What struck my attention when away

2024/06/18 Leave a comment

Immigration

Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Appears to be flailing around given that their fundamental arguments appear to have failed:

Ms. Lalande said the 100 million population goal for 2100 “was meant to be provocative and bold” and to “spark an economic recharge.” The ultimate objective isn’t to see a specific population number by 2100, she said, but for Canada to be strategic and thoughtful in planning for growth.

“We don’t believe that growth should happen at all costs,” she said, saying the 100 million figure “was meant to galvanize the conversation and to spark debate and discussion of what the country could be and how we need to get there.”

But she warned against curtailing immigration, saying “that approach would result in an aging, less-skilled work force, less foreign investment, less diversity and less influence” globally.

Source: Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Never possible to satisfy demand:

Immigrants who came to Canada with the hope that their parents or grandparents could one day join them say they feel cheated after the federal government opened a sponsorship lottery this month drawing from a four-year-old list of applicants.

They are upset because Ottawa decided to allow around 30,000 sponsorships this year, but excluded applicants from joining the program if they had not registered an interest in 2020.

Some told The Globe and Mail that if they can’t successfully sponsor their relatives at some point, they may have to leave this country themselves to take care of them.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is sending out 35,700 randomly selected invitations to Canadian citizens and permanent residents to apply for the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP).

The invitations are drawn from a list of 200,000 people who expressed an interest in sponsoring their relatives in 2020.

Not everyone who receives an invitation to apply will submit a PGP application; however, IRCC said it ultimately expects around 32,000 grandparents and parents to qualify for permanent residence….

Source: Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Of note, addressing some past concerns:

The pilots, which are enhanced versions of two programs set to expire on June 17, will put qualified nannies, child-care and home-support workers on a fast track to settling in Canada.

Caregivers working for organizations that provide temporary or part-time care for people who are semi-independent or recovering from an injury or illness will also qualify under the new programs, which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said will later become permanent.

Canada will admit more than 15,000 caregivers as permanent residents in the next two years, as part of Canada’s overall immigration targets, according to IRCC.

“Caregivers play a critical role in supporting Canadian families, and our programs need to reflect their invaluable contributions,” Mr. Miller said in a statement….

Source: Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Hard to see how adding another layer will necessarily improve processing and client service compared to addressing systemic issues:

This is why in a new report entitled Let’s Clean Up Our Act, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) encourages the federal government to introduce an Immigrant Bill of Rights to provide newcomers with greater protection and an enhanced experience. 

We also believe the Immigrant Bill of Rights should be complemented by introducing an Ombudsperson for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). 

These recommendations are far from novel or controversial.  

Numerous federal departments and agencies already have a bill of rights and/or ombudspersons.  

Source: Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

So almost a dedicated stream and pathway to citizenship? But that would require Canadian residency for at least three years, not “just being on our side:”

So what can Canada do that is positive? Apart from planning for these specific eventualities, Heyman suggests that we process as many Americans as possible for the equivalent of an American H1 Visa to Canada — not necessarily to live here, but to have a Canadian passport in their pocket and advocate for our country south of the border. “You’ve got a generational opportunity to get the top talent, people with means and skills, on your side — and possibly into your country,” Heyman said. A silver lining, perhaps, but the tsunami still looms.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

Rioux | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

On the results and aftermath of the European Parliament elections and the political shakeout in France:

Son coup de tête a déjà provoqué le rassemblement de la gauche autour de son aile la plus radicale (La France insoumise) qui se complaît dans une forme de romantisme révolutionnaire flirtant avec l’antisémitisme et les appels à la violence. À droite, il a accéléré l’éclatement des Républicains, dont les jours étaient comptés, au profit d’un RN portant certes des revendications partagées par la majorité des Français, mais sans expérience ni cadres chevronnés et dont le programme économique est pour le moins boiteux.

Derrière l’apparence du combat des extrêmes, ne serions-nous pas en train de découvrir le nouveau visage de ce que sont tout simplement devenues, après une période d’effacement, la gauche et la droite ? Pour le dire simplement, la nouvelle gauche est aujourd’hui plutôt multiculturelle, wokiste et décoloniale. La nouvelle droite, plutôt nationaliste, souverainiste et conservatrice.

Dans la fureur et le chaos, nous assistons non seulement au retour de l’opposition entre droite et gauche, mais peut-être aussi de l’alternance sans laquelle aucune démocratie ne saurait survivre.

Source: Chronique | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

Antisemitism, Israel Hamas war

Abella: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Well worth reading:

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe may be long, but it does not always bend towards justice. And that means that too many children will never get to grow up, period – let alone in a moral universe that bends toward justice and the just rule of law.

I used to see the arc of my own life bending assertively from Nuremberg to ever-widening spheres of justice, but in this unrelenting climate of hate, I feel the hopeful arc turning into a menacing circle.

We need to stop yelling at each other and start listening, so that we can reclaim ownership of the compassionate liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect, and to put humanity back in charge by replacing global hate with global hope.

My life started in a country where there had been no democracy, no rights, no justice. It instilled a passionate belief in me that those of us lucky enough to be alive and free have a particular duty to our children to do everything possible to make the world safer for them than it was for their parents and grandparents, so that all children, regardless of race, religion or gender, can wear their identities with pride, in dignity, and in peace.

Source: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Regg Cohn: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Also well worth reading by those who have no answers to these questions:

To be sure, critics of Israel — of which I am one — are not necessarily anti-Israeli (or anti-Jewish). But a good many are so adamantly opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, for reasons of history or bigotry, that you have to ask:

Where would those millions of Jews go? Back to Poland, as some like to taunt? Here to Canada, where they feel increasingly besieged? Stay where they are in a single state where “Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea,” subsuming and consuming the Jewish state?

Israel is guilty of many sins during its long decades of occupation, although neither side is blameless about missed opportunities. After the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Jews and the taking of hostages, Israel’s overreaction and overreach transformed a just war of defence into a war without justifiable limits.

Source: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Lederman: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Exclusion is not the answer except in extreme cases where it crosses into hate speech:

With Israel and Hamas at war, there has been so much screaming at one another, across a widening divide. What could be accomplished by having actual conversations?

This isn’t the only instance of selective targeting of Israeli, Jewish or Palestinian artists by arts organizations. With festival and awards season approaching in the fall, there is reason to fear more exclusions to come.

Source: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Citizenship

Mansour: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Interesting evolution by Mansour compared to his earlier writings:

In conclusion, it might be said that the generation of 1968 was a pioneer generation in the making of a new political agenda that goes beyond the attachment to the state of which a citizen is a member. Canada has contributed to this agenda, internationalist and multicultural, through the social changes that have occurred in the years since its centenary anniversary. As a result, Canadians are in the midst of emerging new sensibilities that are more open to the world, more receptive of other cultures, more inclined to accepting international law and adjusting domestic statutes to that requirement. These changes render older political arrangements less meaningful in the twenty-first century.

Source: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Foreign interference

Three article of interest of foreign interference and the shameful “witting” involvement of some MPs

‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

NSICOP doesn’t name the parliamentarians who are witting participants in foreign interference. It raises a question about parliamentarians. It calls on the government to brief MPs about interference – and warns MPs to “reduce their vulnerabilities.”

And once again, it is another report telling the public that the Canadian government has not done enough to counter the threat of foreign interference. If anything, those warnings have grown louder.

This time, what a committee of parliamentarians has told us in clearer terms than ever is that the threat of interference from abroad includes participants here in Canada, inside Parliament, who have something to gain from dealing with foreign actors.

Source: ‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

Coyne: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

The Liberals’ tactic of deny, delay and deflect – first denying the allegations, then, when they can no longer be denied, denying they matter – has proved largely successful. Polls show that foreign interference ranks low on the public’s list of important issues. The Opposition is likely to take the hint. It was to their advantage to demand a public inquiry, so long as the government refused – and so long as they could be assured its findings would only stick to the government. But now? What’s in it for them?

For that matter, the same might apply to certain sections of the media: The report refers to Chinese officials “interfering with Canadian media content via direct engagement with Canadian media executives and journalists,” while a redacted passage cites “examples of the PRC paying to publish media articles without attribution.”

So if none of the parties is keen on turning over this rock, if law enforcement are unwilling and the media nervous – Mr. Dong’s lawsuit against Global News will have had a useful chilling effect – then the betting proposition has to be that nothing will happen. None of the MPs involved will be prosecuted, or named, or face consequences of any kind. And the public will shrug. Experience has taught them that, in this country, nobody ever faces consequences for this kind of thing.

Unless … unless a lone MP stands up in the House and names the names.

Source: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

Yakabuski | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Tout au plus, la vice-première ministre, Chrystia Freeland, a-t-elle promis que les libéraux effectueraient « un suivi interne » dans la foulée du rapport. Comme son collègue à la Sécurité publique, elle n’a pas semblé désireuse d’aller au fond des choses. Est-ce parce que le caucus libéral compte beaucoup de députés issus des communautés culturelles qui entretiennent des relations étroites avec les représentants au Canada des gouvernements de leurs pays d’origine ? Certains de ces députés craignent, avec ou sans raison, une chasse aux sorcières dans la foulée du rapport McGuinty.

« La garantie que je peux donner aux Canadiens est que notre gouvernement prend très, très au sérieux l’ingérence étrangère », a réitéré cette semaine Mme Freeland. Or, la réaction du gouvernement au dernier rapport laisse, encore une fois, une impression contraire.

Source: Chronique | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Other

Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

Of note:

The decade-long entrenchment of far-right ideologies in India, an over-focus on dividing Hindus and Muslims and on wealth generation for the rich eroded the country’s human rights record, judicial autonomy and press freedom.

That people with the least individual power were able to collectively push back against plans of the most powerful has rekindled the flame of democracy domestically and fanned hopes of resistance against tyranny globally.

Source: Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Agree:

To be clear, this article is not a plea for a return to scorecard history. Scorecard history is not a sound approach either. For, in the end, history is a qualitative discipline. Ranking prime ministers, or anyone else for that matter, is a silly exercise. Good deeds and bad deeds cannot be weighted and tallied up so that some final score can be determined. For that matter, categorizing deeds as good or bad in the first place flattens a great deal of complexity, like intentionality or unforeseen consequences, and it is precisely in that great universe of gray that real insights can be found. Insights into continuities between past and present, into how politics work in practice, and into the most accurate assessments of legacy. For the legacy of most leaders, much like the legacy of the policy of multiculturalism, will be neither entirely beneficial nor detrimental. But through a rigorous, nuanced, and deep examination of the lives and legacies of politicians and their policies, we stand to learn much about our country’s past – and its present too.

Daniel R. Meister is a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Brunswick. He is the author of The Racial Mosaic (MQUP 2021).

Source: A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rosalie Abella: An attack on the independence of a court anywhere is an attack on all courts

2018/10/29 Leave a comment

As one would expect, eloquent and pertinent, including her comments on the Canadian approach to integration:

It was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 that brought the Supreme Court of Canada – and judicial independence – to the public’s attention, and introduced it to a uniquely Canadian justice vision, a vision that took the status quo as the beginning of the conversation, not the answer. The Charter both represented and created shared and unifying national values. The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada in the eighties, when the Charter was first enacted were bold and fearless. So much so that as a result of their leadership, one of Canada’s leading exports today is her justice system, its rights jurisprudence and the independent stature of its judiciary.

Not surprisingly, our constitutionalization of rights was not without controversy. If, as Isaiah Berlin once observed, there’s no pearl without some irritation in the oyster, by the nineties there were those who saw the Charter as a whole pearl necklace. As for the judges, they understood that controversy was inevitable, but they also understood that one person’s controversy may be another person’s remedy. So they embraced controversy and forged ahead.

And out of the ashes of controversy, the Supreme Court developed a robust new justice consensus for Canada. Where for others pluralism and diversity are fragmenting magnets, for Canada they are unifying. Where for others assimilation is the social goal, for us it represents the inequitable obliteration of the identities that define us. Where for others treating everyone the same is the dominant governing principle, for us it takes its place alongside the principle that treating everyone the same can result in ignoring the differences that need to be respected if we are to be a truly inclusive society.

Integration based on difference, equality based on inclusion despite difference and compassion based on respect and fairness: These are the principles that now form the moral core of Canadian national values, the values that have made us the most successful practitioners of multiculturalism in the world, and the values that make our national justice context democratically vibrant and principled.

All this came from the Supreme Court, all this came to be understood by the public as being properly within the domain of the Supreme Court and, most notably, all this was, on the whole, respected and accepted by the legislatures. Criticisms and questions were of course raised, but usually with civility. And the Court’s integrity was never seriously publicly questioned. We have, in other words, been very lucky … so far.

What have I learned about judicial independence from Canada’s experience? I learned that democracy is strengthened in direct proportion to the strength of rights protection and an independent judiciary, and that injustice is strengthened in direct proportion to their absence. A Supreme Court must be independent because it is the final adjudicator of which contested values in a society should triumph. In a polarized society, it is especially crucial to have an institution whose only mandate is to protect the rule of law.

It is the media’s job to gather and disseminate the information we need to participate in the public conversations that lead to deciding whom to elect – or defeat; it is the legislature’s job to take the public’s pulse and decide which of its opinions to implement as public policy; and it is the Court’s job to decide how best to protect democracy’s core values, regardless of public opinion. Only Courts are not entitled to abandon their commitment to those core values – human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and protection of woman and minorities, among others. Those are the values a Supreme Court has in its tool kit, and those are the values it must protect as it grapples with some of society’s most complex issues, such as the relationship between state power, rights and public safety; the relationship between minority rights and majoritarian expectations; or the relationship between religious demands and secular beliefs. These are the kinds of challenges that attract intense public scrutiny, and they are the kinds of issues that cannot be decided – or be seen to be decided – without a fiercely independent judiciary. They are also the kinds of decisions that define a nation’s values and, in defining its values, define not only its identity, but also its soul.

Many countries around the world are having existential crises over their national identities. They have made Faustian bargains, selling their democratic souls in exchange for populist approval. Their humanity has been the victim. So have their minorities. So have human rights. This, to me, is unconscionable.

I was born in 1946 in a German displaced-person’s camp to Holocaust survivors right after the Second World War. That was the devastating war that inspired the nations of the world to unite in democratic solidarity and commit themselves to the promotion and protection of values designed to prevent a repetition of the war’s unimaginable human-rights abuses. That’s why we had the Nuremberg Trials, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Yet here we are in 2018, seven decades later, watching that wonderful democratic consensus fragment all over the world, shattered by polarizing insensitivity; an unhealthy tolerance for intolerance; a cavalier indifference to equality; a deliberate amnesia about the instruments and values of democracy that are no less crucial than elections; and a shocking disrespect for the borders between power and its independent adjudicators, like the courts, who are made to choose between independence, ideological compliance, and survival.

Israel is having its own existential crisis and, with respect, the humanity of its soul is at risk unless the country understands that it cannot survive as the vibrant and complicated democracy that bloomed out of the desert 70 years ago without fiercely protecting the independence of its 70-year-old Supreme Court.

What is putting this at risk? The deliberate attempts to undermine public confidence in the Court’s integrity; the unforgivable sacrificing of the Court’s international reputation on the altar of partisanship; the hyperbolic rhetoric of hate that greets unpopular decisions; the menacing volley of simplistic pejorative labels, like “unpatriotic,” that too often replace mature debate; the demeaning of human rights by trivializing it as a weakness of the “left,” whatever that means, instead of recognizing that human rights is essential to the health of the whole political spectrum. All this is corrosive not only of the Israeli judiciary’s independence, but of Israel’s democracy.

Why is this any of my business? Because an attack on the independence of a court anywhere is an attack on all courts. It is not only my business as a judge, it is my business as a citizen of the world, a world I grew up thinking would be based on a commitment to human rights. But I am not the judge who matters. Israel’s most important judge is history, and history’s judgment is based not only on a country’s survival, but on its character and the values it represents and promotes.

The Israeli Supreme Court is the most precious jewel in the democratic crown Israel put on in 1948. Tampering with its independence and legitimacy is tampering with its integrity, and tampering with its integrity is tampering with Israel’s soul. That would break the hearts not only of judges all over the world who have looked to the Israeli Supreme Court for guidance and inspiration for the last 70 years, but the hearts of everyone all over the world who cherishes democracy.

Source: Rosalie Abella: An attack on the independence of a court anywhere is an attack on all courts

Filed under Integration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Cohen: Why we ought to worry about democracy’s retreat globally | Ottawa Citizen

2018/05/03 Leave a comment

Good commentary by Andrew Cohen, including Rosalie Abella’s fears for the independence of Israel’s judiciary:

Justice Rosalie Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada lives on public platforms. She lectures often, at home and abroad, and collects laurels celebrating her shimmering career (including 38 honorary degrees) like loose change.

As a decorated jurist of 42 years, she contemplates law and society as a quotidian challenge. So there she was two weeks ago, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, on the 70th anniversary of the founding of Israel, addressing the country’s democracy.

It was an extraordinary speech – a cri de coeur, really – brimming with erudition and urgency. It was also brave. Abella laments the assault on the independence of Israel’s judiciary, whose stature she has long admired.

“As a Jew, it has made me particularly sad to see the judiciary’s noble mission and legacy under rhetorical siege here,” she said. “To me when an independent judiciary is under siege, democracy is under siege, and when democracy is under siege, a country’s soul is being held hostage.”

She is alarmed by the effort to “delegitimize the judiciary … in the name of patriotism.” She finds this “perverse.” After all, she asks, doesn’t patriotism mean reflecting national values, which, in Israel, means being Jewish and democratic?

For defending those values, she sees a judiciary “demonized by some for being independent from political expedience and immune to political will.” Judges are not there to comply with the will of politicians, she warns; those who think patriotism means doing only what politicians want “are the biggest threat to Israel’s values, because they misconceive democracy as majoritarian rule.”

Abella doesn’t name the right-wing politicians targeting the judiciary. What makes her warning timely – like a siren in the night – is that she is addressing the erosion of democracy, in fundamental and disturbing ways, across the world. As Foreign Affairs magazine asks in its current issue: “Can Democracy Survive?”

It’s not hyperbole. Democracy is under its greatest strain since the 1930s. Assaults on the press, free and fair elections, minority rights and civil liberties are common. Look around: the rise of authoritarianism is everywhere.

Having liberalized after the fall of Communism, Russia is an authoritarian state under Vladimir Putin, who fixes elections, jails opponents and kills journalists. In China, which showed signs of liberalization leading up to Tiananmen Square in 1989, the leadership may serve for life.

Poland, Turkey and Hungary have lurched into authoritarianism. That Stephen Harper could tweet congratulations to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on his election was so brazen it was thought a joke; alas, it was not.

The man who once refused to shake Putin’s hand – “You need to get out of Ukraine,” Harper told him – now embraces Orban, who is silencing critics and attacking institutions in Hungary.

Freedom House tracks the state of democracy around the world. In 2017, it found that democracy declined in 71 countries and advanced in just 35. “Democracy in crisis,” it declares.

In old democracies such as France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, right-wing populists are gaining traction, appealing to anti-immigrant sentiments and shunning civil liberties or the rule of law. Surveys show that while support for democracy remains strong among those over 65, those under 35 care less about it. This is particularly disturbing.

Rwanda, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya and Honduras are among the countries where democracy has eroded. The same in Nepal, Eritrea, South Sudan, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. In Myanmar, led by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, ethnic cleansing is horrifying.

In the United States, the president declares the media “the enemy of the people,” and attacks the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies. He refers to “my justice department” and its failure to “protect” him.

In Canada, the threat to democracy comes through bots and fake news filling social media, which will play out dangerously in the next federal election.

For Abella, in Jerusalem, the attack on the judiciary in Israel reflects something larger: an attack on our humanity: “Without democracy there are no rights, without rights there is no tolerance, without tolerance there is no justice, and without justice, there is no hope.”

via Cohen: Why we ought to worry about democracy’s retreat globally | Ottawa Citizen

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,