Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Your time is almost up. You have about 10 seconds.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Ten seconds.

The number of studies that have been done on discrimination faced by Chinese Canadians I think have led to a situation where an improved outcome has come to bear.

Would you agree with that in terms of government studies?

[Frank Huang]

I did not really think about that, or I do not have a lot of statistics to prove what you have just mentioned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

I thank the witnesses very much for coming today.

You are welcome to stick around to hear the next witnesses that we have.

If I could ask them to come forward now, we'll try to move quickly due to the limited time.

We have Ali Rizvi, author; and Mr. David Zackrias, head of diversity and race relations for the Ottawa Police Service.

Thank you very much.

We will first hear from Mr. Rizvi, who I understand is an author.

You have 10 minutes, starting now.

[Dr. Ali Rizvi, Author, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and respected members of Parliament, for inviting me here today to speak to the committee. I should start by saying that I from the riding that elected the honourable Iqra Khalid, who proposed Motion M-103 to Parliament. I voted Liberal, and specifically voted for Ms. Khalid.

While I am still aligned with the Liberal Party on most issues and would likely vote the same way again today, I do want to point out some areas of disagreement that I have regarding Motion M-103.

On the evening of January 29 this year, we were shocked by the news of a horrific terrorist attack on the Islamic cultural centre of Quebec City. Six Muslim worshippers were murdered in cold blood, and 19 others were injured. The suspect was a young student, now known to have had anti-Muslim views, who claimed to have been inspired by far right nationalism and leaders like Marine Le Pen. This terrorist attack, as of today, has a higher death count than any of the Islamic terrorist attacks that have ever taken place in Canada. For Motion M-103 to have been passed in the aftermath of the Quebec City attack is understandable, with well-placed intentions.

I am part of a Muslim family, and I grew up in several Muslim-majority countries, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, before immigrating to Canada in my twenties. Even though I am an atheist, I still get called “jihadist” and “dirty Muslim” online, and I'm frequently told to go back to my country. In the past few years, anti-Muslim sentiment has risen dramatically. Why?

First, people around the world following current events have seen on their TV screens numerous attacks in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, London, New York, San Bernardino, Ottawa, Edmonton, and more, perpetrated by men yelling, “allahu akbar”, and in most cases, pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, which uses a particularly literal and severe interpretation of Islamic scripture to justify its actions.

Second, many far right, and sadly, even mainstream right politicians around the world have exploited the resulting concerns and fears that many westerners have to drum up anti-Muslim sentiment even more. This has manifested itself in several ways, from the harassment of women who wear the head scarf, or the hijab, to the targeting of Sikhs just because a number of them wear beards and turbans, and at it's deadliest, of course, the attack in Quebec City.

In light of all this, having a motion like M-103 makes sense, but then, why is it so controversial? Why doesn't it have more support from the opposition? This is what I want to talk to you about today. I want to show you how one small tweak to the motion would retain 100% of its meaning and objectives, while also garnering much more support from those critics who are resisting it today.

I just told you about the anti-Muslim hate I have experienced because of my name, my Muslim family, and my country of birth, but there is a flip side. As an atheist, as someone who decided, much like a lapsed Catholic or secular Jew, to align with reason and science and shun supernatural claims and ancient texts like many of the western enlightenment thinkers did, I am an apostate of Islam. For every tweet from a white nationalist telling me, “Go back to where you came from, you dirty terrorist”, I also receive messages from religious people in those countries that I come from, telling me what they will do to me, my wife, and my child in unspeakable terms if I so much as set foot in Pakistan again. Why? Because I left Islam. I am an apostate. Unfortunately, I know that they are serious.

Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, is imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, charged with—quote, unquote—“insulting Islam” simply for blogging about separating mosque and state. A string of Bangladeshi secular bloggers have been hacked to death in broad daylight. Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, is sitting in jail in Pakistan for committing blasphemy against Islam. Mashal Khan was beaten to death by a mob of fellow students on his university campus in Peshawar, Pakistan, earlier this year for questioning religion.

The people who threatened me are true to their word. It's very real. This is the no man's land I find myself in: Islamic fundamentalism on the one hand and anti-Muslim bigotry on the other. I get it from both sides. It is from this perspective that I want to present to you the difference between challenging ideas and demonizing people. This does not need to be a partisan issue. In certain leftist circles, any criticism of Islamic doctrine is seen as bigotry against all Muslims. In certain right-leaning circles the problematic aspects of Islamic doctrine are used as an excuse to blanketly demonize, profile, and even ban Muslims, as we've seen proposed south of the border.

Both sides make the mistake of conflating Islam with Muslims. Islam, like any other religion, is a set of ideas in a book. Muslims, on the other hand, are human beings. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Ideas, books, and beliefs don't and aren't. The right to believe what we want is sacred; the beliefs themselves aren't. Challenging ideas move societies forward; demonizing people rips societies apart. Neither side makes this crucial, key distinction. The word “Islamophobia” is an umbrella term that also conflates legitimate criticism of Islam—as is being done by many of my fellow liberals and secular activists trying to change our societies in the Muslim world—with the demonization of Muslims, which is obviously wrong. Remember, we don't use terms like “Judaismophobia”. We say, “anti-Semitism”, a term oriented around prejudice against people, not ideas. Demonizing people goes against our liberal values, but criticizing dogmatic ideas and beliefs is at the very heart of free speech, also one of our fundamental values. Criticizing Islam isn't bigotry, but singling it out for protection is and demonizing Muslims as people is. We should be wary of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, who have popularized the term “Islamophobia” for a very clever reason. It allows them to exploit the pain of real victims of anti-Muslim hate for the political purpose of stifling criticism of religion.

Here is my proposal regarding M-103. If the motion simply uses the term “anti-Muslim bigotry” instead of “Islamophobia”, I would back it 100%, as would many conservatives I've spoken to. It would strip its critics of their main argument. You may argue, why make such a big deal about semantics? I would ask the same question to my audience today. If this term is preventing opposition members and critics from backing the motion, and if we truly care about the goals and purpose of this motion to help curb anti-Muslim bigotry, why not call it anti-Muslim bigotry or anti-Muslim hate or anti-Muslim sentiment? It does exactly the same thing and it doesn't take away an iota of the meaning of the motion and what we want to achieve. Yet, it also removes the barriers preventing its critics from backing it. If we liberals care about the substance of this motion over semantics we lose nothing and gain everything from making this one small change.

We are all beneficiaries of the great thinkers of the enlightenment. Today there is an enlightenment taking root in the Muslim world. We're seeing it happen all around us. Our goals should be to welcome and encourage these changes, the free exchange of ideas, both there and here, while still protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian Muslims. We can do both.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Thank you very much.

Now for 10 minutes we have David Zackrias, head, diversity and race relations, Ottawa Police Service.

[Staff Sergeant David Zackrias, Head, Diversity and Race Relations, Ottawa Police Service]

Honourable members of the standing committee, I sit before you today as a proud member of the Ottawa Police Service, but also as a visible minority. I sit before you as a father with three sons, and I'm honoured that you called me today to talk about the crucial subject of systemic racism and religious discrimination. In all these capacities, I want to see systemic racism and discriminatory barriers removed.

During my time as a staff sergeant with the Ottawa Police Service diversity and race relations section, I've personally heard from vulnerable people who were subjected to racism and discrimination based on their religion. It must end.

In November 2015, a white Caucasian woman who is a vice-principal in our local public school was viciously targeted. She woke up one morning to find numerous dog feces samples piled on her doorstep, along with the words “Go home” smeared on the sidewalk. Her only crime? She wears a hijab. In that year, we had more reports of hate crime incidents against Muslim women. The percentage doubled from the previous year, from 2014 to 2015. I've seen the fear in the eyes of the community members when attacks happen in a remote part of the world in the name of Islam, and how scared Muslims become that they will be part of the next Quebec shooting. I've heard mothers tell me that they look over their shoulder in parking lots, afraid they might be mowed down in daylight.

In November 2016, three religious sites were targeted with vandalism in Ottawa: a mosque, a synagogue, and a church with a black pastor. The offender was just 17 years old, and he pleaded guilty to inciting hatred.

In the same month, a local rabbi's personal home was pasted with hate graffiti. We have to ask ourselves how it is that despite the Holocaust, one of the biggest tragedies of our time, the Jewish community still continues to be targeted by hatred. How are we allowing this to happen in our communities?

Members of the committee, as a visible minority myself, I've witnessed a woman being accidentally run over by a taxicab early one morning. In the aftermath, I did what any police officer would do. I tried to help the victim involved and tried to take control of the scene, but in the absence of my uniform, I almost felt powerless. Bystanders didn't co-operate. They were rude and angry toward me. I firmly believe that my skin colour reduced my chances of being taken seriously and that my uniform gives me a privilege.

In closing, I can say that all of us, including police officers, have biases, and that has been proven through science. Sometimes, unwittingly, those biases translate into racism. When my dear colleague Chris Hrnchiar made comments about Inuit artist Annie Pootoogook, his comments caused immense pain. As a board member for the Ottawa Inuit Children's Centre, I saw first-hand the trauma that the Inuit community felt because of his comments. Working with the community and Chris, it was also an opportunity for immense healing and reconciliation. Chris is an amazing individual, but he made a mistake. He was very open to understanding and learning. I commend him, and I'm proud to work with him.

Your task as a committee will now be to understand what we can all do to help all Canadians be open to changing and addressing their own biases.

I am calling on you to support public awareness campaigns that are community-led, working hand in hand with law enforcement. We all have a stake in this fight to eradicate discrimination. More support is needed for initiatives that help recognize biases. Organizations like Ottawa Victim Services are charities that need support. They should receive consistent government funding to help them continue the work they are doing to support victims of crime. Legislation is needed that requires all law enforcement agencies to annually report hate crimes and trends and associated risks.

In order to address these issues, we need to diagnose what the problem is. This is a collective responsibility, and I am honoured to wear my uniform and my skin colour with pride in the hope that Canada will be free of racism and religious discrimination, a place of inclusion where my children don't experience hate. At this point in time in human evolution on the globe, it is time to recognize that diversity and building relationships is a strength we need to develop for creating a strong and peaceful future.

Honourable members of the committee, it is my hope that Canada will be seen as a peacemaker once again. Furthermore, it's my hope that law enforcement will focus on community policing. Through my work at diversity and race relations, I've had a chance to really work hand in hand with the community. Their stories are very powerful and their lived experiences important for us to know.

Thank you for providing me a platform and voice to the community of our diverse nation. We are stronger and better when we listen to each other, understand one another, and work together.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me today. I welcome questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Thank you very much.

We will now go into the question rounds.

The first is from the Liberals. You have seven minutes for all the questions and answers.

Ms. Dzerowicz is beginning.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and a huge thanks to both of our presenters this hour.

I have only seven minutes and lots of questions. I will start off with a series of questions for you Staff Sergeant Zackrias.

We've actually been meeting on this topic for quite a while, so we have received a number of recommendations. A lot of them have to do with police department training and definitions of hate crime. I want to bounce them off you to get a bit more information and some thoughts about what you think might be helpful to us.

One key thing that has been mentioned to us is that the collection and publication of hate crime and hate incidents data vary widely by police department, so we were encouraged to try to have one way of both defining hate and collecting the data so that there could be a comparison of apples to apples. Do you agree with that recommendation? Do you find that would be helpful?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

Absolutely. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there needs to be legislation from the federal level in terms of collecting hate incidents data and reporting and feeding it back, as well as a standardized definition.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

When we're talking about defining hate, from your perspective, what do you think needs to be clear? Is it that everybody's different elements are considered hate? Is it that there are different definitions that are not very clear? Can you be a bit more specific around what needs to be clarified within the definition of hate?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

I would defer this question to the academics, but from my standpoint, people get a bit confused in terms of the definition of hate and freedom of speech, so we need to clearly distinguish how you apply free speech to hate.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I don't want it to seem I am leading the witness, but if someone is wearing a hijab and someone makes a hateful comment, some people would say they're just being mean and awful. Would you define that as hate? Should that be part of the hate definition? I think some people would say they don't think that's within the law right now. We're actually defining graffiti on the walls of a synagogue or church as a hate crime. Do you think that needs to be clarified, or do you think that's fairly clear in the law today?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

There needs to be more clarification. Within the hate component, there needs to be other elements to prove that it's a hate crime. Having graffiti itself on its own won't stand in court.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

One of the other things we did here, as a recommendation, is to establish a national training program for police and prosectors to educate them about the dangers of hate crime and encourage them to enforce the existing Criminal Code on hate speech.

How much training do you think exists right now? Do you think that also needs to be bolstered and enforced? Do you have any specific areas that you think we need to focus on in terms of training?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

For us here, the Ontario Police College provides hate crime training for all their recruits. Once the recruits are serving with us, once they're done their recruit training, my section provides hate crime training as well. That being said, I would like to see standardized training, that we put more investment into the resources and the content, so it's based on the national trend in Canada. We can apply that to our training.

Some of our training, from my perspective, I find is outdated. We need new literature based on what the needs are today.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It sounds like it needs to be sort of refreshed as often as things are evolving within our country.

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

Yes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

In some of your recommendations, you talked about working with the community, community-led public campaigns. I think there are already quite a few initiatives between the police and different communities.

Are there specific areas that you think need to be strengthened in terms of the police relationship with different community groups? Is it that you form relationships with the religious groups, go into schools? Is it that it needs to me much broader than it is now, or do you think it's at about the right level at the moment?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

We could always do more with building that relationship.

Addressing hate crimes is a shared responsibility. We need to work with the community. The police alone can't fix this issue. The police can't take a leadership role in terms of guiding the community. It has to be led by the community and tailored by the community.

Yes, I could see more community engagement, community-led initiatives. That also requires a support for the community. There are financial implications. This is where a lot of communities fall short. I can see the police supporting these initiatives, but it has to be led by our community members.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

One of the things we heard from community groups is that if they're going to work with police, there has to be a level of trust. To what extent is that a conversation within the police force? I think often people think we need to see a police force that reflects and understands the different communities out there.

Is that a conversation that happens within the police force now? Is there something we could do at the national level that would help encourage that because that would help build some trust?

[S/Sgt David Zackrias]

One of the challenges that police services in Canada are facing is public trust and confidence.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

You've run out of time, so could you just wrap it up.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

If there is anything you want to add to finish off that question, feel free to submit it to the clerk.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

For the next seven minutes, I believe it's Mr. Reid.