Bah, humbug to Tarek Fatah

By: Kashif Ahmed · December 15, 2008 · Filed Under Administrative, Civil Rights, Media Law · Add Comment

Ihsaan Gardee, The Calgary Herald
December 14, 2008
Reproduced with the permission

While Canadians hunker down for the festive season, bombarded by incessant shopping jingles and reruns of A Christmas Carol, many are also simply trying to weather the economic storm which is now battering the world and has finally reached our shores.

It was with this in mind that the initiative to launch a food drive in conjunction with the CBC and the cast and crew of one of Canada’s newest and most talked-about sitcoms, Little Mosque on the Prairie, embarked.

No holiday season would be complete, however, without the naysayers and those who would seek to divide Canadians instead of uniting to help them in their time of need. In this case, the role of Ebenezer Scrooge is played with aplomb by Tarek Fatah [who writes for and is frequently interviewed by Maclean's magazine], who has taken it upon himself to bah, humbug this project.

In the rush to pen his Dec. 11 column, “CBC and jihad,” attacking the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. for teaming up with the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIRCAN) on an anti-hunger initiative, Fatah omitted more than just facts. Accuracy and truth went out the window too.

Apart from a passing mention of CAIR-CAN’s involvement in what he terms “an admirable deed,” Fatah’s diatribe seems to focus more on his own fears and insecurities–seeing Islamists lurking around every corner and hiding in every shadow–while mudslinging at highly respected grassroots organizations. Perhaps using the logic that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth, Fatah seems content to spew the same unsubstantiated allegations time and time again.

To paraphrase from the movie The American President, many of us operated under the assumption that the reason that Fatah (and those like him) devotes so much time and energy shouting at the rain is that he simply doesn’t get it. Well, we were wrong. Fatah’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Fatah’s problem is that he just can’t sell it.

For the record, CAIR-CAN is an organization whose vision is to be a leading voice that enriches Canadian society through Muslim civic engagement (such as this project) and the promotion of human rights. Formed as a sister organization of the U. S.-based CAIR, the two remain completely distinct and autonomous operationally while co-operating on issues of mutual concern and sharing best practices.

Furthermore, CAIR-CAN has acted as an intervener on several high-profile human rights cases, including that of Maher Arar’s rendition to torture in Syria, and continues its work on day-to-day issues of discrimination and civil liberties violations. Recognized for its professionalism and commitment to the universal principles enshrined in our Constitution by organizations and individuals such as Amnesty International and author/ activist Naomi Klein, CAIR-CAN has worked and will continue to work on behalf of all Canadians.

Finally, CAIR-CAN does not now nor will it ever receive or accept funding from foreign governments. Period.

Having said this, even in the story, there is hope at the end for Ebenezer Scrooge.

We welcome Tarek Fatah to come out and help distribute the food collected by this initiative to feed the hungry this holiday season. Then, just maybe, he’ll see for himself that when, as Canadians, we are united, we can accomplish miracles.

Ihsaan Gardee is the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN).

Kashif Ahmed of Law is Cool is a Board Member of CAIR-CAN. Note that this piece is provided for interest alone.

Post tags: CBC, islamist, jihad, Kashif Ahmed, Maclean's, Tarek Fatah

Public speech has real consequences

By: Kashif Ahmed · November 14, 2008 · Filed Under Administrative Law, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Media Law · 5 Comments

Available online at The Star Phoenix

Consequences of public speech real

Kashif Ahmed, Special to the StarPhoenix
Friday, November 14, 2008

The recent decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint against Maclean’s magazine brings to light the issue of free speech striking at the core of Canadian social cohesion and political debate.

From a strict legal perspective, the tribunal was correct, as was the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to toss out the case against Maclean’s brought by a Muslim group over an article written by Mark Steyn. Yet, the B.C. tribunal was not alone in its recognition that Steyn’s piece was riddled with an anti-Muslim message.

The Ontario commission stated that, while freedom of expression was paramount, it was concerned about “the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians.”

Although the commission did not have jurisdiction over the complaint, and even if we question its suitability to make public commentary, it still raised an important point. It was not simply one article written by Steyn. Rather, it was a series of pieces in Maclean’s that appeared to promote one single theme: Muslims are a dangerous group of aliens in western and Canadian society who cannot coexist peacefully with their fellow citizens.

It’s not the B.C. tribunal that wrongly questioned the professionalism and judgment of Maclean’s, as a recent Calgary Herald editorial suggested. Rather, the decision to publish those articles without including a legitimate discourse that entertained the views of Canadian Muslims is why the record of the national magazine is tarnished.

It is also of concern that Maclean’s chose to publish Steyn, who is unapologetic about his history of using xenophobic epithets such as “gooks,” “Chinks,” and “Japs.” (For the record, Steyn was not a respondent in the human rights complaint).

And yet some important questions are not being asked. What useful social function in Canada is served by repeatedly demonizing a minority community and making wild claims about it in the name of free speech? Does it strengthen the social fabric of Canada and bring communities together? The only result, in this case, is to increase public misunderstanding and misinformation.

The recent United States presidential race was a further example of what can occur when bigotry is not challenged. Since 9/11, years of Islamophobic rhetoric adopted by certain extreme American political elements led to “Muslim” or “Arab” becoming smear terms in the campaign. So much so, that in a response to a supporter’s false claim about now president-elect Barack Obama, Republican contender John McCain denied that Obama was an Arab or Muslim, and then said the Democrat was a “decent family man,” as if Muslims or Arabs could not possibly be decent family men.

American Muslims watched with shock as their identity was denigrated and reduced to a political slur. The smearing was finally challenged when Republican and former secretary of state Colin Powell denounced the campaign’s bigotry on NBC’s Meet The Press.

Is this a road that we, as a Canadian collective, want to go down as well? There are real consequences that result from free speech that is divisive and vitriolic, yet is not deemed by law to be hateful. Hence the apparent pontificating from the B.C. and Ontario human rights bodies on the Maclean’s case. There certainly is not an epidemic of Islamophobia in Canada, but the Muslim community and its representatives remain concerned.

Perhaps the human rights commissions should not be in the business of determining what constitutes hate speech. Many people think taxpayers’ money and human rights bodies that were created to deal largely with employment discrimination should not be used to adjudicate issues already covered by the Criminal Code — as demonstrated by the criminal trial of David Ahenakew over his alleged promotion of hatred against Jews.

Undoubtedly, freedom of expression must be closely guarded in Canada. Our treasured Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we, the Canadian public, demand no less. Yet, the debate should not overshadow the crux of the matter at hand: Our social cohesion and relations are severely undermined when us-versus-them attitudes and messages creep into the mainstream and try to divide us along ethnic and religious lines.

Indeed, our shared Canadian successes depend on our mutual willingness to reject such attempts at discord and division in the 21st century and our desire to rise above the sordid political game of suspicion.

Post tags: Human Rights Commission, Islamophobia, Kashif Ahmed, Maclean's, Mark Steyn

A New Media Defence

By: Kashif Ahmed · November 11, 2008 · Filed Under Media Law · Add Comment

Canadian journalists may just breathe a little easier now. A November 2007 major ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal broke new ground in the area of defamation law when it comes to the news media in Canada.

In essence, the Ontario court decision in Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen gives the media another line of defence when it comes to defamation lawsuits and provides more freedom for the media to publish stories that they would be otherwise hesitant to publicize. The court coined what it called a “new and distinct” term — the ‘public interest responsible journalism defence.’

Canada’s age-old judicial approach to defamation suits has been to mainly look out for the reputation of the individual versus public interest debate on the issues. The new ruling is in line with those of other Commonwealth countries such as England and New Zealand — a clear support for the uninhibited exchange of information in the public’s interest.

In particular, the court’s decision follows the recent footsteps of the British House of Lords in England, where the public interest responsible journalism defence was given life in the 2007 case of Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe.

The Ontario court decision makes the public interest responsible journalism defence a new addition to the group of defamation defences in Canada, which includes truth, fair comment, qualified privilege and consent.

Justice Robert Sharpe of the appeal court wrote that, “The defence is plainly intended to shift the law of defamation away from its rigid reputation-protection stance to freer and more open discussion on matters of public interest and should be interpreted accordingly.”

For example, if a media outlet publishes a story and makes every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy and truth of its contents, the public interest responsible journalism defence would protect them in the face of a libel lawsuit, even if some of the facts of the story were incorrect.

Prior to the appeal court ruling, the qualified privilege defence was the only real plausible defence for media outlets in defamation cases. Under qualified privilege, the media in Canada is permitted to publish defamatory material within the overall framework of reasonable and accurate news of proceedings in places like provincial legislatures, Parliament, and the courts. Conversely, truth and fair comment were the only other applicable defences in all other areas of news coverage.

The reaction of the Canadian news media to the new ruling was very receptive and amenable to the legal change. Daniel Henry, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), said: “There is every reason to believe that this new decision will be considered carefully and followed in Canada’s other common law provinces.”

However, Henry also noted that “if a media organization publishes information on any matter of public interest, it can succeed [in a defamation defense claim] even if the information turns out to be defamatory and untrue, if it can convince the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the steps it took in gathering and publishing were responsible and fair.”

In all, there still remains a measured burden of responsibility on journalists and media outlets to ensure that the collection and dissemination of news information is done fairly and within reasonable journalistic practices and standards.

The decision can be read here: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2007/november/2007ONCA0771en.pdf

First published in 2007 for the Public Legal Education Association (PLEA) of Saskatchewan.

Post tags: Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen, Kashif Ahmed