Islamophobia

Teen wins for speech

Deema Abdel Hafeez placed third in the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies’ annual speech contest. (photo from Janet Lee Elementary School)

Every year, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies puts out a call to Ontario students in grades 6 to 8 to submit a speech reflecting on a quote of Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal, z”l. This year, the quote selected was, “I believe in the good in people,” and students were encouraged to think about how to make the world a better place.

Deema Abdel Hafeez, a Grade 8 student at Janet Lee Elementary School in Hamilton, Ont., entered the contest, the first round of which was in February. Hafeez comes from a Palestinian family who moved to Canada 20 years ago.

“When I heard the quote, I didn’t want to just base it on the good in people … unicorns, rainbows,” Hafeez told the Independent. “I, more so, attacked the quote. I was like, you cannot believe in the automatic good in people, because it takes time to find the good in people.

“I wrote about my Islamophobic experiences. I was saying that you have to define the word ‘good’ to believe in the good in people. And, you have to become the good yourself before you can assume the good in other people.”

Hafeez shared that, while her school is pluralistic, with students of many different faiths, racism still very much exists.

“All the racist slurs and things like that, that’s how I attacked the quote,” said Hafeez. “I talked about how my family can’t go out without [experiencing it] … how my mom is being told to go back to her own country, or how anyone wearing religious clothing … is attacked in social standing … and how things are at a disadvantage for people like us. Obviously, it’s not as bad as it used to be, but, as a world, we need to try to change more.”

Hafeez said one of her Muslim neighbours had been badly beaten, to the point that he had almost died, just because he is a Muslim.

In the classroom, Hafeez has witnessed hate. “People mention jokes on social media and like things like that, and they talk about different colours of skin as if following a stereotype… and it’s, like, you’re funny, but you’re not … it’s just rude.”

When asked about how her parents felt about her entering the competition, Hafeez said she had entered without their knowledge. “It wasn’t because they wouldn’t have allowed me to,” she said. “But, I kind of just entered without telling anyone. At home, we talk about the Palestine-Israel conflict a lot, because we have a lot of family in Palestine. We can’t hate a whole group of people, because that’s hypocritical and we’re nice people … so, we don’t hate Israeli people. I have a lot of Israeli friends and I’m Palestinian. It’s cool, because, I feel like, with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there’s a way we can live in harmony, both nations living in the same land.”

Hafeez is a member of the school group Making a Difference.

“We do a lot of fundraisers and things like that,” she said. “I volunteer my time while making projects for my school and having the whole school getting involved in these projects. That’s how … I think I’ve become ‘the good,’ in my opinion. I find good as not seeing other people as objects and not labeling them and things like that … becoming the good is more mental to me. You can’t judge anyone. You can’t say, this person is good or bad. You can define yourself and, if you believe you’re doing the best you can at being good … if everyone did that in the world, then we’d live in a better place.”

Hafeez said she watches the news a lot and feels there is far too much violence that results from people judging others.

“I’m not talking about politics,” she said. “If everyone just stopped judging other people based on their religion, colour, sexual orientation … if everyone just focused on themselves, then our world wouldn’t be as hateful a place as it is right now.”

Hafeez practised her speech with her eight siblings.

“I feel like the hardest part for me was just managing my time and how I was supposed to practise my speech, and do all the things for my speech while I also have school, sports, classes … that was the hardest part,” said Hafeez. “The speech itself came easy for me. It is my own thoughts and is everything I’d thought about before. I stayed up late at night thinking these thoughts. I already knew what I wanted to say, so, on the stage, I wouldn’t be reading off a paper. I’d be talking about what I’ve been thinking about.”

The practise paid off. Hafeez was among 10 students chosen to attend a workshop and have their speeches taped as part of the semifinals on March 3 at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre in North York, a suburb of Toronto. A panel of judges then selected five students for the finals on March 28 at the Toronto Centre for the Arts. Hafeez placed third, winning an iPad.

Hafeez and her school have sent the Simon Wiesenthal Centre a grant application in the hope of organizing a peace summit, incorporating some anti-Islamophobic and anti-discrimination workshops for area schools.

Hafeez is already thinking about what types of activities she would like to undertake in high school, next year, such as starting up a group for change.

“I feel like, when I do that, I’ll be introduced to everything else I can do at my high school,” she said. “I have a lot of siblings, know a lot of teachers. I feel like it won’t be hard, to use my voice to reach people in high school.”

Meanwhile, Hafeez will find good use for her new iPad.

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Hate crimes in Canada spike

(image from Statistics Canada)

Crimes against identifiable groups in Canada have spiked sharply, according to the latest data from Statistics Canada on police-reported hate crimes. Jews and Jewish institutions were the foremost targeted group, but hate crimes against Muslims comprised the largest increase.

Across Canada, there were 2,073 police-reported hate crimes in 2017, an increase of 664 incidents over the previous year. Almost half of all hate crimes were reported in Ontario. In British Columbia, 255 hate crimes were reported to police, including 68 that targeted Jews, 36 incidents against black people, 19 against Muslims and 18 crimes based on sexual orientation. Reported hate crimes against the Muslim, black, Arab or West Asian and LGBTQ+ communities all increased nationwide.

Across the country, hate crimes against the Jewish community rose by 63% between 2016 and 2017 – from 221 incidents to 360 – and the Jewish community remained the most frequently targeted group in both absolute and per capita terms, the report stated. Hate crimes against the Muslim community increased 151% between those years, from 139 police-reported incidents in 2016 to 349 in 2017.

In one of few comparatively bright spots in the report, violent incidents decreased as a proportion of all hate crimes, accounting for 38% of reported hate crimes in 2017, down from 44% in 2016. But this proportional decline is tempered by the raw numbers. The actual number of violent hate crimes increased 25% but decreased as a proportion of hate crimes overall only because the number of non-violent crimes increased that much more – non-violent offences like mischief and public incitement of hatred increased 64%.

Of the 360 police-reported crimes against Jews or Jewish institutions across Canada in 2017, 209 of those were in Ontario and 49 in Quebec – making British Columbia not only the second province in raw numbers of anti-Jewish attacks, but almost tying Ontario on a per capita basis and surpassing all other provinces by far.

Hate crimes in Canada have been creeping upward relatively slowly since 2014, according to Statistics Canada, but 2017 saw a leap of 47% over the previous year. Most of the crimes involved hate-related property crimes, such as graffiti and vandalism.

Despite the large increase in 2017, however, hate crimes still represent a very small proportion of overall crime – about 0.1% of the more than 1.9 million non-traffic crimes reported by police services in 2017. That said, a 2014 Statistics Canada study, General Social Survey on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization), in which Canadians self-reported incidents of perceived hate crimes, indicated that two-thirds of such incidents were not reported to police, suggesting that the numbers in the hate crimes reports might underestimate actual incidents substantially.

image - Hate crimes versus religious groups, 2016 and 2017 — *(image from Statistics Canada)*

“Police-reported hate crimes refer to criminal incidents that, upon investigation by police, are found to have been motivated by hatred toward an identifiable group,” explains StatsCan. “An incident may be against a person or property and may target race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, language, sex, age, mental or physical disability, among other factors. In addition, there are four specific offences listed as hate propaganda offences or hate crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada: advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred, and mischief motivated by hate in relation to property used by an identifiable group.”

Hate crimes against Muslims, particularly in Quebec, contributed significantly to the overall spike in 2017 reported incidents. Hate crimes in that province increased 50% over the previous year, with incidents targeting Muslims almost tripling to 117 reports in 2017 from 41 the previous year. Perhaps most disconcertingly, the biggest spike in anti-Muslim incidents in Quebec occurred in the month following the mass shooting at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec, where six Muslim men were murdered in a shooting rampage on Jan. 29, 2017.

In response to the statistics, which were released Nov. 29, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs called on the federal government to take a three-pronged approach to hate-motivated crime and related matters.

“In the wake of this report, we are reiterating our call on the Government of Canada to take three key steps to combat hate,” Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive officer of CIJA, said in a statement. “First, we are grateful that the prime minister announced he will enhance the Security Infrastructure Program. We urge the government to expand it to cover training costs, especially given that emergency training saved lives during the Pittsburgh synagogue attack. Second, we need a national strategy to combat online hate. Experience shows that vicious rhetoric online can fuel and foreshadow violence offline. Third, the federal government should strengthen the capacity of law enforcement to combat hate crime. This should include enhancing legal tools to deal with hate speech and supporting the creation of local hate crime units where they are lacking.”

Each one, and all one

The news is not good. Hate crimes are up almost everywhere in the world one cares to look. A Statistics Canada report on police-reported hate crimes in Canada erases whatever smug superiority Canadians may have been feeling when watching rampant racism south of the border, at least some of which seems a result of the licence granted by a president who flirts with the most incendiary elements in U.S. society. The number of hate crimes reported to Canadian police in 2017 far outstripped the number in 2016 (see story, page 1) – and the actual number of hate-motivated incidents may be up to three times larger than the number reported to police.

Similarly terrible phenomena are taking place across Europe, where xenophobic and racist rhetoric is manifesting into violence against Jews, Muslims, Roma, asylum-seekers from Africa and Asia and, really, anyone who does not fit an escalating nationalist and populist consensus.

The lines are not all clear, either. The perpetrators and the victims can, at times, overlap. In online posts, email threads and private conversations, we witness members of our own community attributing motives to entire groups of people, and spreading hatred based on religious or racial identities. Likewise, messages of anti-Jewish hatred are common in online locations addressing the Israeli-Arab conflict, often including antisemitic comments from members of victimized minority groups.

The range of hate-motivated incidents addressed in the Statistics Canada report varies – most are non-violent and involve graffiti or crimes against property. But, when they are violent, they strike with a precision that aims at the emotional, as well as physical, vulnerabilities of the victims. In three of the most horrific hate crimes of recent years, assailants struck in the very places where people should expect safety – in the spiritual sanctuary of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Charleston, S.C., where nine African-Americans were murdered by a white supremacist on June 17, 2015; at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque, where six people were murdered by an Islamophobic killer on Jan. 29, 2017; and at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, where 11 were murdered during Shabbat services this past Oct. 27.

The idea that people should be safe in a place of religious observance seems to be precisely the reasoning behind such attacks. But there is another form of violent crime that seems oddly excluded from this discussion.

Thursday (Dec. 6) marked the 29th anniversary of the mass murder at the École Polytechnique, in Montreal, where 14 women were killed by a man with deep-rooted hatred against women. A commemoration took place at the Vancouver Art Gallery, in recognition of the annual National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, with empty shoes representing the 545 women who have been murdered in British Columbia between 1997 and 2015 (the last year for which reliable statistics are available).

These victims include some of Canada’s murdered indigenous women, women working in vulnerable situations and women who were murdered because they were women and members of another marginalized group. Others were murdered by their domestic partners. In probably all of these cases, issues of differential power (of various forms) and attitudes about the value of women’s lives, factored into their fates. They are victims of gender-based violence.

It seems strange that, in a discussion about hate-motivated crimes, we exclude an entire gender, whose experience with violence is as prevalent, or more so, than that of other identifiable groups.

This is not an attempt to detract from one or another group’s experience with violence to emphasize something else; it is more an attempt to emphasize that every life should be respected and that membership in an identifiable group often diminishes that respect in the eyes of perpetrators.

But neither should the universal idea – every life is sacred and every individual deserves respect – detract from the more particular issue at hand. Every life is sacred and every individual is deserving of respect, but membership in particular groups can disproportionately impact on one’s experience with violence and discrimination. So, while we should be always conscious of the universal, we should likewise militate against the particular bigotries and prejudices that lead to disproportionate victimization of identifiable groups. In Canada and around the world right now, humankind could benefit from more emphasis on both the universal and the particular.

Jewish groups’ M-103 advice

Left to right, MP David Sweet, MP Michael Levitt, CIJA chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel, MP Scott Reid and MP David Anderson pose for a photo during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hearings on M-103 on Oct. 18. (photo from CIJA)

Jewish groups were in Ottawa on Oct. 18 to testify in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which will make policy recommendations on M-103, a motion that condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Leaders of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and B’nai Brith Canada drew on the Jewish community’s experience with fighting antisemitism in their recommendations on how to maximize the motion’s efficacy.

In his testimony, CIJA chief executive officer Shimon Koffler Fogel pointed to statistics that showed Jews are the most targeted religious minority in the country.

“Nationally, there were 54 hate crimes targeting Jews per 100,000 individuals in 2015. While this number is relatively consistent with previous years, there was an increase in hate incidents targeting other minority communities, including the Muslim community. In fact, Muslims were the next most targeted group, with 15 incidents per 100,000 individuals,” Fogel said. “I mention these numbers not to showcase Jewish victimhood, but rather to demonstrate the very real experience our community has in grappling with the issues this committee is studying.”

B’nai Brith Canada chief executive officer Michael Mostyn recommended that the motion be constructed so that it will be “embraced broadly by all Canadians” and by “communities that are the targets of racism and discrimination, including Canadian Jews, who continue to be the target of antisemitism.”

Mostyn said the bill must not diminish “the threat to Canadians of all faith communities who face racism and religious discrimination and it must not suggest that one form of racism or religious discrimination is more threatening, or of greater priority, than another.”

Among Fogel’s recommendations was that the committee work to improve on the collection and publication of hate crime data, as it currently varies widely by police department.

He said statistics from the Greater Toronto Area – including Peel Region, Toronto and York Region – are readily available, “but even with these three neighbouring jurisdictions, each report provides different information, making direct comparisons sometimes difficult.”

He added that there are cities, such as Montreal, that don’t release data about which identifiable groups are being targeted, leaving policymakers with incomplete information.

Fogel said it’s important to properly define hate, as we “can’t effectively fight bigotry and hatred without precisely defining it. 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.”

Fogel used the Islamic Heritage Month Guidebook, which was issued by the Toronto District School Board earlier this month and contains a definition of Islamophobia that includes “dislike toward Islamic politics or culture,” as an example.

“Muslims can be protected from hate without restricting critique of Islamist political ideologies,” Fogel said.

Mostyn agreed that the committee should “exercise great care in any definition of Islamophobia” because, if the definition is vague or imprecise, it can be “hijacked and only inflame tensions between and among faith communities in Canada.”

Mostyn said an imbalance can create “the impression that Canadian Muslims are the only victims of hate crimes. We are just as concerned with the source of hate crimes targeting Canadian Jews from within radical elements of the Muslim community.”

Fogel also recommended that greater and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is needed. “Recently, the attorney general of Quebec decided not to lay charges in a case of an imam in Montreal who had called for the murder of Jews. Quebec’s attorney general also declined to pursue a second charge of genocide promotion. This decision sent a message that someone can call for the death of an entire group of people without consequence,” he said, adding that the federal government should train police and prosecutors to better enforce the existing Criminal Code hate speech provisions and provide resources for the development of more local hate crime units.

In his testimony, David Matas, B’nai Brith Canada’s senior legal counsel, argued that some fear of radical Islam is rational.

“Adherents to some components of Islam preach hatred and terrorism, incite to hatred and terrorism and engage in hate-motivated acts and terrorist crimes,” Matas said. “What the committee, we suggest, can usefully do is propose criteria, with illustrative examples, which can guide those directly involved in the combat against the threat and acts of hatred and terror coming from Islamic radicals.”

Matas called on the committee to “focus both on those victimized by Islamophobia and on the incitement and acts of hatred and terrorism, which come from within elements of the Islamic community.”

In his remarks, Fogel also referred to the passing of Bill C-305 – a private member’s bill that would expand penalties for hate crimes against schools and community centres associated with identifiable groups – which had its third reading on Oct. 18.

“CIJA has long advocated for the changes contained in Bill C-305,” Fogel said. “C-305 is a clear example of how elected officials can work together, in a non-partisan spirit, to make a practical difference in protecting vulnerable minorities.”

CIJA chair David Cape said, “CIJA remains grateful for the tireless efforts of MP Chandra Arya, who has committed his time and energy to strengthening hate crime protections. As we celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary, we’re reminded that the safety of at-risk communities is essential for a healthy, vibrant country. Criminals who target Jews or other minorities don’t distinguish between houses of worship, community centres and schools – neither should the law.”

– For more national Jewish news, visit cjnews.com

More crucial issues at hand

Islamophobia and antisemitism have again reared their ugly heads this year, including with mosque burnings and desecrations of Jewish cemeteries in the United States. In response to the attacks on the St. Louis cemetery, Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour helped launch a crowdfunding campaign to help rebuild. A few days out from its March 20 closing, launchgood.com had raised more than $160,000 – its goal was $20,000.

Sadly, some in the Jewish community – in both the United States and Canada – have sought to discredit Sarsour and her gesture of solidarity. I have seen accusations of Sarsour being an antisemite and of supporting Hamas, so I’ve been spending time trying to dig up the proof. But no one who levies these charges seems to be able to produce a shred of evidence.

Here’s what I did see: a two-minute video circulating in the right-wing blogosphere, which is meant to incriminate Sarsour. But there was nothing incriminating in the video. Sarsour even mentions Israel’s “right to exist,” something that landed her in hot water, ironically, with some in the Palestine solidarity movement. As Haaretz reported, she has actively told her followers to avoid using antisemitic language when criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza, calling that kind of discourse “unacceptable.”

She is accused of shilling for Sharia law. I have seen her make tongue-in-cheek remarks about Sharia, pining for better maternity leave in America and forgiven credit card debt. It seems right-wingers could use a sharper irony sensor.

Finally, I have seen a photo showing her posing in a group with someone who apparently had ties to Hamas. She herself has denied Hamas ties. It’s tough to accuse someone of supporting a group when she denies all links. She doesn’t sound like a very loyal or helpful supporter to me.

Now, she is certainly no Zionist. In 2012, she tweeted, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She supports BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction of Israel) and a one-state solution. If that’s the full and entire body of actual evidence linking Sarsour to the unsavoury views of which she’s accused, then we need to focus on that alone.

Is it beyond the pale to oppose Zionism? And is BDS antisemitic? According to the U.S. State Department’s definition of antisemitism – which relies on the “3 Ds” definition: demonization, delegitimization and double standards when it comes to Israel – one could argue that, in its opposition to Zionism (which, in its current manifestation, precludes Palestinian refugee return), it is. The trouble is, the 3 Ds definition of antisemitism is hugely problematic. It implies that opposing a particular ideology – even one that strains under its own weight to maintain ethnic privilege within a democratic framework – means that one is promulgating hatred of Jews. The logic just doesn’t hold up.

So, without actual evidence for Sarsour’s so-called antisemitism, I smell a toxic brew of Islamophobia and misogyny. A strong, vocal Muslim-American woman with a Brooklyn accent who stands at the podium of the half-a-million-strong Women’s March on Washington (which she co-chaired) and mentions that she’s her occupied-territories-residing grandmother’s “wildest dream” might just be a bit much for those who think Muslims deserve to be taken down a notch or that Palestinians living under occupation are not deserving of basic rights.

If that’s what it is – Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian prejudice – then I wish they would just say so. It would give me more time to devote to other matters rather than asking for evidence where none exists.

Speaking of antisemitism, we should be asking why President Donald Trump took so long to condemn recent antisemitic incidents, humiliated a Jewish reporter who politely challenged him on this, and appointed a top advisor – Steve Bannon – who is linked to trafficking in antisemitism and other forms of racism. And we must ask why the forces of antisemitism and Islamophobia have been so rapidly unleashed. We must stand together against all forms of antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, as Sarsour would have us do.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. A version of this article was originally published by CJN.

We must be united

More than 100 headstones were vandalized at the Chesed Shel Emeth Society cemetery in University City, Missouri. (screenshot from cbc.ca video )

We do not need to delineate the full roster of antisemitic incidents that have made the news recently. Toppled headstones, bomb threats against Jewish institutions, spray-painted swastikas, defaced mezuzot, hate messages left on doors, physical assaults in France.

On the one hand, there is a necessity to catalogue and condemn each and every incident – and police and Jewish community organizations are doing this. On the other hand, for the sake of our own individual and collective sense of security and peace of mind, we must try to assimilate these incidents into some sort of coherent narrative that, hopefully, does not lead to panic.

For the sort of individual who would desecrate a cemetery after dark, there could be a perverse thrill in making global news for what may have been little more than a drunken act on a Saturday night. The fact is that these acts – in North America certainly – are perpetrated by a tiny number of individuals. A somewhat larger number of dedicated antisemites will take cruel pleasure in the grief and fear these acts instil in Jewish communities and individuals.

The most important thing is how the great majority of people react to such incidents. It is deeply heartening to see Muslim communities uniting with Jewish communities to make right as many of the toppled gravestones as possible in St. Louis and Philadelphia. This is a model of unity in the face of hatred.

It is also necessary for the broader public – those neither Jewish nor Muslim or having membership in other targeted groups – to express their outrage and opposition to such expressions.

The situations in which Jewish and Muslim Americans find themselves are different. Muslims are being specifically targeted not only by racist individuals and groups, but by agencies of the state. This is a particularly frightening scenario. Jews are being targeted by apparently random acts of desecration and hatred. This is frightening in a somewhat different way, in that government actions, ideally, are subject to the checks and balances set out in the U.S. Constitution and we hope that those safeguards survive and thrive in this era.

Imagine deplaning after a domestic flight in the United States and being met by security officials demanding to know “Are you a Jew?” This is an immensely chilling prospect. And this is precisely what some Muslim travelers have experienced in recent days: officials of the state demanding identification papers and inquiring as to whether travelers are Muslim. Additionally alarming is the fact that many people would probably never have heard about these incidents had one of those who experienced it not been Muhammad Ali Jr. Thank goodness, at least in this context, for America’s celebrity culture.

While there have been innumerable antisemitic incidents in recent years, those who are not immersed in such news are often only dimly aware of the frequency and increasing severity of these events. When a Jewish friend posts news of a new attack on social media, you will thankfully see condemnation from Jewish and non-Jewish friends alike. But you are as likely to see shock and disbelief.

More important than what Martin Luther King Jr. called the strident clamour of the bad people, in times like these, is the appalling silence of the good people. Part of this is caused by the refraction of media and the isolated silos of information in which we have surrounded ourselves, so that we do not encounter ideas or news from outside our respective bubbles. There are many people who simply do not yet know the extent of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim incidents taking place.

Those who do know are elected officials in positions of power. It is heartening to see Canadian leaders and many in the United States Congress expressing solidarity with the victims and condemning the perpetrators. U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence has been at the frontline of showing solidarity with targeted Jewish communities, at least. Getting appropriate remarks out of President Donald Trump has been troublingly difficult.

We may not be able to pre-empt the actions of individuals who are driven to topple gravestones or call in bomb threats. But the finest antidote to such incidents is for ordinary people to come together in condemning these acts and speaking out in favour of the values of respect and inclusiveness. As a targeted community, Jewish Canadians and Americans have a unique role in both making others aware of what is happening and showing our Muslim friends and fellow citizens that we stand with them, as they are standing with us in communities where desecrations have taken place.

Acknowledging – and demonstrating – that we are all in this together is our best hope for thriving in these times.

These times call for solidarity

When a multicultural country like Canada faces a stark rise in hatred targeting one ethnic group, its social and ethical solidarity is put to the test. The question for Canada’s Jewish establishment is, how will it respond to the shocking spike in hatred targeting the Muslim community?

On the heels of the Quebec City mosque shooting, which left six worshippers dead, and then a hate-filled protest outside of a Toronto mosque, a private member’s motion to condemn Islamophobia was introduced in Parliament. Regrettably, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is opposing the motion, at least in its current form.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid introduced the non-binding motion (M-103) urging the government to “better reflect” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by “quell[ing] the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” while “condemn[ing] Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Her motion also asks Parliament to convene a study to address these issues and “to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities.”

As the motion – intended to express the will of Parliament but falling short of having any legal force – acknowledges, there are already Charter provisions for opposing racism and discrimination. And Section 319 of the Criminal Code already outlaws “communicating statements in any public place, incit[ing] hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” But, sometimes, the law is not enough to signal collective revulsion.

The demonstrators outside the downtown Toronto mosque held signs such as “Ban Islam” and “Muslims are terrorists.” Interviewed on camera, one of the protesters makes the following chilling observation: “They [she presumably means Muslims] start out friendly and, before you know it, they grow so much in population that they take over.” The interviewer challenges her: “This is sounding a lot like what people said about Jews at one time,” to which the protester replies: “There’s no comparison. Jews were not evil.”

For its part, CIJA calls M-103 “flawed.” As CIJA head Shimon Koffler Fogel writes, the motion “requires us to silence legitimate concerns or suppress a public conversation about those strains of Islam that pose a real and imminent threat to Jews around the world,” adding that the motion “denies space and opportunity within the Muslim community to confront those strains of Islam that do indeed exist and do indeed cause harm to the majority of Muslims who do not subscribe to an extremist ideology.” For these reasons, CIJA is urging lawmakers to oppose it.

It’s not the first time a private member’s motion has been introduced to focus Canada’s attention on a specific form of hatred. In 2015, Conservative MP James Bezan asked “all members [of Parliament] and all Canadians [to] join me in denouncing antisemitism.” In 2015, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler asked the “House [to] condemn the alarming development of a new antisemitism….” And then, of course, there’s the 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism, which convened parliamentary representatives from an array of countries to call out antisemitism.

CIJA director of communications Martin Sampson shared with me the amended text of the motion CIJA proposed to Khaled, including trying to add a clause that would “recognize that criticism and condemnation of any and all forms of extremism is not only acceptable but necessary in a free and democratic society; and tasking the proposed study to define ‘Islamophobia in Canada.’”

Bernie Farber, former head of Canadian Jewish Congress and now head of the Toronto-based Mosaic Institute, a diversity, peace and justice organization, said he is “baffled and stunned” by CIJA’s opposition to the motion.

Is the lack of explicit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of criticizing religion a problem, as CIJA is suggesting? No. Parliamentary motions have no legislative force. The existing Criminal Code – including laws governing freedom of expression – will remain unaffected. Fogel’s claim that the motion will silence criticism by force of law is simply wrong. It may serve to dampen enthusiasm for the kind of hateful anti-Muslim demonstrations we saw in Toronto, but that is the point.

Or perhaps the vagueness of the term Islamophobia is a problem. Sampson calls the word “politically charged and imprecise.” Cotler, for instance, is suggesting that M-103 be amended to say “anti-Muslim bigotry.”

But, like homophobia, Islamophobia is simply the term that exists to denote this form of bigotry. When I asked historian of language Liora Halperin why the term got saddled with the more clinical “phobia” suffix instead of acquiring the more straightforward “anti” prefix, she acknowledges that phobias are psychiatric diagnoses, not ideologies. But, she adds, “in practice, fear is indeed part of racism.”

The term antisemitism – which, ironically, was coined by a German antisemite – captures the unique phenomenon of Jew hatred. Similarly, Farber argues, “hatred of Muslims needs its own specific word to get people to understand the importance of what this kind of hatred of Muslims can do. And we’ve seen it, sadly, right here in Canada.”

These times call for solidarity in the face of rising tides of antisemitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racism. In the wake of the mosque massacre and the hateful protests on Toronto’s usually peaceful streets, coupled with the shadow of U.S. President Donald Trump’s xenophobic policies, the time is now for Canadians to stand together against Islamophobia. That’s the word we have, that’s the member’s motion being proposed, and that’s the wave of hatred – one prominent wave among many, sadly – that we urgently need to address.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.

Condemning bigotry

A group of people gathered outside a Toronto mosque last Friday carrying signs reading “Ban Islam” and “Muslims are terrorists.”

The idea that a group of Canadians would stand outside a place of worship and call for an entire religion to be banned is an act so bigoted that it deserves universal condemnation. This was not, it needs to be noted, a protest against a particular statement, like that of an imam in Montreal who recently issued a call to “destroy the accursed Jews.” When clergy or places of worship enter the realm of hate speech, calling them out is legitimate. Standing outside a mosque demanding that Islam be “banned” is an affront to our country’s constitution and values.

Of course, among this country’s values and central to our constitution is free expression. There is the inevitable balance between free expression and expressions of hatred, a balance that courts are occasionally called upon to discern.

That balance is the subject of debate – some of it extremely unpleasant – as a result of a parliamentary motion, M-103, before the House of Commons this week.

Partly as a result of the horrific murder of six worshippers in a Quebec City-area mosque Jan. 29, Toronto Liberal MP Iqra Khalid made a motion to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear” and to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Some opponents, including Conservative MPs, have raised concerns that condemnation of “Islamophobia” could stifle legitimate conversations about Islam and the relationship between terrorism and extreme elements of the religion. Others, like National Post columnist Rex Murphy, take issue with the very term Islamophobia, which suggests fear, an emotion that may or may not be the primary concern here.

A similar issue we struggle with is the term “antisemitism,” which does not always seem to suit discrimination. Many prejudices about Jews are unconscious, therefore not necessarily consciously “anti”-anything. Moreover, many stereotypes about Jews involve “positive” attributes. But “All members of this group are awful” or “All members of this group are awesome” are simply flip sides of the same coin of prejudice.

In any event, these are the words that have come into common parlance and this is the nomenclature with which we are dealing. And the “debate” around this current motion is startlingly reminiscent of a similar debate over condemning antisemitism that took place two years ago almost to the day. Some expressed concern that criticism of Israel could become illegal, while others insisted singling out antisemitism was unnecessary, since we already have laws against the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. The stifling of criticism of Israel was nonsense, of course, as are fears that “creeping Sharia” or banning condemnation of Islamist terrorism will somehow become enshrined in law due to M-103. When a particular group in Canada experiences a surge in negative expressions toward them, it is right that elected officials note and condemn it.

It is wise to remember what M-103 is in the first place. It is a parliamentary motion that is more a statement of wishful thinking than of law. As such, it seems the perfect tool for a message against Islamophobia. We do not need to criminalize all manner of expression, even when it borders on hateful or discriminatory. But it is a fine thing indeed for our elected officials to express their opposition to it, as the elected voice of Canadians.

Of course, they do not speak for all Canadians. There are Canadians, like those who protested at the mosque last week, who are openly expressing anti-Muslim attitudes. They would presumably not support a motion that wishes such attitudes were not part of the national dialogue.

Likewise, the obscene and hateful messages, including death threats, received by some of M-103’s proponents contradicts the argument that anti-Muslim attitudes are not a significant force to address in Canada. A poll released this week suggesting that one in four Canadians would agree with a Trump-style travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries is another signal.

There can be no doubt that Islamophobia, or whatever we want to call it, is a problem of some proportion in Canada. We should call it out, as should our elected officials. The arguments against the motion should be particularly familiar to Jewish Canadians, who heard similar lines around condemning antisemitism. The vocal opposition to the very idea of condemning any particular form of bigotry should itself be evidence that Canadians and our elected officials should rise to the occasion.

Come together, right now

Canadians – and concerned citizens worldwide – are reeling from the horrific attack on a Quebec City mosque (the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec) on Jan. 29 that left six dead and others wounded. Amid the revulsion and grieving, here are some possible lessons.

We can’t ignore the Trump factor. While Islamophobia has long preceded U.S. President Donald Trump, by all indicators, Trump’s hatefulness – capped by his wide-reaching travel ban – has unleashed additional hatred against Muslims and other minorities.

Since the election, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has recorded more than 700 incidents of “hateful harassment” across the United States. Despite our ingrained public ethic of multiculturalism, Canada is clearly not immune.

Price-tag-style attacks might have come to Canada. What West Bank Palestinians are tragically used to, Canadians might be now experiencing as well. It is probably no coincidence that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped forward to declare his government’s intention to take in refugees barred by Trump’s executive order. But Trudeau’s welcoming pledge might also have unleashed more hatred in dark corners of Canada against anyone who can too easily be “othered.”

West Bank Palestinians are all too often the target of this kind of retribution. Whenever the Israeli government appears to retract support for the settlement enterprise – in the form of evacuations of illegal outposts, for example, violent settlers enact what they call “price-tag” attacks against Palestinian life, limb and property. These, too, of course, are terrorist attacks.

Some Israelis have created a counter movement – rather than price tag (tag mechir), they enact acts of kindness and solidarity (tag me’ir, light tag). The many Women’s Marches in Canadian cities countrywide to coincide with the Women’s Marches in the United States were an example of this approach. So was the vigil at Ottawa’s Parliament Hill the day after the murders, to stand in solidarity with the victims of the mosque attack. We will need many more moments of connection in the weeks and months to come.

Quebec has a fraught history with multiculturalism. Is it a coincidence that the attack occurred in Quebec rather than in a different province? Maybe. But just maybe this hateful violence stems from the province’s difficult relationship to multiculturalism. While Canada enshrined multiculturalism into law in 1971 – the first country to do so – Quebec’s history with multicultural policies, probably owing to the province’s concern with maintaining its own minority-language identity, is much more fraught.

In 2013, Quebec attempted to enact a failed Charter of Values (Charte de la laïcité), which sought to ban “conspicuous” religious symbols from being worn by public sector employees. A decade ago, the town of Hérouxville, also in Quebec, issued its own “code of conduct,” widely seen as a dig at immigrants.

Said one storeowner in 2013 interviewed for the Globe and Mail, “Immigrants are welcome to come to Quebec, but when they come, they have to adapt to our ways.”

Banning religious symbols – as the province had sought to do in 2013 – is not the same as murdering people in cold blood, of course. But this kind of flat intolerance against religious expression can all too easily become twisted in the mind of a hateful and violence-prone individual to commit the unthinkable.

It is terrorism. Despite the bigoted propensity by some to use the word terrorist to delegitimize and dehumanize certain ethnic or religious groups, this term does have a clear definition and we should use it when warranted, if only to make sure we keep using it correctly. Simply put, terrorism is violence for political ends.

An attack on a centre of worship is intended to instil fear in society around that target group – the worst kind of collective dehumanization. This is politics of the ugliest and most hateful kind.

Misinformation unleashes further hatred. On the Monday morning after the attack, the media were reporting the names of two supposed suspects, one of whom was apparently of Moroccan origin. Some right-wing news outlets made hay from this, circulating the information even once the media clarified that he was apparently a witness, not a suspect. As of now, the sole suspect is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, who has since been charged with six counts of murder.

Come together, right now. In a statement following the attack, Trudeau said it is “heart-wrenching to see such senseless violence. Diversity is our strength and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear.”

While I hesitate to use the kinds of binaries that have arguably led the world to this point, I am tempted to say that the coming days and weeks will reveal two types of people on this continent: ones who are here to support one another against the forces of hatred, Islamophobia, antisemitism, misogyny and xenophobia; and ones who are aiding and abetting those terrible forces. Among those who stand on the side of goodness and compassion, the time is now for solidarity across every fissure.