Conditionally Canadian: Canadian Muslims Who Commit Crimes

It seems there has been yet another “honour killing” in Canada. In their article “Dishonour to Islam” The Ottawa Citizen recently reported that

….Hasibullah Sadiqi shot his sister and her fiancé to death in an Ottawa parking lot….

The Crown says Sadiqi was angry with his sister because she became engaged without her father’s permission and moved in with her fiancé’s family.

May God grant them paradise and help their families through this time.

First off, the article brings up a valid point and concern.

It will be interesting to see whether the defence is able to make this case without falling into the trap of cultural relativism.

…

But the adherence of an accused to a misogynistic code of honour, on its own, should never be enough for a Canadian court to mete out a lighter sentence.

I will address the “misogyny” comment in a moment. But first, I too would be concerned if the court did indeed consider culture as an adequate defense. By accepting such a defense the court would be stating that killing someone on the basis of preserving family honour is a legitimate and acceptable aspect of Afghan culture and Islam. Therefore, I too hope such a defense is not accepted.

And it is unfortunate that indeed this type of idea of family honour which leads to the death of a woman is misogynistic. I will not deny this. A family’s honour does rest on the shoulders of the women of the family. However, the idea of honour itself is no more misogynistic than Canadian belief systems. To believe otherwise is to kid ourselves. Canada is still a very sexist and misogynistic society. This article makes the assumption that code of honour is wide spread paints specific immigrant cultures, namely Muslim immigrant cultures, as misogynistic, all the while claiming a moral higher ground when none can be claimed.

The article also brings up some other troublesome points about the issue of honour killings. I have always struggled with the term “honour killings.” Although I do believe that killings related to preserving family honour do occur I am uncomfortable with the speed and ease with which such crimes are linked to immigrants, especially Muslims. I am also uncomfortable with the ease with which such actions are used to demonize immigrant groups, again, especially Muslims. This article feeds into the belief that honour killings are a Muslim issue.

The Ottawa Citizen article states:

Honour killings are all too common in some Muslim countries.

….

the Crown suggests that he was motivated by a religious and cultural belief system.

…

If Muslim women, in particular, are subject to a different level of protection than anyone else, that would undermine Canadian multiculturalism,..

…

We speak out when Muslim women accused of sexual misbehaviour are stoned by mobs in Nigeria or strangled by their fathers and brothers in Jordan. We should speak out no less loudly if it happens in Ottawa.

Honour is an issue which is universal despite the fact that usually Muslim countries are blamed. It just manifests itself in different ways. To associate honour with Muslims only implies that 1) only Muslims believe in honour, and 2) that the honour that Muslims believe in is somehow pathological or criminal. In the process the idea of family honour gets demonized. When a Western, non-Muslim man gets angered at another man for looking at or hitting on “his woman”could that not be an issue of honour? There is a sense that the woman “belongs” to him and anger that another man would dare infringe upon his property and threaten his honour. Similarly, in a collectivist context, within which the family is central to one’s identity and one sense of self is tied with the collective, the honour of the family becomes one’s own honour. And family honour becomes the basis for one’s respect. Once one’s respect is lost it can be quite difficult to attain it back.  However, the loss of honour is rarely associated with murder in most Muslim countries.

This article also makes Sadiqi an ‘other,’ denying him of his Canadian-ness and all the while claiming Canada as the superior value system.

Although he came to Canada when he was quite young, the Crown suggests that he was motivated by a religious and cultural belief system.

The assumption is that although he came to Canada quite young he was not able to be Canadian. He maintained a non-Canadian belief system, one which led him to kill. Had he adhered to Canadian values he would never have killed his sister and her fiance. Because Canadians apparently don’t kill their family members. Additionally, this statement assumes that Canadians are not influenced by religious or cultural belief systems. A statement which cannot be true considering religious and cultural institutions exist all across the country.

Considering the Sadiqi family have lived in Canada for so many years, the author’s mentioning of the Taliban and Afghanistan seemed to be placed to further create a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and to otherize an Afghani-Canadian. This family isn’t really Canadian, it seemed to say. They are Afghanis.

It frightens us, because it reminds us that such violence is possible, not only on an individual level, but also on a societal one — that humans have created such things as a Nazi society, and a Taliban society.

It would also, as it happens, legitimize the very ideology Canada is fighting in Afghanistan.

There are many things wrong with these statements.

First, to equate the Taliban society with Nazi society is a huge inaccuracy. The Nazis and the Taliban are not at all similar. The Nazi ideology was one of German supremacy by the extermination of others. The Taliban society is one of an adherence to a strict, rigid and conservative interpretation of Islam. It is not about supremacy of one nation through the extermination of another. To equate the two is not only to minimize the actions of Nazi society, but grossly misrepresent those of the Taliban.

Second, we see the typical Canadian savour complex at play here. We, Canadians, did not go to Afghanistan to “save” the women of Afghanistan. That was an excuse to invade and occupy a sovereign nation. It has been the excuse to invade, occupy and colonize sovereign nations for centuries. The colonizers used this same excuse when they colonized North Africa, India, and even North America centuries ago. Someone needs to tell the colonizers its getting old. Additionally, as Krista has mentioned before, making such a statement makes this situation about us, and not about the victims of the crime. It seems that the author feels that if the defense of culture is allowed to be used in the court, then that would be an insult to Canada’s efforts in Afghanistan.

And what in the world does the Taliban or Canada fighting in Afghanistan have to do with this story? This family lived in Canada. How does Canada’s supposed efforts to “save” the women in Afghanistan have any bearing on a crime a Canadian committed in his city of Ottawa? This family left Afghanistan many years ago and most likely did not live at all or or for very long under Taliban rule. This man was raised in Canada. He is Canadian. But the author of this story again and again tries to otherize him; tries to make him less Canadian. Bringing up Canada’s occupation of Afghanistan only serves to further inflate our collective ego over a superficial, manipulative, and strategic sympathy for Afghani women.

This piece serves to otherize an immigrant Canadian who has committed a crime. Its a classic Canadian tactic which we saw with Ben Johnson.*  By placing Canada on some higher moral ground, conveniently forgetting the genocidal origins of modern day Canada, this article demonizes not only a particular Muslim culture, but all Muslim cultures. From this article it would appear that Muslim Canadians are still not viewed as real Canadians. If we were, we would not be verbally stripped of Canadian citizenship if we committed a crime. Criminal or not, Sadiqi still is a Canadian and should be written about as such.

* Ben Johnson was a Canadian sprinter in the 80’s who was disqualified from the Seoul Olympics after being tested positive for steroid use. Before the test, he had won gold in record time and Canadian cheered their Canadian hero. However, once he was tested positive the discourse in the media switched to referring to him as a Jamaican – not Canadian. See here for a racial analysis.

Read Full Post »

Are some more Canadian than others?

The Globe and Mail published an interesting piece recently about Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian in Sudan who is being blocked by the Canadian government from returning to Canada.  The bulk of the article, which goes through some of the events of Abdelrazik’s case (being put on a no-fly list while in Sudan, later having the RCMP and CSIS declare that he was not a threat and the Canadian government give him permission to return, and then having the same government deny his request for a passport), is interesting, and worth a read.  I want to focus, however, on the introduction to the article:

His name is Abousfian Abdelrazik, but it could as easily be Joseph Smith, a Canadian Everyman. He is a citizen denied the right to return to his country by the Canadian government without explanation; for the past year he has languished in Canada’s embassy in Khartoum. If Canada can dismiss his citizenship so arbitrarily, the currency of Canadian citizenship is devalued, and the rule of law degraded.

Mr. Abdelrazik, an Everyman? Some Canadians may object. It is not every Canadian who has been publicly labelled an al-Qaeda recruiter by the United States government, as he was in 2006. It is not every Canadian who would be jailed – twice – in Sudan, and at Canada’s request.

But any Canadian who leaves this country to work, travel or study may face an accusation of serious criminality abroad. Will Canada insist on due process for them if they are denied it? Will Canada be the one, as in this case, to deny due process and basic fairness?

The alleged terrorist Abousfian Abdelrazik, with his long white beard and the traditional white robe and kufi cap of a practising Muslim, watching television to pass the time behind the embassy’s concrete walls, is the test of Canada’s commitment to the rule of law and the value of citizenship.

Beginning with its headline, “Cause for Canadians to worry,” the article places its emphasis on the implications of this case as a test of Canada’s commitment to protect its citizens.  The framing of Abdelrazik as a Canadian who happens to find himself in an extremely vulnerable position, but a position in which any Canadian traveling abroad could potentially find themselves, highlights Abdelrazik’s Canadian identity over all of the other labels that could potentially apply to him, and calls on Canadians to recognise him as one of our own.  The article argues that Canada’s treatment of Abdelrazik calls into question its very “commitment to the rule of law and the value of citizenship,” suggesting that Canadians need to think carefully about how we define citizenship, and whether it is indeed something that we can always count on.  This point is reiterated at the end of the article:

Governments need to act according to clearly understood rules. That is fundamental to democracy. An accusation, without a lawful process, cannot be allowed to negate citizenship. It is beyond the pale, even in an age of terror, to turn a Canadian into a non-person. Mr. Abdelrazik is you.

Again, Abdelrazik is portrayed not as a Sudanese-Canadian, or as a Muslim Canadian, but as a Canadian, full stop.  The Canadian government’s dodging of its responsibilities towards him is seen as a betrayal of one of its own citizens, which is, rightfully, pointed out as a serious cause for concern.

While this emphasis on Abdelrazik as a Canadian (no qualifiers needed) is certainly an important point to make, something about the first section still made me uncomfortable.  The suggestion that this could happen to anyone, that “Mr. Abdelrazik is you,” no matter who this “you” might be, is useful as a rallying cry for those wanting to hold Canada accountable, but it also glosses over the systems of racism and Islamophobia that put Abdelrazik in this position.  After all, his name isn’t Joseph Smith, and that’s probably not a coincidence.  It’s not a coincidence that Canadians like Maher Arar and Omar Khadr also don’t have names like Joseph Smith.  By implying that all Canadians are equally vulnerable to this treatment, the article ignores the particularly precarious situation faced by many Canadians who may be seen as Muslim, Middle Eastern, or otherwise somehow lesser citizens.  So while it is absolutely right to point out that these people are just as Canadian as the hypothetical Joseph Smith, it does not do enough to challenge the perception that people like Abdelrazik are somehow less Canadian because of their ethnicity or religion, and that such people face much greater risks, and much less uproar from their fellow Canadians, when their citizenship is denied or ignored.

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: May 11

The Toronto Star reports on a book about the spread of American popular culture in Muslim countries:

In 2004, the Save the Children organization conducted a survey of Afghan children. They were asked to name their greatest fears. Considering the wars that had decimated the country for decades, and the fact that much of the country is a landlocked moonscape embedded with countless explosive devices, the researchers were understandably surprised to see how many kids put sharks at the top of their list.

Sharks?

“It’s safe to say,” writes Toronto-based journalist Richard Poplak in his fine book The Sheikh’s Batmobile: In Pursuit of American Pop Culture in the Muslim World, “that among the various and awful ways in which so many Afghans have died over the course of their brutal history, not one has met with the business end of a shark.” But they had confronted the mass-market end of the Great White, in the form of much-bootlegged DVD copies of the 30th-anniversary edition of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. (Read more)

Two “leading Iranian dissidents” were denied entry into Canada for a conference at York University.  The quote about a “true Muslim reformer” is intriguing.  The implied dichotomy between secularism and fundamentalism (as if you have to be one or the other), not so much.

Saeed Rahnema, the York professor of political science who was one of the organizers, said today that the 35 experts at the conference last weekend have written a letter of protest to Ottawa and the Canadian Embassy in Tehran, as has the university.

“This is ironic at a time when Canada is involved in Afghanistan fighting fundamentalism that the government denies people visas to discuss secularism versus fundamentalism in Islam,” said Rahnema.

The two are Reza Alijani, a journalist who has been jailed several times by the Iranian government for his work and in 2000 was named the Reporters Without Borders distinguished journalist of the year.

Rahnema described him as a “truly Muslim reformer.”

The other is Shadi Sadr, a women’s activist in Iran who is leading the campaign against stoning of women. Rahnema said she speaks around the world on behalf of the rights of Iranian women. She is also director of Raahi, a legal centre for women. (Read more)

A Canadian children’s author spends time with the military in Afghanistan as research for an upcoming book…  we’ll have to wait and see how that one turns out.

McKay is planning a novel that concerns Afghan girls who are forced to leave their country. She says she wants to consult with Muslim groups, to get the cultural side of the tale right. But the reason McKay applied to the program is because she foresees her characters crossing paths with the Canadian military.

“I have four girls [in the story] — each one in their lives will come to a dead end, where they have to make a choice,” she says. One of the girls will be offered military assistance to Britain, where she was born, but she’ll turn it down. “She will stay with her friends and the three of them will try to make it over the mountains to Pakistan on their own,” McKay says. (Read more)

Read Full Post »

Opening a Mosque’s Doors to Understand Islam and Muslims

Written by Guest Contributor Magda.

Mohamad Rachid, Imam at Richmond Jamia Mosque. Image by Mark Patrick via Richmond Review

A modest article published in the Richmond Review called “Doors open around city” by Matthew Hoekstra, describes the effort of the city of Richmond, British Columbia to unite its fellow citizens by hosting its second annual “Doors Open” event.  The purpose of the event is to allow venues all across the city to open their doors to visitors, free of charge, in hopes that people will be able to walk away with a greater understanding of what the place has to offer. One such venue is the Jamia Mosque of Richmond, B.C.  The Jamia Mosque or “Masjid” is not new to the city of Richmond. In fact, it has been a part of the city for 25 years and yet it would seem that few people understand the purpose of the Masjid or who its inhabitants are. In this article, Hoeskstra essentially summaries a conversation with the Imam of the Masjid, Mohamad Rachid, who explains to the author what he hopes people will be able to take away from visiting the Masjid (in his words):

“Muslims are normal human beings. They go about their lives, they work, they have families, they’re just like everybody else with their daily issues,[…] We look at religion as a way of life, which means we’re always thinking of God, so we try to live our life in a very, very good manner.”

The article continues with a discussion of the structure and physical set-up of the Masjid as well as describing some of the fundamental beliefs that all Muslims share such as the belief that the Qur’an was revealed unto Allah’s (God’s) final messenger, Muhammad (p.b.u.h).

However, the article begins to shift its focus when the author decides to start addressing the run of the mill misconceptions about Islam and of course 911. To be clear, I strongly advocate the correcting of misinformation about Islam but what I can’t seem to understand is why basically every article about Islam or Muslims has to be turned into a piece in which Muslims are forced to defend their religion. It seems that Muslims are always being thrown the same arguments: terrorism, oppression of women, jihad, etc.  For example, on the topic of the oppression of women in Islam, Imam Rachid states:

“In Islam we say men and women…they’re like clothing for one another, they complete one another—not compete and fight,” he said. “It’s like somebody has taken something to extreme, living in an ivory tower and saying this is what you do. It is degrading.”

So while I feel it is important to clarify such issues, I find it rather frustrating that Muslims are never really viewed as normal human beings. Instead of accepting Muslims as fellow community members, with similar goals as the rest, Muslims are usually looked at as outsiders, strangers, and dare I say it “freaks”. Nonetheless, by participating in events such as “Doors Open” Muslims can not only clarify the stereotypes against them but also begin to move away from these misconceptions and teach others who the Muslims are and what Islam is really all about.

Read Full Post »

Denying Human Rights: Ezra Levant’s Mission

It seems Ezra Levant, right-wing blogger, journalist, lawyer and author, is on a mission to rid Canada of human rights commissions. Many of you may remember Levant from the Danish cartoon controversy a few years ago (see here for an interesting analysis and discussion) when his now defunct magazine ran the cartoons and was subsequently charged with hate speech by the Alberta government via the Alberta human rights commission.

In his latest book, which I have not read, he argues that human rights commissions are unnecessary in Canada. In a recent CBC radio interview he explains that he thinks human rights commissions have lost their relevance because apparently everyone gets along. Yes, that’s right. We all get along. Apparently, according to this argument racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, classism, Islamophobia, etc. don’t exist anymore.

In his short piece in the metronews.ca Levant complains about how he was a victim of the Alberta HRC.

My case, and a similar case involving Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, brought the hidden worlds of HRCs into the light.

Ezra Levant. Image via CBC

Regardless of what one may think of the case against Levant, for him to use his case to demonize and insult all HRC’s demonstrates how little understanding he has of the reality of Canada’s minorities. Just because he feels slighted by the HRC he advocates that the rest of us not have access to legal recourse if our human rights have been violated. And considering Canada IS still racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, classist, etc., the likelihood of minorities needing the services of an HRC are very high.

He forgets though that Maclean’s magazine was not sued because they printed Mark Steyn’s Islamophobic, fear-mongering article, an argument which Johann Hari soundly refutes, but rather because Maclean’s refused to allow a Muslim organization to print a rebuttal argument to Mark Steyn. Macleans it seemed was complicit in spreading an Islamophobic argument and not interested in dialogue or presenting a balanced view. And in today’s current state of heightened fear of Muslims, articles such as Steyn can indeed incite hatred and violence. Just look at what happened to this mosque in the US after the distribution of the Islamophobic DVD “Obsession.”

Levant’s argument sounds a lot like that of the bitter straight, middle class, White man who is complaining about how he is the truly marginalized person in Canada now. We’ve all heard the poor, rich, straight White man argument before. Levant appears completely clueless about his own privilege. He still occupies the most powerful position in Canada – rich, straight, White and male – and as such does not face the daily oppression many minorities in Canada do. How can Levant know that we get along when he is neither a racial, gender, class, nor sexual orientation minority? How does he know what being a victim of racism, sexism, homophobia, or Islamophobia feels like and how important and necessary getting justice for that oppression can be? Simply put, he cannot.  Yet, he seems to assume, without actually having the lived the life of an oppressed person, that oppression doesn’t exist. Of course it doesn’t exist for him – he occupies the position of the oppressor. From his position of power it is simple for him to claim that the human rights commissions are irrelevant. They don’t help him. They don’t provide a legal recourse for possible oppression he would face. They defend the rights of the marginalized against those who violate them – the powerful.

In this book review, which reads more like an Islamophobic rant than a book review, Jesse Ferreras explains that Levant  “puts aside all his tribal affiliations and expresses genuine concern for Canadians’ right to free speech – and for all Canadians, from Spartacists to Western Separatists. This review goes further in depiciting Levant as the poor victim. That poor, poor rich White man. He continues:

A victim of such tribunals himself, he outlines in deeply-researched detail how human rights commissions in various provinces are threatening actual rights such as public health, free speech and operating a business without pot smoke flying into your face.

Levant may have researched his book, regardless of how problematic that research may be, but Ferreras fails at this essential task.

His complainant? Syed Soharwardy, a radical Muslim cleric who wants to bring Shariah law to Canada. A man who blasted Christians who were helping out with tsunami relief efforts, charging that such groups were kidnapping Indonesian children.

How does he know Soharwardy is radical? How does he know Soharwardy wants to bring Shariah to Canada? To all of Canada or just as a means of arbitrating on family issues, just like Christian and Jewish groups were doing for years in Ontario? And what were the charges of kidnapping children based on? Considering many stories of child exploitation were coming out of the region such accusations don’t seem so outrageous and some context, or research, to these accusations would have been helpful.

I can actually appreciate Levant’s argument that certain cases that human rights commissions have taken on may seem unnecessary.

He tells of how a woman with a skin disease didn’t want to wash her hands while working at McDonald’s because it hurt. McDonald’s, as a corporation, needs to adhere to the strictest health standards – so after putting her on medical leave, giving her money for treatment and finally concluding that things wouldn’t work out, they let her go. She filed a complaint against the restaurant and a commission gave her $50,000 – solidifying the human right not to wash your hands while in the employ of the service industry.

He tells of Gator Ted’s, a restaurant in Hamilton frequented by an obnoxious man who bragged about having medical marijuana. He’d smoke it in the restaurant’s door and flaunt it as though he was an enemy of the state. The restaurant owner told him to stop smoking it near the door – and he got slapped with a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). The owner has since tried to settle the complaint, which would ultimately mean allowing the obnoxious pothead to smoke there – a violation of Ontario liquor laws, which could shut down his restaurant.

However, without full information on the cases which has not been filtered through someone who seems to think that everyone gets along and that human rights commissions are useless, I do not feel comfortable making judgments on those cases. Nonetheless, regardless of the necessity or lack thereof of these particular cases, to abolish human rights commissions based on these few cases would be a grave injustice to ethnic and religious minorities, including the Muslims of Canada. Considering incidents of racism and Islamophobia are just as common today as they ever have been, the human rights commissions serve their purpose and are a necessary recourse for the oppressed – the real victims of hate and oppression.

Read Full Post »

Facing Justice: An Update

I wrote a little while ago about the media coverage of the Toronto sexual assault case in which the female complainant was ordered by the presiding judge, Justice Norris Weisman, to remove her niqab while testifying.  At the time that I posted my earlier article, hearings were underway in Ontario’s Superior Court to appeal the judge’s decision requiring her to testify with her face visible.

Last week, the decision of this latest hearing was released, and made its way through Canadian media.

The ruling is far from clear-cut, and will likely result in even more hearings.  In short, as I understand it, the Superior Court Justice, Frank Marrocco, ruled that it is indeed within Weisman’s jurisdiction to ask the complainant to remove her niqab.  However, he also dismissed Weisman’s original decision, ruling that it was made without sufficient consideration of the issues involved, regarding both the complainant’s religious beliefs and the implications of her face covering for the court case.  In other words, although he does have the hypothetical authority to force her to remove her face covering, if need be, the decision that the removal of the niqab in this case was necessary may not have been the right one, and needs to be re-examined.

From my not-a-legal-scholar perspective, this decision seems to make sense.  It allows for the trial judge to step in if they truly feel that justice will be obstructed, but also emphasises the rigourous scrutiny that needs to be exercised in order to make that call.  It will be interesting to see what kinds of precedents this might set, and whether appropriate attention is actually given in practice to religious and cultural concerns, but the decision seems to respond (at least in theory) to some of the issues raised by both sides, in terms of religious freedoms as well as due process.

Not surprisingly, the articles reflect a range of perspectives.  The National Post, which has been the most anti-niqab throughout this whole story, uses the headline “Wearing veil on stand not a right: ruling,” emphasising that certain forms of religious expression through clothing do not have to be respected in all circumstances.  Others are more sympathetic towards the complainant, such as a CTV piece whose headline refers to the “Partial court victory for Muslim woman over niqab.”

The article that most disturbed me was the one published in the Globe and Mail, which starts off with:

Should a devout Muslim be allowed to testify in a Canadian criminal trial with her face concealed?

Perhaps, a court ruling has suggested.

But much hinges on how devout she really is.

It would be easy to take from this article that devoutness can be measured by someone’s commitment to covering their faces, which is somewhat off-putting for the majority of devout Muslim women, who do not niqab.  Moreover, the idea of measuring a person’s religious devotion at all is rather alarming.  Later in the article, we are told that

the judge ordered that the preliminary inquiry – on hold since the issue surfaced – convene two hearings to determine whether the woman’s beliefs are sincere, and if they are, whether testimony from a veiled witness would be admissible as evidence.

Again, allowing a court to decide the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs – particularly, although not only, in a case where those conducting the hearings likely do not share this person’s beliefs – is hugely problematic.  Moreover, it is not simply the depth of her devotion that should be considered, but also the reason for that belief and the potential impact of forcing her to remove the niqab, among other things.  It is difficult to tell whether the language around judging the complainant’s beliefs came from the verdict itself or whether it was the journalist’s interpretation of the judgement, but the idea is disturbing either way.

Interestingly, the Globe article identified the woman as “a Canadian-born mother in her early 30s,” which is more biographical detail than has been provided up to this point.  The phrase “Canadian-born” (rather than simply “Canadian”) is fairly often used to indicate a perception that someone is not a “real” Canadian; whether or not the journalist used it intentionally in this case, there is definitely a difference between the phrase that was used and “a Canadian mother in her early 30s.”  At the same time, the idea that she is Canadian may come as a surprise to those who, upon reading of this case, have repeatedly expressed fears that Muslims (whom they assume to be immigrants) are coming here for the purposes of challenging Canada’s laws and political systems and should all be sent home.  The people reacting in those ways almost certainly do not consider that “home” could be Canada itself, as appears to be the situation for the complainant here.

It seems this case will continue to develop, and will continue to make the news as further decisions are made.  We’ll keep you posted, inshallah.

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: May 4

As usual, here are some links we came across last week. Also, stay tuned for some brand-new ML writers whose first posts will be up later this week!

Haroon Siddiqui writes an interesting editorial in the Toronto Star about the responsibilities of the media in multicultural societies, and some of the ways that Canadian media is failing (echoing some of the same points that we often make here at Muslim Lookout!)  Here’s an excerpt, emphasis is mine:

As our nations become more multicultural, the need for cross-cultural journalism, i.e. telling the story of one group in a way that all others can relate to it, becomes essential. Yet newspapers – nay, most mainstream media – are poor at it.

Our knowledge of the many communities among us is primitive. Our adversarial lingo, combined with outdated notions of immigrants and their cultures, often comes across as racist. And, we are loath to admit, we do treat different groups differently, depending on their place in the social hierarchy. We bow to the establishment, insult the marginalized.

That’s life, I guess. But when not just the tabloids but respected mainstream broadsheets become peddlers of prejudice, social cohesion is endangered, as the Quebec commission on reasonable accommodation so bluntly said last year.

The media thus risk failing both as a business and as the essential institution of democracy that they claim to be.

These observations are not a call to political correctness. The media can and should be equally tough on all. But, first, we have to earn the right by being equally fair to all. […]

Take these recent examples from even some high-end publications.

A New York Times analysis of the strained relations between Vladimir Putin and Mikheil Saakashvili, the pro-American president of Georgia, had this gem: “The two leaders’ impact on relations between their countries reflects the intense role that personality plays in governments in the former Soviet states.” Personalities do not play an intense role in the U.S.?

The Times Literary Supplement from London, reviewing a book by Amin Malouf, the Lebanese Christian writer living in Paris, said: “Middle Eastern identities are complex.” European ones aren’t?

A New York Times story, “Feeling secure enough to sin,” heralded the resumption of cockfighting and night-clubbing in Baghdad. Setting aside the wisdom of using the return of vice as a barometer of normalcy, the story was oblivious to the obvious: that it took only an invasion, a six-year occupation, at least 100,000 dead and 4 million displaced to get the Iraqis back to the joys they had enjoyed under the secular Saddam Hussein. (Read more)

The Ottawa Citizen provides an update, and some history, to the controversy around the imam in Ottawa’s largest mosque:

For almost an entire evening Sunday, it looked like Ottawa’s new imam could finally start his job in peace.

The mosque’s leaders — the same people who had tried to dump him — had asked members to vote on the young Egyptian’s ability to lead them. Ninety-seven hands had shot up voting yes. Two alone said no.

Within hours, message boards and e-mails buzzed that the vote was fixed. Some threatened court action.

The problem of Imam Khaled Abdul-Hamid Syed was back to a stalemate. And the mosque was ready to implode once again. (Read more)

A Muslim woman’s bid to sponsor her new husband to come to Canada was rejected because her divorce from her first husband, while valid under Islamic law, is not recognised by Canadian law:

Muslims in the GTA are monitoring the case of a Toronto woman whose bid to sponsor a new husband to Canada was nixed because a religious “talaq” divorce of her first spouse is not recognized in Ontario.

Hoda Hussein Hazimeh claims a “talaq” divorce with ex-husband Ali Hammoud conducted under Sharia law and registered in Lebanon should be recognized here so she can sponsor her second husband, Hafez Farhat.

But federal court disagreed and ruled against her. (Read more)

The scheduled deportation of a woman who fears her husband will kill her if she returns to Pakistan has been stayed:

This afternoon, a judge placed a temporary stay on deporting a Pakistani woman who feared her husband would kill her if she were reunited with him.

Roohi Tabassum has been a refugee living for years in Mississauga, Ontario, making a living as a hairdresser, while filing for permanent refugee residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. […]

Judge Anne Mactavish of the Canadian Federal Court in Toronto ruled this afternoon that Tabassum, who was scheduled to be deported tomorrow, legally established she was at risk of suffering “irreparable harm” if she were sent back to Pakistan.

Tabassum’s attorney, Max Berger, however, told WND that the stay on Tabassum’s deportation is only in effect until a decision is reached on the appeal of her pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, used by immigration officials to evaluate the risk a person faces if sent back to their country.

“The problem is, PRRAs have a national acceptance rate of 3 percent,” Berger told the Star. “Lawyers joke amongst themselves that PRRA officers have only one stamp on their desk and that’s the ‘refuse’ stamp.”

In other words, while Tabassum is allowed to stay in Canada for now, the odds are still against her remaining. She may yet face deportation. (Read more)

Read Full Post »

Canada’s Saviour Complex is Getting Old: Afghani Women and Canada

It seems everywhere I turn I hear about Afghanistan in Canadian media. That’s why we’ve had to cover it so often on Muslim Lookout (here and here for instance). The Ottawa Citizen recently published an article about the recent protest by Afghani women against the proposition of a terribly oppressive law. Meanwhile, rabble.ca published an interview with female Afghani politician Malalai Joya on the same issue. Both had completely different takes.

Malalai Joya. Image via malalaijoya.com

The Ottawa Citizen article came across as not only ill-informed and ignorant of the relevant issues, but also as paternalistic and condescending. It focused only on the actions of the Afghani people and completely ignored the role of Western presence in the creation of this law. In contrast, the rabble.ca interview and approach tackled pertinent issues which are too quickly ignored by mainstream Canadian media.

From The Ottawa Citizen:

The remarkable courage of a few hundred women in Kabul, who stood up for their beliefs in the face of shouting and stoning, is a reminder that the world must not give up on the women of Afghanistan.

Had there not been an international outcry over the so-called “rape law”, those women might not have found the strength to protest the law in the streets — especially in the presence of a large, violent counter-demonstration.

Indeed, they might not have even known about the law had it not been for the international media; the government of Hamid Karzai did not make an effort to consult or inform the public.

Now let’s take a look at this line again:

Had there not been an international outcry over the so-called “rape law”, those women might not have found the strength to protest the law in the streets

Granted international attention can often provide people with an extra umph in their step, and I may even buy the argument that the news may not have reached many Afganis had international news media not picked it up. However, I have hard time believing that Afghani women needed international attention to find strength. The implication here is that this strength would have been non-existent otherwise. The threat this new law poses for Afghani women is not what is seen as their motivation to protest, but rather international attention. The sentiment seems to be that had the all beneficent Western media not paid attention this this case, Afghani women would have remained helpless and weak.

In the rabble.ca interview, regarding the protest Joya states:

Despite the threats from the fundamentalist bands that are still armed and in power, it is of course great and heartening when some women come out into the streets and oppose such laws. It shows Afghan women will not allow the laws of the Middle Ages to be applied against them and that they have the strength to stand up for their rights.

In the past few years our country’s unfortunate women have resisted their suffering through hundreds of self-immolations; I am very hopeful that Afghan women are gaining the consciousness not to burn themselves but instead to stand up and claim their rights through struggle.

Joya attributes resistance to those resisting – Afghani women. She recognizes their agency in resisting oppression. Joya also reminds us that Afghani women have been resisting, albeit through self-immolations, for some time now. However, from reading The Ottawa Citizen one would assume otherwise (emphasis mine):

The remarkable courage of a few hundred women in Kabul who stood up for their beliefs in the face of shouting and stoning, is a reminder that the world must not give up on the women of Afghanistan.

The italicized statement assumes that only those women who protested displayed courage. The courage those women who resist in a myriad of other ways was discounted. Although the resistance of these women should be applauded and appreciated this does not mean we should discount the resistance women enact in their everyday lives.

The Ottawa Citizen continues with:

The protest of Afghan women against the law is significant, because it demonstrates that the opposition to it is not mere western interference. Human rights are just that — human — and they apply in Muslim societies as anywhere else.

and

Cultural relativists argue that the NATO countries should not attempt to impose western values on Afghanistan. But the women in the streets of Kabul were not westerners.

“Not mere western interference”? It seems that The Ottawa Citizen is implying that at least part of the reason these women protested was western interference. Apparently, had the West not interfered this protest may never have occurred. Again, they make the assumption that had their not been some form of international influence these Afghani women would not have resisted in this manner. Oh, and thank you for reminding us that human rights apply in Muslim countries as well. However, this message would be handy to send to those countries that decide to invade and occupy Muslim countries as well.

The Ottawa Citizen article completely fails to acknowledge the role of American invasion and occupation in the deterioration of women’s rights in Afghanistan. In fact, they claim the opposite:

The very fact that women are calling for this law to be repealed, and are able to stand in the street to protest, is a sign that democratic progress has been made since the toppling of the Taliban.

In the rabble.ca interview with Joya we see something very different happening in Afghanistan. Joya says (emphasis mine):

This law is an inevitable outcome of the rule of the fundamentalists and in practice much more awful laws have been unofficially imposed on our people by the U.S.-backed warlords and drug-lords across Afghanistan — they have full control over our people to impose a ‘law of the jungle.’

This is far from the first time that Karzai has compromised with the fundamentalists and approved laws made by them. He has installed brutal and ignorant extremists in key posts; they were encouraged and now have enough power to pass laws of their design.

When the U.S. and its allies replaced the Taliban with the fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance in 2001, every Afghan knew that these terrorist bands were no different than the Taliban. Today, unfortunately, we can all clearly see this. The nature of the fake democracy ‘donated’ to Afghanistan by the U.S. government, which was trumpeted by mainstream Western media as an achievement, stands exposed before the world.

Afghan women have been betrayed in the past eight years under occupation. They are deeply feed up with the propaganda of the Afghan government and its international backers who invaded Afghanistan in the name of liberating women.

Therefore, we can see that in reality the Afghan women have not benefited from the occupation but rather are experiencing conditions similar to, if not worse than, those under the Taliban. As Krista wondered in her previous posts on this issue, why is this coming as such a surprise to Canadians? Why are we shocked? The intention of going into Afghanistan was never to “liberate” Afghani women. That was a pretext which made selling the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country easier to those in the West which gives women all their rights, treats women with full equality, and where women hold absolute equal power to men. This full equality is demonstrated by the equal numbers of female politicians to men in our parliament, equal numbers of female CEO’s to male CEO’s in our corporations, equal numbers of female supreme court judges to males ones, equal numbers of female media moguls to male ones, etc. Oh, wait. They don’t exist! That’s right, because female equality is non-existent in the West too. Yet, we assume we can make other societies egalitarian when ours isn’t even close to it?

Joya also states:

The Afghan government and its American guardians just say beautiful words about “liberation” of Afghan women, but in fact only some cosmetic changes are made to deceive the people of the world.

…

Obama called the new law “abhorrent,” but I think the U.S. government backing the fundamentalist warlords and imposing them on the Afghan people should be called “abhorrent” first.

I think the new policy of Obama will put our people and the whole region in a more dangerous situation than before. It shows clearly that the U.S. government is not interested in stability and peace in the region, and only wants a permanent military base in the region to threaten China, Iran, Russia and other Asian powers.

The Ottawa Citizen perpetuates the myth that Western invasion has somehow been beneficial for Afghani women and it is just those “barbaric” Afghani men who are hurting women. It continues to paint Muslim women as oppressed damsels in distress and Muslim men as barbarians and monsters, thus perpetuating this racist discourse. It shifts the blame away from Western forces who have backed and supported the oppressive and violent regimes, and onto those “barbaric” Muslim men, because of course only they are capable of such actions (sarcasm). Such reporting only continues to hide the complacency and agency of Western forces in the continued oppression of Afghani women and dupes Canadians into thinking that our presence in Afghanistan is somehow beneficent. The reality, as we hear from Afghani women themselves, couldn’t be further from the truth.

Read Full Post »

Canada’s Military and Afghan Women: A Follow-Up

This piece is also posted at Muslimah Media Watch.

I know I just talked about this last week, but all these questions about Canada’s involvement with the rights of Afghan women have remained a major news story, so I thought it was worth doing a follow-up.  There are still quite a few articles out there about how the new law that came out a couple weeks ago is making everyone question Canada’s mission in Afghanistan (yeah, I know: Canada’s military has been there how long and people are only asking these questions now??)

This article by Sandra Martin,  printed this past weekend in the Globe and Mail, is pretty typical of a lot of the issues that are being mentioned.  Like many of the media perspectives I discussed last week, it talks about the Afghan government’s support of the new law as “the ultimate betrayal,” as if it is a move deliberately and primarily intended to offend the Canadian mission in the country.  (Interestingly, the specific language around “betrayal” is always talked about in terms of a betrayal of Canadian expectations, and not of Afghan women.)

The article further exposes some of the other assumptions that are being made in many of the discussion about this issue within Western media.  Its constant use of “us” and “our” – in reference to Canada and Canadians, and in particular to the Canadian military – creates a rigid division, assuming that all Canadians are similar and united, and fundamentally different from Afghans.  When she says that Margaret Atwood “continues to question why we were there in the first place” and “doesn’t feel we can just pack up our kit bags,” Martin implies that all of “us” are somehow in Afghanistan, and so closely linked with the Canadian military that its kit bags are “ours” as well.  She also writes that although it used to be “that intractable problem over there, Afghanistan is now a seething issue on our streets, around dinner tables and in meeting rooms in Canada.”  She seems to assume here that it is only since Canada’s role in the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 that Afghanistan has been an issue for Canadians.

I know it might seem overly nitpicky to get all concerned about a pronoun, but the use of “we” and “our” is always worth questioning.  It is often an exclusive term (if “we” did not care about Afghanistan prior to 2001, then this “we” doesn’t really include Afghan-Canadians; if “we” are fighting in Afghanistan, then the “we” also pushes aside many Canadians who disagree with the Afghan mission.)  It is also a term that tends to create a moral binary as well, placing “us” on the side that is morally superior and more modern and progressive than the Afghan “them.”

Martin also seems to assume that military intervention is the only way to support Afghan women.  She writes that, throughout the course of Canada’s military involvement in the country, “those with a reflexively anti-war disposition found themselves torn between their opposition to military intervention and their concern for the plight of Afghan’s most vulnerable: its female population.”  Even if we ignore the overly patronising tone of “a reflexively anti-war disposition” (as if being anti-war is just a reflex, and not a result of some critical reflection), the statement is bizarre also because of its suggestion that opposing military intervention and supporting Afghanistan’s female population are mutually exclusive positions.  In fact, many people who were initially opposed to the military intervention opposed it precisely because they felt that such an intervention would hurt Afghanistan’s female population.  Moreover, many of these people were also people who were concerned about Afghanistan’s female population even before 2001, a possibility this article seems to deny altogether.

On the other hand, Martin does bring in some quotes that give some nuance to the debate.  For example, she begins by quoting Farah Mohamed, a Muslim woman who tells us that “I grew up in Canada in a Muslim home where respect and the advancement of women are normal and I was horrified by this law.”  It was nice to see an affirmation, especially right at the beginning of the article, of the possibility of being a Muslim woman who grew up in a household that would teach her to be horrified by this law.

Martin also writes that:

Some people think there are better ways of improving the lot of women than pouring in guns and soldiers.

“How has the war helped women in Afghanistan? It hasn’t,” Judy Rebick, former head of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, says. Instead, she argues, life is worse for women since the occupation. “Never have women achieved equality by somebody coming in and giving it to them. We can’t bomb our way into equality.”

Rather than sending in troops to intervene in a society “that doesn’t want them,” she thinks countries such as Canada should have supported existing groups like RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which has been organizing non-violently against the Taliban and struggling to establish women’s rights since 1977. “We should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, and we should leave.”

I’m glad that she included this quote, and that she mentioned that there have been women active in women’s rights issues since 1977 (although she could have mentioned that these struggles go back even further.)  Although much of the article made me cringe, and overall did little to really challenge the idea of Canada as a benevolent power bringing nothing but good to those poor Afghans, she did bring in more complexity than some other articles have on this issue.

And I know this is petty, but I have to mention Martin’s token headscarf reference, where she reflects on some of the media coverage about Afghan women protesting the law, and writes that “seeing them march with their faces uncovered and their veils pulled back to show some hair was a hopeful sign that women are feeling strong enough to protest against an unjust law.”  Because pulling your veil back to show some hair is a true sign of liberation.  *rolling eyes*

Read Full Post »

Fun with Statistics: Religion in Canada

The canada.com website recently posted an article titled “Most believe Canada is Christian: Poll.”

According to the article,

The survey, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National, found roughly six in 10 Canadians (58 per cent) identified the country as Christian. Among those who believe in God, 61 per cent think Canada is a Christian nation, while fully 48 per cent of non-believers feel that way.

Okay, so that part is pretty straightforward.  Later, it tells us:

Although 80 per cent of Canadians think “proper tolerance” is given to those who wish to practise religions other than Christianity, fully four in 10 don’t think Christians are given those same allowances by other faiths.

This is where it gets a bit fishy.  Christians represent, by far, the biggest religious group in Canada, so, presumably, they also represent the biggest religious group interviewed for the poll.  And it’s a whole lot easier to gauge whether your own religion is being marginalised or disrespected, than it is to measure whether you’re being sufficiently “tolerant” (not a great word) of other religions.  So, while this paragraph seems to hint that Christians may be more tolerant than others, and that this is backfiring on Christians who are now finding themselves oppressed, I’m not sure that’s the whole story.

Alia Hogben, Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, makes a good point that perception is important, and that if Christians perceive that they aren’t being given “proper tolerance” by other religions, that’s a problem, and it’s sad.  (Whether this is a result of actual hostility on the part of other religious groups, or of media portrayals of those groups as hostile might be another story…)

But, I also wonder what the effect is of the majority of Canadians perceiving that “tolerance” levels are just fine when it comes to how non-Christians are treated.  Does this mean that things really are okay, or just that the majority of Canadians don’t realise that there are problems?  As Hogben later says,

I agree that if children can’t sing Christmas carols anymore or we have to use the term ‘holiday tree,’ that’s going to the extreme. On the other hand, Christians should understand that all the major Canadian holidays are Christian holidays. For me, Easter has no meaning and yet . . . my children and grandchildren are given that enormous belief system through their (school) education.

In other words, a lot of people in Canada who are either Christian or non-religious from Christian backgrounds might not realise the extent to which Christianity is privileged, or, by extension, some of the contexts where non-Christians might feel marginalised (including, perhaps, the very fact that so many Canadians think of Canada as Christian.)  Hence, possibly, a higher awareness of the instances where Christianity is pushed aside, and less attention to national and cultural practices that exclude followers of non-Christian religions.

There are a whole lot of other questions I have about the numbers given about “proper tolerance”…    What percentage of the responders were Christian?  How did the voting break down according to religious group?  What the heck is “proper tolerance,” anyway?

I’m not trying to say that the results are wrong, or that it’s worth getting into some kind of competition over who’s most oppressed.  And to be fair, the rest of the article actually did a pretty decent job of giving some nuance and context to the survey results.  But I do worry that the kind of conclusions that might be easily drawn from the statistics mentioned, since it seems pretty easy to manipulate them into something that paints Canadian Christians as experiencing oppression despite being so open and welcoming, and Canadians of other religions as intolerant and ungrateful.  I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more than that going on.

Read Full Post »