Ontario’s Durham Regional Council recently directed police to monitor the speech of citizens to combat “Islamophobia.” The Council has requested quarterly updates from police “in respect of the Services’ efforts to address hate speech and related crimes.” The Council’s motion fails to provide concrete examples of “rhetoric that could be interpreted as promoting hostility or violence toward Muslim communities” that would fall within the ban.By definition, a phobia is an irrational fear — not a reasonable or evidence-based concern. It is irrational for a Canadian to fear a harmless spider in his basement, but entirely reasonable for a Brazilian to fear the highly toxic wandering spider, whose venom can cause serious harm and even death.“Islamophobia” is an irrational, unjustified fear of Islam. The term “Islamophobia” itself begs the question: Is it irrational to fear Islam? Some Canadians argue that Islam should be feared because some Muslims are theocrats who, if given the chance, would impose Islam on Canadian society, culture, and politics. Some Muslim countries enforce apostasy laws that prohibit conversion away from Islam to a different faith. Many Muslims support laws that ban criticism of Islam and its founding Prophet. As argued by Chuong Nguyen, the blanket charge of “Islamophobia” has become “a blunt instrument in silencing discourse on the dangers that political Islam poses to free speech and the values held by free societies.” For example, if people in Durham, Ontario, object to how women are second-class citizens in some Muslim countries, would that qualify as Islamophobia, as prohibited “rhetoric that could be interpreted as promoting hostility or violence toward Muslim communities?”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, such that Islam should not be feared.Whether or not Islam should be feared is a matter of debate, one that should be unhindered by government. .In Canada, vigorous public debate about the merits or shortcomings of Christianity takes place without accusations of “Christophobia.” Socialism is criticized without being denounced as “plutophobia” — the irrational fear of wealth. In the same way, Canadians should be free to criticize Islam (including the laws and customs of Muslim countries) without being accused of “Islamophobia” by their city council, provincial legislature, or federal Parliament.Accusing one’s opponents of being “phobic” is an ad hominem tactic claiming that the “phobic” speaker is mentally ill and therefore not worth listening to.The public denunciation of an irrational fear (Islamophobia), used to silence debate on important questions (e.g. whether Islam threatens freedom and democracy), is not limited to municipalities. Less than ten years ago, Parliament passed a formal motion against Islamophobia.Canadian Muslims are quite capable of defending and promoting their faith. When governments seek to silence criticism of Islam by making “Islamophobia” illegal, they are treating Muslims like children. Criticism of Islam (and of every other religion and belief system) provides believers and adherents with an opportunity to explain their faith and why they believe it to be true. Those kinds of discussions, when carried out in good faith, based on humility and intellectual honesty, benefit everyone..Canada, as a free society, is harmed when federal, provincial, or municipal governments use their coercive power to take sides in public debates. Canadians should remain free to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of every religion, ideology, and belief system without police forces devoting limited resources to monitoring comments on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Canada should not follow the United Kingdom’s example, where thousands of citizens have been warned by police or criminally charged over their social media posts.Durham Regional Council is behaving like a repressive regime when it uses government power to take sides in debates about Islam. In a genuine free society, elected and unelected officials treat citizens as responsible adults capable of making up their own minds about what is true, right, and beautiful. Governments should not direct police to pay special attention to what people are saying online.Rather than denouncing “Islamophobia” or other alleged phobias, governments should instead enforce the law equally, without bias for or against any religion or political belief. On this front, Canadian governments often fail. 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.A government’s duty is to enforce the Criminal Code equally, without selective enforcement based on religion, ideology, or group identity. Citizens should be free to decide for themselves what is true or false.John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
