Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
Parliament Got It Wrong
Last week there was a motion passed in the House of Commons that may not have caught the eye of many Canadians. On the face of it, it looked quite innocent; just a private members’ motion to condemn Islamophobia. Motion M-103 was introduced by Liberal M.P. Iqra Khalid and it called upon the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
Conservatives had some problems with this and one of their members proposed a counter motion to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.” Liberal and NDP members shot this one down, insisting that the motion must specifically highlight Islamophobia.
Ms. Khalid’s motion passed by a vote of 201 to 91.
Our member of Parliament, Tony Clement and every other Conservative with the exception of one, who was present when the vote was called in The House of Commons, voted against the motion. On this one, I am with the Tories. The difference between the Liberal motion that passed and the Conservative motion that failed is perhaps subtle, but it is also very significant.
While M-103 is non-binding on the government it still carries significant weight and it requires a Commons Committee to come back with recommendations. By singling out Islamophobia, it sends a clear message that criticism of Islam is off limits. It also suggests a restriction on free speech.
Now before some of my good friends on the left get their knickers in a knot, let me be clear. I do not support any Conservative leadership candidate who would impose a litmus test on prospective immigrants over and above the process that is presently in place. Certainly, I oppose any form of discrimination against Muslims who are in Canada or those who want to come here and I totally disagree with the Muslim ban in the U.S. proposed by President Trump.
However, M-103 raises serious questions. Am I Islamophobic or racist because I have a problem with Islamic religious services being allowed in public schools when Christian services are not? Should I not be able to express my concern when young Muslim girls on public school property are centered out and forced to sit separately at their religious service because of their menstrual cycle? What if I object to banning pork in cafeterias because some students are not allowed to eat it? And am I forbidden to express my disgust at a visiting Iman at a Montreal mosque encouraging the killing of Jews? What if I strongly believe that Sharia law does not belong in Canada? Am I not entitled to say so? Where is the line between Islamophobia and free speech and why has Parliament attempted to redraw it?
The Khalid motion is dangerous because it singles out Islam, effectively granting it special status, more important than other religions or other ethnic groups. Supporters argue that this is because there is a rise in hate crimes against Muslims. Well, there has also been a significant rise in hate crimes against Jews.
I personally wonder if the motion was necessary in the first place and if, at heart, it was not a political move to curry favour with our Muslim communities. After all, Canada is recognized world wide for its tolerance and diversity. Some would say that M-103 is simply a cynical move to divide Canadians.
However, if the motion was necessary, then I think the Conservatives got it right and called the bluff of Liberal and NDP members who insisted on highlighting only one religious group. The Tory motion recognized the diversity and integrity of all religious groups without distinction or special status. That, I believe, is the Canadian way.
It was Confucius who said, “May you live in interesting times”. Well, he got that right. I think he meant it as a curse. Bigotry, racism, prejudice and intolerance are by-products of the populist movement that is raging its way across western society and fostering hate crimes. Knee-jerk reactions or ill-defined parliamentary edicts do not help. In fact, they send the wrong message, encourage division and set people against each other. That is not what I expect of our elected officials.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
Dear Readers,
The sentence in this article that reads – Our Member of Parliament, Tony Clement and every other Conservative in the House of Commons, voted against the motion., should have read, “Our member of Parliament, Tony Clement and every other Conservative with the exception of one, who was present when the vote was called in The House of Commons, voted against the motion.”
In my humble opinion, all this concern about M-103 is a tempest in a teapot. It is merely a reiteration of Charter rights. If, however, the Commons Committee were to suggest that the motion was worthy of becoming law; then any unlikely legislation would be struck down by the Supreme Court. Our Charter will always have primacy, and no individual group will ever be “more equal” under its protection.
Very well said and 100% true. My feelings exactly. Thank you for expressing them so succinctly.
Like most other comments I read here, I am also very concerned about how M-103 will pan out. Giving one religion, any religion or any group special status is not what my Canada represents. This is just the beginning of our new Islamic state. It is not yet law and lets hope it never will be.
Liberal M.P. Iqra Khalid , who introduced this motion, has had many racists slurs and threats thrown at her and as a result she worries about her safety. I can’t blame her for wanting that to end that abuse. But is this the best solution to her predicament. I do not believe this is the correct coarse of action.
Slippery Slope with no bottom and no stairs back to the top.
… and that may well be the conclusion of the Parliamentary committee that M-103 has asked for.
It’s an example of a political party jumping on the flavour of the month for political gain . It is not the first time this has happened and it won’t be the last with this group .
This is an example of the “Squeaky Wheel getting the oil”. All people should treated equal. Education is one of the best ways to reduce discrimination.
As a Christian I try to be Christ like in my actions daily. I often fail, but my intentions are always to be kind and respectful of all people. My belief is that God created us all. This means I should be respectful of people who have different convictions from my own.
I love Canada and like may others I came here from another country to make my life. I chose to be here. Like many landed immigrants I chose to become a citizen and have been one for over 35 years. In that process I embraced the Canadian way of life, its laws and the demands on me to abide by them.
I feel that no matter what religious conviction we have when we choose to become a Canadian we choose to take on the laws of our land. Until recently that meant we were all equal. My religious rights and freedoms were equal to those of everyone else. Followers of Islam who have chosen to come here including the millions who have chosen to become citizens, have also chosen to be here knowing what our laws are. They, like me, have the same freedoms of religion and speech, the same rights to practice their beliefs and live a peaceful life. In most cases they left a Muslim country to come to what is still essentially a Christian one. I can only believe that, like me. they left because they wanted a better life and believed that they would be able to build one here. The best data I could find was from 2011 but at that time over 65% of our population identified as Christian and less than 3% Muslim that may be different now but I am sure it is not completely turned around.
M-103 means that the Muslims living in Canada have special privileged. If I am called a religious “crack pot” for my faith well, go ahead and do it, there will be no outrage or media coverage. If my car (that has scripture on it) is damaged because someone takes issue with my expressing my faith, it is simple vandalism done by a bigot that will get dealt with but no media coverage, no public outrage, it will not likely even be called a hate crime. However if that bigot targets a Muslim person it will be all over the news and there will be public outrage.
I am an idealist. I would love to think that we could all be kind and respectful to each other but sadly human nature is not that simple. We will always have to deal with that small portion of society that feels they are entitled to be hateful and cruel to those who are different from them. But to single out Islam and give it special treatment over other faith groups is simply wrong and not in line with what I truly believe is the Canadian way.
Thankfully this motion has not actually changed the laws and I pray that the conversation that it will continue to generate will result in a realization that Canada should not tolerate any kind of “phobic discrimination” that targets any group whether religious, ethnic, or social. I also pray that we, as a nation, can continue to be able to enjoy freedom of speech without any caveat that excludes a particular group or subject.
Thanks Ruby. I was so glad to see your comment here. Having read the motion as well as the House of Commons petition e-411, I am hard pressed to link it to some of the comments made by Mr McKenzie. He seems to make reference to other discussions and OpEds not directly related to m-103.
Understanding that Friday not Sunday is a holy day for some and respecting the culture of individuals who pray at five times every day does not require others to pray or take part or even listen. This is certainly not the same as previous issues with common prayer in schools. Nor is this specifically referenced in the motion.
It is an important motion and I for one am glad to see that it passed.
If indeed the Government equally study’s both sides of the Issue , Takes into account and confronts the Ideology of Islam’s stated threats to Israeli’s and other “Infidels” and requests an apology for and retraction of such content in their teachings ! Well then maybe, just maybe, we have a chance of getting some where ! However, this observer does not feel they will do this, or if they do, that it will be receptively entertained by Islam and its Followers !
All The Names and claims of Bigotry, racism and xenophobia are badly conceived arguments in this issue, as is Hugh’s comments pertaining to a “Muslim ban” by the Trump administration ! (although that is another conversation altogether) The reality here is we are entertaining a request to give special status to a certain group of people who throughout History have not even Granted Normal status to others !
The world must for it’s own good learn to separate Political agenda’s from Honest dialogue ! The reality here is; if Islam is to be given any so called protection from Discrimination, and Undue critical assessments , then every group that Islam has discriminated against, and indeed incited as victims of its doctrine, should be granted the same discourse.
It is in not doing this, that our Government has not only been grossly negligent in not serving all it’s people. It has also shown a dangerous Bias in being Used Politically by an Ideology that is known for this kind of activity world wide !
Regarding the issue of free speech: I would recommend Doppler readers review the conflict between Macleans Magazine, Mark Steyn, author of ‘”America Alone”, and the British Columbia Human Rights tribunal.
Whether Islamaphobia refers to a people or a religion is not a matter of opinion. It’s a religion, that’s a fact. Condemning people who criticize a religion is stifling free speech.
Xenophobia is a perfectly good word to describe the hate we would like to drive back underground. Bigotry is also worthy of scorn. The motion would have been fine with those words. I am afraid this motion obviously did not help protect our minority neighbours. It was a distraction from the real issues.
Islamaphobia, like blasphemy, is something that will get you killed in some countries on the planet.
It will not help with the issues of bigotry, racism or xenophobia.
I disagree that M-103 will make criticism of Islam off limits. It seems a lot of folks believe that, but I don’t understand how you can interpret a motion with the intent of protecting people who are persecuted as something that will restrict free speech.
It is hatred that this motion is condemning. It is not hateful to disagree with Islamic students receiving special treatment in public schools. It is not hateful to disagree with Sharia law in our country or with Sheikh Muhammad bin Musa Al Nasr’s remarks in Montreal. It is, however, hateful to act on those feelings with vandalism or worse, violence. That has been happening ever more frequently in our country, and it is in response to this that M-103 was introduced.
You say that this motion sends the wrong message, encourages division and sets people against each other. I see just the opposite. We are already set against one another. This motion is asking our government to study why this has happened and try to find a way to mend this division.