Attack on word ‘Islamophobia’ a smokescreen
Hate, not free speech, at heart of issue, says Stuart Chambers.
Anti-Muslim crusaders have drawn a line in the sand: they’re fed up with the term “Islamophobia.” Although the word refers to any prejudice against or unfounded hostility toward Muslims, the crusaders find the label problematic for two reasons: first, it prevents an “honest” discussion concerning political Islam; and second, it “threatens” free speech.
This rationale, however, serves only one purpose: to divert attention away from a deepseeded hatred of Muslims.
Those who demonize Muslims are not honest deliberators because they routinely ignore evidentiary standards. As religious scholar Reza Aslan notes in The Atlantic, “anti-Muslim sentiment is not based on a rational response but an emotional one. The problem with an emotional response like fear is that it is impervious to data and information.”
For instance, when neo-conservative provocateur Mark Steyn remarks in the National Post that “most Muslims either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live,” and then provides no statistical evidence to support such a claim, he is adopting alarmist rhetoric to deliberately misinform his audience. On The Agenda with Steve Paikin, Steyn remained faithful to the anti-Muslim camp, referring to the word “Islamophobic” as a “phony-baloney term,” one that threatens free speech in Canada.
Here’s what Steyn does not say. In a 2016 Environics poll, only one per cent of Canadian Muslims believe that “many” or “most” Muslims in Canada support violent extremism. Globally speaking, Muslims overwhelmingly reject suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam. Studies conducted by the Pew Research Centre found that Muslims view such extremism as rarely or never justified, including 96 per cent in both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Azerbaijan, 92 per cent in Indonesia and 91 per cent in Iraq. That’s hardly “most Muslims.”
Anti-Muslim attitudes are also prevalent in groups such as La Meute (The Wolf Pack), which is Quebec’s largest right-wing organization. Co-founder Patrick Beaudry is worried about the creep of sharia law and boldly suggests that political Islam is “slowly invading our institutions.” La Meute insists it has documented proof of this stealth takeover, but for some unknown reason, members are unwilling to share it with the public.
Thankfully, other sources are more forthcoming. According to the Pew Research Centre, by 2050 Muslims will remain a small minority in Canada (5.5 per cent), whereas Christians will make up 60.2 per cent of the population. The “pure laine” wolves have little to fear about any incoming Muslim tidal wave. Consistent with other anti-Muslim crusaders, La Meute rejected the federal government’s motion that condemns Islamophobia, M-103, citing restrictions on free speech.
Ironically, this perceived impingement on freedom of expression is awarded an elevated status over the threat that indoctrination poses to oneself, to one’s peers and to the safety of minorities. The Jan. 29 tragedy in which six innocent Muslims were shot and killed in a Quebec City mosque is a perfect example of how prejudice travels.
Yet anti-Muslim activists remain convinced accusations of Islamophobia are unwarranted. Their reluctance is not out of concern that public opinion will be diminished; rather, it is because they must know the label is an accurate representation of those who make sweeping generalizations about the followers of Islam.
Islamophobia’s apologists have become masters at changing the subject away from their own irrational fears and shifting it towards a debate over free speech. It’s small wonder that “free speech” has become the politically correct rallying cry of all anti-Muslim zealots. It provides them with a safe space to feel better about their own bigotry, as if somehow, they’re the ones being victimized.
Globally speaking, Muslims overwhelmingly reject suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam.