Hatred against Muslims is a terrible thing. So is hatred against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics, dark-skinned people, light-skinned people, gay people, straight people … and the list goes on. Hatred against the wealthy, which is usually based on the assumption that the rich must have acquired their money unfairly or dishonestly, is another example of what poisons society and culture. Hatred of political opponents, based on the ridiculous assumption that those who disagree with us must have bad intentions, has become commonplace.
Hatred of Christianity clearly exists in Canada, as demonstrated by the deliberate burning and total destruction of dozens of churches since 2021, not to mention dozens more churches that suffered vandalism and attempted arson. The victim-oppressor group-warfare ideology of “equity, diversity, inclusion” implicitly promotes hatred against men, heterosexuals, light-skinned people and other “oppressors.” Hatred against Canadians who refused to get injected with the COVID vaccine in 2021 still persists today, though on a much smaller scale than five years ago.
Hatred is an emotion. Many people fail to recognize that hatred can be a very good thing when directed against racism, tyranny, oppression, and other forms of injustice.
The media reports that Durham Regional Council in Ontario has asked police to read and review the speech of citizens in order to combat “Islamophobia.” Durham’s Council has requested police to provide a quarterly update “in respect of the Services’ efforts to address hate speech and related crimes.” The Council’s motion fails to provide examples of what it calls “rhetoric that could be interpreted as promoting hostility or violence toward Muslim communities.”
A phobia, by definition, is an irrational fear, not a well-founded one. It is irrational for a Canadian to fear the harmless spider in his basement, but entirely reasonable for a Brazilian to fear the highly toxic wandering spider, whose venom can cause death.
Islamophobia is, by definition, an irrational fear of Islam. The term “Islamophobia” itself begs the question: is it irrational to fear Islam? Some Canadians argue that Islamism, which refers to political Islam, and those who promote it, wish to impose Islamic laws. Around the world, many Islamic countries have laws that ban criticism of Islam and prohibit speech against its founding prophet. Some Muslim countries enforce apostasy laws that prohibit conversion away from Islam to a different faith. Conversely, other Canadians argue that Islam’s theocrats, along with those who kill and terrorize in the name of Islam, are only small minorities who lack serious influence.
In Canada, public debate about the merits of Christianity typically takes place without accusations of “Christophobia.” It should be no different for Islam, or for other religions, or for various belief systems in general. Opponents of socialism are quite capable of criticizing this ideology without reference to “plutophobia,” the irrational fear of wealth and money. Accusing one’s opponents of being “phobic” is an ad hominem attack, suggesting that the opponent suffers from a mental illness. In other words, those deemed “homophobic” or “Islamophobic” or “transphobic” are mentally ill, and therefore not worth listening to.
The free society is harmed when Canada’s federal, provincial, and municipal governments start using their coercive power to take sides in public debates. Canadians should be free to debate the merits (or lack of merit) of every religion and every belief system, without their police forces devoting limited resources to monitoring what citizens are saying on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Let’s not become more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens have been warned by police, or criminally charged, over their social media comments.
Durham Regional Council would be overstepping the bounds when if it uses government power to take sides in public debates about religion, immigration, integration, and other topics. In a free society, elected and unelected government officials treat citizens as adults, capable of making up their own minds about what is true or false, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. In a free society, governments do not direct police to pay special attention to what people are saying on the internet.
Rather than denouncing “Islamophobia” or otherwise taking sides in public debates, governments should instead enforce the law equally, without bias for or against any religion or political belief system. On this front, governments in Canada fail to uphold the rule of law.
For example, aboriginals who vandalized public property in broad daylight, with police watching, were not prosecuted for their criminal conduct due to Manitoba Crown political bias in favour of the perpetrators and their cause. Ontario Crown prosecutors have spent vast sums of taxpayers’ money to convict Tamara Lich and Chris Barber of mischief over their participation in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest that partially closed some Ottawa streets. Yet government authorities have condoned Toronto’s Yonge Street being obstructed entirely (not partially!) by praying Muslims.
Governments shouldn’t try to regulate hate or other emotions. Politicians should not try to criminalize the speech that they hate. Governments should not take positions against real or alleged phobias. Rather, governments should uphold the rule of law by enforcing equally the Criminal Code and all other laws, without selective enforcement or bias toward any religion, ideology, or group.
John Carpay, BA, LLB, is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
