Elghawaby uproar no surprise

Did no one research her past remarks?

We were told by the Prime Minister's Office that Amira Elghawaby was appointed as Canada's first special representative on combating Islamophobia “following an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process.” It is beyond my comprehension how such a process would not have involved a simple web search to see whether Elghawaby had said or written something that could be embarrassing for the government or her, or both. For instance, writings that would have revealed a simplistic view of Islamophobia in Québec?

As should have been expected, such a search is exactly what journalists did in the minutes following the prime minister's announcement. What did they find? That in an op-ed regarding Bill 21, of which she was the co-author, she wrote that “the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment.” Then on Twitter, reacting to a statement by a University of Toronto professor who asserted that French Canadians were “the largest group of people in this country who were victimized by British colonialism,” Elghawaby wrote: “I'm going to puke.”

This led Quebec's National Assembly to demand that her contract be rescinded. Always looking to nurture his nationalist base, Premier François Legault accused the prime minister of “endorsing the contempt toward Quebecers.” Even Justin Trudeau's Québec lieutenant, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, said he was “hurt and upset” by Elghawaby's views.

This unfortunate controversy was entirely predictable. Are Amira Elghawaby's credentials so impressive that, despite some of her writings, appointing her was a good decision? At the very least, the government and the new special representative needed to prepare for the uproar and quickly provide both a clarification and an apology. This was not done until Wednesday, a week after Elghawaby's appointment. With the speed of today's news cycle, one week is an eternity. In Québec, her credibility lays in ruins.

I had the privilege of sitting in the Senate for three and a half years. I enjoyed nothing more than having the opportunity to work with senators representing different regions, cultures and races, coming from all walks of life. For a national institution like the senate to be productive, one has to be humble and curious enough to listen, to learn, to open your mind and heart to other perspectives, other experiences. Only thus can the group find paths toward solutions to the problems it is facing. This is how we built Canada.

Too often, we Canadians (and this of course includes Quebecers) forget how essential it is to listen and to compromise (without sacrificing your principles). It is so easy to fall back on one's prejudiced views of the other. Some politicians do this because, in the short run, it may appear politically profitable. Activists also tend to eschew moderate views because this is not how you motivate people to fight for the cause.

As a strong opponent of Bill 21, I can understand the frustration felt by members of religious minorities in Québec and by Canadians outside the province regarding this discriminatory piece of legislation. But it is wrong to attribute the law's relative popularity in my home province to Islamophobia, as Elghawaby did in her op-ed. Yes, there are people in Québec who dislike Muslims. But they are not a majority, as leaders of the Muslim community here have often testified.

Any person who has followed the intense and painful debate in Québec about Bill 21 knows that the level of support for the measure cannot be easily explained by “an anti-Muslim sentiment.” Supporters of the law come from all political horizons and their motives are diverse. There are some for whom, based on Quebec's experience with Catholicism, all religions are oppressive and should be absent from the public sphere. There are feminists who believe that the hijab is a symbol of women's subjection to men and to clerics. There are many who, pointing to what is currently happening in Iran, are convinced that the hijab is a weapon of radical Islamists. Simplistic views for sure, but not Islamophobic.

Therefore, the issue is more complex than it seems. Elghawaby's simplistic characterization demonstrates a poor understanding of Québec society. As for her “puke” comment, it showed both a lack of judgment and scant knowledge of Canadian history.

What now? The prime minister is responsible for causing this sad controversy, and it is he who must work to resolve the situation. He began to do so on Wednesday, when he reminded Canadians that francophone Quebecers and other Canadians had a very different experience with religion. “It's easy to go to the barricades and point fingers at each other,” he noted. “Reasonable people (need to) have a real, deep conversation.” Indeed.

If Elghawaby manages to keep her job despite the outcry, she will have to work very hard to convince French-speaking Quebecers that she is not prejudiced against them. Even without the political storm, her task would have been difficult and sensitive. In Québec, she now starts with two strikes against her ... if she has not already struck out.