Power Play

Kenney Warns of Immigrant Enclaves

Kenney is wrong. Ethnic enclaves are not necessarily an immigrant factor, its a social factor. People live where they can afford, but also where it is convenient. Tamils live in Scarborough for the same reason Jews live in Thornhill or Greeks in Danforth. It's the same as Germans in Saskatchewan or French in New Brunswick! It's not just in Canada. Show me a city in Canada or anywhere else and I can show you what he calls enclaves.

And yes, the conservatives are pushing the card in an effort for a majority. They have done their research and know this is going to get them votes in segments of 'white' communities but also among certain immigrant groups, but they are crossing the line and it will hurt them.

At the end of the day, political parties try to appeal to their voter base and push to the extremes, like to the religious and separatist extremists in ethnic communities. In particular, conservatives appeal to the Christian and social extremists and the NDP will suck up to anyone who will vote for them!

Politicians keep screwing up Canada and blame immigrants for it....!

I think what Kenney and his party are doing now is partisan politics, while i have supported Kenney on many of his policy issues, I think the angle they are taking now is detrimental to Canada - the old British style of divide and rule.

Canada has a failed history of forced assimilation. In 1840 we started our first Native Indian school because Christian European immigrants to Canada wanted aboriginal Canadians to "assimilate" into the "civilized" world and forced native Canadians to convert to Christianity. The last of such school did not close untill 1996.

When he is referring to ethnic silos, does it include the Jews, Italians, Polish, Ukrainian immigrants too or just the visible minorities ?

We need to attack the issues, not communities. I have no higher tolerance than him for extremists amongst us, but to label ALL immigrants as a burden to Canada is a shame and it leads to increased racism and xenophobia, something we don't want in Canada.

Click HERE to read the article that prompted this latest entry.

Poor transportation and toilets stand between rural girls and their future

The number one reason why girls drop out of high schools (in developing countries) is because of lack of toilets, which is why I'm more interested in building toilets in existing schools, than building new schools itself. Nine out of 10 rural schools I have visited in India, fail when it comes to toilets for girls!

Asha for education - Canada is the Canadian arm of Asha for Education, a not-for-profit oganization, whose stated mission is "to catalyze socio-economic change in India through education of underprivileged children." Currently, they have ongoing projects to address such girl child issues.

However, the problems are multifold. Because of corruption, city officials don't build toilets and if they are built, they are not maintained. Since there is no proper sanitation in villages, villagers use the toilets and don't clean up either. No one does, and no one does. Hence the toilets are locked. So the problems are in various levels.

We need enforcement and social education to bring change. What we do is play the old game...we pick a model village and bring change there, villages around them look at it and also want to do the same in their villages. 

People are slow to accept change.

See below for Kalpana Sharma's article from India Together

Swati and Anita are two young women from rural Maharashtra. They have one thing in common. Both dropped out of school once they completed Standard VIII. They wanted to complete their schooling. Both spoke passionately to me when I met them about their desire to study. Even their parents wanted them to study further. But circumstances would not permit this.

Both girls faced an identical dilemma. While the school up to Standard VIII was in their village or close by, the high school was some distance away. The only way to go there was by the local State Transport bus. While going to school was not such a problem as it was during the day, at the end of the school day, they had to wait several hours before they could catch the bus back. If for some reason the bus was cancelled, and this would happen with alarming frequency, they would have had to walk back to the village in the dark, something their parents would not contemplate. Hence, the only option was to drop out of school.

In contrast, the brother of one of the girls faced no such problem. As soon as he was through with his classes, he would hitch a ride on a passing truck and make his way back. This was not an option open to the girls.

Tragic situation

What is tragic is that both these girls are as bright as any you would meet in a city like Mumbai. The only reason they will not become the engineers and doctors of the future is because there is no reliable transport linking their village to the nearest school. And theirs are not remote villages in the interior of Maharashtra. Swati lives a mere hour away from Pune. If this is the story of Swati and Anita, think how many millions more like them must be chafing at being deprived for no other reason than a safe mode of transport.

We also know that many more girls drop out even before Standard VIII for another reason: the lack of toilets in schools. The latest ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) 2009, a comprehensive survey of government and private schools in 575 out of 583 rural districts in India, revealed that only 50 per cent of government schools have toilets and that four out of 10 government schools did not have separate toilets for girls. Even where there were separate toilets for girls, as many as 12-15 per cent were locked and only 30-40 per cent were "usable". I visited a school in Bihar where toilets had been constructed but within days their doors had been stolen and the toilet pans smashed making them unusable.

If girls dropout when they reach adolescence, it is often for no other reason than the lack of toilet facilities. Even in a city like Mumbai, the dropout rate amongst girls attending municipal schools is markedly higher than that of boys because of the absence of toilets for them.

The annual ASER study, facilitated by the NGO Pratham, is a constant and important reminder of the state of education in this country. In 2009, ASER surveyed 16,000 villages, 300,000 households and 700,000 children. There is nothing on this scale done by an agency outside government, hence its importance. But each year, when ASER results are made public, we are reminded that education is not just about quantity, or the number of children who enrol in school - a number that is increasing - but the quality of the education these children get. And that, although it is getting better in some states, is still shockingly poor.

Conducting simple reading and mathematics tests in schools, the survey reveals that a little over half of all children in Standard V in government schools cannot read a Standard II text book. This means a 10-year-old cannot read what a seven-year-old is supposed to be able to read. What then are these children learning even if they become a statistic showing increased enrolment and attendance in schools?

Disturbing trend

Precious little, it would seem. What they cannot learn in school, they do so by paying for private tuitions. One of the more disturbing statistics in the survey reveals that one in four children in Standard I in private schools is sent for private tuitions as are 17 per cent of Standard I students in government schools. Can you imagine that? Little six-year-olds being sent for private tuition. By the time they reach Standard VIII, over one third try and learn what they are clearly not taught in school through private tutoring. An analysis of the budget of poor people would reveal what a chunk of their earnings goes into such tuitions because they hold on to the belief that education will pull them out of poverty. But given the poor quality of education in these schools, their children will never be able to compete with those with ability to pay for better quality schooling.

Fortunately, not the entire ASER report is gloom and doom. One of the brighter moments in it is the fact that in Bihar, the state considered a basket case on most counts, the dropout rate for girls in the 11-14 age group has reduced from 17.6 per cent in 2006 to 6 per cent in 2009. So Bihar must be doing something right. In fact, one of the striking sights in Bihar today is of girls on bicycles, given by the government if they clear Standard VIII, going to the nearest high school.

The desire to ensure that children get a good education runs deep in most Indian families. Parents will sacrifice and save to invest in their children's future. Even poor families, including the homeless with no secure shelter, find a way of sending their children to school. The increase in the enrolment rate in India - 96 per cent of children between the ages of 6-14 are enrolled in school, government and private - is proof of that.

What urgently needs to be tackled is the quality of education, basic facilities like toilets and running water, and transport, particularly for girls. Even this will not suffice unless there is a notable change in the status accorded teachers who ultimately decide whether and what children learn. Instead of the inordinate amount of attention that continues to be paid to institutes of higher learning, or private institutions that promise to prepare rich children for studies abroad, something much more simple and basic can and needs to be done to educate India and Indians.

Multicuralism has Failed - PM

More and more western countries are saying " State Multiculturalism " has failed. So why has it failed ? The U.S. melting pot seems to be working for them. Immigrants earn the most there, are well integrated and happy. State Multiculturalism also seems to be working in some countries in the East so why not in the West ? What about Canada ?

Some might argue that it is not Muliculturalism that has failed but our tolerance of the intolerance. But isn't that failure a part of Multicuralism ? Canada definitely is ahead of most countries. It is more or less the same as the U.K. in terms of immigrant communities and their success. Where we differ is our foreign policy. So does foreign policy of a country determine domestic integration of a community?

As for America, the U.S. private sector hires people (H1B) and reccomends them for residency (green card). In Canada the goverment brings people (immigration) and reccomends the private sector to hire them! Also in the U.S., it takes about three to four months to sponsor your parents. In Canada, it takes around seven years if they are from China, India, and about one year from the U.K. Even if you are a citizen of Canada, you still go through hassles, unlike in the U.S.

This why the U.S. system is far, far more successful in regards to Multicuturalism than the Canadian system.

See the "State Multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron" article from BBC News below.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.

David Cameron strode firmly into a debate where many politicians tread timidly.

In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed. Any organisation that does not stand up to extremism will be cut off from public funds, and he wants the country to develop a stronger sense of shared identity.

It is the first time he has spoken so directly as prime minister, but there are echoes of what has gone before. Tony Blair edged away from multiculturalism in the years after the 7/7 bombings in London, and his ministers moved to stop funding any community organisation that did not challenge extremism. And what of Gordon Brown's continual quest to strengthen "Britishness"?

Behind the scenes, ministers are reviewing the "prevent" strategy, the policies designed to try to deal with extremism. But the review, which had been planned for publication this month, is likely to be delayed. It is not clear yet how Mr Cameron will translate his strong words into action.

Human rights

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he added.

The Labour MP for Luton South, Gavin Shuker, asked if it was wise for Mr Cameron to make the speech on the same day the English Defence League staged a major protest in his constituency.

There was further criticism from Labour's Sadiq Khan whose comments made in a Daily Mirror article sparked a row.

The shadow justice secretary was reported as saying Mr Cameron was "writing propaganda material for the EDL".

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi hit back, saying that "to smear the prime minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible". She called on Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown the remarks.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain's assistant secretary general, Dr Faisal Hanjra, described Mr Cameron's speech as "disappointing".

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there'd be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand.

"In terms of the approach to tackling terrorism though it doesn't seem to be particularly new.

"Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution."

In the speech, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as "Islamist extremism" - a political ideology he said attracted people who feel "rootless" within their own countries.

"We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing," he said.

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

Bunglawala from Muslims4Uk says Mr Cameron is "firing at the wrong target"

A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them", Mr Cameron said.

"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things."

He said under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

'I am a Londoner too'

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he said.

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism, he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

"There's a widespread feeling in the country that we're less united behind values than we need to be," she told Today.

"There are things the government can do to give a lead and encourage participation in society, including all minorities."

But the Islamic Society of Britain's Ajmal Masroor said the prime minister did not appreciate the nature of the problem.

"I think he's confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

Former home secretary David Blunkett said while it was right the government promoted national identity, it had undermined its own policy by threatening to withdraw citizenship lessons from schools.

He accused Education Secretary Michael Gove of threatening to remove the subject from the national curriculum of secondary schools in England at a time "we've never needed it more".

"It's time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing," he said.

"In fact, it's time that the government were able to articulate one policy without immediately undermining it with another."

Anti-Semitist Al Qaradawi Urges Egypt's President Mubarak to Step Down

If Mubarak is going to step down as leader, then Egypt can not afford a vacuum in power. An able transition needs to be planned, which should include Mubarak himself. Those who think the Muslim Brotherhood are an alternative here is Qaradawi the chief theologian of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Listen to him.

 

I'm fanatically in favour of democracy be it Egypt or Burma, but we also need to be pragmatic that it be a grass root driven one, not like Iraq. We want to support democracy in Egypt because we hope it will make the country better and if our desire is to make the country better, then we need to be pragmatic to ensure a smooth transition.

Remember Egypt has been the pillar of peace in the region and replacing Mubarak with a Israel hater will only makes things worse for Egypt and Egyptians.     

                                                                                   

Moreover, in my opinion any dictatorship, be it China or Egypt or Burma, are the same, but sometimes people under a dictatorship (China) maybe better off than people under a democracy(Sri Lanka). Given a choice, yes democracy is better than dictatorship and that applies to Mubarak too. I support removing Mubarak and replacing with a democracy, but my support is limited and should be limited to my cheering over beer, not interfering in Egypt. Let the people decide and the options be clear on what they are and where they stand on domestic and international issues. Is that too much to ask ?