FORUM
Op-eds on legal news by law professors and JURIST special guests...

Protecting Vulnerable Minorities in Canada: Muslims in the Mass Media

JURIST Special Guest Columnist Faisal Joseph, counsel for a group of Canadian law students who recently filed human rights complaints against the Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's for its refusal to publish a response to a string of articles allegedly targeting Muslim Canadians, says that a gaping hole in the Ontario Human Rights Code leaves minority groups having little or no public voice without a remedy for redressing group defamation and racism disseminated in the mass media ...


American politics, more specifically the showdown between Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have captured the imagination of the world at a level rarely seen in recent decades. Canada is no exception.

Few presidential contests have been followed north of the border with such detailed interest. And it's no wonder. Mr. Obama's "Yes We Can" campaign has captured the hearts and minds of young and old, black and white, rich and poor. Virtually everyone can find something to focus on for the upcoming American election.

The Muslim community has also found something to focus on, but unfortunately, it has been rather unpleasant - the tactic of associating Mr. Obama with Muslims in efforts to derail the "Obamamania" phenomenon, notwithstanding his sincere devotion to his Christian faith.

Examples of this negative-association tactic have included photographs of a younger Obama in the white turban and robes of a Somalian elder during a visit to Kenya and talk show host Bill Cunningham's pointed emphasis on Mr. Obama's middle name, Hussein. Now in the heat of an election, Obama has been introduced as “Osama” a not so subtle reference to Osama bin Laden. The message is clear: perceived ties to Muslims are a clear liability when fighting for the hearts and minds of the Western world.

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 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.


Faisal Joseph is a human rights advocate and litigation lawyer based in London, Ontario, Canada.

May 06, 2008


Link | | e-mail op-ed | print | post comment | 7 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Comments:

Mr. Joseph, tell us why do you claim to represent the Law students when in fact the Human Rights complaints were filed by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. The students are merely sock-puppets for Elmasry,

This is the same Mohamed Elmasry who publicly stated that all Israeli Citizens over the age of 18 were legitimate targets I believe? You can read the transcript here:
http://tinyurl.com/op3nl

Why not tell us about the students attempts to extort money from Macleans? We would all like to hear about that.


What do you say to this statement by the Muslim Canadian Congress that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been infiltrated by by individuals sympathetic to the CIC and whose goal is to implement Sharia Law?

You can read about that here in this document: MCC shocked at OHRC decision to trumpet Islamist cause

http://tinyurl.com/65fwpt

May 06, 2008  

Canada's media is not very conservative; it is mostly liberal; and it is mostly opposed to Mr. Joseph, to the portions of our human rights codes that attempt to regulate freedom of expression, and to any claims that the state has the legitimacy to tell a private publisher what to do with his private property: e.g. publish what Joseph demands be published.

The reason there is a lot of suspicion of Muslims in Canada and elsewhere is 1) because people are learning what the Islamic holy texts say about non-believers or the Kafir; and 2) because people like Mr. Joseph show no sense of how to operate in a free society. Free speech does not mean the right to demand your article be printed in someone's journal, with your editorial control; it means the right to print your own article in your own journal or wherever it is welcome. In fact, the law students that Elmasry is using as a front have published articles in several Canadian newspapers in respect to their case.

This only shows that Joseph is intentionally misleading in this article in his clamor to don the victim mantle. And that is why he is not doing anything to diminish resentment of Muslims. And that is why some more secular Muslims in Canada are speculating that it is precisely the desire of people like Joseph and the CIC to polarize muslim and non-muslim communities the better to radicalize the Muslims and make them feel victimized and willing to follow the atrocious anti-Western, anti-secular society, pro-Sharia, leadership of people like Elmasry.

May 06, 2008  

The OHRC blasted Macleans for alleged "Islamophobia" after dismissing the case because it was out of the commission's jurisdiction to hear it. Guilt without trial certainly does not constitute justice.

May 06, 2008  

Canada's media is mostly liberal, with very few exceptions. There is simply no conspiracy to deny other points of view; if there is, it apparently didn't stop me from being fully aware of joseph's point of view. And by the way, why doesn't he mention the original demand for money from Maccleans?
These students were also offered a chance to debate Mr. Steyn tonight on Ontario's public broadcaster, TVO. They have refused, and only agreed to appear in a separate segment. So much for "debate".

May 06, 2008  

There are a few radical right wing "writers" who flood the web with material alleging "support" for hate speech because they themselves keep writing the same nonsense over and over again.

There is no reason to believe the students are in bad faith. One can support Israel and at the same time believe that activists of any nationality or origin have the right to push the boundaries of the law. If they are wrong, the cases will be dismissed.

May 07, 2008  

I must applaud the Ontario Human Rights Commissions decision. Too often in a society of a certain majority, oppression, injustice and hate speech get institutionalized as if it is morally acceptable.

May 09, 2008  

Using "human rights" laws to regulate and censor speech that some groups find distasteful is the antithesis to the free exchange of ideas which is so important in a democratic society. When your response to speech you find objectionable, even deeply offensive, is not to voice your disagreement, but attempt to summarily silence the speaker, you have abandoned the traditional liberal values of individual freedoms and liberties, and joined every political figure who ever tried to stamp out ideas he found distasteful. Regardless of the politics involved, when human rights courts act to silence voices because of the political content of their statements, the courts have ceased to be about human rights at all.

June 02, 2008  


LATEST OP-EDS

 A Risk Worth Taking: Civilian Trials for Guantanamo Terror Suspects
November 16, 2009

 Simple Justice: Time for the US to Support the ICC
November 13, 2009

 Beyond Guantanamo
November 6, 2009

 Goldstone, Gaza and (Dis)Proportionality: Three Strikes
November 4, 2009

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news on your intranet, website, blog or news reader!

SUBMISSIONS

E-mail Forum submissions (about 1000 words in length - no footnotes, please) to JURIST@pitt.edu.

SYNDICATION

Add Forum op-eds to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Forum op-ed alerts via R|mail. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.
MyBlogAlerts also e-mails alerts of new Forum op-eds. It's free and fast, but ad-based.

FORUM SEARCH

Search JURIST's op-ed archive...


Powered by Blogdigger badge

CONTACT

JURIST and our op-ed authors welcome comments and reaction from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@law.pitt.edu