Guyanese Online

 Is BILL M -103  the changing face of Canadian Society

By Yvonne Sam

Has Canada overlooked the glaring fact that Jews, not Muslims, remain the chief targets of hate crimes?  Bill M-103 may be the wrong means of highlighting the government’s “diversity is our strength” message. Or are we headed towards religious unrest?

It is blatantly apparent following the passage of Bill M-103 with its dubious nomenclature Systemic racism and Religious discrimination that Canada is having a struggle with words, definitions and their accompanying impact. The term Islamophobia worked its way into our vocabulary and into popular culture over a decade ago, being originally geared to denounce the persecution and inconveniences that the average Muslim was facing following the attack of 9/11. Suddenly and without warning it became a catch-phrase to hush anyone who dared to be critical of the religion, even if it referred to Sharia law or groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.   

Why were the Canadian parliamentarians in such a seeming haste to pass the Islamophobia motion? One is left with the gnawing impression that some voted with feigns rather than brains- all at the expense of Canadians.  Why is Islamophobia being condemned, but at the same time not acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam?.

This is where the mockery or folly becomes evident, and immediate answers are not forthcoming. While Canadians condemn Islamophobia, the Islamist ideology of armed jihad and Islamic sharia as a source of public law, fails to pass the qualifying litmus test. Condemning or persecuting any individual entirely on the basis of their religion is downright wrong. Then it should be explained why anxieties and fears about the continued death and destruction by terrorists all around the world all claiming to be done in the name of Islam, it is not considered Islamophobia.  The discrepancy continues taking root as it goes along.

Setting the record straight and contrary to repeated claims Muslims are not hated because they are Muslims. Alternatively, there are justified concerns regarding the crises the world over that Islam has created, and these need to be urgently addressed and discussed in a public setting.

For example, jihad attacks in Israel and on Western soil, killing of gays in the name of Islam, persecutions of Christians who are seen as infidels in the eyes of Islam, and of course Muslim migrants ‘rampant crimes etc.   Muslims have fought back, sending a petition to the government claiming that violent individuals, in no way reflect the values of the teachings of Islam, and misrepresent the religion.

No need to bring out the bloodhounds or the sniffing dogs, but simply removing the veneer of Bill M-103 reveals that it is not about religious discrimination in general, as it singles out Islamophobia by name and nothing else, and other religions such as anti-Semitism fails to be mentioned.   Every country needs to contra distinguish between what composes a benefit and collective good for the country’s development and what constitutes a disservice and poses issues of homeland security.

Not only has Bill M-103 failed to define Islamophobia, but it also calls into question Canada’s existing hate laws. Iqra Khalid’s motion calls for the completion within 240 days of a committee study, and reporting back to Parliament with recommendations regarding how to tackle, racism, discrimination and Islamophobia.  Islamophobia has been accorded greater weight than any other concern, and the issue is now getting heated. .

Canada hands and bosoms are currently laden, and while her needs are evident, defining who and what is Islamophobia is certainly not one of them.  Bill M-103 contains teeth that may come back to bite Canadians not only in strange places, but at a time when there are no aces to play.  Some laws initially conceal the claws.

Quo Vadis?

Yvonne Sam.