...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

A step in the wrong direction: Yesterday Mo Elmasry was heard to grumble about Muslims being also-rans in StatsCan’s “hate crime” sweepstakes. Elmo insists, without any data to support him, that “hate crimes” against his community are being drastically underreported. In a piece in last month’s JURIST, guest columnist Faisal Joseph talked about the Maclean’s case and, like Elmo, made a similar claim about widespread discrimination (my bolds):

…The fact of racism against Muslims can no longer be denied. In a 2004 Heritage Canada survey, 80% of Canadians agreed that Muslims and Arabs are the main targets of discrimination in Canada today.

The media cannot shy away from its contributory role in the discrimination of Muslims any longer. As the Ontario Human Rights Commission said in a historic public statement issued last week: "the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it."

The statement was the result of human rights complaints filed by my clients - the Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of Osgoode Hall law students - against Maclean's magazine for its refusal to publish a mutually acceptable response to just one of more than twenty Islamophobic articles published between January 2005 and July 2007. Among others, these articles allege that "enough" Muslims share the basic objectives of terrorists; refer to Muslims as "sheep-shaggers"; and allege an impending, "bloody" Muslim takeover of the West.

In response to the complaints, the Commission exercised its mandate to speak out against actions it saw as "inconsistent with the spirit of the [Ontario Human Rights] Code." In doing so, the Commission strongly condemned "the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, [and] South Asians ... by the media as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in the Code."

In particular, the Commission expressed "serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean's Magazine and other media outlets," noting that "this type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting social intolerance towards Muslim, Arab, and South Asian Canadians."

While recognizing the importance of the freedom of expression, the OHRC also stated that it could not be used as a guise to target vulnerable groups and for the dissemination of xenophobic opinions.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding their recognition of the "Islamophobic" content of several articles published by Maclean's, the Commission was unable to proceed with my clients' complaints because s. 13(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code does not cover the content of newspapers and magazines. This gaping hole in the Code leaves minority groups, with little or no public voice, without a remedy for redressing group defamation and racism disseminated in our mass media.

Alternative venues to combat media-promulgated racism are conspicuously limited. Yes, Canada has criminal hate speech laws, but when the sources of hate speech are found in our own print and broadcast journalism, they provide little or no protection to minorities. All hate speech prosecutions require the Attorney General's consent - an unlikely event if the potential defendant is a large media organization.

Provincial press councils provide an avenue for reader complaints, but membership is voluntary and many offending media organizations, such as Maclean's, do not subscribe to them.

In principle, we could encourage more and better speech to counter the effects of prejudicial and hateful speech. In practice, a review of major Canadian publications indicates that the "more and better speech" is disturbingly scarce. When it comes to Muslims, right-wing journalists across the country have plenty to say. But who is providing the "more and better speech" to mitigate their toxic effects? The "more and better speech" formula fails marginalized minorities - a lesson that Canadian Muslims have painfully learned. In my clients' case, Maclean's preferred bankruptcy to publishing a mutually acceptable response to one of over twenty Islamophobic articles published in two-and-a-half years.

Given the lack of viable alternatives, the Commission must be lauded for its courageous stance against media-promulgated racism and Islamophobia. Its (sic)clear and unambiguous public statement is a source of hope for minorities, particularly Muslims, who have consistently received the short-end of the media stick. A powerful and respected public institution has spoken out against the persistent denigration of the Muslim community in our mass media. We can only hope positive change is on its way.

The fact that 80 per cent of Canadians had the impression that Muslims and Arabs were the main victims of discrimination doesn’t make it so. Impressions aren’t facts. As for the  “positive change” that’s supposedly on the way, all I can say is that one person’s “positive change” is another person’s demise of free expression.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:59 | link | comments

Comments: