Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 20th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to call to order meeting 72 of the Canadian heritage committee. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying systemic racism and religious discrimination.

We'll begin with our first set of witnesses. They are scheduled for one hour, from 3:30 to 4:30. Mr. Tarek Fatah is the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, and Michel Juneau-Katsuya is the president and chief executive officer of the Northgate Group.

Gentlemen, welcome. You have 10 minutes to present. I cannot allow you to go any longer than that. Then there will be a question and answer session during which the members will ask you questions.

I shall begin with Mr. Fatah for 10 minutes. Thank you.

[Tarek Fatah, Founder, Muslim Canadian Congress]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to talk about the issues facing us in the context of what is happening today and yesterday with regard to a Canadian city and a Canadian victim of terrorism and Islamophobia.

Yesterday at the United Nations, a Canadian refugee, Ensaf Haidar, whose husband has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia on charges of Islamophobia and punished with 10 years in prison and a thousand lashes, spoke out at the UNHCR. The Times of London, of course, deemed it fit to publish this story. The Canadian newspapers obviously thought it would be Islamophobic to print anything about a victim who has been accused and jailed for being Islamophobic.

The other issue is the ongoing Montreal trial of two young jihadi terrorists, and perhaps if I were one of the neighbours, I would feel quite uneasy about people saying that Islamophobia is groundless and is merely an irrational reaction to cater to the racist inner self of essentially most mainstream white Canadians.

Listening to Iqra Khalid on Monday, I couldn't help but note that there were two words around which the discussion was centred and around which the Islamist agenda will be pursued in Canada. One was the word “expert”. Invoking the word “expert” comes straight from the Islamist hymn book of the last century, dominated by such jihadis as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, and Syed Maududi of the Jamaat-e-Islami in India and later in Pakistan. These three gentlemen are the Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky of Islamofascism. Their followers are embedded in almost every urban university and school in North America, and were listed as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood by the FBI in the Texas terror trial a few years ago.

These orthodox jihadi fanatics claim that only experts—not historians, academics, authors, and certainly not women—could understand the religion of Islam or express an opinion on a controversial matter. Thus it is such experts who defend polygamy, FGM, child marriage, taking sex slaves, and praising armed jihad.

However, the crucial issue in front of you, or in front of Canadians—the essential problem in the room, as they say—is the word “Islamophobia”. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.” 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”. MP Iqra Khalid defines it as “an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam”.

Being a Muslim, I would say that they may all be correct, given certain circumstances, but 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. This is not the meaning; this is the connotation. Muslims who have formed an organization called, quote-unquote, “Muslims Against M103” believe that Canadian MPs are, if you'll pardon the expression, getting the wool pulled over their eyes. For example, in the Indian subcontinent, where close to half the world's Muslims live, and that's home to many Islamists who tried and failed to introduce sharia law in Ontario's family law system in 2005, 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 and Islamophobes, while the Pakistani Muslims were Islam pasand, or lovers of Islam.

We have seen this unfold in Darfur with the Janjaweed and in Syria with the oppressive dictatorship of Assad that was declared as an anit-Islamic by the dictators of Saudi Arabia who were considered friends of Islam. Half a million have died so far in the jihad against Islamophobes by Saudis and Qatari friends of Islam. We Muslims who oppose Islamists feel the label “Islamophobia” has been introduced to target us under the M-103 process. The primary purpose is to drown out our voices when we denounce polygamy, female genital mutilation, child marriage, honour killings, armed jihad, racial discrimination which is pervasive wherever Islamophobia is banned, and above all, the burqa, which has nothing to do with Islam but is one straightforward smack in the face of anything that feminists have struggled over for the last 200 years.

We who fled the Islamic world to escape the tyranny of falsely being called Islamophobes and make Canada home now find that enemies have hunted us down, as gullible and well-meaning non-Muslim MPs I would say get the wool pulled over their eyes.

The sad irony of the Islamists' claim of Islamophobia is they and other Muslims who mock Christians and Jews daily. When we read the opening words of the Quran that is the Surah Al-Fatiha five times a day, a minimum of 20 times a day, anyone who prays is mocking Christians and Jews. The same people are coming around to say that there is a lot of Islamophobia in Canada. Surah Al-Fatiha is the Muslim equivalent to the Lord's Prayer in Christianity, where we ask Allah to put us on the right path, not on the path of those who have incurred your wrath, the Jews, or those who have gone astray, the Christians.

If anyone is interested, I have two translations of the Quran with me, where I can produce it, because you will ask this question to the experts who will come here, who will deny flatly to your face that it exists. But it does. This is done every day, five times a day, in 500 mosques around this country. For the Hindus and the Sikhs and the atheists, if they think they got away and they are not cursed, every Friday congregation starts with a prayer that says “Oh, Allah, give victory to Muslims over the 'Qawm al-Kafirun'”, which is the Kufr, which is all of you.

My question for you, ladies and gentlemen, is this. Will the heritage committee declare that any religious prayer asking for Muslim victory over other religions is hateful and thus criminal? If Islamophobia is ever declared a criminal offence in Canada, all of you will have done the tremendous disservice to the 400-year heritage of our country, that of western civilization, which is rooted in the sacrifice back in the 16th century of Martin Luther who stood up against the papacy and its indulgences and ended up excommunicated. If you recognize the role of Martin Luther and the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment, then how on earth could you take away the right of Muslims to stand up to their own popes who masquerade as experts?

I hope you do realize if you include the words “denounce Islamophobia” in your final proposals, you will infringe on the inalienable right of a Muslim Canadian to critique our religion, which has been a rich tradition that has been stifled by mullahs, kings, and caliphs, by so far, murdering us, beheading us, and by invoking the laws to punish Islamophobia according to sharia-sanctioned beheadings as in the case of the Canadian woman who spoke yesterday at a United—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

One minute, you have one minute.

[Tarek Fatah]

Pardon? Yes.

Your recommendations should recognize the right of a Muslim to publicly challenge what is rotten in Islamdom and to fight authority in the tradition of Martin Luther and Erasmus and before them, like the 10th century Persian Muslim saint, Mansur Al-Hallaj who was beheaded in Baghdad on charges of Islamophobia by mullahs of that time. The day you criminalize Islamophobia, let me assure you, I will publicly defy that law, mock it, and happily be arrested [Inaudible—Editor] in the best traditions of my leader, Mahatma Gandhi.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Fatah.

Now we will go to Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, for 10 minutes please.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Northgate Group Corp.]

Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Distinguished members of the committee, my introduction will be mainly in French for the sake of functioning a little bit faster. As you can see, I have a sexy French accent. It will probably be a little faster this way.

I would like to take this opportunity today to talk specifically about one aspect of the topic under consideration: the rise of the right in Canada and the social damage it could cause to our society.

I acknowledge first of all that racism is not limited to one category of individuals. It has existed from time immemorial and the constant attention of civil society is needed to keep it in check. It has been present in nearly all cultures since the beginning of time. I condemn all forms of extremism, whether on the right, on the left, religious or ideological.

My comments today, however, will focus on the rise of the right which, to my mind and for very objective reasons, represents a greater threat than radical Islam, even though that threat has unfortunately already killed people and will continue to do so for some time.

The rise of the right is a greater threat because it creeps into the thoughts of our fellow citizens so much so that it distorts reality and eventually, over time, withstands dispassionate and measured debate. If left unchecked, this movement will take root so firmly that it will certainly take decades of constant efforts to stamp it out and return to a social climate that provides a safe environment for everyone. I would go even further: the rise of the right has already created victims and we are not far from seeing a form of domestic terrorism that is even worse than the one threatening us currently.

My research and professional experience have shown me that the extreme right, or the alternative right, as some people call it, is not uniform across Canada. There is a wide range of political actions and discourse across the country. I do not have the time to get into all the details, but let me say in general that the discourse of the English-speaking extreme right in western Canada is much closer to that of neo-Nazis and so-called conventional white supremacists than what we see in Quebec among the identity-based right. This can be attributed in part to language, since anglophones have much more contact with American neo-Nazi groups, and to the historical and cultural development of the groups in question.

In the 1990s, when I was still with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, my group and I were tasked with analyzing extreme right threats in Canada. We observed, among other things, the rise of the right in Europe. Specialized studies pointed to insecurity as a crucial factor contributing to the rise of the radical right. Insecurity is also a very important factor in my presentation. If not properly addressed by civilian leaders, this insecurity gives ardent supporters of the right a way to tap into all levels of society, especially the most vulnerable. In fact, the most vulnerable individuals are often people who feel insecure. The discourse of the right is often demagogic and riddled with lies that stir up insecurity and fear. The rise of populist discourse and the era of fake news and “alternative facts” have contributed a great deal to that insecurity taking root.

This is decisive for the future. The issue is identifying the predominant discourse that is accepted by the public. Right now, the picture is very sad. Since the alt-right discourse has not been neutralized by counter-discourse from our political leaders, it has taken root and become dangerous, precisely because some people now consider it socially tolerable if not acceptable. This becomes particularly dangerous when the insidious discourse that it conveys relies on fear-based arguments to make people believe that there is a legitimate purpose, namely, to protect their interests. That is the mask that the right cheerfully uses, despite there being no factual basis.

I deplore the current lack of leadership and concrete measures by our political leaders, from all parties and orders of government, to offer a counter-discourse to the allegations and outright lies perpetuated by agitators on the right.

While respecting the right to free speech, perhaps it is time to examine the degree of acceptability of the aberrations of certain opinion leaders or agitators. Canada's great tolerance has perhaps become our Achilles heel. We can count on the fingers of one hand the measures that prosecutors have taken to enforce the law when extremists have used extreme language. That extreme language is repeated in all kinds of public platforms, by political leaders or groups who, in a rather opportunistic way, use the situation to try to win a few votes and do not hesitate to provoke insecurity and indignation among certain citizens.

I will conclude by talking about the presence of these insidious messages in the public sphere. It has apparently become an simple way to express views, whether through social media or the more conventional media. I am talking about agitators of all kinds who, in the name of criticism and the right to spread their opinion, feed into discourse that fuels insecurity. It is especially deplorable and troubling that we are still dealing with this phenomenon, which is growing in the public sphere.

This phenomenon must be broadly denounced by companies, professional monitoring and accreditation associations, as well as members of the public and anyone on the Internet. We must also hold to account those who have more direct access to the public. It is generalized inaction that could have serious consequences right across the country. In spite of the denouncements, vicious, hateful and even false messages keep being repeated, and the public ends up believing them. Consider for example that the police now estimate that, in Quebec alone, there are between 50,000 and 55,000 people who belong to or support the identity-based right. There are more than 15 known groups that publicly assert that they are part of the identity-based right. One of these groups, which wants to acquire weapons and do military training, was recently denounced when it was reported on in the media. What objective do these people have? That is the question.

The day after the killings in Quebec City on January 29, 2017, the director of the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence clearly stated in an interview on the TVA network that their offices in Montreal had received over 600 calls in the previous nine months, that 20% of them were from the greater Quebec City area, and that they were almost all related to problems involving the extreme right.

Do we need more statistics or another killing before we take action?

In short, our society has for too many years been troubled by various major issues. Finding scapegoats is convenient and almost instinctive when there is widespread insecurity. History has taught us lessons about the danger of the rise of all forms of extremism. Let us review these lessons because history has unfortunately started to repeat itself and time is starting to run out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That was two minutes short of your time. Thank you so much.

Now we'll begin with the rounds of questions and answers. The first round is going to be a seven-minute segment.

I would like everybody to be as tight as they can in making their points and in responding.

We will begin with Mr. Darrell Samson from the Liberals for seven minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Both presentations were very interesting.

I would, of course, like to ask Mr. Juneau-Katsuya a few questions.

You have a tremendous amount of experience in this area so your presentation today was most informative. You talked about your past experience and your views, and shared your expertise, which is the most valuable. That is what I would like to know more about.

Based on your experience, can you tell us how you see the current climate in Quebec in this regard?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

It is very volatile and very dangerous. In Quebec, the climate is becoming increasingly acrimonious because the identity-based right has been able to gain a certain legitimacy. The ideas that are repeated and very cheerfully covered by the media readily reach the ears of the average person. I would even say that the problem begins when—and this has already happened—good and normal Canadians start to say that those people are not completely wrong and that they like what they are saying. There is a certain contamination now and an erosion of Canadians' values and spirit. We are unfortunately very close to the day when, in these identity-based groups, in Quebec in particular, certain more extreme and more fiery members will feel that things are not moving fast enough and will decide to take up arms or commit acts such as those committed at the mosque.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

If that is the situation now, what set all of this in motion? In the past 30, 40 or 50 years, something has been uprooted. Can you give us a quick description of the situation today?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

It is insecurity. As I touched on in my presentation, the element of insecurity is probably at the crux of the analysis.

For many years, Canada has welcomed immigrants. Canada has been very generous in welcoming many people. Unfortunately, certain critics of the role of immigrants and the impact of immigrants on Canadian society were not appropriate. Over time, this filled the public with resentment and made them unhappy.

After the events of September 11, 2001, fear became widespread and the media hammered away at a certain community, and I stress the words “a certain community”. Let us look at the facts.

If I asked you how many attacks or explosions radical Islam has perpetrated in Canada since September 11, 2001, the answer would be zero. If I rephrased the question, however, and asked how many explosions or bombings extremists have perpetrated since September 11, 2001, the answer would be more than thirty. In fact, four of those acts were in Quebec, one in Ontario, and the rest in Alberta or British Columbia. These acts were all committed by politically motivated extremists, whether they are anti-establishment, anti-G7, anti-G20, anti-Parti Québécois, anti-American or radical environmentalists.

Why are we not talking about radical environmentalists? Unfortunately, exaggerated media coverage has distorted reality to some extent, which the identity-based right capitalizes on in the way it does things.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you for your remarks.

Since I have one minute left, I will ask you another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's three minutes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Oh, okay.

You have clearly described the path it has taken, so now we can think of the next steps.

In your expert opinion, what steps or possible solutions should we consider to move in that direction?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

The first thing is the discourse of our political leaders. Regardless of their party or order of government, their discourse must be firm, reassuring, and supported by the facts. For too long, people have simply denounced the radicalization process. Why is it that it took a municipal government, the city of Montreal, to open the first and only de-radicalization centre that exists in Canada right now when we have been talking about this for more than a decade?

Secondly, the people who notice that a young person is becoming radicalized— whether it be right-wing, left-wing, religious or ideological radicalism—need resources. The police cannot help at that stage because their role is to conduct investigations in order to stop dangerous people and bring them to court. Similarly, the police are not social workers or psychologists. Parents, educators, teachers or friends who have noticed something must be able to consult specialists with the necessary knowledge. That could be via a toll-free phone line or at decentralized centres. Those specialists will be able to help and guide them and perhaps encourage them to go to the police.

These two elements must be considered. First, we need a counter-discourse to neutralize the right-wing discourse. Secondly, access is needed as soon as possible to people who can help us de-radicalize people who might be in the process of becoming radicalized.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 45 seconds. Did you wish to direct your question to anybody else?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

What can we do at the school level? Maybe we should look at developing a strategy for primary schools. The sooner the better, of course.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

I think the school programs should include exercises and work that help to bring people together.

What I'm going to say may leave me open to criticism. At this time, certain provinces have separated public schools from religious schools. For example, here in Ontario, there are Catholic school boards. Schools of this denomination tend to have a certain ethnic grouping, whereas public schools are multicultural.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Juneau-Katsuya. I'm so sorry.

We'll move now to the Conservatives. David Anderson, for seven minutes, please.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Chair, I'm going to share my time with Mr. Reid, so we will have a chance for a couple of us to ask questions here.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. Mr. Fatah, we started with one definition from our last witness and went to two definitions last meeting. We've gone to about four or five definitions now of Islamophobia, words used popularly. I'm wondering, as a committee, do we need to arrive at a concrete definition of this term or is that pretty much impossible? Is it something we should not be spending our time on?

[Tarek Fatah]

Well, it's impossible, because the moment you start to speak the truth, you will be called a racist. It's a dead end. You have to admit that a vast majority of this population are simply terrified at addressing any issue. Here I am telling you that 500 mosques 20 times a day are ridiculing Jews and Christians and those mullahs come in to tell you that there is Islamophobia. I dare anyone to come up and ask, not do anything, but ask that you take away the charitable status of a mosque in which hatred toward Jews and Christians is pervasive. If it comes to Hindus, you won't even know the language of what is uttered about the Buddhists or the Hindus. And atheists, my God. I'm astounded at what goes on. I have recorded things. I've gone to 50 mosques and I have everything on tape of what is said. Even when hatred toward non-Muslims comes up, in Quebec in many mosques, you know that. In Toronto, downtown mosques, organizations like ISNA and ICNA identify as fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood. We are no longer in the era of Ed Broadbent or Jean Chrétien, where people could say what they wanted to. We've descended into ethnic vote-bank politics.

You wondered how I got about 6,000 votes in Regent Park. How am I going to say four-year-old girls should be wrapped in cloth? The two gangs in Regent Park, the two murders that took place yesterday, one is the Halel gang and the other is the Klein gang. We have Somali female gangs in Ajax.

I'm saying our MPs are held back, and our MPPs as well.

We don't have a Fatima, who is not prepared anymore.

You cannot define it, because the word is a fraud.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On the other side of the equation, we have numerous attacks on faith communities across Canada. We've talked about this—

[Tarek Fatah]

Absolutely.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

—about these levels of attacks. What do you suggest? How do we address that?