Ujjal Dosanjh on the language of terror
The former B.C. premier and cabinet minister under the federal Liberals testifies Monday at the Senate national security committee on confronting terrorism. He spoke to the Citizen’s Dylan Robertson .
Q . You’ve blogged about the need to use clear terms, like “terrorist” and “Islamist terror” while debating terrorism. Why is that so important?
A . It’s a politician’s job to appeal to the largest number of people and make the smallest number of enemies, and perhaps that compels politicians to sugar-coat what they’re saying. But on issues such as terrorism, I think it’s important to actually have clear language, otherwise we’re talking about euphemisms and words that hide the ugly truth.
One example is CBC and the White House referring to the Islamic State group as “militants.” I find that very troubling, because in my perspective that could mean either violent or non-violent. I would call Mahatma Gandhi a militant, non-violent advocate.
You have to use clear language; it shows the clear contempt we should have for what it is. The word “militant” doesn’t show contempt or rejection; it doesn’t imply condemnation and I find that very troubling.
Q . Muslim groups have taken the prime minister to task for linking terrorism with Islamism and mosques. What do you make of that?
A . I’ve been using the term “Islamist” as well, and I make a clear distinction: The vast majority of Muslims aren’t Islamists. An Islamist is someone who believes in the ideology that is being followed by ISIL, and most Muslims I believe don’t follow that. But I understand how people become sensitive. Ultimately when you become too sensitive, sometimes the sensitivity gets in the way of really attacking the problem.
Over the decades, political correctness has taken over. It essentially buries the truth many layers below the actual political conversation and dialogue that we should be having. Ultimately the language has to be clear. If you can’t clearly articulate the problem, you can’t find solutions.
Q . But people often confuse “Islamist” with “Islam.” Last October’s attacks were followed by mosques being vandalized and attacks on Canadian Muslims.
A . There’s no question that hate can be preached anywhere, be it religious spaces, homes or schools. The fact is that those who become too sensitive say you shouldn’t name a particular institution because it will create a backlash.
How do you deal with it when you have seen some preachers standing up and saying dumb things like Montreal imam Hamza Chaoui (who wrote that Islam is not compatible with democracies that elect atheists and homosexuals)? Where do they speak, on a street corner? I don’t think every temple or church does this, but what about people who kill doctors who provide abortion services in the States: Where do they pick up these things from? I’m sure some of those beliefs are preached in some churches. Are we saying we
can’t name that?
Q . You were attacked in 1985 for your outspoken criticism of Sikh extremists following the Air India bombings. How has terrorism changed over three decades?
A . In 1985, I don’t recall the Internet being a phenomenon, and things like YouTube being easily accessible. And now both the tools and the knowledge to commit terror are more widely available than ever. So some idiots who just want temporary, contemptible glory can easily pick up things.
It was 9/11 that actually drove terrorism into the consciousness of the world. Even though the Air India disaster was the largest aviation terror attack in the history of the world then (268 of the 329 killed were Canadians, many of ethnic South Asian descent), it didn’t seem like it then because it didn’t impact the West’s so-called mainstream.