustained Canada’s blue-collar workers, even as the financial crisis crushed the dreams of their counterparts in other countries. Between 2003 and 2015, he notes in a forthcoming paper, mean hourly wages for Americans with a high school education or less fell by six per cent; for the same demographic in Canada, they climbed eight per cent. The effect, he says, was to slow the growth of the economic gap that has fed voter rage in the U.S., the U.K. and parts of Europe. Last year, our top 10 per cent of earners made 8.6 times on average what the bottom 10 per cent pulled in—a ratio that, while high, falls beneath the OECD average and far below the U.S. ratio of 19 to one.

But all that could change, Green warns, if oil prices remain low—especially if the housing market weakens at the same time. The country’s residential construction boom, he notes, has maintained job centres around the country’s large cities, putting more than a few displaced oil patch employees to work. “What do you do with that set of less-than-university-educated guys—the demographic that switched over to Trump?” Green asks. “That’s a potentially worrying connection.”

More so, agrees Banack, if you have a high-minded central government that overlooks their misfortune while pursuing its own pre-occupations. Running against Ottawa, he notes, is a time-tested stratagem for populist movements in Canada, and these days, few national governments are more closely identified with the globalist program of trade, labour mobility and climate-change action than Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Something like Trudeau’s promised national carbon tax, which will be felt keenly in the West, could be enough to trigger a populist insurgency in Alberta, he says, though it’s safe to assume the federal Conservative party would do everything it could to stop such a movement, given the outcome of the Reform party experiment: “Another vote split, and you could forget about a Conservative federal government for another 10 or 15 years.”

Maybe, but experienced political players are no longer sure economic logic and conventional political calculus are in force. Carter, the Alberta strategist, notes that the online communities where so-called “alt-right” voters congregate—Facebook groups, or conspiracy-fuelled sites like Infowars—don’t traffic in that sort of information. In its place: a strain of fanaticism typified by the onslaught that ran Jansen off the PC stage, which Carter believes is sure to spread. “I don’t know if it’s Trump or social media or just belief that they’re correct that gives a sense of permission,” he says. “But this is not normal.”

Gary Mason in the Globe picks up similar themes:

The Premier and her party are now sitting at 14 per cent in the polls. The party receiving the most support in recent public opinion surveys is the Progressive Conservatives, the same entity Mr. Kenney plans to destroy if he wins the leadership. He wants to build a new political organization that Wildrose members will feel comfortable joining as part of an overarching bid to unify conservative forces in the province.

Either way, Alberta seems to be preparing to make an ideological course correction.

There’s little doubt the rise of Donald Trump has emboldened many in the province. One of those would appear to be Derek Fildebrandt, a Wildrose MLA and one of the most powerful conservative voices in Alberta.

He has little patience for the likes of Ms. Jansen and others complaining about online trolls and provocateurs. “Hypersensitive, politically correct, victim-as-virtue culture is creating a leadership class of wimps,” he wrote in a tweet that could have been sent out by The Donald himself. “People are sick of it.”

After Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. Fildebrandt tweeted: “The biggest lesson that we should learn from the election of Trump: smug, condescending political correctness will spark a backlash.”

I’m not sure what is happening in Alberta, but on almost any level it’s not good. Trump-style politics could well be making its way north of the border. At the end of the day, however, society gets the politicians it deserves.

Source: Not so progressive: Trump-style politics seep into Alberta

It’s a good year to be a racist creep: Note to Leitch: Maybe now is not the time to be sucking up to Trump – Kheiriddin

 Good column:

Is Donald Trump’s presidency paving the way for the ascent of the alt-right around the world — including Canada?

From French politician Marine LePen to British leader Nigel Farage, to a host of far-right European parties in between, the jubilation in certain circles is palpable. Le Pen, leader of the French far-right National Front (FN), told the BBC that Trump had “made possible what had previously been presented as impossible.”

“A new world is emerging,” she tweeted. “The global balance of power is being redefined because of Trump’s election.”

Farage, whose UKIP party exploited anti-immigrant sentiment to push the United Kingdom out of the European Union, met privately with Trump in New York on Saturday — to the great consternation of British Prime Minister Theresa May, whom Farage accused of “betraying the national interest” by not giving him an official go-between role.

Here at home, Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch swiftly congratulated Trump on his victory. “Tonight, our American cousins threw out the elites and elected Donald Trump as their next president … It’s an exciting message and one that we need delivered in Canada as well.”

Trump’s message wasn’t simply anti-elitist, of course. It was anti-minority, anti-women and anti-democratic. Fast forward a few days, and Leitch was reduced to insisting she’s “not a racist” when defending her position to CTV News.

Not exactly the sound bite of the year, Kellie — and not an easy one to walk away from. Leitch might want to reconsider her vocal support for Trump’s message just as it’s being so wholeheartedly embraced by the American white supremacist movement.

However one describes Trump’s style of government (populist? fascist?) one thing is clear: It’s notconservative.

Andrew Anglin, proprietor of the Daily Stormer, a leading far-right website popular with neo-Nazis, said of Trump: “Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor. Make no mistake about it: we did this.” In a similar vein, former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke said, “We won it for Donald Trump.” The KKK is planning a victory parade in North Carolina to celebrate Trump’s victory.

Trump himself is doing little to allay concerns that extremist views will animate his government. Instead, he appears to have swung the White House doors wide open to the alt-right. On Monday, Trump appointed Stephen K. Bannon as his senior advisor, to work “as equal partners” with new Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Bannon was executive chairman of the Breitbart news website, which featured a headline that called conservative commentator Bill Kristol a “Republican spoiler, renegade Jew” and publishes a columnist named “Milo” who claims that feminism makes women ugly and birth control makes them “Unattractive and Crazy”.

However one describes Trump’s style of government (populist? fascist?) one thing is clear: It’s notconservative. Conservatism — of the Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan variety — is dead. Those who condemned the French Revolution for its murderous rampages, championed the cause of individual liberty and decried the dictatorial regime of the former Soviet Union would be permitted to say little in the new Trump universe. The Republican party is now headed by a narcissistic demagogue who talks of reinstating the Assad regime in Syria, tearing up free trade agreements and teaming up with Russian President Vladimir Putin on foreign policy.

Buckley, considered the philosophical godfather of American conservatism, actually wrote about Donald Trump in 1990:

“What about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? … Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.”

It is wrenching to contemplate how the party of those great achievements, from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, has come to be the party of a bottom feeder like Trump.

Source: It’s a good year to be a racist creep

‘I am not a racist,’ Conservative contender Kellie Leitch says

Breaks one of the basic rules of political communications: don’t repeat the accusation and thus draw more attention (for the record, I don’t believe Leitch as a person is a racist but she and her campaign are deliberately stoking xenophobia and racism in their identity politics):

Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch says her enthusiasm for Donald Trump does not make her a racist.

During an exchange on CTV’s Question Period, rival candidate Michael Chong suggested Leitch was importing the divisive style practised by the U.S. president-elect.

Leitch proposes screening newcomers for Canadian values, and says she shares some ideas with Trump on immigration.

The exchange comes as candidates for party chief prepare to debate today at a conference centre just south of Ottawa.

They sparred earlier this week in Saskatoon over immigration, carbon pricing and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Twelve people are running to be the next Conservative leader, who will be chosen in May.

Leitch has attracted headlines – and some barbs from other leadership contenders – for her immigration screening proposal, which she has yet to flesh out. She denies endorsing the controversial Trump.

“I am not a racist,” Leitch said during the CTV segment aired today. “I am not a person who’s out groping other individuals. I do not do those things and I don’t think that the Canadians who support the ideas I’m talking about do those types of things.”

Source: ‘I am not a racist,’ Conservative contender Kellie Leitch says

Kellie Leitch misses the point about immigration: Vic Satzewich

Worth reading in its entirety. Point regarding some of weaknesses of standardized language testing also relevant to citizenship:

It is gratifying to know that Kellie Leitch has read my book Points of Entry: How Canada’s Visa Officers Decide Who Gets In, holding it up and referring to it in Wednesday night’s Conservative leadership debate and featuring it on her website. She focuses on two of several findings from my research: that visa officers conduct very few face-to-face interviews and that they are under pressure to meet processing targets. But she missed the broader point of the book, which is pro-immigration.

Her interest in creating policy to screen immigrants for Canadian values sounds like a return to a time when visa officers assigned points for what was then called “personal suitability.” But there was little consistency in how immigration officers assigned such points.

Not surprisingly, applicants and their immigration lawyers and consultants appealed refusals because they felt those points were inappropriately assigned and, during the 1980s and 90s, the Federal Court was clogged with hundreds of appeals.

By 2002, the difficulty of defending those appeals was so high that judgments about personal suitability were taken out of the assessment. Senior officials within the immigration department were also uncomfortable with the lack of consistency and transparency by which those points were applied. There is little reason to believe that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will be better positioned to standardize what they look for when it comes to screening for conformity with “Canadian values.”

Even if it were practical to screen for “Canadian values,” coming up with a universal set of our nation’s values would be impossible.

The French had considerable difficulty doing this in 2009 when Nicholas Sarkozy launched a “national identity” debate. After three months of divisive debate that involved more than 100 townhall-style meetings, no consensus emerged. The only concrete policy recommendation that resulted from the debate was that the French flag ought to be flown in schools.

Likewise, interviewing every applicant for a visa would bring our immigration system to a grinding halt because interviews take time and resources. The immigration processing system is already slow, and to interview the 1.3 million people who apply every year for a visa to test for Canadian values would be a logistical nightmare.

Do I think we need more and better screening of immigrants and should we do more interviews with visa applicants?

In my research I did find it surprising that we do not interview many visa applicants any more. In some cases, more interviews would be useful, but not as a blanket policy, and not as a way to screen for Canadian values.

One place where interviews might be useful is with language assessment. The immigration department has yet to find the perfect mechanism to assess language skills. Today, it uses standardized language tests administered by third parties. Whether a passing grade on such a test gives a true indication of English or French language abilities is of some debate. Language skills make an obvious difference in terms of how successfully individuals make out in the job market and in school. Can interviews with applicants be used to help inform decisions about an individual’s language abilities? Perhaps, but even that has its pitfalls when it comes to transparency and consistency of decision-making.

One thing that the immigration department does not do very well, however, is to prepare newcomers for life in Canada, particularly in terms of how difficult the first few years will be.

We select immigrants for high levels of education and training and they come already prepared to work hard to achieve their dreams, but we do a woefully bad job telling them how difficult it will be to get a job that they are trained to do once in Canada.

Interviews with skilled worker applicants could have value if those interviews focused on giving detailed and practical advice and directions about how to negotiate the credential recognition process and the vagaries of the Canadian job market.

What Ms. Leitch is proposing is a solution in search of a problem. I would encourage her to read more academic research by social scientists, and even “commit sociology.” If she does, she will find that there is considerable evidence that immigrants do actually integrate into Canadian society.

Source: Kellie Leitch misses the point about immigration – The Globe and Mail

And a good interview with Satzewich in iPolitics:

Author cited by Leitch torpedoes her pitch for immigrant ‘values’ screening

Jason Kenney on life after Ottawa and uniting Alberta’s right [comments on ethnic vote and Leitch]

Worth noting:

Q: Within the Conservative party, you were known as someone who connected with multicultural voters. But most recently, support for the party has melted away in those communities. What do you think is going on there?

A: I would challenge that assertion: it has not melted away. When we started this project in the 2004 election, the Conservative party was at just over 20 per cent of support of new Canadians, and by the 2011 election we were at about 42 per cent—a higher share of the vote than of native-born Canadians. We are the only centre-right party in the world of whom that is true. But I never had the hubris to imagine that we would have a kind of permanent lock on the plurality of that share of Canadian electors. I think what we’ve done through our hard work in cultural communities is to create a competitive political environment. No longer can any party, such as the Liberals, take for granted the support of new Canadians or cultural communities, as though they are some kind of a passive vote-bank.

Q: With the federal Conservative leadership race, you’ve made a few critical comments about Kellie Leitch’s immigrant-values test proposal. What’s your take on the screening people have to go through?

A: I have an enormous amount of experience in this area as multiculturalism minister for 10 years, then being minister of immigration responsible for screening and selection, and minister of citizenship. I find her approach to be disingenuous. I don’t think she’s ever thought deeply about these questions. She never raised these questions in Parliament, in public, in caucus or in cabinet. She seemed only to latch on to this as a theme after her campaign was circulating some questions on an online poll that was probably designed to generate email addresses. I just find the whole approach a bit slapdash. What concerns me is that these are extraordinarily sensitive questions that must be addressed with a great deal of nuance and prudence. Having said that, I do believe there is absolutely space for legitimate debate in a liberal democracy about immigration selection, screening and integration.

Q: You previously spent a lot of your time touring and campaigning with multicultural groups, and now you’re visiting smaller, rural areas in Alberta that must be a lot more homogeneous. What are you taking from those communities and hearing from people?

A: Rural Alberta is a lot less homogeneous than it used to be, partly because of my immigration policies. You go to a lot of small communities in rural Alberta and you’ll find a degree of diversity that probably hasn’t existed in terms of immigration for a century—you’ll find the Filipino grocery store, and the African Pentecostal church and maybe a mosque. Albertans are pro-immigration; they’re also pro-integration. In my years in this province I cannot recall more than a handful of expressions of xenophobia or nativism that I’ve encountered. It’s the land of new beginnings and fresh starts—it is rare Albertans who trace their roots here back more than a generation or two. It’s extraordinarily welcoming.

Source: Jason Kenney on life after Ottawa and uniting Alberta’s right – Macleans.ca

For the full, non-edited, comments on Kellie Leitch, see

Jason Kenney on Kellie Leitch’s values test

Good to talk about Canadian values, and let’s think it through: Andrew Cardozo

Good piece by Andrew Cardozo going through all the limitations in values testing for immigrants and proposing a more positive approach:

But this is not to say we cannot talk about Canadian values or tell newcomers—and immigration applicants, about Canadian values; that way they can know what to expect or decide not to come here if they don’t like any of our values.

The healthier way is to be strong and clear about these values, because there is no question that some of our values are not universally held or practised. Besides some Canadian-born folks who have old-fashioned ideas, there are some newcomers who come with attitudes of inequality as compared to the “Canadian norm.” Many people come here precisely because of our values and others come here without considering what that may mean for them and their families and children.

Not only is it healthier and nicer, it is a more successful way to encourage newcomers to embrace the values of our liberal democratic society. Being proudly progressive and Canadian is the best way to root out many of the attitudes of inequality and discrimination across all communities.

The thing about the uniquely “Canadian values” of equality and respect is that they are fairly clear, only fairly. Some are legislated, some are not. And it is that complex and careful balancing over time—with lots of variation and nuance—that allows for a free and peaceful society. Fundamentalist societies are the ones that allow for no deviation and they generally are not very peaceful or cohesive.

Source: Good to talk about Canadian values, and let’s think it through – The Hill Times – The Hill Times

Leitch says Trudeau a ‘Canadian identity denier,’ but he’s pointed to ‘shared values, openness, respect’

Leitch continues to play hard on identity politics and mischaracterizing PM Trudeau’s comments on identity, just as her source, Candice Malcolm, has (see my review of her most recent book, A response to Candice Malcolm’s Losing True North – Policy Options):

New York Times Magazine story about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last December that prompted Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch to accuse Mr. Trudeau of practising “dangerous” politics and being a “Canadian identity denier” also contains references by the newly elected prime minister to values Canadians share, including “openness, respect, [and] compassion.”

Ms. Leitch surprised a handful of journalists as she was entering the House of Commons on Monday, into the first sitting of the Commons following a 12-week parliamentary recess, and took several minutes to criticize Mr. Trudeau for allegedly denying Canadians have a national identity.

A journalist noted it had been a “very, very big summer” for Ms. Leitch, following a controversy she stirred at the beginning of September by floating the possibility Canada should screen would-be immigrants for “anti-Canadian values,” and asked the leadership hopeful what “tone” she was expecting in the Commons.

“Look, you know, I had a great time and a great campaign, but I do have a concern today and my concern is that our prime minister has denied that we have a core Canadian identity. He’s a Canadian identity denier,” Ms. Leitch replied.

“I’m looking forward to the discussions in our party, but also in the House, over the course of the next number of weeks and months, you know, I think focusing on Canadian values is extremely important,” said Ms. Leitch (Simcoe Grey, Ont.).

“We as a people do have a core identity, we have Canadian values. And I think we’re very proud of them,” Ms. Leitch, who several times described Mr. Trudeau’s position as dangerous.

Asked what she meant, Ms. Leitch replied: “The prime minister of Canada is playing a dangerous game. He denies that we have a core Canadian identity. He’s a Canadian identity denier. I think that is dangerous politics because we as Canadians share a common set of values, and that’s made our country extremely strong.”

The journalists present were later perplexed over the cause of Ms. Leitch’s complaint against Mr. Trudeau, and The Hill Times found a column published in the Toronto Sun that had expressed similar sentiment.

The columnist, Candice Malcolm, weighing in on the critical comments Ms. Leitch experienced in response to a Sept. 1 news report of a survey in which she asked prospective leadership supporters whether Canada should screen refugees and potential immigrants for Canadian values, criticized Mr. Trudeau and briefly quoted a portion of comments Mr. Trudeau made to The New York Times late last year.

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Ms. Malcolm quoted Mr. Trudeau as saying in an interview with the newspaper, adding that Mr. Trudeau also said in the interview he sees Canada as “the first post-national state.” Ms. Malcolm was a press secretary to Conservative MP Jason Kenney (Calgary Midnapore, Alta.) when he was immigration minister.

A search on the New York Times newspaper website failed to find a report containing Mr. Trudeau’s comments, but the quotations appear in an article in the Dec. 13, 2015, edition of the weekly New York Times Magazine.

The Toronto Sun columnist, seemingly on whose description Ms. Leitch was depending, quoted only a small portion of the interview comments.

The journalist, who interviewed Mr. Trudeau following the election, in his lead-up to the contested comments noted how Mr. Trudeau and his party had campaigned on a promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of the year.

The journalist, Guy Lawson, also referred to the November 2015 terrorist attacks that had just rocked Paris.

“Trudeau said he wants Canada to be free from the politics of fear and division,” Mr. Lawson wrote.

“Countries with a strong national identity, linguistic, religious or cultural, are finding it a challenge to effectively integrate people from different backgrounds. In France, there is still a typical citizen and an atypical citizen. Canada doesn’t have that dynamic.”

Mr. Lawson described Mr. Trudeau’s “most radical argument” as his statement that “Canada is becoming a new kind of state, defined not by its European history but by the multiplicity of its identities from all over the world.”

Mr. Trudeau described a recent vandalism attack against a mosque in Cold Lake, Alta. and said “the entire town came out the next day to scrub the graffiti of the walls and help them fix the damage.”

‘‘Countries with a strong national identity—linguistic, religious, or cultural—are finding it a challenge to effectively integrate people from different backgrounds. In France, there is still a typical citizen and an atypical citizen. Canada doesn’t have that dynamic.’’ said Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Lawson recalled how Mr. Trudeau’s father, former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, had argued against cultural and historical nationalism and its negative effect on Quebec prior to the 1960s social and political change in the province.

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Mr. Lawson quoted Mr. Trudeau as saying.

‘‘There are shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state,” Mr. Trudeau said, in remarkable similarity even to some of the values Ms. Leitch has mentioned in response to her critics.

Source: The Hill Times

Pauline Marois et Kellie Leitch : deux poids, deux mesures? 

I think Marie Vastel has it wrong here.

Most commentary has been critical of Lietch and her proposed values test for immigrants, including many Conservatives. Comparing a two-week period with the close-to-a-year period of the Quebec Values Charter debates is meaningless. It would have been more interesting to compare the first two weeks following the QVC announcement to make a proper assessment.

But that would take too much time and effort…

La controverse entourant la députée ontarienne reste jeune. Son idée de test de valeurs n’a été révélée qu’il y a deux semaines. Mais, pour l’instant, les commentateurs semblent moins pressés de dresser le même constat qu’au lendemain du dépôt de la charte des valeurs péquiste.

Source: Pauline Marois et Kellie Leitch : deux poids, deux mesures? | Le Devoir

Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole

Element of truth in what Cole writes but lacks balance and nuance in failing to acknowledge attitudes and policies have and continue to evolve.

And are some of the ‘values’ talked about only a “reflection of our colonial, white, British, monarchical heritage,” or are they not broader and more universal?:

Conservative MP and party leadership contender Kellie Leitch doesn’t really want a conversation on Canadian values. The callous Leitch, who has been insisting lately that we consider a values test for prospective immigrants, simply wants to boost her brand by playing to racist and xenophobic fears of some Conservative party supporters. Modern conservative groups keep questioning immigrants’ values because they know their liberal political opponents, who are prone to the same prejudiced scapegoating, will struggle to condemn them.

Many have criticized Leitch’s proposal by saying it is impractical, since no one person or group can define or determine Canadian values. That’s a nice idea, but in practice we know the values our politicians attempt to sell us are a reflection of our colonial, white, British, monarchical heritage. There are such things as Canadian values, and they explain how our politicians have been peddling a fear of foreigners for the last 150 years.

Suspicion of all immigrants who are not white, or are not members of the former British Empire, is a Canadian value. Canada’s founding prime minister, John A. Macdonald, argued that Chinese immigrants to Canada were unfit to vote because they exhibited “no British instincts or British feelings or aspirations.” Macdonald didn’t need to cloak the authority of the state in the language of wanting a “conversation” about immigrants, as Leitch does today. In his time, there was no conversation to be had.

Assurances that we no longer live in the 19th century are beside the point. Every politician from Macdonald to Leitch has been able to bank on significant support by distinguishing between British or Canadian values and those of everyone else. Yes, even many newer immigrants echo these suspicions of outsiders’ customs or beliefs. They may hail from countries that our government is wary of. The pressure on these newcomers to conform — to validate the wisdom of the system that chose them, to scrutinize those who come after them — must be overwhelming.

Of course, all of this is only possible because of another fundamental Canadian value: erasure. Our modern mythology suggests that indigenous people were never here, or that if they were, their values and customs gave way to a superior British way of life. Our history books and our educational resources for prospective new Canadians have little to say about the values and traditions of indigenous people. British colonialism made outsiders of people who had been here for thousands of years, and cast their values aside.

That’s how a white man in a red coat who carries a weapon and patrols stolen land has come to symbolize the enforcement of Canadian values. We are taught to honour the force Mounties used to Anglicize this land, to view the guy in red as a symbol of honour and patriotism, no matter what despicable crimes he carries out. The values of dominance and separation enforced by the modern RCMP, and the Canadian Border Services Agency, are not universal or self-evident — they are steeped in centuries of racism, colonialism, and white supremacy.

Leitch may not win her leadership contest, but the fact her naked appeal to prejudice can still spur “debate” in this country says it all. Polls suggest a majority of Canadians agree with Leitch’s call to screen immigrants for good values. Few of us really care about the content of the questionnaire. What we care about is our very Canadian right to demand that immigrants be questioned, scrutinized, and weighed against the comfort and well-being of those already established here.

Conservatives are more likely to support the traditional dominant values openly. It was Leitch who announced a 2015 Conservative campaign proposal to create a “barbaric cultural practices hotline.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has cast himself as being far more progressive on immigration and cultural issues, had little to say about the Macarthyist snitch line — Trudeau and his party had quietly voted in favour of a Conservative law called the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” only four months before the election.

Maybe one day, we will be able to have genuine conversations about human values that transcend not only borders, but so many other ideological barriers we still use to divide one another. For the moment, the state and its actors keep pretending there is something especially benevolent about being Canadian, and the culture wars continue.

Source: Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole | Toronto Star

Lisée ouvert à bannir le voile intégral

Playing identity politics and digging deeper, just as Leitch in the federal Conservative leadership race:

Jean-François Lisée s’est dit ouvert à interdire la burka et le niqab de l’espace public, jeudi. Il a du coup accentué la ligne de fracture qui l’oppose à ses adversaires de la course à la direction du Parti québécois sur la question identitaire.

L’aspirant-chef du PQ a réitéré son désir de mener une campagne incitative pour encourager les employés de l’État à ne pas porter des signes religieux. Mais il est allé plus loin en se disant ouvert à bannir le port du voile intégral en public.

« Si je suis premier ministre, mon premier devoir, c’est d’assurer la sécurité des Québécois et nous savons avec certitude que des gens recrutent chez nous et ils veulent tuer des Québécois », a-t-il déclaré.

« C’est une vraie question, a-t-il ajouté. On devrait se la poser avant que l’irréparable se produise plutôt qu’après. »

M. Lisée fait valoir que 10 pays européens ont légiféré contre le port du voile intégral. Selon lui, cette tenue vestimentaire pose un problème de sécurité, puisque les personnes qui le portent ne peuvent être reconnues par des témoins ou par des caméras de surveillance.

M. Lisée ne promet pas formellement d’emboîter le pas à ces pays. S’il devient premier ministre, il statuera sur la question avoir mené des consultations et recueilli des avis d’experts.

Source: Lisée ouvert à bannir le voile intégral | MARTIN CROTEAU | Politique québécoise