Where Have all the Flowers Gone?

Where have all the flowers gone? (1)  Well might we apply this question, from the song made popular by Peter, Paul and Mary, to the First Nations peoples in Canada in regard to the violence against children?

Recently, Chief Justice Murray Sinclair, who headed up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report (2) to the Federal Government, spoke at the London Museum, hosted by Atlohosa, a Native Family Healing Service in London.

Tara Overholt, from CTV, was the MC for the evening as Justice Sinclair heartfully presented some of the findings the TRC and their ramifications for our consideration.

His focus was on violence against children, as the com had been asked, “What happened to the children?”  He highlighted the commission’s motto “For the children taken, for the parent left behind”.

For 130 years, Aboriginal children in Canada were kept under the government’s thumb.  Over seven generation of Aboriginal children went through our Residential Schools, and each time there wasn’t the capacity to treat them well.  Aboriginal children who went to Public School fared little better.  Aboriginal children were demeaned so that not only were they themselves affected directly by being made to feel inferior, but furthermore the non-indigenous kids were also affected in believing themselves superior.

Of the 80,000 children in care, 50% are Aboriginal.  Reconciliation within families, as well as, nation to nation is urgently needed.

Justice Sinclair stressed that the country has an obligation to provide all of its people with an opportunity to find the answers to the following questions:

Where do I come from?  What is my creation story?

Where am I going?

Why am I here?

Who am I?

Who do I want to be?

Justice Sinclair gave some suggestions as to what individuals and groups can do, education being a key component.  He commended those groups who are tackling one of the reports 94 recommendations. (3)  Some positive effects can be seen on google where there are 130 YouTube videos of students reading the TRC report. (4)

In closing, Sean Couchi presented his art piece to Justice Sinclair as a sincere thank you from Atlohosa and those in attendance.  The painting included here depicts 94 butterflies symbolizing the reports ninety four recommendations and pointing the way to a more hopeful future.

The evening was inspiring, hopeful and very energizing as we all want to move forward in sowing and nurturing the seeds of reconciliation.

Kathleen Lichti, CSJ

(1) http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+paul+mary/where+have+all+the+flowers+gone_20107752.html

(2)http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Exec_Summary_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf

(3) http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY2JfsEQ4fo

A Different Kind of Human Rights Day

December 10, 2015 certainly was a different kind of Human Rights Day for those of us working to advance human rights protection in and from Canada. Political change has truly opened up some real possibilities and opportunities for reversing troubling setbacks and advancing long-needed reforms with respect to Canada’s foreign policy and domestic record on the human rights front. First time we’ve been able to say that in quite some time.

As such, the annual review (the 14^th edition) we always publish on Human Rights Day, our Human Rights Agenda for Canada, is the most ambitious and comprehensive yet.  We’ve endeavoured to put a wide-ranging vision and set of recommendations in front of the new government.

#Rights4All  #pourtous There is much for us to do together over the coming year to hold the government to encouraging commitments already made, highlight areas where we need to hear and see more, and watch carefully to ensure that the promise of new tone and new approaches becomes reality.  We look forward to continuing to work with you in those shared efforts.

Guest blogger, Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada   www.amnesty.ca/

Links to the press release and full report:

http://www.amnesty.ca/news/defending-rights-all-amnesty-international%E2%80%99s-human-rights-agenda-new-canadian-government-0

Bringing human rights into the divisive niqab debate

From a human rights perspective a particularly troubling side of the recent federal election was the heated discussion that arose about the niqab.  Now that the election is over it is time to put the ugliness of that divisive and toxic debate behind us and ensure that we move forward with messages and an approach that are inclusive, respectful and grounded in rights.

The debate arose because one woman who has chosen to wear the niqab challenged a policy brought in by former Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney which would have required her to remove her niqab face covering during her citizenship ceremony.  Zunera Ishaq did not object to being required to reveal her face privately to female officials in advance of the ceremony, to verify her identity.  But she felt that being required to remove the veil in public during the subsequent ceremony ran contrary to her religious beliefs.

In February 2015 the Federal Court ruled in Ms. Ishaq’s favour, overturning the government’s policy.  The government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.  The appeal was heard and judgement rendered on the spot on September 15^th in the midst of the election campaign. The three judge appeal  panel unanimously and immediately sided with Ms. Ishaq; that is how clear the legal issues are in the case. 

The government announced a further appeal attempt, on to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Recognizing that the appeal would not be heard before Election Day government lawyers were instructed to ask the Federal Court of Appeal to puts its ruling on hold until the matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court.  The Federal Court of Appeal refused to do so, recognizing that Ms. Ishaq’s need to obtain citizenship in time to vote was of fundamental importance and there was no countervailing and compelling government interest in delay.

What was so deeply troubling was the extent to which Ms. Ishaq’s case was then used for poisonous political advantage.  Politicians, particularly in Quebec, used it directly and indirectly to fan flames of xenophobia, including in the leaders debate.  And with that move, a group that already faces considerable marginalization and disenfranchisement suddenly faced even greater stigmatisation and derision.

The niqab is a form of dress adopted by some Muslim women which includes a face veil which only leaves an opening for a woman’s eyes.  In some parts of the world governments and religious authorities force women to wear the niqab and refusal to comply can be met with severe penalties.

The human rights response to the niqab is clear.  No government anywhere is allowed to impose laws or poliicies requiring women and girls to wear it (or any other mandated dress code that has no legitimate basis in health or safety).  But similarly no government is allowed to prohibit women and girls from wearing the niqab (or ban other forms of dress, again absent security or safety concerns).  The human rights side of this debate is so clear it is no surprise that court rulings have been quick, unanimous and always in Ms. Ishaq’s favour.  Important rights to free expression, freedom of religion and women’s equality are on the line.

Clearly many Canadians are troubled by and feel uncomfortable with the niqab. Many see it as a symbol of women’s oppression.  But that discomfort or personal perceptions about the niqab do not change the fundamental human rights equation:  governments are not allowed to force or prohibit any particular form of dress.   

What also came out during the recent debate is the degree to which misunderstandings and stereotypes about the women who wear the niqab prevail, largely on the basis of assumptions.  Ms. Ishaq herself made it clear that wearing it was her own personal choice and that both her father and her husband had in fact discouraged or questioned her decision.  What that reminds us is that clearly the motivation and personal experiences of the women behind the veil differ considerably. Some feel forced and with no choice.  Others compelled to follow a sense of duty.  Some see it as tradition.  Others may feel more comfortable and at ease when they wear it.

A remarkable group of over 500 Canadian women leaders from such fields as law, politics, business, the arts, civil society and religious life came forward during the final days of the recent election and released a statement calling for respect and rights to prevail in the niqab debate. That statement noted with concern that the discussion to date has been marked by talking about the women most directly implicated and that it was time, instead, to talk with them.   How true that is.  It is quite astounding that the majority of the loudest voices in recent weeks, on both sides of the debate, have been men.  Women, let alone women who wear or who have made the decision not to wear the niqab, have been relegated to the sidelines.

This debate is not over.  For instance, there is proposed provincial legislation pending in Quebec which might prohibit women wearing the niqab from working as public servants.

We cannot and should not shut down that debate. But we can work to ensure that it takes on a tone of inclusion, not exclusion; builds understanding, not misconceptions; and is focused on rights, not punishment.

Guest Blogger:

Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada

Refugees in Canada. Where Are They?

The Canadian Government announced, in 2013, reiterating this in January, 2015, that Canada would take in 11,300 Syrian refugees.  In the past three years, only 2,374 refugees have been settled in Canada and all but 622 (26%) of these have been sponsored and supported, not by Government but by persons, churches, or other groups.  Our history affirms that fears of accepting massive numbers of refugees have been unfounded.  We can mobilize resources quickly to care for a huge influx of refugees and these people become productive citizens who enrich rather than destroy our culture. When Russia’s invasion of Hungary caused an enormous humanitarian crisis in 1957, the Canadian Government did little to help, fearing that immigrants with different ethnicity, religion, and possibly political extremism would create problems. Public outrage and shame forced the Government to act and 37,000 refugees were admitted.  The Vietnamese war created another crisis; the Canadian Government, fearfully accepted few of the refugees who were escaping from a violent regime in contrast to the100, 000 refugees admitted to the US.  Again in 1979, publicity about a small boat overcrowded with 2,500 refugees drifting in the sea while being refused entry to country after country led to action and the Conservative Government raised the quota of Vietnamese refugees from 5,000 to 60,000.

Germany has stated that it will accept 800,000 refugees and has urged other European nations to do their part.  Prime Minister Harper has pledged that the Conservative Government will accept an additional 10,000 refugees over the next four years. Surely as Canadians we can do better.  Provinces and cities across Canada have urged the Government to accelerate the rate of accepting refugees.  The Ontario Minister of Health, Eric Hoskins has urged that Canada eliminate the long delay caused by the onerous requirement that applicants to Canada must be certified as refugees by the United Nations. Many religious and private groups have mobilized to sponsor refugees.  There will always be xenophobic fears of being overwhelmed by accepting huge numbers of new members who “are not like us”.  Yet our Country is based on immigration and the hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, Irish famines, poverty stricken countries and totalitarian regimes have proven to be a blessing.

Above all, we share a common humanity and we are indeed “our brother’s keeper.  We are called upon to act rather than to merely hope someone else will look after people who arrive by boat, train, bus, etc. in countries other than Canada. Some of us can participate in sponsoring or helping new refuges.  And all of us can join the leaders across Canada who demand that the Conservative Government accept far more refugees, expedite the application process, and provide for the expeditious processing and integration of refugees admitted to Canada.

Pat McKeon CSJ

A startling example of transformation of consciousness in our midst

Sometimes people say that the language of evolution of consciousness is a philosophical idea that is not connected to the real life of people in our world. In other words, it is disconnected from the overwhelming problems and challenges of our own lives and the life of the world.

Werner Wnedt, the German ambassador to Canada, embodies a strong and moving example of the evolution of consciousness on a societal scale. In an interview with Rosemary Barton on Power and Politics on September 8, 2015, he was quizzed about the German policy on accepting refugees.

Let me quote him as he spoke in a direct and clear way.

Because of our history during the Nazi era, we realise that hundreds of thousands of people fled Germany. We have a history and we have a responsibility which we will take.

Germany has agreed to accept 500,000 refugees annually over the next several years. Quite simply, the ambassador stated, “We must take care of them.” Along with this commitment, he is aware that there ought to be a common EU refugee policy approach. Indeed, he might suggest a common global approach.

The scenes of Germans welcoming Syrian refugees is in stark contrast to other stories that are unfolding as countries wrestle with what they will do and how they will respond.

Sometimes one has to just take time for awe as people reclaim their collective shadow and turn it inside out to reveal something new.

Today, Werner Wnedt gave me hope, gave us all hope. 

Margo Ritchie CSJ