While I was away: Multiculturalism articles of interest

Siddiqui: No, Mark Carney, Canada is not the most European non-European country

Not seeing much evidence for this in polling data and of course lands once occupied by Europeans were also subject in many cases to periods of conquest by other groups and countries:

… Carney has demonstrated no real feel for this new Canada and seems unaware that when he talks of Canada’s great affinity to Europe, he grates on many, especially Indigenous people and Canadians of non-European stock. His enthusiasm is particularly offensive to those of us who’ve come from lands once occupied by European colonialists — racist, cruel and rapacious.

Contrary to Carney’s assertion, Canada is the least Western of Western nations. As philosopher John Ralston Saul has argued, we are a “Métis nation,” shaped by Indigenous Peoples and their values of moderation and compromise — reflected in the 1867 British North America Act, a compact between the Indigenous, the English and the French. We can draw a line from that to this contemporary blessing: Canadians rate pluralism and multiculturalism as our top virtues when Trump and several European populists have turned skin colour into a major fault line of the West.

Anti-immigrant parties are doing well in Britain and across Europe — Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Finland, etc. They are cheered on by Trump who fans the fears of Europe facing “civilizational erasure” and becoming “majority non-European,” i.e. non-white. Far too many mainstream Republicans are proclaiming the United States to be a “Christian nation” and echoing far-right Europeans in asserting that “Christ is king.”

In Canada, however, no overtly anti-immigrant, let alone racist or religion-based party can hope to win a national election or even muster a few seats….

Urback: Woke 1.0 was crazy. And it’s not over yet

Good discussion of how woke should be interpreted and allowance for growth and change: 

… That’s what made, and makes, Woke 1.0 so “crazy,” to borrow Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s characterization. It wasn’t simply the furor with which the public attacked perceived transgressors, or the haste with which punishments were doled out, but the inherent contradiction of the whole find/shame/banish exercise, which was supposed to be about bettering individuals’ social awareness, but left no space for betterment. “Wokeness” is about recognizing racial (and other) privilege, about understanding our own inherent biases, and about acknowledging the structural barriers that disproportionately affect some people more than others. The whole idea is that through learning and growth, we can make a better, fairer society.

But Woke 1.0 made no allowance for growth – neither past nor present. People were defined by singular statements or actions, flattened into one-dimensional caricatures of themselves. Those who transgressed from accepted dogma were booted from their jobs immediately, without time to actually understand why “reverse racism” could be considered a regressive concept. And those who were fired for historical wrongs were made to wear and serve penance for past indiscretions, even if they could demonstrate they were no longer that person.

Indeed, the moment was all about unlearning prejudices (which is why every company suddenly seemed to have a DEI czar onboard), but no one cared to listen if someone claimed to have already unlearned their prejudices….

Terry Newman: Concordia handbook teaches students to hate Canada, the West, police ….

Link to handbook: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13XQ5sTNcXhrcQfRT73ca-PyuYeeZgzHm/view 

Sigh…Good example of woke 1:

…The next part of the handbook is called a “Survival Guide.” The first section is titled, “Ni Canada, ni Quebec” (neither Canada, nor Quebec). It criticizes Prime Minister Mark Carney for evoking Canada’s “glorified settler colonial past” in his recent forward guidance video, and accuses the Liberals of passing a “massive anti-immigration bill giving the state powers to abandon due legal process and to cancel immigration status for migrants at will.”

The handbook also has strong words for two Quebec political parties. It complains that both the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) and Parti Québécois (PQ) are moving toward more right-wing policies, including the CAQ’s banning prayer in public institutions and the PQ’s call for a referendum. It also complains that: “The Quiet Revolution-era promise of a Québécois welfare state and shared prosperity for all is now more or less a thing of the past, abandoned in favour of xenophobic rhetoric and the so-called “defence of Quebecois and Western culture and values.”

The federal government doesn’t escape the handbook’s criticism either. Students are told that the federal government is only more tolerant of minorities than Quebec “on the surface,” and frames the plight of migrants as one in which they are required to accept that “money rules the land, that you’ll be blamed for the political and economic failures of the government, and that your immigration status can be revoked at any time, resulting in your deportation, especially if you protest in solidarity with Palestine….

Elkouri: Blé d’Inde, hijab, colère

Good column:

…Pour les directions scolaires qui ont l’odieux d’appliquer la loi 94, la situation est intenable sur le plan humain.

Comment annoncer à des parents bénévoles appréciés que l’on ne peut plus accepter leur aide ? Quel message leur envoie-t-on ? Quel message cela envoie-t-il à leurs enfants ?

« Ça nous écœure. On a honte », me confiait la directrice d’une école primaire de la grande région montréalaise. Car cela va fondamentalement à l’encontre des valeurs d’inclusion de la société québécoise.

Comment accepter que l’école québécoise inclusive devienne un lieu d’exclusion ?

Étonnamment, en pleine campagne électorale, cet enjeu qui suscite de vives inquiétudes est passé sous silence.

À la veille des élections, Joanne espère que son cri du cœur nourrira la réflexion et servira surtout à ramener un peu d’amour, d’inclusion et de bon sens dans un monde qui en a bien besoin.

Je l’espère aussi.

Moderate new Muslim group aims to broaden dialogue beyond certain ‘politically charged issues’

Will be interesting to see how active and influential this organization will become:

There are roughly two million Muslims in Canada. But they don’t see themselves in conversations being held in their name in Ottawa, says a leader of the new Muslim Policy Institute (MPI).

The MPI, launched this month, is dedicated to including Canadian Muslims in the dialogue that shapes policy about how they live.

“The questions MPI cares about most, like belonging, opportunity, the pressures families are facing, and what Muslim Canadians actually prioritize, are often overlooked. Meanwhile, the national conversation keeps circling one or two politically charged issues,” said Nika Jabiyeva, the institute’s managing director of operations and partnerships, told National Post.

Jabiyeva said research last year revealed that although Islamophobia was a concern for the community, bigger concerns for Muslim Canadians, like most Canadians in general, were the cost of living and housing.

MPI “doesn’t claim to represent two million people,” she said. The group’s purpose is to learn “what shapes Muslim Canadian life and identity, from youth and professionals to women in leadership and elders, and bringing that to the public and into policy.”…

Immigrants aren’t a monolithic voting bloc in Alberta’s referendum on secession

Immigrants, both overall and within different groups, are never monolithic with considerable variation:

The temptation to portray immigrants as a monolithic pro-Confederation voting bloc, therefore, ignores the complexity of their experience, concerns, and aspirations. Consequently, in this referendum, both sides of the separation debate would be advised to acknowledge that newcomers are neither automatic defenders of the Confederation nor guaranteed supporters of the independence campaign. They are a diverse and evolving constituency whose political choices are formed by the same mixture of fears, hopes and interests that influence every voter.

This referendum may actually prove that the voices of Alberta’s immigrants may not be the loudest in the public square, but they could prove decisive in shaping the province’s political future.

Innocent Madawo is a political commentator based in Edmonton.

Khan: Canadians must not stand for the notwithstanding clause’s pre-emptive use

We will see where the SCC ends up, hopefully with some guardrails given excessive invocation:

…Canada’s judicial system and Charter of Rights say otherwise. When a provincial or federal legislature proposes a law that a court has ruled would deny Canadians of their fundamental freedoms, legal rights or equality rights, it can invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the order. Legislatures can also deny those affected the ability to plead their case before the courts by invoking the clause pre-emptively, as Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have done or have threatened to do.

The Supreme Court of Canada has deemed such pre-emptive use legal. But is it just? Quebec’s Bill 21, which the legislature shielded with a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in 2019, has been making its way through Canada’s courts. It is now being considered by the Supreme Court – but not because it might violate fundamental individual freedoms. Instead, the case is being heard because it allegedly violates English-language minority rights, which the clause cannot override.

The Supreme Court will also hear a case from Saskatchewan in which the government used the clause pre-emptively to remove any challenge to a law requiring parental consent for students under 16 to use preferred pronouns at school. Unlike the courts in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, though, Saskatchewan’s appellate court said that it would examine the case despite the clause being used, and let the public know how it violates fundamental freedoms. Pretty bold on its part, in contrast to the helplessness shown by courts in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. And now Canada’s highest court will decide whether lower courts can do the same: step in and issue a declaration when a Canadian is not allowed to argue for basic freedoms.

So here we are. You can fight a traffic ticket in court; people accused of serious crimes have their day in court to mount a vigorous defence. And yet, our Charter not only allows our legislators the absolute power to override basic rights, it grants the power to deny any opportunity to fight against those violations. It feels Kafkaesque – but the better descriptor might be Trumpian, in how it bullies the powerless. How ironic that Canadians appear largely united in our displeasure with that man, yet accept a system that allows governments to take our vulnerable minorities’ freedoms away without legal recourse….

Amnesty International: Black communities in Canada say reparatory justice must be enshrined in new UN rights declaration

Some issues are more specific to Blacks, some are more generic to all minorities and are class, not identity based. Some are just unrealistic, politically, and are unlikely to change the reality on the ground.

  • Establish an independent Black Equity Commissioner with enforcement authority and protection from political interference
  • Mandate disaggregated race-based data collection under community-controlled governance frameworks grounded in Black data sovereignty
  • Recognize collective rights of historic Black communities, including the ancestral land and cultural rights of African Nova Scotians
  • Invest in Black-led infrastructure through independent institutions, legal-defence capacity, and stable multi-year funding
  • Regulate artificial intelligence and surveillance technologies to eliminate anti-Black bias, including through independent equity audits and meaningful representation in technology governance
  • Reform education systems to centre Black Canadian history, identity, and culturally responsive teaching
  • Address barriers facing Black newcomers in immigration, housing, credential-recognition, and access to culturally appropriate supports

“Black communities in Toronto, Nova Scotia, and Ottawa gave their time and trust to this process, knowing how often consultation has ended without action,” said Lerato Chondoma, a director with the Black Canadians Civil Society Coalition. “They have brought clarity and good faith; the obligation now rests with governments. We call on Canada to show publicly, with timelines and benchmarks, how and when it will act on the recommendations contained in the report.

McWhorter: When White People Like Hannah Gann Pretend to Be Black

Another interesting discussion:

… These cases suggest a subtype of modern white identity. For this person, the commitment to contesting the evil of whiteness is all-consuming, an ideological North Star that orients her entire worldview. It is an extreme expression of the outlook that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called “Woke 1,” in which the world is always neatly divided into wicked white oppressors and virtuous nonwhite victims. For a white person with these beliefs, it is a short step to wanting not to be white, to escape the original sin of that privilege.

To be the victim is to be not just innocent but also more interesting. It also can provide a sense of meaning in a modern world that no longer gives ready answers to the question of life’s purpose. “Who am I? What am I for? I’m … Black!” The decision may be eccentric — skin darkening as part of your morning routine? — but it is hardly counterintuitive….

Modern cases like Gann’s are something else. And because the fetishizing of Blackness and the reviling of whiteness is a natural outgrowth of our progressive intelligentsia’s worldview, I see little that will stop them from appearing from time to time. While Krug disappeared from public life, Dolezal presses on in her simulation, and recently said she’d like to sit down for a meal with Gann. Perhaps Gann, too, will ultimately decide that her self-identification as Black and Palestinian is valid, regardless of biology and family history.

This sort of thing will remain rare but never go extinct — no more perplexing than the occasional four-leaf clover. Get ready for another case in a year or three.

ICYMI – Urback: The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom

Agree:

…To be clear: This directive does not affect how members of the CAF can pray and worship on their own time. The policy also explicitly carves out exceptions for funerals, recognizing that a funeral is considered to be “family-led event that honours the family’s wishes.” It also notes that chaplains are not restricted “during private conservations (counselling), within faith-specific gatherings, or in their spiritual roles.” The new restriction is only when chaplains are speaking at public military ceremonies, where they are acting as representatives of the CAF (and thus the government), and not simply as faith leaders. 

The change is thus less an “attack on freedom of religion” of the individual than it is a move to further secularize the government. That is a good thing; religious freedom in a democracy should mean the ability to practice one’s spiritual beliefs as desired, as well as freedom from religion imposed by the government and by others. In other words, people should be able to pray and observe however they want, as long as it does not meaningfully affect others. …

Another way the CAF could have attempted to achieve religious neutrality (or greater religious neutrality) would have been to mimic what political organizations do in the U.S. Democratic and Republican conventions, for example, are opened or closed with prayers from a variety of faith leaders, including priests, imams, rabbis and so on. But this method would have inevitably left out one or more faith groups, and would also have turned public CAF ceremonies into extended prayer sessions that force members to entertain religious practice that has nothing to do with their service. Removing public religious expression is the better alternative, especially since it imposes no restriction on members’ private prayers. It is hardly the egregious affront to religious freedom that Conservatives are making it out to be, but rather, a sensible (if still a bit incoherent) step for a secular government.

Source: The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom

ICYMI – Urback: Canada does not owe international students a path to residency

Suspect this represents a majority view even if federal and provincial governments, along with education institutions, were complicit:

…None of this is fair in the very colloquial sense of the word. The Canadian government was explicitly marketing student visas as a path to permanent residency by inviting foreigners to “study, work and stay in Canada,” and prospective students responded in droves. In 2023-24, there were 428,077 student visa-holders in Canada, which was up nearly 50 per cent from just before the pandemic. And the reason why that number exploded was not because people from Punjab were suddenly ecstatic about the opportunity to learn hairdressing at the Eikonic Academy in Mississauga, but because everyone knew it was an easy way to start a new life in Canada. You could even work as much as you wanted while you ostensibly studied for a degree to take back home.

The Canadian government cannot and should not do anything now to placate the international students protesting for PGWP access, even though Ottawa played a major role in setting their expectations in the first place. Canadian residency cannot be for sale, even if the Canadian government dangled the prospect just a few years ago. This is an unfortunate outcome for those who risked everything to start a new life in Canada, but the process was always that: a risk. 

Source: Canada does not owe international students a path to residency

ICYMI – Urback: Ottawa will start tracking when temporary residents enter and exit. Perhaps it could consider actual enforcement too?

Agree:

…In other words, not only has Ottawa not been tracking when non-permanent residents enter and exit the country, it is also not taking enforcement action in cases where fraud has clearly been identified, thus leaving applicants’ files unblemished and clear to apply for permanent residency. 

But the department appears unperturbed. The same day as last week’s committee meeting, where Ms. Diab yielded to the gross inadequacies of Canada’s immigration monitoring systems, the minister announced that Ottawa is fast-tracking permanent residency for up to 33,000 temporary foreign workers. 

It’s a mess, of course, with some changes coming by the end of the year, by which time the government would have fast-tracked permanent residency for tens of thousands, and issued hundreds of thousands of new temporary permits. But perhaps while IRCC is experimenting with its new counting pilot, it might want to run a beta on actual enforcement, so we don’t accidentally grant permanent residency to someone who entered the country fraudulently, or allow those who are not legally permitted to remain in the country to stay. It’s just a thought – something to test out to decide if Canada, a purportedly serious country, wants to maintain it permanently.

Source: Ottawa will start tracking when temporary residents enter and exit. Perhaps it could consider actual enforcement too?

Urback: It is the right time – socially and economically – to scale back extended health benefits for refugees

Not seeing much pushback:

…The problem plaguing the IFHP both in 2012 and in 2026 is the perception of unfairness: Canada’s public health care system does not include coverage for extended services and prescriptions for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, but it does for those eligible for the IFHP. 

There are various arguments that justify that discrepancy, including the fact that refugees often arrive with complex medical needs after years of neglect, and it may be cheaper in the long run to treat them up front. There are various provincial programs that do cover the cost of prescriptions and extended services for low-income Canadians, but asylum-seekers will have more trouble navigating the complex bureaucracy, especially if there is a language barrier. IFHP keeps it simple. 

These arguments were more persuasive in 2012, when the program was a fraction of its current size, and there wasn’t the widespread perception that Canada’s refugee system was being abused. In 2012, roughly 128,000 people were covered by the IFHP. In 2024-2025, that number exploded to 623,365, with expenses totalling nearly $900-million. …

There’s also a social imperative for bringing refugee benefits closer in line with those afforded to Canadian citizens. That’s because, bluntly, the Trudeau government destroyed the immigration consensus in Canada; it brought in so many newcomers, so quickly, that integration was impossible and resentment inevitable. The Carney government is now tightening the rules for student visas, work permits, and asylum claimants, but it will take a lot more than a change in numbers for Canadians to again believe that immigration is a good thing, and to trust that our processes are rigorous and fair. 

Asking refugee-claimants to budget for prescriptions and extended coverage, as many other Canadians do, helps to ameliorate that wounded perception of fairness. Arguably the changes to the IFHP needs to go further, but this is a necessary first step. 

Source: It is the right time – socially and economically – to scale back extended health benefits for refugees

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 law, which 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?