While I disagree with some of his points regarding the term Islamophobia, his points on the benefits of religion being subject to criticism are valid:
The fruits of the Liberals’ anti-Islamophobia motion, M-103, that called for study and recommendation on religious discrimination in Canada, were revealed Feb. 1. The committee overseeing the issue released their report “Taking Action Against Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination Including Islamophobia.”
The report has just two recommendations that specifically focus on Islamophobia. The first echoes the report title saying the government should “actively condemn systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”
The second is more substantive suggesting that Jan 29 “be designated as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia, and other forms of religious discrimination.”
For the last year Canadian Muslim groups, led by The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), have lobbied government to make Jan 29 a Canada-wide anti-Islamophobia day. The date marks the 2017 deaths of six Muslim Canadians gunned down in their Quebec City Mosque.
While Liberal MPs and leading Muslim organizations are supporters of the initiative, a Forum Research poll conducted a few weeks ago showed only 17 per cent of Canadians approve of designating such a day. Conversely, half disapprove; the rest don’t know or are ambivalent.
For many Canadians, overly broad definitions of “Islamophobia” lead them to reject the day of action. Some definitions of the term insist any criticism of Muslim people or Islamic practices — be it political, cultural, or religious — qualifies as Islamophobia.
In their critique of the Liberals’ report, the Conservatives noted 26 definitions of the term were used by witnesses appearing before the committee and some of those, if enforced, would lead to significant erosion of free expression.
The NCCM itself has, in the past, shown it favours a definition of Islamophobia that maximally curbs criticism against their faith. In a guidebook it helped produce for the Toronto Board of Education last year, the group endorsed a definition of the term that stated, in addition to prejudice or hate directed against Muslims, “dislike” directed “toward Islamic politics or culture” also qualifies as Islamophobia.
After protests from various community groups, that definition was amended.
The NCCM’s impulse to shield Islam from criticism may be linked to a particular understanding of Muslims’ sacred texts. Certain sections of the Qur’an and Hadith specify that insulting Allah’s word or his messenger is not permitted.
Whatever is motivating members of the NCCM or others of like mind to shut down critique of Islam, such thinking is misleading and misplaced. It’s misleading because it conflates criticism and discrimination. It’s misplaced because religion is at its best when subjected to constant and fervent critique. Criticism leads to necessary correction.
Some “case studies” from the world’s largest religion, Christianity, prove this point.
In the recent past, Christianity in the West, specifically its conservative Protestant variety — evangelicalism — has been exposed to a steady stream of invective for its treatment of homosexuals.
Of course, being subjected to public and media scorn isn’t enjoyable for evangelicals. On several occasions they’ve rightly complained about unjust criticism. However, overall, the process has led to a “conversion experience.”
In its most recent national survey of religious Americans, Pew Research Center determined that between 2007 and 2017, evangelicals’ support for same-sex marriage rose from 14 per cent to 35 per cent. Among younger evangelicals, Gen Xers and Millennials, acceptance rose to 47 per cent.
Ongoing sociological research in Canada suggests these same trends are reflected among our evangelicals.
While exposure to criticism can make religion better, sheltering it from critique makes it worse. Again, we can look to Christianity for our example.
Last year when speaking before the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors about the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandals, Pope Francis blamed a religious culture hostile to challenge for the tragedies that occurred. “The old practice… of not facing the problem,” he said, “kept our consciousness asleep.”
In the West, unchecked abuse is not isolated to the Catholic Church. We now have examples of Muslims committing similar, long-standing transgressions in the absence of critique. Most dramatic is the sex trafficking ring of Rotherham, England.
From the late 1980s until the 2010s an organized group of Muslim men abused over 1,000 young girls. Official investigations concluded school, social service, and government personal were aware of a problem but didn’t speak out fearing their comments would be viewed as Islamophobic.
While fear of seeming bigoted may drive some non-Muslims to keep quiet, most Canadians — Muslim and non-Muslims alike — who want to restrict criticism of Islam are more nobly motivated. They believe that such action fosters unity in society.
But censorship is an acid, not a glue, when it comes to progress and social cohesion.
Multicultural Meanderings 