|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT/RESUME
Following the terrorist acts in the United States in September 2001, hostility toward Muslims increased in North America and Europe. This article describes the different forms of discrimination experienced by Muslims in Canada inasmuch as the data gathered during and before the last two years allow it. (1) It also attempts to describe the main factors underlying the hostility toward Muslims and how these factors could be peculiar to Canadian society, where the government proclaims itself the only multicultural state in the West and one that is very respectful of immigrants' and cultural minorities' rights.
A la suite des attentats terroristes aux Etats-Unis en septembre 2001, les actes hostiles se sont multiplies a l'egard des personnes de confession musulmane dans les societes occidentales. Cet article retrace les diverses formes de discrimination subies par les musulmans au Canada autant que le permettent les donnees compilees avant et apres les evenements de septembre 2001. Il tente aussi de reperer les fondements de cette discrimination qui s'avereraient propres au Canada, un pays dont l'Etat se proclame le seul Etat multiculturel au monde et parmi les plus respectueux des droits des immigres et de leurs descendants.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Multiculturalism Act (1988), "The Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism." Discrimination against Muslims is, therefore, a subject of national interest, particularly since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Islam is a new phenomenon in Canada. It first became part of the public debates during the 1990s. In 1994, students wearing the hijab (a traditional headscarf) were expelled from some schools in Quebec. Since 1996, data have been published showing the growth of the Muslim population. According to 2001 census data, the Muslim population numbered 579,000 persons, growing from 253,000 in 1991. The majority are of Pakistani origin and live in the Toronto area, and Montreal is home to the second largest concentration of Muslims, with a population of 120,000 of mostly Arab origin.
This article has three objectives: to describe the discrimination suffered by Muslims in Canada, to assess any increase in the level of discrimination since September 2001, and to determine the forms it takes and the reasons for this discrimination in Canada. The fulfillment of these objectives requires that definitions of discrimination, including those provided by the Canadian government, be specified.
DISCRIMINATION AND THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), along with other provincial Charters of Rights and Freedoms, protect fundamental freedoms (of conscience, religion, thought, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and defense) and basic human rights (to life, security, privacy, dignity, non-harassment, and presumption of innocence). They prohibit discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental/physical disability. The right to equality protected by these documents is fourfold: equality before the law, equality in the application of the law, equality of protection afforded by the law, and equal benefit of the law.
The concept of equal benefit of the law counters a formal conception of equality as identical treatment that can, paradoxically, cause serious inequality. It is a Canadian principle that, in order to treat all equally, distinctions may occasionally have to be made (Crepeau 1994). In an unprecedented 1989 judgment, (2) the Supreme Court defined discrimination as a "distinction, whether intentional or not, based on motives related to the personal characteristics of an individual or a group of individuals, which impose on this individual or group burdens, obligations or disadvantages not imposed on others, or prevent or restrict access to the possibilities, benefits and advantages offered to other members of society." Discrimination is thus defined as the denial of equality based on an unlawful criterion of distinction, and it can be either direct or indirect.
Direct discrimination occurs when one or more personal characteristics based on unlawful criterion are explicitly applied to deny a right or a freedom. Indirect discrimination occurs when an action produces an uneven effect on a group or a person identified by a similar unlawful criterion (i.e., physical characteristics, cultural origin, age, gender, religion, handicap), without the discriminationary action having to be the aim (Bosset 1989; Ledoyen 1992). The example that is cited most often is the weight or size requirement to become a police officer or a fireman. In practice, these requirements exclude members of groups generally lacking the required characteristics.
One can also speak of systemic discrimination when inequalities between groups of people are not ascribable to an identifiable factor but seem to be linked to a number of present and/or past factors. An important example is the under-representation of minority groups in certain occupations compared to the number of members of charter groups (Canadians of British or French ancestry). This inequity requires us to question whether the basis is attributable to discriminatory practices (whether voluntary or involuntary) or to characteristics recognized as sources of economic differentiation (level of schooling, work experience, knowledge of the official languages). In Canada, the under-representation of members of "visible minorities" in public office was recognized as part of past and present discriminatory practices. As a result, the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986.
Discrimination can also be distinguished according to its source. Institutionalized discrimination occurs when public laws and measures intentionally exclude some people from enjoying rights available to others. A denial of these rights existed, for example, from 1908 until the 1960s when quotas for immigrants from Middle-Eastern and "Asian" countries were applied.
In addition to systemic and institutionalized discrimination, we can also speak of veiled (Kunz, Milan, and Schetagne 2001), usual (Ledoyen 1992), or voluntary discrimination (Mc Andrew and Potvin 1996) to refer to attitudes or actions which, based on an unlawful criterion, lead to the exclusion of people from spheres of daily social life. This form of discrimination is difficult to prove, difficult to quantify, poorly documented, and seldom results in formal complaints. Nevertheless, the effects are manifested in different ways, such as the under representation of members of some ethno-cultural groups in particular neighborhoods, associations, clubs, and social networks (i.e., of colleagues, neighbors, friends; intermarriages). In the case of people of Muslim heritage, these various forms of discrimination can be demonstrated in some fields but are difficult to prove in others.
DIRECT DISCRIMINATION: DENIAL OF BASIC RGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Perpetrated by Individuals
Hate Crimes
Hostile acts against an individual or a group based on a personal attribute (such as public insults, incitement of hatred, physical violence, and/or attacks against property) are infringements of the right to dignity, safety, integrity, and the peaceful enjoyment of property. (3) This form of discrimination was rarely documented during the 1991 Gulf War and thereafter (Abu-Laban and Abu-Laban 1991:124-126). Post-September 11, however, ethnic and human rights organizations started to monitor discrimination more systematically as hate crimes multiplied. Fear and dejection led to a number of emergency calls to these organizations from people anxious to learn how to ensure their personal security. Muslims feared attack owing to religious and cultural practices (clothing, beard, head coverings), attending Muslim places of worship or schools, and taking leaves of absence during religious holidays.
Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) figures indicate a 1,600 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslim individuals or places between September 2001 and September 2002 (Media release, March 10 2003). The Congress received 11 complaints related to such crimes the year preceding the September 2001 attacks, but this figure increased to 173 the following year. In the United States, a 2001 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report indicates the same 1,600 percent increase in hate crimes against people perceived as Muslims: 28 in 2000, and 481 in 2001, including 3 murders and 35 cases of arson (Abdelkarim 2003:51). The Toronto Police Service Hate Crime Unit (2001:8,11,13,22) noted a 66 percent increase in hostile acts in 2001. Ninety percent of that increase was related to the terrorist attacks against the United States, as they occured between September and October 2001 (i.e., 121 of the total 338 hate crimes committed during the year). Of these 121 acts, 57 specifically targeted Muslims. (4) In comparison, in 2001, 58 hate crimes were counted against people of Jewish origin, 53 against "Blacks," and 24 against homosexuals. Only one hate crime toward a person identified as Muslim was recorded in 2000. The police departments of three other Canadian cities also reported an outbreak of hate crimes from September through the end of December 2001, all connected to the terrorist attacks: 44 in Ottawa, 40 in Montreal, and 24 in Calgary (Hussain 2002:23). Similar complaints were also made to nongovernmental organizations. Between September 11 and November 15 2001, the Canadian chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) was advised of 110 incidents, including 10 death threats, 10 hate messages, 33 verbal aggressions, and 13 assault and battery incidents (CAIR-CAN press release, November 20 2001). Unfortunately, statistics related to verbal harassment, death threats, physical attacks, and other hate crimes remain vague for several reasons.
First, victims of hate crimes seldom make an official complaint, and witnesses rarely come forward, as was recently documented by a French study carried out in 2002. In that study, only 48 percent of the French who were polled declared themselves willing to report racist incidents to police (Zappi 2003). This reluctance to report has also been documented in the United States. The FBI recorded only 481 hate crimes against Muslims in 2001, though 1,700 were reported to the CAIR-U.S. chapter from September 2001 through February 2002 (Abdelkarim 2003). Forty instances of threatening or insulting phone calls, insults on the street, vandalism, and assault and battery were reported by 181 women involved in discussion groups organized by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women; of these forty cases, participants only reported two to police (Hussain 2002:23). In Montreal, police recorded a dozen complaints of verbal harassment and 83 "hate events" between September 11 and 20 2001 (Taillefer 2002), whereas, according to testimonies gathered by community organizations, Muslims and Middle-Eastern immigrants suffered many more insults in public venues (e.g., the street, the work place, or when using public transit).
This reluctance to report incidents to police is one important factor undermining the collection of statistical information. Another is that the consolidation of the Muslim community is still weak, despite a multitude of religious and secular associations. The two pan-Canadian organizations documenting the infringement of Muslims' rights and freedoms, CAIR-CAN and the Canadian Islamic Congress, have few resources.
A third factor explaining the inadequacy of these statistics is that some Canadian police services either do not record hate crimes at all (e.g., Halifax), the ethno-cultural origin of the victims (e.g., Windsor), or their religion (e.g., Hamilton, Calgary, Waterloo, Edmonton). In addition to this...
|
