RSS FeedIslamophobia in Canada: A Primer
by Fathima Cader and Sumayya Kassamali
Ten years after September 11, 2001, the term “Islamophobia,” once largely obscure, has become all but inevitable when discussing contemporary politics. As Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden became household names, Western fear of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims has also grown. Canada has been no stranger to this phenomenon. Despite its reputation as a haven of multicultural tolerance, one 2011 poll showed that 56% of Canadians believe Western societies are in “irreconcilable conflict” with Muslim societies. 40% of the 1500 respondents approved the profiling of airplane passengers who appear Muslim. As Canada enters its seventh year of Conservative rule, how are progressives to understand and respond to this trend?
Islamophobia relies on characterizations of Islam and its adherents as uniquely prone to certain things, such as violence and sexism, and uniquely hostile to others, such as democracy and secular government. It includes discrimination based on perceived religious identity, such that non-Muslims, including Sikhs and Arab Christians, have also been targets of anti-Muslim violence in cases of “mistaken identity.” Meanwhile, Muslims in North America who do not appear to come from the Middle East or South Asia, such as Muslims of European or East Asian descent, have been less centrally targeted in this blurry overlap of religious and racial discrimination.
In this primer, we do not attempt to cover every instance of Islamophobia in Canada in the past decade. Rather, we provide an overview of its broad assumptions, particularly focusing on two themes that have proven central to discussions about Muslims: sexism and violence.
In offering this analysis, we stress that responses to Islamophobia must be placed within the context of Canada’s ongoing conservative political shift — from its increased military engagements around the world to its anti-immigrant policies at home, and from its vast cuts in social service funding to its ever-increasing levels of state surveillance. While numerous civil liberties and human rights organizations have reported on the rise of anti-Muslim hate crimes in Canada, we emphasize that Islamophobia is not just interpersonal: it is systemic. In fighting it, therefore, we must engage with the many other forms of oppression that also organize Canadian society.
You’re not the boss of me
Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman explain the concept of judicial independence to Jason Kenney:
“In a speech to the University of Western Ontario’s law faculty last week, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney launched an attack on Federal Court judges for rendering decisions he didn’t agree with. He suggested the judges were preventing him from properly administering the immigration program. [...]
The judges do not work, and should not be seen to work, for Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his immigration minister. And because of their special role in society, they aren’t expected to participate openly in the political process. Indeed, you haven’t heard the Federal Court respond to Mr. Kenney, despite his misrepresentation of cases, jurisprudence and statistical evidence. Judges don’t reply because they understand the importance of not becoming politicized.
When Mr. Kenney publicly criticizes judges for interpreting the law in a manner that diverges from his own preferred outcome, he shows contempt for judicial independence. That’s not to say the minister can’t take action when he disagrees with a court’s decision. As a member of cabinet, he has the power to introduce into Parliament amendments to any federal law. The cabinet may also pass regulations implementing existing law. The government possesses the unique jurisdiction to change the law to conform to his views. But using an address to a law school – of all places – to take potshots at judicial decisions the government doesn’t like is an inappropriate exploitation of political office.”
Rocking the Boat: A Brief History of Anti-Migrant Hysteria in Canada
They’re at it again.
In November, 76 Tamil refugees escaped Sri Lanka on a rusty freighter. They arrived in Victoria, where they were met by RCMP and Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials, who promptly jailed them for three months on allegations of terrorism. It would be fully half a year before the CBSA would admit that it had never had any evidence.
By then, however, it was too late: anti-Tamil and anti-refugee hysteria had spread like wildfire. Now, mere weeks after that most tepid of mea culpas from the CBSA, the hysteria greeting the Tamil MV Sun Sea passengers is worse. As with the Ocean Lady, these migrants will be detained in Maple Ridge jails before their refugee claims are considered. The Conservatives have begun to create new rules to treat refugees who arrive by boat differently from others. Meanwhile, Paul Fromm, the infamous neo-Nazi, has been receiving uncritical coverage in mainstream media with his demands that the migrants be sent back.
As the paranoia grows ever more heightened, it becomes increasingly important that we resist it. The universal rights of safety and mobility must be upheld, not only for the Sun Sea migrants, but for all people fleeing violence.
Immigration exploitation
Lack of oversight by the federal government has allowed foreign workers to be abused by their employers, Auditor General Sheila Fraser says in a scathing report on Canada’s immigration program.
Fraser said federal authorities do not follow up on job offers for foreign workers to see if the jobs offered are real, if the employer can afford promised wages and if there is a real need for the worker.
The Ocean Lady: Rethinking “Illegal” Migration in Canada
The recent arrival by boat in Vancouver of 76 Sri Lankan Tamil men has triggered heated debate about Canada’s refugee system. On October 28, the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia held a forum on the topic, entitled “The “Ocean Lady”: A New Challenge of Illegal Migration on Canada’s West Coast?” One of the panellists, Daniel McLeod, who is duty counsel for the migrants, called these men “classic refugees,” because of the persecution they face in Sri Lanka. “It’s young Tamil men in Sri Lanka who are most at risk,” he said. He also observed that though “the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam at their peak had probably 1500 to 2500 soldiers,” there are currently a quarter of a million Tamils awaiting security clearance by the Sri Lankan government in internment camps in the northern parts of the island.
McLeod, who is also an instructor in Refugee Law at UBC, noted that Canada is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country through illegal means. Canada’s acceptance of the Convention was triggered by its refusal in 1939 to admit the St Louis, a boat containing 907 Jewish refugees, who were forced to return to Germany, where a third of them were killed in concentration camps. However, host and fellow-panellist, Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor at UBC Law and Faculty Associate at the Liu Institute, said that because the 1951 Convention only addresses the criminalisation of the entry, “it does not preclude countries from exercising detention where the identities of the individuals are uncertain or there are undetermined security risks.”
McLeod cautioned against assuming the men were Tamil Tigers. “It is common for people who have been forced to work as labourers for the Tigers, to be rounded up, arrested by the army, police, or the special task force – which is a police commando force – and simply disappear,” he said. When describing the men, nearly all of whom are currently confined in a Lower Mainland jail, McLeod said, “Some of them are students, some are farmers, some of them are clerks, office workers. They are all very scared.”
In Canada the acceptance rate for refugees is approximately 47%. In comparison, according to Andreas Schloenhardt, Associate Professor from University of Queensland, in Australia, that number is 80%. (However, Australia has a very different immigration system, which involves using whole islands far from the mainland as detention centres, so these numbers may not be analogous.) Yet the 2007 acceptance rate specifically for Sri Lankans in Canada was 97%.
In 1986, local fishermen came to the rescue of 154 Sri Lankans found floating off in lifeboats off the coast of Newfoundland. Those people were not subjected to what McLeod called “the political frenzy that’s occurring today,” suggesting that in the intervening two decades Canada’s policing of its borders has become progressively more exclusionary and reactionary. This fear was solidified on November 2, when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, after accepting the fewest refugees in 10 years, dramatically cut the 2010 target number of refugees to be accepted by more than half. Opposition MPs assert that “by steeply dropping the targets, refusing to appoint Refugee Board members for 2 years, cutting $4 million in the department and allowing for board appointments not based on merit, Harper’s Conservative government is deliberately creating a crisis in the refugee system. The crisis is then used as an excuse to bring in draconian measures to close the door to the most needy and vulnerable.”
At the lecture, Perrin claimed that the focus on the “human interest story” of the 76 men, while legitimate, shifts attention away from an analysis of the means by which refugees move illegally between countries. He argued that “Canada must take action to discourage illegal migration and disrupt migrant smuggling operations where they do exist.” Further, Canada is a party to the 2004 UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which, he said, “calls for [migrants] not to be criminalised, but to be treated humanely. But at the same time, it does not give them the right to temporary or permanent residence in Canada simply because they are smuggled.”
When one student then questioned him about the language used to describe the men, specifically the term “illegal migrant” (which was featured in the panel title), because of the way it implicitly criminalises the men, Perrin responded that “the title of the presentation has a question mark at the end of it, which was very deliberate.” Another audience member had a query about how that kind of vocabulary negatively affects media coverage. Perrin responded, “I think it’s important that before there’s been an impartial determination of the legal status of these individuals, that our language reflect that. So I’m not calling them refugees right now because I don’t know if they are.”
Perrin maintained that “there are advantages to cooperating with other countries, not just the source countries, but also other countries along the migrant smuggling chain,” because this would assist Canada in “creating proactive responses to protracted refugee situations.” One reporter asked, “How are we to trust the Sri Lankan government if they say these people are members of a terrorist organisation? [...] How do you trust a government which is treating a minority as harshly as them?” McLeod answered, “I hope we’re not going to trust the Si Lankan government to make that determination for us. There are a number of ways that Canada Border Services Agency can obtain information in normal ways.” These include taking fingerprints to run through international police records and analysing accents to determine where in Sri Lanka the men are from. However, the RCMP has already begun collaborating with the Sri Lankan government to identify the men.
“There are 16 million refugees worldwide as of June 2009. There’s another 26 million internally displaced persons, who don’t count as refugees,” said McLeod. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of irregular migrants are reported dead or missing every year,” said Perrin.
—–
A previous version of this article first appeared in Canadian Lawyer. This article was last modified on Nov 5.
Government promises tougher refugee legislation
Canada to take hard line with would-be migrants
Jane Armstrong and John Ibbitson write for the Globe:
Canada’s Immigration Minister has signalled that he intends to play hardball with 76 men believed to be from Sri Lanka who arrived on a rusty boat off Canada’s West Coast, as the government battles the perception of Canada as a soft touch for asylum seekers.
Isn’t it too early to presume these people to be bogus, if they supposedly crossed an ocean to come from a recent war zone?
Legal fight continues for ‘refugee’ from South Africa
Government appeals asylum ruling for South African
The federal government is appealing a controversial decision by an independent tribunal to grant asylum to a white South African because he feared black persecution in his homeland.
See also: Canada SA refugee ruling ‘racist’
Humanitarian grounds
Family can’t keep ailing mother in Canada
“She’s old, she can’t see … Who will look after her in Poland? All the family is here,” Pindiur said in halting English. “Can you help her stay with me? Please help.”
Kenney’s Canada: Who’s in, who’s out and who is getting kicked out
By Krystalline Kraus
Published on rabble.ca (http://www.rabble.ca), reproduced here on author’s request
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney have the political power to decide who they want to let into Canada and who they want to keep out.
Federal Court grants Kimberly Rivera a judicial review
Canadians renew pressure on Harper government to implement votes of Parliament
TORONTO—On Tuesday afternoon the Federal Court of Canada granted Kimberly Rivera leave to appeal the decision in her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The Federal Court will hear the appeal on July 8.
The War Resisters Support Campaign is renewing its call on the federal government to implement the motion that was passed by Parliament on June 3, 2008 and again on March 30, 2009.
“Regardless of Jason Kenney’s personal animosity toward those who’ve refused to fight George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, the majority of Canadians want these war resisters to stay in Canada,” said Michelle Robidoux. “Parliament has voted twice to let them stay and if Stephen Harper were committed to fairness and justice like most Canadians, he’d implement the vote of Parliament today.”
Kimberly Rivera is the first female Iraq War resister to seek refuge in Canada. Kimberly, along with her partner Mario, son Christian (7 years old) and daughter Rebecca (4 years old), fled to Canada in January 2007 when Kimberly refused redeployment. In late November 2008 Kimberly gave birth to her Canadian daughter Katie (5 months old). She served in Iraq in 2006 and experienced, firsthand, the reality of this illegal war.
“I want to stay in Canada, with my family, because the Iraq War is immoral, illegal and I couldn’t in good conscience go back,” said Kimberly Rivera. “The amount of support I’m getting from Canadians is amazing. The parents of my kids’ friends, MPs and even strangers on the street keep telling me that they can’t believe the votes in Parliament aren’t being respected.”
Last June, a public opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies found widespread approval for the House of Commons’ vote in support of war resisters. Sixty-four per cent of Canadians, and a majority of voters in every region of the country, agree that the federal government should immediately stop the deportation of Iraq War resisters and establish a program to facilitate their requests for permanent resident status.
-30-
For further information, please contact:
Michelle Robidoux, Spokesperson, War Resisters Support Campaign, 416-856-5008; or
Ken Marciniec, Communications Volunteer, War Resister Support Campaign, 416-803-6066, kmarciniec@sympatico.ca.
Social Media in Canadian Politics, and Defamation and Copyright (Episode 19)
Omar Ha-Redeye gave a talk on the use of social media in politics, focusing on the Canadian scene, at the Miles S. Nadal Management Centre in the Ernst & Young Tower of the Toronto Dominion Centre.
Issues of copyright, including the use of YouTube, are discussed, as well as social media alternatives to defamation actions.
Government’s Case Against Resisters Faulty
The Harper government attempts to justify deporting U.S. Iraq War resisters with a familiar, but untrue, narrative.
They say that unlike during the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers are volunteers and are not considered refugees by the United Nations. They say refugee applications are evaluated fairly on their own merits, and there is no need to create a separate program for U.S. Iraq War resisters.
All these statements are false.
First, not all Vietnam War resisters were conscripts, and many Iraq War resisters are redeployed against their will. Vietnam War resisters included draft dodgers who fled before induction, those who accepted their draft notice and were inducted, and those who voluntarily joined the military services. After a brief political struggle in 1969 concerning those who came to Canada after induction, Canada welcomed both groups without distinction.
Although current war resisters volunteered and some completed their service, many found themselves involuntarily redeployed to Iraq. Programs of stop-loss and individual ready-reserve recall soldiers after they have been discharged. Many soldiers, such as Jeremy Hinzman, have had their applications for conscientious objector status denied.
Section 167 of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees’ Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states that “a deserter or draft-evader may also be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he would suffer disproportionately severe punishment for the military offence on account of . . . political opinion.”
After being deported, war resister Robin Long was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the harshest punishment so far for resisting the Iraq war, partly because of his political statements about the war. Multiple Federal Court of Canada decisions have granted stays of removal on the grounds that U.S. war resisters who have spoken out against the war would suffer differential punishment.
Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook states that “where the type of military action, with whom an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could . . . in itself be regarded as persecution.”
This is precisely the position in which Iraq War resisters find themselves, refusing – as did Canada under Prime Minister Jean Chretien – to participate in a war condemned by the international community.
Second, while war resisters who have applied for refugee status may be treated the same as every other applicant, the government’s blanket opposition to war resisters as revealed in public comments by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney – who labeled them “bogus refugee claimants” – led the Canadian Council for Refugees to rebuke the minister because such a statement gives “the strong appearance of political interference” and “threatens claimants’ right to an unbiased decision.”
And to date, where U.S. war resisters have attempted to access the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application process, instead of their claims being decided fairly, the majority of these individuals have received negative decisions that are almost identical, word for word.
The final argument of the government is that they do not believe in creating a program to allow war resisters to apply for permanent residence. But the majority of Canadians do, and Parliament passed a motion to that effect last June, and again on Monday. Rather than listen to Parliament, the government has been deporting war resisters to punishment in the U.S., justifying government actions with a series of false arguments.
It is time for the Conservatives to stop making false claims and to start respecting the will of Parliament. Iraq War resisters should be allowed to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada.
POSTED BY: Paul Copeland is a co-founder of the Law Union of Ontario, a previous co-president of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Life Bencher (director) of the Law Society of Upper Canada., London
POSTED ON: April 1, 2009
EDITORS NOTE: As published in The London Free Press on April 1, 2009, reproduced here with the author’s permission
