Predictable outrage over Palestianian wxhibit at CMHR

A planned exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) entitled Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present is having the expected controversy and protest.

It's only a small exhibit, 12 metres wide, tucked into a corner on the first floor, just a few panels with some photos, video clips and first-person accounts, and it comes at the request of many Palestinian-Canadians who want to see some exposure of the violent displacement of some 800,000 Palestinians from their lands by the nascent state of Israel in 1947.

Many influential Jewish people, including "honorary board member" Gail Asper (who, with her father, Israel Asper, was instrumental in fundraising and getting the museum up and running), are taking issue with it, complaining that it lacks historical context and might inflame antisemitism. Jewish museum trustee Mark Berlin, who describes himself as pro-Palestinian, also resigned his position over the exhibit.

They argue that the exhibit lacks "context" in that it does not also cover the history surrounding the establishment of Israel, or the displacement of Jews from Arab lands after 1948. But, hold on, does any discussion of Nazi Germany have to include a countervailing segment on the Huns' invasion of Germany in the 4th century or Napoleon's invasion in the early 19th century, "for context"? How much context is enough context?

The so-called "Jewish nakba", in the years following the establishment of the state of Israel, is its own story, and probably merits a separate exhibit, although it bears noting that some of the resettlement of Jews was voluntary, and at least they had a homeland to resettle to, rather than languishing in refugee camps for decades like the Palestinians. 

The museum's CEO Isha Khan (not Jewish!) has defended the planned Palestinian exhibit, saying that it is not anti-Zionist, and that it does not challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel. It is merely a piece to highlight a little-known aspect of Middle Eastern history and its human rights connotations. Moreover, the museum has for years had an exhibit on the second floor that specifically highlights the mass displacement of Jews from Arab lands, not to mention extensive galleries about the Holocaust.

An indication of just how knee-jerk a reaction this is: most of the people complaining about the display have not actually seen it yet! It only opened this weekend. The curators beg people to come and see it for themselves before they criticize.

What would the objectors have the museum do? Gloss over these historically-validated events? Grow the exhibit by two or three times in order to encompass the Israeli "context" (and thereby dilute the poignancy of the Palestinian story)? This is not a Jewish museum. Israel and the Jewish people have been the perpetrators of some pretty bad stuff over the years, as well as being the victims. Those stories need to be told too. This does not detract from Israel's - or rather the Jewish people's - vicissitudes and victimhood.

It was so predictable that there would be outrage expressed whenever Israel is criticized in any way. It was equally predictable that the "antisemitism card" would get played at some point. It's all part and parcel of the usual Israeli tendency to shut down any and all forms of criticism. I find it hard to understand that some people identify so closely with a race or a religion or a nationality that it subsumes almost everything else. But I do understand, from having observed it, that that's how it is with some people.

Anti-immigrant sentiment does not extend to soccer

If the World Cup has done nothing else, it has drawn attention to immigration, and, for once, no-one seems keen on criticizing and protesting.

Nearly a quarter of the 1,248 players at this year's World Cup a representing a country other than the one they were born in, up from just 9% at the 2006 competition. You just have to look at the number of black faces on teams from Canada, USA, England, Netherlands, even notoriously immigration-unfriendly Switzerland, to get a very visual reminder that these countries are highly reliant on immigrant talent (although bear in mind that many of the white faces are also immigrants).

Tunisia, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Qatar all have more than half of their squads born elsewhere. The Morocco team is 73% foreign-born, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's is 85%, and little Curaçao's squad is comprised of 97% immigrants. 

There are many compelling immigrant stories behind some of the competition's top players. Canada's star player Alphonso Davies was born in a refugee camp in Ghana to Liberian parents. Australia's Thomas Deng and Nestory Irankunda were both born in refugee camps, in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. Germany's Antonio Rudiger was born to immigrant parents fleeing Sierra Leone's civil war.

The US team in particular has received a lot of attention, given the Trump administration's outspoken views on immigration. Florian Balogun, who scored two of the US's four goals against Paraguay, was born to Nigerian parents temporarily living in New York, making him a 14th Amendment "birthright citizen", which Trump has actively tried to deny (although federal courts are currently blocking his executive order from taking effect). Tim Weah, Haji Wright, Ricardo Pepi, Sergiño Dest, even Christian Pulisic, are all immigrants or children of immigrants, and several others on the squad have immigration somewhere in their stories.

I just find it interesting how little push-back there is against this particular kind of immigration, even from countries like USA, Germany, Switzerland,.Sweden and England, where there is so often a strong and vocal anti-immigration sentiment.

Kamloops residential school burials investigation is proceeding, just very slowly

Can you believe that it's been 5 years since the announcement in May 2021 of the discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous residential school students - some as young as three years old, we were told - at an apple orchard near Kamloops, British Columbia, once the site of a notorious residential school for First Nations kids.

The news marked a watershed moment in Indigenous relations for Canada. Huge sums of money were allocated by the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau towards further investigations. There was an unprecedented period of national mourning and much heart-searching. National flags were maintained at half-mast for nearly five months. A National Day For Truth and Reconciliation was established, and people held vigils and tied orange ribbons to poles and fence-posts. Pope Francis made an official apology on behalf of the Catholic Church for its role in Canada's residential school system as a direct response to the discovery.

The hundreds of "anomalies" identified by ground-penetrating radar at Kamloops were initially described as "the remains of 215 children" in a "mass grave". The press repeated this description avidly and unquestioningly, e.g. "Remains of 215 children found buried at former BC residential school", "Canada mourns as remains of 215 children found at Indigenous school", etc. 

Gradually, as cooler heads prevailed, they were reframed as "probable burials" or just "anomalies", and they were said to be "consistent with" the size, depth and layout of human burials. The number of suspected graves was reduced to around 200. But it was still a shocking and humbling discovery that merited further investigation, and it set off a frantic search in many other parts of Canada for more evidence of hidden burial sites and residential school atrocities.

Five years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, though, and there is still no hard evidence of what actually lies beneath the apple orchard. The Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc leadership are still resisting actually digging up the "probable" dead, and some people are starting to become suspicious that something is being hidden. Chief Rosanne Casimir has equivocated with unsatisfactory statements like, "While the investigation has been more complex than we initially thought, we are making progress and will continue adapting our methodologies and information as it advances". 

Interpreting ground-penetrating radar readings is an imprecise science, to put it mildly. Rocks, water and roots can appear as indistinct radar blips requiring interpretation. A ground-penetrating radar investigation of a potential mass grave in the US some years ago ultimately turned up nothing more than construction debris, artifacts and dirt, but no bodies. Other confirmatory technologies exist - human remains detection dogs, LiDAR (a remote sensing method using laser pulses), and soil spectroscopy - and it seems that some of these are also being used in BC.

Nevertheless, five years is a long time, and it's not clear what "advances" have been made. The ongoing uncertainty has given rise to skeptics and even denialists. One theory, based on historical blueprints of the residential school, is that the "anomalies" are actually part of a defunct septic system. Some denialists (or were they skeptics) have tried to break into the orchard in the middle of the night with shovels. Some have gone so far as to call the whole thing a big hoax, and one ex-MLA called it "the greatest lie in Canadian history". There are hashtags and slogans in some corners of the Internet like #StopTheGrift, "Every Hoax Matters" and "Dig Up or Shut Up". Some critics have called for the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to be returned to Ottawa with interest.

These are the words of a small minority of mavericks and outliers, of course, but the media blackout and the cult of silence around Indigenous investigations are not helping the official case from a PR perspective. One poll found that 63% of Canadians won't accept that children are buried at the Tk'emlúps site until excavation provides further evidence. Some Indigenous leaders believe that there is a risk that the secretive, closed-door policy might lead to further division between Canadians and Indigenous people.

In fact, it does seem that investigations are proceeding, under federal guidance and according to a detailed plan to dig the site by 2027 (pending consent from around 120 First Nations communities throughout Western Canada that sent children to the school). DNA samples from First Nations are being collected to help with potential identification. Iron-clad legal protections against misuse are required. So, the work is proceeding, but this is a mammoth undertaking of great complexity, and the Tk'emlúps leadership is playing it very close to their chest. Precise timelines remain very uncertain.

And if the area is eventually excavated, and no children's bodies are found, what then? Well, we'll cross that bridge if and when we get to it.

Israel uproots thousands of Palestinian olive trees

The state of Israel has never had a good image. From its very beginnings, it has been militaristic, combative and uncompromising. Since its scorched-earth policy in Gaza over the last couple of years (and, yes, let's say it, it's genocidal intentions), it has lost most of the little goodwill it may have had. You can be sympathetic to Jewish people for the way they were treated by the Nazis, but still hate the policies and the philosophy of the Israeli state, particularly its apartheid treatment of Palestinians and its aggressive moves to settle Israelis on Palestinian land.

More recently, since the press spotlight has been caught up in the Iran debacle, Israel has pressed what it sees as its advantage and made further illegal incursions into the West Bank. Attacks and intrusions by Israeli settlers have become increasingly violent, and whole Palestinian villages have been razed to the ground to make way for Israeli settlements (illegal under UN law).

Now, they have upped the ante, and hit new highs (lows) of callousness, as Israeli contractors uprooted and destroyed thousands of olive trees in the West Bank. The olive trees of Palestinians are their lifeline economically, but also a symbol of their national pride. Israel, of course, knows that, and pursued this action deliberately to further its aims of complete obliteration of Palestine.

It's known that the orders came directly from Bezalel Smodrich, one of the most hawkish members of the Israeli cabinet. He has made his intentions quite clear: to "build the land of Israel and destroy of the idea of a Palestinian state". You can watch video of the devastation if you have a strong constitution.

Still on the fence about whether Israel is guilty of genocide?

No, Mr. Ford, banning the Al-Quds Day rally is not the answer

Talking of putting himself on the wrong side of history again, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is on a roll recently, most recently by wading into the controversial pro-Palestine Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto, which is scheduled for later today.

In a very-last-minute attempt at intervention, Ford has called on the Ontario Attorney-General to ban this year's demonstration, which he says "is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and antisemitism" and that "it glorifies violence, it celebrates terrorism". 

Legally, constitutionally, I'm pretty sure he can't do that. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)  says it is "deeply troubled" by Ford's move, calling it "a sweeping attack on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly".

The Al-Quds Day rally is an annual demonstration, part of a "global day against imperialism" that has been happening every year for decades now. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for the Islamic holy city of Jerusalem, as well as one of the holy names of God, meaning "the holy one" or "the pure one". In Toronto at any rate, the rally is first and foremost a pro-Palestinian protest, although, given the current situation in the Middle East, it will almost certainly include Iran and Lebanon under its banner this year. It is only anti-Israel insofar as Israel is the country oppressing Palestine and Iran, and only anti-Jewish insofar as Israel is motivated by Jewish nationalism.

That said, the protest has in the past pushed boundaries. While not actually violent, it has seen some pretty inflammatory anti-Israel, and, very occasionally, downright antisemitic rhetoric. This is unfortunate, but pre-emptively banning the demo at the last minute is not the solution.

The rally plans to go ahead inspire of Ford's calls for an injunction. There will almost certainly be a pro-Israel counter-demonstration too, which is the only thing that might cause it all to end in violence.

UPDATE

In the end, the Ontario Court denied Ford his injunction and the Al-Quds Day rally went ahead. It was noisy, boisterous and well-attended (about 3,000 in downtown Toronto and many more at other smaller rallies) and, despite the presence of a small pro-Israel counter-protest, there were just two isolated arrests. So much for Ford's predicted hate-filled bloodbath.

Ford professed himself "extremely disappointed" at the court's judgement, and no doubt he will be complaining again about our "biased" legal system and renew his calls for reform (he has expressed his preference for a partisan appointed judiciary, à la USA). But luckily, for now at least, we still have an independent judiciary so that, when Ford and his administration tries to pull illegal and unconstitutional stunts, as they are prone to do, there is an impartial legal system there to hold him to account.

What does MAGA really believe about DEI?

An article on Martin Luther King Day includes a quote from a Trump White House spokesperson: "Everything President Trump does is in the best interest of the American people. That includes rolling back harmful DEI agendas, deporting dangerous criminal illegal aliens from American communities, or ensuring we are being honest about our country's great history."

Now there are any number of things wrong with that quote, both in principle, and in the practical way in which those beliefs are being acted on. But the thing that really stood out for me was the use of the word "harmful". In what way is the pursuit of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) considered actually harmful by the MAGA crowd?

Here's what MAGA believes about DEI, gleaned mainly from an AI query and a CNN article:

• DEI actively disadvantages White people and men, attempting to solve past discrimination by creating new forms of discirimination.
• DEI leads to hiring or promoting less qualified minority candidates, shifting the focus from merit to identity.
• DEI fosters resentment and focusses on differences, creating divisions, and turning people into victims and oppressors.
• DEI is redundant in today's post-racial world, where significant racial equality has already been achieved.
• DEI programs are costly, ineffective bureaucracies, filled with activists rather than genuine problem-solvers.
• DEi policies violate constitutional rights, particularly for educators and students, promoting specific ideologies and stifling free speech.

Of course, a lot of these points are merely twists on the arguments for DEI. And I do believe that they are, by and large, "straw men" arguments (intentionally misrepresented propositions), and that a good proportion of the people espousing them just don't like Black people. But I have no proof of that :)

Canada's Supreme Court takes on racial profiling - again

The Supreme Court of Canada is about to re-visit a case that most people thought had been long resolved and closed. 

The case revolves around the right of police officers to randomly stop drivers for document checks, even if there is no actual suspicion of anything illegal. Back in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that such stops were legal because, although they appear to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Court ruled that it was a reasonable limit on individual freedoms in the interests of preserving safety on our roads. 

But the Supreme Court decision was far from unanimous, and it has been treated with legal skepticism ever since, mainly because it tends to lead to racial profiling. Yes, such random stops do sometimes yield results, e.g. someone driving after being suspended, etc. But they are clearly open to abuse, particularly racial abuse. 

(Interestingly, random police stops at fixed checkpoints, e.g. to deter drunk driving, are not being challenged. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld their legality. But what really is the difference? Are they not just as open to racial profiling?)

Now, I'm not really sure why police would distroportionately choose to stop Black people. Is it because of a perception that Blacks are more likely to break the law than Whites, either from personal experience or from underlying or systemic racism, knowingly or otherwise? But clearly it is a fact: research shows that Black people are around five times as likely as Whites to be targeted during such "random" stops.

Legal challenges in some  provinces, e.g. Quebec, have occasionally succeeded in striking down the 1990 decision. But governments, both in Quebec and federally, who insist that random stops are essential for road safety - even though there does not seem to be any compelling empirical evidence to prove that - want the matter decided once and for all by the highest court in the land, hence this week's Supreme Court case.

It will be interesting to see the Court's findings. My initial feeling was that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with random stops as a road safety strategy. And, God knows, Canads's roads are pretty scary these days, although the numbers of accidents and deaths being reported in Canada have come down significantly in recent decades, they seem to be on the rise again). And there is no obvious reason to me why Black people should be targeted so disproportionately, but clearly they are. 

So, given that, what is the remedy? Yes, we could say "no more random stops", a rather draconian solution, throwing the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. But is there really no middle way? I'm not saying that mandatory anti-racism training is the answer - that seems like a bit of a pie-in-the-sky / Kumbaya / Hail Mary kind of solution. But are there no other ideas? Surely, people have spend decades researching this stuff: have they come up with nothing?

One story among many about immigrants in the USA

I'm sure everyone has read more than they want or need about the immigration clampdown in the USA. I've certainly written more than I want or need about it. But this particular story on the BBC News website was especially poignant, I thought.

A woman, originally from Iran, moved to the US a decade ago. She is currently living with her husband (a US citizen) in Oregon. She has gone through all the right channels, step by step, and passed all the various tests, approvals and security vetting for citizenship. She was two days away from her naturalization ceremony, which would officially make her a US citizen.

That was the point where the Trump government, in its wisdom, summarily cancelled the oath-taking ceremony, with no explanation or apology. It turns out that the only reason for the cancellation is the woman's Iranian origins. America is cancelling the citizenship ceremonies of all immigrants hailing from any of the 19 (mainly Muslim) countries that are already subject to a travel ban in the USA.

The woman is, understandably, distraught. Not only is she not a US citizen, but she is now in the position of considering moving back to Iran, a country she feels little or no connection with, despite being married to a US citizen, having spent a decade or so in the country, and having jumped through all the required hoops.

And hers is far from the only such story.

Exposing false claims of native heritage is surely counter-productive

The latest Indigenous Canadian to be outed as not being Indigenous at all is successful author Thomas King.

California-born King, who has lived in Camada since the early 1980s, seems to have honestly believed all his life that he was of Cherokee ancestry. But he was recently presented with genealogical evidence to the contrary, a finding that has profoundly shocked and depressed the 82-year old author of popular books like Indians on Vacation and The Inconvenient Indian. He has withdrawn the publication of his next novel, due out in May 2026, and his whole life and legacy is in disarray after the revelations.

He was outed by a "whistle-blowing organization" called the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, based in North Carolina. The organization exists, it seems, to expose false claims of Native heritage in America and Canada. Because - just like with Joseph Boyden, Buffy Sainte Marie and Michelle Latimer, before King - they wouldn't want people thinking that these successful artists and personalities, who have spent most of their lives trying to promote and boost Indigenous peoples, were Indigenous, would they?

I'm sure, where the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds and similar groups are concerned, there is a matter of principle involved here, even if that principle is exclusionary and bigoted and a bit fanatical. But I can't help but think that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

UPDATE

And here we go: Vancouver School Board is pulling King's books from its school curriculum and libraries because, after all, he doesn't have any American Indian heritage, does he? I'm sure many others will follow. The usual argument is trotted out, that celebrating King/Boyden/ Sainte-Marie/etc is somehow "taking space away" from real Indigenous authors and performers (who are presumably not as good, otherwise they would have made it big anyway, especially given the built-in "authenticity bonus" that Native artists enjoy these days).

So, what's the message here? That the only reason Thomas King's books are so enjoyed and revered is because he is Indigenous? That all those prizes that were bestowed were only for the accident of his birth, not for his literary and story-telling chops? Ridiculous! At this rate, Indigenous people will have no role models left.

This is where the USA is today

God. Here in Canada we agonize over statues of John A. McDonald or Egerton Ryerson, petrified [sic] that they might have been racists or not done all they could to abolish slavery or maybe had a hand in the abuse of the Indigenous people of their day (although the truth often turns out to be more complex).

In Trump's America, though, an explicitly pro-slavery Confederate statue is being given a $10 million restoration and re-erected in the nation's most prestigious military cemetery.

This is a statue of a tearful, fat, black female slave, cradling the child of her white Confederate master, as he goes off to war. Its official name is the "Arlington Confederate Monument", although Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists on calling it the "reconciliation monument" because there is a recent US law preventing anything being named after the Confederacy, a dark period in American history. Hegseth want to reinstate the monument, with its overtly racist imagery and anti-US sentiments, at Arlington National Cemetery.

This is where the USA is today. John A. McDonald? Eat your heart out.

Masked ICE agents part of the long slide into totalitarian terror

More and more report and videos are emerging of some of the nefarious tactics being employed by Trump's ICE warriors. Women and children separated from husbands and fathers, disguised and unmarked officers punching victims repeatedly in the head. They may be detained unlawfully in unsanitary conditions for many hours, even days. There seem to be few, if any, checks on their behaviour.

These are scenes straight out of dystopian fuction, but this is real. And this is not theocratic Iran, or 1980s El Salvador, or Chile under Pinochet; this is today's America under Donald Trump.

So, if ICE is a legitimate government department in a democratic country, why are its agents wearing face-obscuring masks and dark glasses and using unmarked vehicles? The official line is that they are protecting themselves from doxing (maliciously publishing private information about individuals on the internet) and increasing threats to their safety. 

But these are not clandestine operations agsainst organized drug rings or violent criminal gangs. The subjects being targeted by ICE are usually private individuals - family men (and women and children), students, construction workers, restaurant staff, delivery guys, often born and raised in America.

Civil rights workers and legal advocates say this approach, much like that of Elon Musk's DOGE goons, is deliberately designed to create a climate of fear and intimidation, and to undermine public trust. It is quite literally terrorism. Masked men do not feel accountable because they cannot be identified, and so they are much more likely to engage in violence and to flout the existing laws. There have already been cases of people impersonating ICE or Homeland Security agents to carry out robberies and other crimes.

It can't be long until cattle prods and state-sanctioned rapes become part of the American urban landcscape.

Actually, the US does not have that many public holidays

That Mr. Trump seems to think that the United States has way too many public holidays, and that this is interfering with American money-making. "Too many non-working holidays", he says.

Of course, as usual, he's totally wrong. The US actually has just 10 public holidays (or 11, depending on which source you choose to use). It turns out that is one of the lowest number of holidays worldwide. For example, most of Europe has between 9 and 16 days. South America has between 11 and 18 (although, for some reason, Chile has just 5 according to one source, or 20 according to another). Countries in Asia generally have between 11 and 20 (although one source shows India with just 3, while another source suggests it has as many as 42!) Maybe it depends on your definitions?

Perhaps even more confusingly, Wikipedia lists public holidays by country, but shows two columns, Maximum Number of Public Holidays and Minimum Number of Public Holidays. For what it's worth, the USA has the 9th smallest maximum number (at 11), and the absolute smallest minimum number in the world (at 6)! India, incidentally, has 21, according to their analysis. This is clearly more of an art than a science!

So, I don't know what to tell you. Really, Trump just wants to get rid of the Juneteenth holiday because he disapproves of anything celebrating Black history. But he wouldn't want to come right out and say that, now would he? Back in 2020, he called Juneteenth "an important event", and even tried to take credit for popularizing it. Nowadays, though, he is in full King mode, and does not feel he needs to ingratiate himself with the Black population any more.

The strange story of the Lumbees

Here's a developing story I have managed to miss until now. Unfortunately, it involves Donald Trump, but that can't be helped.

It seems that, for whatever reason, Trump has taken on the plight of the Lumbees, a native American tribe from North Carolina, which Trump has vowed to help become federally recognized, with all the financial and other benefits that come with that designation, including healthcare, education and economic development. In fact, one of his very first executive orders was to press the Department of the Interior to find a way to make that happen.

The 55,000 strong Lumbee nation has been recognized in North Carolina for over a hunded years, but federal recognition involves a very specific set of requirements including proving that their nation existed before the founding of the USA, that they have been recognized as Native since at least 1900, that they have operated as an "autonomous entitiy", and that they have genealogies that demonstrate Native heritage and ancestry from previously recognized tribes.

These are quite onerous requirements and, thus far, the Lumbees have not been able to fulfill them. In fact, strangely, there was even a 1956 federal act, the Lumbee Act, that specifically prohibits the US from having a federal relationship with the group. It gave them only limited recognition, and specifically prohibited them from receiving federal benefits. I have no idea why.

Now, Trump is asking the DoI to find a way round the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA) that has always had responsibility for federal recognition of Native groups, and that has officially recognized over 570 Native tribes across America over the years. And this has other Native groups worried. 

They worry that, by circumventing the OFA, a bad precedent for future tribal recognition will be set, and that it will water down the stringent requirements that have been in force up until now. They argue that the Lumbees have tried repeatedly to attach themselves to various historical tribal and non-tribal names in order to identify themselves, but without success, meaning that they remain "not necessarily Native". 

Apparently there are many other groups out there diligently trying to prove their indigeneity, and this move by Trump could open up a real can of worms, and ppotentially even pit one Native group against another. Futhermore, it is very unlikely that the pot of money devoted to the country's Native tribes will grow if more tribes are recognized, so the same money will be spread more thinly around more groups (another reason why existing Native tribes are suspicious of this new process). In fact, it surprises me that this system has not already foumd itself facing the keen axe of Trump or the much-hated Department of Government Efficiency.

Of course, the only reason Trump is even listening to these people is for their votes (as reflected in the voting trends of recent elections): he doesn't care about their Native heritage. The whole controversy is leading to a politicization of Native issues. And we know that Trump thrives on both politicization and controversy.

White Afrikaner "refugees" land in the USA

One of the stupider things that Donald Trump and his willing administration have wrought in the few hectic months since January is the provision of a special flight from South Africa for White Afrikaner "refugees".

59 (49 according to some sources) pasty White people arrived in Washington yesterday on a specially-chartered plane with a capacity of 200 (I guess take-up was not quite what Trump anticipated). These people are supposedly the victims of "racial discrimination" and even "genocide" by the Black majority South African government, about which Trump has a particular bee in his bonnet. Presumably, his buddy, White South African Elon Musk has had a word with him.

These comfortable middle-class folk were given special dispensation to emigrate to the USA as refugees, even though all other refugee admissions into the US have been summarily halted by the Trump administration, including those from war zones. Indeed, Trump is now talking about giving the South Africans automatic citizenship. Hell, we may see some of them joining his cabinet!

Of course, there is no genocide of White farmers happening; this is just a White Supremacist myth being propagated for political reasons. 60 White farmers a day are not being killed, as is claimed; the reality is more like 50 farmers a year, Black and White, in a country that sees over 20,000 murders every year, and where Black people make up 81% of the population but own about 4% of its land. On the other hand, Whites make up just 7% of the population, but own about half of South Africa's farmland. Yes, there has been government redistribution of land to the majority Black population after decades of apartheid inequality, but no arbitrary seizures or expropriation of private property. 

Many Afrikaners see Trump's offer as merely a PR exercise, and look on those accepting the offer as "opportunists" and "sell-outs". South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called the emigrants "cowards" and warned "they'll be back soon". White Afrikaner farmers themselves reject the notion that there is some genocide going on, or that White Afrikaners want to leave the country. And that photo of thousands of white crosses that Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with in their prime-time Oval Office "interview"? it was actually a temporary symbolic tableau to commemorate the murder of two individuals, not the burial site of thousands, according to the man who built it. Not that Trump would care about the truth behind it - his point has already been made.

Trump, then, has drunk the White Supremacist Koolaid, and is acting on it in his usual unthinking, precipitate way. This may not be the worst thing Trump 2.0 is engaged in right now, but it ranks up there. (The list of dangerous, damaging and downright illegal actions he has embarked on - from firing huge swaths of the federal workforce to gutting environmental protections to interfering in the oversight of universities to hamstringing the ability of unions to represent workers to establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve to attacks on immigration and sanctuary cities to making independent regulators accountable to the White House to weakening anti-corruption laws to removals of all mentions and implementations of DEI and climate change policies to dismantling the Department of Education to withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, UNWRA, WHO and other international organizations - is becoming hard to keep track of. Here is just a partial list.)

While most of the media's attention is focussed on the tariffs nonsense, all of this egregious stuff is happening in the background. In fact, that is my personal theory, that the tariffs, which are gradually being walked back anyway, are a smokescreen for all the other stuff that the US would rather not have scrutinized too closely.

What would Poilievre actually do about the DEI initiatives he despises?

Pierre Poilievre doesn't like to be characterized that way, but some of his policies are dangerously close to those of Donald Trump. One example is his crusade against DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies in government contracts and grant-giving.

DEI initiatives are meant to address systemic inequalities and racism in government dealings, and they were a particular focus of the Trudeau government, which even set up a DEI ministry to deal with such matters (a ministry that Mark Carney has since removed, astutely taking out in the process one of Poilievre's major debate points).

The Conservatives, on the other hand, airily dismiss such equity concerns as "woke ideology" and "woke culture", in the universal language after all those opposed to dealing with inequities and inequalities, and argue that such mandates wrongly prioritize race or gender over merit. Their election platform talks about a "woke criminal justice agenda" and a "woke agenda on spending", and Poilievre regularly says in his campaign speeches that "we need to reverse that, get back to Canadian values" (by which he presumably means white Canadian values or, more specifically, Conservative values). This plays very well with some segments of his core support, however un-Canadian it may actually be.

When pressed, Poilievre seems unable or unwilling to elaborate on exactly how he would deal with all this "woke" nonsense - presumably, he doesn't actually know - but we have seen how America has been dealing with it in Donald Trump's presidential orders and the rapacious work of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

I'm not saying that Poilievre would necessarily institute such a draconian crusade as has been occurring south of the border (although, with the precedent set, that is a possibility). But, like a dangerous iceberg hidden beneath the surface, this is just one of the many matters on which I don't trust Poilievre, a potential atrocity lurking behind relatively innocuous and reasonable-sounding words.

Governor General has some explaining to do regarding Buffy Sainte-Marie's cancellation

Buffy Sainte-Marie has had her Order of Canada revoked ("terminated" seems to be the official description; "scrapped" is what it actually is), because some people think she is just not Indigenous enough. She has been officially and summarily cancelled and is now persona non grata.

As I have commented before, a CBC Fifth Estate documentary about a year ago (whose findings were contested) found some documents that contradicted some of Ms. Sainte-Marie's claims of Indigenous ancestry. Many (but by no means all) Indigenous people were outraged, and called for her to be punished. And so now, a year later, we have this.

Except it doesn't really make much sense to me. See, the thing is, she was given the prestigious award of the Order of Canada back in 1997 for her decades of activism in support of First Nations and Métis, and for raising awareness of political and social issues as they affect Indigenous people. That hasn't changed. Her decades of work are as valuable and influential now as they were in 1997. So, why revoke ("terminate") her Order of Canada?

Well, because some people - mainly Indigenous people, the very people whom Ms. Sainte-Marie helped and paved the way for - have campaigned tirelessly to have her honour removed. No official reason was given by the Office of the Secretary of the Governor General for her removal, but the usual justifications are a criminal conviction or "conduct that may undermine the integrity of the order". She hasn't been convicted of anything, so I guess it must be the latter.

But, in my humble opinion as a mere settler, it is the Office of the Governor General itself (and perhaps Mary Simon, Canada's first Indigenous Governor General - her personal role in this has yet to be made clear) that has undermined its own integrity by this action. I don't think we have heard the last of this.

Israelism - another side to the story of Israel

I finally got around to watching Israelism, a hard-hitting documentary about indoctrination and misinformation about Israel among American Jews.

Subtitled "The Awakening of Young American Jews", the 2023 film didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know because I have read around the subject, although I'm sure it will be a shocking eye-opener for a lot of people.

It looks in some detail at the way in which young Jewish people in America are fed a very one-sided and often false story about the creation of Israel, the way Jews are treated, and how the state of Israel is a paradise for Jews. It explains how well-funded this movement is, and how young impressionable American Jews are being indoctrinated and even recruited into the Israeli army.

It also shows that there is a whole cohort of young American Jews who are questioning this indoctrination, and visiting Israel and Palestine personally to see for themselves. They come away with a very different impression - a place where Palestinian lands are illegally settled by a rapacious Israeli political machine and fanatical fundamentalists, and Palestinian people are subjugated and oppressed in an apartheid system at least as brutal and absolute as anything in 20th century South Africa.

This has led to a plethora of activist groups in America of Jews opposed to the politics of the Israeli state, and supportive of Palestinian freedom and human rights. These groups are being routinely harassed and threatened online and in person by angry Zionist elements, and subjected to regular death threats, but they are bravely persisting because they have seen the injustice and feel they cannot remain silent.

The film makes no secret of the fact that there is indeed a burgeoning antisemitic movement in America (and worldwide) as the far right gains a foothold and unquestioningly pro-Israel populist politicians and demagogues proliferate. But it makes the point that, notwithstanding, the propaganda we are being fed about Israel remains wrong, and that criticizing Israel is not in itself antisemitic, as we are also told.

The documentary was produced before the October 7th 2023 incursion by Hamas and the bloodbath in Palestine that ensued in its wake. Perhaps not surprisingly, after the attack and the start of the war in Palestine, there was a concerted effort to get the movie banned on the grounds that it is antisemitic - it's not, and the movie itself explains why it's not.

It should be required viewing, but so entrenched are the pro-Israel views of many people, Jews and non-Jews, that I don't hold much hope that it will change many minds.

To read or not to read

There was a brave and impassioned article by celebrated Canadian author Lawrence Hill in the weekend Globe and Mail about his use of the N-word in his books (no, I'm not going to write it out - do you think I'm stupid?)

Still perhaps the single most loaded word in the English language, Hill explains that he includes it in his novels - as do many other Black authors like Austin Clarke, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, et al - for authenticity. But it does leave schools looking to teach the books in a rather difficult position because the work can apparently be "triggering" for many young Black people, and school boards feel the need to "protect" their young people from such mental strain. Hill, on the other hand, believes that they need to "own" the word, or "reclaim" it, and that readers - Black and White - should face up to the reality of its historical use.

The article was prompted by the many letters Mr. Hill apparently receives about how various school boards have not exactly banned his books - particularly The Book of Negroes, his best known and most-awarded book - but stipulated that they should not be used for mandatory coursework, only made available for voluntary use in the school library.

Mr. Hill, however, maintains that this is tantamount to a ban - an assertion I would probably diasagree with, on balance - and that such policies are depriving students of the opportunity to read some great books by Black authors, and depriving Black authors of a valuable new young audience. 

Again, on balance, I would probably disagree. I didn't read any Black authors during my schooling in 1960s and 1970s England, but I have read and enjoyed many since then. Should students be FORCED to read Black and Indigenous authors for the good of their immortal souls? That would be a radical notion indeed. Should books by Black authors even be allocated study spots in proportion to their demographic numbers? That would also get complicated when you start trying to be inclusive of the various Asian, African, Latino, etc, sub-sets, not to mention women, queer authors, etc, who no doubt also want their share of the market.

There are so many worthy and well-written works of literature out there - most of them written by dead white guys as it happens - it's a real quagmire deciding who should be studied by Canadian students. The bottom line, though, should be that this a study of English literature, not politics, sociology or anthropology. 

My feeling is that there are many great books out there that are relatively uncontentious and inoffensive (including by Black authors). We do not have to push the envelope all the time, and we can still learn about sentence construction, literary styles and grammar without having to go through all this hand-wringing and recrimination. This is not a cop-out, but a pragmatic choice.

Montreal dance ticket pricing ruled discriminatory

However much you might believe that there is rampant anti-Black discrimination thoughout Canadian society, it's still hard to get on board with a Montreal community centre's BIPOC ticket pricing for its Shake La Cabane family dance night event.

The event was advertised as $25.83 general admission or $15.18 for anyone "Black, Indigenous or People of Colour". The event's organizers justified it as a "micro-reparation" for a discriminated population, "in the name of solidarity, not charity", and mentioned a couple of examples in the USA as precedent.

But they were forced to backtrack and cancel the event after a public outcry and the attentions of various Quebec politicians. Oh, and an opinion from the Quebec Human Rights Commission that such a policy violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 10, which calls for the "full and equal recognition and exercise of [a person's] human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race".

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

The anti-woke backlash takes control

An article in the Globe and Mail succinctly summarizes the pressures on big businesses to cave in to the anti-woke sentiments that are in the ascendancy in the USA.

There are anti-woke campaigners and influencers out there diligently and assiduously working to persuade American companies that ESG (environmental, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are anti-business and, hell, anti-American. Several Conservative states have also been pushing hard in this respect, and with Donald Trump taking the helm at the federal level, you just know that there will be even more pressure on companies to abandon any progressive developments they may have been experimenting with.

Once such American conservative influencer is Robby Starbuck (presumably not his real name), who boasts that his campaigns have been instrumental in causing companies like Deere & Co, Harley Davidson Inc, Molson-Coors Beverage Co and Walmart Inc to pull back from DEI policies (changing their hiring practices, pulling out of relationships with equity groups, cutting funding for pride parades, etc). 

Starbuck reckons that he has persuaded companies worth over $2 trillion to change their policies away from DEI and ESG, leading to "better workplace environments as a result". Here is his shtick: "Companies can clearly see the America wants normalcy back. The era of wokeness is dying right in front of our eyes ... We are now the trend not the anomaly." *Sigh*

The article does point out that, thus far at least, Canada has NOT been following this disturbing trend. Indeed, the Globe and Mail's Board Games corporate ranking shows that Canadian companies have make significant strides in ESG and DEI in the last couple of years. But, already, some Canadian companies are making changes in their US operations to accommodate the changing climate there.

And, of course, when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold (or worse). With anti-woke campaigners and legislators already hard at work in conservative provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, you can see the tide turning and the backlash beginning here too. If and when Pierre Poilievre gets elected (more of a "when"), it will take off in earnest. Years of effort and painfully slow progress down the drain in the blink of an eye.