THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
QUEBEC, Tuesday, September 20, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 9:12 a.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee.
It is with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who was laid to rest yesterday inside St. George’s Chapel. As a mark of respect and in honour of Queen Elizabeth II, we will now observe a minute of silence.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
Today, we’re conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting. To my left, we have Senator Jaffer, from British Columbia; to the right, we have Senator Gerba from Quebec; and then to the left again, we have Senator Oh, from Ontario.
Having held two meetings in June in Ottawa, today we continue our study on Islamophobia in Canada under our general order of reference. Our study will cover, amongst other matters, the role of Islamophobia with respect to online and offline violence against Muslims and general discrimination, as well as discrimination in employment, including Islamophobia in the federal public service. Our study will also examine the sources of Islamophobia, the impact on individuals, including mental health and physical safety, and possible solutions and government responses.
We are pleased to be here in Quebec City and to hear from witnesses about Islamophobia in this part of the country. This is the third of our public hearings outside of Ottawa. Two weeks ago, we were in Vancouver and Edmonton, and tomorrow, we shall be in Toronto.
Let me provide some details about our meeting today. This morning we shall have three one-hour panels with a number of witnesses who have been invited. In each panel, we shall hear from witnesses, and then the senators will have a question and answer session. There will be a short break around 11:00 a.m.
Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. Dear witnesses, we are on a very tight schedule, and we want to get the senators’ questions, so I ask that you please keep your remarks to five minutes. I don’t like interrupting people, but Sébastien, who actually runs this committee with the tight schedule, wanted me to sort of say, okay, five minutes because we want to have a lot of time for question and answer. We shall hear from all of you and then turn to questions from the senators.
We’re supposed to be joined by, from the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec City, Boufeldja Benabdallah, who is the co-founder and spokesperson, and Mohamed Labidi. I’m sure, with the Quebec traffic, they’re running late. Laïla Aitoumasste, the coordinator, is here. Then we have Mohamad El Hafid, Saïd Akjour and Nabila Daoudi. I’ll ask Laïla to give the first presentation.
[Translation]
Laïla Aitoumasste, Coordinator, Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City: Well, I wasn’t expecting that. I thought I was going to be third. So I’ll go ahead and be first.
I’m actually not testifying about anything I’ve experienced. This is more about a project that I’ve worked on with women victims of acts of hate in society here in Quebec City. So I’d like to present one project among many that I’m working on with the Centre multiethnique de Québec. It’s a project that we called Ensemble pour agir, and it involved workshops on intimidation and racism. It’s a project dedicated mainly to women who have been victims of hate crimes, intimidation and racism. These are women who suffered greatly in the attack on the great mosque in Quebec City, and the situation has gotten worse since that attack. These women were victims and suffered greatly, and so on.
So the workshop was dedicated to helping those women. It was a three-part workshop. In the first part, we divided the women into groups. In each workshop we welcomed a dozen women who had been victims of acts of hate and just let them describe what they had experienced, suffered and so on.
Generally speaking, we had people who took part in the workshop and described all the suffering they had experienced. I can’t deny that there were some very difficult moments; there were tears. We had a psychologist with us who helped a little, who provided aid to those women, women who had decided either to stay strong and continue participating in society or who simply decided to isolate, to withdraw from society and focus solely on their families and children because they were afraid to leave their homes. It was very hard for them just to take their children to school. So that was the first part.
In the second part, we mainly distributed information to people. What’s an act of hate? What’s intimidation? What differentiates an act of hate from intimidation and racism? The idea was to provide all the tools and to inform people about the remedies available to them here in Quebec City. What should you do if you witness or are a victim of a crime? For example, you can film the incident, take photographs, get the licence plate number of a car and so on.
Then we also gave them a list of organizations available here in Quebec City together with their contact information. If a woman is a victim of a crime, she need only call the organization that can help her, not to mention 911, of course, which you can call any time.
The third part, which I was unfortunately unable to finalize due to the health crisis, was a meeting with the Quebec City police service. There were two objectives to that part: First, we wanted to raise police awareness about the fact that these women live in their city, but that they aren’t comfortable, that they’re afraid; and the second objective was to provide those women with access to assistance. Some women file complaints. They go to the police, but there’s no follow-up. And the women were very enthusiastic. They said they’d ultimately be able to meet with police and get follow-up to what they had experienced. They wondered why there was no follow-up, why they got no response. They had filed complaints, and the process had stopped there. That’s what discouraged many women. Some simply decided not to file complaints, and that isn’t good for us; it’s not for the good of society because we’ve always advised women victims to call, if only for statistical purposes. Then we at least have statistics, even if there’s no follow-up, even if there’s no solution. We know there have been so many crimes in such and such a city.
So those were the three parts. As I said, the third part was unfortunately incomplete. In fact, the overall project as such wasn’t really completed as a result of the health crisis, and we couldn’t divide the women into groups. My second point is that we’re short of funding. Sometimes it’s also cut off.
That’s a summary of what happened. I’d like to add a brief conclusion. I’d like to mention that immigrant families, particularly Muslim families in which women wear the veil, are an integral part of our society. They have emerged from our culturally diverse society and they contribute to the vast economic and social wealth of this country. However, as a result of the prejudices and ignorance of some of their fellow citizens, they become victims and have no recourse. As such they’re unable to exercise their citizenship fully. I would also note that Bill 21 definitely hasn’t helped. On the contrary, that government legislation completely flouts equality rights and access to employment.
So the Ensemble pour agir project, which was intended for women, was nevertheless an opportunity to increase women’s awareness and inform them about fundamental rights. Thanks to that project, they —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you.
Ms. Aitoumasste: That’s alright, I was almost done.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Aitoumasste: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to take this opportunity to welcome Mohamed Labidi. Thank you for being here. I’ll ask you to present your remarks, but we’re running on a tight schedule, so please keep your remarks to five minutes because the senators will have a lot of questions.
[Translation]
Mohamed Labidi, President, Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City: Good morning, everyone. We are very pleased to welcome the Senate committee that is studying Islamophobia.
The Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, or CCIQ, is a non-profit organization serving the Muslim community since 1985. Our organization manages two mosques in Quebec City and provides religious, educational and cultural services to thousands of Muslims. Our presentation will focus on the tragedy of the great mosque in Quebec City, Bill 21, employment discrimination in the federal government and elsewhere, hate messages and social media.
The year 2017 began with the great mosque tragedy and the loss of six of our brothers, who were shot out of hatred, a hatred fuelled by prejudice, and the stigmatization of Muslims in social media and on populist radio. Despite the national wave of sympathy for the Muslim community in Quebec City, we still receive tens of messages of hate in the mail and by telephone at the CCIQ, and the cost to secure our premises has amounted to more than $50,000, just to purchase surveillance cameras and screens and to install a door opening system. That has cost more than $50,000. There’s also the cost to demolish and relocate the wall and install a concrete wall. That has cost us more than $2 million. I remind you that we have received only $17,000 in assistance from the federal government.
The community experienced another disappointment in 2017: the loss in the referendum to establish a Muslim cemetery in Saint-Apollinaire, 20 kilometres from Quebec City. The resolution of the Muslim cemetery issue was followed by the burning of my car during the time when I was president of CCIQ. That incident shook the Muslim community because it was a direct attack on individuals, on persons and their homes. It was a very tough year for our community. Those bad memories have stayed with us and motivated many individuals in our community to move away from Quebec City and settle in another province. I have kept track of those of my acquaintances who have left, and 50% of them have left Quebec City.
Bill 21, that discriminatory act, has exacerbated a sense of being discriminated against by members of our community and has encouraged many to leave the province of Quebec for good. That feeling fuelled by Bill 21 has been particularly strong among Muslim women and young girls, including my own two daughters.
I would like to discuss employment discrimination in the federal government and elsewhere. I reluctantly retired from the federal public service because I couldn’t tolerate workplace discrimination any longer. I decided to take early retirement. Over a career of 18 years of service, I filed four complaints with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal to assert my rights. I can attest that, in the federal public service in Quebec City, immigrants in general are very poorly served in federal public service reviews. A lot of work needs to be done in that area.
As for social media and messages of hate, the virtual world is constantly expanding. Social and media interactions mutate in the virtual world. Hate speech has always existed, but now it’s amplified by social media because it’s easy to access an audience now and there’s a false perception of anonymity online. In the absence of any clear legislation, there’s a certain degree of online impunity regarding crimes. The Islamophobia one encounters there frightens and terrorizes the members of our community. The situation appears to be completely out of control.
The hundreds of racist and Islamophobic comments that are posted online every day amount to a collective psychological harassment of our community. The authors of hateful comments can be press and media interests represented openly or anonymously by certain columnists and individuals. The hate speech the virtual world directs at our community includes calls for the murder and extermination of minorities, for the justification of hate crimes and direct and indirect messages. This causes enormous harm to Canadian society.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Labidi, I have to stop you, as it has been five minutes. You have brought up some points, and senators are going to be questioning you about that.
Mr. Labidi: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Mr. Labidi: Thank you.
The Chair: Now I will turn to Mohamad El Hafid for his testimony.
[Translation]
Mohamad El Hafid, as an individual: Thank you, senators and members of the audience. My name is Mohamed El Hafid. I am married and the father of three children. I work as an information technology professional and I am a survivor of the terrorist attack on the great mosque on January 29, 2017, a January 29 that is etched in my memory and that has left psychological trauma and scars that unfortunately will not heal. However, life goes on, and one must survive.
Everything in my life has changed. I am hypervigilant everywhere I go. Just imagine feeling permanently threatened for no valid or logical reason. It’s unbearable to live with, you may say, but whether you believe me or not, it’s what we survivors, and all survivors of murderous attacks, feel every day; that’s what we experience every day.
The mosque, which, for me, used to be a place of peaceful contemplation, physical tranquility and healing of the heart, no longer exists. Every time I enter a mosque, I’m on guard and stressed, monitoring the faithful as they enter and leave. Perhaps, who knows, someone, an intruder, may fire on us. It’s an enormous and unbearable stress. Why all this, and how did this drama happen? These are the questions that come to mind, especially on every anniversary of the attack. They demand answers, but especially to ensure this never happens to us again.
The experts unanimously maintain that the mosque terrorist was attracted to the cause by the hatred and Islamophobia that were par for the course on social media and the trash radio stations in Quebec City that amplified the Islamophobia. In denouncing the crime of which a taxi driver from the Maghreb was a victim, Québec solidaire MNA Catherine Dorion clearly described the situation in a Facebook post, calling on the public to mobilize against the preachers of hate raging in Quebec City. She wrote, and I quote:
There are people out there who are responsible for this social climate. Columnists, media hosts and politicians sow the seeds of hatred in exchange for votes, clicks and big bucks. Sooner or later, those people will be held accountable.
Régis Labeaume, mayor of Quebec City at the time, continued in the same vein on February 1, 2017, two days after the attack, saying:
At some point, we’ll have to challenge the leaders, owners, owners’ family’s and especially the shareholders of businesses that make and sell hate-based products. . . . Let’s hope that one of the consequences will be a rejection of all those who use hate to get rich.
Islamophobia and hatred are institutionalized and systemic. Proof of that are the hundreds of racist and Islamophobic comments that appear online every day in connection with a Muslim subject in an article. Here are just two examples of comments that have been received at our mosques. The first one reads: “Shut up, stop criticizing, keep praying until you die! That’s the way.” And another one: “It’s going to take more people like Alexandre Bissonnette. Next time, everyone in the mosque. Bravo, Alexandre.”
We therefore condemn the weakness of the institutions that are supposed to defend our rights such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, the CBSC, and the Conseil de presse du Québec. We also note the silence, indeed the complicity, of our elected representatives in the most appalling demonstrations of racism and Islamophobia.
We also condemn the shoddy work of certain francophone media that add fuel to the fire for personal gain and their unacceptable treatment of issues relating to racism and Islamophobia, in speaking, for example, of TVA journalist Marie-Pier Cloutier, in December 2017, who fabricated the story of a mosque that purportedly prohibited women from working next door. I’ve given you some links you can check. That false story was entirely fabricated. She entitled it, No to women on mosque job sites. That just goes to show how they want to stir up hatred and Islamophobia against the Muslim community.
So we need action to revitalize the CRTC by condemning racism and Islamophobia. Our elected representatives shouldn’t hesitate to condemn racism and Islamophobia when they appear in the media. They should also refuse to encourage media outlets that base their business on intolerance and invite everyone else not to do so. Advertisers should withdraw their ads. All governments contribute to the funding of Quebec City radio stations through advertising campaigns. That support should be conditional on strict compliance with basic principles of journalistic conduct.
A commission on systemic racism should be established once the government has repealed the act, which is a clear example of a racist and Islamophobic act designed to deprive Canadians, and more particularly Muslim women, of their fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion.
The internet giants should also be required to invest in monitoring hateful and Islamophobic messages on social media and held responsible and accountable for this outpouring of hatred and Islamophobia on their platforms.
Consequently, the right way to respect victims and enable all of us in Canada to live together is to take forceful action to prevent another such tragedy. Let’s support the victims and their families and ensure that their sacrifice wasn’t in vain. Let’s take action.
Thank you for listening and for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Akjour, we are ready for your presentation. Thank you.
[Translation]
Saïd Akjour, as an individual: Good morning, everyone.
My name is Saïd Akjour, and I’m a native of Morocco. I arrived here nearly 15 years ago, in 2007. I obviously can’t sum up the past 15 years in 5 minutes, but I can give you an overview of how I have integrated here in Quebec City.
Like most immigrants, I arrived here in Quebec City with degrees. I have an undergraduate degree in sociology and a minor in education sciences. However, despite the 15 years that have elapsed, my degrees haven’t been recognized to this day.
My degrees aren’t recognized in the system of my present employer. I can’t advance in my career, my salary doesn’t reflect my qualifications, and I can’t get a position that does. So that’s the first part.
The second part concerns work. When I arrived here, the first thing I wanted was to do the work I had been doing in Morocco. I was a teacher in Morocco. I taught for 11 years. There has been no recognition of my teaching degree or experience. What was important when I arrived here was really to work so I could pay my rent and my bills. So I wound up working as a patient attendant. I had that job for 10 years. It was nevertheless a rewarding job; it’s a job that I really enjoyed, but I don’t have it any more because I’m doing something else.
When you identify a person, you first say his name. So my name is Saïd Akjour. Saïd is a familiar name to Quebecers. Despite my name and the fact that I’ve been living in Quebec for many years, many people mispronounce it. They pronounce it as “Sad,” or “Sid.” And yet my name is Saïd; that’s how you identify me. There’s no willingness to make the effort, to say “Saïd.” These are easy syllables to pronounce in French. Nevertheless, to date, my name has been rejected. Some people pay attention, but even though my name is easy to pronounce, no real effort is made to pronounce it properly. But we’ve learned names that we didn’t know and have gotten better at pronouncing them properly.
As you may know, I was wounded in the attack on January 29, 2017. It’s true that we experienced a great deal before that date, but that tragic incident opened our eyes and taught us to say no when we encounter injustice. It’s true that many people are vulnerable. I’m referring more to women who are veiled, who can’t defend themselves. Some of them can defend themselves, but most suffer petty jibes from fellow citizens, and that happens in the course of everyday life, on the public transit system here, the RTC. Drivers say “hello” to everyone who gets on but look away when it’s a veiled woman. Failing to provide good service and not making eye contact are already forms of discrimination. That means you reject the other person, as though he or she doesn’t exist. It’s really a subtle form of discrimination. It’s in the way someone welcomes you or addresses you in public.
There’s also discrimination in the workplace and everyone has a tale to tell about that. At my old job, I was talking to a Moroccan colleague who worked in another department. My boss passed by and said, “What are you plotting? Are you talking about bombs, about building a bomb?” I screwed up the courage to follow her into her office and told her, “You just can’t say that. What goes on between us is private. We were talking about something else.” Then she responded, “No, don’t take it that way. It was a joke.” Message received, but it wasn’t really a joke. You don’t laugh about those things, especially in a professional setting where there’s a hierarchy. She was my boss at the time of that incident.
I also went and worked at the Centre de services scolaires de la Capitale for a few months and experienced serious discrimination there too. I was hired, and when they lost a secretary, they came and asked me to help them out. I said yes. I accepted the challenge, but they already intended not to keep me. They retained my services well before Christmas 2021 but immediately laid me off just before the holidays. They said it wasn’t really a job for me —
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Akjour, I’m sorry, but I have to interrupt you. We have one more witness and only 15 minutes left for senators’ questions, and I’m sure they have questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Akjour: Yes, I just wanted to say that there were other points that… Thanks all the same.
[English]
The Chair: If there are points you want to raise and you didn’t get time, you can do a written submission to us, and that will be part of your testimony. You can always send us written submissions.
[Translation]
Mr. Akjour: Good. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Now, I will turn to Nabila Daoudi for her remarks. Thank you.
[Translation]
Nabila Daoudi, as an individual: Good morning, everyone.
First, I want to thank you very much for allowing us to appear. I’ll be very brief today since we don’t have the time to say all we have to say. So I’ll briefly address two parts of my presentation: The first is the labour market, and the second concerns xenophobic acts of hate.
With regard to the first, it’s hard for educated Muslim women to enter the labour market. We experience discrimination, stigmatization and restrictions instead of a review of our academic and professional competencies. I can simply and easily be disqualified from an internship or paid position just because I’m Muslim or because I wear Muslim-looking clothing. I earned a degree in finance in Morocco. I have a university degree. I worked as an intern for one month in Quebec City, but then all doors were closed to me. I had to adjust and train to become an educator.
Now I’ll discuss the second part: xenophobic acts of hate. I have to say that Muslim women experience xenophobic acts of hate every day, and I am one of those women. Here’s a specific example of an incident that occurred last week. I was shopping at the Maxi with my three children. We were standing in line and there was a woman behind me that I hadn’t seen because she was behind me. I simply asked the cashier to check the price of a product because she had made a mistake. As the cashier was talking, the woman began to insult me. I’m sorry but I can’t say the inappropriate words she used before this committee. She basically told me to go home, back to my country. I can definitely characterize those insults, words, gestures and threats quite simply as acts of hate. I’m really sorry, but I can’t repeat those words to you in public.
I called the police and insisted on filing a complaint. The police came, and I spent a long time, three quarters of an hour, demanding my right to file a complaint. The officers told me, “Madam, we’ll go out to the parking lot and straighten her out.” But I told them, “You’re police officers; you’re not here to lecture the woman. I want to file a complaint. That woman insulted me. She committed acts of hate and made death threats.” I told him that she had wanted to attack me. There were witnesses, there were cameras, and there were people. They took no action. They just stood there in front of me for three quarters of an hour, but I kept demanding a simple right to file a complaint. They didn’t let me.
They left the parking lot, then came back and told me, “Madam, we’re going to ask you to write down your story and sign it.” I was shaking so much I couldn’t even write. The female officer did it for me. I told her my story, I read it, and I signed it. Then she left and gave me a report. I’ll be appearing before a judge soon to pay for a report because I asked the police to defend me. I’ve been here for 12 years. These incidents occur on the bus, on the street, in my car, in grocery stores, everywhere. And that’s just a specific example that I experienced last week. As a Canadian citizen, I, Nabila Daoudi, I’m a person who participates socially and economically in the advancement of society, as do all full-fledged citizens.
I, Nabila, like many of my friends and many Muslims who haven’t had an opportunity to appear and testify before you, know my hijab has been politicized. I feel anger, apprehension and fear. I see the injustice and the lack of understanding in my children’s eyes. I was with three of my children, who witnessed the scene from A to Z, who saw it all. I see psychological trauma. It’s an attack on my dignity and it affects my ability to live in society.
My question and my demand, with all due respect, is that an effort at least be made to honour the rights guaranteed by the Charter of human rights and freedoms and to acknowledge the existence of Islamophobia. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I’ll turn to the senators for their questions.
[Translation]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your testimony. It moved me greatly, and I will always remember what you’ve told us. This is really important. This is why we’re here. As the chair said, we don’t have enough time to hear everything you have to say, but please send your notes to our clerk because we would like to read all you have to say. That’s really important for us.
I’ll begin with you, Mr. Labidi.
Mr. Labidi, I very much respect you. Thank you for your work in the community. It’s really important for all Muslims, and I thank you for that.
The federal government said it had granted a considerable amount of money to improve security at the mosque, but you say you’ve received a small sum of money for that purpose. As I asked yesterday, please send us all your details: how much money you requested and how much you received, and all the issues involved with the applications. Send that to the clerk because that’s really, really important for our committee.
I don’t have a lot of time because other senators want to ask questions too.
Nabila, Mohamad and Saïd, I’d like to ask you to write to our clerk and give us your recommendations. If you had a recommendation that you would like to make, major or minor, what would that recommendation be?
[English]
If you were going to recommend one thing to the committee that we can work on or recommend to the federal government, what would that be? As you know, the time is very short, and I still have a question for Laïla and, before the chair tells me I have no more time. You can always send your other details to the clerk. I’ll start with you, Mr. Saïd.
[Translation]
Mr. Akjour: The only recommendation I would like to make first, even though my list of recommendations is long, concerns firearms control. We definitely experience discrimination here in Quebec City, but what’s been truly catastrophic is the damage and devastation as a result of firearms. So we want greater firearms control.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Saïd.
Mr. El Hafid: I have a single recommendation. I ask that the federal government work hard to oppose the internet giants. They should invest in controlling messages of hate because the Web giants are responsible for this. They make money publishing these messages. That’s the only recommendation I would make: Force the web giants to invest, to exercise control over the publication of messages of hate on their platforms and in social media.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Mohamad.
Ms. Daoudi: I would just like to raise two points: The existence of Islamophobia must be recognized, and that hasn’t been done, even after many years and efforts, and care must be taken to comply with the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. That’s the least that can be done.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Nabila.
Laïla, I have a question for you. You said you had taken two courses, but you didn’t take a course with the police. Have you done that?
Ms. Aitoumasste: No, not at all. In fact, the project was shut down when COVID started. There was no follow-up. I was working more in the multiethnic community at the time, but not now. So there was unfortunately no follow-up to that project as such.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
I have one last minor thing to say. I’m sorry, I’m going to speak in English because my French isn’t very good, but —
[English]
I want to say to the survivors that I was here immediately after the horrible assault on all of us. I want you to know that this is not something you carry alone. We Muslims all across the country carry this. I don’t want you to think you are alone. Even though we’ve had very little time to hear you, it’s not the last thing we will hear, so if there’s anything you want to tell us, you can send it in writing, or you can send a tape if you want, but don’t think that because of time constraints, we are not listening to you. Please, send your stuff, and Mr. Labidi, please don’t forget to send that information.
[Translation]
Boufeldja Benabdallah, Co-founder and spokesperson Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City: It’s already done.
Senator Jaffer: That’s really, really important for us. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning. Last night, the committee visited the mosque, and it was really a touching moment of recalling what happened years ago. This is a problem that this committee is paying attention to, and we are aware of what’s going on.
I just want to ask a few questions. It seems that the women are the most affected in their daily life. For instance, Nabila was saying that in front of the children, things happen, and that is terrible. That is something that shouldn’t be, you know, when kids are involved, because that can have a long-term impact on their thinking and their mind.
How does Bill 21 really affect the Muslim women in Quebec? I think that before that, there might have some minor problems or issues, but never has it been this bad. I think Bill 21 probably is the big cause. What are your thoughts? Can anyone tell us something about that?
[Translation]
Ms. Aitoumasste: It’s actually made things worse. We’re already having a very hard time with these employment discrimination problems. Bill 21 simply made us realize that we don’t have a right to work, that we don’t have a right to be a teacher, to be a judge or anything. So it’s really affected us.
It isn’t just the workplace; it’s also in society, outdoors, in the street. It’s as though certain individuals have been given permission — I’m not generalizing here; I’m not going to say that Quebec as a whole or all of Quebec City is racist, far from it —to say that, because we wear the hijab, we don’t have a right to work, we don’t have a right to exist, we don’t even have a right to be here, and we should go back where we came from. And I hear that often. As I said earlier, the women in the project I worked on often heard those words: “Go back where you came from.” But those women have been here for years.
I don’t know if there is anything else.
Mr. Akjour: What I might add is that the Premier of Quebec said that there was no Islamophobia in Quebec. He said it several times. He acts like someone who buries his head in the sand, who acts like an ostrich, saying there’s no problem, but the problem is there. It exists.
He has often said that this is representative of the majority, that the majority voted for Bill 21. So it’s the law of the majority. However, the minority’s overlooked, but it also has rights. When we say reasonable accommodation, for example, we aren’t talking about a privilege; we’re talking about a procedure for protecting minority rights.
There’s an imbalance here in Quebec City between what the majority is and what the minority is. The majority votes, but the minority suffers. So minority rights unfortunately aren’t protected here in this province. Thank you.
Mr. El Hafid: As Laïla said, we experienced discrimination, especially Muslim women, before Bill 21. That act institutionalized all Islamophobia and put Islamophobes in the right. It’s very important to say that. It came from a major institution that should represent citizens’ rights and freedoms. And the rights and freedoms of any society are measured by it’s respect for minority rights. They’ve trampled minority rights, especially those of women. Being a woman is already a handicap; being an immigrant woman is another obstacle; being a veiled woman adds a third layer of discrimination; being a woman of colour, veiled and Muslim is a fourth layer of intimidation and discrimination; and being a woman with a disability is a fifth layer of discrimination. So this bill will institutionalize that and approve systemic discrimination.
In addition, the government is described as neutral because it’s secular. However, we all know the definition of secularism. Secularism means that the government is secular, not citizens. Citizens have a right to wear or remove whatever they want. Consequently, it’s as though the government comforts all extremists in their judgment and discrimination. I find that very worrying.
Efforts have also been made to entrench in Quebec’s Charter of human rights and freedoms the “notwithstanding clause,” which wasn’t really made for that purpose. Consequently, Bill 21 ultimately serves no purpose. It’s just a law designed to attract the votes of a few extremists. I’ll stop there. Thank you
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Nabila, please be very brief, because we have two senators still to ask questions.
[Translation]
Ms. Daoudi: I’d like to add briefly that Bill 21 quite simply supports Islamophobia. It contradicts the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It actually contradicts the values of the Charter, and it supports Islamophobia. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Benabdallah: If I could add a thought concerning the Charter, it’s that the federal government should do something to amend or cancel this Bill 21 because it’s causing a lot of problems for the Muslim community, particularly for Muslim women. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thanks to all the witnesses for coming this morning. It’s much appreciated.
I salute the courage of the witnesses, I salute the courage of the victims and survivors, and I especially salute the courage of the women who suffer most of the impact of Islamophobia on a daily basis. Nabila’s testimony is quite simply… I imagine that’s the everyday lot of all veiled Muslim women in our country, and that’s unfortunate.
I want to go to Saïd. Regarding what you experienced on that day in 2017, can you tell us something of what exactly happened and whether you’ve received assistance since then? Thank you.
Mr. Akjour: It was freezing on the evening of January 29, 2017; it was the end of the world, a disaster, an earthquake. There are no words to express it. We subsequently felt some solidarity from society in general, Muslims and non-Muslims. We received a lot of support and empathy. That felt good.
On the official side of things, all the court proceedings produced was defeat after defeat. The judgment was a defeat, even where it was a little more reasonable, by which I mean 40 years; it wasn’t really one, but then it was defeat after defeat, and, if I may say so, from a legal standpoint, the attacker had more rights than the rest of us victims.
We’ve been forgotten by society and by government bodies such as Quebec’s Indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels, for IVAC. Our case was closed five or even six years ago. We’ve seen no follow-up, we don’t know what’s happening, and we haven’t been compensated. We’re trying to survive on our own, and I can tell you I’m even stronger now than I was in 2017. Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much. That’s really quite moving. Thank you for your recommendations, Mr. Labidi. You have 17 years’ experience in the federal public service. If you had a specific recommendation to make to the Government of Canada regarding the federal public service, what would it be?
Mr. Labidi: Thank you for your question. I would ask that reviews be conducted by human resource professionals who are independent of the offices where we work, of the administrations where we work. Because who you know is worth more than experience, more than intelligence, more than knowledge, more than anything. If you know the boss, you’re promised a position as team leader, director, consultant and so on. You climb up the ranks because it’s who you know that counts. So to stop that, we need neutral committees from other cities or Ottawa to conduct reviews. And reviews must be organized and standardized to preclude any human intervention in review results, because minorities are excluded when humans intervene.
For example, the administration where I work has 400 federal employees. Not a single team leader among those 400 federal employees is a visible minority. I’m not talking about Arabs, Muslims, but rather visible minorities of any origin. There’s not a single consultant or director, and I’m talking about 400 employees, including 20 team leaders and 80 consultants. Not a single one of those employees is an immigrant. Don’t any of us, with our diplomas, master’s degrees, doctorates and all that, have the necessary competencies to climb the ladder? I know an African who’ll be filing a complaint against the federal government for blocking his career. He has a master’s degree in administration, and he’s leaving at the level where he was when he started. If the system was an open one, he could have been a director or a director general at the end of his career.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Labidi.
I was going to ask a question, but I might just have one comment with Mr. Benabdallah, and I will give my question time to you. If you can keep it really, really short, because we are almost 15 minutes over, I would appreciate that.
[Translation]
Mr. Benabdallah: I’m being asked to be brief, to —
Senator Gerba: Actually, she wants you to say something.
Mr. Benabdallah: Sorry, I must apologize to the Senate committee and to you, Madam Chair, for arriving so late. I got the time wrong. I simply wrote down 10 a.m. instead of 9.
As you heard, I think the people here have as much to say as I do. First of all, your committee has an important responsibility to meet with Muslims, to listen to them and to discuss the issue of Islamophobia. That involves semantics and a lot of other things. I had prepared a whole presentation, but I know I won’t have the time to discuss it. I’ll submit it to the chair of the committee.
All I want to say is that Islamophobia is a characteristic found in Canadian and Quebec society but not in its majority. This has to be acknowledged: It isn’t the majority; it’s a minority. However, that doesn’t mean we can close our eyes and ears to that minority. It’s an active minority, a busy minority, a minority that has the social status to speak out and loosen its tongue… The active loosening of its tongue across social media hurts our Muslim community even more.
What we’re asking the federal government to do is to sort out all these aspects, the religious issues in Quebec that have occupied Quebecers, because the religious issue here is Catholicism, and Muslims have suffered the torments of that issue since arriving. This has to be sorted out with the provincial government.
We hope the federal government will act as quickly as possible to undo part of this Bill 21, a part that is in itself discriminatory, racist and Islamophobic. We aren’t saying that Bill 21 is all bad, but we are saying that this part is discriminatory since it has employed the “notwithstanding clause,” which you said, at least once, before the courts, shouldn’t have been granted to a government that wants to render an act discriminatory. That makes no legal or human sense.
That being said, this has left something of a bitter taste in our mouths, but we also have to be logical. To combat Islamophobia, we ask that the government take tangible action, and I don’t mean restrictive action: The act is the act and it can be used to simplify matters, but beyond legislation, there are positive actions that can be taken. Positive actions are always something that help us live together. As Muslims, we embody that urge to live together. We love living with people, we love our neighbours, we love working in society to make it more humane, but it has to be more than mere words. We don’t have the financial capacity, we don’t have programs or actions to do that. The federal government has the capacity to implement projects in which people can find meaning in life, meaning in associating with each other, and by associating with people, we will reduce racism; we will reduce xenophobia.
So where are all these actions? They are in the culture. We newcomers have so many things to share with people. Cultural programs must be put in place to enable us to work with people and to show them that the contribution that Islam has made to global civilization is a very positive one, that it is not just words. We must demonstrate things by making presentations, by discovering the other, who is Muslim, by creating theatre plays. In this culture we will be able to share things and to laugh together. I also think we must simplify the situation by doing pleasant things together.
Why does a committee such as yours go out and meet people like me? I’m stunned by the situation. We want to have cultural projects, theatre, painting and literature. We want to do a lot of things through which we can express ourselves as Muslims here in Quebec. These are so many actions that will reduce Islamophobia in this country. Let’s set an example for the world.
I think the federal government can do it, but it can’t do it alone. That’s why we here, around this table, are prepared to work with the federal government to make positive proposals so that this theme, this action, this nascent philosophy declines somewhat. We would like to make Islamophobia disappear from the Canadian space.
We are aware this will be a long-term effort, and I would like to wish the committee every success in its work as it travels across Canada, from sea to sea. Madam Chair, senators, thank you for being here and for allowing me to say these few words even though I arrived here late. Thank you very much, [Another language spoken].
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
As you were speaking, I was doing a quick check on the percentage of people who view Islam unfavourably, just looking at some of the polls that have been released. In Quebec, it’s 48% of Quebecers view Islam unfavourably, and almost half of Canada. 46% of Canadians. Clearly, this committee clearly has its work set out. I don’t have time for that question, so I’ll just leave it for the next panel.
I want to thank each and every one of you. Your testimony will help us a great deal as we get ready to write our report, and I thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts with us. Saïd and Mohamad, thank you. This must have been a difficult day for you because we forced you to relive what you went through. We saw Mr. Labadi getting emotional. Last night, all of us came back with a very heavy heart from what we had seen and heard. I was talking to my children, and they said, “You must have had a difficult day.” I said, “Yes, we did.” And I speak for all the senators. Thank you for welcoming us to the mosque. If you missed anything, or if you feel there is something that we should know, please send it to us in writing.
Before I introduce our second panel of witnesses, I would just let you know that we’re running half an hour late. Witnesses, I hate to interrupt, but please keep your remarks to five minutes so the senators will have time for questions. We shall hear from all the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
From the Canadian Muslim Forum, we have some Samer Majzoub, who’s the president. We have Rashid Antonius, a professor in the Department of Sociology at the Université du Québec à Montréal, and Louis-Philippe Lampron, a full professor in rights and freedoms, researcher and spokesperson for the Faculty of Law, Laval University.
I will now invite Samer to make his presentation.
Samer Majzoub, President, Canadian Muslim Forum: Thank you so much for the invitation, by all means. Every step that is being taken to address Islamophobia has a dispositive dimension, and this is what I would like to underline. I will try to respect my time of five minutes. I have already sent my submission to Mr. Payet, and I will be distributing this later on.
I would like to underline, as I start up, and this is very important and we have repeated this many times, that Islamophobia is neither a religious war nor an ethnic war. This is an extremely important element to have in mind, whether for my brothers from the Muslim community or for the fellow citizens, Canadian citizens, in Quebec and outside Quebec and all of Canada.
Islamophobia is an extreme form of hate, and that expresses itself and inserts itself in different dimensions: hate speech, racism, hidden racism and, unfortunately, terror, as we have seen in Quebec City and Northern Ontario. It expresses itself in hate against Islam and its universal values. I have my submissions, seven pages, and I will not go through the seven pages, but I will try to focus on a few points that I’d like to read and have those shed a light on. Islamophobia has many forms, many shapes.
I have been here in Canada for 34 years continuously. I have seen Islamophobia unfortunately evolving per se, and not a positive evolving. No, it is evolving from the hate speech that we all know, and I really need to underline that because we have worked very hard to reach this point where Islamophobia is being recognized and worked on. At one point during 2017, we had a lot of media coming out, asking, What does it mean? Are we asking people to have a lack of freedom of speech? No. I just want to make sure that hate speech means hate. Every speech that leads to hate is hate speech, and it doesn’t have to do with the freedom of speech. They are completely different dimensions.
We have the social media platforms. This is another fact that we face a lot, and it is not limited to Muslims. It is hate and bigotry and racism and targeting the women and men. All social media is becoming extremely intimidating, especially for our youth. We have a train car that is hitting the Western world, and Canada is not out of it. It is the extreme supremacy-based ideology, and the danger of this ideology is that it reflects its beliefs in violence. It’s not limited to Canada. We’ve seen this in Norway, we have seen this in Europe, and unfortunately, we have seen it extensively in Canada at least in two or three major events that have sent people dying on the streets and in mosques. I’ll not repeat this because this is known to everyone.
We also have another face of Islamophobia, and it comes within laws and rules, unfortunately. The panel before me mentioned the implication of law 21, and whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, whether we try to hide it or not, it does inflame the words of Islamophobia and xenophobia. It’s not only in Quebec, with all respect. It is Quebec and outside Quebec. Again, I need to underline this. Quebec is not a racist society. All my children were born in Quebec and lived in Quebec, and we love the province. This is an issue that needs to be addressed when it comes to racism all over Canada.
Another factor, and I will be very quick on this, is what we call a toxic environment within certain federal agencies. The media has said it, the Prime Minister himself has said it, and it has been reflected in certain rules and regulations. We see some non-profit organizations have raised complaints in Canada that they have been targeted because of their identity, and this is another factor that we need to look at.
We have what we call hidden racism, and hidden racism is another factor that is reflected mainly in the job market, where it is not easy to access the job market and, if you do have access, and the panel before me mentioned this, there are limitations for your advancement.
I will finalize my statement by the most important factor that is intimidating our kids and our lives. It’s the safety and the security of Muslim Canadians. And yes, I can tell you there are periods of time, not all the times, when parents call my organization and ask whether they should send their children to schools or not. And yes, this is in Canada, this is in our cities, so we are not talking about a war zone. The safety and the security of Canadian Muslims requires that our security agencies take every fear that we might see online, every intimidation, very seriously in order to avoid, God forbid, any violence or any bloody incidents like we have seen before.
I will conclude there, and I’m ready to receive any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being respectful of the time. I will turn now to Mr. Antonius for his remarks.
[Translation]
Rachad Antonius, Adjunct Professor, Department of Sociology, Université du Québec à Montréal, as an individual: Good morning, Madam Chair, senators and members of the panel. Thank you for allowing me to be here today.
The moment we experienced at the great mosque in Quebec City yesterday was an intensely emotional one. The members of the community remembered the tragic events of 2017, and visitors came to hear them. The panel of witnesses this morning also shared that intense emotion. In the circumstances, it’s uncomfortable, perhaps even inappropriate, to want to take a step back and conduct a cold, objective analysis of the relations between the host societies in Quebec and Canada and the Muslim individuals and communities that have recently settled here. These are perhaps not the best circumstances in which to conduct a more fundamental consideration. At the same time, however, this is a necessary task, and I believe it is one of the tasks of the Senate committee before which I am appearing.
This situation cannot be managed by emotion alone. Unless we are to conclude that the host societies are irremediably morally deficient, there are issues that must be understood on both sides. Ignorance must be overcome and dialogue established. I want to thank Mr. Majzoub and Mr. Benabdallah for drawing those distinctions earlier.
However, let’s remain on emotional ground for a moment, because I want to engage in a critical consideration of the entire process. Let’s remain on emotional ground for a moment. Yesterday I heard how certain seemingly trivial incidents could nevertheless have a profound impact on individuals, especially children, potentially scarring them for a long time and making them feel rejected. I am well aware of the destructive rhetoric of the populist media in Quebec, which spread stereotypes and stigmatize all Muslims. I have analyzed that rhetoric and condemned it in speeches over some 20 years.
However, that reminded me that I myself have witnessed similar situations, but in reverse circumstances involving non-Muslim minorities and Muslim majorities. Is this relevant? Yes, and I will tell you why. In the context of Islam and the rise of political Islam and Salafism, I won’t focus on the emotional aspects of that situation, which, moreover, are far more dramatic than anything we have experienced here. Circumstances aren’t appropriate today. I will do so through the written documents that I will forward to you. I simply want to say that consideration of these other situations enables one to understand the concepts in another way, to define them differently and to understand the causes and consequences of the racist phenomena about which we are concerned.
I am moved by the current circumstances to say that there is an elephant in the room, and that relevant is Islamism. This factor is rarely considered in discussions of Islamophobia. And yet certain analysts and anti-Muslim racism activists, which is to say advocates of Muslim rights, occasionally remind us of that fact. Hussein Ibish, a well-known personality in the United States, a native of Lebanon, an activist and intellectual who condemns and combats Islamophobia, writes as follows:
Despite all the harm undeniably caused by the proponents of the usual Islamophobic rhetoric, the worst Islamophobes, and, in fact, in many respects, the real Islamophobes, are the violent Muslim extremists, who seem determined to supply the facts to underpin that Islamophobic discourse.
Serious consideration of this factor in any analysis compels us to think differently about the concepts used to combat anti-Muslim racism. If Islamism and its jihadist, political and social tendencies did not exist, Islamophobia could be explained solely on the basis of the variables specific to the host society: colonial history, orientalism, intrinsic racism in the DNA of white societies and so on. We could overlook the facts regarding Islamist violence in Arab and Muslim countries and elsewhere that explain why many Muslims here and there reject the symbols that have been popularized by Islamist trends to the point where those Muslims accuse each other of being Islamophobes. We are caught in a catch-22. If we don’t discuss these points, then they don’t exist, no one asks questions, and if we discuss them, we say that we’d better watch out, that they’re too sensitive and that we shouldn’t discuss them. I’m therefore sticking out my neck here and putting myself at risk.
One could overlook the psychological effect of hundreds of terrorist acts, which are claimed in the name of Islam and explain Islamophobic relations to a large extent. In my written statement, I’ll mention several other similar things. Consideration —
[English]
The Chair: I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you.
Mr. Antonius: Time?
The Chair: Yes, time. Otherwise, we won’t have time for questions.
Mr. Antonius: May I take 30 seconds to finish this?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
[Translation]
Mr. Antonius: So this leads me to three fundamental distinctions: the distinction between Islam and Islamism, that between Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism and, lastly, that between racist rhetoric and legitimate criticism of Islamism and even certain aspects of the religion. These three distinctions are fundamentally important in the analysis. I can come back to them during the period of questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I turn to you, Mr. Lampron, for your remarks.
[Translation]
Louis-Philippe Lampron, Full Professor in Rights and Freedoms, Researcher for the CRIDAQ and Co-spokesperson for GEDEL, Faculty of Law, Laval University, as an individual: Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this invitation to speak with you. I would like to clarify one point. I just want to say that I won’t be speaking on behalf of the Faculty of Law but rather as an individual, as a professor in human rights and freedoms.
You will be pleased to know that my opening statement will be very brief. I obviously approach this issue as a lawyer. For many years, indeed decades now, it has been a commonplace to say that the members of the community of Muslims or Maghrebis, or those perceived as Muslims or Maghrebis, are subjected to stereotypes and prejudices across the western world, in Canada and in Quebec. All the studies agree on that point; you have a multitude of examples. Consequently, it’s a fact: There really are problems, and problems that have been around for many years.
Of course, one of the turning points that exacerbated this discrimination was the attacks on September 11, 2001. There really was a resurgence in the various obstacles facing the members of this minority group across the West.
Now, I imagine that members of the committee have invited me to discuss the balance between the fundamental rights that must be considered, on the one hand, when addressing potential solutions to combating those obstacles and, on the other, when considering when to rely on the concept of Islamophobia and condemning Islamophobia and the political and legal tools to be able to sanction speech concerning Islamophobia, particularly the tension between freedom of expression and criticism of all religions and protection of the equality rights of members of all minority groups and members of minority Muslim communities in Quebec and Canada. The challenge, of course, is to find political and legal solutions that don’t disturb that balance, that are key in implementing all the texts on human rights and liberties. This is always a matter of interdependence and indivisibility. The reason behind the idea that there is, and should be, no hierarchy among the fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of human rights and freedoms is precisely this idea that this is part of a grand whole and that the concept underpinning this complex architecture that dates back to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1948 is the protection of our collective ability to co-exist peacefully with one another, alongside one another, and especially to ensure that majority groups do not abuse their prerogative among minority groups, and I use the plural number in this instance.
So I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this subject, including the implications of the concept of Islamophobia in connection with this balance that should characterize human rights and freedoms in any solution advocated and put forward by the government or legislator. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks.
I will turn to the senators for questions.
[Translation]
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Antonius, you’re a brave man. I don’t have any questions for you because you’ve said it all. Thank you.
I have a question for the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum: Are you involved in the lawsuit against Bill 21 that’s now before the Quebec Court of Appeal?
[English]
Mr. Majzoub: Actually, I mean, as the Muslim community, as the Canadian Muslim Forum, we are all involved. We are not the group that initiated the court case, but it is in the appeal court.
Let me verify something. The issue is not only the legal dimension of law 21 but the actual implications of law 21. Let me tell you, with all respect, that this law does not target immigrants, and there is a wrong impression, and maybe some politicians or some media would like to show this. The implication of this law in particular and its victims are young Quebec women.
There is a grandfather clause. This clause says if you arrive and start teaching before 2019, you can continue your position as a teacher. In other words, all the new arrivals to Canada up to 2019, but we call them immigrants, can still teach. Who’s paying the price now? It’s my kids and your kids who were born in Quebec, raised in Quebec, went to school in Quebec and went to university in Quebec. They cannot teach.
More important and more dangerous for all of us, beside the fact that women are being targeted by the implications of this law, is the fact it is giving a green light for racism and discrimination. This is what is so much not talked about. People speak only about the jobs themselves and that there are some sorts of job that you cannot access. No, it is very dangerous because it gives the okay, that it is fine, and you can give excuses to yourself to start discriminating against others. I believe this is one of the most negative implications of law 21.
Senator Jaffer: You have said this so articulately.
I just have a few seconds, but I have so many questions for you and Mr. Lampron. Maybe we will have time for a second round. There are so many aspects to this. What does your organization do to make people understand what Islam is and what the Muslim community is in Quebec?
Mr. Majzoub: As the Canadian Muslim Forum, I have to put in mind we do not and I don’t encourage people to initiate a direct discussion from a religious point of view. I say very clearly, Muslims are citizens. I have had the chance to meet numerous politicians, decision makers and stakeholders in my last 34 years of activism. As a citizen, I have to be respectful. I pay my taxes and I have to respect the laws, and I have the same rights as any other citizen, and I say Muslims are not supposed to be discriminated against. With all respect to Mr. Antonius, and I respect him a lot, there is no excuse giving, no Islamism, no whatever, because if I start giving up excuses, I will never end. I will never end not only against Muslims, but against Muslims and other groups and other religions. I’m a Canadian, I am a Quebecer, I have the full rights here, and this is what I want.
I started by saying that Islamophobia is not a religious war. It is a hate that we are facing in Canada. I will underline here and stop. In 2016, we signed — because I’m the initiator of a petition on Islamophobia — to condemn Islamophobia in Canada, on which motion 103 and other things came. We said that this is not even a Muslim concern only, this is a Canadian concern. It’s a form of hate that we have seen. People are being killed on the streets, people and worshippers. Families are being eliminated. We initiate our talk as citizens that have the full right to be respected and not discriminated against.
Senator Jaffer: Can I just ask one little question, yes or no?
The Chair: Short question, short answer.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Lampron, I am going to ask a very short question, yes or no, because of time. Are you at all involved in the case on law 21 that is going on in the court of appeal?
Mr. Lampron: No.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Oh, yes, Mr. Antonius. Senator Jaffer, can you put off your —
Mr. Antonius: I was not asked a question by Senator Jaffer, but there was a comment concerning the courage. I want to make a short comment on it. It takes some courage, yes, I agree, but there are things. First, I spent most of my academic career fighting anti-Muslim racism, and I’ve documented this. I’ve analyzed it. My criticism comes from inside, not from outside.
Second, I’m not alone. There are lots of people within the Muslim community who say exactly what I’m saying. They’re not heard. There are people like Yasmine Mohammed, a Canadian of Palestinian and Egyptian origin who wrote this book, Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam. There are many others in the Muslim world. These people are not heard. I don’t feel alone in this criticism, I’m with my brothers, Muslims or non-Muslims, against all kinds of supremacist language, even if it comes from some radical Muslim individuals and organizations.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I just want to respond. I never said that you were alone. I never indicated that you were alone. We hear that too, so thank you.
Thanks, chair, second round.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, Mr. Antonius, you’re brave to say what you said. I’m sure you aren’t the only one because I hear a lot of Muslims who don’t even want to enter mosques any more because they don’t know which ones are extremist Islamist. So that’s something to look at as well, and I think it’s important that we look at all aspects of the issue.
My question is more for Louis-Philippe Lampron. According to the study conducted under the Plan d’action gouvernemental 2015-2018 : la radicalisation au Québec : agir, prévenir, détecter et vivre ensemble, Islamophobia and xenophobia are punishable under the Canadian Criminal Code. However that same report states that the number of acts of hate in Quebec increased by 49% in 2017. Do you think Islamophobia can be defeated in Quebec and Canada under the current statutes and the way they’re enforced?
Mr. Lampron: That’s an excellent question and one that leads us to discuss the definition of hate and the reasons why the Supreme Court of Canada, in Whatcott, set a very high bar for determining what constitutes hate speech. There’s actually a fundamental distinction for me to make here, and that’s the distinction between opinion and speech that should be publicly condemned in a democratic society. For example, we may discuss what’s going on; we’re in Quebec City, and several private radio stations are broadcasting absolutely unacceptable and impermissible comments that are repeated again and again and are such as to perpetuate prejudice against several groups, including Muslims. So many of those comments should be condemned and in fact are.
Now, between the ability one has as a citizen to condemn those comments repeatedly and the actual comments that may properly be prohibited and subject to penalties under law, there is at least an agreed-upon legal threshold that the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly confirmed, and that is that speech that is, of course, broadly critical, that is to say that is broadly critical of religions and groups, regardless of what one may think of that speech, even if it affronts the dignity of members of those groups, is insufficient to constitute hate speech under Canada’s Criminal Code.
Now, the issue, and I believe this is where you’re leading me, is that there is a double burden somewhere in the Criminal Code. There’s the hate issue and the very high evidentiary threshold that must be met to establish that, legally speaking, you’re dealing with hate speech, and the burden of proof there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, a statute like the Canadian Human Rights Act and other instruments respecting human rights and freedoms have provisions — as was the case with the Canadian Human Rights Act — that prohibit hate speech but remove the second burden. We’re obviously not talking about criminal stigma; that wouldn’t be a crime, but there would be a monetary penalty, for example, that could be imposed. Perhaps that’s something that should be explored, considering the algorithmic society that we currently live in and that changes many things, such as the spread of fake news, highly problematic speech and, ultimately, that definition, the threshold for which is very, very high.
So, yes, that’s something that should be explored, but it seems to me that reconsidering the definition of hate would be problematic, and that’s why the concept of Islamophobia, if we decide to move forward with that principle, and that’s always the crux of the matter in law, must be defined in a manner that respects the balance among human rights and freedoms.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Mr. Lampron: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Do I have 10 seconds? All right.
I just wanted to ask Mr. Antonius if he has a specific recommendation regarding the approach, the two factors he discussed.
Mr. Antonius: I’d say that the most important recommendation would be to conduct a serious review of the definition of Islamophobia.
In a piece that the Toronto District School Board prepared to combat anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia is defined as any speech that is critical of Muslims, which is entirely fine. It also contains the words “critical of Islamic culture or politics.” That’s serious. They removed that definition. But how did they come up with such a definition? That means I’d be an Islamophobe if I criticized the Iranian regime’s politics.
The most important recommendation is to consider that definition. As Senator Ataullahjan said yesterday, it’s very profound and very accurate. The word “Islamophobia” very much refers to the feeling of the host society, not what the victims’ experience. So we have a reason to talk about anti-Muslim racism. I entirely agree with what you said, senator. That’s a very important distinction. We must emphasize anti-Muslim racism.
I’ll go a little further: The word “Islamophobia” doesn’t automatically mean anti-Muslim racism. Many Muslims are afraid of Islam because of the current interpretations very much present in certain aspects of Islam. So we have to distinguish that fear of racism. That’s my main recommendation.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I can put you on second round.
Senator Gerba: Okay, thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I would say all three of you have expressed even more detail into Islamophobia and Bill 21. If we are to do something, we have to get down to the bottom. For the three of you, if you had a chance to change Islamophobia, where would you start, how do you start, and what message do you want to give back to the government and to society?
Mr. Majzoub: Just to start, honourable senators, the federal government of Canada, in 2019, came out with a definition of Islamophobia. It is done. The federal Government of Canada has chosen the definition of Islamophobia. It defined Islamophobia as including racism, stereotyping, prejudice, fear or act of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam, in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systematic and societal level. This is the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism in 2019, so the definition of Islamophobia has been defined by the federal government in 2019.
Back to your question, honourable senator, there are a couple of things that I would suggest or underlined very quickly on how we could address this. First, express and show the contribution of Muslim Canadians to society, at all levels, whether at the scientific, social or the political level. This kind of expressing that Muslims are part of this society and have contributed to society might help to reduce the feeling of fear from Muslims and Islam.
Second, give women, Muslim women, the opportunity and the chance to reach out and to be on certain posts, and I’m talking about with qualifications. Give those women the chance and do not deprive them. So we fight and we say no to extremism, and then we ask women to stay home, and this is so very contradictory.
Third, call it out, as we have called it out many times, and move from the good talk, the good rhetoric, to a real political will of having real action plans to deal with Islamophobia, whether it’s the rulings and laws and many specifications to address Islamophobia, on social media, on systematic racism within certain departments or the violence that we’re having. By doing this, having actual and clear action plans, I believe it will start to diminish the effects of Islamophobia. It will not remove it completely because it will always be there, but certainly it will diminish it. Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Mr. Lampron: I’ll take the liberty of starting a second round. Thank you for your question. Thank you for your reading of the definition of Islamophobia that was retained by the federal government. I would say to you that meanings may shift in very broad definitions and that, in rights and freedoms, there are always definitions and possible shifting meanings between what freedom of expression legally means, what its accepted limits are and what that fundamental freedom is made to say in the political sphere. There are always issues.
So going back to the start of my opening statement, what’s very clear, and we no longer need to study this, is that the members of the communities of Muslims and Maghrebis, or individuals who are perceived as such, are subjected to stereotypes and prejudices in the West in general and in Canadian and Quebec society. That’s a fact that we have to work with.
Now, how do we go about improving the situation. When you play with legal tools and talk about speech, there’s always a balance that’s very hard to maintain. It seems that the most promising path is a crosscutting path. We’re talking about discrimination based on ethnic origin and race. There are already many grounds for discrimination in the Canadian and Quebec Charters that can and must be mobilized.
On the issue of hate that seems to be central to the solutions considered by the federal government, what I think is most important is that, if we want to reintroduce into the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions that prohibit hate propaganda and that would cover what’s at the heart of the political definition of Islamophobia — because those grounds are central to a more general provision — other groups are also subjected to hate propaganda: women, homosexuals and others.
The crux of the matter requires that the definition be clear and not go beyond the balance that was established and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Whatcott, meaning that it would be possible to justifiably sanction people for saying certain things, but in view of the severity of that sanction in a free and democratic society which is encouraged to promote debate, even debate that involves criticism and virulent criticism, a distinction has to be made between religion, that is to say a system of dogma and beliefs, and the people who believe and adhere to that system. The former is to be protected, except for certain very extreme areas, whereas the second clearly involves obstacles such as access to the labour market or barriers based on a prohibition of the display of certain religious symbols, when the majority is not required to wear any religious symbols of any kind. This is truly something that lies at the core of any worthwhile process, any process that respects the balance between fundamental rights and the protection of the right to equality. A distinction between the system of beliefs, the religion, the religious institutions and the believers, those who adhere to different systems of beliefs, is therefore required. I’d say the warning about maintaining a balance lies precisely there.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Mr. Antonius, anything to add?
Mr. Antonius: Yes. I would say that I see two major prerequisites for any serene and calm discussion of the issue. One is to end the populist hate discourse against Muslims in populist media. I’ve argued in other places that this discourse has constructed the Muslims as somebody different, and I think whether we agree or disagree with certain attitudes or religious interpretation, everything must be treated with respect, and I think Muslim citizens deserve respect, and this is the starting point. The second and very important point is the nondiscrimination on the job market. I’m not talking specifically about law 21. I’m talking about everything — recognition of degrees, of advancement, of a place of work that is conducive to more equality. When these two conditions are satisfied, we can have a serene discussion on more difficult subject such as secularism. I’m not prepared to discuss that now because the context is not appropriate, but also, as long as there are such discriminations in language and in jobs and the job market, it makes the conversation almost impossible.
Senator Oh: Thank you again.
The Chair: In our travels out West, we had certain witnesses who said that we need to rethink what we’re calling this study, Islamophobia. A phobia means a fear of someone but does not touch on the repercussions that that fear has for the people against whom there’s that fear. I’m thinking of maybe looking at anti-Muslim hate or anti-Muslim racism, and those are discussions that are ongoing.
I have two senators who wanted questions on second round. As the chair, I sometimes don’t get to ask questions. Senator Jaffer, please go ahead. As chair, I also have the liberty to take a few minutes to ask a question. Senator Jaffer, I turn to you.
Senator Jaffer: No, no. You ask your question. That’s not fair.
The Chair: Antonius, Senator Jaffer said you raised a very interesting aspect of the need for Muslims to look within themselves too. I think back to my own political career when I started and I got involved and I wanted to run, and I remember going to a certain mosque who didn’t want to take my flyers. That hurt me deeply, because that, for me, was a rejection by my own people because they did not feel that a Muslim woman should be coming out into politics. When I came to the Senate, Senator Jaffer was already a senator, but there were very few Muslim women who were putting their names on the ballot. When I became a senator, I made a point of going to some of the people who didn’t want me to speak or didn’t want me to be seen to show that, you know, I’m here. For the Muslim women, and I have sisters sitting here, sometimes it is a double burden, the burden that your own people or own group places on you and then the burden that comes from outside. Senator Jaffer and Senator Gerba will tell you that we are not immune to racism. I laughed, but for six months, every time I walked up to the Senate of Canada, the guards would ask me, “Can we help you?” I had to say, “Yes, I’m a senator.” It changed eventually. You have raised that issue of Muslims taking a look at themselves, and we can do that.
I also want to say that I find younger people are more willing to have these discussions. For us, we tend to keep quiet. I do talk about it, but I was told, “Oh, well, you shouldn’t be talking about this now that you’re in this place. You shouldn’t talk about.” I don’t know if I should say this, but when I was doing the study as the chair and I was seeing where we needed to go, somebody suggested that mosque, and I said, “No, how can I go back to that mosque?” After me, a young Caucasian woman came, and they were willing to have her go to the front of the congregation and speak, but me, as a Muslim woman, I was told, “Go sit upstairs and we’ll speak on your behalf.” Thank you for raising the issue that there are some problems that we need to face also.
That wasn’t a question, but a statement. Senator Jaffer, you can ask your question.
Senator Jaffer: Thanks.
Two studies showed recently that there are many students in Quebec, Muslim students, who are wanting to look for work outside the province, and it’s mostly to do with the discrimination that is faced here. I wanted to ask this to the previous panel too. Are you seeing this, and how serious is this issue? I believe that if our young people leave the province, that sort of takes away the strength of the community, and that’s a very serious issue.
Mr. Majzoub: As painful as it is, it is the case. Let’s divide the feeling of moving out between those men who were not born in Quebec and Canada and came from overseas and those who were born here. This is a surprising thing, but those who were not born in Quebec and Canada are ready to resist and stay and fight it. Our children are ready to just pick up their stuff and leave. The numbers are staggering, and the feeling of people just leaving Quebec is staggering.
I sat down with some Quebec officials, and I will not mention names due to the respect of the meetings, and I said my child was born in Sacré-Coeur, went to daycare in French, primary in French, secondary in French, college in French, and university in French, costing thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers in Quebec and to the Ministry of Education. Now that they’ve graduated, they start working and paying taxes, but they’re being discriminated against and being targeted day and night. So many people come to the media to excuse themselves and say that they have the right to target Muslims because of this and that and all those excuses that we hear left and right and centre. How hard on the youth is this? The youth will say, “No problem, I will apply in Ottawa, I will apply in Ontario, or I’ll go to the West.” It is happening a lot, and unfortunately, I don’t see so far any officials in Quebec coming out to say that this is extremely dangerous trend that we’re seeing.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gerba, if you can be brief in your question, and I’ll ask the witnesses to be brief with their answers.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I just wanted to point out that extremism is not only anti-Muslim, but in all religions, and it’s important to pay attention.
[English]
The Chair: When I’m told about extremism in Islam, I bring out the percentage points. It’s 0.01% of Muslims, who unfortunately then shared the blame. In Canada, 1.5 million or 3% of the population is Muslim, and Muslims are not newcomers to this country. The first census shows that there were Muslims already living here in the province of Alberta. Thank you for raising that point. Because of what the media says and the images that are portrayed, it’s always the Muslim terrorists, and never ever have I seen another religion being identified by acts of terror that are committed by people from that religion. No religion supports violence, and Islam says that if you kill one human being, it’s the killing of one of all of humanity. Be aware of that, but thank you for raising that point.
Thank you, witnesses. Your testimony and remarks today will go a long way in helping us when we write our report. If you feel there’s something that you should have mentioned or something you would like to further explore or expand on, please send us a written submission. I thank each and every one of you.
I shall now introduce our third panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from all witnesses and then turn to questions from senators. Witnesses, I ask you to please respect the five-minute time. I hate to interrupt, but we’re under a time crunch.
From the Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme, we have Nabila Yasmine Saidji and Nadège Rosine Toguem. From La ligue des droits et libertés, we have Maxim Fortin, who’s the Quebec City chapter coordinator. I will turn to Nadège to start.
Nadège Rosine Toguem, Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme: Thank you very much. I’m going to talk in French. My name is Nadège Rosine Toguem.
[Translation]
Ms. Toguem: I’m a geographer by training, and I’m speaking on behalf of Quebec’s Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme.
The Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme, the CLAR, was established in October 2021. It hasn’t been a year quite yet, but it will be next month, and we were concerned about not always seeing a reaction every time a discriminatory incident occurred, whether on religious or racial grounds. We felt the need to organize and come up with something, and to take steps to help people live together so that diversity could remain our greatest strength.
I am among those militants who are combatting racism, and there are three of us around this table. I’d like perhaps to take a few seconds to mention our colleague, Douglas Ngankam, who also works with us but is not here today. He works very hard on behalf of the Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme.
I firmly believe in our capacity to work, collaborate, and move forward together, and to help and support one another. That’s because at the CLAR, we don’t claim to have solutions to everything, but focus instead on looking at the facts, proposing steps to take, and, together, suggesting action that will enable everyone to feel at home in our society, so that they can develop their full potential for growth and feel totally at ease in Quebec and Canada.
The CLAR has three primary missions: to defend and promote the rights of racialized people, to combat systemic racism, colonialism, xenophobia and racial hate; to combat all manifestations of racism, whether in terms of work, housing, health, or education in particular; at the same time, we want to combat the racial profiling, that sometimes occurs in the police community. It can take the form of police stopping a woman, man, individual, or driver without a good reason simply because of the colour of their skin, their hairstyle, or even the type of vehicle being driven. We believe that it this is no longer acceptable in today’s world.
Concretely, the CLAR’s goal is to educate and raise public awareness of issues concerning the rights of racialized people, to analyze policies at various levels of government, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to defend the rights of racialized people — I am repeating myself here — in various ways, including support for social struggles. What we do in terms of social struggles is coach people and intervene. Every time an organization working on behalf of racialized people’s rights or simply to help people live together in harmony, we take action, whether with Mr. Maxim Fortin of the Ligue des droits et libertés or with RÉPAC, a popular education organization. RÉPAC representatives frequently take action to combat discrimination or the pauperization of a segment of the population. When that happens, the CLAR unhesitatingly helps out.
Last Saturday, we took part in an activity with another organization, Le Collectif 1629, which was demanding the repeal of section 636, which allows a police officer to stop ordinary people without a valid reason. We think that this section enables certain police officers to profile a segment of the population without any accountability. We therefore didn’t hesitate, and took part in the event. We have asked the police and various levels of government to do something about this section, which in our opinion, oversteps the boundaries.
To explain our background, in 2016, many concerned citizens and volunteers from various walks of life found that there was a form of unease or malaise in Quebec City. People, whether or not they had immigrated were increasingly calling various organizations and complaining about discrimination and racism. They were complaining and expressing their views.
To be sure, different interpretations can be given to what people say when they complain about discrimination, racism, preferential treatment or privileges, but when such views become disproportionate, people will begin to think that there’s something wrong, and that something needs to be done.
In August, Service Canada statistics reported that there had been an increase in hate crimes, linked of course to racism and discrimination. That’s when engaged organizations and citizens got together and talked about what had to be done. That in fact is what led to the birth of the CLAR, based on the idea that we would get together, work on our actions and ideas, and focus our energies on addressing and putting a stop to what we have been seeing, like abnormal things being overlooked and becoming more frequent, and our goal is to enable everyone who comes to Quebec or arrives in Canada to prosper and develop their full potential so that Canada can continue to be a country with a global reputation, particularly given that it is one of the G8 countries. When we talk about the G8, it’s the best place —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you.
Ms. Toguem: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m sure some of the senators will follow up with questions about the issues you are raising.
So, Nabila, I now turn to you.
[Translation]
Nabila Yasmine Saidji, Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme: I’d like to introduce myself. I may be a bit emotional. My name is Nabila Yasmine Saidji. I’m 45 years old, married and have a five-year-old daughter. I’m in charge of projects at Quebec’s health insurance board and I am a member of the CLAR. Ms. Toguem in fact just mentioned in her introduction that we are trying to look at all facets of racism, but I’m just going to give you my point of view.
I spent 23 years in Algeria, and 20 years in France, and we decided on Canada as a host country, not for us, not in order to be 10 hours away from our family, but for our daughter. Because it’s a welcoming land where everyone lives together and what we really want is for our daughter not to be judged either for her colour, because she is of mixed race — my husband is from West Africa — or because her mother is Muslim, or because her middle name is Karima and her first name Cataleya. Proust used the expression “make cattleya” instead of “make love.” So, peace and love.
What I wanted to tell you was that every time I introduce myself to someone, ever since the notorious attacks of September 11, 2001, I always ask myself what the person to whom I’m introducing myself will remember afterwards — what I am, or my name? What are they going to ask after I introduce myself; what country I’m from, or questions about me as a person, as myself? How will the conversation go afterwards, to questions about whether I like the city or my work, living here in Quebec City, or what my religion is, and so on. Do I practise my religion or not, because clearly I don’t fit the stereotype of a white person with light-coloured eyes? I was even told once, “Oh, we thought there was a Quebec woman in the room today,” but as soon as they hear my name, they can tell what my background is.
Am I or am I not in favour of wearing a headscarf? That’s a question I’m often asked. I’m used to questions like that now. I’m not sure whether it’s something you should get used to or whether you should just ask people why they ask those questions instead of just asking about us and what we might share or what we could do together and what our similarities are rather than the differences, because I tell myself that human beings are naturally curious and want to know about others. So perhaps it’s just out of curiosity that I’m asked those kinds of questions.
I’ve made friends and I have ties here in Quebec City. My colleagues and I get along extremely well and we can even argue about certain subjects. When the subject of the headscarf or Bill 21 comes up, a bill that is strangely similar to another in France that we fled from to some extent, and that was divisive — divide and conquer, as people have been saying ever since… I don’t think we have to reinvent the wheel, we’re just passengers on Earth. There will be others after we’re gone.
So Bill 21 really singles people out. Once differences are pointed out and you are singled out, it’s no surprise that other people will react and say, “they’re different from us.” Human nature is afraid of difference. When a company announces an organizational change, who wouldn’t mentor people through the process because they’re afraid of change? So if you point the finger at how we differ and the feeling is that you have to pay attention, they won’t fit in, they won’t have the same rights as us, then we’re playing the game of those who really want to practise racism.
So when I hear people say they disapprove of the headscarf and the fact that certain people practise their religion and put it on display, and I point out that we’re in a free country, that religion is personal, and that the Charter says so, and that everyone is free to practise it as they see fit, they answer: “Yes, but Nabila, you’re not like the others, you have integrated.” Who are these others? If I put on a headscarf tomorrow, am I any less integrated? Would it change me? Are the comments from my friends and colleagues true with respect to my other headscarf‑wearing friends, or about everyone’s right to practise their religion? Is it another form of hostility towards Islamic principles?
I can’t answer all these questions I’m asking, but one thing I truly care about is that Islam means “peace and coexistence,” and respect for one another. Perhaps the word “Islamophobia” — and here I’m with the second group of witnesses — is not the proper term to use, because phobia is a fear. One can have agoraphobia or even atheophobia. The word “Islamophobia,” is recent: It was first used in 1910, during the colonial period, by ethnologists specialized in the study of West African Islam. In that year, in his French West African Muslim policy, Alain Quellien defined Islamophobia as “a widespread prejudice against Islam among people in western and Christian civilizations.”
It entered the French language and was used into the 1920s, but only among Islamophile anthropologists, poets and painters. Sociologist Vincent Geisser says that at the time, the word soon disappeared from the vocabulary in the first half of the 20th century. In fact, it didn’t reappear — unsurprisingly — until the early 2000s, after September 11, 2001, in the media. In other countries, debate is underway about the proper use of the term.
What cannot and ought not to be ignored are manifestations of anti-Muslim hate, and anti-Muslim incidents. These need to be condemned along with all other manifestations of hate against human beings. We need to condemn judging a person simply because that person’s name has a connotation, or that access to the same pleasures as other people is denied because of a headscarf, a yarmulke, a turban or a crucifix. That person ought not to be judged. We must condemn any displays of disgust or hate just because of our clothing or the wearing of a religious symbol. We must not encourage a society that points to our differences rather than our similarities.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Nabila. I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you.
Ms. Saidji: No, no, it’s fine. I’m finished.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Maxim, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Maxim Fortin, Coordinator, Quebec section, Ligue des droits et libertés: Good morning. The Ligue des droits et libertés was one of the first Quebec community organizations to take an interest in Islamophobia and the political, economic, social and cultural policies that fuel it. After the attack on the Quebec City mosque, anti-racism became one of our priority areas of focus, and Islamophobia in particular. In investigating this term, we collaborated with various others, and launched several initiatives that I won’t be discussing today. I’m going to concentrate on the 12 recommendations that were made to us as part of that work.
In the course of our field work, we identified a link between Islamophobia and the rise in hate crimes, Islamophobia and racism in general. That is what these 12 recommendations focus on.
Here then are the 12 recommendations based on our analysis of Islamophobia and our actions to counter it. The first is to identify the trends and factors giving rise to a rise in hate crimes. From a report based on a survey we carried out, called Portrait de l’extrême droite à Québec, we identified four major currents contributing to xenophobia and Islamophobia, including in Quebec City and the province of Quebec. First there was the new racist and xenophobic extreme right that mainly surfaced in 2015, whereas demagogic populism, identity nationalism and conspiracy theories appeared mainly at the beginning of the pandemic.
Our second recommendation is to document hate crimes locally and nationally. That, among other things, is what we began to do with our study of bills on secularism. The study is called Les projets de loi de sur la laïcité augmentent-ils le nombre de crimes haineux au Québec?: It’s a statistical and quantitative study prepared by economist Raphaël Langevin. It came essentially to two conclusions, finding first of all that there was a close correlation between the beginnings of public debate over secularism and the increase in hate crimes, and aimed at Islam in particular.
The other conclusion was that there was a blatant lack of rigour from the authorities, including the City of Quebec and its police service, with respect to the production and interpretation of hate crime data. We at the Ligue des droits et libertés were approached by the CBC and Radio-Canada about Quebec City police underestimates of hate crimes.
The third recommendation is to analyze cases and statistics locally and nationally, and draw conclusions in order to guide our actions. Islam and racism are of course fuelled by international factors, but also local factors. In Quebec City, three factors were deemed to be particularly important: the historic conservatism of the greater Quebec City area, the low level of recent international immigration, and the influence of talk radio shows.
Our fourth recommendation is to document the rise of the far right in Quebec and Quebec City since 2015. That’s precisely what we did in our study entitled Portrait de l’extrême droite à Québec. There has been unprecedented growth in the far right in Quebec, Canada and Quebec City since 2015. The far right has become the main driver of Islamophobia on social networks and in the public sphere, and it is being normalised to some degree through media like the Québecor network and some emerging political tendencies in the Conservative Party of Quebec, not the Conservative Party of Canada, although the latter might become a matter for debate as well.
The fifth recommendation is to identify far-right leaders and influencers. Why, you might ask, is it necessary to identify the leaders and proponents in order to gain familiarity with the far right?
The sixth recommendation is to monitor the online networks and activities of far-right leaders and influencers. That’s what we have been doing since 2015, and it has allowed us to build a case against a number of groups and individuals and prove the hatefulness of their ideology, including when they have been charged with offences, often under ordinary criminal law. As a result, individuals propounding ideologies of hate can be linked demonstrably to the heinous nature of what they do.
The seventh recommendation is to report, point out and condemn what the far right propounds on the web. That’s what we have done since 2015. The web is the main lifeline for hate movements and groups. It’s essential to cut off their access to some platforms, particularly as they regularly flout the rules of these platforms.
The eighth recommendation is to block hate group access to public places by exposing them. Hate movements have very little in the way of physical space for their activities. Even on the web, they are very closely monitored, and often refused access to public spaces. It’s therefore important to continue to expose them and to make those who host them aware of the fact that they are hate groups. For example, if a neo-Nazi group is giving a concert, the Ligue des droits et libertés and several other groups warn the presenters and concert halls, and this often leads to the show’s cancellation.
The ninth recommendation is to promote the organization of racialized people from a socio-political advocacy standpoint. That, among other things, is what we helped to accomplish with the establishment of the Collectif de lutte et d’action contre le racisme. We believe that it’s essential to go beyond education and coexistence. Racialized people would do well to organize themselves collectively with a view to advocacy and the affirmation of their rights. Unfortunately, the funds and programs for community groups are skewed towards social and cultural programs, coexistence and things like that. You can ask the CLAR, but there is very little federal funding for the socio-political organization of racialized people that would enable them to fight for their rights.
The tenth recommendation is to promote condemnation of hate crimes by coaching the victims. The CLAR will be the first resource in the Quebec City area to do so. Currently, in the Quebec City area, if you are the victim of a hate crime, you can make a complaint, but there are no civil society groups to mentor you through the process.
The eleventh recommendation is to avoid concealing hate by emphasizing mental illness whenever a hateful act is committed by someone who might have mental health issues. We believe that in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, several stakeholders placed far too much of an emphasis on the mental health component of the offence and played down the Islamophobic aspect. The Ligue des droits et libertés did not speak out in connection with that debate, but we’d like to share our perspective with you today.
The final recommendation is to publicize the fact that the debate on secularism and religious symbols in Quebec has emboldened individuals and groups that want to act out and help commit hate crimes. That, among other things, is what came out in our statistical study entitled Les projets de loi sur la laïcité augmentent-ils le nombre de crimes haineux au Québec? Our conclusion is that the debate over religious symbols Is being carried on at the expense of racialized people and tinged with Islamophobia, and that there has been an increase in religious- and race-related crimes during the debate on the Quebec Charter of values. Without wishing to say that these debates ought not to take place, we would like to argue that we need to be aware of the fact that they are having a harmful impact on coexistence and likely to create a climate that will be conducive to hate crimes.
I’ll conclude with a straightforward example. The worst comments we at the Ligue des droits et libertés ever received on our web page were during the debates over Bill 21. One of our members even had her headscarf ripped off by a passerby in the street. So it’s absolutely true to say that the worst things and moments we ever experienced were during that debate. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Fortin, the recommendations that you just made, if you could submit those to us in writing, that would greatly help us, the 12 recommendations that you just made.
I have senators who want to ask questions, and I will start with Senator Gerba.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’d like to thank the witnesses for having come to speak with us today. We greatly appreciate your testimony, your efforts and the assistance you provide to people who are victims of Islamophobia and racism generally.
And now to Maxim Fortin. Thank you very much for your recommendations. As the chair said, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send them in writing to our clerk, because that’s exactly the sort of thing we need.
If you have anything in particular to add about the federal government, what steps would you recommend we take?
Mr. Fortin: I would really emphasize the support provided in helping racialized people and minority communities to organize. Minority communities find themselves in circumstances in which the power relationship is unfavourable to them, because they are in the minority and because the other groups are organized and able to battle for their interests when racialized people do not have these props. That means that collective efforts are never in play on behalf of racialized people. They need to find champions, celebrities, or major movements to defend them. My view is they need to be able to defend their claims independently as they do battle and try to organize in a manner that would enable the federal government to be there to defend them.
In Quebec, it looks like the CLAR will continue to exist thanks to the funding provided by Quebec’s ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale. Under Quebec’s existing programs, the CLAR might well continue to exist for another 10 or 20 years. The CLAR could not exist under the federal government’s programs alone. The CLAR may end up as a set of projects that will be continually renewed. I believe that one of Canada’s weaknesses, particularly in English Canada, is that there are very few opportunities to fund initiatives like the CLAR and it’s very difficult to find funding for them in Canada.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much. I understand that funding is the solution, as is support for organizations to make them sustainable.
On that point, Ms. Nadège Rosine Toguem, since the establishment of the CLAR in 2021, have you received reports from victims of racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia?
Ms. Toguem: Yes, we’ve heard about incidents. Even earlier, when I was reporting some background information, we were hearing about them. Towards the end of last November, there was a forcible arrest of a young Black man on the Grande Allée, and we saw how the entire population stood up to support him, but felt that from the organizational standpoint, things were weak, by which I mean that racialized populations, in addition to being in the minority, are less well organized because they are also more precarious. Whether in terms of work or other types of resources, and even human resources, they are on shaky ground. When people experience challenges like these, they say to themselves that between defending their rights and finding something to eat… It’s always a challenge to decide to defend your rights versus having to work to be able to eat. In instances like these, citizens do not avail themselves of the law and all the benefits available to them in Canada. Nor, at this stage, can they develop their full potential under conditions like that.
So yes, we receive reports of people who are victims of Islamophobia and racism, but as Maxim mentioned, we’re a small organization and a small team. We try to get things done, but we have trouble obtaining funding to help these people and ourselves. That’s because in order to do this kind of work, you have to be able to read and document cases, and work with other organizations, which remains a challenge even now. As for the cases themselves, there are lots of them.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much.
Ms. Toguem: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: My first question is for Mr. Fortin.
Mr. Fortin, when I was young, I was very much involved in women’s rights, and one thing that I found was really difficult… I’ll explain it in English.
[English]
We’ve always said there was money for dancing and eating, but there was no money to push for — at that time, I was fighting for English rights, just to learn English, and that’s been a frustration forever. It just feels like there is this idea that people are given money to sing and dance and have cultural functions, but there’s no money to really deal with the nub of things. Perhaps offline or something, you can send some recommendations of what we can do. I’ve had this question, and I know your frustration because I’ve had that for all the time I’ve been here. I keep saying that it’s not about singing and dancing, it’s about our integration. But the question I have is, with providers, have you had success? Have you made presentations and have you had success with them?
Mr. Fortin: For the financing, I think that Rosine —
Senator Jaffer: No, I was just remarking on the providers.
Mr. Fortin: What kind of provider? The federal government or private?
Senator Jaffer: Yes, online providers. You were saying that you have to reach online providers to see, if there are hate messages, how they deal with it. I thought you were talking about that.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: It’s hard to get through to the providers. Providers seem much more receptive to the idea of freedom. Providers, particularly internet providers, are cautious. Curiously, I would say that the most recent amendments have meant that we are now having problems with our communications on the internet. Many Internet providers have reviewed their policies, but it’s got to the point that even the CLAR has trouble announcing its political events.
So the policy reviews stemming from criticisms received in connection with the far right and the dissemination of hate messages has spoiled things for everyone, including anti-racism groups.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I have a question for CLAR, for both of you. I’ve been a lawyer all my adult life, and when I used to go to court, I would always tell the judge that the person’s only been arrested because they’re Black while driving. I’m sad to hear that still exists. We’re going to have to deal with that for a long, long time.
I really admire what you’re doing and the stand you’ve taken to find a way to bring harmony to the community, and that’s what we always have to work on. With Bill 21 and the intersection of Muslim women and racism, have you found that there is an increase? Has there been a problem? In what way has it increased? I think there was always racism against Muslim women, but has Bill 21 increased the discrimination against Muslim women?
[Translation]
Ms. Toguem: From CLAR’s point of view, whether it’s racism or Islamophobia — Islamophobia is a form of racism too; it’s discrimination — I believe that Bill 21 has exacerbated the problem.
Being in the minority is also unhelpful because every time you might want to vote or do something, people will say the majority rules. Here again, even if we don’t vote or don’t react there is always a majority who will win out. So we’re in a situation where it’s truly difficult to put proposals forward.
The federal or provincial government will have to deal with this matter and try to come up with proposals to integrate the entire population, even the parts of it that are in the minority. For example, in connection with section 636, it’s important for police officers to know that when they stop someone, whatever their skin colour, background, what they are wearing, or whether they are wearing a headscarf, there may be consequences if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so. They need to know that they can’t necessarily get out of trouble simply because it’s provided for in this act. We get the impression that they are protected by the act.
When the police stop someone, it’s almost always the individual or the driver who will be stressed and upset and who will suffer afterwards. On Saturday we heard from a lawyer, a Black woman, who was stopped by a policeman just because she was looking at him. She was stopped at a red light and as soon as she started driving again, she saw the rotating beacons behind her. She stopped and asked the officer whether she had done something wrong. He told her, “no, you were looking at us,” to which she replied that she didn’t know that looking at someone was an offence in Canada, and whether there were other reasons. Then he said, “I could find other grounds,” to which she replied, “go right ahead, but I’d like to warn you that I’m a lawyer,” after which he told her to drive on.
So we understand that because the law gives them the ability to do that, they use it for ends not anticipated by the legislator. Because when the act was being drafted, they didn’t expect to be discriminating against a portion of the population. So we believe that another act, or another way of doing things, could prevent other legislation like this from passing into law and causing segments of the population to feel singled out, frustrated or ostracized by the police or other bodies that are supposed to protect and help them. Did you want to add something else, Nabila?
Ms. Saidji: I was going to answer —
[English]
The Chair: Nabila, can I ask you to be really quick? It’s after 12.
Ms. Saidji: Yes, I’ll go really quickly.
[Translation]
Ms. Saidji: I’m just going to answer your question, Ms. Jaffer. What did Bill 21 do to increase that? It points out our differences. That’s what makes the difference. Some people in remote villages, or in the country, only pay attention to the media, and the media haven’t helped. I’m sorry, I do have a lot of respect for them, but when they point to a terrorist and identify the person as being from some other place, or when a criminal is identified and the media point out that the person is a Muslim, or someone who wears a headscarf or does such and such, differences are being pointed out. In these remote villages, people are not as diverse as in Montreal or Quebec City, where there is beginning to be quite a lot of immigration. In some villages, people only have the media to rely on and that’s it.
During the debate over Bill 21, Sikhs and headscarf-wearing Muslims were pointed out. They were prohibited from enjoying the same options as others. So that was already setting them apart from others. How can you expect that to make people less fearful, when they are being identified as different? Let’s try to promote multiculturalism, for instance by having more lawyers to help and support them. Let’s try to focus on our similarities, by which I mean that we’re all human and we all have blood.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Nabila.
[Translation]
Ms. Saidji: Red, not green.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Oh, did you have a question?
Senator Oh: Yes.
The Chair: Really brief question and really brief answer. We’ve gone over time already.
Senator Oh: All of you talk about racism, racial profiling and discrimination. Canada is a multicultural society. We all hear that that is what the government promotes. Have you ever considered joining forces with all the minorities? The problem you talked about today happens all across Canada. Do you ever make your voice bigger and join forces with other minority groups about integration and make your voice louder so that the government pays attention? This is not only your problem; this is across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: The CLAR is a collective of racialized people which is not centred on a community cause. So what it does cuts across various areas. At the Ligue des droits et libertés, the focus is on alliances with white groups, majority groups, and efforts at getting together at the regional, national and international levels.
The reason it’s difficult for us to join together is that we are still too weak at the local level. When the local levels become strong, they will be able to network with regional, national and international stakeholders. For the time being, we have only a few motivated individuals at the more local levels. These nuclei need to be transformed into solid organizations that are capable of building viable and robust networks.
Ms. Toguem: To add to what Maxim said, the CLAR is working with RÉPAC, as I mentioned. RÉPAC is a popular education organization made up entirely of the majority population. They are allies, so we are not just working among ourselves, we are not working in an isolated way, but with other communities that share our demands and that mentor us.
Whenever you go to see any of our demonstrations or other activities, you’ll see that it’s not just Muslims and Black people. There are also Latinos. Some of the people were born here and don’t even understand what it is we’re trying to say. We formulate demands and end up finding that our fellow citizens, our friends here, are not even aware of the fact that things like that were happening here. So we raise awareness and reach out. We ask them whether they knew that some citizens, or even their neighbours, were experiencing situations like that. They’ve never been stopped by the police. They don’t know what it’s like.
Thanks to the CLAR, when problems of this kind are put on the table, they take it all in, they mentor us, and we think that it opens up debate and allows various people to become aware of what we’re all experiencing in Canada, meaning that we have some problems that others don’t encounter. Those among our allies who are in a privileged position unhesitatingly call attention to such problems and coach us on a regular basis.
Ms. Saidji: I wanted to say that we do volunteer work, and we do it because we care. We volunteer in other associations that promote peaceful coexistence, like the Collectif culturel Mondo. This was the ninth time the festival was held here in Quebec City, bringing together all Quebec City immigrants. When I told my employer that I had been invited to take part, he was unfamiliar with that organization, even though the festival was being held for the ninth time. He knew about the Quebec City summer festival, but not the MondoKarnaval festival. There were Tunisians, Moroccans, and singing. It was a cultural sharing event. There were people who came from Mexico but were now Quebecers who shared their culture. Some people said to me, “Oh dear, we saw women wearing a headscarf dancing.” Can you believe it? Others said that they didn’t know hijab-wearing women were allowed to sing and dance. That’s what coexistence, living together, is all about. It means showing, cultivating, and sharing information, but not disinformation.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Nadège, you said something that struck my interest. You talked about a certain time when you felt the mood change in Quebec. Very briefly, just explain to me when that was, and what do you think brought that mood change in Quebec?
[Translation]
Ms. Toguem: When I spoke about change, I was referring back to the statistics from August and the discussion about the increase in hate crimes here in Quebec City. The statistics are clear, but we at the CLAR can see that there are some positive winds of change. There are two opponents facing one another. On the one hand is the extreme right wing, and the growing number of hate crimes resulting from policies that appear to encourage them. On the other is a great deal of solidarity and a lot of support from the allies that have been mentoring us and showing us what we can do to gain people’s attention, and in particular to raise public awareness.
In my time with the CLAR for just over a year now — I am one of the founding members — I can see that people generally ignore many issues. Our goal is to make people aware, and familiarize the public with those problems. I’m convinced that when you don’t know, you can’t be judged, and it’s impossible to say that part of the population discriminates because they aren’t even aware that it’s discrimination.
So if we had more energy, more funding and more strategic support to raise public awareness and explain our challenges to them, I’m convinced that we would have their support and assistance. We’re not asking for privileges, just the ability to be equal, to live like ordinary people, and be able to develop our full potential. Because when we are discriminated against, when we go about with fear in our hearts, and live without really living, we transmit this fear to our children and we ourselves are unable to develop our full potential because we are always worried when we ought not to be.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much.
I will also take this opportunity to sincerely thank all of you for your testimony. This will help us when we write our report, and your presence here is greatly appreciated.
We now have a one-hour panel with a number of witnesses who have been invited, and I shall take this opportunity to introduce our witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from all the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
We have with us, from the Muslim Students Association, the University of Montréal, Yasser Lahlou; from the Muslim Students Association of Laval University, Arroun Arafat Mfochivé, president; and from la Féderation des femmes du Québec, we have Teresa Sagna, administrator. I now invite Yasser to make his presentation.
[Translation]
Yasser Lahlou, Muslim Students Association of the University of Montreal: Honourable members of the standing committee, on behalf of the Muslim Students Association of the University of Montreal, I’d like to thank you for this invitation to share our perspective on Islamophobia.
Our student association represents Muslim students at the University of Montreal and its affiliated schools: HEC Montréal and the École Polytechnique. Our mission is the advancement of Muslim students on campus by means of a variety of initiatives to promote education, humanitarianism and social engagement.
As you know, we are gathered here in a city where six Muslims were brutally assassinated in 2017 simply because they were exercising a fundamental right in Canada, freedom of religion. Because of this tragedy, historic Quebec City has once again earned an entry in our country’s history, but in an unfortunate way that will forever leave a bitter taste in the minds of all Canadian Muslims and all people who defend the fundamental freedoms of our country.
Islamophobia is anything but a phenomenon specific to Quebec, even though the province’s relationship with Muslims is as special as it is worrisome. I will of course come back to this point later in my presentation. At the national level, extreme outbursts of anti-Muslim hate have also resulted in deaths. There were, for example, the attack in London, Ontario, and at the International Muslims Organization, the IMO, in Toronto. According to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Canada stands out from the other G7 countries in having the highest number of Islamophobic killings in recent years.
Now that the facts have been established, I would like to address what is commonly called the “Quebec exception.” Although it would be inaccurate to deny the distinctiveness of Quebec in relation to the rest of Canada, this expression is often synonymous with the legitimization of systemic discrimination, for which Bill 21 is the standard-bearer. As a student association, we associate every day with Muslim women who have willingly decided to wear the headscarf, but who are as a result denied access to certain events because of their decision. These are young women, mothers and sisters who want nothing more than to have the freedom to wear what they want. Their struggle to wear a headscarf is identical to the battle being fought by Iranian women for the right not to wear one. We in our student association believe that no one should be able to tell women what they can wear or not wear.
Apart from this secular legislation, which we sincerely hope will be repealed as soon as possible, we have also noticed the Islamophobic rhetoric adopted by some politicians and broadcast by some media without context, criticism or commentary. The current premier of Quebec, François Legault, has been making a lot of controversial statements, such as denying the existence of Islamophobia in the province, refusing to acknowledge systemic racism, and the recent and very clumsy association made between immigration and crime.
Better informed people might point to the fact that Mr. Legault was careful to tone down his comments after receiving criticism, but it was simply too late, and the harm had already been done. The premier is only the best known among the politicians who are exploiting Islam, Muslims and immigrants. It’s a form of rhetoric that is extremely harmful to a sense of belonging within the Muslim community and to national cohesiveness. By marginalizing part of the population and creating a form of second-class citizenship, the social divide becomes more than a threat, and rather a reality that contributes to radicalization and cultural withdrawal among modern Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Today, we are sad to have to report that Quebec, more specifically, has been following in the footsteps of France in its treatment of the Muslim minority. However, my student association and I remain optimistic for the future, on condition that something is done. Here are five recommendations our society ought to adopt, and which we think could preserve the rights granted under federal and provincial charters of rights and freedoms.
To begin with, the Act respecting the laicity of the State, Bill 21, should be repealed.
Second, secondary school, college and university teaching institutions should provide spiritual spaces as a way of normalizing the plurality of religions in society.
Third, there ought to be a code of conduct during elections that would sanction any hate speech or any exploitation of Islam and Muslims, and other marginalized groups.
Fourth, a program should be introduced to facilitate the installation of security infrastructures in mosques and community organizations.
Fifth, local authorities should be pressured to introduce response units specialized in hate crimes that are trained specifically to provide assistance to victims.
I would be happy to answer any questions that committee members may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now I will turn to Arroun Arafat.
[Translation]
Arroun Arafat Mfochivé Badiane, président, Muslim Students Association of Laval University: Senators, ladies and gentlemen, honourable members and guests, fear, mistrust, and a dominant language cause closed-mindedness at the expense of openness. What is this fear based on? Prejudices, stereotypes, a narrow and binary vision in which there is a “me” and an “I” opposed to a “you,” and a “we” against a “you.” It is a system and an individual that develop mechanisms to defend themselves and remain secure. That’s the spiral of Islamophobia, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission defines as, “racism, stereotypes, prejudice and fear or acts of hostility directed at people who are Muslim or who are followers of Islam.”
Islamophobes perceive Islam to be a security threat. That’s the definition provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That being the case, what do they do? They develop mechanisms for hatred, contempt, attacks and sometimes violence to assuage their personal desires. It is certainly this hate and contempt that put Islam in second place as one of the religious groups most targeted by hate, according to data published by Statistics Canada on March 17, 2022.
It’s this denial of other people who should not be able to exist, think, reflect and live in the way Islamophobes would like, or in their image. That’s probably what led to the shooting at the door of the mosque in Scarborough on April 16, 2022; the attack on the Afzaal family by a truck driver; the death of a volunteer guard stabbed and killed in Toronto on September 13, 2020; and, closer to home, the hateful terrorist attack on the Quebec City mosque, which left six dead bodies in the square and five wounded, not to mention an entire community now living in terror, disarray and fear.
That’s no doubt what led a man who, having failed to scam me in an online purchase called me a couscous eater, a “rotten race,” a “bloody monkey,” and, to top it all off, “Bin Laden.” The list of acts like these that break up lives is lengthy and I couldn’t possibly read it all here. The evil is certainly there; it continues to create victims who, when they don’t die a certain death, are physically or psychologically harmed.
In that kind of climate, solutions might be at hand. A deconstruction of prejudices and stereotypes is urgently needed. At this stage, everyone has a role to play: states, the media, government and non-government organizations, and also communities. We would do well to consider human, social and cultural relationships not as power relationships, and submission, but as relationships of being receptive to others in order to put an end to the hardening of positions and the violence that is never far off. Listening to one another even if we are on different sides, and respecting one another even if we disagree, would stop the spread of violence. Accepting difference is not a flaw, but something to cherish. And to conclude, I’d like us all to think about the comment below from a French psychotherapist:
There’s a lot more intelligence in two hearts trying to understand one another than in two minds trying to win an argument.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Sagna, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Thérèse Sagna, Board Member, Fédération des femmes du Québec: Good day, honourable senators, and thank you for having invited us to discuss an issue that has been of great concern to us for many years now, an issue that affects Muslim women in particular and which is not discussed much in public: Islamophobia.
At the Fédération des femmes du Québec, we work on transforming social relationships between the sexes and on eliminating dominance relationships from every sphere of life. Accordingly, we condemned Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, from the very outset. We condemned this act not because we are against secularism, but because we are afraid of the impact this act will have on Muslim women. We are afraid that this act is having a material impact not only by restricting freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the right of Muslim women to work, but also increasing Islamophobia in Quebec.
A recent study published by the Association for Canadian Studies in partnership with the Leger company, shows that our fears were well founded, that Bill 21 is another striking example of systemic racism in Quebec and that this legislation, which had been presented to us as a tool to make women and men more equal, has in fact discriminated against some women and generated hate against them.
We were therefore not surprised when we saw the dramatic figures from the previous study, which showed that 73% of Muslim women have not felt as safe in public since the passage of Bill 21; 57% of Muslim women indicated a significant reluctance to express themselves freely in public; 80% of Muslim women lost hope for the future of their children in Quebec; more than 66% of Muslim women in Quebec were subjected to hate and other incidents. These figures are alarming and everyone should know about them; 73% of Muslim women no longer felt safe in Quebec and this feeling of insecurity is well-founded, because 66% of Muslim women have experienced hate crimes. Nothing more needs to be demonstrated: Bill 21 is discriminatory and its impact has been to increase Islamophobia in Quebec.
I’d like to emphasize an important point: Women are much more affected by acts of violence and Islamophobia, particularly if they wear religious symbols and if they were not born in Canada. It is therefore essential to study Islamophobia with an intersectional approach if we are to acquire a better understanding of all the factors involved in this form of intolerance. At the Fédération des femmes du Québec, we focus in particular on Muslim women who wear the hijab or niqab, and on everyone who might find themselves extremely vulnerable because of this discriminatory legislation.
We are thinking about all those women who lost their job or career opportunities and are now living in uncertainty with respect to the future. We are thinking of all those women who, in addition to being discriminated against by Bill 21, see their vulnerability increasing because of the reform of Bill 101. We are thinking about all those who experience violence in their everyday lives because they are Muslim women, and we are angry because the government still refuses to acknowledge the existence of systemic racism or to take the steps required to counter it. We are angry because we live in a country that claims to be a egalitarian, but which introduces blatantly discriminatory acts that attack women who have become disadvantaged because of a system that has forgotten them, isolated them and left them vulnerable to violence and injustice.
We have a collective responsibility, and that is to make sure that unjust laws do not keep people in extremely vulnerable circumstances, and that ensure everyone is safe and shown respect here. We therefore would ask you to do everything in your power to condemn systematic racism and discriminatory legislation. That’s what we, at the Fédération des femmes du Québec, intend to continue doing. Thank you for hearing us out.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. I turn to the senators for questions.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to you the witnesses as well; we are very grateful to have had you here today, and your testimony and presentations are much appreciated.
My initial question is for Mr. Arroun and Mr. Yasser. What do you, who are in a student setting, think could be done for education to address the problem of Islamophobia that we have been experiencing in Canada, and in Quebec in particular?
Mr. Lahlou: Thank you, senator, for your question — it’s a very good one. In my humble opinion, I think that education has a degree of power, and that it can counteract certain forms of societal rhetoric. Education must remain free of any political impact or influence. It has to be the most objective possible way of presenting information that is accurate. That’s how I see it, and also as a way of making those students who will be building Canada in the future aware of the current realities and the possible Islamophobic threats hovering over our society.
So I would like to repeat that there are two ways of addressing the problem: to provide information that is accurate, and to make students aware of the hazards ahead. Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Mr. Badiane: Thank you, senator. As I was saying in my address, and it deserves to be repeated, is that in order to reduce the tension, one or two buttons would have to be pushed. The first is communication: telling people what Islam is. I know that may appear utopian or unrealistic; Islamophobes, based on the evidence, rely on things that are not true. For Islamophobes, a Muslim is someone who commits violent acts, and that’s all they know. Muslims disparage women, and as a result of that a form of contempt and hatred arises. So if we educate people and tell them about what the situation really is and that a lot of what they are hearing about Islam is not true, then perhaps the setting or the atmosphere might become less strained and enable people to understand that Muslims are anything but a threat.
It’s true that a falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest. We will no doubt see some things related to Islam that will be taken as typical, and I truly believe that if we were able to deconstruct this image, it could relax the atmosphere, reassure those who glare at Muslims as if they might do them harm.
So I nevertheless believe that we can press those buttons, if only to tone down the atmosphere and let people on both sides feel more reassured about each other. Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. In your work for your associations, have you attempted this kind of educational approach with people who are unaware, and know nothing about Islam? Can you suggest any approaches that could help people understand?
Mr. Badiane: Thank you. It’s important to point out that we are fortunate to be attending university. It gives us the opportunity to practise our faith on campus because there are two places of worship. One on Friday and another for daily prayer. So I don’t think the problem lies there.
To answer your question, what we usually do is organize lectures and discussions to which we often invite people who are not Muslim, not to convince them to adopt Islam, but to explain to them what Islam is, as I was saying, to deconstruct what’s being said here and there which is not really part of Islam. So there are generally discussions with people who are not Muslim, and we try to speak with them about things such as what they are afraid of, what they have heard said about Islam that might not be true, or other related topics.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Our committee plans to write a report to bring more attention to this issue and make recommendations to the government. What do you have in your mind as the most important thing that will help people understand the Muslim community and help to solve Islamophobia?
[Translation]
Mr. Lahlou: Thank you, Senator Oh, for your question. I’ll do my best to answer it. It’s a very good question, but also one that is very complex. I don’t think that there’s only one recommendation I could make. There are several, and I made five, but you’re asking me to choose and decide which is the main one.
I think that right now, the most harm is being caused by legislation like Bill 21, which has been very very popular in some circles in Quebec in particular, and it’s Quebec Muslims who are taking the hit, and particularly Muslim women. So if I had to prioritize my recommendations, that would be number one, but of course normalizing the Muslim presence in Canada is important. Muslims are Canadians who want to be Canadians, and unfortunately there are not more of them — but since they are more attached to their country of origin, because Islam resulted from immigration, Muslims want to be Canadian and feel Canadian. Thank you.
Mr. Badiane: What I could add to what Yasser is saying is that beyond the education I was talking about earlier, perhaps following education, it would be possible to move to a higher level: legislation. Because if we educate people about Islam, then afterwards there would have to be legislation that sanctions behaviour that goes against the ability to live in harmony. And I say to myself that at that stage, perhaps the Senate — I may be wrong — could do something like that. They could be educated about what it means to live in harmony, living in diversity, living with people who may not be like us and who are not — who don’t even have the same culture as us, but afterwards when we press the second button, by which I mean legislation, it would be possible to pass legislation that protects these minorities and keeps them safe.
Ms. Sagna: I’m going to add something. I believe that students are a good thing, but it’s also important for senior leaders to know more. They need to be taught first because they don’t know, and when we go abroad and recruit people, the most important thing is money. So they are the first people who really need to be educated, and when we get closer to the base, they know who they’re dealing with. Education, awareness — I don’t know. It’s more intelligent to ask the question in order to know what it means. So we need education. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a country that is familiar with all of its history, but it’s important to know it, and when someone like me arrives from a Muslim country — I may be Catholic, but I know what the Muslim religion is all about.
So people’s lack of understanding, along with journalists who at all costs want to have a story to tell and report things, everybody needs to be educated and it should be happening everywhere, including on television, and not just behind closed doors. It needs to be spelled out, and we must not be afraid of telling the truth. That then is why we are really asking that these recommendations — which the leaders should take the time to learn and understand, in order to be able to take action through legislation as well. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: One more question?
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Oh: All of you are well educated. What do you think of freedom of expression, especially the press? With freedom of speech in Canada, you can say whatever you want. There are two standards of freedom of speech, so can you tell us your take on freedom of speech?
[Translation]
Mr. Lahlou: It is in fact true that Canada gives us the right of freedom of expression. I also thank you for your question, and I’m sorry. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but not an absolute right. It needs to be limited to exclude anything pertaining to incitement to hate and which causes prejudice to anyone.
That’s my understanding of freedom of expression in Canada.
Mr. Badiane: I’m sorry. What I might add to what Yasser was saying is that it’s true, there is some freedom of expression, but what needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that if this freedom threatens community living, then that’s perhaps when action is required. Because freedom of expression may run counter to the goal of living in community, living in states, I nevertheless believe that here, an attempt can be made to see how it might be possible to keep everyone happy without harming one party at the expense of the other.
Ms. Sagna: And I would add that this freedom of expression is that got us to where we are today — here, sitting down and speaking to you. So that’s something too. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you.
The Chair: Mrs. Sagna, you raised a very important point, which we, on this committee, learned a long time ago when we did a study on cyberbullying, which is to educate the educators. Sometimes those who are in position to pass a certain message don’t really know too much about the issue.
[Translation]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your work, and for being here, it’s —
[English]
This is our last panel, and honestly, sitting here, I have to tell you that I feel very proud of you, but I also feel this has been a great way for us to end our panels in Quebec. You’ve given us a lot to think about.
My first question is for Mr. Lahlou and Mr. Badiane. Do you get support from other students? I used to be very active when I was at university — it was hundred years ago — and we always used to reach out to other students to get help. Do you get help? Do other students show you support? Are they working with you, those who don’t belong to your group?
Mr. Badiane: I just want to understand, are you talking about students at the university, Muslim students, or —
Senator Jaffer: No, non-Muslim.
[Translation]
Mr. Lahlou: Thank you, senator, for the question. Okay, it’s true that we’re talking about associations, and particularly communities. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can answer your question precisely, because we have never had the opportunity to talk to other student associations, for example, but we didn’t feel any hostility from you with respect to our presence. For every Friday evening, we have a room reserved for educational lectures that attract at least 200 people, and we’ve never had any trouble; women come dressed however they want.
So I’m very pleased to say that we have not experienced any hostility or threats, but then we’ve never been in circumstances in which we had to work with others, so unfortunately, I can’t answer accurately. Thank you.
Mr. Badiane: What I can say about the subject is that we are not talking about — we live in an environment that has become so inflexible that usually, at least officially, no one can give you their support. While they may say in general discussions that they agree with you, officially it will never happen because of the secular climate in which the state cannot engage in any religious activities.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
I have a question for you, Ms. Sagna. I have two questions, in fact, but it depends on how much time is left. When —
[English]
Senator Jaffer: When we were in Edmonton, we heard about gendered Islamophobia. We heard that we can’t just talk about Islamophobia and we have to talk about gendered Islamophobia. In your organization, do you ever speak about that? Has there been any discussions on that? As you and others have said, there is really a challenge for women, and I’d like to hear from you if your organization has discussed that.
[Translation]
Ms. Sagna: It is indeed a problem that affects everyone in several spheres. When we talk about intersectionality, it means that it affects everything, not just a single thing, and that’s the problem. It’s true that we can find women who are — I don’t know, in terms of sexuality, trans women and all that, which affects everyone. But what’s blatant is that the more we work on intersectionality, on systemic racism, the more it would appear that people stop listening, and think it doesn’t exist. We sometimes get the impression that people were telling themselves that they’d prefer to be deaf because they didn’t want to hear, but it’s not because they are not hearing. The problem exists, it’s visible, and everyone can see it.
So everyone needs to be educated about that. As I said at the outset, individuals and leaders at the top should be the first to be educated before we go down the ladder, because they are the ones who introduce and vote on legislation, and who make decisions and so on. So in our organization, in the women’s movement, we’re trying to do it all, by inviting women, communicating with Arab women and others, but it’s harder in the regions, I can tell you, because I’m from Matane in Gaspé. When they see a woman in a headscarf, they have already made a judgment, and that’s difficult. If people are Black, they’re asked whether they are Muslim or Catholic. It’s all about things like that. So it’s really a societal issue.
We need to change how we do things. We need to change our eyeglasses, and we should perhaps clean them more often. That’s why we thank you for having welcomed us so that we could share our views with you and move forward, and I’m certain that we are going to make progress in view of what’s been happening, and what we have just told you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. I have really sensitive question.
[English]
This is a sensitive question, but I’m going to take the risk, Mrs. Sagna, and ask you about it. When I was young, we used to fight for saying “my body, my choice.” I fought very hard with Quebec women on this issue until we get a law passed. I got many grey hairs doing that. I’m now wondering if the Quebec women are supporting “mon choix, mon voile.” Are they supporting that, or are you doing this alone? I see you are with the Quebec Women’s Federation, which is a very well-known federation across the country, and I’m wondering if they are in the campaign with Muslim women.
[Translation]
Ms. Sagna: Exactly, we work with many Muslim women. My body, my choice, doesn’t mean what people wear, because it’s specifically when they are wearing a headscarf that people judge them. I can do what I want with my body, because it belongs to me. I dress the way I want, I go out, I do what I want with the people I want to be with, but I don’t give permission. When I give permission, others can do what they want, but no one can tell me, “You’re in Quebec, you have to wear trousers, you shouldn’t wear hijabs, or you shouldn’t wear this or that.” So it’s really my own free choice, but as for deciding what my religion is, and how I ought to behave or speak, the answer is no. Everyone is what they are, and each is unique. I wouldn’t want to be someone else and they wouldn’t want to be me. I’m unique. So it’s self-respect, which is all to the credit of our society.
We work together, and alongside them in the organization where I work; we are just immigrant women, and that includes some Muslim women, but it’s no big deal. We share what we know, we organize meetings for all religions in order to share the wealth. There are Protestants, there are Catholics, there are Muslims…
What the government should do from time to time is organize activities for several religions so that they can exchange views, learn about other religions to help us advance more in our society rather than simply hear them say, “I’m free and I can do what I want.” It’s true that Quebec women talk about their bodies, but that’s not essentially who they are. That’s the point, you see. It means that I can do what I want, but I don’t want others to decide what I can do. For example, if they want me to get married, it’s for me to decide, not for someone else to choose a husband for me. If there’s something I don’t want, then I won’t allow somebody to come and touch me, at the movies for example. You’re all alone, you’re a woman, and more than that — no, I won’t allow that. So it’s respect for our bodies, but also respect for our decisions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Thank you for coming.
Senator Gerba: I’ll take advantage of this opportunity, to speak to my sister, Ms. Sagna. You’re from the regional community of Matane. I would imagine that what we are experiencing here in Quebec City is accentuated in the regions. As a representative of the Féderation des femmes du Québec, in a region like Matane, what can you do, what is it that you do concretely for women who are victims of this heinous behaviour? Because we heard earlier, just a little earlier, an impressive presentation by a woman who was a victim of an act of hate in a store. She called the police, and they couldn’t do anything, and the end result was that she was charged. So tell us concretely how it might be possible in instances like that to help women who are victims of hateful behaviour.
Ms. Sagna: Thank you for your question. It can’t be tolerated. Back home, these are the things we call out. We have a core group consisting of us, our mayor, the city councillors and others we work with, and we can’t allow that. We have elected members, we have ministers and we stand with these women to condemn these things, these acts. It’s unacceptable in 2022 to still see problems of this kind, simply unacceptable. That’s why we condemn them. What I mentioned, along with accompanying numbers, is true. We all heard the numbers. We need to ask ourselves what we’re going to do so that we can go home and sleep peacefully. I would ask myself that question.
So we hold meetings, and there are issue tables, there’s training, and people come to learn and to share their religions. What does it mean to be human? It’s the person’s dignity. So those are things that are unacceptable and that we won’t put up with. And that’s why we in the associations also provide information to women, if anything should ever happen to them, and we condemn things like that. It’s not acceptable and that’s why we condemn it. Then we give them support, which is also available in the regions, we’re familiar with that. Police officers cannot allow themselves — nor can the mayor or the member of Parliament — and they really need to pay attention. I have a role to play, and I stay there and do what I have to do. And if I’m upsetting anyone, well the people can just move, because I’m staying, I’m not budging, and I will always point the finger at what needs to be condemned. So we try to set an example of being brave about the need for respect, and that requires calling things out. We don’t need a war because there are never any winners in war. Thank you, sister.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question specifically for the MSA, the Muslim Students Association. Tell me what it’s like to be a Muslim, a young woman in a hijab, in the universities. I would like both of you to answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Badiane: I’m not a woman. We are often told that we tend to barge in and answer on behalf of women, but I’ll take the risk. At the university, as I was pointing out earlier, the problem does not generally surface at that level. The problem lies with other students, and sometimes other professors; that needs to be pointed out as well. The problem lies with some of the other professors who have concerns about the fact that the headscarf demeans women. And generally, when we encounter those sisters, what they say is that they have the impression they’re starting a race knowing full well that they’re going to come in last, in the sense that they feel belittled sometimes by certain forms of behaviour, whether from certain professors who — I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt because sometimes when one is not accustomed to being with other people, and you see something that you’re not familiar with, it may appear strange — that’s where the word “foreign” comes from. So generally, what they say is that sometimes they feel diminished by certain forms of behaviour that can be rather frustrating. That’s what I might be able to say about that.
Mr. Lahlou: I’d like to follow up on the point my colleague made. It’s true that we’re not women, but we nevertheless have a perception of the situation. It’s definitely true that Muslim women are not looked at in the same way by the public; it all depends on whether they are wearing something in particular or whether they dress the way most people do, without even a headscarf. A woman who is wearing a headscarf or some other visible form of clothing, is a victim of prejudice simply by the way she is looked at, meaning that people might ask themselves: “Is that an oppressed woman, is that an indoctrinated woman, is that a radicalized woman?” So she already has two strikes against her.
That’s my main point, which is that we really have to get rid of the idea that a headscarf means oppression, because it’s simply not true. A headscarf is simply a form of clothing. While someone may decide to put on trousers to cover themselves, the Muslim woman chooses to wear a headscarf to cover herself, and if that contributes to her spirituality, so much the better. So that’s my point of view on the matter.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I asked because you represent the students association, and I have done events with the MSA at the University of Toronto and know how organized the women there are. You are here representing, so I just wanted to get that. Do you have any kind of procedure in place if a student feels they’ve been discriminated against because of their religion? Do you keep a record of that? If someone comes to you, what action would you take?
[Translation]
Mr. Lahlou: We don’t keep records on this, but if someone comes to us, we have a high level of confidence in the work of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). The Council provides resources; it has some truly invaluable resources to help the community, and that’s what it’s there for. So out of habit, and also because another body might not deal with the situation as professionally, we refer victims to the National Council of Canadian Muslims for guidance.
Mr. Badiane: I’d like to add that at Laval University, there’s an entire branch that handles spiritual activities, and generally speaking, if there is an instance of discrimination, we begin by holding a joint meeting with the person in charge of the campus spiritual activities in order to inform them of the situation, and afterwards move it to a higher level in the University. Only then, if we are unable to find a solution to the problem, it can be moved to a higher level like the National Council, the mosque, the Quebec City Islamic cultural centre (CCIQ), and find people to support us in our efforts. So we always begin within the university, and if that doesn’t work, we move things up a notch.
[English]
The Chair: You mentioned professors, so you feel that there are issues with certain professors who view … is it Muslims generally unfavourably, or niqab, hijab-wearing young women? I don’t know if you can think to that.
Mr. Badiane: Can you repeat, please? I’m not certain.
The Chair: There’s an issue with certain professors …
Mr. Badiane: Yes.
The Chair: … who view Muslims differently, and maybe specifically hijab-wearing Muslim women. Is that an issue in your universities?
[Translation]
Mr. Lahlou: I have not personally attended anything like that, not once, in more than three years of working with the student association. However, I recently noticed that there was a teacher at a college, or rather a CEGEP in Montreal to be specific, who made offensive comments about Islam, and I believe that professors ought to be neutral. So it happens, but I’ve never seen it.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Senators, do we have any more questions?
Senator Gerba: No, thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank all our witnesses for your presentations and for taking the time to be here. Your testimony and remarks before us will help us when we write our final report. You have taken the time and had the patience to answer questions that sometimes maybe shouldn’t even have been asked to you. I want to say thank you also to the senators, because we all travelled from our homes and taken the time to be here, but to the witness especially because, without your testimony, it would be impossible for us to do the study.
Senators, colleagues and guests, our meeting is adjourned, and we will reassemble tomorrow in Toronto. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)