Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has just announced the appointment of Canada’s first special representative in the fight against Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby.
Three days before the anniversary of the bloody attack on the Great Mosque of Quebec, one can understand Canada’s desire to engage in the fight against violence fueled by hatred against people of the Muslim faith. However, as every year on the same date since this horrible event of 2017, we can only deplore the political recovery to advance a line of draconian political action, fueling the “Quebec bashing” by associating the murder of Alexandre Bissonnette with an ambient Quebec “Islamophobia”, and deplore the amalgams that are made with the State Secularism Act, accused of all evils.
Again this week, Mohamed Labidi, president of the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec (CCIQ), did not hesitate to link the murder of Quebec to a climate of intolerance which would be fueled… by law 211.
The new representative, Mr.me Elghawaby, has herself already denounced the “Islamophobia” of Quebecers in theottawa citizen for passing this law. In his words, “the majority of Quebecers seem influenced not by the rule of law, but by an anti-Muslim feeling”2. One wonders how this person, showing so many prejudices against Quebecers and visibly incapable of understanding the importance of secularism in the historical and social development of Quebec, could help improve the ambient climate and understanding mutual!
But back to the post itself. It follows on from the adoption in 2017 of Motion 103 to combat Islamophobia, as well as that of the National Summit on Islamophobia held in July 2021. Once again, we can only rejoice in living in a rule of law that is committed to combating racial discrimination and hate-motivated violence. However, like Motion 103, as in the press release issued at the end of the Summit, the official statement of the announcement of the position of Mr.me Elghawaby does not provide us with any definition of Islamophobia.
Everything even happens as if we were knowingly maintaining a great conceptual vagueness characteristic of militant discourse rather than the more precise one to which the human sciences are in principle tackling.
On reading it, we immediately notice that the notions of racism, systemic racism, systemic discrimination, religious intolerance and the very vague fight against “hate in all its forms” are tangled up there. “. Extensive program!
What is Islamophobia?
If the etymology refers to the excessive, phobic fear (from the Greek “phobos”) of Islam, the confused, polemical and militant use of the word now seems to be essential not only in the public space, but also, we can see it at the heart of our Canadian political institutions. However, this confusion has deleterious effects that we are already seeing around the world. Less than two weeks ago, we learned that an assistant professor of art history at Hamline University had just been fired for Islamophobia and racism. His crime? Have presented a painting representing Muhammad dating from the 14the century3.
We cannot ignore the pressure exerted by Islamic organizations to advance the crime of “Islamophobia”, to prevent the free thinkers and the Salman Rushdies of this world from expressing themselves, so that no one “dares” criticize Islam.
Let us think of the adoption, in 1990, by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which brings together 57 countries, of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, which confines freedom of expression within Islamic law alone and prohibits any insult to religion in the land of Islam. The fight is also actively pursued with international bodies in order to criminalize everywhere the “offenses” made to religions. These offenses are now equated with Islamophobia not only by Islamists like Turkish President Erdoğan or Ayatollah Khomeini, but also by a militant and pseudo-anti-racist discourse which confuses criticism of religion with racism, or even sometimes, as we see it in Canada, a law on secularism with “Islamophobia”.
However, as with any system of thought, opinion, or ideology, it is permissible and even desirable to criticize the various religious convictions, even if it means offending believers. This is the price of freedom of expression. By amalgamating or confusing everything, like some militants and Islamists who skilfully play with it, this appointment of a representative in the fight against Islamophobia only encourages self-censorship and hinders critical examination, the debate of ideas and, more broadly, freedom of expression in the public space.
While it is entirely legitimate to fight racism and hatred of Muslims, this cannot be done by confusing respect for individuals with absolute respect for their beliefs, by trampling on freedom of expression, by insulting Quebecers and by attacking the model of secularism in Quebec.