CHPC Committee Report

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA – MINORITY REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE ON SYSTEMIC RACISM AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

INTRODUCTION

In the fall of 2016, MP Iqra Khalid introduced Motion No. 103 (M-103).[1] M-103 was an attempt to challenge anti-Muslim hatred in Canada and urged the Government of Canada to address the overall issue of religious discrimination within Canada. While the motion is clearly well meaning, its language is problematic. As the Official Opposition, we made an attempt to amend M-103 and make it more inclusive.

The debate on M-103 captured the attention of Canadians and the mainstream media for several weeks. The main objection Canadians had to M-103 was that it complicated and confused the issue of anti-Muslim bigotry and violence rather than clarified it. The word ‘Islamophobia’, which features prominently in M-103, has a long history. Unfortunately, ‘Islamophobia’ has received many definitions, and the failure to use just one definition for the word is highly problematic.

We believed that the motion would have better achieved its goal by condemning “all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.”

Our amendment to this effect was rejected by the Liberals, who then voted to pass M-103. The public reaction to this by Canadians, both inside and outside of the Muslim community, was one of widespread concern that the issue was being politicized in a way that was limiting healthy debate rather than encouraging it. The hearings that followed in the fall of 2017 have shown that this Liberal government is more focused on political maneuvering than in addressing the underlying issues in a practical way.

Our intent in this minority report is to highlight five of the subjects addressed in M-103: the unsubstantiated claim of an “increasing public climate of hate and fear” in Canada, the definition of ‘Islamophobia’, the pressures faced by religious and racial communities in Canada, the collection and organization of adequate data regarding hate activity, and the application of a “whole of Canada approach” to these issues.

“AN INCREASING PUBLIC CLIMATE OF HATE AND FEAR”

M-103 begins with the assertion that Canada is experiencing an “increasing public climate of hate and fear” and that it is the Government of Canada’s responsibility to “quell” such a phenomenon. However, witness testimony and Statistics Canada data suggests that this assumption does not fully reflect reality.

Dr. Sherif Emil, pediatric surgeon at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, was clear with Committee members about his experience as a visible minority Canadian:

“If systemic racism and religious discrimination existed, I probably wouldn't be a pediatric surgeon today...Nobody had ever asked me in my training, in my selection, who I was or what I believed in. No, I do not believe systemic racism and discrimination exists. I believe discrimination and racism exists. It existed in many circumstances, it exists in many situations and that's totally unfortunate, but I don't think it's systemic.”[2]

Others were adamant in their view that ‘systemic racism,’ or a ‘climate of hate and fear’ in Canada is not as pronounced as the motion would suggest. Jay Cameron, Litigation Manager for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, suggested that the “committee should be exceedingly wary of assuming that there is a rising ‘public climate of hate and fear’ in this country.” Mr. Cameron noted that Canada currently ranks eighth out of 163 countries on the 2017 Global Peace Index, ahead of Switzerland and Sweden.[3]

Jenifer Aitken of the Department of Canadian Heritage pointed to the general social survey of 2013,[4] which reported that  87 percent of Canadians 15 years of age or older, including visible minorities, are “proud to be Canadian” and express “very high levels of pride in Canada.”[5] Ms. Aitken went on to cite a 2011 report[6], which found Canada to be “the top-ranking OECD country on a measure of tolerance with respect to community acceptance of minority groups and migrants, with a score of 84% compared with an OECD average of 61%.”[7] Ms. Raheel Raza, President of the Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, referenced the existence of “over 100 mosques and 50 Islamic organizations just in the greater Toronto area, where I live. There are 11 Muslim MPs in our government and Muslim prayers are taking place in some public schools. This doesn't look like systemic racism to me.”[8] Peter Bhatti, President of International Christian Voice and brother of martyr Shahbaz Bhatti, pointed to his work with the Pakistani-Canadian community in a critical response to the motion:

“Canadians of Pakistani origin have chosen to call Canada their new home because of the religious liberty, freedoms, and democratic system they can enjoy here, which allow them to thrive and prosper. We left our homes to live in a country where we are free to voice our opinions and concerns without fear or hesitation, whether they are religious, social, political, or otherwise. I believe this is an essential part of the framework of our free society in Canada.”[9]

This assertion is also not borne out by the available statistics on hate crime in Canada. Comparable data is available for the years 2009-2016. In 2009, 1,482 incidents were reported. This decreased to 1,167 incidents in 2013, and has since risen to 1,409 incidents in 2016.[10] During this period, Canada’s population grew from 33.6 million to 36.3 million, meaning that on a per capita basis, hate incidents dropped from 4.4 incidents per 100,000 people in 2009 to 3.9 incidents per 100,000 people in 2016 - a drop of nearly 13% on a per capita basis.[11]

Statistics are also available for those groups within Canadian society that have historically been the targets of hate crimes.  For these groups, the trends vary. Shimon Fogel of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that, at 54 incidents per 100,000 community members in 2015, Jews remain the most-targeted group in the country in absolute number and on a per capita basis.[12] The per capita number of hate incidents targeting Jews was 86 in 2009 and 67 in 2016.[13]

Witnesses cautioned Committee members to not hastily legislate in response to an ‘increasing public climate of hate and fear.’ Instead, witnesses recommended that the Government of Canada enforce existing laws. Mr. Cameron noted that “existing laws already place careful limits on conduct between Canadians… it is not the government's role to make everyone love each other. Government's role is to uphold constitutional freedoms.”[14] He was joined by Ms. Yasmine Mohammed, who said that “we don't believe in laws that aim to protect any ideologies, including religion, from scrutiny, criticism, questioning, debate, and even ridicule.”[15] Ms. Raza, while acknowledging the existence of bigotry and racism, encouraged the Committee to “strengthen the laws to curb hatred and discrimination against all Canadians, not just one section of Canadians.”[16]

A number of witnesses pointed out that the purpose of the law is to protect people, not to shelter ideas from criticism. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, suggested that legislation would stifle tough conversations among faith communities and would actually make a climate of hate and fear more pronounced.[17]

Dr. Andrew Bennett, Senior Fellow at Cardus and former Ambassador of Religious Freedom, stated that, ”we need to address anti- Muslim hatred that exists in this country… these self-same evils manifest themselves in hatred of Jews, Catholics, LGBTQ persons, people who oppose same-sex marriage, first nations people, pro-lifers.”[18]

THE DEFINITION OF ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’

Public interest and comment on M-103 centered, to a great degree, on the term ‘Islamophobia’. During hearings, media coverage and much witness testimony continued to focus on the issue of defining ‘Islamophobia’ and determining what the policy implications would be, if one or another of the definitions was made official in policy or in law. Witnesses offered, by our count, twenty-six different definitions of the term, ranging from narrow to all-inclusive. Opinions ranged from those who felt any further usage of this word will only confuse the issue, to witnesses who asserted that all perceived criticism of Muslims must be considered ‘Islamophobia’:

“It’s been said numerous times by numerous speakers, and I add my voice to the chorus, as long as M-103 has the term ‘Islamophobia’ in it, it will only serve to divide and cause more hate, more discrimination, and more fear.”[19] (Yasmine Mohammed)

“If someone says it’s Islamophobia and they feel they have been discriminated against, then that’s what you should use.”[20] (Larry Rousseau, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

“There are recognized international and Canadian definitions that I’ve supplied in the materials. What I start with is that each group should propose its preferred definition and label, not have the label chosen by another group as this feels disrespectful.”[21] (Barbara Landau, Co-Chair, Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims)

The concerns raised, regarding the dangers of an over-broad definition, or of attempting to condemn ‘Islamophobia’ without defining which thoughts and actions are thereby also being condemned, were widespread. In particular, the Heritage Committee heard testimony from many moderate or reformist Muslims who expressed concern that if the Canadian government responds to this report by condemning ‘Islamophobia’ — rather than condemning anti-Muslim bigotry, discrimination and violence — it will be making life much more difficult for independent and dissenting Muslim voices.

A key point, made by witness after witness, is that the Government of Canada cannot control the meaning of the word ‘Islamophobia.’ Tarek Fatah, Founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, pointed out that the term could have many connotations: “…in the western world, no one—not Oxford, not Mr. Hitchens, and not other critics or defenders—has ever talked about the connotation of the meaning of Islamophobia.”[22] Parliament may want, simply, to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, discrimination and violence. But in choosing instead to quell ‘Islamophobia’, Parliament would be understood in many quarters to have condemned any action that any person chooses to characterize as ‘Islamophobic.’ The first victims of such a chill on free speech, according to a number of Muslim witnesses, will be dissenting and moderate Muslims who dare to speak out against extremism and hate actions masquerading as the true or legitimate voice of Islam.

Witnesses testified that the term ’Islamophobia’ divides Canadians and can foster extremism:

“I think it will backfire and end up separating Muslims out more and feeding to both extremes—those who are too ignorant of the realities within the Muslim communities, and those who actually might be blaming all of Islam for the acts of radicals.”[23] (Jasser)

“M-103, as it stands, with usage of the term ‘Islamophobia’, has divided Canadians into us and them. By singling out one faith community in this motion, it seems that Islam and Muslims are exclusive and demand special attention when in fact, statistics show us that crimes against the Jews, the black community, and the LGBTQ communities are the highest.”[24] (Raza)

“[E]ven using the terms ‘Islamophobia’ and getting the government into the business of monitoring any form of speech will end up paradoxically heightening social division….[T]rying to suppress what can be painful speech about Islam at society’s fringes will actually paradoxically feed an unintended consequence of fomenting non-Muslim fears of Islam.”[25] (Jasser)

The Committee heard testimony that the proper role in law of human rights is to protect humans, not ideas; and the goal should be to protect the faithful, not the faith:

“Islam, like any other religion, is a set of ideas in a book. Muslims, on the other hand, are human beings. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Ideas, books and beliefs don’t and aren’t. The right to believe what we want is sacred; the beliefs themselves aren’t.”[26] (Ali Rizvi, Author)

“Human rights are about protecting people, not ideologies.”[27] (Karim Achab, Professor of linguistics, University of Ottawa)

Muslim moderates are concerned that use of the term can be used to marginalize them:

“This silencing of all debate and discussion in Islam has put us Muslims in a ridiculous position. It also puts a target on the backs of those who want change.”[28] (Raza)

“[W]ithin certain segments of the Islamic community here [in Canada], if one were to question certain Islamic practices, certain segments would have this sort of leverage over whoever would want to challenge Islamic precept and practice. Not everyone is going to go and check what the definition [of Islamophobia] is, the way you’ve described it or the way you’re going to define it….There will always be that danger of not knowing exactly what Islamophobia is. It will remain vague in certain communities….Someone like me is extremely vulnerable. If something like this were to go through, I would be extremely vulnerable. It’s not just about legal action; it’s also about social censure and other things that the motion will start a process towards.”[29] (Farzana Hassan, Author, Columnist)

“[M]uch of what we say on behalf of liberal rights, liberal ideas, women’s rights, minority rights, within [Muslim communities] is often identified as blasphemy by Islamic regimes. It is identified as heretical by mosques in the West and identified as ‘Islamophobic’ by mosques and leaders in the West...”[30] (Jasser)

There was concern that because M-103 cites Petition e-411, and petition e-411 condemns “all forms of ‘Islamophobia’”, the motion has, in essence, adopted the most all-inclusive, and therefore, the most anti-free-speech, of all the possible definitions of ‘Islamophobia’:

“I will provide a few comments on the word ‘Islamophobia’, as a linguist first. Dictionaries do not offer the same definition of the word.… From the different dictionaries, only one matches the one that was officially retained by the committee …. Let me tell you that it’s also the one that matches the definition …. that the Islamist activists also use.”[31] (Achab)

Witnesses felt that use of the term creates a situation where non-Muslims are afraid of being labeled ‘racist/Islamophobic’:

“[In the university course I teach in Toronto,] people are afraid to use the terms “Muslim” or “Islam”, even when asking a question like whether it was the radicals who did the bombing in London, England. They’re afraid to speak out, because this motion has got them worried that they’ll be called racist.”[32] (Raza)

“[O]rganizations like the Muslim Brotherhood … have popularized the term ‘Islamophobia’ for a very clever reason. It allows them to exploit the pain of real victims of anti-Muslim hate for the political purpose of stifling criticism of religion.”[33] (Rizvi)

“The antidote to bigotry and fear is education, but M-103 is telling Canadians, no, you have no right to question, criticize, or fight against this ideology that is killing your fellow human beings. You must bite your tongue when you learn that 13 countries will execute you for being gay, or that the overwhelming majority of girls in Egypt and Sudan have had their clitoris cut out. You must turn the other cheek when you see a child wrapped up in clothing that restricts every single one of her five senses. You must smile and nod when you see yet another child being forced into marriage where she’ll be raped for the rest of her life.”[34] (Mohammed)

The term could be used to silence those who draw attention to anti-Semitic hate within the Muslim community:

“[T]his October’s Islamic Heritage Month guidebook issued by the Toronto District School Board contained a definition of Islamophobia that included, ‘dislike … towards Islamic politics or culture’. This incident exposes significant problems associated with relying on ad hoc, inadequate definitions of Islamophobia. Muslims can be protected from hate without restricting critique of ideologies, especially those that are explicitly anti-Semitic.”[35] (Fogel)

“Islamic-based terrorist organizations should not be able to hide behind claims of Islamophobia to shield themselves from criticism of their incitement to terror and hatred….The combat against Islamophobia must not facilitate antisemitism by giving shelter to antisemitism within the Islamic community acting out Islamic extremist ideology.”[36] (David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada)

One of the major concerns raised by witnesses in relation to the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ related to the way in which the term is used beyond Canada’s borders, and to the fact that if is it used in Canada, the implication would be drawn in some countries that do not have freedom of religion, that Canada has given its consent to their own regimes’ very aggressive definitions of the term (and of what they deem to be appropriate responses to ‘Islamophobic’ speech). This could have serious overseas consequences, including for relatives of Canadians:

“[Use of the term] Islamophobia is a slippery slope. It often starts focused and then has its own life, as has happened in one nation after another where people have been persecuted and imprisoned first under a narrow definition, and then the definition widens.”[37] (Emil)

“The fears of Pakistani Christian immigrants living in Canada are not imaginary. The consequences of being labelled under M-103 under the garb of Islamophobia can have an indirect effect on our relatives and friends who are still living in Pakistan, a country in which blasphemy laws hold a sentence of life in prison, or death.”[38] (Bhatti)

“In the Indian subcontinent, where close to half the world’s Muslims live … the word ‘Islamophobia’ is roughly translated as Islam dushmani, or being enemies of Islam. This is as opposed to Islam pasand, or being friends of Islam. Unless you place these two one against the other, you won’t understand what is actually the connotation behind the explosive use of this word ‘Islamophobia.’ We saw this unfold in Darfur, where black Muslims, half a million, were killed. When more than one million dark-skinned fellow Muslims were killed, the argument presented in 1971 by the Pakistanis or Bangladeshis was that the Bangla Muslims were Islam dushmani or Islamophobes, while the Pakistani Muslims were Islam pasand, or lovers of Islam.”[39] (Fatah)

“[In Pakistan,] there are many mainstream Muslims that think that they [the Ahmadiyya] should be put to death. This is, again, one of the problems with the terms ‘Islamophobia—when you talk about criticism of Islam and you don’t differentiate it from anti-Muslim hate, then you’re going into territory that’s very difficult to navigate.”[40] (Rizvi)

Several witnesses testified that in their opinion the widespread use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is not contributing to the resolution of the tensions that have arisen in Canada with regard to religion. The suggestion was made that other language which is less politically charged and less confusing is more appropriate. Some suggested not using ‘Islamophobia’ at all, or else regard the term as unnecessary in resolving the important problem of anti-Muslim bigotry:

“In order for M-103 to both protect human beings and not protect any ideology, the term needs to be removed, clarified, or amended to ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’.”[41] (Mohammed)

“We understand Islamophobia to means anti-Muslim hate, but our focus is really on action and the problem itself. Whichever term you use is really up to you. There’s a problem, and we need to deal with it.”[42] (Sikander Hashmi, Spokesperson, Canadian Council of Imams)

Others suggested replacing ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘Anti-Muslim bigotry’:

“Here is my proposal regarding M-103. If the motion simply uses the term, ‘Anti-Muslim bigotry,’ instead of ‘ Islamophobia’, I would back it 100%... [I]f we truly care about the goals and purpose of this motion—to help curb anti-Muslim bigotry—why not call it anti-Muslim bigotry, or anti-Muslim hate, or anti-Muslim sentiment? It does exactly the same thing and it doesn’t take away an iota of the meaning of the motion and what we want to achieve. Yet it also removes the barriers preventing its [M-103’s] critics from backing it. If we Liberals care about the substance of this motion over semantics we lose nothing and gain everything from making this one small change.”[43] (Rizvi)

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN CANADA

Witnesses testified that religious and racial discrimination exists in Canada. This discrimination takes form in various ways. Pressures faced by the Muslim community in Canada have been in the forefront of the public’s mind, particularly following events such as the tragic shootings in Quebec City. Witnesses were clear that religious discrimination exists for Canada’s Muslim community and that the phenomenon needs to be addressed:

“As has been well established in the presence of this committee, hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. The heartbreaking attack at the Islamic cultural centre in Quebec City on January 29 of this year was the single most horrific mass killing at a place of worship in Canadian history. Aboriginal, black, Jewish, and Sikh communities, among others, also continue to be targeted in Canada.”[44] (Hashmi)

“Let's be clear on what needs to be addressed, as many of your other witnesses have said. We need to address anti-Muslim hatred that exists in this country. This is a hatred that is bred from three specific evils—ignorance, indifference, and fear—all of which must be addressed at the level of our own communities.”[45] (Bennett)

Although M-103 specifically emphasizes discrimination faced by the Muslim community, the Committee heard valuable testimony from representatives of other religious groups facing religious discrimination.

Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada lauded the opportunity to address hatred directed toward the Jewish community: “we strongly endorse the importance for your work on M-103 to be broad-based. An unbalanced emphasis on Islamophobia creates the impression that Canadian Muslims are the only victims of hate crimes.”[46]

Cecil Roach of the York Region District School Board addressed anti-Semitic hatred directly:

“We also know that anti-Semitism is very real for Jewish Canadians. In Canada, Jews are still the number one target of hate based on religion. Hateful acts and hate crimes against Jews have spiked recently. In education we are seeing the rise of anti-Semitic graffiti, students making anti-Semitic comments or posting anti-Semitic images on their social media. We also cannot ignore the fact that white supremacists seem to now feel emboldened and are crawling away from their computer screens, publicly demonstrating their hatred for Jews, Muslims, for immigrants, and for all racialized people. The question then becomes how to fight against systemic racism and religious discrimination which, I'm sure we all agree, lessens us as Canadians.”[47]

In Mr. Mostyn’s testimony, he explained that:

“Over a five-year period, anti-Semitism has been on the rise. Statistics Canada has reported that in 2015, the most recent year with complete figures, Jews were the most targeted group in this country for hate crimes, a serious trend that has been continuing for nine years.”[48]

Robert Kuhn, President of Trinity Western University, was one witness to address religious persecution facing Canada’s Christian community. He noted decisions made by three provincial law societies that:

“…rejected the ability of graduates from Trinity Western's proposed law school to enter the practice of law in those provinces. This was despite approval given by the national Federation of Law Societies and the minister of higher education in British Columbia, and it was despite the fact that it is universally acknowledged that TWU law school graduates would have been fully qualified. The sole reason for their rejection is that Trinity Western University, as a Christian university…”[49]

Mr. Kuhn concluded by stating that “Trinity Western and its staff, students, and faculty experience significant financial, emotional, and systemic discrimination. It is getting worse, and it should not be.”[50]

As author Don Hutchinson explained, “Anti-religious discrimination in Canada has not been confined to any one religious community, and such incidents cannot be considered to be of greater or lesser significance based simply on which religious community is targeted.”[51]

DATA COLLECTION

Improving the collection of adequate data was a recommendation made by several witnesses. They asked that better forms of data collection be put in place that will allow for officials and the public to have a more comprehensive understanding of just how racial and religious discrimination is occurring. This was clearly expressed on October 23^rd, 2017 by witness Idris Elbakri, Past President of the Manitoba Islamic Association. He stated: “I think it's very important to be able to deeply study these phenomena and track them and record data. One of the challenges we have is the lack of data so that we can understand the extent of this problem and this issue.”[52] This need for better data collection was also expressed by Mr. Hutchinson on November 1^st, 2017 when he stated that the government should, “continue to collect and share data in regard to religious observance by Canadians.”[53]

The government must take into consideration how to make the collection of data more consistent and reliable. This is a key step in fully understanding the current climate of discrimination in Canada.  On October 18^th, 2017, Mr. Fogel stated:

“This committee should recommend that the government establish uniform national guidelines and standards for the collection and handling of hate crime and hate incident data. This will help ensure that local, provincial, and national law enforcement consistently collect, catalogue and publicize data regarding hate crimes and hate incidence. The more accurate and comprehensive the data available the more appropriately efforts to counter hatred and bigotry in Canada can be calibrated to address the specific needs of the communities most impacted. Comprehensive empirical data is required to effectively diagnose the problems and prescribe the most appropriate solutions.”[54]

It is apparent that there is a need for consistent and across-the-board mechanisms that should be implemented in services that would deal with the reporting of discrimination and hate crimes. Not only should data be reported in a uniform way in order to have clearer idea as to what is occurring in Canada, but this data should be compiled together and released annually in order to have juxtaposition for following years.

It is also important in the collection of data to have it broken down by the type of discrimination occurring. Witnesses suggested that figures should show details of the discrimination that occurs involving race or religion. Improved information, factual evidence and more complete statistics can be further used to address the necessary issues around religious and racial discrimination.

‘A WHOLE OF CANADA APPROACH’

M-103 suggests that the Government of Canada devise and execute a “whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada…” It is the opinion of the Conservative members and many witnesses that, instead, the Government of Canada should work to foster a ‘whole of Canada’ approach to increased inter-community, intra-community, interfaith, and intrafaith dialogue.

As an alternative to a government-centred approach, witnesses from the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other cultural communities urged the Committee to empower the communities themselves. Several witnesses testified on the merits of a community-centred approach to addressing racial and religious discrimination:

“...to respect and to champion difference is to promote a deep and genuine pluralism in which disagreement—even deep disagreement—is allowed. In our disagreements with one another we must always exhibit great charity, recognizing the inherent dignity we all bear as human beings.”[55] He later added, “I think government should act as a facilitator within communities to encourage them to engage with one another.”[56] (Bennett)

“I think there's a tremendous need for improved and increased dialogue, and for what I would call a deep pluralism—a pluralism that does not shy away from our differences, but articulates them, develops them, and understands them.”[57] (Laurence Worthen, Executive Director, Christian Medical and Dental Society)

“We need to empower our communities to continue the work they do, to partner with each other, to work with school divisions, with law enforcement and social services to create the awareness and understanding that is needed to support the victims of hatred and racism.”[58] (Elbakri)

“Consider establishing a forum for dialogue and cooperation to help foster relationships, improve co-operation, and dispel the stereotypes that cause misunderstandings. This might take the form of an annual dialogue between parliamentarians, ministers, and faith leaders or establishing a multi-faith advisory group or council.”[59] (Julia Beazley, Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

“My recommendation to you is that we don't need extra regulations or motions to combat racism or to protect one religion or another...But if there needs to be more, it needs to be about protecting interfaith harmony and other objectives where we put all the religions together, through seminars and conferences, to chill the hatred of one for the other.”[60] (Bhatti)

“My recommendation is that the communities themselves should be empowered to bring about change...I don't see this happening. I don't see round-table conferences in mosques or in Islamic organizations in which this issue is being discussed, regarding the concerns or the way that we can deal with it.”[61] (Raza)

“We would call upon the government to redirect some of its funding from promoting intercultural dialogue to instead work on community building among faith and cultural communities… Participation by more groups will create more opportunities to identify and address systemic racism and religious discrimination.”[62] (Shahen Mirakian, President, Armenian National Committee of Canada)

The need to create a ‘whole of Canada approach’ was echoed by other prominent religious leaders in Canada. Rabbi Reuben Bulka, a leader of Ottawa’s Jewish community, noted that “the power of the clergy is enormous and getting together sends a very loud and a potent signal that we are together.”[63] Likewise, Mr. Hashmi noted that while faith and racial communities are often drawn into forming preconceived notions about others, the presence of a united voice among faith leaders “sends a very strong message of cooperation.”[64]

If government is to play a bureaucratic role in the promotion of religious freedom and racial harmony, it should re-establish the semi-autonomous Office of Religious Freedom (2013-2016).  Mr. Hutchinson pointed to a concerning level of ignorance within the ranks of the public service with regard to issues of religious freedom and suggested that the Department of Foreign Affairs, alone, is particularly ill-equipped to discuss these issues:

“I was shocked at the disinterest in understanding the religious realities of the world we live in, and the ideological realities of dealing for example with communist China, or with Russia, or North Korea. The ideologies are themselves a religiously structured mechanism for oversight and control in those nations.”[65]

Mr. Hutchinson recommended that a “dedicated office rather than an office that has multiple responsibilities...that overlap and are at times in contradiction with one another” would service these issues better.[66] He urged the Committee to “ensure religious representatives are participants in appropriate government activities,” and recommended the re-establishment of annual Global Affairs Canada consultations, “where representatives from religious and other communities of concern may comment on developing global situations.”[67]

Interfaith dialogue is central to a ‘whole of Canada’ solution to racial and religious discrimination.  

CONCLUSION

The Liberal government has failed to take up the challenge presented in M-103.  M-103 has instead been misused by the Liberal government to politicize an issue important to millions of Canadians. The Liberal leadership’s actions have had the effect of being divisive, more threatening to Canadians, and have done nothing to bring Canadians of all spiritual backgrounds together in a spirit of understanding and cooperation.

240 days were provided for study under the terms of Motion M-103. The motion was adopted by the Commons in March, but the first witness was invited to testify only in September. The Liberals have engineered a majority report which deliberately avoids meaningfully addressing the issues around the term ‘Islamophobia’, which were such a dominant part of the M-103 debate in the House, and formed the subject-matter of much witness testimony.

One of our greatest concerns was that Liberal MPs consistently failed to treat moderate Muslim witnesses respectfully. They deliberately avoided Muslim witnesses and their personal testimony – much of which testimony was critical of the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’, which spoke to the consequences that a fluid definition would have on public policy, and which addressed potential restrictions on the free speech and beliefs of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. On two occasions, moderate Muslim witnesses were belittled by Liberal MPs and accused of being divisive, or of being complicit via guilt by association, of complicity in right-wing extremism. Liberal MPs even resorted to the practice of filibustering their own question time in an attempt to avoid inconvenient testimony.

It is regrettable that the assumption in M-103 is that Canadian society is far more hate-filled and xenophobic (particularly towards Muslims) than it actually is. Statistical evidence, and the testimony of many witnesses, including a striking number of courageous and thoughtful Muslim-Canadians, demonstrated otherwise. We hope that Canadians of all faiths will take note, and will build better cooperation between all religions, races and cultures in the coming years.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• 1.  That the Government of Canada issue a statement acknowledging the positive role that religious faith has played in the history of Canada and reaffirming to Canadians that it will continue to be welcomed as a major contributor to the fabric of Canada in the future.
• 2.  That the Government of Canada recognize that every person lives with a set of beliefs that inform their life and that every person works to live consistently with those beliefs irrespective of whether or not they have a religious component and, given that freedom of belief is a cherished right in Canada, the Government of Canada ensure that Canadians can freely practice their faith without fear of intimidation, coercion or violence.
• 3.  That the Government of Canada reiterate its full support for, and stand firmly behind, the principle of religious freedom enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and expressed in Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights; that is, that every person has the right to believe, that they have the right to change that belief, and that every person has the right to practice that belief in action and in worship..
• 4.  That the Government of Canada cease using the term ‘Islamophobia’ because of the inability to agree on the specific definition of the term.
• 5.  That the Government of Canada cease using the term ‘Islamophobia’ because groups outside of Canada will use that to justify acts of violence and terror, particularly against women and girls.
• 6.  That the Government of Canada work with faith communities to condemn, in the strongest of terms, any hateful acts committed against religious communities, including places of worship and that the Government take seriously its responsibility to provide safety and security for those communities and religious property
• 7.  That the Government of Canada recognize that all faith groups are impacted when dealing with the challenges of religious pressure and discrimination, and that the Government immediately appoint a multi-faith Advisory Committee to advise it on domestic issues.
• 8.  That the Government of Canada re-establish an advisory council of faith groups to better understand the role that faith plays in international affairs.
• 9.  That the Government of Canada participate in single and multi-faith dialogue to better understand the dynamics of Canadian faith groups and to better understand the relationships between the various faith groups and to find solutions to the issues of intolerance and discrimination within Canada.
• 10.  That the Government of Canada reiterate its full support for the protection of free speech in Canada, and that the Government reject any call to further restrict free speech within Canada.
• 11.  That the Government of Canada launch a public information campaign on Female Genital Mutilation being a harmful practice.
• 12.  That January 29th be established as a National Day of Solidarity with Victims of Anti-religious Bigotry and Violence.
• 13.  That the Government of Canada commit to the re-establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom.
• 14.  That the Government of Canada promote the principles of international Religious Freedom in its foreign policy and international trade agenda.
• 15.  That the Government of Canada take measures to restrict free trade with countries until these countries comply with internationally-recognized human rights standards.
• 16.  That, in order to address the lack of knowledge and/or interest in faith issues,  the Government of Canada immediately commit itself to ensuring that its employees, including parliamentarians, are trained to better understand the role that faith perspectives play in global thought and action, and in both national and international policy development.

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS OF ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ PRESENTED IN THE M-103 HEARINGS

Sept. 18:

1. “Islamophobia, to me, means uttering death threats, assaulting, hatred, threats of violence towards people, and vandalism of their places of worship.” Mr. Arif Virani, MP
2. “The definition of Islamophobia I subscribe to is an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam that leads to discrimination.’ Iqra Khalid, MP
3. “expressions of fear and negative stereotypes, bias, or acts of hostility towards the religion of Islam and individual Muslims” Definition of Canadian Race Relations Foundation, as reported to the committee by Dan Vandal, MP.
4. “stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general”. Definition by Ontario Human Rights Commission, as reported to the committee by Dan Vandal, MP.

Sept. 20:

1. “Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.” Definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary, as reported to the committee by Tarek Fatah, founder, Muslim Canadian Congress
2. “Then there is the definition by Andrew Cummins, who once said, in a quote that is often misattributed to Christopher Hitchens, that Islamophobia is ‘a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons’.” Tarek Fatah, founder, Muslim Canadian Congress

Sep. 25:

1. “I am in no way interested in promoting a definition of Islamophobia that would restrict my own speech. Legitimate critique, in my mind, is not Islamophobic. Islamophobia is irrational and hyperbolic speech about Islam and Muslims that demonizes them, that dehumanizes them. I trust the hate speech laws in Canada, which I think are robust along with the legislative system. When somebody makes an accusation of Islamophobia, and if they appear before a judge, he or she will make a decision about whether that is, indeed, Islamophobic or a legitimate critique.” Ayesha Chaudhry (Associate Professor and Chairholder of Canada Research Chair in Religion, Law and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia)

Oct. 2:

1. “a widespread mindset and fear-laden discourse in which people make blanket judgments of Islam as the enemy as the ‘other’ as a dangerous and unchanged, monolithic bloc that is the natural subject of well-deserved hostility from Westerners.” Definition proposed in 2008 by J.P. Zuquete, as reported to the committee by Samer Majzoub (President, Canadian Muslim Forum)
2. “a rejection of Islam, Muslim groups, and Muslim individuals on the basis of prejudice and stereotypes. It may have emotional, cognitive, evaluative as well as action-oriented elements like discrimination and violence.” Definition  proposed in 2005 by J. Stolz, as reported to the committee by Samer Majzoub (President, Canadian Muslim Forum)
3. “As for us, we have opted for the following definition. It is a criticizing or scathing negative opinion that might directly or indirectly cause humiliation or damage to the reputation and or incite to hatred and to violence against a person or a group of persons for the only reason that they are of Muslim faith.” Definition preferred by the Canadian Muslim Forum, as reported by its president, Samer Majzoub.
4. “Islamophobia is simply anti-Muslim discrimination or hate.” Prof. Faisal Bhabha (Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association)

Oct. 4:

1. “I want to offer my working definition of Islamophobia that I have developed to capture its complex dimensions. The definition I use extends from “a fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims” to acknowledge that these attitudes develop into individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that shore up specific power relations. This broader definition outlines the sociology of Islamophobia as being dynamic and multi-faceted, and not simply about negative beliefs or attitudes. Jasmin Zine (Professor, Sociology and Muslim Studies Option, Wilfrid Laurier University)
2. “I locate anti-Muslim racism under the broader umbrella of Islamophobia as a manifestation. While violence, hatred, and discrimination are enacted against Muslim bodies, these acts rely upon the demonization of Islam to sustain and reproduce their racial logic. One does not exist without the other.” Jasmin Zine (Professor, Sociology and Muslim Studies Option, Wilfrid Laurier University
3. “Islamophobia is hate, hostility, prejudice, and discrimination directed towards Muslims.” Ihsaan Gardee (Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims)
4. “Islamophobia includes racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling…Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.” Definition by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as reported to the committee by Ihsaan Gardee, who told the committee, “the NCCM subscribes to” this definition.

Oct. 16:

1. “The term “Islamophobia” is often falsely equated with the term “anti-Semitism”. MP Khalid has also alluded to an equivalence between the two, yet the two are vastly different….A common dictionary meaning of anti-Semitism is ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’. Islamophobia, on the other hand, also includes criticism of Islam as a religion. The common dictionary meaning is ‘intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims’.” Farzana Hassan (Author/Columnist, Individual). The dictionary definition she cites is from the Oxford English Dictionary.
2. “‘Phobia’ is a medical term, implying a pathological and irrational fear. As far as I know, the only religion it has been applied to is Islam. The proper definition of Islamophobia, therefore, is not ‘irrational hatred of Muslims’ but ‘irrational fear of Islam’.” Dr. Sherif Emil (McGill University):

Oct. 18:

1. “The term ‘Islamophobia’ has been defined in multiple ways, some effective and some problematic. Unfortunately, it has become a lightning rod for controversy, distracting from other important issues at hand. While some use the term ‘Islamophobia’ to concisely describe prejudice against Muslims, others have expanded it significantly further to include opposition to political ideologies. For example, this October’s Islamic Heritage Month Guidebook issued by the Toronto District School Board contained a definition of Islamophobia that included, ‘dislike…towards Islamic politics or culture’.” Shimon Fogel (Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
2. “Islamophobia refers to fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture. Islamophobia is similar to other types of discrimination such as: anti-Semitism, homophobia and racism. Discriminating against anyone based on an identifiable characteristic is contrary to both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and universal values of human rights and dignity.” Toronto District School Board definition, in full, cited by Shimon Fogel
3. “As opposed to certain terms of racism—such as anti-Semitism, which may have been confusing at one point, but on which there is now an international consensus, and the Ottawa protocol process was part of that—’Islamophobia’ is a confusing term, unfortunately, at the moment. I would just like to point, as an example, to witnesses from the NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, who appeared before this committee two weeks ago. They testified that they were in favour of the definition consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code, the OHRC, yet it was this organization that vetted and put its logo on the Toronto District School Board guide my colleague from CIJA just mentioned, which had a very problematic definition of Islamophobia, including criticism of politics in Islam or culture in Islam.” Michael Mostyn (Chief Executive Officer, B’nai Brith)
4. “We understand Islamophobia to mean anti-Muslim hate, but our focus is really on action and the problem itself. Whichever term you choose to use is really up to you. There’s a problem, and we need to deal with it.” Sikander Hashmi, spokesman, Canadian Council of Imams

Oct. 25:

1. “Islamophobia is a very simple term. The Greek part is “phobia”. It means fear. Islam…I think everybody gets that. Anything that is against Islam, that is anti-Islam, is Islamophobia. If anybody’s using that to justify any kind of action, whether it is against or for policies, etc., then that is what it is. I really think we have a problem when people are going to start saying one thing is Islamophobia, but another doesn’t fall under it. Larry Rousseau (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)
2. “If anyone who is a Muslim finds that an action is against them as a Muslim, that should define or at least characterize what it is. Islamophobia means anything that will hurt, denigrate, etc., just as any other group would see it if it was a different group…’ Larry Rousseau (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)
3. “As far as coming out with a definition for Islamophobia, I would stay away from that because it should be very wide-ranging and it shouldn’t forgive anything. Look, if you’re going to do anything that denigrates—actually oppresses or suppresses a group, namely people who are Muslim—then it is Islamophobia….” Larry Rousseau (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

• “One of the fundamental notions of harassment is this: it is not the person who is doing the harassing, but the person who has been impacted by the harassment. If someone says it’s Islamophobia and they feel they have been discriminated against, then that’s what you should use.” Larry Rousseau (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

Oct. 30:

1. “We have noted the opposition to this motion with concern and believe that, while Islamophobia should be clearly defined, reluctance to name and condemn anti-Muslim behaviour is unacceptable. A refusal to address the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment may lead to the further marginalization and victimization of Muslims in Canada… We believe that the definition of Islamophobia proposed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission is valuable, and we’d encourage its adoption. It reads, ‘Racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general’. Balpreet Singh (Legal Counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada)
2. “People have asked, ‘Is criticizing Islam, or criticizing some political interpretation of Islam, a part of Islamophobia?’ It has to be clear that criticizing an ideology or a faith is not part of this. It’s actual discrimination. It’s actual stereotypes about Muslims. We can all agree that any sort of discrimination against individuals following a faith is wrong…” Balpreet Singh (Legal Counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada)

Nov. 1:

1. “Regarding the definition of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. There are recognized international and Canadian definitions that I’ve supplied in the materials. What I start with is that each group should propose its preferred definition and label, not have the label chosen by another group as this feels disrespectful.” Barbara Landau (Co-Chair, Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims)