Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity to come here and share our concerns on Bill C-9 on behalf of Hindu and Jain communities.
I have made a written submission that is in French translation at the moment. I will submit a letter, and it has been co-signed by 70-plus Hindu and Jain community organizations across Canada.
I'm here to raise two concerns with the bill. The first one is the usage of the word “swastika” in hate references in this bill.
Before I start, I must say that we support all the efforts of the Government of Canada to address hate crimes in Canada. We stand in solidarity with all communities, including Jewish communities, that are facing hate crimes in Canada. At the same time, we welcome the usage of facial-neutral terminology such as any identifiable groups in proposed subsection 319(2.2) in the bill that shows that the bill intends to address hate against all of the identifiable groups, including Hindus.
However, our concern has been the usage of the word “swastika” in hate references and its association with Nazis in this bill. “Swastika”, as you know, is a Sanskrit word, and its meaning is the prosperity and well-being of all. The word is used extensively in Jain, Hindu and Buddhist religious texts, prayers and rituals. Usage of the word “swastika” in hate references deprives Jain, Hindu and Buddhist Canadians of their religious rights to use the word in their prayers.
When it comes to the association with Nazis, let me make an academic exercise. There is no word for “swastika” in Latin or its derivative European languages. Hitler and the Nazis never called their symbol “swastika”. Their word was hakenkreuz or hooked cross, and we understand that in this bill the word is used as Nazi hakenkreuz, which is good. However, at the same time in this bill there is also the association of the word “swastika” with Nazi. Associating the word “swastika” with the Nazi symbol or anti-Semitism spurred misinformation and confuses Jain, Hindu and Buddhist learners about their scriptures.
We have a deep concern about associating the word “swastika” with Nazis. We have approached many organizations and provincial governments to remove the word “swastika” from hate references. In my written submission, I have provided several examples. There were eight examples where we contacted provincial and regional governments as well as the police in a variety of places, including leading Jewish advocacy groups, that removed the word “swastika” from hate references. They use the correct term, the Nazi hakenkreuz, which should be banned.
I also gave examples of other places, such as the State of Victoria in Australia, that passed legislation. In their legislation, they banned Nazi hakenkreuz; however, they made an explicit exception for the word “swastika” and how it should be used.
As a community, we are recommending the change of the wording in Bill C-9 under proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(b) where it says:
The Nazi hakenkreuz, also known as the Nazi swastika
We recommend removing the Nazi swastika from that section.
Further, we understand that the bill intends to cover exceptions for swastika for religious purposes through defences under proposed paragraph 319(3.2)(a). However, this generic wording is not sufficient enough, considering the widespread conflation of the word “swastika” and the lack of awareness.
We request to add explicit exception, as done in the legislation in the State of Victoria, Australia. The fact sheet associated with this legislation indicates that exceptions for the cultural and historical significance to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and other faith communities remain unchanged. It is not against the law to publicly display the swastika, which may be mistaken for the Nazi hakenkreuz symbol, for genuine cultural or religious purposes.
Further, we recommend that the federal government educate communities, police personnel, and media to use the correct terminology. The above measures should address the concern of Hindu and Jain communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee, for hearing our first concern.
If time permits—if I have a minute and the chair approves—I can present my second concern.