By Dennis Gruending

The Canadian Catholic aid agency Development and Peace (D&P) has come under attack recently from right wing Catholics in English Canada and the United States. The allegations, frequently repeated, became something of a feeding frenzy beginning in March. The claim is that D&P provides money to non-government organizations in Mexico that condone and promote abortions in that country. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) felt the heat as well and sent a delegation to Mexico to investigate. The report is now in and although it has not yet been released officially CCCB’s president Archbishop James Weisgerber says there is no substance to the allegations. The investigation won’t satisfy Catholic rightists, whose aim is not merely to criticize D&P but rather to deal it a mortal blow.

The bishops created D&P in 1967 to support projects in poor countries and to undertake development education in Canada. This spring, for example, D&P committed $600,000 to emergency relief for Sri Lankan Tamils who had fled a war zone to settle in government-run camps. D&P also contributed $100,000 to help meet the needs of people displaced by fighting in northwest Pakistan. D&P delivers its programs through partner organizations on the ground in recipient countries and raises much of its money from a collection taken in Catholic churches on a Sunday during Lent.

Attacks began in March

The attacks on D&P began in March and were obviously timed to coincide with the Share Lent collection. A web-based publication called LifeSiteNews.com, published at least 45 articles critical of D&P in just over three months. The site claims that its “investigative reporters” have discovered a “widespread scandal” involving D&P and it was this: “[The] official agency of the Canadian Catholic Bishops has been funding pro-abortion groups.” Interestingly, D&P says that when it checked with its Mexican partners they indicated that no reporter, investigative or other, had contacted them to ask about what they were alleged to have done. LifeSite has also produced a five-minute video that, it says, provides “undeniable evidence” that supports its allegations. LifeSite is a creation of the Campaign Life Coalition, which describes itself as the “political wing of the pro-life movement in Canada.” The website staff share an office with Campaign Life in Toronto but the website also lists a Pittsburgh address for itself.

In subsequent articles, LifeSite reported that some bishops, including Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins, were withholding funds from D&P based on LifeSite’s allegations. D&P issued a statement on March 20 denying the charges and pledging its fidelity to the church and its teaching. D&P said that its partners had been involved in a nation-wide consultation by the United Nations on the human rights situation in Mexico, and were contributors (along with 100 other organizations) to an omnibus document on human rights issues. D&P’s partners were primarily concerned with indigenous people’s rights, protection of the environment, fair wages and fair trade, and the promotion of equality between women and men. Other participating civil society groups brought forward their own concerns, D&P said. “Of course, neither we, nor our partners, have any control over the content or recommendations advanced by these other groups…” This account of events is similar to one that was provided to D&P by its Mexican partners, who were no doubt surprised and distressed by the controversy perpetrated in North America.

Bishops’ inquiry

The CCCB announced in April that two Canadian bishops would lead an inquiry into the LifeSite allegations. The group visited Mexico from April 15-18 and there the Canadian bishops met with representatives of the Mexican Episcopal conference, as well as with senior representatives of D&P’s partner organizations. The CCCB announced in Ottawa on June 18 that it had received the Committee of Inquiry’s report, which would be sent to all bishops before being made public. Archbishop Weisgerber, no doubt anticipating another LifeSite assault, promptly appeared on a Catholic television channel to say that the allegations had proven to be false.

LifeSite and its fellow travellers have not won the day but they have managed to sow confusion and mistrust  – and it’s not the first time. What, really, is going on here? At one level, it is obvious that they have chosen one issue as the litmus test of defining who is a real Catholic and who is not. LifeSite and its fellow travellers exhibit little or no interest in other questions — the whole cloth of life and constructive engagement with the world, with people of other religions or of none, in the service of the common good. There is virtually no mention, for example, in any of LifeSite’s articles about the numerous development projects supported by D&P — and what mention there is simply accuses D&P of being leftist or a dupe of feminists. One might describe such a mindset as that of a Catholic Taliban.

Template for attacks

Father Alphonse de Valk, the editor of another web-based publication called Catholic Insight, provides an insider’s description of the strategy used to attack D&P (and by extension on many of the bishops). De Valk is a veteran of the abortion wars and a frequent critic of the bishops, accusing them in particular of failing to support the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, which forbade Catholics to use contraceptives in planning their families. LifeSite carried a lengthy article by de Valk on April 16 and later he ran it in his own publication. De Valk concludes his piece by saying: “Let D&P rest in peace for eternity.” De Valk’s animus goes well beyond his anti-abortion position. He accuses D&P of harboring “a political ideology of the left, even more so than by its Catholic religious motivation.” He appears scornful of attempts by the church to become involved in broadly defined issue of justice, describing those efforts as offering “a secular messianism through economic and political activism.”

De Valk describes LifeSite’s success in a previous campaign forcing D&P to withdraw its support from the World March for Women in the year 2000. He describes the march as “a radical, feminist, anti-life and anti-family event.” Others have described it as an attempt by women around the world to advocate for the elimination of poverty and a more fair distribution of wealth among nations and between men and women. De Valk also describes how LifeSite’s campaign in 2000 succeeded in creating divisions among Canadian bishops. “It was the first time since Vatican II that Canada’s bishops broke ranks publicly,” he writes.

The campaign against the women’s march in 2000 has become a template for that being waged against D&P today. D&P is attacked by a flurry of articles on LifeSite for its alleged involvements. The method of attack is repitition and guilt by association - to accuse D&P of supporting everything that any organization with which it has contact might support. LifeSite uses its platform to vilify D&P, and attack (in a more guarded fashion) any bishop who supports the organization. Those bishops unhappy with D&P or its endeavours are given positive publicity.

To engage or retreat

A Catholic organization should, by LifeSite’s criterion, be prevented from participating in any project that is not explicitly Catholic in its values and approach. In other words, Catholic organizations should not be involved in anything that the church does not direct or control. This rigid triumphalism is entirely contrary to Vatican II, which promoted engagement in the world with people of other religions and people of good will. To place this mentality in a Canadian context, Catholic organizations should not participate in any project with the United Church of Canada because that church does not subscribe to Catholic positions on abortion or contraception, not to mention women’s ordination. This example is not at all far-fetched. De Valk calls in his article for the Catholic bishops to reconsider their participation in KAIROS – the Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.

Archbishop Weisgerber, in his television interview, indicated that he understands the radically reduced model of church that is being promoted. “The leadership of the Catholic Church wants the church involved with other people,” he said, “even people who don’t agree with us, provided that the disagreement that they have with us not be supported in any way or be given umbrage by our presence there.”

The great misfortune here would be to have the church retreat from engagement into a judgemental and sterile ghetto. In fact, this is already beginning to happen. Some Catholics, including bishops, have chided Amnesty International for supporting family planning as a woman’s right and the organization has had to curtail its clubs and fund raising activities in certain Catholic schools. Other Catholic schools have reportedly cancelled fundraisers for the Stephen Lewis Foundation because Lewis promotes the distribution of condoms to combat the spread of AIDS.

In the case of Mexico, D&P and the bishops are now left to pick up the pieces and attempt to put them back together while their detractors plot their next campaign.

By Dennis Gruending

Richard Sanders described it as a “David and Goliath” contest. On one side, Canada’s military and weapons contractors (they prefer to call themselves the defence and security industry), along with Ottawa’s mayor, the bureaucracy and most city councillors. On the other side, a small and loosely organized group of citizens drawn from perennially under-funded church and peace groups, including one called the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), to which Mr. Sanders belongs. The trip wire was the City of Ottawa’s decision to turn its back on a 20-year-old ban against allowing war-related trade shows to occur on municipal property. The recent debate has pulled back a curtain on Canada’s military-industrial complex – it exports weapons and components that are ultimately used to kill people in foreign wars and other conflicts.

The ban regarding military trade shows on city property was passed by a previous and arguably more enlightened city council in 1989 by a vote of 11 to one. But this year in a neat bit of sophistry, staff advised that the ban no longer applied because the city had undergone various amalgamations and boundary changes. The city was no longer the city, as it were. So it was that a military exhibit called CANSEC 2009 was held on May 27 and 28 at Lansdowne Park, a location that normally hosts home shows, hockey games and a farmers’ market. Security was tight during CANSEC and members of the public were not allowed to attend the event. An ad hoc citizens’ group did demonstrate in the rain at the entrance to Lansdowne and held an evening vigil in a nearby United Church, but to no avail.

CADSI receives government money

CANSEC is the organizational child of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), is a lobby group representing hundreds the country’s largest weapons producers and exporters of military equipment. CADSI describes itself much more benignly on its website as “a not-for-profit business association that represents 800 domestically-based, world-leading, technology-oriented companies…” The organization receives money from the federal government for its activities and about 200 CADSI exhibitors were on hand in to display their wares for potential buyers at the CANSEC event.

An Ottawa Citizen article about the show was accompanied by a photo of a Danish soldier perched in the turret of a CV90 armoured troop carrier built by a Canadian-based company called BAE Systems. The photo’s cutline said that BAE hoped its product “would interest buyers.” Another article in a publication called Flightglobal.com reported that an Ottawa-based company called Gastops held a signing ceremony at CANSEC to celebrate its agreement to sell components to Pratt & Whitney for a plane called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Debate at city council

On June 2, after CANSEC had ended, the action shifted to city council where Councillor Alex Cullen introduced a motion at the economic affairs committee that would have re-established the ban against arms shows on city property. More than 60 people came out to speak, most of them in favour of restablishing the ban. The committee voted against re-instating the ban and then voted in favour of another explicit motion that will allow CANSEC to use Lansdowne Park again in 2010. The question will now move onto the full council.

Ottawa’s mayor Larry O’Brien normally chairs the economic affairs committee but he was absent. He has had to step down temporarily while he defends himself in court against allegations that he is guilty of attempted bribery and influence peddling in convincing a competitor to drop out of the mayoralty race in 2006. The mayor, however, publicly endorsed CANSEC 2009 and was immediately accused of being in a conflict of interest. O’Brien is the founder of Calian Technologies, a company that belongs to CANSI and also has contracts with the U.S. military. O’Brien has continued to hold shares in Calian and chose to remain on the company’s board of directors after winning the mayoralty. A Calian subsidiary, SED Systems, exhibited at CANSEC 2009.

Pesky questions

CANSEC’s promoters were assiduous in attempting to cast their event as a mere trade and technology show, but the pesky citizens’ group and others are asking some blunt questions. Do Canadian-based companies build weapons and\or components for fighter jets, bombers, attack helicopters and tanks? The answer is yes but it is difficult to get anyone at CADSI to admit it. The second question is whether those weapons or components are provided solely to the Canadian military, or exported to other countries.

The answer is that companies belonging to CADSI sell billions of dollars worth of military equipment to both the Canadian military and to foreign customers. The final, and obvious, conclusion to be drawn is that the weapons are used to kill people — those considered to be enemy combatants, but civilians as well.

Industry spokespersons are adept at avoiding just those kinds of questions. A CADSI news release issued on May 27 (during the CANSEC exhibit) quoted Tim Page, CADSI’s president, as saying: “The technologies on display here today provide leading edge equipment and services to allow our paramedics, firefighters, police officers and military personnel to carry out their responsibilities more effectively and safely – helping them do their jobs and save lives.” Page sent on to say that many of the innovations unveiled at CANSEC over the years such as alarm systems, can be found in homes across Canada. No doubt many of the CANSEC exhibitors do produce products for civilian use – but they also produce weapons and components and they export them.

Pointy end of the stick

The words weapons or war are not mentioned in CADSI promotional material either, but CADSI’s Mr. Page was somewhat more explicit when he appeared before city councillors, urging them to defeat the motion requesting a ban on military related shows. The Ottawa Citizen quoted him as saying: “[CANSEC] is a very technology-oriented show with lots of software applications, simulation and training presentations … but the pointy-end of the stick is part of the arsenal required to protect, defend and promote Canadian values and interests.”

The arms show occurred against a backdrop of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan and CADSI attempts to exploit that reality. Page was quoted as saying, “It is essential that when we ask men and women in uniform to put themselves in harm’s way that we do so by ensuring they have the best possible equipment and training available to them.” Canadians, of course, do want to protect their soldiers, 120 of whom have lost their lives in Afghanistan – although it is, at the same time, perfectly legitimate to challenge the decisions of our government to send and keep them there. The citizen’s group opposing CANSEC’s exhibition at Lansdowne Park introduced another perspective by providing a message from Malalai Joya, a female member of Afghanistan’s parliament. She sent, via email, a deeply disturbing set of pictures of Afghan children, most of them from her region, who have been killed and horribly maimed in NATO bombing raids. She asked if any of these weapons had their origin in Canada.

Canada as arms exporter

Resarch provided by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade indicates that Canada is the world’s seventh largest arms exporter. Canada military exports totaled more than $5.6 billion  between 2003 and 2005. Of the 73 countries that received these exports, 39 had troops that were engaged in major military conflicts, either at home or abroad. The Canadian arms industry is closely integrated with that of the United States. Canadian-based companies supply weapons and components to the Americans, who either use them or provide them to other countries. The U.S. was the recipient of 70 per cent of Canadian military exports between 2003 and 2005, at a value of approximately $4 billion.

Richard Sanders says, “Ninety percent of the CANSEC 2009 military trade show exhibitors — the data is available from Industry Canada — report that they do export their products.”  He says that by researching the websites of Canadian-based companies exhibiting at CANSEC he was able to produce detailed information about Canadian military hardware that is embedded in approximately 40 U.S. weapons systems being used in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. These weapons include the lethal A-10 Thunderbolt airplane, the AC 130 Spectre gunship, the AH 64 Apache attack gunship, a light armoured vehicle made by General Dynamics in London Ontario, and missiles and warheads made by Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

Conversion

Sanders says that in recent years CADSI has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).  The grants are part of the government’s Program for Export Marketing Development and were specifically designed to assist CADSI in its efforts to promote international trade, and the international business development activities of its member corporations. CANSEC is the major annual event organized by CADSI. Sanders says that export data obtained online from Industry Canada also indicates that most of CANSEC 2009’s approximately 200 exhibitors report that they do indeed export their products.

CADSI’s trump argument revolves around money and jobs. The organization’s website claims that its member companies provide 70,000 Canadian jobs and $10 billion in economic activity. It’s a strategic and probably effective argument, particularly during a recession that has thrown more than 400,000 Canadians out of work since October 2008. It is a point that has been emphasized in letters to the editor and columns in Ottawa newspapers. But the same argument could be made (and has been) to support the tobacco and asbestos industries, not to mention gambling, prostitution, and even the cultivation of drug bound poppy crops. The solution proposed for those industries is conversion. It’s a good word.

By Dennis Gruending

The federal New Democratic Party wants to reach out to faith-based groups and religiously motivated individuals through its recently created Faith and Social Justice Commission. Joe Comartin, NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh, is chair of the Commission’s provisional steering committee. “We are going back to our roots,” Comartin says. “The CCF-NDP was created in large measure by people who were trying to put their religious faith into action, and for many of us faith remains the main motivator for how we practice politics and make policy.”

Comartin says the FSJC was approved in principle at the party’s 2006 convention and officially recognized by the federal council late in 2008. The Commission will present its bylaws and elect officers at the party’s federal convention in Halifax August 14-16, 2009. Comartin says that the Commission has been somewhat slow to get going because there was a federal election in 2008 and a decision not to hold a convention in that year. But he says the Commission has proven worthwhile. “The Commission has already accomplished one major goal and that is to raise the profile of individuals within our party who come to their politics from the perspective of a religious faith.”

The FSJC arose partly from the realization that most often people and groups claiming a religious motivation for their politics in recent years were supporting right wing parties, particularly Reform, the Canadian Alliance, and now the Conservatives. The Harper Conservatives court the religious right and hope to incorporate them into a governing coalition that will wean Canadians from their essentially social democratic tendencies. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has also appointed an Ontario caucus member to lead in outreach to faith-based groups. Ignatieff recently participated in what was billed as a session of dialogue and debate organized by the Canadian Council of Churches.

Pierre Ducasse is a former contender for the NDP leadership and now a staffer who also acts as secretary to the FSJC. He says, “Some people believe that if you come from a faith perspective, you are inherently a conservative, but as social democrats we believe that the central religious message is one of justice and being our brother’s and our sister’s keeper.” Ducasse agrees that the Commission’s activities have so far been sporadic, but he adds, “The very fact that we exist is important. When our MPs meet with people who come from a faith perspective, we tell them about the Commission. For example, when MP Tony Martin meets with groups about poverty issues they are often people of religious faith and they are pleased to hear that we have this Commission.”

Comartin says that he has seen a change occurring among faith-based groups in the past four or five years. “We are witnessing a shift from the primary focus of these groups being right wing and based upon what they call family values back to a more left of centre position. These people are increasingly concerned about peace, poverty and the environment and they are coming at it from a more progressive perspective.”

Ducasse and Comartin agree that Barrack Obama’s effective outreach to faith-based groups during his presidential campaign in 2008 was an important development. Comartin says, “Faith groups in the U.S. became active on behalf of the Democrats in the way that they had been for the Republicans in earlier times. This arose from pastors and others seeing the problems that people in their congregations and their communities were facing, and they became involved in politics because of their faith and their desire to create change. Political leaders are recognizing this.”

There was some criticism from within the NDP in 2006 about creating a party commission that was faith-based, but Comartin says the response has mainly positive. “Our MPs are reporting back from their ridings that a lot of people think this is something that needed to be done for a long time given the importance that religious faith and the social gospel played in the founding of our party.” Comartin says caucus members have been supportive as well and that nine or 10 NDP MPs (out of 37) regularly attend meetings of a faith and social justice caucus.

Comartin says that Rev. Eric Irvin, a Baptist pastor from Kentucky who was deeply involved with the Obama campaign, will speak to a luncheon sponsored by the FSJC at the Halifax convention in August.

By Dennis Gruending

Will Kymlicka says multiculturalism works and some prominent Canadian commentators have it wrong when they warn that it is failing. Dr. Kymlicka is the Canada research chair in political philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston and a visiting professor at the Central European University in Budapest. Since he received his doctorate in philosophy at Oxford University in 1987, he has written six books and co-authored or edited 11 others. His work has been translated into 30 languages. He spoke to about 100 people on May 27 at Carleton University during the Congress on the Humanities, a gathering of academics from across the country.

Kymlicka talked about what is working and what is not in Canadian multiculturalism — a mix of public policies aimed at promoting social cohesion among a variety of racial and ethnic groups. Canada possesses an extraordinary degree of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity and in 1971 became the first Western democracy to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. The protection of Canada’s multicultural heritage is even written into Section 27 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which became law in 1982. Kymlicka said that the debate surrounding multiculturalism has become “ritualized” and has not changed much since 1971. Those who favour multiculturalism believe that it leads to a more vibrant and tolerant society. Those opposed believe that such policies create a barrier that discourage people from assimilating and encourages ethnic ghettos. The debate, Kymlicka said, is most often based on anecdote. “We have not had evidence but are starting go get it.”

Cross-national studies

Research that is  “cross national” indicates that Canada is successful in the integration of immigrants and their children and those multiculturalism policies play a role in that success. Among Western democracies, Canada exhibits the highest level of popular support for immigration. Many people believe that it provides a net benefit and that it helps to define Canada as a country. A high proportion of people native to Canada believe this, and those beliefs are reciprocated by the number of immigrants who show a high level of pride in Canada.

There is a high degree of political integration among immigrants and an elevated percentage of immigrants to Canada who become citizens. They are more likely than immigrants in other countries to vote, to seek political office and to get elected. Canadians are just as likely to vote for a foreign born or visible minority candidate, as they are to vote for any other candidates.

Canada has the highest level of educational attainment among the children of immigrants (second generation) and they actually rank higher than native born Canadians in that category. Even after the terrorist attacks in September 2001, Canadians are more likely than people in other western democracies to say that Muslims make a positive contribution to the country. Muslims, in turn, believe it to be less likely that they will be singled out and picked on in Canada. “I believe that multiculturalism policies contribute to these outcomes, ” Kymlicka said. He pointed to other studies, including one showing that the political integration of Vietnamese immigrants in Toronto has been more successful than to that of Vietnamese in Boston.

Narrative of backlash

These academic studies, Kymlicka said, have not received much press. The public debate focuses more upon failure, backlash and retreat. Kymlicka believes the narrative is one borrowed from other democracies, such as the Netherlands, where immigration and multiculturalism are under attack. There is a growing sentiment in Europe that multiculturalism has gone too far. It is blamed for a variety of social ills, including the creation of parallel societies, political terrorism and honour killings and there is a call for a dramatic policy turnaround. “That has always been the narrative on the political right but now social democratic and labour parties are saying the same thing. There is a backlash and we in Canada have been getting the waves.”

Kymlicka said that among Western democracies the stronger the sense of national identity, the more hostility there is to immigration. “That is not true in Canada where multiculturalism is a distinctive part of our nationhood. Multiculturalism is a lynchpin contributing to our national sense of support for immigration, and it’s mutual — immigrants are also positive about Canada.” Yet, Kymlicka says, some influential Canadians commentators, including pollster Allan Gregg, historians Michael Bliss and Jack Granatstein and Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente, are saying that multiculturalism has failed in Europe and that exposes inherent flaws in multiculturalism as an ideal.

Relying on anecdote

Rather than focusing upon social science research, many commentators rely on anecdote. They say it creates ethnic ghettos but Kymlicka says that is no truer now than it was previously for other groups such as Italians and Hungarians. Some commentators say that among visible minority immigrants the second generation express lower levels of “belonging” to Canadian society than do their parents. Kymlicka said that, in realty, studies show no dramatic differences and second generation immigrants still express a “high level of belonging to Canada. Too many Canadian commentators, Kymlicka says, are importing a European analysis that holds we are sleepwalking into segregation. “There is little evidence to support this, he says. “My view is that this ominous public debate is off target and unhelpful.”

Multicultural problems

Kymlicka then outlined what he sees as the major problems confronting Canada’s multicultural model. One is economics. The current cohort of immigrants is not keeping up with native-born Canadians. Policies of multiculturalism, Kymlicka said, cannot deal with broadly based economic problems. There are also problems that relate to multiculturalism and religion. Policies developed in the 1970s did not take account of religious sensibilities. “We still do not have a good framework to decide which religious demands are legitimate.” He gave as examples the debates that have swirled around public funding for religious schools and around the use of shariah law in solving certain disputes.

Finally he pointed to the growing differences among various visible minority groups. Some are doing much better than others. “Do immigrant Muslims, for example, face different kinds of burdens than Chinese people or blacks?” Multiculturalism policies that were crafted years ago tend to look at all visible minority groups as having the same problems and challenges, when their situations actually differ.

Kymlicka concluded that, on balance, that the Canadian model is working well –  “I am a big fan of multiculturalism,” he said.