Quebec: Municipal party’s comments about Islam being a ‘cancer’ prompt hate speech complaint

 

The upcoming November 7 municipal elections in the Canadian province of Quebec are now mired in controversy about references to Islam as a “cancer.” CBC News reported on October 3:

A Quebec City resident has filed a complaint to Elections Québec denouncing hate speech in a municipal party’s platform. On its website, the Alliance Citoyenne de Québec (ACQ) calls Islam a ‘cancer that is growing slowly within Quebec society.’

Two days later, Global News reported that Elections Québec responded that it could not intervene, because there was no law in existence that addressed the content of political platforms. It’s up to the voters to decide (as it should be).

The ACQ platform also states that “it will never run a candidate who ‘favours the Islamization of Quebec City,’ and it vows to establish a municipal administration, which will ‘do its best to counter Islamization of Quebec City.’”

The CBC article continues: “It does not provide a definition or explanation of the term ‘Islamization.’”

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of ACQ’s positions, the party has a right to express its views about an ideology about which the ACQ and others have ample reason to be concerned. But open dialogue about Islam in Canada is frowned upon, due to pressure from Islamic lobbies that are working hand-in-hand with the Liberal government. In effect, Islam is placed above all other faiths, with an immunity from criticism on open platforms. This pro-Islamic formula to shut down discussion about Islam does not foster “diversity,” “dialogue,” or unity, about which Canada boasts. Under the country’s current leadership, those features are absent.

Outside of Quebec, the Toronto District School Board’s Islamic Heritage Month Resource Guidebook received support from the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), which has influence nationwide, when it defined “Islamophobia” as “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or toward Islamic politics or culture.” The Guidebook was designed by TDSB project co-chairs Nazerah Shaikh and Haniya Sheikh.

That definition was modified, but only after an outcry. This definition demonstrated that if someone dislikes aspects of the Sharia, which is central to Islam, or even hates the fact that Sharia mandates that apostates and homosexuals are to be killed and child marriage permitted, then that person is deemed to be “Islamophobic.” As B’nai Brith pointed out:

the broad definition could lead to students or staff being punished for expressing dislike for the Republic of Iran’s persecution of LGBTQ people or restrictions placed on women in Saudi Arabia.

Open discussions about any topic that is so vehemently opposed should cause pause, and prompt anyone to question why.

Whether or not one approves of the style of Alliance Citoyenne de Québec is another matter altogether. It is up to Quebecers, and more broadly Canadians, to decide for themselves how they feel about Islam and who to vote for. It is also a Canadian’s right to criticize any religious doctrine. Christianity, for example, has long been mocked and criticized without any “hate speech” laws or other bitter fallout.

Frustration is growing in Canada in response to the ongoing assault on constitutional freedoms. Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a “fundamental freedom” under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter also permits the government to enforce “reasonable” limits. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. Under any law, one must prove intent. ACQ has given no indication whatsoever that it hates Muslims. The party at least deserves the right to explain itself and its platform. To dislike aspects of a religious doctrine does not translate to hatred of its adherents.

Canada has endured being presented as a hateful, “Islamophobic” country, in need of a 23-million-dollar anti-“Islamophobia” document (M-103) to “monitor citizens for compliance” and train law enforcement to detect online and offline “hate.” Then there was the recent convening of an emergency national summit prompted by 20-year-old Nathaniel Veltman, who ran over and killed four members of a Muslim family in London, Ontario in July. It was an atrocious crime, for which Veltman will pay a heavy price as he should, but it was not illustrative of societal tendencies and so did not warrant an emergency national summit.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims issued 61 recommendations ahead of the summit, which became an issue in Canada’s September 20 snap election. One of the recommendations was relevant to Quebec:

The NCCM wants the federal government to take action against Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans public servants from wearing religious symbols. Specifically, it wants the attorney general to commit to being an official intervener in court battles on the legislation. The document calls Bill 21 “a fundamentally discriminatory law” that perpetuates the idea “that Islam, Muslims, and open religious expression in general, have no place in Quebec.” The NCCM is also calling for the creation of a fund to financially assist those affected by the legislation.

The attention garnered by the ACQ’s platform illustrates just how vexed the issue of Islam has become in Quebec and in the entire country. Canada has never been more divided; yet Canadians do not collectively “hate” Muslims or desire to deprive them of their right to freedom of worship. But when Islamic religious tenets conflict with Canada’s rights and freedoms and this conflict is ignored, simmering discomfort ensues. The stigmatization of speech that Muslims consider “offensive” has become the default mode of a nervous country, thanks to political pressure from national Islamic lobbies such as the NCCM.

ACQ leader and mayoral candidate Alain Giasson says the “‘Islamization’ section at the bottom of the website was added to the platform weeks ago.”

The ACQ leader says his party’s platform doesn’t target immigration, crime, terrorism or even radical Islam, rather it’s aimed at the “the subtle and deep Islamization of society.”

Giasson also stated that “Quebec City is currently experiencing a slow, gradual and insidious Islamization,” and added: “At the mosque there is a door for men and a door for women; this is standard for them. Imagine if we had a door for Blacks and a door for whites.”

Islamization broadly means to make an entity more Islamic. This links to the foundations of Islam, which are as follows:

• The Islamic declaration of faith, expressed by the Shahada: “There is no God but God (Allah – i.e. there is none worthy of worship but Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
• Normative Islam divides the world into two parts: dar al Harb and dar al Islam, or the House of War and the House of Islam. The House of War must be brought under subjugation to the House of Islam — as is obvious from 1400 years of conquest.
• Sharia is divine law in Islam:

Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia….which translates approximately as “way” or “path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

Since Sharia is regarded as Allah’s immutable divine law, it is above all other systems of law. Its interpretation is in the hands of Islamic scholars and jurists. In Western countries, all religions and races are equal before the law, but Sharia states that no law can be above it. This poses a clear conflict. This conflict was ably illustrated by Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz, who highlighted the key areas in which Sharia is incompatible with Western democracies. Using the example of the American Constitution, Schmitz explained:

• The U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)
• “Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states ‘This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land…..’” We see here how Sharia tenets cannot be in any form, the supreme law of America or any free country.
• “Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference….Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states ‘Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war’ (Quran 9:5); and ‘But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah.  But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.’ (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.”

Multiculturalists – who, by all indications, are ill-equipped at best to handle the challenges of today’s generous immigration policies — repeat uncritically whatever they are told about Islam by whichever Muslim lobby they choose to believe, without research, basic knowledge of normative Islam, or even the most elementary observations of history and current global trends, which reveal the central tenets of Islam and how it impacts the world. Yet key Islamic institutions such as the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Al Azhar, the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, and others, as well as Sharia states including Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia all adhere to the same core Islamic doctrines.

One controversy over Sharia which haunts Western countries is Islamic coverings for women, who are deemed inferior in Islam. Coverings are a symbol of their subjugation, despite the insistence of Western multiculturalists.

(Quran 24:31) And tell the believing women to reduce of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

If a woman does not cover, she is fair game to be assaulted:

(Quran 33:59) O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.

Debate rages on in Quebec about what reasonable accommodation should entail. Quebec has been recognized as secular for more than half a century. The province’s position is one of interculturalism as opposed to multiculturalism; interculturalism is said to “take for granted the centrality of francophone culture. From there it works to integrate other minorities into a common public culture, all while respecting their diversity.” Multiculturalism, on the other hand, views all cultures as equal. No religion or culture that holds the murder of gays or instructs wife-beating (Quran 4:34) could ever be the equal of a culture that treats all with human dignity and equality under the law.

A Global News follow-up states: “Neither the province’s minister responsible for fighting racism nor the municipal affairs minister responded to requests seeking comment.” There is nothing to comment about, since Islam is not a race. It is an ideology that should be subject to open discussion, debate and criticism, as is any other religion. The more Islamic lobbies continue to shut down open debate, and demonize individuals, groups and even political parties, the more Canadians will become weary of them. Canada is not an “Islamophobic” country, but one that is being bullied into believing that it is.