CIC HAS MOVED to
877 Shefford Road.
Gloucester
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8H9

Tel: (613) 680-2867
Tel: (613) 680-2871
Fax: (613) 680-2902

Privacy statement

(Continued from last week ...)

Now, more than ever, they need to establish meaningful intercultural and interreligious dialogue and promote practical initiatives to bring communities together to overcome prejudice, disaffection and marginalization for future generations. Isn’t this what Multiculturalism is all about?

*** *** Islamophobia: A Dangerous Disease in our Midst

Islamophobia is a collective term for the most dangerous and sinister arrays of obstacles that Canadian Muslims face from outside their communities. It is born out of fear of "the other" and nurtured by historic misunderstandings, racist beliefs, exclusionism and discrimination arising from all segments of mainstream society.

Despite the existence of Canada’s renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with the considerable contributions made by Canadian Muslims to promote fair integration, they continue to experience various forms of alienation, discrimination, harassment and sometimes violence, all of which are rooted in negative stereotypical portrayals of Islam and its adherents - thus the irrational phenomenon that has come to be known as "Islamophobia."

As a result of the cancerous spread of Islamophobic attitudes, the past decade has seen Canadian Muslims become a collective soft target for negative societal discourse - a trend widely evidenced by the media, as well as in the stance of certain influential politicians, social commentators and academics. And where members of the general public are concerned it seems that more and more people - with or without background knowledge and valid evidence - have become self-appointed experts on the "Others" in their midst. In fact, one would have to live in complete technological isolation not to be aware of the ongoing debate, discussion, and idle chatter about Islam and Muslims.

These ubiquitous depictions and speculations (most of them, unfortunately, negative) have created an atmosphere of ambivalence and misunderstanding which only serves to feed the spreading toxin of Islamophobia.

On one level, Islamophobia stems from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, it stems from a very basic human instinct to dominate, exploit, and abuse those who are "different," combined with a scrupulous attitude that refuses to recognize moral principles and boundaries.

The British report "Islamophobia - A Challenge to All of Us" mentions that the term "Islamophobia" was coined in the late 1980s and suggests that its first known use in print occurred in an American periodical in February, 1991. That source referred to Islamophobia as a condition resulting from and characterized by anxiety, fear, or hatred of Islam and consequently the fear, dislike and hatred of all or most Muslims. According to the aforementioned British report, this symptomatic cluster of negative attitudes toward Islam and Muslims has existed for centuries. It is only during the past two decades, however, that the Islamophobic stance became more explicit, more extreme and more dangerous (1997).

On the basis of the given general definition, then, it is obvious that Islamophobia (be it perceived or actual) has become a deeply rooted phenomenon in Canadian society ever since 9/11. It is a phenomenon which has consequently created a significant negative impact on Canadian Muslims in particular and on all of society in general. Islamophobia has come to serve as the strategic weapon of choice in an ongoing campaign by rightwing media, politicians, and ideological extremists to marginalize Canadian Muslims.

Although Islamophobia used to be associated only with the attitudes and postures of the Far Right, it has been creeping slowly to the centre of political and social debate. Islam is bracketed off as an "alien" faith and Muslims are seen as separate and apart from fellow Canadian citizens; together, the people and their religion are increasingly presented as a "problem" to be addressed and a "question" to be tackled. The last time a world religion was considered a "problem and a question" was in late 19th-century Europe, when the status of Jews was widely debated by both enlightened supporters and hardcore bigots. Today, "the Muslim Question" has taken over the halls of power and academe throughout Western societies.

Within the Canadian context, Islamophobia manifests itself in several forms and to varying degrees, ranging from subtle insinuations behind-the-scenes, to full-blown media attacks that habitually portray Islam as a fanatic, violent and dangerous religion and consequently smear all Canadian Muslims as home-grown Taliban, fanatics, barbarians, and a general threat to mainstream society.

The regular eruption of media feeding frenzies has created an ideal platform to take Islamophobia to the next level, giving the green light to some segments of society to verbally and physically assault Muslims and their religious institutions. To mention just a few recent incidents: a Vancouver Muslim man attacked in July 2009; a London, ON Muslim woman attacked in November 2009; a Hamilton mosque and day school vandalized in January 2010.

Moving Forward: Ways to Fight Islamophobia

On surveying the past decade and more, it seems that Canadian Muslim communities have become double victims -first of organized terror attacks and then of reactive policy responses to these attacks. This unfortunate and unproductive cycle of victimization points to the urgent need for more dialogue, social inclusion and non-discriminatory policies in support of all minority groups, Muslims in particular. A sincere turnaround in governmental and institutional policies would ultimately benefit all of Canadian society.

On the other hand, if the media continue to badmouth Muslims and persist in instigating, inventing and fabricating the evidence for their attacks; and if the Canadian government does not show more maturity in helping Muslim citizens integrate successfully into society, the Canadian public will receive only negative and incorrect messages. Consequently, social unity and open-mindedness would be dealt a disastrous setback and misperceptions about Muslims as the collectively suspect "Other" would only increase exponentially.

Canadian political leaders and their institutions have a major responsibility to send from the top down a clear message of respect for all communities in Canada, including Muslims. Now, more than ever, they need to establish meaningful intercultural and interreligious dialogue and promote practical initiatives to bring communities together to overcome prejudice, disaffection and marginalization for future generations. Isn’t this what Multiculturalism is all about?

Policy responses must also acknowledge the fact that Canadian Muslims have experienced chronic and persistent discrimination since September 11, 2001. Whether direct or indirect, it has greatly eroded their social image and individual self-esteem and led in many cases to debilitating social marginalization. Policy responses must therefore respond to the diversity of Muslim communities and support awareness-raising, capacity building and outreach.

It is imperative that all Canadian governmental bodies and agencies undertake to apply existing anti-discrimination directives and make fuller use of their potential and provisions to address the negative stereotyping of Canadian Muslims - namely to show solidarity in the conquest of Islamophobia and promote equality among all citizens.

It is also urgent that the media collectively begin to play a more substantial role in enhancing mutual understanding among communities of differing religions, cultures and traditions. Media organizations have much to gain from working more closely with civil society and faith-based organizations to counter stereotyping. They have a golden opportunity from now on to be activists against Islamophobia rather than its promoters.

Conclusion

Canada would benefit immensely if its media resolve to do their job ethically and if our politicians take clear and principled stands on key issues rather than hiding behind the veil of political correctness. If this unity of resolve and professionalism were to come about - and it is possible -- Canadians of all backgrounds would live in the peaceful and healthy society they deserve and our great country could once again enjoy its rightful place as the world’s most successful multicultural and multi-faith nation. What better global role model could we be?

(This article was edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

Two decades after his release from prison on February 11, 1990 Nelson Mandela has become a living example that those who become immortal in human memory are freedom fighters, not their jailers. Who remembers today the names of those who imprisoned and tortured Mandela a generation ago? Who remembers even the names of the rulers who imprisoned him and his comrades? At the time they thought themselves victorious because they were unable to see the enduring torch of freedom and rights that Mandela and his supporters carried. History has since witnessed how that torch has written the names of the once-oppressed in letters of light, while their oppressors disappeared into the shadows of oblivion.

When she was sentenced to death by French occupiers in Algeria the mother of 18-year-old freedom fighter Jamila Bouhired visited her in prison and said to her: "Die, my daughter, because your death will light the future of Algeria. Don't be sad or afraid, because we have no other way but death to gain our freedom and the freedom of our country." After Jamila’s mother left, the woman jailer started to cry. When Jamila asked her why, she said, "I am crying because I realize that a people who have women like you and your mother will win this war, and we will have to leave Algeria one day."

After the liberation of Algeria and the fall of the racist regime in South Africa, the cause of Palestine remained the most important cause of justice for all conscientious people of the world, and it is still is. Despite Israel’s program of massacres, home demolitions, land expropriations, segregation walls, brutal blockades, military attacks against civilians, and numerous other strategies to subjugate the Palestinian people and break their will, the Palestinian cause continually wins new supporters all over the world.

During the first decade of this new century, the world has finally begun to understand that the ongoing Middle East conflict is not a religious one, nor a war on terrorism, as portrayed by Zionist propaganda. It is the direct result of an invasive, illegal and racist settlement movement, designed to deprive an indigenous people of their ancient lands and freedoms. This is why Jews, Christians and Muslims have all taken part in demonstrations against the Segregation Wall, calling for the blockade of Gaza to be lifted and the siege of its people to end.

The Israeli government and military, however, typically respond with targeted assassinations; the murder of American aid worker Rachael Corrie with a bulldozer, the execution of British director James Miller while making a film on the suffering of Palestinian children and a long list of others.

But this state-sanctioned terrorism is failing in its decades-old goal of silencing Western politicians and journalists, especially after the vividly publicized war on Gaza, which showed the true colours of Israel's leaders and military. Some Israeli officials now fear arrest if they travel to Europe; former European ministers have created a team to defend Palestinian freedom; Holocaust survivors have staged hunger strikes to lift the Gaza blockade; and the prominent Jewish judge Goldstone has confirmed that Israel committed war crimes against the Palestinians.

In response, an Israeli think tank (the Reut Institute) recently reported that "Israel faces a global campaign of delegitimization (Ha’aretz, Feb. 12, 2010), and that it is "the work of a worldwide network of private individuals and organizations. They have no hierarchy or overall commander, but work together based on a joint ideology -- portraying Israel as a pariah state and denying its right to exist." The report goes on to name the main campaign centres as London, Brussels, Madrid, Toronto, San Francisco and the Berkeley campus of University of California.

In reality, there can be no more cover-up or specious arguments in defense of the indefensible: free people of conscience the world over are gathering momentum in support of justice for the Palestinian people. Swedish author Ulf Stark has published a novel about children in occupied East Jerusalem, denied the simplest of rights as a result of the Segregation Wall and the numerous military checkpoints surrounding their neighborhoods. Millions of people today wear the Palestinian scarf as an expression of support for the cause. Young people increasingly visit Palestine, despite Israel’s deterrent policies, working for humanitarian projects and demonstrating with the Palestinian people against Israel’s racist policies of killing, deprivation and displacement.

(Retrieved from: http://www.counterpunch.org/shaaban02182010.html Nobel Peace Prize nominee Bouthaina Shaaban is Political and Media Advisor at the Syrian Presidency, and professor at Damascus University since 1985. She can be reached through nizar_kabibo@yahoo.com This article was edited, abridged and paraphrased in portions for the CIC Friday Magazine. The author’s arguments and views remain unaltered.)

And Upper Chamber selected by a blue-ribbon panel would create a valuable check on excessive Prime Ministerial power

*** *** Stephen Harper has claimed for several years that his proposed reforms for the Canadian Senate are about bringing accountability and democracy to the much-maligned second chamber.

With his recent prorogation of Parliament, however, it is clear that for all the rhetoric, his reforms are less about a thoughtful reinvigoration of our political institutions and more about maintaining political power.

National and international pundits have called him out for proroguing Parliament this time around and happily, many more Canadians are now also debating what might be done to fix our political system. But first, I believe we need to make sure we focus on the right questions.

Why does the prime minister have so much power?

The answer is quite simple: Because the House of Commons no longer holds the prime minister to account.

Next question: What should be done?

Answer: Insist that MPs take orders from their constituents, not their party leaders. MPs with backbone would deliver a properly functioning Commons. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is somewhat remote. So what can we do while we're waiting?

Many people think we should just go ahead and elect senators to make the system work better. Indeed, a new Canadian Press poll proudly trumpeted: "A majority of Canadians would like to (see) senators elected by the voters from the province they represent."

I might have answered that way myself if I'd only been given the three choices offered by the pollster: (1) abolish the Senate; (2) have the prime minister appoint them; or (3) elect them myself.

Looking at those choices, I'm always surprised that more people don't want to just get rid of the Senate. But then I'm reminded we wouldn't have a Canada at all if the founders of Confederation hadn't agreed to an appointed upper chamber. That was the deal-maker - none of the other provinces wanted Ontario to dominate the country through its power as a majority province.

Perhaps Canadians today intuitively recognize that the Senate provides a valuable counterweight against the abuse of power and therefore want to keep it. But to have the prime minister appoint senators? Ah, there's the rub.

We're already upset that the prime minister has too much power. The thought of giving him or her any more clout rankles at all levels, especially when we remember the transparently political payoffs evident in various prime ministerial appointments of recent years.

Like a mischievous genie wanting desperately to escape its musty old bottle, the pollster only gives you one more choice: an elected Senate. Unlike a journeyman genie, however, he doesn't give you the standard warning: "Be careful of the wish you make" (you might get it!)

Consider what happens now when you elect someone to represent you in Ottawa.

Barely into their first term in office, they're emailing home to explain why they voted for something their constituents didn't want. The reason, of course, is party discipline. They're "whipped" (i.e., told to vote with their party or else leave caucus). Most stay and do what they're told. After all, without the party, it's very difficult to get re-elected.

It would be no different for senators if they were running for election. Most would run as party candidates. What we'd end up with is nothing more than 105 more backbenchers -- right back where we started.

So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent and appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy. We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.

When you get right down to it, this is a prerogative exercised by the Governor General, and it’s a good thing that she takes advice. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. Instead, what if she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?

The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country; men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

As Senator John Abbott declared in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it ..."

Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we’ll have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.

What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard.

(Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/768518--last-best-hope-for- democracy-in-canada-an-appointed-senate Elaine McCoy is an independent Progressive Conservative senator from Alberta. This article was edited and slightly abridged for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

How does one evaluate the success of The Hague Tribunal (formally designated as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or ICTY) in accomplishing its mandate? Perhaps it is impossible to make such an assessment until the job is fully complete. But the Tribunal may be extinguished before its mandate is concluded, leaving an incomplete and ambiguous (perhaps by design) record of the events, people and institutions that passed under its scrutiny.

It is even not clear what ICTY records and whether its evidence will be left for future reflection or precedents for the delivery of justice. Who or what will retain possession and provide for dissemination of this material; and under what conditions or restrictions?

The Hague Tribunal was unprecedented in the work of the UN, with perhaps only the Nuremberg Trials of the 1960s providing some historical guide. Nor did the Tribunal enjoy unreserved support from the UN Security Council. In 1992 and 1993 some UNSC members encouraged the formation of a war crimes tribunal more as an alternative to directly confronting genocide than a sincere commitment to justice. By promising justice at some point in the future, Security Council cynics maybe presumed that their inaction during the committing of war crimes would not appear as morally, politically or militarily ambivalent. Others did not want to see an international war crimes tribunal that would become "too independent."

Eventually the ICTY was established, thanks to the efforts of several critically positioned individuals rather than the outcome of state or institutional policy. The UN Commission of Experts, created to evaluate the establishment of a war crimes tribunal (particularly Cherif Bassiouni) went beyond the theoretical to documenting the extent and systematic commission of war crimes during the initial year of genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and over the broader Yugoslav conflict. Several UNSC Permanent Representatives, including Ambassador Diego Aria of Venezuela and U.S. Ambassador Madeline Albright, were strong in their support.

Finally, the U.S. agreed to press ahead with UN Resolution 827, adopted on May 25, 1993 by the UNSC, thus officially establishing the Tribunal.

Once the ICTY was established, it could not be limited by convenience, arbitrariness or the political expediency of those who voted to create it. Along with its power and influence it also inherited the responsibilities of adhering to a comprehensive mandate and judicial objectivity.

In brief, the ICTY mandate covered the following:

* Establish the legal methodology by which to deliver justice, taking into consideration the rights of both the accused and victims;

* Pursue prosecution of individuals for specific offenses, including genocide;

* Through pursuing individual guilt, to also establish the responsibility of state and institutional actors;

* Bring about an objective historical record.

The above mandated items were not limited by nationality and extended to individuals and institutions beyond the former Yugoslavia.

As the ICTY nears the end of its tasks, however, its mandate is still incomplete. We must ask now whether there is will to go beyond the second point of the above list, for there are still major perpetrators (such as Gen. Ratko Mladic, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadzic, and Serbia’s Military Chief of Staff General Momcilo Perisic) who continue to be shielded from justice. Justice cannot be served by defining their roles as solely acting in an individual capacity beyond the bounds of state or institutional authority. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

Some have tried to allege that the ICTY was instructed to prosecute according to a quota. Other rumors, credible or otherwise, have speculated on the direct intervention of political factions. The truth of such allegations has yet to be established.

So far, it appears that The Tribunal as an institution has valiantly resisted overt political pressure. However, its work cannot help being affected by subtler influences. There could be efforts by some national authorities, not readily perceived from without, to steer the process to be compatible with national, political or even personal agendas. Undoubtedly in some instances, its selectivity was dictated arbitrarily and concern for the Tribunal’s overall mandate came as an afterthought.

Perhaps the ICTY has left critical elements of its original mandate incomplete, through the effects of tight resources, political constraint, and a desire not to offend political powers that are keeping a close watch on its activities. On the part of the UNSC, there appears to be a rush to close the doors, darken the windows, and undermine The Tribunal’s efforts at maintaining historical transparency.

(Part 2 of this article will appear in next week’s issue ... Retrieved from: http://europeancourier.org/op/2010/02/22/job-not-complete-at-the -hague-tribunal/ Muhamed Sacirbey is a distinguished diplomat and international lawyer. He is best known for serving as Bosnia’s Foreign Minister and its Ambassador to the United Nations between 1992 and 2000. This article was edited, abridged and slightly paraphrased in parts for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

This week CIC presents the following link to our readership:

For one small village on the outskirts of Bethlehem, the wall has effectively imprisoned its Palestinian residents.

Al-Nu'man village was cut off from Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank in 2003 by the Israeli-built Separation Barrier, which now walls it in on three sides. Moreover, this stretch of the barrier was illegally constructed beyond the Green Line drawn after the 1949 Arab-Israeli war.

A permanent checkpoint is now the only entrance to and from the village.

Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh reports in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-W5UFRjnM&feature=player_embedded# ********************************************************************* IMPORTANT NOTE from the Editor-in Chief of the CIC Friday Magazine, Imam Dr. Zijad Delic - National Executive Director of the Canadian Islamic Congress: If you, dear readers and supporters, have suggestions, comments, or questions, please feel free to address them to me. I welcome your responses at: imamdrdelic@canadianislamiccongress.com