John Ivison: Neither left nor right should politicize Canada’s immigration system

2018/11/15 Leave a comment

Naive to expect that parties will not politicize immigration and related issues.

The question is how they do so, what language they use, and the extent to which and how they virtue signal and practice identity politics.

The major parties largely stay within reasonable bounds. Bernier, as Ivison notes, does not:

The personal pronoun is best avoided, even by opinion columnists. In this instance it is necessary, to provide some context.

I was in a sombre mood on Remembrance Day, having posted a tribute on Twitter to three generations of my family who wore a uniform so I didn’t have to.

As I scrolled through the flotsam on my feed, I came across a tweet by Maxime Bernier, the former Conservative leadership candidate who recently broke away to form his own party. He was lamenting the case of Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman who spent eight years on death row charged with blasphemy and who, after being acquitted by Pakistan’s Supreme Court, is now at risk of extra-judicial assassination.

Bernier was quite rightly decrying the “barbarism” on the streets of Karachi. But he twisted his condemnation for his own political ends, calling for the need to “protect our society” from a threat that patently does not exist on the streets of Canadian cities.

“Radical multiculturalism is the misguided belief that all values and cultures can co-exist in one society. They cannot,” his tweet said.

The tweet came across as a transparent ploy to attract support by espousing views which, if sincerely held, he kept to himself for 15 years as part of a government that regularly expanded the number of immigrants coming to Canada from countries like Pakistan. The fact that he expressed such intolerance on Remembrance Day amplified its effect.

Some time later, I came across a video of two Eritrean children who were new to Canada and were discovering the sheer delight of their first snowfall. With Bernier’s comments still disturbing my mood, I rattled off a tongue-in-cheek retweet: “This is the kind of extreme, radical multiculturalism we’ve been hearing about. Clearly, a grave threat to our way of life.”

My comment touched a nerve, going viral with about 10,000 people “liking” it. Some people got into the spirit of it: “They are going to take our spots on the toboggan hills — I’m afraid there won’t be enough snow left for the rest of us,” wrote Rudy Reimer, not entirely seriously.

On reflection, perhaps it sullied something that should not have been politicized. “Too bad you had to use such a happy, carefree occasion to take a political swipe at some conservatives who have a genuine concern over Canada’s immigration policy,” Eric Nissen responded.

Many, many people criticized me for glibness, and, in turn, federal immigration policy, accusing it of importing “criminals and terrorists.” The father was probably busy making a bomb, one brave individual wrote behind the cloak of a ridiculous pseudonym.

The 2019 election will be won by the party that can best address the anxieties voters are feeling about the affordability of housing, wages and the cost of living. But as this little incident highlighted, deep political cleavages over cultural diversity are hardening as the consensus over mass immigration comes under increased pressure.

The nation is split on the issue as never before in recent memory. Research by Abacus Data suggests there is a 55-45 per cent divide between those who think immigration is a net positive versus those who think it is a net negative.

Conservative voters are most concerned — 63 per cent agreed with the statement that immigrants are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and healthcare. But so did 32 per cent of Liberal supporters and 42 per cent of NDP voters.

The divisions and anxieties may not be as sharp as in the U.S. and parts of Europe, but Canada is not immune from the culture wars.

I’m an immigrant but I have concerns about the risks of the system being politicized. The Liberal Party is intent on raising the proportion of family-class permanent residents and refugees because it plays well in certain ridings.

There are also legitimate concerns about the integrity of the system as migrants seeking a better life stream across the Canada-U.S. border. The number of Nigerians claiming refugee status in Canada surged by 300 per cent in the first six months of 2018. Further, there very real worries that the models used to set immigration levels in the coming decades have not taken account of artificial intelligence and its impact on labour markets.

But these are not the concerns we are hearing from Bernier. “We must start pushing back against this politically correct nonsense that is destroying our society and our culture,” he said in a speech in Calgary last weekend.

Is our society being destroyed? Is Remembrance Day under threat? It didn’t seem that way on Sunday, as millions of Canadians paid their respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifices for our freedoms.

Bernier was using ultrasonic messaging, playing on a prospect frightening to many Canadian-born voters: that they will end up as a minority population in their own country.

Canada has long been said to suffer from a range of neuroses, from separation anxiety to an inferiority complex. But the real fear for many in English and French Canada in 2018 is that “the elites” are ignoring their concerns in favour of protecting the rights of minorities. Gains for immigrants are seen as losses for the native-born, who already see themselves as being under financial pressure.

There are racists and fascists out there — I spent a busy morning blocking them on Twitter. But most people who feel unease at higher immigration levels don’t see themselves as racist. Many could be persuaded to reassess, if our leaders could articulate a vibrant Canadian cultural identity that benefits from newcomers.

We certainly need a rallying call more convincing than Justin Trudeau’s contention that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada” — the world’s “first post-national state,” as he told the New York Times Magazine.

The former is demonstrably untrue, the latter gibberish.

It requires real leadership to articulate and promote the consensus that still exists over cultural diversity. Canadian identity is built on hockey, maple syrup, snow and lumberjacks. But it goes beyond that, as Shane Koyczan noted in his wonderful poem, We Are More.

Canada is “an experiment going right for a change,” he wrote.

“We are an idea in the process of being realized,
We are young,
We are cultures strung together,
Then woven into a tapestry,
And the design is what makes us more
Than the sum total of our history.”

Amen to that.

Source: John Ivison: Neither left nor right should politicize Canada’s immigration system

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Maxime Bernier explains what he means by ‘extreme multiculturalism’

2018/09/24 Leave a comment

Worth reading in its entirety for the shallowness of his replies. There are public concerns regarding the values of immigrants yet the evidence we have from the General Social Survey and public opinion research indicates these are over-stated.

But I agree with Bernier that naming parks after other country founders or celebrating national days of other countries, save for exceptional leaders who transcended national politics or overcame divisions (e.g., Nelson Mandela):

When Maxime Bernier quit the Conservatives to strike out on his own, he vowed his new party would tackle, among other things, “extreme multiculturalism.”

Bernier sat down in studio this week with As It Happens host Carol Off to discuss his plan to create the People’s Party of Canada, which he says rejects Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mantra that “diversity is our strength.”

Here is an excerpt from their conversation. For the full interview, listen in the player above.

In the middle of August, you began to talk about immigration policies and what you call “extreme multiculturalism.” Did you do that because you hoped it would generate excitement about your movement?

No, it wasn’t new.

The platform of our party, it’s based on the platform that I had during the leadership campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada.

So I said that at the time that we must question the level of new Canadians that we’re having every year. It’s always more and more and more. I don’t want our country to be like other countries in Europe in having a challenge to integrate their new immigrants.

You were talking about that Trudeau says diversity is our strength, “but where do we draw the line?” … What is the line that you want to draw?

Diversity, it is good. This country has been built by diversity. But diversity in sharing of values? For me, it’s not good. A person that wants to come to our country must share our Canadian values.

What are these values?

Equality between men and women. Equality before the law. Democracy and respect. Tolerance and the diversity.

I’ll give you an example. If you have two new Canadians who are coming to Canada and one wants to kill gay people because they think gay people, it’s not OK, and the other one says “No, it’s OK, they can believe what they want.”

So is it good to have two people having different point of view on that subject?

I mean, do you have an example of somebody who we said, “Oh, well you want to kill gay people, you can come in”?

It would be better to have people who share our values.

We’re not going to move on before you tell me where this comes from —  this idea that somehow we’re letting in people who say, “I’m coming here to kill gay people.”

I’m not saying that. The people who are coming are sharing our Canadian values. I don’t want that example to happen.

Who is it that you’re trying to keep out?

Justin Trudeau is always saying diversity’s our strength. It is not our strength.

Well, killing gay people isn’t diversity. That’s crime.

But that’s diversity of values.

And you think if we had diversity, we end up letting in people who kill gay people?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying we must promote what unites us, not always what divides.

I believe in this country, and I want people to come here and to celebrate our country, and what’s happening right now is the celebration, it’s always our diversity. We are spending a lot of money. If people want to keep a part of their own culture, that’s OK.

That’s multiculturalism. You said that’s wrong. You don’t want that.

No no, I said extreme multiculturalism is wrong. Extreme.

What is extreme multiculturalism?

When you’re always doing the promotion of the diversity. For me that’s extreme. We must do the promotion of what unites us.

So where does it cross the line for you?

When you have 49 per cent of Canadians that are saying that we have too much immigration in this country, we must listen to that. And I’m the only politician who was listening to that.

I’m saying to these people: Immigration is good. Let’s be sure that the new Canadians that will come in tomorrow, next year, in 10 years from now, will always share our Canadian values.

What is your evidence that people coming to this country don’t share those values?

I’m not saying that.

Well, you are in those tweets. …  Here’s another quote: “Having people live among us who reject basic Western values such as freedom, equality, tolerance and openness doesn’t make us strong.” They want to live in “a ghetto.” That’s “balkanisation.” These people bring “distrust, social conflict, potentially violence.” Who are these people, Mr. Bernier?

It’s people who don’t share Canadian values.

There is a lot of things that’s happening in Europe right now. … Do you want that? No, I want my country like it is right now, being the same in 20 years from now.

One million people in the course of about 18 months walked into [Germany]. This is something that’s happened because they share a border with refugee-producing areas. We don’t. It’s very, very difficult to come to this country. It’s very controlled.

No, is not it is. We have refugees coming from the U.S.  … In two years from now, we’ll know if they’re real refugees or not. The government is telling us that half of them won’t be real refugees, they will have to go back to their country.

OK, so 20-30,000 come and 10,000 get accepted. That’s a crisis?

That shows that people want to come to this country. I want them to come to this country for the real reasons.

That’s unfair for the real refugees that are waiting in camp and their life is in danger. And these people has to wait because the system has to process these people that are coming from the U.S.

It is not a dangerous country, the United States of America. So that’s not fair. That’s not fair for the real refugees waiting.

You know there’s two processes you’re referring to. One, people coming across the border, they go before the refugee board for an assessment. The people in the camps, the people in other countries, are part of a resettlement program that Canada runs through the United Nations.

I want more real refugees. I want to help the people who need to be helped.

You tweeted … “If you can buy a plane ticket from Nigeria to New York, you’re not a real refugee.” Why not?

I’m showing to people that people who are crossing the border, they are not in danger.

How do you know that’s the case? I mean, we know the United States is hostile toward refugees, so maybe he really is …

What are you saying? Hostile?

Absolutely. We know that Mr. Trump has made that clear that he doesn’t want people from certain counties.

That’s your point of view. The United States, they are welcoming some refugees.

They have reduced their numbers considerably.

So are they hostile because they reduce it?

At a time when the United Nation is asking Canada and countries…

They have the rights of a sovereign country. They have the right to do what they want to do. And we have the right in Canada to decide our immigration policy.

So what are you proposing?

We just want to fix the loophole. But to do that, you have to sit with the American government. And this government right now? The relationship with U.S. is not so good.

In August, you targeted this park in Winnipeg. You said that this is “extreme liberal multiculturalism” because a park was named after the founder of Pakistan.

Why celebrating a father of Pakistan when we have a lot of people? That’s an example of celebrating diversity. We must celebrate what unites us. At the same time, destroy a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald?

This [park sign] was vandalized.

You’re saying that I did that tweet and I’m responsible for that?

The people in the Pakistani community believe that that tweet led to the vandalism. You know that. I’m not telling you something new.

Are you serious?

There’s lots of parks in Canada. Why can’t they be named after people that represent the communities who are here?

They can be named. I’m just saying that it’s an example of celebrating extreme multiculturalism.

The one thing that matters to you a great deal is that you don’t like the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and what he’s doing to Canada. And yet many Conservatives are saying that you’ve given such a gift to Trudeau because now you’re going to split the votes of conservatives.

I think that Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau is about the same. That’s what I think.

Source: Maxime Bernier explains what he means by ‘extreme multiculturalism’

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with

John Ivison: Maxime Bernier launches people’s party but he’s an unconvincing populist

2018/09/15 Leave a comment

Good commentary by Ivison on the shallowness of Bernier’s thoughts on immigration and his new party, the People’s Party of Canada:

Maxime Bernier is set to reveal details about his new party, including its name Friday in Ottawa.

In an interview in his Parliament Hill office late Thursday, he admitted he has registered the People’s Party of Canada but that he also likes the Citizens’ Party.

Whatever Canada’s newest party ends up being called, some of its traits are already clear, and others will become less opaque after the press conference.

It is apparent, for example, that Bernier will oppose corporate welfare in all its forms, as he has done so since he told a bicycle factory owner in his riding of the Beauce, Que., that as Conservative industry minister he would not support quotas on cheap Chinese bicycles because it would increase the price of bikes for all Canadians.

We know that Bernier will advocate for an end to the cartel of supply management for dairy and poultry — a system he argues is unfair and regressive for low-income earners. This has been another Bernier staple for more than a decade.

“People are fed up of politicians who say one thing one day and another the day after. What I’m looking for is doing politics like I believe. People like authenticity and I think I have the courage of my convictions and am authentic. That’s why people like what I’m doing,” he said.

But when we discuss the murky topic of what he calls “extreme multiculturalism” there is a sense that Maxime Bernier is not as authentic as he would like you to believe.

He makes much of the fact that he is not looking to promote policies simply to win votes. “I’m very different from other politicians,” he said.

But elected officials tend not to be that distinct from one another — the business of reaching for power contorts them all in similar fashion.

On the diversity issue that sparked such controversy when he suggested on Twitter that there should be limits, Bernier’s thinking sounds muddled. He denies he’s playing the race card, invoking dog-whistle politics or engaging in the same nativism that resulted in him lampooning former Conservative leadership rival Kellie Leitch as a “Karaoke Trump.”

But when I suggested his references to “diversity” led many people to assume he is referring to people of colour, his denial ends up sounding like an affirmation.

“They are misinterpreting what I am saying. When I talk about diversity, I am talking about diversity of opinion, diversity of values, diversity of what you believe,” he said. “I’ll give you an example, if you have two people coming to Canada and one of them wants to kill Jewish people and the other one doesn’t, are we better to have two people who believe in different things or two people coming to Canada who don’t want to kill Jewish people?”

A charitable interpretation is that Bernier is musing aloud, that he hasn’t really thought it through and the example quoted came to him in the moment.

I remind him that in the Conservative leadership platform that will form the basis for the new party’s policies, he described tolerance for diversity as a “Canadian value.”

“I still believe that,” he said, before adding quickly, “I don’t believe in mass immigration.”

The leadership platform advocated the admission of 250,000 new entrants a year — a figure in line with the Harper government’s average intake.

Yet, the Trudeau Liberals have increased the level to 310,000 this year, a number the Conference Board of Canada said will help sustain long-term economic growth, given the rapidly aging population and low birth rate. The number is high by historic levels but reflects that the number of deaths will outpace the birth rate by the 2030s.

On the one hand, Bernier says he believes in immigration in line with the economic needs of the country but, on the other, says the rate should be reduced from the target that many economists believe will help drive growth.

The reasons are not clear.

“I believe in unity also — sharing the same values. Diversity is good. This country is built on diversity and people coming from different religions and points of view,” he said. “But what I’m asking is that the people coming to Canada share our Canadian values — respect for rule of law, equality of men and women, the tolerance of diversity. What I’m asking is that if you come to Canada, you must share our Canadian core values.”

I ask him if he thinks there is a problem with integration of immigrants, given studies suggest employment, earnings and language outcomes between second-generation visible minority groups and whites with Canadian-born parents are negligible; that the children of immigrants learn Canadian values, social norms and official languages through schools, friends and neighbourhoods, all of which makes Canada a model for integration. Is he focusing on a non-existent problem?

“I’m saying we must question this extreme multiculturalism — people who come must integrate and yes, you’re right, they are doing (that). The history of immigration in Canada is great, it’s very positive. The change has happened under the Trudeau government. People who come here have more points if they speak English, they have more points if they speak French, so we have a system and the system was working for the last half century. The Trudeau government changed that in this mandate. I’m saying we must go back to what we did in the past.”

Trudeau’s track record is certainly wide open to criticism. This year just 57 per cent of immigrants will come from the economic class, compared to 63 per cent of the 260,411 entrants in the last full year of the Harper government (28 per cent will be family class, compared to 25 per cent in 2014, while 14 per cent are set to be refugees, in contrast to just 11 per cent four years ago).

The changes to increase family unification numbers by 20,000 people a year were transparent electoral bribes to immigrant communities in the suburbs.

But Bernier hasn’t made the thoughtful policy case for reversing those changes. Instead he has made vaguely illiberal noises that attract the kind of fellow travellers who do not respect the values the leader of Canada’s newest political party claims to espouse — equality, respect for the law and tolerance of diversity. Anyone who has followed Maxime Bernier’s career over the past decade or more knows it is just not him. Authentic? Not so much.

Source: John Ivison: Maxime Bernier launches people’s party but he’s an unconvincing populist

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Two MPs are locked in a Twitter brawl over race and identity. Time to talk? | CBC News

2018/06/01 Leave a comment

Couldn’t agree more with Aaron Wherry (have argued this earlier myself: Maxime Bernier rejects Liberal MP’s apology over ‘check your privilege’ Twitter row):

For months now, two MPs — Liberal Celina Caesar-Chavannes and Conservative Maxime Bernier — have been locked in a very public Twitter battle over identity politics.

Liberal MP Greg Fergus thinks they should actually talk to each other. Face to face.

“It sounds really personal now. And they do work about five metres away from each other,” Fergus said in an interview earlier this week.

An actual conversation might not resolve their dispute. It probably wouldn’t do much to achieve social justice, or to settle the thorny questions about race, culture and identity the two MPs been hashing out in increments of 280 characters or less. But it probably wouldn’t hurt.

On Saturday, Bernier tweeted that Caesar-Chavannes, the Liberal MP for Whitby, believes “the world revolves around” her “skin colour.” That was in response to Caesar-Chavannes chiding him in an interview with the Globe and Mail.

Their mutual animus dates to March, when Bernier criticized the Liberal government’s promotion of funding for “racialized Canadians” and said he thought the goal of anti-racism policy was to create a “colour-blind” society.

Caesar-Chavannes fired back, suggesting Bernier “do some research … as to why stating colour blindness as a defence actually contributes to racism.”

“Please check your privilege and be quiet,” she added — provoking Bernier to invoke “free speech.”

Caesar-Chavannes subsequently apologized and suggested that they get together to chat. Bernier dismissed the idea.

Bernier rejects Liberal MP’s apology over identity politics flareup on Twitter
“We should certainly do everything possible to redress injustices and give everyone equal opportunities to flourish. And we should recognize that Canada is big enough to contain many identities. As a francophone Quebecer, I can understand this,” he wrote.

“But that doesn’t mean the gov’t officially defining us on the basis of ‘intersectional race, gender and sexual identities’ and granting different rights and privileges accordingly. This only creates more division and injustice and will balkanise our society.”

The Jordan Peterson factor

It’s not clear which “rights” and “privileges” Bernier thinks are being granted in this instance. But he is correct to note that, as a francophone Quebecer, he has some special insight into this topic.

As a minister in Stephen Harper’s cabinet, he supported a motion declaring that “the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada.” In 2015, he supported an NDP proposal that required officers of Parliament to be bilingual.

But this also is not the first time Bernier has recoiled from an attempt by the Liberal government to deal with a matter of social justice.

As a candidate for the Conservative leadership in 2017, he recanted his previous support for Bill C-16, which extended existing anti-discrimination protections to cover “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

Bernier said Jordan Peterson — the University of Toronto professor lionized by many on the political right as a courageous campaigner against the excesses of identity politics — had convinced him that C-16 would infringe on the right to free speech.

Asked by the Toronto Sun in March to comment on the latest Liberal budget — which made extensive use of gender-based analysis — Peterson lamented the Trudeau government’s approach.

“I think the identity politics is absolutely catastrophic … We will see a rise in racial tension and tension between the genders as a consequence of this,” he said. “It’s already happening. We’re introducing problems into a country.”

It’s not clear if Bernier objects to what the Liberal government is doing — or just to the words it uses to describe what it is doing.

But identity politics — focusing on the concerns and challenges faced by specific groups within the larger society — has also been critiqued by the American left in the wake of Donald Trump’s election — the theory being that the Democratic party has alienated white voters in explicitly addressing the particular interests of non-white voters.

For that matter, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referenced identity politics himself when he encouraged students at New York University to avoid falling into political or social tribalism.

Fergus’s call for a conversation has something in common with both the American critique and Trudeau’s call to voters to bridge the gap between political solitudes.

An ‘inclusive’ fight against injustice

“As we’re dealing with this issue … you have to make sure that you do it in a way that’s very inclusive,” Fergus said. “That people feel that they’re a part of the solution. The last thing I want people to do is to feel as if I’m pointing the finger at them saying that they are not part of the solution or that they’re part of the problem.”

That approach has its limits. (Some people actually are part of the problem.)

But people of goodwill who find themselves in such conversations might feel as if they are being personally accused. So it’s tempting to think that an actual, in-person conversation might do what an exchange of tweets cannot.

Maybe Bernier and Caesar-Chavannes can never convince each other. But for those calling for change — among them the representatives of a Liberal government that continues to push on issues like gender equality, diversity and systemic racism — there’s something to be said for bringing as many people along with you as possible.

“If you’re part of the groups that have been discriminated against systemically over time, how would you feel? You would want these issues to be dealt with because it’s been going on for such a long time and there’s nothing more frustrating than to feel that the cards are stacked against you,” Fergus said.

“But it’s also very important for people who are not part of those groups to understand what that feeling is like …

“We have to figure out a way to get along and understand each other. That’s going to be an imperfect and messy process, but we need to talk. And if people are uncomfortable with me talking about it, I want to know why they are really uncomfortable with it and let’s have that conversation.”

Dealing with a problem is better than pretending it doesn’t exist. Talking is better than not talking — even if Bernier feels Liberals are sowing division, and progressives conclude that achieving a just society is more important than his feelings.

via Two MPs are locked in a Twitter brawl over race and identity. Time to talk? | CBC News

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Maxime Bernier et la couleur: Fabrice Vil

2018/03/17 1 Comment

Fabrice Vil of Le Devoir on Maxime Bernier’s blindness to structural and systemic barriers:

Il y a quelques jours, j’ai lu de sages paroles sur Twitter : « Nous devrions certainement faire tout notre possible pour redresser les injustices et donner à tous des chances égales de s’épanouir. Et nous devrions reconnaître que le Canada est assez grand pour contenir plusieurs identités. Comme Québécois francophone, je peux comprendre ça. » Je suis en tous points d’accord avec ces propos éloquents. Écrits par qui ? Nul autre que Maxime Bernier, député conservateur.

La plupart d’entre nous veulent une société où tous les humains jouissent des mêmes droits. C’est ce que suggère aussi M. Bernier. Pour y arriver, il est nécessaire de reconnaître les différences entre nous qui provoquent des désavantages pour certains, et de traiter les gens différemment afin de pallier ces désavantages. C’est là où M. Bernier se méprend et se contredit.

À la fin du mois dernier, Ahmed Hussen, ministre de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté, saluait sur Twitter certaines des mesures que prévoit le dernier budget fédéral afin de lutter contre le racisme. « Un #budget2018 historique pour les Canadiens racisés », a-t-il écrit.

Le 6 mars, M. Bernier a répondu : « Je pensais que le but ultime de la lutte contre la discrimination était de créer une société aveugle aux couleurs où tout le monde est traité de la même façon […]. » Erreur, M. Bernier.

Dans un monde idéal, la couleur de la peau serait en effet aussi anodine que, disons, la couleur des yeux. On juge la couleur des yeux sur une base esthétique, mais personne n’est vraiment lésé strictement sur la base du teint de son iris. Imaginez un monde où les gens aux yeux verts ont plus de chances d’êtres pauvres, moins de chances d’obtenir un emploi et plus de chances d’être emprisonnés. Bizarre, non ? En ce sens, il est vrai que la lutte contre la discrimination devrait mener à ce que la couleur de la peau ne soit plus utilisée pour brimer les droits d’un individu.

Toutefois, la lutte contre la discrimination elle-même n’implique pas qu’on traite tout le monde de la même façon. Pour garantir les mêmes droits fondamentaux à tous, il ne faut pas traiter tout le monde également. Agir de cette manière perpétue les inégalités. Il faut plutôt agir différemment pour rétablir les déséquilibres qui défavorisent certains individus. C’est ce qu’on appelle agir équitablement.

Connaissez-vous l’analogie des trois gamins qui regardent un match de baseball, debout derrière une clôture en bois ? Le premier est assez grand pour voir le match sans aucun soutien. Le second, de taille moyenne, a besoin de se tenir sur une caisse afin que sa tête dépasse la clôture. Le troisième, plus petit, a besoin de deux caisses pour pouvoir regarder le match.

En donnant une caisse à chaque gamin, on les traiterait tous également. On offrirait toutefois du soutien à un gamin qui n’en a pas besoin, et l’un d’entre eux ne serait pas en mesure de voir le match.

Dans cet exemple, afin que la taille ne soit plus une cause d’inégalité, il faut justement constater les différences de taille et en tenir compte dans la distribution des caisses. Dans cet ordre d’idées, contrairement à ce que suggère M. Bernier, la poursuite de l’égalité des chances implique de voir la couleur de peau et de reconnaître qu’elle constitue un motif de discrimination.

En 2018, un enfant de 10 ans disparu qui se trouve à être noir ne peut pleinement bénéficier du soutien élémentaire que mérite un enfant de 10 ans disparu. Il doit subir les foudres d’internautes qui formulent à son égard des remarques racistes beaucoup trop violentes pour que je les reproduise ici.

Quelques remarques isolées ? Soit. Mais la discrimination est bien réelle et plus répandue qu’on veut parfois le reconnaître. Je m’évertue à relater que la population carcérale d’origine autochtone a augmenté de 46 % de 2003 à 2013 au Canada. Et de 80 % chez les Noirs. Ces statistiques, qui illustrent une inégalité systémique majeure, demande que nos politiques publiques tiennent compte des déséquilibres qui portent préjudice aux personnes de couleur.

C’est pourquoi nos politiciens ont la responsabilité de voir la couleur. Mais pas seulement la couleur. Tout attribut qui représente un motif de discrimination. Il ne s’agit pas d’accorder des droits et privilèges différents à certains groupes, mais d’aménager des traitements différents pour que tous bénéficient des mêmes droits. Si M. Bernier veut faire, comme il le dit, « tout [son] possible pour redresser les injustices », comment peut-il agir avec clairvoyance tout en étant aveugle ? Croit-il sérieusement que traiter tout le monde également va redresser les injustices ?

via Maxime Bernier et la couleur | Le Devoir

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t push “colour-blind” politics

2018/03/15 1 Comment

Nice rebuttal to Maxime Bernier’s incomplete invocation of MLK to justify his critique of the measures in Budget 2018 to address systemic racism and barriers:

Measures in Budget 2018 meant to address racism and promote social inclusion appear to have inspired moral panic in the Twittersphere. Commentators, including Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, express anguish that the government’s decision to target funding to racialized communities is unjust and divisive. Bernier invoked no less a figure than Martin Luther King Jr. to chastise those who support such actions. But the King they invoke is an illusion — far removed from the iconic civil rights activist who demonstrated an unrelenting commitment to equality and the eradication of racism.

The true spiritual call to arms of King’s entire “I Have a Dream” speech appears to have been lost on some. Instead, his aspiration that his children might mature in a world free of racism is advanced as the sole message of value. But those who would invoke King must respect the integrity of his work. They must demonstrate that they truly seek to be judged not by their whiteness or the colour of their skin but by “the content of their character.” They must move beyond platitudes to action. They must have the moral courage to acknowledge the need for redress for years of marginalization and systemic anti-Black racism.

This controversy over the use of the term “racialized” demonstrates the continuing relevance of all of King’s speech to contemporary race politics in Canada. King called for acknowledgement that the “manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” were crippling the life chances of Black people. In the spirit of King, the announced commitment of $19 million to support Black youth at risk and to research mental health programs may bring about greater justice for Black people.

Almost 20 years ago, in 1999, I served as the co-chair of the Canadian Bar Association Working Group on Racial Equality. I penned a complementary report, entitled Virtual Justice: Systemic Racism in the Canadian Legal Profession. I spoke of racialized communities and rejected the terms “racial minorities” and “visible minorities.” I infused the term “racialized” with implicit recognition that the conduct of the perpetrator and harms resulting from racist conduct were pivotal. I would state now as I did then: I am not disadvantaged because I am a Black woman. I am disadvantaged by racism and sexism. The people of colour referred to by King are today’s racialized people. Balking at the term “racialized,” as some have done, makes plain that King’s speech and body of work are not understood.

Canadians are justifiably proud of our diversity. But attention to diversity means that we must examine the impact of policies and programs to determine not only whether there is access to them, but also that they are of equal benefit to all. Human rights legislation and the Charter mandate specific attention to those facing heightened vulnerability to the compounding impact of discrimination. When combined, these strategies result in meaningful inclusivity.

It is not identity politics to engage in targeted programming any more than it is ageism to have some programming directed at children and youth and some directed at our elders. Focusing on Group A does not foreclose a distinct approach to the needs of Group B. Resources must be shared. There are distinct and known barriers that deny equal access to the benefits and entitlements of our society. Those who would deny strategic policy-making directed to racialized communities face a legitimate expectation to name their alternative strategy to eliminate systemic discrimination.

Current issues faced by Black Canadians — including deep systemic racism in the criminal justice system, challenges in the education system, poverty and profound workplace inequality — are firmly rooted in the politics of engagement that King himself advanced. King decried both the continuing “withering injustice” of slavery and its contemporary impact. He also spoke of the victimization of Black people by police. His legacy calls for leaders to stand before nonracialized communities to lance the fear forged in ignorance. They will be welcomed as they acknowledge the realities of racial profiling by standing firm in the spirit of King with the Black community in calling for its immediate eradication.

Martin Luther King Jr. did not advocate colour-blind politics. He was consistent and specific that his work was grounded in the lived reality of the injustices faced by Black people and sought solutions that reflected an understanding of racism’s transgenerational impact. He worked in coalition with others when they shared his goals, but he was not an apologist who sought to make white people comfortable in their racism. He viewed redress as an urgent matter. King called for immediate action and cautioned against “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

Those who assert that attention to the specific needs of the Black community, or racialized communities collectively, impoverishes or steals resources from the white community are themselves fomenting racism. King spoke of the “bank of justice” owing a debt to Black people. This is still true today and will continue to be the case as long as systemic racism persists. The proposed programs are credit against the outstanding debt where we seek not financial wealth but “the security of justice.”

via Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t push “colour-blind” politics

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Maxime Bernier rejects Liberal MP’s apology over ‘check your privilege’ Twitter row

2018/03/08 Leave a comment

Lost opportunity for dialogue.

Bernier, the son of a former MP, who represents Beauce, a rural riding with only 1.1 percent visible minorities and overwhelmingly francophone, and Caesar-Chavannes, who represents Whitby, an urban riding with 25.3 percent visible minorities, would each benefit from sharing their life experiences and perspectives, and being more careful with tweets that shut down rather than engage conversations:

Conservative MP Maxime Bernier is rejecting an olive branch from Liberal counterpart Celina Caesar-Chavannes after the pair exchanged barbs on Twitter over issues of race and identity politics.

Bernier, Caesar-Chavannes and Liberal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen were going at each other over funding in the budget that Hussen described as historic for racialized Canadians.

The budget included money for a national anti-racism plan, mental health supports for at-risk black youth and funding to collect better data on race, gender and inclusion in Canada.

Bernier says targeting specific Canadians by race is divisive and contrary to the idea of being “colour-blind,” prompting Hussen and Caesar-Chavannes — both visible minorities — to accuse him of ignoring the fact that minorities are treated differently.

In a tweet today, Caesar-Chavannes apologized to Bernier for telling him to “check your privilege and be quiet,” suggesting they meet in person so they can try to resolve their differences on an important issue.

Bernier replied by saying he isn’t interested in a meeting because the two share no common ground, and says Conservatives should support treating everyone individually without any labels at all.

Source: Maxime Bernier rejects Liberal MP’s apology over ‘check your privilege’ Twitter row

Predictably, Anthony Furey of SunMedia picks up on this without understanding or acknowledging that systemic discrimination exists, it is not only about individuals:

Bernier, a former Conservative leadership candidate and well-known free-market advocate, was initially responding to comments posted by Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, who himself celebrated the budget as “a historic budget for racialized Canadians.” Hussen went on to applaud budget additions that included $19 million for black youth and mental health and $31.8 million for racialized newcomer women.

“I thought the ultimate goal of fighting discrimination was to create a colour-blind society where everyone is treated the same,” wrote Bernier. “Not to set some Canadians as being ‘racialized.’ What’s the purpose of this awful jargon? To create more division for the Liberals to exploit?”

It was these remarks that set Caesar-Chavannes off and veered the exchange into toxic territory. She called on Bernier to “do some research, or a Google search, as to why stating colour blindness as a defence actually contributes to racism. Please check your privilege and be quiet.”

She then linked to a column on race issues from The Guardian, a U.K. publication routinely mocked by critics for it’s divisive far-left editorials.

Bernier didn’t take kindly to being told to pipe down, responding on Twitter to say: “You are aware we live in a democracy with free speech as one of its building blocks, right?”

Clearly feeling the heat online, Caesar-Chavannes offered something of an apology, posting early Tuesday morning: “I am not too big to admit when I am wrong. Limiting discussion on this issue by telling you to be quiet was not cool. If you are willing, let’s chat when back in Ottawa. We are miles apart on this important issue and it is possible to come a little closer.”

Some apology. It seems she’s apologizing for telling him to shut it but not for hurling the privilege accusation, then sanctimoniously implying that she’d be willing to educate him out of his ignorant ways “if you are willing.”

It’s unclear which alleged privilege she was specifically referring to, but Bernier is a Caucasian male.

Caesar-Chavannes generated headlines in December when she complained that working in the House of Commons was like “death by a thousand cuts” due to the constant racist “microaggressions” she routinely faces as a black woman. One example she cited is how a woman in the washroom jokingly told her not to steal her purse, a comment Caesar-Chavannes took to be racially motivated.

For Bernier’s part, he wasn’t too charmed by her non-apology.

“Thank you for recognizing my right to air an opinion. I don’t think we can find much common ground beyond that however. You and Min Hussen implied I’m a racist because I want to live in a society where everyone is treated equally and not defined by race.”

He went on to say it’s important to address injustices but not in a way that divides people along racial lines.

That’s what you get when you throw a low blow at someone, as Caesar-Chavannes did. It’s difficult to come together after such a wall has been tossed up. It needlessly divides.

 

Source: FUREY: Toxic ‘privilege’ debate rears its head on Parliament Hill

 

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Newer posts →