When Canada’s parliament passed M-103, the contentious anti-Islamophobia motion, supporters tried to say it was merely symbolic, and not something that would threaten discourse.
Beyond condemnation of Islamophobia in the motion was a call for a “whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada.”
That “whole-of-government” approach starts with committee hearings led by the Ministry of Heritage. In an interview with the Toronto Sun’s Anthony Furey, Liberal MP Hedy Fry couldn’t guarantee that radical voices wouldn’t be included in these consultations.
“We have to make sure we hear from all voices,” she said. “What is one man’s radicalism is another man’s whatever.”
The Liberals aren’t eager to hear from all voices when it comes to issues like abortion—or even deficit spending—but now they don’t want to exclude any viewpoints.
Perhaps because exclusion would require acknowledgement that radical Islam poses a problem.
But under Fry’s belief, the imam who calls for execution of “accursed Jews” can help shape the government’s approach.
Or the imam who thinks apostates should be “killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides.”
Or how about the Shaban Sherif Mady, who called for establishment of an Islamic caliphate?
All of these men are Muslim clerics in Canada.
I’m less concerned with these voices in M-103 hearings than I am with those pushing for more subtle action.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN), for example, has called for anti-Islamophobia education in public schools.
M-103 was merely the tip of the iceberg.