Removing religion as hate speech defence worth exploring: anti-Semitism envoy

Worth consideration but of course not without contention (Andrew Bennett, the former ambassador for religious freedom, currently at Cardus, appears to be ruling it out, unlike Lyons):

Canada’s special envoy for combating antisemitism is “very interested” in exploring the idea of removing religion as a possible defence against hate speech charges, she said Thursday, raising concern about creating a possible chill on religious expression.

Deborah Lyons, whose title also includes preserving Holocaust remembrance, made the comment before a parliamentary committee that is studying antisemitism on university campuses.

“I am very interested in exploring (it) as an option because I think, frankly, we are seeing it used in this country and in other places as a defence that frankly does not stand the ground in these very difficult times,” she testified Thursday.

Still, Lyons said she is not ready to offer a final opinion on the matter, and is still discussing it with Justice Department officials.

Jewish leaders, students and faculty have for months been voicing concerns over an increase in hate speech and violence since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war last fall.

Lyons said she believes universities’ equity, diversity and inclusion strategies are “failing Jews in this country” because they don’t make much mention of antisemitism specifically.

Her office is working to develop better training to counter anti-Jewish discrimination, which she hopes institutions, including governments, will use.

Members of Parliament also asked Lyons about the role police and prosecutors play in laying hate speech related charges, and whether Criminal Code changes are needed.

They pointed to a recent decision by Quebec prosecutors not to charge Montreal imam Adil Charkaoui over comments said during a prayer — a scenario Lyons says she is discussing with the government.

The comments were delivered at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Montreal, and led to a complaint alleging threats and incitement of violence, which was investigated by the RCMP.

Leading a prayer in Arabic, Charkaoui had called on God to “take care of aggressor Zionists,” adding “O God, don’t leave any of them.”

Last week the province’s director of public prosecutions announced that a committee of three Crown attorneys found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the words amounted to an incitement of hatred toward an identifiable group, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Using the case as an example, Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin asked Lyons whether she supports his party’s proposal to eliminate a section of the Criminal Code that allows the use of religious beliefs or a religious text as a defence against the promotion of hatred and antisemitism.

The Criminal Code states that people shouldn’t be convicted of the willful promotion of hatred or antisemitism — defined as downplaying or denying the Holocaust — if, “in good faith,” they expressed an opinion “on a religious subject” or “based on a belief in a religious text.”

Fortin says his party wants to ban “exceptions” to hate speech based on religion.

“Certainly I think that it’s something we’ve got to continue to examine,” Lyons said.

Justice Minister Arif Virani’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

He is already seeking to increase the punishments for existing hate-related offences — including increasing the maximum consequence for advocating genocide to life imprisonment — in the Liberals’ legislation against online harms, tabled back in February.

The stiffer criminal justice reforms have fallen under harsh scrutiny from critics, including civil liberty advocacy groups, who say it could stifle free speech. Justice officials say criminal charges would only be laid in the most extreme examples.

Removing religion as a possible defence to a hate speech charge would likely be welcomed by those who oppose religion, but would create “genuine fear” for those who have deeply held religious beliefs about what they could say in the public square, said Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett, who works at the public policy think tank Cardus.

“Often, religious people privatize their faith because they’re afraid that if I speak about what I believe, in good faith, in the public square, I’m going to be cancelled, or I’m going to be shut down,” said Bennett, Cardus’s faith communities program director.

He says if a “chill” is placed on religious expression it risks marginalizing a sizable part of the population, including many new Canadians for whom “religion is not just some sort of cultural relic” but “informs all aspects of society.”

“In many cases, they’ve come here because of the religious freedom we enjoy, and so to then say to those new Canadians in particular, ‘Oh, by the way, you can’t speak about your religion publicly for fear of being censured,’ I think that’s a very bad message to send.”

Bennett said the debate raises questions of how hate is defined and what makes a hateful view “different from a peacefully-held opinion that someone might profoundly disagree with?”

In the case of Charkaoui’s comments, Marco Mendicino, a Liberal MP, said he found the call by Quebec’s Crown not to press charges against the imam “incomprehensible and deeply problematic.”

Charkaoui’s comments were “perhaps one of the most egregious offences that I have seen” he told Thursday’s committee.

Mendicino, a former prosecutor who previously served as public safety minister, also cited other examples of demonstrators chanting offensive language, including glorifying Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks.

He believes “Zionists” fit the Criminal Code’s definition of an identifiable group, which refers to “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.”

Source: Removing religion as hate speech defence worth exploring: anti-Semitism envoy

Barbara Kay: Radical Islam’s western fangirls

Not a great fan of Kay in general but I have to admit having similar questions (as with LGBTQ). Remember a tweet from one asking why Iranian Canadians were not similarly supportive with the obvious reason most of them fled the Islamic Republic of Iran:

….Hamas’s leaders knew that in these quarters, their atrocities would be perceived through a political rather than a moral lens. So they correctly assumed their pogrom would be characterized as “resistance” rather than wanton iniquity.

Hamas terrorists didn’t even shy away from filming themselves torturing women and children, which they should have considered a risk. After all, plangent appeals for the world to condemn Israel’s alleged genocide in Gaza, based on the war deaths of their own women and children, are a staple of the pro-Palestinian party line. The sight of the bloodied and raped female victims on October 7 could have been — should have been — a deal-breaker for feminists everywhere.

But it seems Hamas knew their female audience, too. One of the striking features about Hamas’s useful-idiot entourage is the robust support it enjoys from progressive women, in glaring contrast to the robust revulsion that should have prevailed among feminists.

Some women have publicly denied the vicious sexual torture inflicted on Israeli women, or shrugged it off as a sidebar to the sacred mission of “resistance.” This, they parrot, may entail “any means necessary,” including the degradation of women for no purpose other than malicious male pleasure. Evidence of western women’s indifference to Israeli women’s victimhood can be found in the fact that UN Women waited for months after the pogrom before condemning the rapes or Hamas.

A subset of anti-Zionist women appear to have taken their support to the next level. On some campuses, protesters are taking part in Islamic prayers. At UCLA, and elsewhere, to the consternation of some Muslim women living under Islamic regimes where the hijab is a symbol of oppression, some white female students bowing down in submission to Allah have taken to wearing hijabs in solidarity with their Palestinian comrades. Some young people have even reportedly converted to Islam as a result of the Israel-Hamas war, and others may soon follow suit….

Source: Barbara Kay: Radical Islam’s western fangirls

It was once a center of Islamic learning. Now Mali’s historic city of Djenné mourns lack of visitors

Sad:

…Djenné is one of the oldest towns in sub-Saharan Africa and served as a market center and an important link in the trans-Saharan gold trade. Almost 2,000 of its traditional houses still survive in the old town.

The Grand Mosque, built in 1907 on the site of an older mosque dating back to the 13th century, is re-plastered every year by local residents in a ritual that brings together the entire city. The towering, earth-colored structure requires a new layer of mud before the rainy season starts, or it would fall into disrepair.

Women are responsible for carrying water from the nearby river to mix with clay and rice hulls to make the mud used to plaster the mosque. Adding the new layer of mud is a job reserved for men. The joyful ritual is a source of pride for a city that has fallen on hard times, uniting people of all ages.

Bamouyi Trao Traoré, one of Djenné’s lead masons, says they work as a team from the very start. This year’s replastering took place earlier this month.

“Each one of us goes to a certain spot to supervise,” he said. “This is how we do it until the whole thing is done. We organize ourselves, we supervise the younger ones.”

Mali’s conflict erupted following a coup in 2012 that created a power vacuum, allowing jihadi groups to seize control of key northern cities. A French-led military operation pushed them out of the urban centers the following year, but the success was short-lived.

The jihadis regrouped and launched relentless attacks on the Malian military, as well as the United Nations, French and regional forces in the country. The militants proclaimed allegiance to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group.

Sidi Keita, the director of Mali’s national tourism agency in the capital of Bamako, says the drop in tourism was sharp following the violence….

Source: It was once a center of Islamic learning. Now Mali’s historic city of Djenné mourns lack of visitors

Phillips: Kaffiyeh ban unites all leaders, who are aware of Muslim voter influence in Ontario

Hard to maintain the argument that the kaffiyeh is primarily cultural given context, the statements of Sara Jama and the nature and discourse of protests. And as to Phillips using turbans and kirpans as a counter example, these are primarily religious, even if for some they also have a political significance.

Being sensitive to community concerns does not necessarily mean agreement given conflicting concerns among communities, as the current Jewish Palestinian tensions illustrate, and thus Speaker Arnott made the right call which needs of course, to be implemented with rigorous consistency for all political symbols:

The Speaker of Ontario’s legislature, Ted Arnott, has done something rare: he’s managed to get the leaders of all four parties at Queen’s Park united on a controversial issue.

Of course, they’re united against him — specifically against the ban he’s imposed on wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs in the provincial parliament, indeed anywhere in the legislative precinct that he oversees.

His decision has ignited a fierce debate: is the kaffiyeh, the checkered head scarf worn by Palestinians since time immemorial, cultural or political?

The answer to that binary question must be yes. It’s both — depending. The kaffiyeh has long been a cultural symbol of Palestinian identity. But wearing it has become more political, especially since the outbreak of the Hamas-Israel war last October.

That’s basically what Arnott said when he announced his ban. Wearing kaffiyehs “at the present time in our assembly,” he said, has become political. Arnott presumably thinks he’s just being consistent by banning kaffiyehs in line with established rules against wearing anything that “is intended to make an overt political statement.”

But what an unnecessary mess he’s created. This was a non-issue at Queen’s Park until Arnott issued his ban, apparently in response to a complaint by one unidentified MPP. It’s not as if there was a rash of kaffiyeh-wearing in the legislature. The only member who regularly wears one is independent Sara Jama, who was thrown out of the NDP caucus last year for her stand on the Mideast conflict.

Now we have the spectacle of Jama being told to leave the chamber for wearing a kaffiyeh. And a group of Arab-Canadian lawyers denied entry to the legislature when they wore kaffiyehs to a meeting with NDP Leader Marit Stiles.

I’m with the party leaders (including Premier Doug Ford) on this one. No doubt there’s a political dimension to wearing a kaffiyeh these days, but the long-established cultural tradition can’t be denied either. Why make an issue out of it at a time when feelings are running so high? Remember the fuss years ago about turbans and kirpans worn by Sikhs? In hindsight it seems like a fight about nothing.

Focusing on the kaffiyeh raises questions of consistency as well. What about wearing a tie or scarf in Ukrainian national colours? One of the Conservative MPPs who refused unanimous consent to overturn Arnott’s decision, Robin Martin, wore a necklace in the legislature emblazoned with “bring them home” in solidarity with Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Good for her, but wasn’t that also “political?”

Some have made much of the fact that party leaders opposing the ban may not be acting entirely for principled reasons, given the byelection set for May 2 in Milton where Muslim voters could make the difference.

I find it hard to be shocked by the notion of politicians acting for political reasons, and in this case the lesson to be drawn is “get used to it.” What’s happening in Milton is just a taste of how Muslim voters may have an impact in key ridings in the next federal election.

All provincial parties are courting Muslim voters in Milton, where 23 per cent of the population identified as Muslim in the 2021 census. The Liberal candidate, Galen Naidoo Harris, who isn’t Arab or Palestinian, has even made a point of wearing a kaffiyeh in social media postings.

Muslim voters are already an important factor in our politics. An organization called The Canadian-Muslim Vote identified more than 100 ridings in 2021where the Muslim vote exceeded the expected margin of victory. Many (including Milton) are in the GTA and will be fiercely fought over in the next federal election.

All the more reason for political leaders to be sensitive to the concerns of Muslim voters, as they’ve learned to be sensitive to the concerns of Sikh, Italian, Ukrainian, Jewish, you-name-it voters who aren’t shy about mobilizing their communities around issues that matter to them.

Banning the kaffiyeh is that kind of issue for an increasingly influential slice of voters. There are good reasons of principle to drop the ban. The politics of it point in that direction too.

Source: Kaffiyeh ban unites all leaders, who are aware of Muslim voter influence in Ontario

Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

More of an explainer than advocacy although notes the difficulty of separating out halal mortgages from other banking products and, for the purists, of obtaining a halal mortgage from a non-halal financial situation:

Le nouveau budget fédéral a annoncé des mesures visant à améliorer l’accès à la propriété. Parmi les mesures annoncées figure l’option d’offrir aux consommateurs intéressés de confession musulmane des produits financiers parallèles comme les prêts hypothécaires dits « halal ». Le document du budget n’a pas offert plus de détails à ce propos, laissant la porte ouverte à des interprétations multiples. Nous proposons dans ce qui suit de répondre à des questions d’importance sur le sujet, que ce soit pour le consommateur ou pour les institutions financières et les organismes de réglementation provinciaux et fédéral.

Qu’entend-on par hypothèque « halal » ?

Il s’agit d’un contrat d’hypothèque « spécial » dans la mesure où ses dispositions sont conformes aux préceptes et à la doctrine de la religion musulmane. Le principe de base est que l’institution financière émettrice du prêt hypothécaire ne doit pas facturer explicitement de l’intérêt (ou l’usure) parce qu’il s’agit d’une pratique qui n’est pas permise par l’islam. La doctrine explique que l’interdiction de la pratique de l’usure vise à protéger les gens qui se trouvent dans le besoin d’emprunter de l’argent parce que cela empirerait leur situation financière et les maintiendrait dans la pauvreté.

Il importe de mentionner que même si la pratique de l’intérêt n’est pas permise, la structure du prêt « halal » est construite de façon que les institutions financières puissent quand même faire de l’argent. Par exemple, la formule dite « Ijara » est équivalente à un contrat de location-achat où l’emprunteur paierait des mensualités équivalentes à un loyer jusqu’à paiement complet du prix de la propriété. Ou encore la formule « Musharaka », selon laquelle l’emprunteur gagne progressivement un pourcentage de la propriété à mesure qu’il effectue ses paiements. Il y a également une formule connue sous le nom « Murabaha », où l’emprunteur achète la propriété à un prix majoré dès le départ, puis paie des mensualités pour rembourser cette somme majorée.

Dans tous les cas mentionnés ci-haut, les paiements seront du même ordre que ceux d’un prêt hypothécaire traditionnel, avec un petit supplément qui reflète le coût engagé par l’institution financière pour offrir ce type « spécial » de produits financiers. C’est comme consommer bio ou végétalien ou écolo : ça coûte un peu plus cher que consommer de façon classique. Au fond, le consommateur accepte de payer une prime pour satisfaire ses préférences, qu’elles soient gastronomiques ou écologiques ou religieuses.

Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral a-t-il choisi précisément ce type de produits financiers pour l’inclure dans son budget ?

Une partie des musulmans du Canada seraient certainement bien disposés à payer un peu plus cher pour avoir une hypothèque halal. Plus le marché des produits financiers est compétitif, moins cher il sera. Ce type de produits financiers est surtout important pour les musulmans pratiquants, puisqu’ils sont plus orthodoxes dans la pratique de leur foi. Ceux-ci représenteraient moins de 1 % de la population canadienne.

Dans ce sens, l’effet de cette disposition sur le marché de l’immobilier, sur la rentabilité bancaire et sur l’accès à la propriété serait plutôt mineur. Par ailleurs, ces produits visant plutôt la faction pratiquante des musulmans du Canada, cela permettrait de les intégrer au système bancaire canadien, dont les opérations sont assujetties au suivi et à la surveillance des autorités réglementaires pertinentes (BSIF et CANAFE au niveau fédéral, en plus des organismes provinciaux).

L’intégration financière est importante pour les organismes de réglementation puisqu’elle augmente la transparence des transactions effectuées par les différents opérateurs financiers. Si une partie de la population n’a pas accès aux services financiers sur un certain marché, le marché canadien dans notre cas, elle tendra à aller chercher un autre marché qui la servira. Les marchés de la finance islamique dans les pays de l’Asie du Sud-Est ainsi qu’au Moyen-Orient sont prolifiques et offrent des services financiers conformes à la charia.

C’est précisément ce genre de scénarios où des consommateurs canadiens sont servis par des marchés hors Canada que les organismes de réglementation essaient d’éviter.

Qu’est-ce que cette nouvelle disposition dans le budget implique, une fois implantée ?

Des coûts, des coûts et des coûts !

Les institutions financières devront se doter de l’infrastructure technologique pour intégrer ces produits dans leurs systèmes. Elles devront aussi se doter de l’expertise juridique et financière pour pouvoir servir cette clientèle. La facture sera vraisemblablement refilée aux clients.

Les organismes de réglementation devront également se doter de ressources ayant l’expertise en la matière afin de pouvoir exercer efficacement leurs mandats de surveillance. Un aspect essentiel dans les produits financiers islamiques est le partage du risque entre le prêteur et l’emprunteur (« profit and loss sharing).

Cette dimension a des implications sur le risque pris par les institutions financières et, par ricochet, sur leurs niveaux de capitalisation, qui demanderaient à être rajustés pour tenir compte du risque lié à ces produits nouveaux. Les coûts engagés par les organismes de réglementation sont d’habitude refilés aux institutions financières afin que les contribuables n’en héritent pas. Les institutions financières les refileront aux consommateurs en fonction des produits financiers offerts à leurs clients.

En somme, comment peut-on évaluer cette initiative énoncée dans le budget fédéral ?

Sur le plan politique, elle envoie certes un signal attrayant à la population de confession musulmane, indépendamment de son intention d’avoir (ou pas) une hypothèque halal. L’initiative serait perçue comme un signe de considération envers les musulmans canadiens, surtout dans le contexte global où le Canada avait offert son soutien à Israël dans le conflit qui a suivi l’attaque perpétrée par le Hamas en octobre. Il s’agit ainsi d’une tentative habile de se racheter auprès de la communauté musulmane, qui se sentirait plutôt trahie par la politique étrangère canadienne plutôt pro-israélienne.

Par ailleurs, sur les plans économique et financier, l’incidence est mineure puisque la population visée par cette disposition du budget ne représente pas plus de 1 % du marché des prêts hypothécaires.

Enfin, il faut dire que l’approche adoptée par le gouvernement fédéral est un peu hâtive, ce qui explique les limites de l’initiative. En fait, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire, si l’on se fie à la doctrine, par une banque non islamique. C’est comme faire un ragoût avec de la viande halal et non halal mélangée : le tout combiné n’est évidemment plus halal. Ensuite, un prêt hypothécaire halal ne peut se faire sans l’ouverture d’un compte chèques ou d’un compte d’épargne. Ces comptes seraient-ils halal ? Il faudra donc créer ces produits au même titre que les hypothèques halal.

En outre, tout compte d’une institution financière canadienne est protégé par le système d’assurance-dépôts du Canada (ou l’équivalent provincial). Le fait est que l’assurance est un concept non halal, ce qui implique qu’il faudrait créer l’équivalent islamique (appelé « takaful »).

Tout cela pour dire que l’initiative des hypothèques halal proposée par le fédéral n’est que la pointe de l’iceberg de tout un système, et que pour qu’un consommateur pratiquant accepte d’y adhérer (toujours selon la doctrine du texte coranique), il faudra lui proposer le « combo » halal : il n’acceptera pas un produit islamique par-ci et d’autres non islamiques par-là.

Source: Idées | Ce qu’il faut comprendre des hypothèques islamiques du budget Trudeau

David | Le multiculturalisme financier, Clark: The Bloc’s fake freakout over halal mortgages is ridiculous

Starting with on cue, commentary in Le Devoir and Bloc “outrage” in Parliament:

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a sans doute péché par anachronisme quand il a dénoncé « une action concertée pour nous effacer ». En revanche, il faut reconnaître au gouvernement Trudeau un remarquable talent pour la provocation.

Après son offensive prébudgétaire dans les champs de compétence des provinces, le budget lui-même contenait une autre trouvaille : la possibilité d’introduire les « hypothèques islamiques » dans le système bancaire canadien.

Il ne suffisait pas qu’Ottawa se prépare à appuyer la contestation de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État devant la Cour suprême ; il lui fallait aussi agiter ce chiffon rouge devant le taureau. Après tout, si la religion peut avoir sa place dans les institutions publiques, pourquoi pas dans les banques, n’est-ce pas ?

Comme il fallait s’y attendre, le gouvernement Legault n’a pas tardé à réagir. « Nous sommes clairement mal à l’aise avec cette idée », a déclaré le ministre responsable de la Laïcité, Jean-François Roberge. « Traiter différemment, d’un point de vue bancaire, les personnes selon leurs croyances religieuses est en contradiction des choix qu’a faits le Québec. » La laïcité est un des rares sujets sur lesquels la Coalition avenir Québec peut encore espérer rallier une majorité de Québécois.

Sans surprise, le Parti québécois a aussi signifié son opposition, mais le Parti libéral et Québec solidaire (QS), tous deux opposés à la loi 21, sont manifestement embarrassés. « Nous allons prendre le temps d’étudier l’enjeu avant de nous prononcer », a déclaré le député libéral de Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Frédéric Beauchemin, tandis que QS préfère attendre de voir si le gouvernement Trudeau décidera d’aller de l’avant lors de la mise à jour économique de l’automne prochain. Et prier pour qu’il se ravise.

*****

Le chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, a dénoncé ce qui constituerait à ses yeux « un dangereux précédent », qui serait créé pour des raisons purement « clientélistes » par un gouvernement cherchant à « racoler le vote de la minorité musulmane canadienne et québécoise ».

Les hypothèques islamiques ou « halal », qui remplacent le paiement d’intérêts par d’autres formes de frais, ne font pas l’unanimité au sein même de la communauté musulmane, qui en débat depuis des années. En 2009, le groupe saoudien AlBassam House avait demandé au gouvernement Harper l’autorisation d’ouvrir une première banque offrant ce service au Canada, ce que ne permet pas la loi.

Après avoir longuement examiné la question, la Société canadienne d’hypothèques et de logement (SCHL) avait écarté cette possibilité qui n’intéresse encore aucune des grandes banques. Ceux qui souhaitent contracter une hypothèque de type halal conforme à la charia peuvent s’adresser à des coopératives musulmanes.

Un des opposants les plus acharnés à ce sujet, que le Bloc québécois a pris à témoin, est Tarek Fatah, fondateur du Congrès musulman du Canada, à ne pas confondre avec le Conseil national des musulmans canadiens, vivement opposé à la loi 21.

Ce journaliste d’origine pakistanaise, qui a eu une carrière passablement mouvementée, a notamment milité pour le Nouveau Parti démocratique, dont il a claqué la porte parce qu’il le jugeait trop accueillant pour les islamistes.

Déjà, il y a quinze ans, il s’était réjoui du rejet des hypothèques islamistes par la SCHL. « Cela cible des musulmans vulnérables et marginalisés, à qui l’on dit que, s’ils font affaire à des non-musulmans, ils iront en enfer. C’est comme l’Église catholique du XIIIe siècle », disait-il.

*****

Au reste, comme dans le cas du port du voile, l’interdiction de l’intérêt résulterait d’une interprétation discutable du Coran par le mouvement islamiste. C’est plutôt « l’usure » que proscrirait le livre saint, c’est-à-dire un taux d’intérêt excessif.

Tous n’ont pas les mêmes réserves. Aux critiques de M. Fatah, le magazine Maclean’s avait opposé celles d’un professeur de l’Université de Toronto, Walid Hejazi, selon lequel le Canada avait tout intérêt à s’ouvrir à la « finance islamique ».

La demande va aller en augmentant et le Canada risque d’être écarté d’un marché mondial qui va atteindre des centaines de milliards, plaidait-il. Selon lui, l’hypothèque islamique est un produit financier comme les autres qui peut être utilisé aussi bien par un musulman ou un non-musulman.

Outre l’aspect économique, permettre à des gens d’avoir accès à un financement compatible avec leurs convictions religieuses « serait cohérent avec les valeurs fondamentales du Canada et notre fière histoire », ajoutait M. Hejazi. La question est de savoir si cela est cohérent avec celles du Québec.

La possibilité d’introduire des considérations religieuses dans le système financier n’avait pas été discutée lors du débat sur la laïcité, mais elle aurait probablement soulevé un tollé. Justin Trudeau ne cherche sans doute pas à provoquer volontairement le Québec. C’est simplement que ce dernier ne fait pas partie de sa vision du Canada. N’empêche qu’il joue avec le feu.

Source: Chronique | Le multiculturalisme financier

Clark provides a suitable riposte:

….Yet Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet and some of his MPs issued dark warnings that three paragraphs in last week’s budget will set Canada – and therefore Quebec – on a slippery slope into sharia law.

This is dumb. Or disingenuous. Probably both.

The budget passage in question indicated that the mandarins of Finance Canada will explore possible ways to expand access to halal mortgages and other “alternative financing products.”…

Source: The Bloc’s fake freakout over halal mortgages is ridiculous

Regg Cohn: India’s anti-Muslim citizenship law is discriminatory and disappointing — but not surprising

One of the better articles on the law:

…Modi’s BJP followers (and their historical antecedents) argue they are not merely throwing off the yoke of British colonial rule, which retreated in 1947. No, his supporters insist they are uprooting — decolonizing — a more enduring form of historical domination by India’s Moghul conquerors who imported Islam centuries ago, long before the British era.

That is one of the complications of the decolonization paradigm — the push for purification can easily go further back in time. People can keep peeling back layers of colonization and conquest until they reach their target, which is why Modi’s Hinduization movement is less concerned with the idea of white supremacy than Islamic hegemony.

There’s yet another conceptual challenge for Hindutva’s critics (of which I am one). India is far from alone in embracing religiosity or ethnicity as the measure of who shall qualify for citizenship or be disqualified, who will be welcomed with open arms or herded into closed camps.

Israel is increasingly criticized for religious discrimination for granting automatic sanctuary to Jewish immigrants under its Law of Return, enacted after its founding in 1948 (in the post-Holocaust era when Jews still faced pogroms in parts of Eastern Europe and persecution much of the Middle East). That Israel, as a Jewish state, privileges Jews is one of the reasons many critics claim “Zionism is racism.”

Yet it is a curious double standard. For India is only the latest in a long line of countries that prioritize religion in a way that Canadians — who welcome people of all faiths — perhaps cannot fathom.

Religion has been the raison d’être of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Lebanon has kept its Palestinian refugees in camps since they fled their homes in 1948, long restricting their permitted occupations lest an influx of Sunni Muslims alter the country’s delicate religious balance — or compete for coveted jobs (after protests, those restrictions were partly eased in recent years).

Bhutan, a little-known kingdom nestled in the Himalayas along India’s northern border, has long been seen as a Buddhist paradise despite its mistreatment of Hindu refugees fleeing strife in neighbouring Nepal (shunting them into camps for years without letting them settle, for fear of changing the kingdom’s ethnic makeup). Germany has long recognized ethnicity for citizenship, regardless of place of birth — granting automatic status to those with German blood who “resettle” in Deutschland.

Against that backdrop, India’s new discriminatory citizenship law is surely disappointing, but hardly surprising — and assuredly not unique. It merely reminds us of the complexity of ethnic identity and religious rivalry around the world — and how historical grievances are so easily transformed into political grudges and legal cudgels.

Source: India’s anti-Muslim citizenship law is discriminatory and disappointing — but not surprising

ICYMI: Ibbitson: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Indeed. Riding demographics highlight the relative importance of religious minorities, particularly the contrast between Canadian Jews and Canadian Muslims:

….The Liberals have tried to keep both Jewish and Muslim constituencies onside. But as last week’s vote suggests, they increasingly accord a high priority to the rights of Palestinians and to the Muslim community in Canada.

As with other religious communities, Muslims are hardly monolithic. Someone who comes to Canada from Senegal may have different values and priorities than a Canadian who comes from Syria or Pakistan or Indonesia.

And the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may not be the only issue influencing Muslims, who struggle with inflationinterest rates and housing affordability as much as other voters.

Many new Canadians come from societies that are socially conservative. Some Muslim voters may be uncomfortable with the Liberal Party’s strong support for the rights of LGBTQ Canadians.

Finally, Muslim voters for whom supporting the rights of Palestinians is the ballot question may be drawn more to the NDP than the Liberals.

Regardless, the days of Liberal/Conservative bipartisan consensus in support of Israel are over. This is the new lay of the land.

Source: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Khan: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

A welcome revision to her earlier post neglecting Israeli victims, one that has been all too common in much commentary and activism:

….Recognizing the suffering of “the other side” is not a sign of weakness, but rather, a recognition of our shared humanity. We all want human dignity, security and a better future for our children. Let’s work on healing the pain. This will entail difficult conversations that forge a path toward justice for all aggrieved parties.

Source: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Quebec’s latest Bill 21 ruling fuels debate on notwithstanding clause

Next likely stop Supreme Court of Canada, which would oblige the government and political parties to take less equivocal public stand, and reinforce the political and public divisionss:

….For groups that challenged the law, the ruling was a disappointment.

“I think it’s important for everybody that we take note of the devastating impact the notwithstanding clause has when it’s used by a government to violate the rights of marginalized communities in a particular location,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, the executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Mendelsohn Aviv said that while there were a number of reasons the clause was included by drafters of the Constitution — “it was never meant as anything other than a last resort. We don’t think it’s a legitimate use of the notwithstanding clause to use it to violate fundamental rights of minorities.”

But for supporters of the religious symbols ban, the decision was a victory for democracy.

“The Court of Appeal is explicitly saying that this is about democracy, that the notwithstanding clause is not something that violates rights, it’s not something that goes against democracy,” said Guillaume Rousseau, a lawyer for Mouvement laïque québécois, a group that intervened in the case to support the government. “It’s part of our democracy and it’s up to the elected officials to decide.”

Source: Quebec’s latest Bill 21 ruling fuels debate on notwithstanding clause