ICYMI: Stephen Harper pledges $10M to research terrorism, radicalization

2015/09/16 Leave a comment

Good investment and one that any government should maintain and possibly strengthen:

On the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is committing new money to research terrorism and radicalization.

Harper said Friday that a Tory government would provide $10 million over five years to the Kanishka Project, an initiative — established in 2011 and named in recognition of the 1985 Air India bombing that killed 331 people — to better understand radicalization and effective ways to prevent attacks.

The Kanishka Project is administered through Public Safety Canada and has funded research by academics both in Canada and abroad. For example, in October 2014 the government put out a call soliciting research on how jihadists use the internet, while in July it was announced that the project would provide $170,000 over two years to an Australian sociologist studying why some Canadians convert to Islam.

Source: Stephen Harper pledges $10M to research terrorism, radicalization – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with , ,

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers

2015/05/11 Leave a comment

Welcome reaffirmation of the value of immigration, leading to citizenship, rather than more temporary status.

However, a bit ironic, given that some of the changes to the citizenship program are leading to a greater share of some visible minority groups who are likely to remain permanent residents, unable to attain citizenship with the full panoply of rights that entails.

Harper said his government wants to make sure that immigrants were not filling jobs that Canadians could do.

“Just as importantly, we’re making sure that when people come to this country to work and to work long-term, they have the ability to move towards being permanent citizens of this country,” he said.

“This country is not going to have a policy, as long as I’m prime minister, where we will have a permanent underclass of … people who are so-called temporary, but here forever, with no rights of citizenship and no rights of mobility.

“That is not the Canadian way we do immigration. So we’re going to make sure that program does not drift in that direction,” he said.

Stephen Harper won’t allow ‘permanent underclass’ of temporary foreign workers – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

PM Harper’s ‘dangerous’ comments on Muslims show lack of understanding on culture, says Taylor

2015/04/01 Leave a comment

Hard to disagree with Charles Taylor’s assessment:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s comments on the niqab are “very dangerous” and could lead to stigmatization and even radicalization, one of Canada’s most renowned political thinkers said Saturday.

Speaking to a packed room at the Broadbent Institute’s Progress Summit in Ottawa Saturday morning, McGill University philosopher Charles Taylor said the prime minister’s comments on the niqab as coming from an anti-feminist culture conflates Muslim dress with the threat of terrorism and jihadism, which stigmatizes the entire Muslim population and creates a rupture in Canadian society.

“This kind of stigmatization is exactly what we have to avoid,” Prof. Taylor told reporters following his address.

The Prime Minister has been “tone deaf” in his comments about Muslims, he said, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the culture he’s discussing, though he also said electoral considerations likely figure in the approach.

“Ask yourself what are the recruiters of Islamic State saying? They’re saying, ‘Look, they despise you. They think that you’re foreign, you’re dangerous, you’re not accepted here so why don’t you come to them?’” he told reporters.

“The more you make it sound like that, the more you’re helping them. It’s strange that people don’t see that.”

PM Harper’s ‘dangerous’ comments on Muslims show lack of understanding on culture, says Taylor | hilltimes.com.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with , ,

At Malala’s citizenship ceremony, will she be forced to bare her head? – Sheema Khan

2015/02/27 Leave a comment

Sheema Khan makes the point regarding the wedge politics of the PM and Minister Alexander regarding the niqab, and in Minister Alexander’s case, the hijab (from someone who should and does know better):

… A few weeks ago, a federal court agreed with Ms. Zunera. However, our Prime Minister, who is campaigning for re-election, said that it was “offensive” to hide one’s face while joining “the Canadian family”. These comments were made in Quebec, where there is strong opposition to the niqab and increasing Islamophobic sentiment. Our Prime Minister chose to pander to these fears.

Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander went further, and tweeted “niqab, hejab, burqa, wedding veil – face coverings have no place in cit oath-taking”. He explained that a hijab can be used to cover the face.

Regarding the burqa issue in the U.K., you have told The Guardian: “I believe it’s a woman’s right to decide what she wants to wear and if a woman can go to the beach and wear nothing, then why can’t she also wear everything?”

Please Malala, ask Mr. Alexander if you will be required to remove your head-cover at your ceremony. And ask Mr. Harper and Mr. Alexander why Ms. Zunera should remove her niqab. Your carry great moral authority and your words will assist Muslim women who are being used as cheap political fodder. We know that you will stand by your principles.

At Malala’s citizenship ceremony, will she be forced to bare her head? – The Globe and Mail.

And Geoffrey Hall’s commentary on the risks the Government is taking:

A sizeable number of Canadians have genuine concerns about Islam. Some may even view certain of its manifestations, including the wearing of a niqab, as un-Canadian. Sure, the Conservatives may be playing on fears and unstated prejudices. But there’s a political risk inherent in dismissing those fears and prejudices without confronting them — in allowing ignorance to fester below the surface and voice itself in chauvinistic bumper stickers.

What happened with the values charter in Quebec? Remember, the Marois government introduced it because it thought it had a winner — and in the early stages of the election campaign, that’s what it looked like. But then something happened: The discussion, dialogue and opposition it provoked brought together individuals and groups from diverse cultural backgrounds — all rallying around the shared value of tolerance. Intended to draw neat lines around what is and isn’t Quebec culture, the charter managed to unite a plurality of Quebecers against it.

Which is what happens sometimes when unspoken prejudices are uttered aloud — people are forced to confront what they think in the daylight of community opinion. Right now, the federal parties are road-testing their messages for the election campaign. The Conservatives, like all the parties, always need issues they can exploit to fire up their base — and going after un-Canadian outliers has worked for them in the past.

But a message intended for core or regional audiences can linger, and turn into a liability in the heat of a campaign. The question now is how far the Conservatives can push the “I love Canada — fit in” slogan before voters tell them to f@*k off.

The risks and rewards of identity politics (pay wall)

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , , ,

Woman asks to be sworn in as citizen as soon as possible after overturn of policy requiring her to remove niqab

2015/02/13 Leave a comment

No freedom is absolute, including freedom of religion, and the judge’s example of a monk not willing to break his silence to state the oath doesn’t wash and doesn’t merit accommodation. People are free to make choices, choices often have trade-offs.

It is one of the requirements of living in The policy didn’t sit well with Ms. Ishaq, a Pakistani national and devout Sunni Muslim, who says her religious beliefs obligate her to wear a niqab. While she did not object to unveiling herself in private so that an official could confirm her identity before taking the citizenship test, she drew a line at unveiling herself at the public citizenship ceremony.

Aaron Vincent Elkaim for National PostZunera Ishaq stands for a portrait in her home in Mississauga on Wednesday February 11, 2015.

“I feel that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship oath ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs,” she told the court.

Her lawyers also pointed out that while the Citizenship Act requires people to take the oath, it does not require them to be “seen” taking the oath.

She rejected a government offer to seat her at the front or back of the ceremony so her face would not easily be seen.

In a ruling last week, Judge Keith Boswell said the government’s own regulations require that citizenship judges administer the citizenship oath “with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.” How is this possible, Judge Boswell asked, if a policy requires citizenship candidates to “violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion?”

“For instance, how could a citizenship judge afford a monk who obeys strict rules of silence the ‘greatest possible freedom’ in taking the oath if he is required to betray his discipline and break his silence?” he wrote.

The government had argued that the policy was not mandatory and that citizenship judges were free to apply it or not.

But the judge cited internal department emails stating that it was “pretty clear that [the Minister] would like the changes to the procedure to ‘require’ citizenship candidates to show their face … regardless of whether there is a legislative base.”

The judge also cited a media interview in which Mr. Kenney said it was “ridiculous” that a face should be covered during the citizenship oath.

Woman asks to be sworn in as citizen as soon as possible after overturn of policy requiring her to remove niqab

And further faulty reasoning in the National Post editorial:

Lawfulness aside, the probation was always on weak footing both on practical and moral grounds. There are cases where security or identification concerns rightfully trump the religious practice: for example, when taking a driver’s license photo or going through airport security. Muslim women are also sometimes required — on a case-by-case basis — to remove their veils while testifying in court, thereby allowing a defendant to face his or her accuser. No such practical justification has been offered for banning the niqab during a largely symbolic swearing-in ritual.

To be sure, Canadian society is predicated on the concept of equality for all — regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and so forth — and it’s difficult to reconcile that fundamental value with the custom of members of one sex obscuring their faces in public. Nevertheless, Muslim women in Canada are free to wear — or not to wear — a niqab while shopping at the grocery store, teaching a lecture or simply walking down the street. To prohibit them from wearing a face covering during a citizenship oath is as illiberal in its way as requiring them to wear one. It is an arbitrary application of a pointless ban, and the court was right to strike it down.

National Post View: Court was right to strike down niqab ban during citizenship ceremony

Not surprisingly, the Government will appeal the ruling. Not by accident, PM Harper makes announcement rather than CIC Minister Alexander, in Quebec, as noted by John Ivison: Harper’s ‘offence’ at niqab ruling part of larger strategy to steal Quebec from the NDP):

Speaking at an event in Quebec on Thursday, Harper said the government intends to appeal the ruling.

“I believe, and I think most Canadians believe that it is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment where they are committing to join the Canadian family,” he said in Victoriaville, Que. “This is a society that is transparent, open, and where people are equal.”

Harper says Ottawa will appeal ruling allowing veil during citizenship oath

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Stephen Harper thanks Muslims for condemning recent soldier attacks

2014/12/08 Leave a comment

Overdue but welcome:

Harper told a Toronto-area Muslim event last night that non-Muslim Canadians needed to hear from their Muslim neighbours that Islam is a force for peace and not something to be feared.

Its believed to be Harper s first public words of support for Canadian Muslims following the attacks.

….Some Muslims criticized Harper for not publicly stating his support for Canadian Muslims in the wake of the attacks.

Stephen Harper thanks Muslims for condemning recent soldier attacks – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with ,

Canada’s true role in the Mideast conflict – Former PM Chrétien

2014/10/18 Leave a comment

Amazing op-ed and criticism of a current PM by a former PM: Jean Chrétien’s biting commentary on PM Harper:

For example, all the war in Iraq did was to make the region and the world a much more dangerous place. The legacy of colonialism in the Middle East had not been forgotten and was only exacerbated by the Western military intervention in Iraq in 2003, with the consequences we face today. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper did not understand that history in 2003, and he does not understand it today.

He basically articulates Liberal leader Trudeau’s dismissal of the military option but in a more sophisticated way, not incorrectly, and advocates, in concrete terms, what a meaningful humanitarian response would be ($100 m for the World Food Program for refugees, and accepting 50,000 refugees from those fleeing the Islamic State).

His defence of his government’s decision to participate in Afghanistan and assume the responsibility for Kandahar doesn’t quite jive with the excellent account by Janice Stein and Gene Lang in The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, which, if I recall correctly, was led by DND advocacy, not the political level.

Canada’s true role in the Mideast conflict – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , ,

Harper learning to separate Islam from terrorism: Siddiqui | Toronto Star

2014/10/16 Leave a comment

Signs of change noted by one of the harsher critics of the Harper Government, Haroon Siddiqui:

Harper himself avoids Canadian Muslims except for a selected few, such as the minority Ismailis. The prime minister and his Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney have pointedly courted those who’ve come to Canada fleeing persecution in Muslim lands — Christians and Ahmadis from Pakistan, Christians from Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, Bahais from Iran, etc. Some openly spit hatred at Muslims, yet are cosseted by the Harperites.

Contrast this with Barack Obama and David Cameron of Britain who do extensive outreach to Muslims, at home and abroad.

And unlike Obama who speaks knowledgeably and confidently about how terrorism violates Islamic principles, Harper has been clumsy, speaking instead of “Islamic terrorism.”

But he is learning.

Last month in opening the Aga Khan Museum, he said:“The Aga Khan has devoted an extraordinary amount of time, toil and resources to the ideals of Islamic culture and history. In doing so, His Highness has greatly contributed to demystifying Islam, throughout the world, by stressing its social traditions of peace, of tolerance and of pluralism. This is a vision of Islam of which all Canadians can be proud especially when a contrary and violent distortion of that vision so regularly dominates the news.”

A few days later, speaking in New York, Harper went against the holy grail of Islamophobes, that terrorism emanates mostly from mosques. Speaking of radicalized youth, he said:

“Our experience in Canada has been that their connection to the Muslim community is often extremely tangential. A surprising number of these people have no background in Islam whatsoever. They’re individuals who for whatever reason drift to these kinds of causes. Even those with backgrounds in Islam, they’re often people who are not participants in mosques . . . They’re off on kind of a radical, political fringe.

“Our security and intelligence people would tell you that a good relationship with our Muslim community has actually really helped to identify a lot of these threats before they become much more serious.”

Harper learning to separate Islam from terrorism: Siddiqui | Toronto Star.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with ,

In New York, the Prime Minister talks about winning immigrant votes

2014/09/26 Leave a comment

The “fourth sister” of Canadian politics to use Tom Flanagan’s phrase.

Most of the analysis I have seen (2011 Canada Election Study and related articles) have a similar nuanced understanding of the Conservative Party’s success, but all acknowledge the “showing up” aspect of the outreach by Jason Kenney as having an impact on some communities.

Healthy for Canadian democracy that all parties actively engage new Canadians:

Harper emphasizes his ability to position his party as closer to new Canadians in terms of policy ideas on the economy and crime, and in terms of underlying social attitudes. But how to disentangle those factors from his undeniable success in the past two elections in simply presenting himself as a more resolute, confidence-inspiring leader?

And then there’s this further point the Prime Minister also made today, after he proposed the inherent attraction of Conservative thinking to immigrants: “But we began our appeal first and foremost by showing up, by making sure we’re present at their events, by making sure they have a home in our political party.”

There can be little doubt he’s right that making personal connections, on some level emotional ones, matters greatly. Again, Kenney is widely credited with getting out among various immigrant groups. But isn’t Justin Trudeau proving a huge draw among similar communities? In Trudeau’s case, though, it’s less often a matter of making sure to be present at somebody else’s event, than drawing throngs to his own.

Listening to Harper today, there could be no doubt he’s betting heavily on the immigrant vote when it comes to his re-election chances next fall. No wonder. It’s a major part of what brought him to office. The question is whether his assertion of a deep bond between Conservatives and immigrants, based on enduring ideas and attitudes, is accurate—or if, like so much of our electoral politics, it turns out that this strategic swath of votes responds more to a given leader’s persona than anything else.

In New York, the Prime Minister talks about winning immigrant votes.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Emergency debate on ISIL draws only handful of MPs | “Root Causes” and Government Stupidity

2014/09/18 Leave a comment

Interesting to see Conservatives invoking the Liberals R2P (Responsibility to Protect) initiative, which many conservative commentators have panned if memory serves me correctly:

Employment Minister Jason Kenney invoked the “responsibility to protect” doctrine to fight “genocide” against religious minorities in a sparsely attended yet spirited late-night debate Tuesday over Canada’s response to the Islamic State threat.

… In an extensive speech about the violence minorities face, Kenney took aim at “moral relativism” and cynicism, saying that supporting an existing military presence was the only effective response to the urgent situation.

“There are hundreds of thousands of girls who are facing serial gang rape in this circumstance in Iraq. There are children who have been beheaded,” he said, adding that persecuted families “don’t have time for ‘root causes” — a dig at a previous comment by Trudeau.

Kenney added that stopping ISIL from harming more people takes “hard power,” and couldn’t be done “with pleasant speeches, tents or humanitarian supplies.”

While I share his abhorrence of ISIS and similar groups, blindness or ignoring root causes leads to history repeating itself, and not calibrating the degree of intervention appropriately (admittedly hard to do, both substantively and politically).

Emergency debate on ISIL draws only handful of MPs | Ottawa Citizen.

Ottawa Citizen editorial demolishes the PM and Government’s logic in this regard (“We know (terrorists’) ideology is not the result of ‘social exclusion’ or other so-called ‘root causes.’ It is evil, vile and must be unambiguously opposed.”).

Have highlighted the money quote:

Are the Conservatives really arguing that terrorism, as an expression of pure evil, just springs up without explanation, like demonic possession? That any one of us might wake up tomorrow possessed of an urge to become a terrorist for no reason whatsoever? Surely there are reasons why one person takes up arms in an evil cause and another does not. To try to understand those reasons, and reduce their effect, is not to shrug at violence. It is in fact a moral duty.

Setting up these two perspectives in opposition – that terrorism has causes, and that terrorism is evil and must be opposed – might be time-honoured political strategy. But it’s wrong and dangerous rhetoric. One way to oppose terrorism is to understand it. The Conservative talking point implies that anyone who tries to figure out how to stop a kid from suburban Ontario from becoming a jihadi is, somehow, a terrorist sympathizer. It implies that any analyst who tries to understand the ebb and flow of propaganda within a territory is excusing violence. To sneer at any attempt to understand terrorism is a stupid approach to one of the world’s most insidious problems, and the Conservatives ought to know better. They do know better, but they’re trying to score points.

Canada can and must unambiguously oppose terrorism while trying to improve its understanding of how it operates and how its adherents recruit.

Editorial: Yes, terrorism has causes

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →