Why Canadian norms and values matter: Mark Milke

2017/01/07 Leave a comment

Hard not to agree with his general comments but equally hard to square this with the evidence we have that shows the vast majority of new Canadians share these values. But beyond the general values cited – freedom of speech and religion, property rights, the equality of individuals before the law – most of the debates, among ‘old-stock’ and new Canadians alike take place around implementation issues.

And using language like ‘barbaric cultural practices,’ while making some feel better, does not address or engage the people from communities where these are issues. A better approach – one that I suggested without success – was to have a paragraph that talked about the history of greater gender equality, and then note that gender-based violence such as ‘honour killings’ were against the law and values:

Canada’s credo is not robustly “idea obvious,” but it is derived from British and French influences and thus includes assumptions about freedom, the rule of law, the necessary division of power and so forth.

To place these ideas at the pinnacle of a country’s self-understanding means anyone is potentially welcome – provided they commit to the ideas and the norms that flow from them: freedom of speech and religion, property rights, the equality of individuals before the law. Anyone can rally to these; it matters little whether one was born in Buffalo, Beijing, Beirut or Barrie.

Critically, and however imperfectly, countries that practise civic-based citizenship are able to integrate and unite otherwise diverse peoples if the focus is kept on shared, defensible concepts. They run into trouble when they forget that or pretend that all ideas are created alike.

But this assumes a robust defence of desirable norms and a frank hostility to cultural or religious practices that, for instance, subjugate women.

This also has ramifications for immigration and the unrealistic assumption that any potential applicant will eventually integrate and accept existing Canadian norms. (For those who glibly believe this, invite 10 million Texans who believe in the right to bear arms to settle in Toronto, then see if policy discussions and voting patterns are not permanently affected.)

None of this means Canada should end immigration from certain countries. It means being realistic about who is likely to integrate and who will not: A young female physician from Islamabad who wishes to escape oppressive cultural and religious assumptions should be welcome; a 60-year-old village elder from Kohistan in northwestern Pakistan, where five girls were reportedly killed for dancing, probably not.

The least we can do is insist that certain Canadian norms do matter – and without apology.

This is why Justin Trudeau, then the Liberal immigration critic, was wrong to shy away from revisions to Canada’s citizenship guide in 2011 that read: “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.” Mr. Trudeau objected to the term “barbaric.” He argued that a government guide should make an “attempt at responsible neutrality” in language, a position he later backed away from.

Countries cemented on a shared set of ideas and ideals will always need to unapologetically demand that anyone who wishes to join subscribe to those ideas and ideals.

Unite around laudable ideas and people will be less likely to fall into the abyss of division created by irreconcilable and unchangeable characteristics.

Source: Why Canadian norms and values matter – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canadian values drive us together, not apart: Catherine Clark

2016/11/15 Leave a comment

A reminder of Progressive Conservatives:

I’ve watched with growing unease the development of a discussion purporting to be about “Canadian values.” I am not at all concerned about the fact that we’re having the discussion – Canadians have always engaged in active conversations about health care, or the environment or the cultivation of an entrepreneurial spirit, or where, how or why Canada acts internationally. Our responses to those questions have always been framed through a uniquely Canadian lens.

What does concern me is what’s not being said, and why this sudden initiative is being framed as a discussion about “values.” The underlying current is that these discussions are less about what we want to celebrate or improve about our country and more about who we want to weed out.

Canada has a long history of welcoming to our shores people from all around the world who must first pass through our robust immigration or refugee system. We regularly welcome the world’s best and brightest, but also people who would be persecuted or in peril in their homelands. I’m not sure I can think of anything more Canadian: a careful system that screens all applicants combined with a tolerant population welcoming of newcomers. And in Canada, with the exception of our indigenous peoples, we are all newcomers of some sort.

A recent Nanos poll highlights what Canadians themselves think of Canadian values. When asked what makes them proud to be Canadian, respondents chose equality, equity and social justice as their top pick, followed by our reputation as peacekeepers and a bit further down by multiculturalism and diversity and respect for others.

When asked to describe their top three Canadian values to someone who was not Canadian, the top choices were rights and freedoms, respect for others, and kindness and compassion.

In a global climate where so many seek to deliberately sow division and fear, Canadians should be justifiably proud of those answers. And we should remember them in the months and years ahead, because those are the values that will keep Canada seen as a beacon of light in a world which needs all the light it can get.

Source: Canadian values drive us together, not apart – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canadians think immigrants should do more to blend in; immigrants would do well: Tarek Fatah

2016/10/07 Leave a comment

Tarek Fatah on Canadian values and integration:

How else would 30 million Canadians offer three of the most liveable cities of the world – Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary – considering our large size and low population.

It’s our values and culture that makes us the envy of the world. What are those values that we wish all newcomers embrace, as we welcome them to become part of our family?

More than Canada being a liberal, secular democracy, newcomers find our embracing of the disabled, and the intellectually challenged a pleasant shock.

It’s also how we, over the years, have come to accept gays and lesbians as our sisters and brothers and live next to them as neighbours with who we chat, bake, help clear their snow despite the recognition that just a few decades ago this would not have been possible, but we did it.

Our cities are relatively safe; young women can jog late in the night without the fear of posses of young men taunting and throwing sexual epithets at them.

And then there is that colour bar and anti-black racism that has been largely defeated – even though we have miles to go before we rest.

If there is a nirvana, this is it.

However, this is our inheritance from generations gone before us and it is our duty to ensure these values and this culture does not get tarnished or diluted. Because there is still that awful disease that pushes newcomers into ideological, cultural, ethnic and religious ghettoes of old. Sad to say, anti-black racism still thrives in some corners, homophobia is still common in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the disabled are still viewed in many parts as a curse from the gods for sins committed by their parents. A visit to Uganda or Pakistan, Somalia or Saudi Arabia, will confirm those observations.

Source: Canadians think immigrants should do more to blend in; immigrants would do well

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Good to talk about Canadian values, and let’s think it through: Andrew Cardozo

2016/09/27 Leave a comment

Good piece by Andrew Cardozo going through all the limitations in values testing for immigrants and proposing a more positive approach:

But this is not to say we cannot talk about Canadian values or tell newcomers—and immigration applicants, about Canadian values; that way they can know what to expect or decide not to come here if they don’t like any of our values.

The healthier way is to be strong and clear about these values, because there is no question that some of our values are not universally held or practised. Besides some Canadian-born folks who have old-fashioned ideas, there are some newcomers who come with attitudes of inequality as compared to the “Canadian norm.” Many people come here precisely because of our values and others come here without considering what that may mean for them and their families and children.

Not only is it healthier and nicer, it is a more successful way to encourage newcomers to embrace the values of our liberal democratic society. Being proudly progressive and Canadian is the best way to root out many of the attitudes of inequality and discrimination across all communities.

The thing about the uniquely “Canadian values” of equality and respect is that they are fairly clear, only fairly. Some are legislated, some are not. And it is that complex and careful balancing over time—with lots of variation and nuance—that allows for a free and peaceful society. Fundamentalist societies are the ones that allow for no deviation and they generally are not very peaceful or cohesive.

Source: Good to talk about Canadian values, and let’s think it through – The Hill Times – The Hill Times

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Leitch says Trudeau a ‘Canadian identity denier,’ but he’s pointed to ‘shared values, openness, respect’

2016/09/22 Leave a comment

Leitch continues to play hard on identity politics and mischaracterizing PM Trudeau’s comments on identity, just as her source, Candice Malcolm, has (see my review of her most recent book, A response to Candice Malcolm’s Losing True North – Policy Options):

A New York Times Magazine story about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last December that prompted Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch to accuse Mr. Trudeau of practising “dangerous” politics and being a “Canadian identity denier” also contains references by the newly elected prime minister to values Canadians share, including “openness, respect, [and] compassion.”

Ms. Leitch surprised a handful of journalists as she was entering the House of Commons on Monday, into the first sitting of the Commons following a 12-week parliamentary recess, and took several minutes to criticize Mr. Trudeau for allegedly denying Canadians have a national identity.

A journalist noted it had been a “very, very big summer” for Ms. Leitch, following a controversy she stirred at the beginning of September by floating the possibility Canada should screen would-be immigrants for “anti-Canadian values,” and asked the leadership hopeful what “tone” she was expecting in the Commons.

“Look, you know, I had a great time and a great campaign, but I do have a concern today and my concern is that our prime minister has denied that we have a core Canadian identity. He’s a Canadian identity denier,” Ms. Leitch replied.

“I’m looking forward to the discussions in our party, but also in the House, over the course of the next number of weeks and months, you know, I think focusing on Canadian values is extremely important,” said Ms. Leitch (Simcoe Grey, Ont.).

“We as a people do have a core identity, we have Canadian values. And I think we’re very proud of them,” Ms. Leitch, who several times described Mr. Trudeau’s position as dangerous.

Asked what she meant, Ms. Leitch replied: “The prime minister of Canada is playing a dangerous game. He denies that we have a core Canadian identity. He’s a Canadian identity denier. I think that is dangerous politics because we as Canadians share a common set of values, and that’s made our country extremely strong.”

The journalists present were later perplexed over the cause of Ms. Leitch’s complaint against Mr. Trudeau, and The Hill Times found a column published in the Toronto Sun that had expressed similar sentiment.

The columnist, Candice Malcolm, weighing in on the critical comments Ms. Leitch experienced in response to a Sept. 1 news report of a survey in which she asked prospective leadership supporters whether Canada should screen refugees and potential immigrants for Canadian values, criticized Mr. Trudeau and briefly quoted a portion of comments Mr. Trudeau made to The New York Times late last year.

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Ms. Malcolm quoted Mr. Trudeau as saying in an interview with the newspaper, adding that Mr. Trudeau also said in the interview he sees Canada as “the first post-national state.” Ms. Malcolm was a press secretary to Conservative MP Jason Kenney (Calgary Midnapore, Alta.) when he was immigration minister.

A search on the New York Times newspaper website failed to find a report containing Mr. Trudeau’s comments, but the quotations appear in an article in the Dec. 13, 2015, edition of the weekly New York Times Magazine.

The Toronto Sun columnist, seemingly on whose description Ms. Leitch was depending, quoted only a small portion of the interview comments.

The journalist, who interviewed Mr. Trudeau following the election, in his lead-up to the contested comments noted how Mr. Trudeau and his party had campaigned on a promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of the year.

The journalist, Guy Lawson, also referred to the November 2015 terrorist attacks that had just rocked Paris.

“Trudeau said he wants Canada to be free from the politics of fear and division,” Mr. Lawson wrote.

“Countries with a strong national identity, linguistic, religious or cultural, are finding it a challenge to effectively integrate people from different backgrounds. In France, there is still a typical citizen and an atypical citizen. Canada doesn’t have that dynamic.”

Mr. Lawson described Mr. Trudeau’s “most radical argument” as his statement that “Canada is becoming a new kind of state, defined not by its European history but by the multiplicity of its identities from all over the world.”

Mr. Trudeau described a recent vandalism attack against a mosque in Cold Lake, Alta. and said “the entire town came out the next day to scrub the graffiti of the walls and help them fix the damage.”

‘‘Countries with a strong national identity—linguistic, religious, or cultural—are finding it a challenge to effectively integrate people from different backgrounds. In France, there is still a typical citizen and an atypical citizen. Canada doesn’t have that dynamic.’’ said Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Lawson recalled how Mr. Trudeau’s father, former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, had argued against cultural and historical nationalism and its negative effect on Quebec prior to the 1960s social and political change in the province.

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Mr. Lawson quoted Mr. Trudeau as saying.

‘‘There are shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state,” Mr. Trudeau said, in remarkable similarity even to some of the values Ms. Leitch has mentioned in response to her critics.

Source: The Hill Times

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole

2016/09/17 Leave a comment

Element of truth in what Cole writes but lacks balance and nuance in failing to acknowledge attitudes and policies have and continue to evolve.

And are some of the ‘values’ talked about only a “reflection of our colonial, white, British, monarchical heritage,” or are they not broader and more universal?:

Conservative MP and party leadership contender Kellie Leitch doesn’t really want a conversation on Canadian values. The callous Leitch, who has been insisting lately that we consider a values test for prospective immigrants, simply wants to boost her brand by playing to racist and xenophobic fears of some Conservative party supporters. Modern conservative groups keep questioning immigrants’ values because they know their liberal political opponents, who are prone to the same prejudiced scapegoating, will struggle to condemn them.

Many have criticized Leitch’s proposal by saying it is impractical, since no one person or group can define or determine Canadian values. That’s a nice idea, but in practice we know the values our politicians attempt to sell us are a reflection of our colonial, white, British, monarchical heritage. There are such things as Canadian values, and they explain how our politicians have been peddling a fear of foreigners for the last 150 years.

Suspicion of all immigrants who are not white, or are not members of the former British Empire, is a Canadian value. Canada’s founding prime minister, John A. Macdonald, argued that Chinese immigrants to Canada were unfit to vote because they exhibited “no British instincts or British feelings or aspirations.” Macdonald didn’t need to cloak the authority of the state in the language of wanting a “conversation” about immigrants, as Leitch does today. In his time, there was no conversation to be had.

Assurances that we no longer live in the 19th century are beside the point. Every politician from Macdonald to Leitch has been able to bank on significant support by distinguishing between British or Canadian values and those of everyone else. Yes, even many newer immigrants echo these suspicions of outsiders’ customs or beliefs. They may hail from countries that our government is wary of. The pressure on these newcomers to conform — to validate the wisdom of the system that chose them, to scrutinize those who come after them — must be overwhelming.

Of course, all of this is only possible because of another fundamental Canadian value: erasure. Our modern mythology suggests that indigenous people were never here, or that if they were, their values and customs gave way to a superior British way of life. Our history books and our educational resources for prospective new Canadians have little to say about the values and traditions of indigenous people. British colonialism made outsiders of people who had been here for thousands of years, and cast their values aside.

That’s how a white man in a red coat who carries a weapon and patrols stolen land has come to symbolize the enforcement of Canadian values. We are taught to honour the force Mounties used to Anglicize this land, to view the guy in red as a symbol of honour and patriotism, no matter what despicable crimes he carries out. The values of dominance and separation enforced by the modern RCMP, and the Canadian Border Services Agency, are not universal or self-evident — they are steeped in centuries of racism, colonialism, and white supremacy.

Leitch may not win her leadership contest, but the fact her naked appeal to prejudice can still spur “debate” in this country says it all. Polls suggest a majority of Canadians agree with Leitch’s call to screen immigrants for good values. Few of us really care about the content of the questionnaire. What we care about is our very Canadian right to demand that immigrants be questioned, scrutinized, and weighed against the comfort and well-being of those already established here.

Conservatives are more likely to support the traditional dominant values openly. It was Leitch who announced a 2015 Conservative campaign proposal to create a “barbaric cultural practices hotline.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has cast himself as being far more progressive on immigration and cultural issues, had little to say about the Macarthyist snitch line — Trudeau and his party had quietly voted in favour of a Conservative law called the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” only four months before the election.

Maybe one day, we will be able to have genuine conversations about human values that transcend not only borders, but so many other ideological barriers we still use to divide one another. For the moment, the state and its actors keep pretending there is something especially benevolent about being Canadian, and the culture wars continue.

Source: Suspicion of immigrants is a Canadian value: Cole | Toronto Star

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: Fact check on Kellie Leitch’s ‘values check’

2016/09/14 Leave a comment

Good analysis by Joan Bryden of the complications in assessing values:

Conservative leadership contender Kellie Leitch has sparked a fire storm with her suggestion that prospective immigrants should be vetted for “anti-Canadian values.”

Among the values she says should be unwelcome are “intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms.”

Leitch has not spelled out how her proposed screening process would work but she has dismissed the concerns of leadership rivals and others who have argued the scheme is unacceptable, unnecessary and unworkable. She has said it’s akin to conducting security checks and just a matter of asking would-be newcomers some “simple questions.”

But immigration experts say merely asking simple questions would be meaningless; prospective immigrants would quickly learn to give the “correct” answers but not necessarily honest ones.

To attempt to do such screening seriously would cost a fortune and require hiring thousands of professional interviewers trained to detect applicants who weren’t being truthful about their real values, experts warn. And even that, they say, would probably be ineffective.

…

The Facts

Currently, prospective immigrants undergo security and criminal checks. There are numerous reasons a person may be found inadmissible, including if the individual:

  • is considered a security risk. That includes involvement in espionage, violence or terrorism, attempts to overthrow a government and membership in an organization that is involved in any of those things.
  • has committed human or international rights violations, including committing war crimes or having been a senior official in a government that has engaged in gross human rights violations.
  • has been convicted of a crime or committed an act that would be a crime in Canada.
  • has ties to organized crime.
  • has a serious health or financial problem.
  • lied on the application form or in an interview with an immigration officer.

The Experts

So how could Canada go about weeding out would-be immigrants who hold “anti-Canadian values?”

Contrary to Leitch’s assertion, it couldn’t be a matter of asking individuals a series of simple questions — like “Do you support gender equality?” — says Monica Boyd, Canada Research Chair in Immigration, Inequality and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

Asking such questions, to which the socially acceptable answer is evident, “is going to get you what I call the motherhood responses,” she says.

…A serious attempt to explore a person’s values would have to take a more sophisticated approach, asking multiple, subtle questions that can be analysed by professionals to elicit a truer picture of an individual’s real attitudes. And that, Boyd says, “moves us into a set of screening that no nation state has adopted because it’s so bloody expensive you can’t even get near it.”

Bellissimo says any serious attempt to detect who is telling the truth about their values would require hiring thousands of highly-trained interviewers.

“I couldn’t imagine the cost, the training, what would be involved and, again, to what end?”

Even were Canada prepared to foot the bill, Boyd predicts schools would pop up abroad to teach would-be migrants how to pass the Canadian values test.

“In any kind of these values tests, if the incentive is strong enough, people learn to lie,” she says.

And even were it possible to verify the truthfulness of a person’s answers, Vancouver immigration lawyer Zool Suleman says that ignores the fact that values evolve over time, rendering the whole exercise meaningless.

“Values are not a water-tight container,” he says. “They evolve and, in fact, one would hope that by being in Canada people’s values would lean towards what we would call the mean or the centre in Canada, which embraces our Constitution, embraces our engagement with law enforcement and also societal norms.”

The Verdict

Leitch’s claim that screening prospective immigrants for anti-Canadian values would be akin to security screening and a matter of asking some simple questions doesn’t hold up. There is no way to document or check with international authorities about peoples’ values and simply asking them won’t produce useful answers. For this reason, her claim is “full of baloney.”

Source: Fact check on Kellie Leitch’s ‘values check’ – Macleans.ca

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Jason Kenney dismisses Kellie Leitch’s immigrant-screening proposal, Candice Malcolm former Kenney staffer endorses Leitch’s proposal

2016/09/12 Leave a comment

Sharp contrast between former CIC Minister Kenney and one of his former staffers, Candice Malcolm. Starting with Kenney:

Federal Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch hasn’t thought through her controversial position on screening immigrants for “anti-Canadian values,” former Tory immigration minister Jason Kenney says.

Following a speech in downtown Calgary on Friday, Mr. Kenney, who is seeking the Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership, said he believes Dr. Leitch is pursuing an “improvised position” without understanding the negative impact of her words.

“I don’t take her position seriously. She’s never articulated it before,” Mr. Kenney said.

 “She’s never said a word about this in Parliament, caucus or cabinet. I don’t think she understands the nuance around these issues. You have to be very careful in the way you articulate questions about integration.”

Dr. Leitch, a Conservative MP from Ontario, e-mailed a survey last week to supporters that included a question about whether the federal government should screen potential immigrants and refugees for “anti-Canadian values.”

She later said she is protecting Canadian values from people who believe that women are property and can be beaten or that gays and lesbians should be stoned.

Despite widespread criticism including unflattering comparisons to U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, Dr. Leitch has defended her position that screening is needed without saying how immigration officials would actually vet new Canadians.

Source: Jason Kenney dismisses Kellie Leitch’s immigrant-screening proposal – The Globe and Mail

And Malcolm’s defence of Leitch:

To most Canadians, this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. In fact, back in 2011 the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation commissioned a report through Dalhousie University that asked very similar questions.

In that survey, 97% of Canadians agreed that values such as “gender equality”and “tolerance of others” must be embraced by newcomers. Likewise, 96% of immigrant Canadians agreed with embracing Canadian values.

According to a Globe and Mail report at the time,the survey demonstrated “a solid consensus around the notion that immigrants should accept certain values as a precondition for joining Canadian society.”

A “pre-condition” – meaning potential immigrants should accept these values before coming to Canada.

The survey also found that nine in 10 Canadians believed that Canadian laws should take precedence over religious laws and that newcomers should learn about Canada’s history and culture. Eight in 10 Canadians supported the idea that immigrants should “raise their children as Canadians.”

The overwhelmingly majority of Canadians believed that newcomers should accept our values. And the media hardly raised an eyebrow.

That was then, and this is now.

Five years ago, we all agreed that Canadian values were cherished and worth protecting. We were confident in ourselves and proud of our country. We celebrated our Canadian values, and weren’t afraid to promote our way of life to newcomers. But things have changed.

In 2016, any suggestion that our values are important leads to name-calling and hysteria. Leitch has received a fury of condemnation from media elites, Liberals and even many of her fellow Conservative caucus members.

They’ve accused her of “xenophobia,” “racism,”“dog-whistle politics,” and compared her to Donald Trump. The comparison is silly.

Trump has been successful in the U.S. for lashing out at the establishment, brazenly opposing political correctness and making shocking comments about various minority groups. He irresponsibly called for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., categorized Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and initially failed to denounce a former KKK leader.

Trump has built his candidacy around emotional appeals to American greatness,while not-so-subtly winking at racists and white supremacists.

Leitch, by stark contrast, made a simple suggestion about standing up for Canadian values, and followed up with a thoughtful explanation.

But elites in Canada are paranoid. The rise of Trump in the U.S, alongside the resurgence of nationalism and anti-immigration parties in Europe, has made many nervous. Wary of a similar movement in Canada, many are determined to nip discussions of integration and immigration reform in the bud before they grow.

This shows a lack of confidence in Canadian commonsense. Not every conservative is aDonald Trump in waiting. Not every proposal surrounding immigrant and integration is tantamount to Trumpian racism.

Kellie Leitch is no Donald Trump

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows

2016/09/12 Leave a comment

Not surprising. Similar levels of support for a ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies but in the end, not a deciding issues for the vast majority of voters:

Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending support to an idea that is stirring controversy in political circles.

Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, a candidate in her party’s leadership contest, has floated the idea of screening newcomers for their attitudes on intolerance toward other religions, cultures and sexual orientations and reluctance to embrace Canadian freedoms.

A new Forum Research Inc. poll for the Star shows that Leitch may be tapping into an idea that Canadians favour with 67 per cent saying immigrants should indeed be screened for “anti-Canadian values.”

More importantly for Leitch, the poll shows that the idea is especially popular among Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.

That’s certain to be the reason that Leitch (Simcoe-Grey) proposed the idea — and has stuck by it in the face of criticism, said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.

“If you’re going after the base, this is like red meat for them. They’re going to love this,” he said Friday. “This is hitting the nail right on the head.”

When asked to choose the values respondents believe are important, equality came out on top (27 per cent), followed by patriotism (15 per cent), fairness (12 per cent) and tolerance (11 per cent).

Conservative backers put patriotism at the top their list of important values. Liberals and New Democrats ranked equality as their first choice.

Just one-quarter of respondents disagreed with the idea of screening for values and nine per cent had no opinion.

The idea finds most support among those ages 45 to 64 (73 per cent); more men (70 per cent) than women (64 per cent); living in Quebec (71 per cent) and Ontario (70 per cent) than those in the Atlantic provinces (56 per cent).

Leitch raised the idea of screening would-be immigrants in a survey sent out by her campaign seeking input on issues.

Source: Canadians favour screening would-be immigrants for ‘anti-Canadian’ values, poll shows | Toronto Star

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI: How do you screen beliefs? The troublesome task of testing for ‘anti-Canadian values’ – Wherry

2016/09/08 Leave a comment

Good overview along with good questions on how would you actually administer a values test by Aaron Wherry:

When Kellie Leitch, one of four candidates officially seeking the leadership of the Conservative party, was first reported to have asked her supporters whether immigrants to this country should be screened for “anti-Canadian values,” it was tempting to assume she believed that prospective citizens should be handed a cup of Tim Hortons coffee, sent to a professional hockey game and made to at least pretend that they were enjoying themselves.

But, as it turns out, the “anti-Canadian values” Leitch believes new immigrants should be checked for include “intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms.”

And this, Leitch explained in a statement on Friday, is “a policy proposal that I feel very strongly about.”

Indeed, she later enthused to her supporters that, “We are going to have an open discussion about what Canadian values are and what they are not.”

“If you are tired of feeling like we can’t discuss what our Canadian values are, then please help me to fight back by making a donation,” she added.

So as to assist those who feel like this can’t be discussed, let’s discuss it.

Precedents for a values test

Leitch’s proposal is not without precedents.

Two weeks ago, noted wall-enthusiast Donald Trump suggested that those hoping to become American citizens would undergo ideological screening, hearkening back to a Cold War policy that was meant to keep communists out.

“Those who do not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country,” he said. “Only those who we expect to flourish in our country and to embrace a tolerant American society should be issued visas.”

Belgium recently began to require that non-European migrants sign a pledge committing themselves to certain “values.”

In Canada, we do present potential citizens with a guide that explains our history and speaks of values, but we do not then check to make sure every newcomer believes fully and completely in each and every one of those ideals.

At the moment, it is not clear how Leitch imagines we should.

How would we screen for beliefs?

Would immigrants be asked to confirm their agreement with a series of statements about equality? How would we know they were telling the truth? Would we hook them up to a lie detector? Would we have public servants checking Twitter histories and Facebook profiles for evidence of intolerance or unacceptable views?

Are we comfortable with the idea of regulating beliefs? Who defines the values and how they will be measured? How specific would we get?

Would immigrants have to be fully supportive of same-sex marriage? (To pick a right that Conservative party members have only just come around to not opposing and which some current Canadian citizens still don’t support.) What about transgender rights? (To pick an issue that Parliament will soon be considering.)

What constitutes an intolerance for economic freedom? Would that rule out socialists? What about anyone with an inclination to vote for the NDP?

What great benefit would we derive from the effort? And what would be the effect of such a test?

We might, for instance, imagine that living in Canada could open the mind of a homophobe, or at least provide his or her children with a good atmosphere in which to grow up.

But, while we’re on the topic, what of the bigots and misogynists who were born here?

What problem does this mean to solve?

But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us go back to the premise, or at least try to understand what it might be.

What problem does this debate over Canadian values mean to solve? Are great hordes of bigots and misogynists entering our country at present? Are their beliefs having some kind of deleterious impact on our society? Are we faced with some kind of threat that must be dealt with?

The implication that we are is inherent in Leitch’s idea: That immigrants with “anti-Canadian values” are coming to this country. That Canada is faced with a meaningful problem. That even though we have become a tolerant, pluralistic society alongside decades of mass immigration (and despite whatever prejudices were held by our naturally born citizens and new arrivals), we are somehow now in need of greater protection.

That is a troubling suggestion to leave hanging in the air as thousands of newcomers continue to try to settle into our country. We should not uncarefully implicate an entire class of people.

“This suggestion, that some immigrants are ‘anti-Canadian’, does not represent our Conservative Party or our Canada,” Michael Chong, a fellow leadership candidate, said in a statement on Friday. “The language and context that Kellie used has led key Conservatives, including Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper’s former director of policy, to criticize this move as the worst of dog-whistle politics.‎”

(Interim Leader Rona Ambrose has since joined Chong in questioning Leitch’s proposal, noting there are already criminal background checks for potential immigrants.)

Does someone wearing a niqab make us vulnerable?

The suggestion of a threat also suggests a vulnerability.

In this way, screening for anti-Canadian values seems similar to the previous government’s fretting about some women wearing the niqab during the citizenship oath.

We might not like what we imagine the niqab to represent, just as we might not like the idea of anyone with even a single misogynistic, bigoted or homophobic thought making a home in this country.

But we might believe that we are collectively strong enough to welcome a vast array of beliefs and practices without losing ourselves. That we are not so fragile or weak.

That, in contradiction to the implication found in Donald Trump’s proposal, our best and noblest ideas will prevail and win out. And that our values might indeed spread, as newcomers arrive and settle here.

If some of us are worried, we might try to understand why. But we might decide that a proper Canadian value is to not be fearful.

Source: How do you screen beliefs? The troublesome task of testing for ‘anti-Canadian values’ – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →