Sigh. Another necessary set of correctives from moi to a Haroon Siddiqui column.
A Somali Canadian mosque in Toronto is being condemned, rightly so, for carrying anti-Semitic and anti-Western messages on its website. This, though, does invite a question: Where are the free-speech advocates defending the right of this group to say whatever the heck it wants?
There aren't any, rightly so. But we can be certain that if some other group was saying similar vile things about Muslims and Islam, free speechers would be out in droves defending it.
Speaking for myself, I think this mosque has every right to say stupid and offensive things -- just as everyone offended by its statements has the right to attack them for holding such views.
If the statements are in violation of the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions, then prosecute the mosque.
But if they are simply saying stupid and offensive things, then I wouldn't have them hauled before a human rights tribunal, as one example. As I've said before, human rights commissions should stick to areas of real discrimination, such as being denied a job or housing -- not worrying about hurt feelings caused by news magazine articles.
However, that topic was really a sidebar. Siddiqui now wants to disgress into the clash between the Muslim and Western worlds -- which should be phrased as a clash between the theocratic and the secular.
To my mind, he misses the mark when talking about protecting religion from ridicule:
When Pope Benedict held a historic dialogue with Muslims in Rome recently, the final communiqué said this of religious minorities: "Their founding figures and the symbols they consider sacred should not be subjected to any form of mockery or ridicule."
The Catholics and Muslims present have jointly challenged a fundamental tenet of free speech, that religion is not above ridicule.
In other words, two medieval religions want to turn the clock back to the 12th century, back to a time when both of them had real power. And if you make it law not to blaspheme*, you're moving dangerously towards theocracy -- something Mr. Siddiqui fails to note. But anyways, do go on, Haroon:
* Let's not forget that Afghan journalism student Sayed Pervez Kambakhsh had faced the death penalty, reduced on appeal last month to 20 years, after being accused of blaspheming the Qu'ran and the Prophet Muhammad (here's some past articles). There was wide public support in Afghanistan for putting Abdul Rahman, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, to death for apostasty. He went into exile in Italy.
Siddiqui didn't opine recently on Kambakhsh, and I can't find anything he's written on Rahman, but he did write about an apostate woman in Malaysia.
At the just-ended special multifaith session of the United Nations, 80 nations derided the "serious instances of intolerance, discrimination, expressions of hatred and harassment of minority religious communities of all faiths."
The meeting was held at the behest of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (backed by the U.S. and Israel, as an antidote to Iran).
The theme was picked up Thursday by Pakistani President Asif Zardari: "Hate speech aimed at inciting people against any religion must be unacceptable."
This has been the stance of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 nations with majority or significant Muslim populations. And the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council has passed resolutions calling for "combating defamation of religion."
Siddiqui offers a bit of context (read the full column, I'm trying to keep things concise) before making a leap to a discussion of Islamophobia:
Islamophobia "tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to its followers an inherent, essential set of negative traits, such as irrationality, intolerance and violence," notes the U.S. media watch group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "Not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia's more virulent expressions include evocations of Islamic plots to dominate the West."
Free speech advocates need to separate themselves from such racism. Otherwise, they will continue to be seen as defending only those mocking Muslims and Islam.
Freedom of speech has limits in Canada and Europe (but not in the U.S.) I am agnostic on the subject. But so long as anti-hate laws exist, critics cannot pretend that they don't. And invoking them selectively only devalues their currency and discredits our democracies.
There is also self-restraint. We – the media, especially – exercise it every day. But we often abandon such constraints with Muslims and Islam. That's the real issue.
People of principle ought to get out of the dark alley of double standards and hypocrisy if they are to defend free speech properly and not add to the dangerous levels of animosity in the world.
Again, where is all the "Islamophobia" coming from? The MSM or toxic right-wing bloggers?
The MSM in Canada largely shied away from reproducing the Danish cartoons, for example.
The Star publishes Siddiqui as a Muslim-friendly voice, and the Globe has Sheema Khan.
I would agree that some toxic Islamophobes do hide behind "free speech," but Siddiqui would be more helpful if he actually identified them and tackled their work head-on instead of writing a rambling generality like he did today.
In the meantime, I'm wondering why Siddiqui hasn't opined, as one example, on the conviction of Momin Khawaja or one of the Toronto 18 defendants on terrorism-related charges.
I would note he wrote the following on Oct. 26 about the cases of Maher Arar, Abdullah alMaki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin:
There's another guilty party in all this. The media were also complicit in destroying the lives of these four Canadians. Reporters and editors who recycled tainted information supplied by unnamed sources should be publicly recanting and debating how not to repeat such mistakes ever again.
Groups such as Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Canadian Journalism Foundation, PEN Canada, the Ontario Press Council, as well as schools of journalism should be organizing public debates.
Media credibility was no less tattered by these episodes than that of the security establishment and other federal bureaucracies.
Fine, but then we have real jihadis convicted, and Siddiqui says nothing. Along with scolding the media, perhaps Mr. Siddiqui could also occasionally exercise his freedom of speech to scold those Muslim-Canadians who side with jihadists.
Addendum
The Toronto mosque that once warned its members to avoid wishing others "Merry Christmas," equating it with murder, is once again pitted in controversy.
And now the Muslim Canadian Congress is calling on Ottawa to strip the charitable status of the Somali Islamic Society of Canada, which owns the Khalid Bin Al-Walid mosque in Etobicoke, founded in 1990 and serving more than 10,000 worshippers.
Congress president Farzana Hassan said postings on the mosque's website are "in contravention of what a moderate Muslim should stand for."
Asked for specifics, Hassan cited the site's "statements about women." For example, she said, "they say female circumcision is honourable and yet they find piercing your ears reprehensible, wearing high heels reprehensible, laughing objectionable. It's very disconcerting that their priorities are where they are."
But the mosque defends its postings, arguing in a statement posted on its website that "different scholars of Islam may have differing opinions on the same subject."
The statement, signed "Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque Management and the Board of Directors," continues: "We try our best to enrich Islamic knowledge for anyone who visits our web site and show to them the differing views of Islamic scholars on a particular subject."
And, it adds: "We make it clear to all readers of our web site that unless the answers are provided by the Khalid mosque, the answers do not necessarily reflect the views of Khalidmosque.org."