Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 16th, 2017

[Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett]

I think government can be a facilitator. I'm always a bit skeptical when government wants to have national action plans and legislate things too much. This is something that is embedded within our society. Government can play a role in facilitating dialogue, bringing communities together, and opening up governments to ensure that those communities have a greater voice.

Thank God we live in a secular state. I would not want Canada to be allied with any particular religious community. However, we don't live in a secular society. We live in a society that is a rich patchwork of different religious traditions, different belief systems. If we want to continue to develop Canada and to grow as a country, to promote a common good, we need to have those voices present. I think government can play a role in bringing communities together, especially where there is ignorance and indifference and fear, to let them speak to one another and to have a frank and open dialogue.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

All right.

I'm going to stay with you for just one more second. Mr. Doobay referred to having a Hindu day and inviting everyone. Is that part of what you're talking about, that we would promote more education about different religions? Is that part of what you would see as a recommendation?

[Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett]

Again, I don't see government as playing that role. I think government should allow for communities to function at a very local level, but then also, as one of the previous witnesses said, within governments, which is your particular purview, to ensure that people of religious belief can express themselves. They don't necessarily need to park their beliefs in a little box by their door when they leave and go to the public service in the morning or come to Parliament.

I think there needs to be a greater honesty about the fact that we do have deeply religious people who operate in many different spheres in our country.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one and a half minutes, Julie.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Oh, dear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Actually, no; you have two minutes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That's better.

Ms. Hassan, you mentioned that there is discrimination. I'm wondering what your suggestions would be. When we're drafting our recommendations, what should we be thinking? What would be a concrete recommendation that you would like to see us put forward to try to respond to discrimination, specifically systemic discrimination?

[Farzana Hassan]

First of all, I don't believe systemic discrimination is huge or enormous in this country. There are Muslims who are working in security jobs, in airports as well—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Sorry, but if I may, when I was talking about that, I meant for all religious groups.

[Farzana Hassan]

I see.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Your answer can be that you don't believe there is systemic discrimination. I didn't mean to imply that this had to be the answer.

[Farzana Hassan]

As I said, I don't have issues with investigating the causes of so-called anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry. My main issue is with the term “Islamophobia”, which I've—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay. I understood that. You made that point quite clearly. I'm just trying to get to the point that if there is systemic discrimination, we're here to try to come up with some recommendations on how to respond to it.

I will give you an example. One thing we've been asked to look into is hate crimes by collecting data for hate crimes and looking into how we collect data for hate crimes. Is that something you think would be helpful?

[Farzana Hassan]

Yes. Absolutely. I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Ms. Hassan. I really hate to do this, but time is up. We do have a short amount of time for everybody to get in their seven minutes for questions. Maybe you can find a way to work it into one of your answers later on.

Next is Scott Reid, for the Conservatives. You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll start with a comment to Dr. Bennett, and then I'll ask Ms. Hassan a question.

Dr. Bennett, you mentioned that some people have deeply held religious beliefs that they can't park at the front door. I would submit to you that virtually every Canadian has deeply held beliefs. Some of them are people who are atheists. People who characterize themselves as agnostic actually have some kind of a deeply rooted, underlying set of beliefs.

I see you nodding, so I suspect you agree.

The point I'm really getting at here, and this is an editorial on my part, is that I think we all have these beliefs of some sort. Some of us are Christian, others Muslim, others atheist, and so on. The problem is when government starts to privilege one set of beliefs over another and says that your beliefs must be left at the door if you have this set and not that set. I'm not talking about the advocacy of violence, which some people purport is part of some deeply held set of beliefs; I'm talking about perfectly legal points of view that, if you have them, make you into some kind of deplorable.

That's just my editorial. I'm sorry; I should give you the right of reply, but I really want to go to Ms. Hassan.

People have been saying, as you heard earlier, that M-103 does not have legislative power. It's a motion, and that's true. However, it calls upon us to write a report to the government, advising them—we're supposed to study this—on how they can develop a whole-of-government approach to eliminating or reducing systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia. That implies that we may well be looking at some form of legislation and at recommending some form of legislation.

The nature of that wording makes it very hard for us as a committee to say that we're setting aside the word “Islamophobia” and instead focusing on what I would have preferred us to focus on, which is an approach to reducing or eliminating all forms of violence, systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination towards Muslims—and, coincidentally, towards Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, and others. Given the fact that we're almost certainly going to be pushed into a situation in which the majority on this committee will insist that we include the word “Islamophobia”, would it be satisfactory to define “Islamophobia” as I've just done—that is to say, violence or systemic racism, religious intolerance, or discrimination towards Muslims? Would that be a way of squaring the circle, as it were?

[Farzana Hassan]

I don't think that would be adequate at all, because that's not how the word is understood in the larger community. You would define it that way in Parliament, yes, but as you said, it's non-binding and there's no legislation at the moment. The way it is understood in many Islamic communities and across the world, it would still be a problematic word. Certainly our jurisdiction is here, but there are other jurisdictions where something like this can be seen in a very negative light and can have very negative ramifications.

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

I want to make sure I understand what you've said, because I might have misunderstood. It sounds as though you're saying that if we adopt this motion and if the government proceeds with legislation that involves the condemnation of Islamophobia even if we have a definition like the one I just used—which, by the way, is one that I am personally comfortable with, then other countries—I assume you mean some Muslim countries—will then say, “Aha! This means they have effectively approved some of the practices we have in terms of restrictions on...”. Is that what you mean?

[Farzana Hassan]

I mean that as well, but also within certain segments of the Islamic community here, 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 is, the way you've described it or the way you're going to define it, so there will be that whole nebulous area, those grey areas outside of the House of Commons or Parliament that people will be struggling with even outside.

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

I don't know if you were here during the first round of witnesses.

[Farzana Hassan]

I wasn't.

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

Okay. I posited that one of the dangers I'm worried about is a parallel to what's happened in France where Georges Bensoussan, who is a historian, was charged with hate crime for saying—and he did use intemperate language at the very least—that in France anti-Semitism is imbibed with the mother's milk in the Muslim community. For that, he was charged with a hate crime. He was acquitted. He's now being charged again on appeal.

This has had the effect of causing anybody who wants to express concerns about anti-Semitism within the Muslim community—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have two minutes.

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

—to be afraid to speak out. The danger that we will countenance one kind of hate speech by trying to silence another too vigorously is one that's on my mind.

Is that a danger, if we're not careful?