Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2017

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

Okay. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Just to make this very pointed, then, let's say I have a criticism against Islam. That doesn't mean I'm.... Islamophobia doesn't curtail my rights to criticize one religion or another religion.

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

I engage in critical discourse about Islam all the time. That's part of my religion. It's part of my existence. Critiquing Islam is not the problem. Hating Islam is the problem.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Do you have any comments to add with regard to the prosecution piece about the incitement of hatred?

[Yavar Hameed]

Our position is that the fact that there is a criminal infrastructure is effective. The thrust of our position is that around those provisions, there is an adequate legislative infrastructure. We just need to understand more about where complaints are coming from and where incidents are arising. We think that data needs to be researched. It doesn't exist. So the focus of our comments is not around the threshold or around the issue of consent—

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Dan Vandal]

Thank you, Mr. Hameed.

We'll begin our second round with Scott Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Those were fascinating presentations. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Bhabha, I wonder if I could start with you. You indicated very early on in your remarks, and repeated, that you don't want to ban any form of speech. You went on and provided a definition of Islamophobia. While you cautioned us against seeking the perfect definition, you provided one that strikes me as being a good one for the purposes of trying to move forward—that is, a working definition—in the sense that having one definition to work with, perfect or imperfect, is simply a useful exercise. I just wanted to say that. Of the definitions I've heard so far, in this and other meetings, it's the one that strikes me as being the best.

You also mentioned the Supreme Court. Of course, you quoted correctly from the Whatcott decision that it's unacceptable to cite biblical verses that call for the stoning of homosexuals. I have to ask this question. My understanding is that one would find similar passages in either the Quran or the Hadith. Would it also be appropriate for the courts to say that this limit ought to be placed on those passages as well, or on the use of those passages in a manner similar to what Mr. Whatcott had done?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

It's a question of jurisdiction, actually. For example, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would have permitted incursions on speech where that speech was hateful, was repealed in 2015 as a result of political pressure. That was as a result of many Canadians getting together, speaking loudly, and pressuring legislators to do something they wanted them to do.

If there is a law that applies to speech, and if there's an analogous case similar to the Whatcott case, dealing with other scripture, I would expect the same principles to be applied.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That seems reasonable to you?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

Of course.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to ask that question. Thank you. That's very helpful to me.

You said this a bit later on: “Critiquing Islam is not the problem. Hating Islam is the problem.” That's a direct quote. I wonder if what you meant to say was that hating Muslims is the problem.

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

It's an interesting distinction, because I think the distinction between Islam and Muslims is a factual distinction, but I think it has also become a political distinction, used at times for motives that I would characterize as hateful or discriminatory. One can set up the thing to attack an abstract entity like Islam, but the problem is the way Islam is defined when it's being set up for attack. It can be Islamophobic to critique Islam if you define Islam in such a way that it encompasses more than what you're actually critiquing.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I'm not sure you're saying this, and I want to be careful.

There are some people who believe that Islam is inherently a religion of violence. I believe they are incorrect about this; I'm a historian and I take my historical facts very seriously.

We all know of some examples that we can cite here. I have a book here by Christopher Hitchens, a notorious atheist whose book is called God Is Not Great. He condemns and ridicules Islam, Christianity, and Judaism—all of them. Also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks about Islam as being inherently a religion of violence. She has become an atheist, although she was born a Muslim.

Would you say that either of those two are acting or speaking in an Islamophobic manner? Also, in terms of that kind of speech—I could give examples, though I am reluctant to quote—should that be regarded as speech that ought to be prohibited by law?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

Right. Those are two very different questions.

Our society permits me, if I wanted to, to take the position and to articulate the position that those two are Islamophobes—if I wanted to, and I don't necessarily. There are people who've done that.

I met Christopher Hitchens. He's a very kind man, and he worked very closely with many Muslims and with some Muslims I know. Whether that should translate into legally actionable sanctions is a totally separate issue. I can exist in the world and believe and espouse the view that they're Islamophobes. They can respond that they're not, and they can have their allies. That's what free speech is all about.

I would not have any ability to convert my belief that what they're saying is Islamophobic into some sort of a state sanction, and I would suspect that any speech that didn't cross the line into hate speech would be protected by the Constitution. I would expect the state to protect that speech. I could attack those individuals with my own opinions. That's what free speech is all about. I don't need to respect their rights by granting that what they say is true. I can dispute it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I agree with you a hundred per cent.

By the way, that's why I put my preamble in there. I do not actually agree with either of them on this point. I wanted to ask the question because it is, I think, the nub of things. There are people who are afraid that where this committee is going is that it will make a recommendation to the government that we ought to put greater restrictions on speech, including the critique of religions, and that this will then be acted upon by the government. Now, they could be entirely wrong, but I think that expresses the problem you were addressing in your remarks.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 18, says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others...to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

For many people—this includes Muslims and it also includes Christians and some others—this involves trying to get others to convert to your religion, which necessarily means saying that these other religions are either partly false or entirely false. Would it ever strike you as being speech that could be regarded as Islamophobic in the case of someone who's critiquing Islam because they believe you should convert from it to their faith?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

If somebody was trying to convert me to their faith, would I consider that Islamophobic? If they were telling me that what I believe is not true....

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

They are effectively telling you that your belief is not true, and they may say it's because it's the work of the devil. Who knows what they say?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

Right.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The question is, does that make them Islamophobic?

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

I don't see how that's in any way Islamophobic.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That is enormously helpful testimony. Thank you very much. I apologize to our other witnesses that I couldn't get to them, but you were the one who put the quote forward that provided this line of questioning. Thank you very much.

[Prof. Faisal Bhabha]

Thank you for your questions.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Dan Vandal]

Thank you.

The next round goes to Jenny Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

I want to explore this issue of under-reporting. As we know, a lot of incidents that occur are discriminatory incidents based on race, religion, and so on. I'm wondering if the panel has any suggestions on how we can better capture those lived experiences of discrimination that happen every single day in our communities.

I'll start with you, Mr. Hameed.

[Yavar Hameed]

One of our recommendations is that there needs to be more research done. That research can be done by the government. Civil society can be enlisted and researchers can go out to the communities. The problem in under-reporting is that people feel a certain apprehension in engaging, whether it's with systemic processes, complaint mechanisms, forms, or government officials.

Doing that research and having people go out and document in the communities—and there are ways that can be done—requires a sensitivity to the communities, and it requires going to the communities themselves.

Taking that research and bringing that research back to where policy is made is where we see an important gap and where there needs to be development.