Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2017

[David Matas]

I wouldn't identify a use or abuse of the law that's been a flagrant concern to us, but I think it still could be improved, so we are making some suggestions.

I take the point of my colleagues that a law can be discriminatorily enforced, and we have to guard against that, but simply because there is a potential for abuse of a law—any law—doesn't mean we shouldn't have that law. I think we have to look at the law to see if it serves a purpose when it's functioning properly. Certainly this law, when it is functioning properly, does serve a purpose.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have four minutes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

To our representatives from ISNA, thank you for being here.

Professor Bullock, since you raised the issue of jihad, I have a couple of questions about that, because I have learned in my travels that there's a concept in your religion of a greater jihad and a lesser jihad, the greater jihad being the struggle within the soul, the lesser jihad being the struggle for justice externally from your own person. Is that a fair working assessment?

[Katherine Bullock]

Yes, that's correct.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Which is more important?

[Katherine Bullock]

Obviously it's the greater jihad. That's why it's called “greater”.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

They don't call it “greater jihad” for nothing.

[Katherine Bullock]

Yes, that's right.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Is that a view that is shared by all Muslims and Muslim academics, or is there dissenting opinion?

[Katherine Bullock]

This statement about the greater jihad and the lesser jihad comes from a saying of Muhammad, which is called a Hadith, so there can't be dissension or not dissension. It is something he said, and so we accept it and support it as a definition.

What happens in the implementation is that when you're going to define the lesser jihad, which includes physical fighting like warfare, when is that going to be appropriate or not appropriate? I think that's the realm in which differences would occur.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes, because there are some who perhaps, by their activity or actions, lay greater emphasis on the external fighting.

[Katherine Bullock]

Yes. Yes, but I'd like to add, just for more context, that going on religious pilgrimages is called jihad for women, for example, and when women stay home, look after the family, wash the socks, and deal with the laundry every day, this is called a jihad for women, so it's a very multi-dimensional concept.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

It's come into the greater consciousness of non-Muslims, of course, because those who use violence—

[Katherine Bullock]

Yes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

—claim jihad—

[Katherine Bullock]

Yes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

—as their justification.

This leads to my ultimate question to you. How can we—me, a non-Muslim, a man of the Christian faith in my particular instance, but others as well—help you and your organization within our country successfully have a peaceful dialogue on these kinds of issues so that those who use jihad as a method to rally people to do violent things know that it is not the recourse that we would like to see? How do we help you?

[Katherine Bullock]

That's a really good question, and I'm thinking on my feet, but I would suggest maybe three points.

The first one is not to criminalize conversation about jihad. For example, if our mosque wanted to organize a conference on what jihad is to help educate youth, we don't expect to see five CSIS agents taking notes and putting us under suspicion for having had this conversation. That would be my first one: that we feel free to have these conversations without thinking that it's going to suddenly make us a security issue.

The second one is the whole issue of entrapment. We know that there have been spies sent in. The youth are agitated and upset, and they're asking, “What's going on? How do we deal with this? The west is doing this and this and this to Muslims, and I've heard so-and-so say such-and-such.” Youth are confused. They can easily be put one way or the other. Then the spy hopes to amplify, to make things worse, and eventually to lead them down the wrong path, whereas it could have been an opportunity to have a mentor, a guide, or someone to help sort of bring them back to the right path, so I think there needs to be a stop of the whole entrapment aspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We're a little over time, but if you have a third point, I'm going to let you finish it.

[Katherine Bullock]

It's okay. I'll stop there. It might come up later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Monsieur Dubé is next.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

To the representatives of ISNA, if I'm not mistaken, not only was Bill C-51 brought up, but also Bill C-21 and Bill C-23.

I'm wondering if you could perhaps expand on that, because we are continuing this push towards a more integrated border with our American neighbours. I'm wondering what concerns you have with those pieces of legislation and with the whole plan in general.

[Safiah Chowdhury]

The bills around the security of the border between Canada and the United States and the information sharing between them are, from our point of view, all wrapped up—of course not in a legal sense but from a community perspective—in the overall discourse on how anti-terror legislation or a national security protocol disproportionately impacts our ability to simply do basic, average things like cross the border.

In the last couple of weeks we've seen seven or eight Muslim individuals sent back from the United States at a border crossing under the screening that occurs in, I think, eight airports. Many of us have been arbitrarily questioned for no reason whatsoever, but simply because we are Muslim. We always build in extra time to go to the airport because of the extra screening we expect to go through. Right now when I travel through, say, Pearson, if I am questioned in a way I don't like or I think infringes upon my rights or I think is trying to put me in a position that makes me answer questions that typecast me in a certain way, I have the opportunity to leave and go back to my home. However, under these provisions that are being presented, there will not be that opportunity. I will be forced to enter as a Canadian on Canadian soil and to answer these questions, especially given the climate in the United States. This is really worrying.

There are also concerns about how it disproportionately affects permanent residents, particularly of Muslim backgrounds, and how this may impact their ability to come back to their home country, the country they have adopted as home. There are a number of—