THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 6, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:05 p.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: Good afternoon. I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
I would like to take the opportunity to introduce members of the committee who are participating in this meeting. We have with us Senator Bernard, deputy chair of the committee, and she represents the province of Nova Scotia. We have Andrew Cardozo, Ontario; and Senator Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Today our committee will continue its study on Islamophobia in Canada under its 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, its impact on individuals, including mental health and physical safety, and possible solutions and government responses.
After having held two meetings in June 2022 in Ottawa, followed by public meetings and visits to mosques in September in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Toronto, we continued our public hearings in Ottawa last fall and last month.
Let me provide some details about our meeting today. This afternoon, we shall have two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses, and then the senators will have a question-and-answer session.
I shall now introduce our first 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 the senators.
I wish to welcome our first witness joining us by video conference today: Rabia Khedr, Chief Executive Officer of DEEN Support Services and Board Member of the Federation of Muslim Women. Here in the room we have Karim Elabed, Imam of Mosquée de Lévis, Association des musulmanes et musulmans du Grand Lévis. We also have the pleasure to welcome in person at the table Imam Michael Taylor.
I now invite Ms. Khedr to make her presentation.
Rabia Khedr, Chief Executive Officer of DEEN Support Services and Board Member, Federation of Muslim Women, as an individual: Thank you very much, honourable senators and fellow panellists. It’s my privilege and honour to participate in this process and present before you.
I often introduce myself with a formal one-liner identity statement, and that is that I’m a hyphen with many hijabs who believes in Canada’s multicultural reality. I am a Muslim, Punjabi, Pakistani, Canadian woman, wife, mother, daughter of aging parents, sibling of individuals with disabilities, community-involved, career-focused social entrepreneur, systems disruptor and so on. And I happen to have a disability. I’m blind. This is the whole package of who I am.
I am speaking to you today from Mississauga, Ontario, most recently the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. I am eternally grateful to the ancestors, the original inhabitants of this land, who give me the privilege, although through colonization, to share in the wealth of this land, the blessings of this land. I am eternally grateful to our First Peoples that I have the privilege of calling Mississauga and Canada home, and I have for most of my life. I was not born here. I am a naturalized Canadian child, but there is nowhere that I say is home but right here where I grew up. I am here also raising a family. I have four children who are now young adults.
I will speak to my lived experience, and I will also speak to some of the work that I do and have done and the experiences of the folks I support through my various activities. I am talking to you in my capacity as someone who provides supports and services to people with disabilities from a culturally and spiritually safe lens. I will also speak to you from the perspective of being a Muslim woman involved in education and awareness-raising activities to empower Muslim women to fully participate in our society. Some of you have also heard from me in my capacity as the national director of Disability Without Poverty, so I am contributing in many ways.
My journey to identifying my faith came through my experience as a student in university studying political science when there were many global things happening that really made me feel othered. This was in the 1990s, Gulf War 1, Somalia, Bosnia. These are countries that I did not have any direct connection to, but I started to realize very quickly that there was a common thread. There was the common thread of Islam, of being Muslim.
Did we call it Islamophobia back then? Not necessarily. But was it in fact emerging in new ways that we hadn’t even fathomed? Locally, yes, it was. We were suddenly finding our values and beliefs villainized, and we were being victimized in many ways locally, emotionally and psychologically. People who were Muslim or perceived as Muslim were othered and started to face a tremendous degree of hate.
That continued over the decades, and here we are today. Today I have contributed to this society in Ontario as a commissioner with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, so I live, eat and breathe disability rights and human rights to improve quality of life of every Canadian. In my world, there is no room for othering. I speak to you as a blind woman who does not see physical differences and does not see whether people dress up or dress down. Through my eyes, I would like to appeal to every Canadian to recognize that there is no place for Islamophobia. There is no place for hate. Islamophobia is very real, and it has been significantly rising.
The brunt of Islamophobia is felt by women: racialized women, women who visibly identify themselves as Muslim. Even if they are White, privileged women, as soon as they don the hijab, they are racialized and subjected to Islamophobia. I have three young adult daughters. I want a future for them where they never have to feel the impact of Islamophobia. I am deeply concerned that this will be their reality, unfortunately, unless we actively combat it through legislation, programs, partnerships, collaboration and educating every Canadian about Muslims and the fact that we are an integral fabric of Canadian society and that we come in all colours and identities and all of these pieces intersect. We have a variety of social locations, and we contribute in many ways.
In Mississauga, in Peel region, we saw a tremendous increase in hate crimes and reports of hate incidents — in fact, somewhere in the range of 90% or more in the recent couple of years. In many ways we saw tremendous violence inflicted upon individuals who were visibly Muslim: women having their scarves pulled, women being spat at for being visibly Muslim. Islamophobia is not just limited to the experiences of Muslims, but it also goes toward people who are perceived as Muslim, if they are racialized, if they wear any type of religious symbol or any kind of cultural form of expression that involves covering their hair.
We have rights and responsibility in this country. We have a human rights tradition, entrenched in code and in the Charter. In order to honour these traditions, we have to have progressive policies and initiatives that eradicate the fear of Muslims from Canadian society and provide equal opportunity so that we can contribute to our full potential. Every one of us wants the same thing: We want to thrive, to contribute, to be productive and to enjoy a quality of life just like everyone else.
People with disabilities want the same. Again, as people with disabilities who are racialized and express their faith, we face tremendous discrimination. Packaged with a visible expression of faith, we are further targeted and marginalized.
This government, this country, has a duty to honour its historic reputation of being truly a country that embraces differences, that advances the notions of multiculturalism, justice, equity and human rights, by recognizing and continuing to recognize that there is no place for Islamophobia and hate in our society and that we need dedicated resources, targeted efforts and awareness to get rid of this deep-rooted fear of Muslims that has cost lives, cost livelihoods and is costing people their mental health. People are carrying tremendous trauma as a result of the discrimination that they face due to Islamophobia.
I’m here to express the fact that as racialized women with disabilities who proudly choose to express our faith visibly, we should not have to live in fear. We should not have to hide our faith. We shouldn’t feel compelled to remove our scarves in order to get jobs, services and fully participate in our society and feel that sense of safety and security.
I don’t want my daughters to ever have to live in fear. I don’t want their children to ever live in fear of being Muslim and being targeted. We are seeing the level of violence and hatred increase. We have to remain vigilant and show that level of engagement to truly eradicate hatred from our society through programs and services. I am here to appeal to you that Islamophobia is real. You have seen the numbers, data and research. You’ve heard the stories. You’ve seen what happened in the Quebec mosque shootings. You’ve seen what’s happened in a brutal beating of a man in a park in Mississauga. You’ve seen it play out in many other forms where it is quite invisible and often goes unreported.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Khedr. I’m sorry to interrupt, but we will get back to you when the senators will have questions.
I will now turn to Imam Karim Elabed.
[Translation]
Karim Elabed, Imam of Mosquée de Lévis, Association des musulmanes et musulmans du Grand Lévis, as an individual: Hello everyone. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you. I am very honoured to be part of this panel and to be able to add to the debate on Islamophobia and, above all, to provide solutions because the situation, of course, is increasingly difficult.
We who are on the ground and in contact with the Muslim community directly unfortunately learn about a certain number of incidents every day that are extremely alarming.
Let me first introduce myself very briefly. I will try to be succinct. I am the imam at the Lévis mosque in the Quebec City area. I am a volunteer imam. I am also a businessman and I am married to a woman from Quebec. Our children have a double French and Moroccan culture, and the Canadian culture as well.
I am very alarmed about what is happening right now. I lived in France for about 15 years. My wife, who is from Quebec, but whom I met over there, was actually fed up with the stigmatization and the hate speech in the media as well as in the political sphere. She told me that we had to leave France, because she did not want our children to live in an Islamophobic country and environment like in Europe.
This was in 2008 and at that time, indeed, Canada and Quebec were really havens of peace, a place to live together in harmony.
During the first months and years after I arrived with my little family in Quebec to settle down and start a new life, I felt extremely privileged because everything I hated in Europe, and in France in particular, I did not find here. I am talking about the fact that people are not judged by their race or their religion, but rather by their qualities, by their humanity and by their effort to participate in the collective prosperity.
Unfortunately, this was sort of a flash in the pan. The situation stayed like that only for a few years. From 2010 and 2011 onwards, things started to get more complicated. I am really talking about Quebec because I have lived there since 2008.
I really saw the rise in racism and more particularly Islamophobia on the occasion of a few events, including the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which wanted to somehow — I do not doubt its good faith — try to understand what was wrong with Islam and Muslims in Quebec. There were some incidents and integration problems. Unfortunately, the commission only exacerbated hate speech and totally unleashed xenophobia and Islamophobia in the public space. We heard testimony from people who took, for example, cases of misunderstanding between neighbours as a major problem of communitarianism and problems of integration of Muslims and concluded that Islam was really a problem.
In the media, starting in 2011-12, Islam began to be depicted as a problem in Quebec society and this began to stir up problems around places of worship, around halal, ethnic businesses and so on.
In places of worship, for example at the Islamic Cultural Centre mosque in Quebec City, the Grand Mosque of Quebec City, on chemin Sainte-Foy, where there was an attack on January 29, 2017 — I participated in the founding of this mosque — we received clear warning signs of a rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia in 2013, 2014, 2015. Among others, swastikas were drawn on the walls and doors of the mosque.
A few months later, a pig’s head was placed outside the mosque. In another mosque, someone threw rocks at windows and broke them.
In spite of all of this happening, the incidents were downplayed and not taken very seriously by the political authorities. As I said, I am also a businessman and I have an ethnic specialty food market. One day, a group of people from a far-right group — La Meute, not to mention it — came straight to my business to threaten me. They told me to close my business because there was no place for us in Quebec, that Quebec belonged to Quebecers and that we did not have the right to sell halal meat and products from elsewhere, and so on.
That was just before the January 29, 2017, attack, which kind of turned my life upside down. At one point, I really thought about leaving Quebec, but for my children and my family, I decided to stay here and fight.
Thank you for this initiative which proves that there is hope. There is hope that we can really solve this problem once and for all, provided that everyone gets involved.
It is not normal that every day, in the media, especially in trash radio — and we know some trash radio stations here in Quebec —, minor incidents, small problems or misunderstandings between neighbours or between an employer and an employee are being blown out of proportion. Extrapolations are made on the matter to make it seem like a societal problem, as if it were a problem of Muslim integration.
I think that Quebecers and Canadians in general really need to be made aware, because the problem is not only in Quebec. In June 2021, there was a terrible attack against a family of Canadians of Pakistani origin, simply because in some people’s minds, their fellow citizens across Canada who come from elsewhere, in this case Muslims, are not making a real contribution to prosperity.
Islam can be a huge asset to this country and it is, but we really need to be able to work together, starting with the political class who needs to make laws for that to happen.
[English]
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, but we will have questions for you. If you feel something was left unsaid, you can make a written submission to us. I’m being conscious of the time. We have one more witness, and senators will have questions.
Michael Taylor, Imam, as an individual: Like my other two panellists, I am absolutely honoured to be here in the presence of these senators who are engaged.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t even asked for a brief bio. I would like to say that I’m an imam, a former secretary of the Canadian Council of Imams. I’m a public servant. I am a regional chaplain with Correctional Service of Canada. I sat as an honourary witness with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and I have an appointment with the Canadian military responsible for Muslim chaplains who are serving in the military.
Thank you very much for inviting me, and I hope to be invited back when we can speak to something more enjoyable than hate in Canada. I wrote a brief that I’d like to read to keep to my five minutes or so.
I don’t think we can legislate love and compassion. I don’t know if laws and edicts can soften hearts or change minds. I do know that my living example can be a beacon to others to be kind and not to harm other people. I do know that my own compassion for people on society’s margins can help them to see that they can accept the differences in other people.
Law and policy-makers, as you are here today, have an obligation to protect Canadian Muslims from harm and to keep Canada and Canadians safe. We don’t need to be reminded of the very public and extreme events in our country that shocked the majority of Canadians. Both panellists mentioned the Montreal massacre and the London car murders, but more personal for me was the murder of the uncle of a friend and a former colleague outside of a mosque in Toronto. That was very personal for me because I know the family of the individual that was murdered. These acts really shocked us all, but they did not happen in a vacuum. Perpetrators had to be empowered, encouraged and desensitized to do such a heinous act.
The impacts of things like these, the impacts of this type of act, hurt Muslims. It starts us questioning our place in Canada. It impacts the mental health of Muslims, the confidence of adolescents and the feeling of security for all of us. Not just Muslims, but other people also have to be concerned about their own security if someone can commit an act of murder in a place of worship. Despite all of this, Canadian Muslims seem to continue on. We manage.
I said here that Muslim children sing our national anthem with pride, and our passports are badges of honour. Muslims serve with honour, sincerity and dedication, even in a climate of seeming mistrust, barriers to advancement, and conscious and unconscious bias in the many spheres of industry in the public and private spheres. Canadian Muslims value the ideology of diversity and multiculturalism that distinguishes our country from the rest of the world.
We continue to contribute in significant ways despite some people wanting to tell us that we don’t belong here. A family member recently told me that it’s always, “Where are you really from? You can’t be from here.” I look at my own life and say that this is in a backdrop of a fourth generation of Canadian Muslims now forming their families and my own personal experience in officiating the marriage of a Muslim descendent of Black Empire Loyalists, a ninth-generation Canadian and Muslim.
I’m watching my minutes, but I want to speak about people thinking that Muslim Canadians are a monolith. It isn’t so. We’re all so different. Imagine a Muslim who is an immigrant and is a woman and is Black and wears a hijab and whose first language is not French or English. Muslims carry the identity of many in our society that have been discriminated against. If they’re an immigrant, if their first language isn’t French or English, if they’re Black, if they’re Arab, if they are — as my sister Rabia Khedr spoke of — disabled, we carry those identities, and these identities in our society seem to have always been magnets for discrimination and hate. This discrimination and hate have moved to another dimension and moved to a place of violence. We talked about it. We see it in the news, and we are at risk. A few years ago, it was that our society seemed to fear the violence of Muslim extremists. Today, that table has turned, and now Muslims are fearing violence of other extremists here in Canada.
I’ll close out by saying that until systemic Islamophobia is adequately addressed and strong deterrents put in place to protect Muslims, we will continue to see youth with a fear of going to the mosque. We will continue to see people abandoning their faith and their culture and underperforming at work and school because of fear. We will continue to see negative self-perception and negative mental health outcomes for Muslims and a general feeling of being unsafe.
I also wanted to say that Muslim leaders and imams are doing our part. We are promoting pride in our faith and our religion. We’re engaging disillusioned youth towards peace and security. We are encouraging civic participation like voting and well-being. Islamic History Month is observed across the country. Ramadan is around the corner, and I’m waiting for my local supermarket to offer Ramadan grocery specials. That’s where Islam and Muslims are in our country. Muslims are here. We are not going anywhere. We deserve a place, and all of us — all of us — deserve to be free. All of us deserve to be safe. Particularly, Muslims deserve to not live under the spectre of fear or hate that we have labelled “Islamophobia.”
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for all your presentations.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask committee members and witnesses in the room for the duration of this meeting to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We shall now proceed to questions from senators. As is our previous practice, I would remind each senator that you have five minutes for your question and for your answers.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for coming and providing us with this testimony today. I certainly appreciate it.
My first question will be for Imam Taylor. I think you were the only person on this panel who spoke specifically about systemic Islamophobia, and I wonder if you could say a bit more about that. I know you’ve been addressing this issue for a long time, so if you have specific recommendations or ideas about what we can do in this country to address systemic Islamophobia, I would welcome you sharing that.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Senator Bernard.
Just before I came here today, as I said, part of my day job is with the Correctional Service of Canada, and Ramadan is around the corner. Our correctional system has a methodology in the case of people being locked up and the time they’re available to move, et cetera, within the correctional system of Canada. However, this month, for example, Muslims have to start eating before movement, and they finish fasting after movement, so just having a system whereby they can have a hot meal easily — for some of them, not all of them — before the day goes and after the day ends is one of the systemic aspects of the difficulty that they will face. Within our government systems, there are policies that can be changed. In working with a health lead today, we will seek to change the system where Muslims who are fasting can get medication before or after movement. These are some of the things that are present. That is top of mind for me today because it’s something that we need to solve in the region of Ontario this week.
For many of us, “systemic” is sometimes hard to figure out. Am I being discriminated against because I’m an immigrant or because I am Black or because I don’t speak French enough? What is it?
Issues where barriers are created because of a woman’s hijab or a man’s beard can only be cured or righted by conversations and by the participation of Muslims in finding solutions. The saying “nothing about us without us” is also significant for Muslims, especially with lawmakers seeking to change, alter or put policy in place. I think regular consultation, involvement and participation of Muslims, particularly people who have experience in particular areas, would be helpful in taking care of the systemic barriers that Muslims face in employment or just living their lives at times.
Senator Bernard: My next question is actually for our first witness, Ms. Khedr. You talked a lot about intersectionality, and you paid particular attention to women who may be living with a number of intersections. Again, I would like to ask a variation of the same question. Are there some specific things that we should be paying attention to as we’re doing this study, thinking specifically about intersectionality, Islamophobia and systemic Islamophobia?
Ms. Khedr: Systemic Islamophobia, absolutely. Imam Taylor mentioned it and highlighted some areas of concerns. There are institutionalized practices that perpetuate Islamophobia, discrimination and exclusion of Muslims.
Historically — again, I go back to when it wasn’t necessarily labelled Islamophobia — we would have seen this in systemic policies that required us to wear certain types of swim gear to be able to swim in a pool, which we’ve overcome these days through creative design of swimwear, as well as running programs that are women-focused to help women build skills and ensuring that there are swim times dedicated to women and girls as an opportunity for them to learn a significant life skill that wasn’t necessarily available to Muslim women. That’s sort of a systemic shift on a case-by-case level, not always understood across the board, by changing our system to be more inclusive of people’s requirements.
In terms of women, with respect to the intersectionality piece, we have made some great strides in terms of our gender-based analysis plus lens on how programs and services are designed and delivered through the federal system and how we engage across government, ensuring that there are no barriers for women. That “plus” often suggests intersectionality, but I still challenge the fact that we’re not always addressing intersectionality through that analysis work. The government has taken initiatives around anti-racism, disability inclusion, accessibility and diversity and inclusion. However, some of this work is, again, not across each area. Anti-racism work doesn’t necessarily also incorporate disability, and neither does work around diversity and inclusion.
We don’t need Islamophobia work to be done in isolation. We need a lens of Islamophobia incorporated into all the work so we eradicate faith as an ism that impacts Muslims systemically. I hope I’m making sense.
Senator Bernard: Yes, that’s very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to our witnesses who have come here. I’ve got five minutes, and I have one question for each of you, so guess what? You get one minute each, if you don’t mind. Let me go quickly.
Ms. Khedr, it is nice to have you here. You and I have many common friends who have worked in this field, so I know of your reputation very well. Thank you for giving us your time. My question to you is simply on free speech. We have a couple of media people coming next, and I would like to ask them the same question, but I want your thoughts. Often people say stuff or say stuff in the media and claim it’s free speech. What are your thoughts about the dividing line between free speech and hate speech?
Imam Taylor, you’re a chaplain in the Armed Forces. Can you tell us about racism in the Armed Forces? Is it getting better or worse?
[Translation]
Imam Elabed, you said that you came to Canada because of the situation in France and Europe. Do you think the same trend will take hold here?
[English]
One minute each. Ms. Khedr, you’re first.
The Chair: As the chair, I would extend the one minute; it’s okay.
Senator Cardozo: Wonderful. Thank you.
The Chair: You’ve asked very important questions, Senator Cardozo.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Khedr: Thank you very much for that question.
How would I answer the fine line between free speech and hate speech? Well, we always say, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” That’s what we were taught on the playground. I’m somebody who has faced a lot of sticks and stones and words, and words do hurt. Words do cause a lot of harm. I grew up being called a “Paki.” I grew up being called a number of other names because of my disability, my skin colour and being Muslim. I never quite understood all of this until I became an adult. In fact, I didn’t learn how to name it until I started to engage at a grassroots level with a cross-disability organization that looked at intersectionality. Then I said, wow, that explains my experience.
As soon as speech hurts, we have crossed the line of freedom of speech. As human beings, we often quarrel over words because of the hurt. I think we need to understand that as soon as our words trigger pain, trauma and fear, as soon as they invoke negative emotion, we have crossed a line that we have to examine very closely. That’s my distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech.
I don’t care what people think of me. I don’t care what kind of dirty looks people give me. If somebody doesn’t like me, I really don’t care. But when they make it more personal about who I am, if they make it about my disability, my skin colour, my face, that’s a different hurt that I care about. That’s when we’re crossing the line and it moves toward hate speech. Hate speech is when it perpetuates across the individual to a collective through stereotype discrimination and actually perpetuates and causes systemic harm as well.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Senator Cardozo. I’m not a chaplain in the Canadian Armed Forces; I have an appointment to support chaplains, particularly Muslim chaplains, in the Canadian Armed Forces in the role of the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy. However, I am acquainted with the lives of many of those serving chaplains. I am always focused on solutions. Historically, there have been reports and studies that speak about racism within the Canadian military. That’s on board. That’s historic. That’s in front of us.
As for what has been happening and what is current, I’m closer to that. The Canadian military currently has a series put on one by a Muslim major and a Christian major, Major Ryan Carter, called “Let’s Talk About Race.” This chaplain is supported to have a conversation about race for everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the people who attend are people impacted by racism and not decision makers or change makers. So while the solution is being sought and the conversation is being had, the change agents aren’t compelled to be there and they aren’t present. Sometimes we wonder if we are talking to ourselves and, through talking to ourselves, whether we are going to solve this issue, and I think, no. Until we can have change makers actively involved in issues around race and racism within the Canadian Armed Forces, it will continue.
I want to say that Muslim chaplains are serving honourably. They’re a cadre of people who have done spectacularly well over the 20 years that Muslims have been present as chaplains in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it isn’t without some concern. A Muslim woman chaplain should not hear, “Is your husband allowing you to do this job in our armed forces?” She shouldn’t hear that. The expectation is that people around us are professionals, that they mean well, et cetera, but there are still instances like this that sometimes go unaddressed. This particular instance with this woman is being addressed, and we’re hoping for a good outcome. But that is something current that I am hearing.
We do need to seek solutions. I’m a person who seeks solutions, but when we have systems that have always favoured one group over others without shaking that system, it will continue to happen. The problem lies in the group that has always been favoured. I think some people think that they’re going to lose something. You’re not losing anything. Difference contributes to a better whole. This is what Muslims, immigrants, people of colour and LGBTQ people add to the whole mix. We bring different solutions, we have different ideas and we have different approaches. Incorporating those differences is what will make our country safer, better, more dynamic and more welcoming. We need to embrace difference for real — not flying a flag, but really embracing differences and bringing people to the middle where change is needed and where change is being made.
[Translation]
Mr. Elabed: With regard to your question, Senator, as to whether there is a similarity with the situation in France, I would say that based on what we experience here the answer is yes. On the other hand, in Canada we are about 20 years behind. So, if you want to know whether we should continue like this and what will become of Canada if nothing changes, you only have to look at the latest report of the European Commission on Islamophobia in Europe. You will see that France and Austria are the European champions in terms of Islamophobia. If you want to know what will happen to Canada in 20 years, unfortunately, I would say that, if nothing changes, we will be in the same situation as France and Europe are in today.
That is why I am appealing to you to try to avoid all the mistakes made in Europe. With social networks and how fast the information flows these days, things could take a turn for the worse very quickly here in Canada.
When I was living in Europe in the 1990s and 2000s, much legislation similar to Quebec’s Bill 21 on secularism was passed. I do not know if it is a concept that exists in English-speaking Canada, but the principle is to try to separate everything religious from the state, from political authorities. Now, in fact, this principle is distorted because secularism does not mean removing religions from the public space. Secularism means that the institutions of a country must be at an equal distance from all religions.
Bill 21 is poor implementation of the principle of secularism because, for example, it prevents a teacher from practising her profession in Quebec because she wears a hijab. They do not look at what is in her head, but rather what is on her head. This is an unfortunate form of stigmatizing the Muslim population in this country. This is what has happened since the 1990s and 2000s in Europe, where there is more and more stigmatization and more and more Islamophobia. Today, the groundwork is being laid for more Islamophobia in Canada through laws that destroy freedom and discriminate against certain communities, in this case the Muslim community.
Let me give you an example of another problem resulting from the same approach: religious extremism and fundamentalism. Those who want to recruit young terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. They are trying to show young Muslims that Canada is making laws against them, that Canada does not like them, that Canada does not want to include them in its community.
They say they are going to teach them to fight against these injustices, against these discriminations. That is how you create fundamentalism, extremism and sometimes even terrorism. Unfortunately, the attacks on newspapers, media or journalists in Europe are the result of years, even decades of stigmatization of Muslims in media campaigns.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to our witnesses who have attended before us today.
Imam Taylor, may I express my deepest condolences on the loss of your friend.
I’m filling in on this committee. This is not an area where I would profess any expertise. I would like to focus my questions on language that matters and solutions.
Ms. Khedr, you used a term I have not heard often used: “othered.” I envisioned immediately a government form where it asks for information like “Do you identify as First Nations, Métis” — or, as you used it, the term “other.”
I was also interested in comments that I believe you made, Mr. Taylor, about seeking solutions, and one of those might be a greater understanding of Islamophobia and the situation across the country. I’m wondering, particularly as it relates to language and as it relates to this issue, how you would advise the federal government to better support Canadians in their understanding and to better support Muslims throughout the country. In this regard, I would like, if possible, to have you address the situation across the country. If we were to think of Islamophobia as a temperature gauge, where would it be from the north, the south, right across the country? Is it 90 degrees in certain areas and only at freezing in other areas, 30 degrees?
So those two questions: solutions, and is one of those solutions language; and how could the federal government better support the Muslim community and better support Canadians’ understanding?
The Chair: I would ask the witnesses to be brief. I am sorry, but we are running out of time, and I also have some questions.
Mr. Taylor: I have thought about this before getting here, and when you talk about being othered, Senator Duncan, it is like being invited to a party but not being allowed to dance or not being asked to dance. That’s the situation that many Muslims face. We’re here, people are skilled, people are anxious to work and contribute, but we just don’t get asked to dance.
Senator Duncan: So if I might, it is not a language issue, then. You are not suggesting that one of the solutions might be a change in the language that’s used?
Mr. Taylor: Well, no, but “othered” is regularly accepted by people in the community as just a word, right? You’re “other.” When you say, “Are you X, Y, Z or other,” in some places, “other” presents an opportunity for you to self-describe, but in this instance it means you’re not invited to dance.
Ms. Khedr: When I use the term “othered,” I’m talking about it within a human rights context where one group sees themselves superior from the other. They look at the other as one to be feared, as one lesser. It’s the idea of once you start othering a group, you start demonizing and dehumanizing them and therefore legitimating the hate and the violence and the discrimination and any systemic laws or initiatives that you then chart up against that othered group.
Senator Duncan: Perhaps it’s education around that term.
Ms. Khedr: Absolutely. It’s education across the board. I think when you use the context of First Nations, Métis, other — that’s different. It’s more of a categorization. In this context, we are just talking about — it’s not about “we.” It’s about me versus you, so you are the other, you are seen as the enemy or someone who is taking something away from me. It comes down to power and privilege. When times are tough, when people face hardship, the easiest way for them to cope is to blame somebody who doesn’t look like them, somebody who they don’t know, who they see as different, as the other.
Senator Duncan: I’m conscious of time, and you have questions, Madam Chair. I was interested in the solutions as well, but perhaps that would be a question better addressed in writing by the witnesses. I was interested in the solutions you were interested in offering the committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a question for each of the witnesses.
Imam, once we finish the study, we write a report and we have recommendations. What would you like to see in that recommendation? What, to you, would be one of the three most important recommendations this committee could make?
Mr. Taylor: I would say that participation and real engagement of Muslims is one of the topmost things to be placed in the recommendations. Nothing about us without us. I think that we also need to really look at other jurisdictions and how they have managed laws around hate speech, and also how empowering Muslim leaders, not necessarily only imams — I think imams sometimes think that we carry the swing of our communities — but engaging leaders from different sectors and different positions within Muslim communities in seeking solutions. So those three.
The Chair: Sister Rabia, we’ve known each for some time and have worked together on many issues. What struck me today as you spoke was that we keep hearing incidents of Islamophobia are up 70% or 72%. You put it in the 90% area. Do you feel that incidents have gone up? I personally feel that a lot of the incidents of Islamophobia go unreported. In fact, when I started this study and mentioned to a group of friends that we were going to be looking at Islamophobia in Canada, they said, “Oh, don’t rock the boat.” I find a lot of people will keep quiet. They don’t want to report it.
Ms. Khedr: People are afraid to report. People don’t know how to report. We don’t provide them the support they need to report.
There are incidents of discrimination and Islamophobia happening on a daily basis — on the playground, in the classroom, within school systems. Institutions that are supposed to be safe havens for our children are often not so safe. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every single person is full of hate and fear of Muslims, but there is a rising element that’s perpetuating hate and it’s impacting our children in places that are supposed to be safe for them. It’s impacting our families in parks and in public places and spaces. There is a sense amongst women that they have to take off their hijab in order to be employed, in order to fully participate and in order not to be attacked. This fear is real that Muslims are feeling as a result of Islamophobia. It’s rising, and it’s traumatic. It’s inflicting trauma, which is just going to exacerbate the health and well-being of the Muslim community.
It’s not just about headline violent attacks. There are many things that happen that don’t make headlines. I said that Islamophobia goes way back to the 1990s before we called it Islamophobia. A friend of mine — a disabled woman — was sitting in a mall, and she said somebody looked at her and spat at her and told her to go back to where she came from. This was in the early 1990s. None of these incidents get reported, but they’re carried in people’s hearts and souls, and the hurt then impacts their well-being.
The Chair: Imam Elabed, you spoke of politicians normalizing incidents of Islamophobia. You spoke of your own store where you had a group of young men, whoever it was. Did you report that incident to the police, and what was the response that you got from the police?
[Translation]
Mr. Elabed: Yes, I reported the incident to the police myself, and I was told that they would refer my complaint to higher authorities, but since there was no physical assault, theft or ransacking, there was simply no follow-up.
The event occurred just a few months before the attack on the grand mosque in Quebec City. Now, if I go back to your first question about solutions, in fact, as a result of the spreading of Islamophobia among the people, total confusion emerged. Freedom of expression became the freedom to insult, to be Islamophobic, to be racist, and so on. We really need to draw a line between the two, laws are needed for that.
If we want to fight Islamophobia, society as a whole has to recognize the problem and get involved in what is really a fight against all forms of discrimination: against women, people with disabilities, or any other group. We really need to get together. All parts of society need to act together.
Politicians must pass tough laws, and the action must go through schools and education. It is extremely important that children, from a young age, learn to get along and accept each other as they are. Today in schools, even in primary and secondary schools, some incidents of Islamophobia are reported to us. For example, little Muslims are being spat at because they are Muslim. Obviously, in the homes, when discussing Muslims, numbers are not put in perspective. At recess, the little schoolboy tends to exhibit the same discriminatory behaviour and hate speech that he hears at home.
In schools, we need to create specific programmes so that our children learn to live together, to live with their differences and to respect each other. This should not only be rhetoric. Ethics and religious culture courses tend to stigmatize a religion, rather than bringing clarification. I can also talk about everything that is —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, imam. I’m sorry to cut you off, but we are way over time and I still have a couple of questions to ask Imam Taylor. If there is anything you feel you didn’t have an opportunity to say, please send us a written submission.
Imam Taylor, we have heard of mothers asking their daughters to take off their hijabs because it has gotten pretty bad. When we went to Edmonton, we heard that if you are a young Black woman and you wear the hijab, it’s a constant threat of being spat at, having your hijab pulled and even being kicked to the ground and beaten. I also see it here. I always like to have conversations when I am in a cab heading to the airport. I will ask the name of the cab driver, and if they have a Muslim name, I will say, “Oh, you’re Muslim.” Quite a few will say, “Oh, but I’m not a practising Muslim,” but when I say that I’m Muslim too, I hear the real story. Then I hear about the fear and how it has gotten bad for them and how they face incidents of Islamophobia.
We heard about change makers in the military not being aware. What do we do if people in positions of authority don’t understand their lived experiences? Muslims are actually now 5% of Canada’s population. Politicians and anyone in a position of authority is basically a public servant and represents the people of Canada. How do we get them to understand that there is a problem? There was the attack in London, the attack in the Quebec mosque, thoughts and prayers, and then it is forgotten. I have so many people who will say to me, and I tell them to say it to everybody else, “We don’t want your thoughts and prayers anymore; we need you to do something concrete.”
Mr. Taylor: Personally, I think that we as a community have not done the type of work that other communities have done to make the issues front and foremost, whether this is because we are newer immigrants to Canada or people still have the concept of “back home” and they’re not quite settled here in Canada. I think that there is an onus for Muslims to tell our own story, to be involved and to place pressure where pressure needs to be placed, but it comes at a big risk. We don’t have to look very far. A couple of weeks ago, the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia was vilified in the press. Younger Muslims are seeing the examples of the elders who have gone before and some of the pressures that they have faced, so I think sometimes they’re reluctant to take that step, to be on the front line or to be visible, and they need encouragement. We do need to tell our own story. We need to be active.
There needs to be more Ataullahjans being selected as senators and being elected to a place where they can make change. The barriers, however, are there. The barriers to running for elected office are there. The barriers to getting to be a decision maker in public service or private enterprise are there. Maybe it’s just about putting in the work that Muslims need to do. We need to put in the work. Muslims are not really asking for any favouritism or to be especially chosen to do one thing or the other, but we are asking for an opportunity to do that, and sometimes we are asking to be challenged to respond and to be change makers.
There are a lot of very, very bright young people who are under-supported in our communities. Our communities normally send certain Muslim leaders to be the people at the head of boards or to engage politicians, et cetera. I think our community needs to do its own homework and send others with different ideas. These younger people especially need the support, mentorship and opportunities to shine. My children and my friends’ children and grandchildren are waiting to shine. They don’t have a “back home.” They are here. They want to make change, but they need the support and opportunity. I think we need to tell our story better, and we do need to be given opportunities to make change where we can make the change.
The Chair: Thank you for that response, Imam. I feel that we do have good stories, and we do tell them, but no one is interested in listening to them. Again, the media plays a role. They are not interested. I just got back last night from Iqaluit where every second Saturday the local mosque hands out food — perishable and nonperishable. There is a lot of food insecurity in a lot of places. At the time we were there, the number was 93 families, and the average family is four, five or six. That’s a lot of people. Yet you never hear about the ways Muslims give back. Again, we have heard consistently that the media plays this role where they are not telling the good stories.
I wanted to ask you, Imam, about Muslims in the military. It’s not something that one thinks of — that there are Muslims who are serving in the Canadian military. I would like to know if you have any idea of numbers.
Another thing is that over the course of our study, we heard concerns about the reduced presence of Muslim chaplains in prisons due to the 2013 privatization of Canada’s federal prison chaplaincy program. A 2021 report by the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Islamic Family & Social Services Association recommended returning to the previous model. To what extent does the model for prison chaplaincy illustrate systemic Islamophobia — can you please explain that — and what elements should be included in a new policy on chaplains in prison?
Senator Bernard has a question. Senator Bernard, when we went to Edmonton, the Muslim chaplain explained that, on Fridays, he gets over 30 people listening to his sermon, and not all of them are Muslims. The program we saw in Edmonton was a success.
Can you answer my question briefly? Then Senator Bernard has a question.
Mr. Taylor: You had two questions. One is easy and one is more difficult.
The easier one is the media. I am colleagued with Give 30. Muslims are very concerned about hunger and food. It’s a campaign in its tenth year in Kingston where Muslims and others are asked to donate to local food banks across the country. It’s a very successful project that hasn’t garnered any media. Last year, a record number of dollars were given in Kingston that fed a lot of people in Kingston. That was the easy question.
The more difficult question has already been answered multiple times. That question was asked on the floor of the House last month, and a written record was produced for the two ministers — the minister that represents Don Valley East. I can’t remember his name. Both Liberal and Conservative MPs have asked that question about Muslims and the contract that provides chaplaincy services in our prisons. It is a matter of record in the House, and it would be prudent of me to refer you to the answer that was given to the MPs.
The Chair: Can you provide us with something? What happens in the House will not necessarily be part of our study. Our study and the report that we eventually write will be based on the testimony that we hear over here, so if you could give us a written submission, we would appreciate that.
Mr. Taylor: You would like a written submission.
The Chair: Yes, if you can, so it can be part of our study. The House is a different entity, and what happens there will not be part of our report.
Mr. Taylor: For sure, I will produce that. The report that was written by one of the people connected with the organization in Edmonton stated in the first sentence that in 2013, the Government of Canada gave the contract to deliver services or chaplaincy services in prisons to a for-profit company. The first sentence of that report is incorrect. It was a not-for-profit company. If the first sentence, on which most of the report is based, is incorrect, we do need to read between the lines and read deeper than what is presented on paper.
The Chair: Imam, we will expect a short written submission, because we have to send it to translation, and we are approaching the end of the study period.
Mr. Taylor: I’m sure that the report that was sent to the House was in English and French.
Senator Bernard: I have a point of clarification I would like to ask, Imam, based on a response to a question asked by the chair. I think it’s important to have context here. You talked about — I can’t remember exactly the words you used — something to the effect that Muslims are not telling their stories well enough or that they’re not doing enough. I don’t think you mean that the responsibility rests solely with Muslims just getting better at telling their stories. You talked earlier about the systemic issues. Is it an issue of Muslims not telling the stories well enough, or is it an issue of systems that need to change, not being open and recognizing the need to change?
Mr. Taylor: I think that our stories are not coming from our artists also. I’m partial to that expression — the artistic expression of life.
With the systems of change, it’s true. We can talk about the system piece. We are about to come to Ramadan. Every year in our Canadian prisons, there is a drive at Christmas time — a December drive. It’s no longer a Christmas drive; it’s a holiday drive. It’s so men in Canadian federal prisons can buy items that they wouldn’t normally be able to buy and spend more money than they are normally able to spend. Our policy allows for other drives or other opportunities for inmates to buy whatever they want to buy to celebrate holidays. Our policy allows for a purchase outside of the regular December holiday, but no one has ever enacted it — except for this year. But the change, it’s like, “Oh my God, what’s going to happen? We have to do so much work to get it done, and it has not been done before.” The system is there for it to happen. The rules are there for it to happen. But to get it enacted is sometimes a difficulty, and it is getting over this obstacle that creates difficulty. People who are impacted by us not trying hard enough to get over the obstacle would obviously say that maybe it is something against them or their religion.
I think the systemic things that are in place have always been the norm. We’ve always been off Saturday and Sunday. Those are our holy days. But my holy day is Friday. Our work week creates difficulty in itself and can be a systemic barrier for Muslims.
The Chair: I would sincerely like to thank all the witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel. Our witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witness and then turn to questions from the senators. I wish to welcome our witness joining us by video conference today, Pierre-Paul Noreau, President, Conseil de presse du Québec. I will now invite Mr. Noreau to make his presentation.
[Translation]
Pierre-Paul Noreau, President, Conseil de presse du Québec: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank the members of the committee for their invitation.
Please allow me to point out that I have been President of the Quebec Press Council since May 19. I was also a board member for five years. I was therefore an active member of a complaints committee.
I have been actively involved in the media for 42 years. Among other things, I was president of the daily newspaper Le Droit and editor-in-chief of the daily Le Soleil.
The Quebec Press Council or CPQ is a 50-year-old media self-regulatory body. It is one of the oldest press councils in the world. It is tripartite in all its components, through equal representation of the public, journalists and businesses.
The council’s mission is to ensure the protection of press freedom and the defence of the public’s right to quality information. With the notable exception of Quebecor, almost all major media in Quebec are members of the CPQ.
To fulfill its mission of ensuring the quality of information, the CPQ acts as an honour board. It adjudicates complaints from the public about the work of journalists and the media when the complainant believes that the rules of good practice contained in our Ethics Guide have not been respected. The council does not take the initiative; it must receive a complaint in order to consider a case.
The CPQ welcomes complaints about anything broadcast by the news media in Quebec, regardless of the type of media or language, and it reviews complaints whether or not the media is among its members.
When a complaint is deemed admissible, when it is reviewed by the Complaints Committee, the media and the journalist face four possible decisions. First, it can be decided not to reprimand the media in any way because even though an error was made, it was corrected very quickly. Second, the breach can be deemed minor, and no reprimand is issued either. It is acknowledged that there was a mistake, but it was so minor that no reprimand would be justified. Third, of course, the media or journalist can be blamed. This is the default sanction when there is a breach of ethics. Finally, a severe reprimand can be assigned when the misconduct is considered very serious or it is a repeat offence.
There is an interesting detail: any member of the Press Council in Quebec has to broadcast any ruling made against it. If you have been blamed, you have to broadcast it on your platforms.
To deal specifically with Islamophobia, which is being studied by your committee, let us point out that our ethics guide has a section, section D, which is specifically devoted to respect for individuals and groups. If we look at section 19, which deals specifically with discrimination, it says:
Journalists and news media must avoid the use of terms and depictions to designate any person or group in an attempt to discriminate, spread or inspire hatred, encourage violence or fuel prejudice.
Journalists and news media should not refer to a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap or other personal characteristics unless relevant to the story.
Since 2016, the CPQ has dealt with around 15 complaint cases specifically affecting Muslims, an average of two per year. Of these, only half resulted in a reprimand or severe reprimand. It should be noted that one case may involve several complaints, and therefore several complainants. If it pertains to the same text or the same report, the complaints will be merged together in a single case.
Considering that the council responds to hundreds of complaints about journalistic work every year and that some 200 of these complaints result in an official file being opened, clearly members of Quebec’s broadcast media are not often accused of Islamophobia.
We certainly agree with the committee that media content influences people’s perception of reality, but there are other very important vectors of influence, such as family, school, friends and social media communities. We also agree that, with such a huge variety of media outlets operating in Quebec, newsrooms may be home to a broad spectrum of opinions on sensitive subjects such as religion and the people who practice it. From time to time, people cross the line.
However, I would say that, in larger newsrooms, there is an awareness about discrimination and its consequences, so even though the limits on freedom of expression are so broad, media executives and journalists themselves certainly don’t want to be blamed for inciting hatred or fuelling prejudice.
So that’s it in a nutshell, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, Mr. Noreau, for being so patient and waiting for us as we ran a bit over with the last panel. I would just have one question I’d like to ask, actually. I’m wondering if you are aware of any examples of what I would call best practices in the media that would help to prevent the spread of hatred and the harm caused by Islamophobia. Is anyone doing it right?
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Fortunately, I think so, Madam Senator. I think there are people who are doing things right, fortunately. The Conseil de presse du Québec is not the only one with best practices, with a code of ethics. CBC has one, the Globe and Mail has one, the Toronto Star has one, and so on. Most media organizations have codes of ethics.
Does that prevent people from crossing the line? Unfortunately not. That is why the Conseil de presse du Québec and its rest-of-Canada counterpart outside Quebec exist. Press councils are there to say, based on their best practices and codes of ethics, whether something incited discrimination or fuelled prejudice. These bodies receive complaints, review them and assess them.
Here’s my point. You know, I listened closely to what everyone said, and I certainly agree that there is discrimination and there may be Islamophobia in Canada. There is no doubt about that. However, when it comes to the news industry and news media themselves, we really don’t get a lot of complaints about that. As the head of the CPQ, I want to emphasize that we don’t get a lot of complaints about that. Does that mean people don’t cross the line or won’t cross the line in the future? Maybe what we need to look at is better ad campaigns or a better understanding of what press councils are equipped to do.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you for that explanation. At the end, you said the fact that there aren’t many complaints may be because people may not be that aware. I’m wondering how someone would know they could actually place a formal complaint. What kind of processes are in place to inform people of their rights in this regard?
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Thank you. That’s an excellent question. The press council is a self-regulating body with limited means. We do our best to make people aware of that option.
You know, when a series of decisions is made, press releases are sent out and the media disseminate. Word does get out to an extent, but it’s true we could do a lot better if we had more resources. Press councils are subject to financial constraints. We are funded by the media themselves, and let’s just say that the media are more careful about their memberships now than they used to be. We work with what we have. For sure, it wouldn’t hurt to increase awareness that these bodies exist for people to complain to and report behaviour they think is reprehensible.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to our witness for appearing before us today.
I’m interested in what role press councils and the media itself might play in educating Canadian journalists and media outlets about Islamophobia and promoting a more diverse and inclusive coverage of Muslim communities. I’m particularly interested in rural Canada. There are many locations throughout Canada that have a small-town newspaper or even a private radio station. What role might the press council play in education and in promoting a more inclusive coverage? For example, we’ve heard earlier today of many situations where mosques have played a vital role in the community supporting food banks. What role could the press councils play in providing that information in the larger centres and in sharing it with rural centres and communities throughout the country? Do you have any reflections for the committee on that?
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Thank you for your question. Press councils respond to complaints. They exist to ensure the best possible quality of information. Councils aren’t proactive, they don’t conduct investigations. They have to receive complaints. That means they don’t push the media in one direction or the other. Our job is to issue reprimands, call out bad practices and tell whoever did it to stop doing it. Then we explain the reasons for that censure.
I was in journalism for a long time, and I headed up newsrooms, so I know that, when it comes to the Red Cross or the Knights of Columbus or a Muslim organization that is doing something good in its community, it often seems like the media don’t really give these positive stories much coverage. That is true of Muslims, but it’s also true of Catholics, Anglicans and any other community. What do the media do? They’re like a watchdog. They don’t promote anything in particular. They’re watchdogs for the government and sound management of government affairs. They bring a critical perspective moreso than a promotional one. Nonetheless, a lot of weekly papers, like those in rural communities, have columns and photos about fundraisers and whatnot. You look kind of skeptical about my answer, Senator.
[English]
Senator Duncan: What I hear you saying is you are more focused on what not to do than what could be done. Do you not also see it as a possible responsibility to have a best practice code for media outlets with reference to Muslim organizations or even other organizations? We’re specifically focused today on Islamophobia, but would it not be a role to have best practices published by the press council? That doesn’t have to mean covering the best events or fundraising events, but just in terms of best practices.
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Madam Senator, best practices do exist, and they’re really very well codified. For example, the Guide des normes et pratiques journalistiques de La Presse, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec’s Guide de déontologie des journalistes du Québec and CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices. All these documents lay out best practices very clearly.
[English]
Senator Duncan: I’m familiar with the CBC. We would receive a pronunciation guide. This goes back a very long way. I can recall, working in sports, the pronunciation guide for Martina Navratilova when she was an active athlete. Would those best practices have been examined with a lens to Islamophobia to ensure, for example, it would not be appropriate to contact an imam on a particular holy day or other situations that I can’t immediately think of? Perhaps others around the table could. Have those best practices been examined with a lens to dealing with Islamophobia in Canada and countering Islamophobia?
The Chair: Just listening to the testimony now, is there even a recognition that Islamophobia exists?
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Definitely, all the codes of ethics recognize that fighting discrimination is essential. That includes Islamophobia and all other forms of discrimination. Media best practices focus on avoiding anything harmful. So yes, they have to be rigorous and independent and seek out the truth, and they must not discriminate. That’s basic. I’m still talking about content here because press councils assess content produced by journalists. They look at wrongdoing. They respond to complaints, but there really aren’t that many complaints of discrimination. Could that be because a lot of people don’t know about press councils? I don’t know. One thing I do know is that the Conseil de presse du Québec gets 240 complaints a year and not a lot of them have to do with discrimination.
[English]
The Chair: Are you satisfied, senator, or do you have a follow-up question?
Senator Duncan: In terms of best practices, chair, I was thinking advising media to say, for example, with Ramadan, not every Canadian is going to understand or be familiar. If you live in a big city or have contact with the Muslim community, you may understand, but best practice might be to say this is what this represents to the Muslim community. Is that best practice code in place? That is what I was trying to get at, somewhat awkwardly I admit.
The Chair: What the senator wants to know is if there is an awareness of best practices that would include not only Islam but some of the other religions also.
[Translation]
Mr. Noreau: Ethical issues and best ethical practices come up regularly at conventions, and there are also television shows about that. These practices are definitely understood, very well understood, in fact. Are they always adhered to? No, but that’s why we have press councils that decide if a line was crossed. Here’s an example of the opposite happening. There was a lot of coverage of the January 29, 2017, attack at the Quebec mosque. A lot was written about the young man, about what happened, about the victims.
All the major media outlets in Quebec do stories on it every year. They talk about the commemoration. They are trying to contribute and help people understand why that was so wrong. They’re making a positive contribution to understanding. They report what the mayor of Quebec City says about it, what Mr. Benabdallah, then-president of the Islamic cultural centre, has to say.
So yes, there are good things happening. There was a terrible bad thing, but there are good things in the media too. That happened six years ago, and people are reminded of it every year in an effort to counteract the effect, the impact.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Noreau.
I’d like to ask you a question about freedom of expression, which you mentioned at the end of your presentation. Where’s the line between free speech and hate speech, do you think? Can you think of cases that involved tough decisions?
Mr. Noreau: Thank you for your question, senator.
Absolutely, you are right, we’ve dealt with these kinds of complaints before. There is a difference between speech that can be considered free speech and inciting hatred or violence or being prejudiced.
I forwarded a document to your committee. At the end of the document, there is a series of decisions issued by the Conseil de presse du Québec. In the first cases, which are listed at the beginning, you can see examples of comments based on rumours, written texts where it was said that members of a mosque refused to see women working on a construction site on prayer days or at prayer time. This was based on absolutely nothing, so these are examples of inciting prejudice, hatred and blatant discrimination. We therefore issued a severe reprimand in such a case.
Senator Cardozo: Just before your presentation, a witness answered the same question. She said that the line is “when it hurts.” Do you agree with that?
Mr. Noreau: Unfortunately, you know, the courts have interpreted freedom of expression very broadly, and the right not to be offended is regrettably not recognized as a fundamental right.
So, yes, there may be opinions that are offensive, but they still are within the boundaries of free speech. I’m not a judge or a lawyer, but I completely understand what the lady meant by “when it hurts.” Often when it hurts like that, it is because people indulge in prejudice and hatred and want to ostracize and discriminate against others. So, yes, that falls under the council’s purview, but as far as freedom of expression in Canada is concerned, the guidelines are very, very broad: no inciting hate, no inciting violence and, obviously, no defamatory libel.
Senator Cardozo: The focus is on the notion of incitement.
Mr. Noreau: You know, at some point in time, our press council’s complaints committee could receive a complaint where the complainant has said, “This is discriminatory, this shows prejudice.” The media may then reply, “No, not really, for such and such a reason.” Then the complaints committee analyzes the case. Sometimes, the situation is not always perfectly clear and obvious, but if the context suggests that there is prejudice or incitement to hatred, then yes, there will be a reprimand; however, that is still a reprimand imposed by an “honour board” that is reported and disseminated by other media, by the media, and that describes these behaviours as reprehensible.
Senator Cardozo: I would like to get your perspective on the difference between print and audiovisual media, such as radio and television.
When I was a CRTC commissioner a few years ago, I remember some newspapers criticizing the CRTC for putting a limit on certain abusive words in the case of Howard Stern; however, those newspapers did not publish those words themselves, even in their articles on this very issue. Do you have different standards compared to other media, are you holier than the others?
Mr. Noreau: Obviously, at the Conseil de presse du Québec, we will closely follow all the best practices. So, if there are words that shouldn’t be used to avoid inciting hatred or discrimination, we will certainly be very rigorous about that.
You know, in the print and broadcast media, there is a division, in the sense that the CRTC exercises — we saw it in the Jeff Fillion case at CHOI FM when you intervened to have their licence suspended because there was so much abuse. The press councils, the CRTC and the courts work together to curb these sad realities of discrimination, Islamophobia and this type of abuse. We must work together, make ourselves known and perhaps be a little more present in terms of advertising, but we work with the means we have.
Senator Cardozo: Is there a difference between print media and other media regarding the way they cover Islamophobia?
Mr. Noreau: I will answer you by referring to the examples I’ve provided. Since 2016, most cases involve digital media.
Senator Cardozo: Just to tell us more about the social media issue, does it significantly change the debate on race, immigration and so on? What are your views on the role of social media?
Mr. Noreau: I obviously very much agree with you that social media is a much bigger driver in terms of impact on discrimination. It has a much greater impact than other media.
You know, in the traditional media, print media and even radio and television, there’s not a huge amount of abuse, but on social media, anything goes at any time. In those cases, I think there should be a harsher response from those who have the power to act.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much.
Mr. Noreau: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I want to sincerely thank the witness for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
(The committee adjourned.)