Banning the niqab ban

Scoring political points on the backs of immigrants seems to be the new trend in Canadian politics.  I would suggest the issue of wearing a customary niqab at a Canadian citizenship ceremony is not worth the publicity it’s receiving.  It’s certainly not worth the hostilities it’s creating.

            Becoming a Canadian has never meant leaving your religion and customs completely behind.  It means adhering to Canadian law and accepting the responsibilities that our democratic society requires.

Covering one’s face with a niqab doesn’t break the law during a citizenship ceremony because the federal government hasn’t changed the law.  It introduced a policy, a “niqab ban,” that is inconsistent with the current law, based on a federal court judge’s ruling.  The current regulations obligate citizenship judges to “administer the oath of citizenship … allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”

            The key here is “greatest possible freedom.”  Security is not the issue.  The woman challenging the niqab ban has herself said she has no problem unveiling her face to prove her identity.  The issue is that the ban is not adhering to the law and the judge’s right to exercise tolerance when it comes to religious differences.

            The government’s stance is clearly a political move, playing to the systemic racism that apparently is alive and well in our multicultural nation.  When I hear disparaging comments in my own workplace about the woman who “refused to show her face,” as if it’s comparable to spitting on the Canadian flag, I know the prime minister’s comments have had an effect. 

For many Canadians, it’s not an issue of the niqab being anti-women, as has become the latest excuse for the government’s ban, but rather that her customary dress is too different for our liking.  In our western society, I would suggest the niqab conveys the sense that a person is trying to hide something.  Similar to how Aboriginal children would not look residential school teachers directly in the eyes when being spoken to because it was considered rude in their culture (but rude not to in Western culture), it’s largely an issue of cultural behaviours and perceptions.

            While it’s true that some Muslims might agree with the prime minister’s comments about the niqab being anti-women, we must remember that there are segments of every religion where intolerance and varying degrees of conservatism exist.  I could say the same for Hutterite or Amish cultures, branches of my own Mennonite faith, where women are typically restricted in their education and roles in their communities.  They are required to cover their heads and wear only dresses.  Should we introduce a law against such practices?

            The message being sent by the niqab ban, bolstered by comments made by the prime minister and one member of parliament in particular, is one of intolerance and misunderstanding.  Imagine if a different message was conveyed, one that spoke to higher values: “We respect the rights and religious freedoms of all newcomers to Canada where they adhere to Canadian law, to make this great nation even stronger.”

            After all, the great hallmark of our Canadian society is its ability to attract immigrants, to not only grow the economy, but to foster tolerance and diversity.

Wars are fought over differences in traditions, religious beliefs and even the way people dress.  The challenge for any society is to overcome those differences.  The federal government’s stance is certainly not helping.

The debt bomb ticketh

             I had one of those credit card bills in January that made me get a little teary eyed.  After rubbing my eyes for a few minutes, I slowly regained my focus and began to scan the bill to see if a mistake had been made.  I’m sure it happens. Maybe they accidentally added too many zeros.  Maybe I was a victim of identity theft?  But no, I was only the victim of my own greed (cue dark music).

            After a thorough examination of my family’s fiscal health, which involves looking at a near-empty bank account, there came the realization that this could not continue.  Our family would have to declare 2015, THE YEAR OF AUSTERITY. 

And so after our trip to Hawaii (it was just a short trip on a shoe-string budget, really), we committed to cutting spending and following our budget a little more closely.

Don’t get me wrong, if there’s anyone more anal about monitoring our finances, it’s me.  (And if there’s anyone who could tell you how much 100 grams of croutons cost at Superstore versus Extra Foods, it’s my wife.)  I could even tell you how much we spent on our cat in 2008 (it was a bad year, let me tell you – how can it possibly cost $300 to declaw a cat??)  For me, money management can also become an obsession.

            Fortunately, this has also meant I’ve never had to pay interest on a credit card.  Credit cards are only useful for the points, after all. Whether they involve travel rewards or hard cold cash, you gotta love the points.

Exercising fiscal restraint in Hawaii.

For those of us who redeem them to travel to tropical paradises, we can thank the thousands of Canadians who pay their credit card’s exorbitant interest rates each and every month.  According to one survey, about half of Canadians often or always carry a balance on their credit card.

Whether credit card or other debt, the average Canadian now holds $21,000 in non-mortgage debt, a seven percent year-over-year increase, according to a recent report by Equifax Canada.  Seeing as one third of Canadians has no debt at all, another third is likely holding over $40,000 in non-mortgage debt.  Combine that with the ginormous mortgages that Canadians have, and it becomes a little scary. 

Total household debt, including mortgages, has hit a new record of 163% of disposable income, which is just about at the lofty heights reached by Americans before the crash of 2008.  Back in 1990, average household debt in Canada was at around 85% of disposable income.

Of course the US had more issues than just debt that caused the great housing crash, but you have to expect that what goes up will eventually come down.  With the Bank of Canada estimating that Canada’s housing is 10 to 30% over-valued (Deutsche Bank estimates it’s 63% over-valued), there may not be a “soft landing” for some who have just bought that $400,000 three-bedroom bungalow.

            Being indebted is pretty normal for our society.  Buy a new car and you’ve got yourself a hefty loan.  Go to university for a few years and the debt piles up faster than all those unused text books. 

            But it’s got to a point now where a small economic shock or an increase in interest rates could make payments quite unmanageable for a large segment of our population.

            When will that time come?  I wouldn’t hazard a guess.  I locked in my mortgage rate three years ago thinking that was the last of low interest rates.  But the cheap money just keeps on flowing. 

            The Bank of Canada dropped rates again, and by doing so, said not so explicitly to all Canadians, “Go ahead, borrow some more!  Don’t worry, you’ll pay it back later… some day!”   

            But just like the post-Christmas credit card bill, that day will eventually come (cue dark music).

The cost of cutting CoSA

"Our government believes that dangerous sex offenders belong behind bars.”

-          Jean-Christophe de Le Rue, spokesman for Canada’s Public Safety Minister

            It’s never easy defending sex offenders.  It’s certainly much easier to say that they belong behind bars.  That appears to be the unofficial messaging behind the federal government’s cuts to a successful sex crime prevention program called Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA).

            It’s a decision that makes little sense given the government’s own evaluation of the program.  Based on the five-year study, CoSA significantly reduces sex offenders’ rates of reoffending, by up to 95% in one region evaluated.   Not only that, but for every dollar spent on the program, the government saves $4.60 in reduced incarceration costs. 

            This particular program is a bargain for government given its reliance upon 700 volunteers across the country, of which I am one.  The meagre financial funding from government is simply needed to coordinate the program and provide support to volunteers as needed.  The decision appears to be less about cost-saving ($650,000 in core funding per year), and more about pumping additional money into our jails.

            The program’s purpose is to target those who pose the greatest risk to society when released from prison. The result? As their website states, “Fewer victims of violent and sexual crimes across the country.  CoSA makes a significant contribution to safer streets and communities through enhanced public safety and protection of Canadians.”  

            The volunteers involved are everyday people who have committed to meeting regularly with sexual offenders to hold them accountable for their actions and help them reintegrate into the community.  They provide a small group of support for those who tend to get pushed out of neighborhoods and homes for their past transgressions. 

            The negative public stance when it comes to sexual offenders is understandable.  Who wants to show compassion to someone after such heinous crimes?  I had similar feelings when I began participating in the program five years ago.

            But what I found is that these offenders are far more human than what I first expected.  They have real remorse for the crimes they’ve committed.  Most of them are seeking to reform themselves, and don’t want to hide on the margins of society anymore. 

Some of the CoSA members suffer from mental conditions, while others are victims themselves.  Many have been abused by family members or have grown up witnessing abuse.  It opened up my eyes when one member recalled how shocked he was when his girlfriend called the police after he hit her the first time.  His mom would never call the police after being struck by his dad, he explained to us.

            This is not to excuse their actions, but to recognize the underlying factors that can lead to certain behaviour.  Despite their crimes, they are real people who have complicated backgrounds and have now asked for help.  In many cases, CoSA offers them their first opportunity to engage in healthy relationships with people who have volunteered to care for them.

CoSA is not some anti-government organization wanting to upend the justice system, but rather one that works within the parameters of the current legal system.  In this system, 95% of offenders are released back into society after serving their sentence.  Once released, they may either reoffend and create another victim, or lead a new life with the adequate support in place.

CoSA currently offers that support, but perhaps not for long.