Are Afghan women really Canada’s top priority?

This piece was also posted at Muslimah Media Watch.

A few weeks ago, the news of a new law for Shi’a Muslims in Afghanistan was met with outrage in governments and media around the world.  This law would, among other things, force women to have sex with their husbands and obligate them to seek permission for activities outside the house. News since then has indicated that the law will be reviewed. I hope that this is a situation where the widespread condemnation will actually force a change in the law, which, from all that I’ve read, sounds incredibly violent and oppressive.

That said, I was puzzled at some of the statements coming out of Canadian media and politicians on this issue.  Focusing on the fact that the Canadian military has now been in Afghanistan for over seven years, many Canadian figures seemed to take it as a personal slight that the Afghan government had passed such an oppressive law.  The tone of many of the comments suggests that Afghanistan owes it to Canada to treat women better, and that the recent law is a sign of ingratitude.

For example, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney stated that, “Obviously our men and women (of the Canadian Forces) have been in Afghanistan to defend human rights and that includes women’s rights,” and International Trade Minister Stockwell Day argued that, “The onus is on the government of Afghanistan to live up to its responsibilities for human rights, absolutely including rights of women. . . If there’s any wavering on this point from the government of Afghanistan, this will create serious problems and be a serious disappointment for us” (emphasis mine.)   A member of parliament further asked, “How can we say that our soldiers are there to protect women’s rights when the Western-backed leader of this nation pushes through laws like this?”

What I find troubling about these statements is that they seem to assume that the situation of Afghan women is the primary reason that the Canadian forces are there, and that it is entirely the Afghan government’s fault that things are not as rosy as they should be.  No one seems to remember that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are there as part of the “war on terror,” and that women’s rights have been, at best, a side issue, and at worst, an issue raised only to drum up support for the mission.  The mere presence of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, surprisingly enough, is not going to magically result in improved conditions for Afghan women.  From the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, there have been various instances of leaders in some parts of the country being supported by the allied forces in their efforts to get rid of the Taliban, with little attention given to their own misogynistic policies (see here for one example.)

As James Laxer of Rabble.ca writes,

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is adept at playing to different audiences. In the West, he is an eloquent supporter of human rights and women’s rights in particular; at home, he governs under a constitution based on Sharia Law and reaches out for the political support of misogynist constituencies. As sometimes happens, Karzai’s initiatives at home can cause trouble abroad. American, Canadian and European officials have roundly condemned the reported law. And Karzai will doubtless bow theatrically to acknowledge their expressed concerns at the same time as he does next to nothing to broaden the rights of women in Afghanistan. […]

Let us suppose the Canadian government had actually cared about the rights of women and the education of girls. Instead of entering the lists in a protracted civil war, had Canada invested ten billion dollars to provide schools for girls in parts of the world where the schools would be welcomed, we would have made an enormous contribution. This would have been the most important international development project ever undertaken by Canada.

Instead, we are paying in blood and treasure for a relationship with a regime that is no better than Taliban-lite.

In other words, it should be no surprise that the government there (even a Western-backed, non-Taliban one) doesn’t have women at the top of its priority list, or that Canada hasn’t exactly demonstrated that women are its main concern either.  Interestingly, this article even suggests that many people within the Canadian government and foreign service saw this law coming and remained surprisingly silent about it for quite a while before it was formally passed.

Afghan-Canadian journalist Nelofer Pazira also writes that, while this law is obviously problematic, legal constraints represent only a small part of the challenges that many Afghan women face:

This week more than 100 Afghan women from 34 provinces met in Kabul to discuss the situation of women in the country; they highlighted insecurity as the biggest impediment to their freedom and equality. Most women fear to leave their homes, to attend school or go to work – not because of their husbands, but because they don’t feel safe. Their rights to education, freedom of movement and action are guaranteed in the Afghan constitution, but the gap between words and reality is too huge to be bridged simply by revising a few clauses in a legal document. Sure, we must fight to protect the legal rights of women. But we must also seek ways to bring about change so that legislation is relevant to the lives of women and men in Afghanistan. The majority of Afghans cannot read and write; an even greater majority don’t go to the courts to resolve family and marriage problems. The few who are educated who might seek legal help are sceptical about the rule of law because of the corruption and lack of trust in the Afghan government and the judicial system.

As Pazira says, “spare me the hysteria.”  It’s all well and good to criticise this law, but let’s not pretend that we’re surprised that sexism still exists even without the Taliban, or that we really believe that Western forces in the country are there for the sake of Afghan women.

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: April 13

Some of the links we came across last week:

Muslims in Canada take advantage of the Good Friday holiday to attend prayers with their families:

Canadian Muslims see the Good Friday as a rare chance to enjoy performing the weekly Friday prayers at mosque with family and friends.

“For many Muslims, this is the only time they get to pray with their families, instead of a place near their work,” said Shirazi.

Friday is a working day in the West, making it difficult for Muslims to attend the Friday prayer at mosques.

“Normally, we get about 600,” Farhad Khadim, vice-president of the Islamic Centre of Toronto in Scarborough, said.

But during the Good Friday, Khadim expects his mosque will receive between 1,000 and 1,500 worshippers. (Read more)

The Toronto Star‘s Haroon Siddiqui argues that Obama needs to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to building relationships with Muslim countries:

Barack Obama’s considerable cross-cultural skill in communicating with multiple constituencies was in evidence in Turkey this week.

He deserves all the praise he is garnering for his well-crafted message to the Muslim world. But unless he backs his elegant words with substantial changes in American policy, he faces a precipitous fall.

He is right to have said:

America “is not and will never be at war with Islam … We seek broad engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”

America has “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”

Addressed to Muslims, the words are also a warning to Islamophobes, plus the politicians who pander to prejudice (Jason Kenney). (Read more)

A young woman has been nominated for a YWCA award for her work in creating fitness programs for girls:

[Raghad Ebeid] was recently nominated for a Young Woman of Distinction Award by the YMCA-YWCA for creating a multicultural girls fitness program.

The program exposes young Muslim women to different recreation and sport activities that they might not have the opportunity to try elsewhere, like downhill skiing and indoor rock-climbing. […]

She has worked in schools, often speaking about anti-bullying with young women.

“Growing up being from a different place, not necessarily dressing the same way and doing the same thing it felt empowering to be in high schools speaking,” she said.

Ebied came to Canada at age seven and faced challenges as a Middle Eastern Muslim.

“I lived through bridging two different cultures and faiths,” said Ebied. “I wanted to integrate positively with my new home, working through that process to find what the balance is.” (Read more)

Read Full Post »

Canada’s misplaced tolerance? Or your misplaced fear?

Be prepared for some major eye-rolling in this article from the Calgary Herald. In it, Mahfooz Kanwar praises Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (see here for why this is a bad idea), and berates Canadians that he perceives as not having “assimilated” enough.  A Muslim originally from Pakistan, Kanwar spends the article extolling the perfection of Canada’s values and culture, and blaming all problems on those immigrants who bring foreign baggage with them into this happy utopia.

Kanwar’s definitions of “Canadian” identity and values are disturbingly narrow.  It seems to apply only to those values already existing among people living in Canada, who have good values such as “equality.”  People who move to Canada, according to Kanwar, need to adopt Canadian values, and lose (or at least hide) anything they brought from their home country.  At no point does Kanwar allow for the possibility that there might be Canadian values that aren’t so great, or that our actual track record for “tolerance” and “equality” isn’t exactly as impressive as we’d like to think.  He also never acknowledges that there might be some “foreign” values that could actually enrich or improve Canadian society.  Immigrants are called to adopt “mainstream” Canadian ideas and behaviours, and the assumption is that these must be necessarily better than the ideas and behaviours that immigrants brought with them.

Kanwar also calls for all immigrants to be unquestioningly patriotic and undividedly loyal to Canada, which is not a standard that most Canadian-born (and white) Canadians are ever called to adhere to.  He writes, for example, that “Those who come here of their own volition and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.”  As a white Canadian whose family has been here for several generations, I have never been told that I should “go back” anywhere, despite a history of acts that I am sure Kanwar would classify as deeply unpatriotic.  I am disturbed at Kanwar’s argument that all immigrants should have to adopt an uncritical sense of national pride in order to belong here, and that there does not appear to be any room for immigrants to be at all critical of Canada (or of the overall concepts of patriotism and nationalism, which I would also argue are worth critiquing) if they want to be considered worthy of living here.

Kanwar’s claim that “I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian” also worries me.  He seems to imply that in order to be acceptable Canadians, Muslims must put Canada first, even above their faith.  Without wanting to challenge Kanwar’s own right to identify himself in that way, I would argue that for many (most?) Muslims, to do this would be contrary to their very understanding of Islam.  After all, the whole “no god but God” thing isn’t meant to apply only in certain circumstances.  Moreover, what’s the point of asking people to rank those identities?  Can’t we acknowledge that it’s possible to be fully both (if one so chooses) without having to specify the order in which they’re expressed?

And then there are the weird gender dynamics:

Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur’an anyway. We do not kill our daughters if they date the “wrong” men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was caught dating a Caucasian man.

We do not practise the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.

In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes, especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practised in St. Catharines, Ont. a few years ago.

He’s not only talking here about Muslims, but many of his comments refer directly or indirectly to Muslim communities. What I find interesting is that almost all of the examples in his article of the problems that immigrants apparently bring to Canada are directly linked to gender. More specifically, it is about what “we” do and do not do to “our” women, as in “we” do not kill our daughters, or our brides.

Reading this, I get the sense that this “we” refers not only to the good, assimilated immigrants (and, of course, to the infallible mainstream non-immigrant Canadian population), but that it also refers, implicitly but rather crucially, to men. Women are present only insofar as their bodies can be used to demonstrate their husbands’ or fathers’ worthiness (or unworthiness) as Canadians. There are some moments where we might imagine the “we” to be potentially female as well, but all gender-specific references to the actors are male, and all of the people being acted upon are female. Moreover, they are “our” women – still possessed by this “us,” and at “our” mercy, with little indication that they are able to act for themselves.

It is ironic that Kanwar speaks so strongly against using women’s bodies to convey matters of honour, and yet proceeds to use women as a way to prove some kind of alternate “good Canadian” identity. Even if this is done only on a rhetorical level, it still constructs women as the representations of cultural identity, symbolic of the level of Canadian-ness that the men in their lives have apparently reached. The unharmed bodies of “our” women are used to support “our” claims to civilisation, while the murdered and injured bodies of women from those “barbaric” communities are further used, in contrast, to demonstrate how far “we” have come. In all cases, the women are still silent and passive.

In this way, Kanwar’s strategy differs less than he might hope from the practices of those he criticises. Although he condemns violence against women, he does so without acknowledging any agency that women may have, or the fact that a society that truly values gender equality might be best to devise ways of expressing such values that go beyond simply proclaiming its merit by listing all the forms of violence that it doesn’t commit. Instead, women in his article are only present to further his point, and to add to an alarmist and xenophobic analysis of Canadian society.

Kanwar’s conclusion, that Canadian values and national identity are being eroded by the influx of immigrants who bring conflicts and loyalties from overseas, erroneously and dangerously paints newcomers to Canada as inherently violent and suspect.  Instead of acknowledging that Canada is not perfect, or that it has always benefitted from immigration (often in very exploitative ways), this article adds fuel to racist anti-immigrant sentiments.  Ironically, it is these sentiments that, I would argue, really are a threat to Canada and to Canadians of all backgrounds.

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: April 6

The projects described in this press release sound pretty interesting, but is anyone else suspicious of the timing, given some of Minister Kenney’s other recent activities?

Muslim youth will have the opportunity to participate in two projects that will help address issues around discrimination and promote cross-cultural understanding, thanks to support from the Government of Canada.

The projects were announced today by Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney and Minister of State (Status of Women) Helena Guergis. They are being coordinated by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada will provide $441,000 for a project called “MY CANADA.” It gives Muslim youth across Canada the opportunity to participate in activities such as multi-faith sessions for Muslim and non-Muslim youth in schools and community centres to teach peace building and inter-cultural dialogue and conflict resolution skills. It also encourages integration and active participation in Canadian society.

“This project demonstrates the importance of promoting common understanding and mutual respect – the basic building blocks to achieve peace and stability here in Canada and elsewhere in the world,” said Minister Kenney. “It will also allow the Muslim community to share its experience with discrimination with other religious communities.”

Status of Women Canada will provide $314,000 for a project called “Being a Canadian Muslim Woman in the 21st Century.” It will focus on equipping young Muslim women to lead and participate in a number of workshops with their educators and non-Muslim and male peers to discuss discrimination, violence and human rights. (Read more)

Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik is denied the travel documents he needs to return to Canada:

Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, poses so grave a threat to Canada that he can’t come back, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said yesterday, abruptly reversing the government’s written promise of an emergency one-way travel document less than two hours before his flight home was to depart from Khartoum. […]

Mr. Abdelrazik was to reach Canada today, after more than six years of imprisonment and forced exile in Sudan, on a ticket purchased by hundreds of supporters who defied the government’s threat to charge anyone with helping him because he was put on a United Nations terrorist blacklist by the Bush administration.

Instead, two hours before his flight was to depart, government lawyers faxed a one-sentence letter to his lawyers in Ottawa, saying he had been deemed a national security risk and refused travel documents.

The reversal by the government – which previously promised, in writing, to issue Mr. Abdelrazik a one-way, emergency passport to return home if he had a fully paid ticket – adds yet another dimension to the long-running and increasingly Kafkaesque labyrinth that Mr. Abdelrazik must walk. […]

In fact, the passport order seems intended to allow the government to deny a citizen a passport – and therefore the government’s blessing to travel abroad if he is deemed a security threat – rather than as a means to deny a citizen the right, enshrined in the Charter, to return to Canada. (Read more)

The Canadian government responds to a violent and sexist law proposed by the Afghan government.  The level of indignation here is really interesting.  Canada is happy to claim responsibility for getting rid of the Taliban, but when it turns out that invading a country doesn’t magically guarantee that its women will be better treated, well, then it’s all the Afghans’ fault:

Canadian officials contacted the Afghan government Tuesday to express concern about controversial new legislation that would reportedly allow men to rape their wives.

The Canadian government reacted with outrage following reports that the Karzai administration has approved a wide-ranging family law for the country’s Shia minority.

Various reports say the legislation would make it illegal for Shia women to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission, or have custody of children. […]

Canada, which has lost 116 soldiers in Afghanistan and spent up to $10 billion propping up the Karzai government, has demanded more information about the law.

“If these reports are true, this will create serious problems for Canada,” said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day.

“The onus is on the government of Afghanistan to live up to its responsibilities for human rights, absolutely including rights of women.” […]

“How can we say that our soldiers are there to protect women’s rights when the Western-backed leader of this nation pushes through laws like this?” said NDP MP Dawn Black.

“Allowing women to be treated like a piece of property . . . is this what we’re fighting for? Is this what our people are dying for in Afghanistan?” (Read more)

On Friday’s As It Happens on CBC Radio One, Barbara Budd interviewed Kyla Pasha, one of the managing editors of Chay Magazine from Pakistan. They discussed the controversy around the magazine, and its name, as well as the appreciation for the opportunity for women to write about issues of sexuality in Pakistan. The tension between Sharia Law in certain parts of Pakistan and secular values in other parts of the country are briefly touched on as well.

[I]n Lahore, Pakistan’s cultural capital, a new online magazine is giving women a voice they’ve never had before. Chay Magazine is Pakistan’s first publication dealing with all manners of sexuality. Twenty year old Kyla Pasha is one of the managing editors of Chay and we reached her in Lahore.

Hear the interview here. Click on “Listen to Part 3 of As It Happens” and forward to the 12:00 minute point.

Read Full Post »

Face-ing Justice: The Niqab in Canadian Courtrooms

This post was originally published on Muslimah Media Watch in early February.  I’m cross-posting it here because it was in the news again last week (see the bottom of the post for an update.)

A Toronto judge has recently ruled that a complainant in a sexual assault trial – who happens to wear the niqab, a face-covering worn by a small percentage of Muslim women – will have to uncover her face in order to testify.  According to this article,

The judge, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman, determined he had the jurisdictional authority to make that ruling under the Canada Evidence Act, because it involves the manner in which the woman is to give testimony, the fundamental right of a defendant to make “full answer and defence” and the “traditional right” of an accused to face the accuser.

The decision will be challenged at the Superior Court of Ontario next month.  There is a publication ban on details from the case, including the names of those involved, so most of the discussion happening about this is taking place without a whole lot of information.  (Interestingly, one journalist has suggested that some of the information that she is not allowed to publish has made her think differently about the judge’s decision.)

The story hit the news this week, and not surprisingly, it didn’t take long to turn into an issue of “law against religion,” a “collision of two rights,” where Muslim women are painted as not quite compatible with Canadian society and legal systems.

Where to start?  Well, first, it’s worth looking at the judge’s rationale for his decision.  This article tells us that:

In October, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman reached his “admittedly difficult decision” to force the complainant to testify with her face bared after finding her “religious belief is not that strong … and that it is, as she says, a matter of comfort,” he wrote in his ruling.

This decision was, apparently, based on the complainant’s statement that “It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of … in Islam, we call honor […] I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”  The judge also talked about learning “at the 11th hour” that the woman had “a driver’s license with her unveiled facial impression upon it.”

Although I don’t personally share the complainant’s opinions on niqab, I’m disturbed by the judge’s presumption that he had the authority to draw conclusions on her religiosity and on the religious and personal importance of the niqab to her.  Moreover, the idea of religious “comfort” – whether or not niqab is seen as a religious obligation – should not be brushed aside, especially in a case dealing with sexual assault.  I’m also concerned that the language around the “11th hour” revelation makes it sound as if the woman was being purposely deceitful and attempting to manipulate the court into allowing her to testify with her face covered.  There might have been decent reasons for forcing the complainant to show her face (although I would likely still disagree), but making a decision based on judgments about her religious commitment seems really inappropriate.

While the niqab side of the equation has, of course, received a lot of scrutiny, news stories have reported comparatively little analysis from the trial about the other side of the issue, that is, the right of the accused to “face” their accuser.  I’m no legal scholar (and if any of you are, please jump in here!), but I have to wonder to what degree this provision was ever meant to refer to a literal “face,” and whether it has more to do with being able to confront one’s accuser in person (regardless of how much of that accuser’s skin is visible.)  According to one journalist, “There is no absolute right, in Canadian law, for a defendant and a witness to look upon one another during trial or even a preliminary hearing.”  Claims made by the defense lawyers have pointed to the importance of judging the witness’s demeanor by her facial expressions; however, it is hard to argue that seeing the face of the witness will make or break their credibility.  In fact, as law professor Faisal Kutty argues, the reliability of evidence based on demeanor is not only inherently questionable, but may be even more suspect if there are cultural or linguistic differences that come into play.  (Note that we don’t know the cultural or ethnic background of the complainant, so it isn’t clear whether this is actually an issue here.)  To the extent that demeanor is relevant, the defense’s insinuation that a face covering will erase all possible cues about its wearer’s emotions and intentions is somewhat perplexing, considering the amount of information that can still be gained through tone of voice and body language.  Although facial expressions certainly do convey a lot of information, I also wonder how much of the hype around needing to see a person’s face to judge their credibility comes out of assumptions that women in niqab are all so oppressed by their clothing that they lose all individuality and ability to express themselves.

On that note, it probably goes without saying that much of the discussion in this case has painted the niqab as inherently indicative of oppression and patriarchal control over women’s lives.  Quoting Sherene Razack, Kutty states that much of the talk that takes a hard line against niqab is symptomatic of a desire “to rescue the imperiled Muslim woman.”  Illustrating that desire are some of the comments on the blog of journalist Antonia Zerbisias,* who describes the situation by saying that “not only is this religious fundamentalism at its most extreme, it’s patriarchy at its worst.”  Although, to her credit, Zerbisias continuously claims to be “grappling” with how to understand the story, she later talks about Muslim girls who “grow up and disappear into the long blackness,” perpetuating the image of the shrouded woman whose personality has been erased.  In yet another post, arguing for the need to treat all victims and witnesses equally, she asks:

Does this [forcing a woman to show her face] doubly victimize –maybe even triply –some women? Yes. But that’s the price we pay for not being confined to the kitchen and nursery.

What bothers me here is her assumption that all women (”we”) experience oppression in the same way, and that patriarchal oppression is necessarily worse than oppression stemming from Islamophobia or racism.  Might there be some women who might, in fact, prefer to remain in the kitchen and nursery, because they feel that this “price” is too high to pay?  Yeah, it would be great if we could get rid of sexism and Islamophobia and racism and classism and all other forms of oppression that are affecting all of us, but if we’re talking about making trade-offs – accepting some forms of oppression in order to escape from others – then it’s probably best not to make assumptions about which trade-offs are best for which people.

A lot of the articles on this topic include the predictable photos of women in niqab, as passive figures that aren’t necessarily doing anything other than looking at the camera (see here and here for examples, and nope, I’m not going to play into the exoticised-niqabi-woman trap by posting one here.)  What did impress me was this article, which actually had pictures of, get this, women in niqab doing stuff!  One was testifying in court (apparently, it can be done), one was working as a pharmacist, and one was graduating from university.  Definitely a welcome challenge to some of the other images out there.

The last issue that I wanted to raise is the way that a lot of the discussion on this topic links this specific situation with Canadian Muslims as a group.  This article tells us that “In Canada, home to about 580,000 Muslims, the case will be closely watched, amid fears about Muslim women coming forward in criminal cases,” suggesting that the conflicts that have arisen in this case will be widespread through the Muslim community.  Without wanting to belittle the importance of this particular case, I do worry that it is getting blown a little out of proportion, with readers starting to worry that all 580,000 of us are going to start coming into conflict with Canadian courts.  Niqab also gets equated with particular levels of religiosity, rather than with particular religious interpretations; we are told that “Niqabs are traditional Muslim veils that cover everything but the eyes” and that “many pious females” wear it.  Given the hype about this case representing a fundamental conflict between religious and legal rights in Canada, the implication is that all “traditional” and “pious” Muslims are potential threats to Canadian legal traditions, and may again make the mountain that’s resulted from this case’s molehill seem even bigger.  (It’s also, of course, annoying that those of us who don’t choose to cover our faces may end up being assumed to be less religious.)

* See the comments section in the original MMW post for some links to subsequent blog posts where Ms. Zerbisias continues to reflect on the issue.

Since the post was first written, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has intervened on behalf of the complainant, and the question of whether she can testify while hearing the niqab is currently before the Ontario Superior Court.  The Superior Court hearing began on March 27 and is set to resume tomorrow (April 3.)

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: March 30

The Kingston Whig-Standard reports on a recent presentation by Monia Mazigh at Queens university.

On the Queen’s University campus, where young Muslim women have been subjected to racist taunts over the past year, Monia Mazigh is a quietly inspiring presence.

Mazigh, an academic and former political candidate, is best known for her campaign to have her husband, Maher Arar, released from a Syrian prison after he was sent there by U. S. officials in 2002 to be tortured as a terrorist suspect.

For much of her 90-minute presentation on Tuesday, Mazigh stuck to the advertised topic at hand — discussing the experiences of Muslims on Canadian university campuses.

She talked about what it was like to be a Muslim student in Montreal in the early 1990s, wearing a head scarf, praying in stairwells and trying to succeed in the white male-dominated field of business and finance studies.

“Even though I speak French, I was not at all accepted because I looked different,” she said. (Read more)

It was a busy week for Mazigh, who also joined her husband Maher Arar to speak to journalists about how the media coverage of his deportation could have been handled better:

Maher Arar, the Canadian whose deportation and torture sparked a three-year inquiry, urged journalists to learn from the circumstances surrounding the media coverage of his case and change the way they do things.

“I’m not looking for an apology, as the time for a meaningful apology has passed,” he said.

Instead, he wants to see change in how the media handles leaks of sensitive information from anonymous sources in cases such as his, and to question the motivations of those anonymous sources.

Speaking at a panel on media ethics and media coverage of Muslims before a full house at Carleton University’s Porter Hall Monday night, Arar broke the media coverage of his story into five stages, based on time and tenor and urged the audience, many of whom were from Carleton’s school of journalism, to learn from the way his story was covered and re-evaluate their role with anonymous sources.

“How important is your obligation to your sources?” he asked. “Is it more important than your obligation to society?” (Read more)

In Cambridge, ON, Muslims and Mennonites met together to talk about challenges and strategies related to religion and finances:

Nearly 50 people gathered at the mosque to hear four panellists — two Muslims and two Mennonites — speak about faith and finances.

Many people look to their religious teachings for direction on many aspects of daily life.

For Mennonites, part of the challenge in deciding how to deal with money involves questions of lending and investing in ways that benefit not only individuals, but the broader community.

For Muslims, there are challenges posed by religious restrictions regarding lending, borrowing or investing in ways that involve earning interest.

Those challenges are huge in western societies where so much is based on earning and paying interest, said Fauzia Mazhar, a Muslim woman from Kitchener who attended the discussion. (Read more)

In feel-good news, the Winnipeg Free Press profiles Shahina Siddiqui and her work with the Islamic Social Services Association:

Already comfortable with writing for newspapers and talking to groups before her involvement with ISSA, Siddiqui found herself thrust in the media spotlight after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when the public was searching for explanations of Islamic beliefs and practices. […]

That demand for information led to Siddiqui researching and publishing a series of 13 booklets that address issues such as culturally sensitive health care, social services, or workplace environments.

A 16-page booklet on what police officers need to know about Islam and Muslims has sold 12,000 copies, due in part to the co-operation with Staff Sgt. Ron Johansson of the Winnipeg Police Service, who now recommends it to other police services across the country.

“It’s a tool in the toolbox for us. You bring it out when you need it,” says Johansson, the former diversity relations officer with the police service.

The most recent booklet provides guidelines for imams and community leaders in dealing with domestic abuse. (Read more)

Read Full Post »

Ignoring Minority Voices: The CAF and the Canadian Government

Recently the Canadian government cut their funding to the Canadian Arab Federation. The reason? According to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney:

CAF president Khaled Mouammar believes Canada should regard Hamas and Hezbollah as “legitimate organizations,” Kenney said.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are on the Canadian government’s list of groups “associated with terrorism,” according to the public safety department’s website.

“Here we have in Canada, someone who, until the end of this month at least, was receiving public subsidies from my department, who says … these organizations that are essentially anti-Semitic and seek the destruction of Israel … should be able to operate in Canada,” Kenney said.

People in Canada “need to exercise freedom of expression responsibly” and should be wary of the rise of a new form of anti-Semitism cloaked in debates about Israel’s actions in the Middle East, Kenney said in a speech to University of Toronto students.

In a recent rally against Israel’s war on Gaza, Mouammar referred to Kenney as a “professional whore” for supporting Israel’s war on Gaza. First things first. This recent feud began first when Kenney criticized the CAF for flying the Hamas flag at a pro-Gaza rally calling for the end of the war on Gaza. This was followed by Mouammar referring to Kenney as a “professional whore.” At this point I would be remiss to not analyze the inherent sexism in this comment. “Whore” is a highly gendered word. The word defines a woman through her sexuality solely. Words like ‘whore’ are used to depict women against whom they are used as immoral and deviant sexual beings. Similar behaviour, such as that attributed to the women against whom this word is used, would not be seen as deviant among men. (See here for an interesting discussion of the word.) Additionally, the word ‘whore’ uses the profession of prostitution, into which too many women are forced through social and/or economic conditions, to cause insult to whomever it is being used against. Using it as derogatory term ignores and trivializes the often oppressive and dangerous conditions of those women who work in the industry.We feel that Mouammar’s use of the term was sexist in nature and, as the CAF has since said, “unfortunate” though no apology has been issued to the public for using this term. It is equally as unfortunate that the inherent sexist nature of the word has not been addressed by anyone in the media or the CAF.

However, as unfortunate, and sexist, as it was, it does not warrant denying funding to the CAF. To deny Arab immigrants the many benefits they gain from this funding because of one man’s unfortunate comment seems illogical and petty on the part of the Canadian government.

But apparently this is not the reason for the cut of funds. Supposedly, the CAF propagates anti-Semitism. However, no media nor government sources have thus far provided any evidence of such propaganda. There are no anti-Semitic comments on their website, nor have any anti-Semitic comments surfaced in news reports. If anything, the organization Independent Jewish Voices have stated that they have never felt the CAF as an anti-Semitic organization and have criticized Jason Kenney and the Canadian government for their actions. I bring this up not to show any support of the CAF but to state that evidence that the CAF has made anti-Semitic comments has thus far been non-existent while evidence otherwise exists.

From the news sources, it seems, that the “real” reason behind the cuts come from an extremely troubling and problematic association being created between pro-Palestinian ideology and supporting terrorism. As seen in the quote above, Mouammar’s call for the Canadian government to treat Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate governments, has been viewed as anti-Semitic. Considering Jimmy Carter has called for dialogue with Hamas, and, as Walkom points out, the British government is reopening talks with Hezbollah, this view is not uncommon nor unique to CAF. Nor to Muslims. However, many are painting support for the people of Palestine and criticizing Israel’s policies toward Palestinians as hate. And this is a scary and dangerous association. Coupled with the Canadian government’s recent banning of George Galloway, it comes across as a bullying tactic to quell any pro-Palestinian voice.

Such criticism is additionally problematic when one thinks back to not too long ago, when Mark Steyn, noted Islamophobe, published a clearly anti-Muslim piece in MacLean’s magazine. Many Muslims were angered and wanted an apology. At that time many cried foul saying that Steyn had the right to say what he did. Its a matter of freedom of speech after all. But now, many of the same people who were supporting MacLeans under the right to freedom of speech, are applauding the government for their actions toward the CAF. Can we say hypocrisy? And Islamophobia too?

Although the CAF is an organization for Arabs, of all religious backgrounds, there is no doubt that they have been associated with Muslims and Islam in the media. As can be seen in this piece from the National Post where Tarek Fatah assumes that those who don’t support the CAF’s position are labeled traitors to the “Muslim cause.” He then pits the CAF against his “secular Muslim Canadian Congress” stating that a member of the CAF called the MCC “house Negroes,” a term popularized by Malcolm X * consequently creating a picture of the CAF as a group against secular people. Margeret Wente supports Fatah in her article when she says

Although the CAF purports to speak for the community, it doesn’t care for Muslims who don’t share its views.

She is assuming that the community the CAF represents is Muslims when in fact they advocate and support Arabs in Canada. Not Muslims. They can overlap but are not one and the same thing.

Arabs and Muslims are being painted as foreigners in this debate and xenophobia regarding Muslims is ringing through loud and clear in the media reports. In her article Wente’s contempt toward and dismissal of immigrant and minority advocacy and support groups cannot be hidden.

Like other groups that purport to speak for immigrants and minorities, the CAF is highly skilled at grantsmanship. The grant proposals from these groups are full of jargon such as “racialized,” “ethnocultural youth” and “marginalized neighbourhoods.” Most would not exist at all without the government. The people who run them go to one another’s conferences, serve on one another’s boards, and approve one another’s grants. It isn’t clear how well they reflect the views of the groups they purport to represent, or how effective they are at helping immigrants. But they are quite effective at using the problems of immigrants to create jobs for themselves.

So why do such folks deserve our money? They don’t. But this is Canada. Only in Canada can people enjoy the largesse of the state by attacking it.

She then gives an example of a young Muslim girl who questions the assertion that Canada is a racist society, as an example of how many ungrateful and manipulative immigrant and minority groups really can be.  After all, this one Muslim girl didn’t experience racism. And she suggests that those who do criticize the racism they encounter in Canada and from the government should be punished by that government by being ignored. They should not be taken seriously. The consequence to this is of course that instead of engaging with those with concerns and complaints, the concerns of immigrants and minorities will not be addressed and the cycle of racism will be perpetuated.

She then ends her article with

The young Muslim woman has a different take. “Why not focus on your new home?”

New home? The assumption here is that those who criticize the government’s racism are new to the country and this is a completely inaccurate assumption. Ethnic and religious minorities, including Muslims and Arabs, have been in Canada for generations. Many Muslims know no other home but Canada. However, even if many Muslims are new to the country that does not deny them the right to criticize the actions of the government.

Fatah joins in on the xenophobic bandwagon when he says

Any future funding of the CAF should be made conditional to a guarantee that the organization will not behave as a mouthpiece of Hamas and Hezbollah in Canada, and will embrace Canadian, not Iranian, values.

The end result is that such voices like Fatah’s and Wente’s legitimize ignoring dissent and criticism coming from minority groups. They paint Muslims as “new foreigners” who don’t understand Canada’s “enlightened” values. Therefore their complaints of the Canadian government, whether they be criticizing the governments unconditional support of Israel or the inherent racism in Canadian society, should not be acknowledged, because newcomers should don’t really know Canada. (Didn’t Stephen Harper say that once?) The public is then told to ignore any further complaints by Muslims (other than the progressives who adopt “Canadian values”), regardless of how legitimate or serious. Muslims, and Arabs, are painted as ungrateful and whiny moochers using tax payers’ dollars to satisfy their devious, and as Fatah says “foreign affairs,” agendas.

And, where in the world did Fatah bring Iran in from?

Regardless of what one may feel toward the CAF, there is no proof that they have incited hatred toward any group. The use of the word ‘whore’ by their president was appalling. However, accusing a group of inciting hatred based on their pro-Palestinian ideology sets up a very dangerous precedent for all Canadians, not just Arabs or Muslims. It becomes a way of silencing a very legitimate concern – oppression. However, as Muslims are already a racialized group, such actions from the government make freedom of speech for Muslims very fragile when we say anything that does not coincide with and please the Canadian government.

* The use of the term “house Negroes” of course is also problematic and needs to be addressed. I will very briefly address it here as it did not fit into the flow of the article nor has it been the focus of the media coverage. Malcolm X used the term in a speech given in 1963 to describe an African American who is willing to please the the White man, at his own expense as well as at the expense of others of his race. Since then the term has often been used by many to refer to people they see as, what many nowadays refer to as, the native informant. The term should not be used without an accurate understanding of its history and its flawed reasoning as Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell explains. Dr. Yolanda Pierce addresses the issue here and Racialicious has addressed it here. This member of the CAF should have used the term “native informant” instead.

Read Full Post »

Lookout Links: March 23

McGill University’s McGill Reporter asks Dr. Anila Asghar, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins’ School of Education, questions about Islam and evolution:

The $250,000 Islam and Evolution research project has been examining how Muslims relate to the central concept of biology, and to science in general, at McGill’s Evolution Education Research Center since 2005. The core study team comprises McGill’s Dr. Brian Alters (project PI), Dr. Anila Asghar of Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Jason Wiles of Syracuse and McGill universities. On March 30 and 31, the project team will share key findings during the McGill Symposium on Islam and Evolution at the Redpath Museum Auditorium. Before the Symposium, the McGill Reporter asked Dr. Asghar, an Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins’ School of Education, four burning questions about Islam and evolution. (Read more)

A man who was out on bail after being jailed on a security certificate chooses to return to jail rather than subject his family to the harsh conditions of his bail agreement:

A judge agreed to send accused terrorist Mohammad Mahjoub back to jail after Mahjoub told a Toronto courtroom yesterday that he prefers life behind bars to the harassment by federal investigators his family faced while he was on bail.

“I have to go back to jail to protect my family,” Mahjoub told Justice Simon Noel in Federal Court.

…

His wife, Mona El Fouli, told the court yesterday her husband has carefully followed the strict conditions of his bail, but said the stress on her three children has been too great.

Agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service have been tapping the family’s phones, opening their mail and photographing their family outings at the request of the Canada Border Services Agency, which is charged with ensuring Mahjoub adheres to his bail conditions.

Federal investigators photographed them when they went together to Canada’s Wonderland and on a skating trip, and the stress of life in a fishbowl became too hard on his children, Mahjoub said. (Read more)

A columnist for the National Post accuses Canada of double standards: if Canada is so harsh on Muslims for supposed terrorist links, why is it so soft on Tamils?  In other words, it’s good to profile people you think are terrorists, and this should be extended to more communities than just to Muslims (ugh):

As members of this editorial board watched tens of thousands of Tamil Canadians throng downtown Toronto on Monday, we couldn’t help but be struck by a curious double-standard that afflicts Canadian ethnopolitics. To wit: Why are Canadian Tamils permitted to express support for terrorism in a manner that would be considered outrageous if the demonstrators were Arab or Muslim? (Read more)

Read Full Post »

Fragile Status: The Discourse Surrounding Muslims in Canada

While reading this National Post piece by Stewart Bell I got thinking about fear and Canadian-ness. In the piece Bell discusses  a recent report released by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence, a partnership of think-tanks in Britain, the United States, Israel and Jordan.

From white supremacist propaganda to radical Islamist recruiting videos, the Internet is awash with extremist content, but a report released yesterday says it is time to “end the current climate of impunity” enjoyed by those responsible.

The report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence calls on authorities to go beyond simply shutting down Web sites used to promote violent political extremism and to prosecute those behind them.

“We propose the selective use of takedowns in conjunction with prosecutions as a means of signalling that cyberspace is not beyond the law,” writes the centre, a partnership of think-tanks in Britain, the United States, Israel and Jordan.

While the report’s focus is Britain, the Canadian government was consulted by the study’s authors and Canada is experiencing similar problems with extremist groups using the Internet to recruit and radicalize followers.

Apparently, in Canada, the problem is not that police do not have the resources to shut these sites down but rather that the police do not use the resources at their disposal.

Initially my thought was “Great! Maybe now they will go after those white supremacist sites that threaten and terrify so many Canadians and that promote violence against so many Canadians.” But alas, it seems this is not the intention.  I should have known. We’re not the Canadians they’re thinking about when they think about protecting Canadians. The authorities want to protect ‘real’ Canadians.

While extremist groups of all stripes use the Internet, Canadian intelligence officials are particularly concerned about the radicalization of young Muslims, which the government calls a “serious problem” and a “direct and immediate threat” to Canada.

Really? So groups that call for ridding Canada of people of colour are not a direct threat to Canada? Does the terror that people of colour feel not count? What about the sites inciting hatred toward Muslims and Arabs? Does the fear that Muslims feel not count? Does the Islamophobia we Muslims living in Canada experience not count as a threat to Canadians? Or are we not real Canadians?

It seems we don’t count. Whether we be Muslims or not, it is not our safety and fear the authorities are concerned about. We are told to fear Caribbeans and Sikhs because they’re gang bangers. We are told to fear East Asians because they’re drug smugglers. We are told to fear Muslims and Arabs because they’re terrorists. But the question is who are they implying should be scared? Those who are scared, those who are threatened, those who authorities are hoping to protect are White and Christian. They are the Canadians authorities seem to mean when they dismiss the sources of fear for people of colour and Muslims. However, the threats to people of colour and Muslims ARE a threat to Canada because we live in Canada. We are a part of Canada.

Instead it seems that Muslims, who are Canadians, are being reported as a threat to their own country. When was the last time a crime by a white, non-Muslim was described as a threat to Canada? The way in which this statement is worded creates a dichotomy  – Muslim vs Canada. This statement has pitted the young Muslim against Canada. All of a sudden he is no longer a part of Canada. He is a threat to the country. Unless they are implying that these young Muslim men are a threat to themselves as well.

And of course, all this is to say nothing about addressing the real causes of the radicalization of these young Muslim men. But that is for another post.

Muslims for too long have been seen as foreigners. This despite the fact that we have been in Canada for generations. Yet, Muslims, along with people of colour, are still seen as not real Canadians. Our concerns are placed behind the concerns of White, non-Muslim Canadians. This is still an unfortunate reality and too often leads to feelings of alienation and displacement within the Canadian context.

Read Full Post »

Journalist Missing the Mission: Sally Armstrong and Afghani Women

Sally Armstrong. Image via Guelph Mercury

For a while now Sally Armstrong has been documenting the situation of women in Afghanistan through her books and documentary. She recently spoke at the University of Guelph fundraising breakfast and Guelph, Ontario’s Guelph Mercury covered the talk given by Armstrong  – a journalist, it seems, on a mission.

Now anytime the idea of a non-Afghani, Western/Northern person trying to save Afghani women is presented I can’t help but wonder if  long lasting solutions are being sought, and usually they are not. The micro-level problems are highlighted at the expense of another culture and/or religion while the macro-level causes of the problems are completely ignored and those who are at fault at the macro-level are rarely held accountable. Unfortunately, this is how this Guelph Mercury piece read. The Guelph Mercury reports that Armstrong is

swinging against the international political correctness that is keeping Afghan women under lock and key.

Together, Armstrong and the Guelph Mercury paint a bleak picture of the condition of women in Afghanistan.

Of the Taliban Armstrong says

“They murder them in public, in front of their children, by shooting them in the face”

Of the situation of women in Afghanistan the Guelph Mercury says:

And though there is a small but growing group of Afghan women who are working to improve conditions, there is still a lot of work to be done.

Eight years after the Taliban was brought down, women are still being kept behind walls, kept out of schools, kept in purdah and kept out of civil life, she said.

and:

Afghanistan is the only country in the world where the suicide rate is higher for women than it is for men.

About 85 per cent of the women are illiterate, a state they equate with blindness.

Though schools for girls have now opened, they receive no funding from the Afghan government

I do not doubt that situation for women in Afghanistan is dire. I do doubt however that the problem is as simplistic and black and white as is depicted by this oh-so-common narrative.

As much as I dislike the Taliban, and as much as I despise their view of women, I also recognize that even they are not the monolithic entity Western media depicts them as. To assume all Taliban members would do such horrendous things as shoot women in the face denies the possibility in our mindset and discourse that perhaps dialogue and educational  opportunities could arise with at least some of them. It also is only one step away from generalizing about all Afghani, and even all Muslim, men. Additionally, the men who make up the Afghani Taliban are Afghani men. The men who make up the Taliban are their men. They are the brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, etc. of the same women so many here in the West want to “save.” How will painting these men as monsters actually help Afghani women? By simply criticizing their actions with one sweep of the criticism brush we are not helping Afghani women at all and further alienates the men in their lives. We are not recognizing the relationships, as well as possible dependencies, Afghani women have with Afghani men. We are refusing to recognize that Afghani women may have male allies in their midst.

A better way would be a less patronizing and more nuanced way. Understanding not only their cultural and religious context as well as how they ended up as they are – a.k.a. colonization – would be necessary. The British (who condescendingly created Afghanistan’s borders) forcing opposing ethnic groups to live in one country resulting in years of civil war and the subsequent devastation of the economy and education of the country, the imperialistic invasions by Russia and the US, and now the US’s “war on terror”, have all had devastating effects on Afghanistan and its people. They have created situations and realities that make resources that we take for granted, and based on the exploitation of which we make our judgements, very difficult to attain in Afghanistan. As a result of such devastation the women have suffered most, as is what usually happens.

If women in the West do want to help Afghani women they would be better off questioning the tactics and purpose of their governments’ current “war on terror”, one of the effects of which has been the further radicalization of many young Muslim men who have felt targeted and victimized by this war. A war in which we too, as Canadians, are involved. To deny the role this war has played in worsening the situation of women in Afghanistan would be the real injustice. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, understanding the effects of this war on the people of Afghanistan, including on the situations and motives of the men of Afghanistan, is necessary in changing the situation. Since you critcize international political correctness, I would say that challenging your own government’s role in the perpetuation of these dire situations for Afghani women may be the truly non-politically correct thing to do, Ms. Armstrong.

Culture and patriarchy do indeed play a role, and they should be challenged as well. However, they are being challenged and resisted by the women of Afghanistan. The Guelph Mercury says that

…though there is a small but growing group of Afghan women who are working to improve conditions, there is still a lot of work to be done.

But the work of these women should not be discounted. Organizations like RAWA have been working for Afghani women for years now. Additionally, if the country were not in a war with Western forces then there would most likely be more such groups. However, years of civil war and foreign invaders and occupiers have made this difficult.

Although Armstrong, and people like her, may have good intentions, their approach comes across as insulting. Helping is not a bad thing. But it should not be done with the assumption that there is something wrong with the people one is helping. Whether it be the assumption that the women one is helping just aren’t capable of helping themselves (instead of criticizing and trying to change the macro-level forces which may hinder) or whether it be the assumption the men of that culture are all oppressive monsters, both taint the altruism with self-righteousness and condescension. And that doesn’t help anyone. To have real change macro-level factors, which hold back entire nations, need to be challenged, questioned, and changed. Otherwise, all other solutions will be temporary as the people will still be facing macro-level oppressions.

Read Full Post »