2021-09-09

On the 20th anniversary of 9/11 what about remembering the forgotten innocent victims of the “war on terror”?

More than one million innocent Iraqis died as a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq with some estimates putting that number as high as 2.4 million . . . more than 400,000 civilians were killed during the war in Afghanistan . . . estimates put the number of civilian casualties from US drone attacks at 25,835.

By Fareed Khan

All of us who are old enough to remember know where we were on September 11, 2001 when we learned about the terrorist attacks on the United States.  We all remember the horror of what we saw unfold that day on news reports, and our sense of sadness and anger for the innocent lives lost in New York City, Washington DC, and in the Pennsylvania countryside.  If we were Muslim we also remember our sense of fear and foreboding as we waited to find out who was responsible for these criminal acts which ended 2,977 lives that day.

In 2002, on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the US began an annual tradition of holding remembrance ceremonies for the victims of that horrific day at the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.  This year will mark the 20th anniversary of the attacks, and when we in the West watch this year’s remembrance events and the retrospective documentaries and news stories, we must look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why there is so much attention paid to this one terrorist incident, and why the countless innocent men, women and children killed in America’s “war on terror” (the vast majority being Muslim) are ignored?  In addition, we have to ask why 1.6 billion Muslims continue to be vilified by right wing media and right wing politicians in the West, and targeted by Islamophobic national security policies for the actions of a very small minority of people who professed to be Muslim.

Following the attacks the US, Canada and other western governments put in place draconian national security and anti-terrorism laws that violated the civil liberties and human rights of their Muslim citizens.  These Muslims were fortunate in one respect in that they had some recourse to the courts if they felt their rights were being violated.  However, the same was not the case for tens of millions of Muslims outside the US who fell victim to America’s “War on Terror”, who had no recourse to the courts, who lived life in fear of a bomb or missile landing in their midst, or who were dehumanized by members of Western military forces that invaded and occupied their lands.

The US used the 9/11 attacks to justify and launch their global anti-terrorism campaign, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and other military operations targeting potential terrorists located in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other Muslim nations.  American politicians, from President George W. Bush on down, who green-lighted the military response to the attacks seemingly did not give a thought to the innocent civilians who were sure to end up as “collateral damage” at the hands of Western military forced.  Ultimately, American led anti-terrorism efforts resulted in the deaths of well over a million innocent Muslim men, women and children. It is not a stretch to say they all experienced the same sense of terror felt by the victims of the attacks on the US in 2001. 

According to a study released in the United Kingdom in 2008 more than one million Iraqis died as a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq during the five preceding years, with some estimates putting that number as high as 2.4 million as of 2018.  The Costs of War project estimated more than 400,000 civilians were killed during the war in Afghanistan.  Estimates from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Cost of War project combined put the number of casualties from US drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen at 40,201, with at least 25,835 of these deaths being civilians.

In the years since the attacks the 9/11 victims, their families, and those who survived and live with lifelong injuries have seen much sympathy and compassion from American society, and are remembered every year during 9/11 anniversary ceremonies.  The US government created a fund for the 9/11 victims that compensated them or their survivors to the tune of US$7.375 billion. 

However, the innocent people killed as a result of American led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and anti-terrorism operations in other countries, are never mentioned during 9/11 events, or at any other time of the year.  If they received compensation from the US government (which has been rare) it was a pittance compared to what 9/11 victims received.  Their deaths, and the life altering injuries of those who survived American bullets and bombs, have never merited annual remembrance ceremonies or media events.  No political leader has delivered a stirring speech for these forgotten victims who experienced terror as they lay injured or dying, nor would they care to.

So the question must be asked, why do these innocent lives not register on the collective consciousness of Americans the way the lives of 9/11 victims do?  Why do annual remembrance events focus solely on those killed in a terrorist act 20 years ago on American soil and ignore the estimated two million plus innocent people killed, and the hundreds of thousands living with lifelong injuries and psychological trauma, who have experienced the carnage of America’s war on terror?  Why are there official expressions of sympathy and remembrance for the 2,977 victims of one act of terrorist violence while relegating the terrorized victims of US led military operations to the dark recesses of our communal memory? 

In the opinion of many Muslims, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of America’s war on terror during 9/11 remembrance events for the better part of two decades implies that their lives have lesser value in Western eyes than those of American victims of terrorism.  Furthermore, the fact that these victims are primarily Muslim also demonstrates American prejudice towards them, and it highlights America’s sense of exceptionalism.

To give universal meaning to 9/11 remembrance events, and demonstrate humanity for all innocent victims of terrorism, the terror felt by those killed in a wedding party in an Afghanistan village in 2002 when their celebration was bombed by the US must be acknowledged.  We must remember the terrified face of a 12 year old Iraqi boy who lost his limbs, his parents and his entire extended family in 2004 when a US missile struck his home.  We need to recognize the grief of a Pakistani family from the country’s northern tribal region whose 67 year-old matriarch was killed and her two grand-children seriously injured by a US drone.  We have to think about the Afghan family with seven children who were killed last month in Kabul by a missile fired from a drone.  The time has come for us to show our humanity by commemorating the loss and trauma experienced by the tens of thousands of families in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other Muslim countries who have lost loved one to the bullets, bombs and missiles of America and its allies, who have been devastated by the carnage of the war on terror, who mourn their dead in anonymity, without international media attention.

There is no question that annual remembrance events for the victims of the 9/11 attacks are appropriate.  However, if the lives of all innocent victims of terrorism are to be valued equally an annual remembrance needs to happen for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed by US led wars and military operations over the last 20 years who felt terror at the moment of their death, and whose families live with the pain of that loss every day.  Whether it happens on September 11th or another day is immaterial. Either way, it is the right thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do, and it is the humane thing to do.

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

2021-09-07

Erin O’Toole’s equivocating on gun control makes Canadians trust him less, and could be the Conservatives Party’s “Achilles heel”

By Fareed Khan

Surprisingly, gun control has become a major issue in the federal election, an issue where a majority of Canadians see the Conservatives as deficient and which may be an Achilles heel for the party.  Blame for shining a light on this issue can be laid at the feet of Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole who had refused to directly answer reporters' questions about his stance on which types of weapons he would ban as prime minister.


After days of equivocating and refusing to answer questions on whether he would maintain the ban on semi-automatic weapons put in place by Justin Trudeau’s government in 2020 following the mass shooting in Nova Scotia O’Toole seemed to reverse his position
at a media conference in Vancouver on September 5th where he said he would maintain the Liberal ban on assault style weapons.

While some are optimistic about the reversal in O’Toole’s position most gun control advocates are cynical about the change of heart because it is yet another shift in his policy on gun controls.  When running for the leadership of the Conservative Party he promised Canada's gun lobby that he would weaken gun controls.  In the Conservative Party's campaign platform he promises to repeal Bill C-71, legislation which overhauled the process of background checks for gun purchasers, put in place new record-keeping requirements for retailers, and further restricted transporting of firearms.  In addition, the Conservative platform commits to reviewing the Liberals' May 2020 Order in Council which banned semi-automatic assault-style rifles which have been used in many mass shootings in the US and several mass shootings in Canada.

By saying one thing to the Canadian gun lobby, refusing to directly answer questions by reporters about the 2020 gun ban over the past week, and now shifting his position again, O'Toole has not only given life to this issue at a critical moment in election campaign, he also appears to be making up policy on the fly while at the same time looking less trustworthy on an issue that is important to a 82% of Canadians.

O’Toole’s shifting position on gun control is also being watched closely by Canadian Muslims, who have a direct interest in this issue.  The mass murder of six Muslims by a white supremacist at the Quebec City mosque in January 2017 was committed with legally owned semi-automatic weapons of the type that are included in the 2020 ban, and following the shooting the Muslim community called for a ban on assault style weapons.  Consequently, O’Toole’s vacillating on the issue of gun restrictions is of major concern to Canadian Muslims and will impact how they will vote in the many urban ridings where they are concentrated.

O’Toole’s seemingly cozy relationship with the Canadian gun lobby has also caught the attention of Canadians.  His close ties to the National Firearms Association (NFA), and the fact that his campaign manager use to work for them, is seen as deeply troubling.  The NFA has deep connections with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the US, a group that is seen as being responsible for the gun carnage seen across America, enabled by their forceful opposition to sensible gun controls.

The Conservatives have a long history of being hostile to any efforts to impose strict gun controls and reduce ownership of guns by Canadians.  It was the Conservatives under Stephen Harper that shut down Canada’s long gun registry over the opposition of a majority of Canadians, Canada’s police chiefs, and a majority of Canadian premiers.  In addition, the issue of gun controls has played heavily in the last two Conservative Party leadership contests.

It is up to Canadians to get the truth from O'Toole and hold him and his party to any commitments he makes about maintaining Canada's strong gun control policies.  Because if Canadian gun lobbyists had their way Canada would be heading down the same road that the US is on when it comes to gun controls, and Canadians would be subjected to the same types of gun violence that occurs every day across America.  It is something that a majority of Canadians are opposed to, and an issue on which Canadians deserve clear answers from a party leader wanting to become the next prime minister.

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Jury is out on Justin Trudeau’s promise to fight racism contained in Liberal campaign platform

By Fareed Khan

This past week the Liberals became the last of the three major parties to release their policy platform for the federal election taking place on September 20th.  Like those of the Conservatives and the NDP the Liberal document is filled with scores of promises touching every area of public policy, including proposals on fighting the rising tide of racism across the country.  However, given the unimpressive record of Justin Trudeau's government on addressing issues of hate, bigotry and racism during their six years in office Canadian voters, and particularly voters from racialized communities, need to take the Liberal proposals with a grain of salt. 

Since being elected in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals have governed during a time that has seen an unprecedented rise in white supremacy, right wing extremism, violent racism, hate crimes, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and anti-Asian racism.

During Justin Trudeau's tenure as prime minister nine Muslims have been killed in hate motivated attacks – six in a Quebec City mosque in January 2017, one just outside a Toronto mosque in September 2020, and four members of a Muslim family out for an evening stroll in London, Ontario in June 2021.  Also, since the start of the pandemic anti-Asian hate crimes have surged with, Vancouver police reporting a 717% rise in hate crimes targeting Asians.

The seriousness of the hate crime problem in Canada was revealed in the General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada which reveled that there were an estimated 223,000 self-reported hate crimes in Canada in 2019, with the highest proportion in Ontario (33%), Quebec (28%), and Alberta (14%).  In the same period, law enforcement reported 1,951 hate crimes, meaning that less than 1% of perceived hate crimes in 2019 were captured in police-reported statistics.  Hate crimes in 2017 were of particular note because they reached an all-time high, increasing by 47% according to Statistics Canada numbers, with anti-Muslim hate crimes rising by 151%.

The response of the federal government to the rising tide of hate has been largely reactive and inadequate according to anti-racism activist groups.  In essence the message being sent to the Trudeau government by those calling for more action on racism is that while "thoughts and prayers" are welcome, in the end words and political platitudes are not enough (and never have been enough) to address the problem.  Given past failures by the Trudeau government to adequately address the rise in hate and issues of systemic and institutional racism (which Canadians see as a pervasive problem), it would be safe to say that the jury is out on the Liberal Party’s anti-racism proposals until Canadians see them become reality.

Anti-hate activists are also critical of Trudeau's slow response to calls for action in the wake of anti-racism protests that erupted across Canada following the murder of Minneapolis resident George Floyd by a white police officer in May 2020.  Only after tens of thousands of Canadians took to the streets in anti-racism protests did the government decide to make fighting racism a priority by putting it in their September 2020 Throne Speech

Quebec’s Bill 21 “secularism” law is also an issue high on the agenda for anti-hate activists.  The law, which is being challenged by several human rights and civil liberties groups in Quebec courts, is seen as state-sanctioned bigotry and intentionally violates the freedom of religion provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The law is mainly targeted at members of the Muslim, Sikh and Jewish communities in Quebec , and yet Justin Trudeau, as well as Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, have all said they will not take action against it.  So why should Canadians trust the Liberals, Conservatives or NDP to stand up for human rights when they are refusing to defend the fundamental human rights of Canadians being violated by a government in Canada?

The Liberal platform talks about protecting and defending human rights, and making Canada’s commitment to human rights a “core strategic priority” but the Trudeau government’s record in defending human rights at home and abroad contradicts this premise.  It seems the Liberal policy is to defend human rights only when it is advantageous politically and economically.

If Canadians want to see real action on fighting hate, addressing systemic racism and standing up for human rights, it is up to them to take to the streets, storm the barricades, and show the politicians that they will not be silent on these issues and they will not go away until the promises made are fulfilled.  Unless they take this approch the promises made in the campaign platforms of the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP will be like many promises made in the past, intended to gain voter support and then forgotten after the election.

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

2021-09-03

What is “reprehensible” is BQ leader Yves Francois-Blanchet's support for officially sanctioned hate and bigotry by the Quebec government

By Fareed Khan

During a media conference in Sherbrooke, Quebec on August 31st Bloc Quebecois leader Yves Francois- Blanchet said it was “reprehensible” that Quebec Muslims and civil rights organizations were continuing with their constitutional challenges to Quebec’s Bill 21 “secularism” law, which primarily targets religiously observant Muslims, Sikhs and Jews, and prohibits them from working as teachers, police officers, judges and other jobs that are publicly funded if they wear items or clothing that identifies their faith.  However, what is truly reprehensible is Blanchet’s support for Quebec’s ‘secularism’ law, legislation that is de facto state-sanctioned hate and bigotry against racialized religious minorities in that province.

Politicians in overtly racist and fascist states frequently use such language to describe the actions of human rights and democracy activists who oppose their governments.  However, to hear it from a Canadian politician who claims to have a “progressive” political view is galling because it demonstrates Blanchet's support for racist and ethno-nationalist politics in Quebec, something that is very unsettling.  History has shown what happens when such politicians and their brand of politics are left unchallenged, and are allowed to promote ideas that pour gasoline on the embers of racist ideologies.

By condemning those who are challenging the province’s secularism law in court Blanchet was essentially saying “sit down and shut up” to people whose rights are being trampled by the Quebec government.

Under Canadian law it is entirely legal for Canadians to challenge what they consider are unjust laws in the courts if they feel their rights are being infringed.  By saying what he did Blanchet demonstrated a total disrespect for the legal rights of Canadians in Quebec, and displayed the attitude of a politician who seems to believe in approaches used by authoritarian regimes against their critics.  It also demonstrates a level of hypocrisy that is unbelievable considering that Francophone Quebecers have also launched legal challenges to federal laws they opposed to stand up for their rights.  Blanchet’s approach on this issue seems to be “do as we say not as we do”.

Quebec's secularism law has been a very controversial issue since it was first proposed by the right wing government of Quebec Premier Francois Legault.  From its inception it was intended to violate the rights of Quebec's minority religious communities under the guise of defending secularism.  The Legault government knew it would violate fundamental religious rights guaranteed under Section 2a of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it invoked the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter in the legislation, which allows governments to override Charter guaranteed rights, with little fear that it would be overturned by the courts.

Following a year in which Canadians came out in the tens of thousands to speak out in support of racial justice it is unbelievable that federalist party leaders are silent on the issue of Quebec’s racist secularism law.   If Justin Trudeau, Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh are sincere about supporting the fight against hate, bigotry and racism they must stand strongly against the ethno-nationalism that is being promoted by the Quebec government through its secularism law, and supported at the federal level by Blanchet and his party.

Quebec’s secularism law is now more than two years old and has upended the lives of many Quebec families.  Many individuals from racialized communities in Quebec have been forced to leave that province to pursue their professions in the face of the Bill 21 law.  It is intolerable that all federalist party leaders have not come together to unequivocally stand against the law, and support legal challenges to defend the rights of Canadians under the Charter.  They have sacrificed the human rights of certain religious communities in Quebec on the altar of political expediency.

The lack of action by Trudeau, O’Toole and Singh on Bill 21 is not only wrong it is unacceptable and makes all federalist leaders untrustworthy when they claim to be defenders of human rights and democratic freedoms.  Because if they cannot defend the human rights of people in Quebec affected by its secularism law then how can they be trusted to defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians in other areas, or of persecuted minorities overseas?  Canadians deserve better than political leaders who do not have a backbone on issues of fundamental justice.  Unfortunately, in this election there are none that can provide the type of strength of conviction that all Canadians deserve.

© 2021 The View From Here.  © 2021 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.