We will remember Amira Elghawaby’s fight against the secularism of the state, her prejudices against Quebecers, the catastrophic portrait she paints of the situation of Canadian Muslims, her pride in having obtained from VIA Rail a prayer space in her Ottawa station. We will also remember her deafening silence during attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools in Montreal, calls for the murder of Zionists or a fatwa against the agents responsible for dismantling a pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University. He will also be remembered for his silence during important public debates on Islam, such as the collective prayers in parks and on the streets last spring, or during the invitation of the controversial Saudi Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem known for his hateful remarks against non-believers, gays and Jews.
What exactly is the purpose of the position of Canadian representative for the fight against Islamophobia?
For the record, it was recommended in 2021 during the national summit on Islamophobia by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), of which Mme Elghawaby served as communications director for six years. The NCCM’s strategy to combat Islamophobia included a call to halt the national strategy to combat violent extremism and radicalization. Among the recommendations was an “anti-Islamophobia education strategy” that would revise curricula and develop programs that “affirm Muslim identities.”
It is in this vein that we must undoubtedly understand Amira Elghawaby’s latest intervention with the country’s colleges and universities to ask them, in disregard of fields of competence and secularism, to “increase the representation of Muslim, Palestinian and Arab professors” in their establishments and to offer training on Islamophobia. Hiring professors on the basis of their faith? Really?
We are pleased that the political class has reacted firmly by unanimously voting for a motion demanding the resignation of Amira Elghawaby. But will changing the person prevent such excesses?
As we ourselves demanded in a collective letter and in a petition tabled in the House of Commons and signed by more than 2,500 people, the Parti Québécois requested the pure and simple abolition of the position. However, the motion was not tabled solely because of the opposition of Québec solidaire.
On social media, his MP Alexandre Leduc responded to Pascal Bérubé in these terms: “We proposed to amend your motion to specify that the [Québec] must adopt a plan to combat Islamophobia. You refused. Why?
For what ?
First, because the concept of Islamophobia has a deliberately broad and etymologically unclear meaning that confuses in its use hatred of Muslims, fear of Islamism and criticism of the precepts of Islam. With such elasticity, we will not fail, like the Islamists, to flush it out everywhere. Thus, in the Senate report on Islamophobia published in November 2023, the fact of not granting Muslims, in their workplace, premises and time for prayers is considered to be Islamophobia, in the sense of anti-Muslim racism.
Moreover, in its latest annual report, the Office of Mme Elghawaby calls for “applying solutions, policies and measures adapted to communities” without questioning for a moment the legitimacy of these requests for adaptation or their overall effects on living together.
Then, because criticism of Islam, like any religion, is permitted in a free and democratic society. Let us recall that Canada’s anti-blasphemy law was repealed in 2018. Thus, criticizing Islam, or any religion, is part of everyone’s freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Preventing criticism of Islam on the pretext that it is Islamophobia amounts to decreeing a new anti-blasphemy law, but according to which only one religion would be protected from criticism. Similarly, in a secular state, religious people cannot protect themselves, in the name of misguided anti-racism, against all offense.
Finally, because, if we are truly fighting hate propaganda, it is counterproductive to do so by confusing it with an approach to religious promotion. This only sows confusion between protecting people and protecting religious dictates, and risks making the situation worse rather than resolving it. Moreover, isn’t the Canadian representative for the fight against Islamophobia, who persists in relaying the publications of her former employer, the CNMC, on social media, working to make any measure to separate religion and state seem like hateful and racist propaganda?
We could change the person, but the very wording of the position, by not offering any definition of Islamophobia, authorizes such an amalgamation that is as fraudulent as it is unacceptable in a secular state of law like Quebec.
Not only was Amira Elghawaby’s appointment contested even within the Trudeau government, but this position has no social acceptability. It was not requested by anyone, except religious associations that are not very representative of the diversity of Canadian Muslims and are especially known for their hostility towards secularism. This position must be abolished.