To move forward in the essential conversation in order to fight effectively against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and all other manifestations of hatred, it is important to name what is hateful and above all to distinguish it from what is not. is not.
The crisis over the appointment of Amira Elghawaby to the position of special advisor on the fight against Islamophobia has revealed the major differences in outlook between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Among the reproaches that have been leveled at Mr.me Elghawaby, there is his apparent refusal to distinguish between Islamophobic remarks and remarks critical of religion. However, without a desire to distinguish between hate speech and the critical speech inherent in controversial debates, the fight against hate is doomed to stand still.
Equating criticism of religion with Islamophobia and equating criticism of the policies of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism are examples of these abuses of language that discredit the fight against the spread of hatred. This contributes to complicate the implementation of concrete measures to overcome acts of propagation of hatred. Those who are hostile to the strengthening of anti-hate measures have indeed a good chance of brandishing the excesses that result from notions so broad that one can claim to see hatred in the slightest remark or image that upsets.
For example, we can agree that part of the population that supports (both in Quebec and in Canada) Bill 21 on secularism is motivated by a feeling of hostility with regard to what we perceive Islam. But it is just as likely that support for this controversial law is motivated by an assessment of the relationship between religion and the public space, leaving little room for the fact that, for some, the relationship to religion is a matter of identity. fundamental that defines the individual. It is not surprising that we find contrasting assessments of the reasonableness of the limits imposed on freedom of religion by a measure such as the Quebec law on secularism.
Criticizing Bill 21 is not “Quebecophobia”. But to infer that the differences in outlook between Quebec and English-speaking Canada can be explained by the Islamophobia that is believed to be rampant among the Quebec population as a whole is an overgeneralization. It’s a a priori based on a broad definition of what constitutes hate speech. This contributes to discrediting the fight against (real) hatred.
The fight against racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and homophobia makes it necessary to distinguish what is prohibited from what is not. This requires taking seriously the laws that have long prohibited the dissemination of hate speech.
We live in an environment where we must ensure respect for all rights and freedoms. The only limits on the basis of which a statement can be prohibited are those provided for by law. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law, within limits that are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free society. and democratic.
Courts have ruled that laws restricting free speech must carefully delineate what constitutes hate speech and only punish the dissemination of words or images that cause a reasonable person to hate individuals on the basis of their race. , skin color, religion or other prohibited ground of discrimination. This is incompatible with the approach that prevails in certain circles of assimilating the slightest critical or uncomfortable remark to an expression of hatred.
What to do ?
Putting processes in place to deal effectively with expressions of hate requires energy and the ability to innovate. This implies intervening at several levels. A first essential is to promote a real education in rights and freedoms in order to reduce ignorance about differences.
Secondly, there is an urgent need to strengthen the capacity to identify hate speech and above all to quickly distinguish it from legitimate speech. In our so-called “ambient intelligence” universe, words and images emanate from everywhere. The connected environment is within the reach of almost everyone. Fighting against hate speech requires the deployment of significant resources. The task is heavy and complex. A good reason not to dilute it in a hunt for the slightest remarks that upset.
When we consider all rights and freedoms, it is by perfecting ways to identify hate and distinguish it from legitimate speech that we can overcome Islamophobia and other hate speech. . Persisting in confusing hate speech with the slightest critical remark helps to fuel the business of certain pressure groups, which choose to cultivate a posture of victims. Above all, it is the surest way to undermine efforts to eradicate what is truly hateful.