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.
Niqab, Sex Assault, And The Court: An Examination Of R v NS
In a unanimous decision in October 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that a sexual assault complainant may wear a niqab, a Muslim facial veil, while testifying. The Muslim Canadian Congress had intervened on behalf of the two accused men who had requested the order that the complainant remove her niqab. Upon the judgement’s release, Tarek Fatah, founder of the MCC, argued that the decision made “a fool of the Canadian judicial system and values of gender equality”. In fact, the court had paid careful attention to balancing the witness’s freedom of religion and the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. To date, Fatah is perhaps the only person to so openly argue that allowing a sexual assault complainant to testify in front of her alleged attackers in the clothes in which she feels safest is a denial of gender equality. For some context, it is worth noting that Fatah has long been a vociferous advocate of a total ban of the niqab in Canada. His response to attempts in Quebec to ban the niqab was to proclaim, “I welcome the rescue of all Muslim-Canadian women.” The wholesale paternalism of his language is revealing: to the extent that Fatah wishes to counter gender inequities, his position has persistently emerged from a patriarchal perspective that infantalises Muslim women by denying their agency in making sartorial and religious choices for themselves, even such highly contested choices as the one to wear niqab.
To be sure, generalised public discomfort around the niqab did inform most mainstream debate about the decision. However, in this paper I want to shift the discussion away from the Huntington-esque clash-of-civilisations characterisation advocated by Fatah to a more considered analysis of both the specific reasonings and the broader implications of the judgement. I argue here that the judgement actually signals a substantive attempt by the OCA to address some of the systemic inequities that entrench the pervasiveness of gendered violence in society.
FACTS AND HISTORY
The facts of the case are distressing, but not atypical for sexual assault cases. The complainant, N.S., alleged that between the ages of six and 11 she had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by her uncle and her cousin, the accused. In 1992, when she was 16, N.S. disclosed the assaults to a teacher, but the accused were not charged until 2007.
In 2004, as part of her practice of Islam, N.S. began wearing the hijab, a headscarf, and niqab, a veil that covers her face, whenever in the presence of males who are not her direct relatives. At the preliminary inquiry in 2008, after electing trial by judge and jury, both accused men sought an order that would require N.S. to remove her niqab before testifying. The preliminary inquiry judge ruled in favour of the accused. Read more
Muslim Group Seeks to Ban Woollen Socks
special contribution by Faraz Siddiqui
Toronto, Oct 28th: In what seems to be a rising fad, a Canadian Muslim organization has asked the federal government to ban woollen socks from public spaces.
According to a statement released yesterday by the Islamic Taskforce Against Oppression (ITAO, also known as the Taskforce Against Islamic Oppression), “mosques are full of the oppressive smell of woollen-clad feet, and the situation is expected to worsen with the arrival of snow.”
The authors of the petition argue that there is no religious basis of wearing wool. Tay Rick of Phaeta, ON who chaired the taskforce said, “The Koran does not say ‘Thou shalt wear wool to prayers.’ In fact, the practice of wearing socks made of wool is rooted in Arab culture.”
Woollen socks first became popular in the deserts of Arabia where there was no rain, snow, or—importantly—cotton. It is no surprise then, that wool is worn mostly by Canadians of Middle Eastern origins.
The cause has found support even outside Canada. This Friday, ITAO is launching an international Save the Sheep campaign, featuring Ban Di Wool, executive director of of Sockless Dojos, a non-profit organization based in Japan.
“Research shows that smelly feet further marginalizes those members of society that are already prejudiced against due to their poor hygiene and ultra-conservative sense of fashion,” Di Wool said. “The discrimination needs to be stopped.”
However, critics argue that foot hygiene and education can prevent pungent mosques, but Mr. Rick doesn’t agree. “Education? Why educate when we can eliminate.” Others believe the petition is just a publicity stunt by ITAO, who have recently had little work to do.
Moreover, a recent human rights group survey shows that 1 in 5 Canadians are allergic to cotton, the natural alternative to wool. Mohamed, a generic respondent for providing such quotes was worried. “I hope they don’t ban woollen underwear. Cotton undies give me rashes on my [buttocks],” he said. “What about my comfort?”
However, Mohamed confessed he will not be wearing wool when crossing a border or getting a passport picture taken. “I always have long delays and am asked to remove my shoes. Come on, my name is Mohamed!” His friend Ahmed agreed. “The foul smell might irritate Customs officers. My right to wear woollen socks end where your nose starts,” he said.
In other news: Terrorist caught trying to steal one sock out of all your laundry baskets
(It’s satire folks, we do that here occasionally, so you can stop freaking out – see the “Humour” tag)
Bah, humbug to Tarek Fatah
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.
