Urback: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

Agree:

…Whether that was a reasonable conclusion is a matter of debate (who, I wonder, was Mr. Charkaoui referring to when he called for the killing of Zionists?), but the religious exemption under the Criminal Code is not what got him off the hook. And even if Mr. Charkaoui was charged with hate speech and he decided to lean on 319(3)(b) as a defence, the Crown could still make the case that his statements were not a “good faith” reading of a religious text, and that he was willfully promoting hatred with an intention that went well beyond an interpretation of scripture. It seems the problem here – as with many other instances of, for example, protesters intimidating people outside of their homes or places of worship, or individuals spreading hateful messages at public events – is one of enforcement of existing laws and a willingness to prosecute, and not of a subsection defence in the Criminal Code.

It is easy to see why many people would think scrapping the religious exemption is a good thing. Why wouldn’t we want to remove any crutch upon which bigots can rely to get away with spreading messages of hate? But on principle, we should demand government restrictions on speech to be as narrow as possible, so that the law doesn’t end up criminalizing good-faith readings of religious texts. In his capacity as chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Marc Miller, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cited Bible verses he personally considers “hateful.” That’s fine as a matter of personal opinion, but alarming when the government is opening the door to criminal conviction. 

Source: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

Urback: The Conservatives are right: Canada should end birthright citizenship

Nice to see my work cited and discussion of current and potential numbers:

…It’s difficult to get a complete picture of how many parents who are not citizens or permanent residents are giving birth. Using figures about women who “self-pay” for births at hospitals, Andrew Griffith at Policy Options calculated that tourism births – by which women travel to Canada specifically to give birth – increased to 5,219 in 2024, which is nearly back up to Canada’s prepandemic high. There may be some overlap in that number with the number of births by non-residents, such as temporary foreign workers and international students, since some of them will not be covered by provincial plans or direct-bill insurance from their schools. 

Those who are covered, however, are outside of that calculation. An analysis of hospital deliveries from the early 2010s to 2017 found that approximately 6,000 births annually were by non-permanent residents; “more specifically, around 4,000 births were by temporary foreign workers, more than 1,000 by international students, and around 1,000 by refugee claimants and TR permit holders, annually.”

In the last quarter of 2017, there were nearly 972,000 non-permanent residents living in Canada. By the last quarter of 2024, that number had ballooned to more than 3.1 million. If a comparable proportion of those residents have babies while in Canada, it will mean thousands more children with citizenship whose parents may or may not be entitled to stay in the country, but whose citizenship will absolutely complicate immigration decisions. …

Source: The Conservatives are right: Canada should end birthright citizenship

ICYMI – Urback: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada?

Yep:

…But perhaps most irritating of all is that this totally unnecessary controversy has made a MAGA martyr of Sean Feucht: a man who was, and should’ve continued to be, mostly anonymous – a D-list celebrity, if that, in Canada. It is irritating that many of us now know how to pronounce his name; irritating that he has accidentally stumbled upon the type of mainstream attention his brand of worship rock could have never organically drawn; irritating that there will be more eyes on his Pride month posts about the “agenda seeking to destroy our culture and pervert our children.” And irritating that those who value and understand the rights protected by our Charter – of free speech, and free assembly, and freedom from discrimination – have to defend this guy’s rights, even if they loathe what he’s saying. 

Had licensing officials politely shut down the minority of protesters who knew of Mr. Feucht’s existence and objected to his performances, the majority of us could have continued to exist in blissful ignorance, and Mr. Feucht would’ve soon returned to his long list of other grievances. Instead, they’ve set a terrible new precedent for access to public spaces, while inadvertently forcing the rest of us to give him what he clearly desires most: attention.

Source: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada?

Urback: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees? 

Valid question:

…Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada’s current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try….

But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must “facilitate” the return of those deported in error. 

This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international lawwhich holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result. 

Source: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees?

Urback: Trump’s policies will send asylum seekers to Canada’s border. What’s our plan?

Ongoing issue. One encouraging aspect is that virtually all are entering through official border crossings, number of RCMP interceptions appear stable according to February data:

…Yet even if Mr. Trump leaves the STCA intact, Canada should be ready for a crisis anew at our border with the U.S. (which will only compound the crisis we already have with international student no-shows, and the thousands of international students who have claimed asylum amid policy changes in order to stay in the country). Before he left office, Justin Trudeau committed $1.3-billion to tackle a contrived fentanyl crisis at the U.S.-Canada border. Now that Mr. Trump has revealed that his claimed rationale for his tariffs were an utter fabrication, Canada needs to allocate those funds – and then some – toward the real crisis.

Source: Trump’s policies will send asylum seekers to Canada’s border. What’s our plan?

Urback: Society’s brainworms have gotten so bad, we can’t even recognize a swastika as a hate symbol 

More on Shopify’s hesitation in doing the obvious:

…Perhaps amid all of this noise, the executives at Shopify lost their bearings, or else feared some sort of bigger blowback if they were seen to capitulate to the mob. But good Lord, guys: we are talking about a swastika, a symbol that is synonymous with the desire for racial purity and the extermination of millions of Jews. This was not a borderline case: It was a Nazi symbol, being sold for profit, on a platform where it’s within the rights of the owners to make decisions based on personal discretion.

It is astounding that Shopify didn’t come out within an hour and announce they were taking down the shop for promoting a hate symbol. Maybe that should be included in their terms of service.

Source: Society’s brainworms have gotten so bad, we can’t even recognize a swastika as a hate symbol

Urback: In preparation for Trump 2.0, Ottawa must broadcast that our border is closed, Kheiriddin: In the age of Trump, Canada must stem the refugee tide

Two commentaries with similar suggestions:

…So what can Canada do? Start sucking up to Mr. Trump to try to protect the revised STCA? Hire more officers, more border control agents, more immigration staff? Build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it? Two of three are probably prudent actions. But there is something else Canada can do in the interim that is much more simple: start broadcasting, now, that asylum-seekers from the U.S. will be denied entry to Canada.

In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rather infamously published a welcome to migrants of the world, tweeting, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” To now broadcast the opposite – through tweets, diplomatic missions, perhaps even advertisements – would be entirely off-brand for a government whose belief in its own sanctimony is probably powerful enough to run cars, but extraordinarily necessary considering the circumstances. Asylum-seekers risk their lives with human smugglers, treacherous conditions, and a dearth of resources and services when and if they do make it to Canada. It wouldn’t be fair to them, nor is it fair to those already in the country, for the government to leave the misconception that Canada can accommodate unchecked.

Source: In preparation for Trump 2.0, Ottawa must broadcast that our border is closed

…To discourage people from coming, the government must remove the 14-day exemption and require all refugee applications to be made solely from outside of Canada. It must also allocate more resources to speed up claim processing times.

Critics will say that this will drive migrants underground, like in the U.S., where they cross the border illegally and never seek status for fear of being deported. This is a risk notably in Canada’s seven designated “sanctuary cities,” where illegal migrants can receive services and benefits without having to disclose their status: Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, Ajax, Edmonton, Hamilton and London. Since cities are legally creatures of the province, Ottawa needs to cooperate with provincial government to find a legal means of revoking or outlawing the designation.

Unfortunately, we may not get a lot of cooperation from our neighbours. American cities have already encouraged migrants to leave, including to Canada. All the more reason to send a tough signal now that we won’t let this happen, before Trump takes office — and before the migration tsunami hits.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: In the age of Trump, Canada must stem the refugee tide

Urback: A hard diversity quota for medical-school admissions is a terrible, counterproductive idea

Lot’s of (negative) commentary on the latest TMU initiative.

…All of this is in service to a genuinely noble goal. But the school’s execution – it’s practically boasting of its lax admission requirements – is clumsy, short-sighted and does a disservice to its own prospective students. The unintended consequences are obvious: Canadian patients will start Googling their physician’s educational background and wonder if the resident doctor performing their next procedure was one of the TMU students who got into med school with an art-history degree, a 3.3 GPA and a compelling personal essay. Indeed, the school’s quota system will inevitably condemn all of its graduates to public skepticism about their qualifications and capabilities, even if the physicians TMU produces are in fact very capable, qualified and skilled. It’s a bias of the school’s own making that it will have to fight to counter, and probably lose anyway….

Source: A hard diversity quota for medical-school admissions is a terrible, counterproductive idea

What is striking about most of the similar commentary I have seen, is that most do not look at what the data says about med school diversity. Earlier and the most recent study I found show largely an issue for Blacks and Indigenous; Chinese and South Asians are over-represented, whites under-represented.The latest analysis of diversity among medical students (English universities) that I found shows that:

A total of 1388 students responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 16.6%. Most respondents identified as women (63.1%) and were born after 1989 (82.1%). Respondents were less likely, compared to the Canadian Census population, to identify as black (1.7% vs 6.4%) (P < 0.001) or Aboriginal (3.5% vs. 7.4%) (P < 0.001), and have grown up in a rural area (6.4% vs. 18.7%) (P < 0.001). Respondents had higher socioeconomic status, indicated by parental education (29.0% of respondents’ parents had a master’s or doctoral degree, compared to 6.6% of Canadians aged 45–64), occupation (59.7% of respondents’ parents were high-level managers or professionals, compared to 19.2% of Canadians aged 45–64), and income (62.9% of respondents grew up in households with income >$100,000/year, compared to 32.4% of Canadians). [2016 census]

Source: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Canadian medical students: a cross-sectional study

Urback: Justin Trudeau’s legacy will be destroying the Canadian consensus on immigration

All too common mistake of looking only at the top line numbers and not some of the nuances in the more detailed breakdowns. Concerns, legitimate, over levels, types and pace, are not related to fundamental beliefs that immigration is good or bad, but rather how excessively high levels of permanent and temporary immigrants exacerbate housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc.

And please, “never before have they been so prevalent, and so mainstream” is both factually and historically incorrect, when in the past anti-immigration attitudes were more race, religion and ethnic ancestry based, not on issues like housing, healthcare and infrastructure that affect immigrants and non-immigrants alike:

…Recent polling has shown a steep decline in Canadians’ support for immigration. A Nanos poll released in 2023 showed a 20-point increase from March to September in respondents who thought Canada should accept fewer immigrants. Research by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada showed similar results. A recent Leger poll indicated that 60 per cent of Canadians believe we are accepting too many immigrants. These attitudes about policy can often turn into animosity toward people – attitudes that are quick to shift, and nearly impossible to shift back. It breeds the type of xenophobia that recently led to violent clashes in Britain, and unapologetic racism in France, and inhumane border detention facilities in the United States. And it’s starting to creep out of the fringes in Canada.

Anti-immigrant attitudes have always been present in this country, but never before have they been so prevalent, and so mainstream. The Canadian consensus that existed on immigration before Mr. Trudeau’s government has all but been vanquished, and a new cap on temporary foreign workers or a few piddling restrictions on international students won’t bring it back. That will be Mr. Trudeau’s legacy, and it’s not one that he, or the country, can be proud of.

Source: Opinion: Justin Trudeau’s legacy will be destroying the Canadian consensus on immigration

Urback: A mass bomb threat against Jews? Who could have seen that coming?

Satirical yet pointed:

…But even then, what would have given someone such a sense of impunity that they would threaten 100 Jewish institutions at once? Was it Winnipeg’s mayor taking downthe city’s menorah, or Moncton’s mayor doing the same? Or Calgary’s mayor skippingthe city’s menorah-lighting ceremony, or Toronto’s mayor declining to attend the Walk with Israel? Was it the empty words offered by Canadian politicians, over and over again, in lieu of action each time a Jewish institution is attacked?

Or maybe these individuals were emboldened by the national indifference this country has shown toward the targeting of Catholic churches, dozens of which have been set ablaze over the course of the last few years? Maybe it was the constant dismissal of the concerns of Jews feeling unsafe in Canada, because, as many have taken to saying now, why should anyone care about hurt feelings here, when people are dying in Gaza?

If only there were warnings, beyond the threats, violence, vandalism, harassment, cultural exclusion, institutional antisemitism, empty words and constant gaslighting. And when – not if – someone gets seriously injured or worse, we’ll wish there had been more signs, too.

Source: A mass bomb threat against Jews? Who could have seen that coming?