Islamophobia motion weakened by cynicism
At this point, it is possible only two people in Parliament are still motivated mainly by concerns over religious bigotry: Iqra Khalid, the Liberal backbencher behind the unexpectedly controversial Motion 103, and Michael Chong, the Conservative leadership hopeful who supports her proposal but also opposes hate-speech laws.
The rest of the mob now seem to be mere collaborators in a painful theatre of the politically absurd.
Let’s start with Khalid’s intentions. The Mississauga-Erin Mills MP introduced her motion against “Islamophobia” — a suddenly contentious term — in December, well before the attack that killed six people in a Quebec mosque in January. Khalid wasn’t trying to politicize a crisis. She seems to have been moved by conviction.
By week’s end, however, she was fairly suffocating in political hangers-on — including the PMO and senior ministers, who have basically claimed her non-binding motion as gospel and insisted on needless rigidity around its wording — because there are now political points to be scored and smokescreens to raise.
The smokescreening is brazen. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, to be sure, supports religious minorities, nonetheless failed to take the stand against President Donald Trump’s Muslim-state travel ban that some felt he should. The sudden rush of love by Grit MPs for Khalid’s private initiative feels like an attempt to loudly reclaim moral ground. Added bonus: focusing on her motion tends to divert us from reflecting on other inconveniences such as ethics probes into the PM’s vacation habits.
Meanwhile, by being unwilling to entertain any compromise on the wording of Khalid’s motion, the Liberals have tossed a fox into the henhouse of the Conservative party leadership race, with its squabbling over Canadian values tests and such.
The Grits did not create this disarray inside the official Opposition, where most leadership contestants reject M-103; they’re merely using Khalid’s motion to sow further discord.
Witness Mélanie Joly accusing the Tories of watering down the intent of Khalid’s motion by suggesting their own wording, even though they specifically reference the mosque attack. No compromise wording was, apparently, possible.
Where do things stand? Just last year, the Tories backed an Islamophobia motion; now, mostly, they won’t support Khalid’s use of the word. The Liberals won’t back a Tory motion though it covers similar ground. The NDP will vote yes to both though it’s not happy with either. We need an anti-grandstanding motion.
For her part, Khalid now has had to fend off Twitter trolls, hate mail and threats as both friends and foes pound her proposal into something it is not.
This brings us to Chong. With so many of his leadership rivals opposing Khalid’s motion, he examined it on merit and concluded he supports it.
Chong gains little politically for doing so. But he notes the House has adopted similar motions at different periods, and he rejects the absurd accusation that Motion 103 would somehow encourage sharia law.
Chong has been willing to do more than simply break ranks, though. In spurning the idiotic idea that Khalid’s initiative would restrict free speech, he goes on to argue that a far graver restriction is Canada’s Criminal Code restriction on hate speech.
“The right way to combat hate speech is through free speech. Not through the Criminal Code,” he writes.
That’s a bold statement — and it points to an MP thinking through an issue, not just trying for political points. Good luck to Khalid. And kudos to Chong.