Hypocrisy of opposition leaders on Justin Trudeau’s “brownface” and “blackface” photos needs to be called out, media need to have a real debate about racism and hate during election campaign

By Fareed Khan

 
It has been a week since the uproar in the media about the Justin Trudeau “brownface” and “blackface” photos. However, at the height of the media frenzy attention was mostly focused on his "apology tour" and ignored the hypocrisy of some of the opposition party leaders in the present to racism within their own parties, and the larger issues surrounding hate, racism and white supremacy in Canada.

The discussion surrounding racism triggered by the Trudeau photos now needs to go beyond what the prime minister did a generation ago, and look at all the political parties, their leaders, and what are their policy responses to racism, bigotry and hate in Canada today.

The media can help with this by pushing the party leaders to present their policy ideas for how they will respond decisively to the growing tide of hate and white supremacy in Canada – ideologies that resulted in the murder 6 Muslim men and the wounding of 17 others by a white supremacist shooter in a Quebec City mosque in January 2017.

Despite his righteous indignation about the Trudeau photos, Andrew Scheer has no credibility on issues of racism to most minority communities and people of colour, and should not to the majority of Canadians. 

In case people have forgotten, Scheer appointed as his campaign chair Hamish Marshall, a man who was the co-founder of the white supremacist friendly website Rebel Media, and was involved in organizing an anti-Muslim hate group when the M-103 Islamophobia motion was being debated in 2017.  At that time Scheer was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party and did not hesitate to employ Islamophobic narratives in his campaign.  Neither Marshall nor Sheer have ever been held accountable by the media or in the court of public opinion for their outright bigotry.

Scheer's hypocrisy around the Trudeau photos is even more egregious when one recalls that in a June speech he said bigots, extremists and racists aren’t welcome in his party.  This happened the same day that Conservative MP Michael Cooper launched a racist tirade against a Muslim witness at a Justice Committee hearing, by reading into the record portions of the white supremacy laced manifesto of the Christchurch mosque shooter, where 51 people were murdered.  Despite this, Sheer only gave Cooper a slap on the wrist and allowed him to remain as a Conservative MP.

Elizabeth May also needs to clean her own house, and explain her hypocrisy about a brownface incident with one of her candidates.  She has accepted as a Green Party candidate comedic actor Greg Malone, who admitted in an interview with CBC that he has indulged in brownface for some of his performances.  In spite of this history, and contrary to her reaction about the Trudeau photos, May said she is “proud” to have Malone as a Green Party candidate.

May also needs to answer for the nomination of Green candidates in Quebec who may support the provincial government's racist Bill 21 “secularism” law.

This issue was raised during a Muslim community town hall event with May in Toronto on September 6th.  When asked whether she would tell Quebec Green Party candidates to oppose the law her response was that she "does not dictate what issues candidates support or how they have to vote on issues."  Mustafa Farooq, Executive Director of National Council of Canadian Muslims, believes it is “unacceptable” for any political party to have candidates who support the Quebec law, which legal experts say is legalized bigotry against racialized religious minorities. 

Maxime Bernier, leader of the new People’s Party of Canada, is the most transparent when it comes to issues around racism, diversity, and immigration. He seems comfortable wearing his racism and prejudice like a comfortable sweater. At least Canadians know where he stands on these issues unlike Scheer and May, whose reactions to the Trudeau photos would have you believe that there is no racism in their parties.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is the only party leader that comes away from this unsullied. As the first person of colour to lead a national political party in Canada he is the only one who knows intimately what it feels like to be a victim of racism.

Canadian media executives have the power to change the channel from the Trudeau photos, and have a real debate around issues of hate, bigotry and racism in Canada. Only then can Canadians hold each of the party leaders accountable for their actions and policies on matters that have the potential to create social instability and rip apart the fabric of society.

As we get closer to election day, to ignore the broader issues surrounding racism and hate that affects so many would be irresponsible, given the potential of these ideologies to encourage additional violence against communities already feeling fearful and unsafe in the current climate where racism and white supremacy are on the rise. 

© 2019 The View From Here.  © 2019 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

By refusing to use the “fascist” label for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson British and American media are failing democracy in their respective nations

By Fareed Khan

When Adolf Hitler decided to enter Germany’s political arena he was a figure on the fringe of society with lunatic delusions of his place in history.  In the early stages of his political career, no respectable German who had any dealings with him (or his followers) took him seriously.

  

However, within a few short years Hitler and his followers had succeeded in dismantling the government and political institutions that stood in the way of his total reconstruction of the German state – an independent judiciary, the checks and balances of Germany's political structure, the intellectual class, progressive social and political forces, etc.  He took the control and security institutions of a democratic society and transformed them to serve his political agenda, and then merged them into a totalitarian entity that would go on to commit mass-murder on an unimaginable scale, and plunge the world into a war that would result in the death of tens of millions.

In the United States Donald Trump, before his entry into the political arena, was a gaudy and bombastic businessman, with multiple bankruptcies under his belt, a reputation as a womanizer, the front man for an inane reality TV show, and no real world political experience.  When he decided to seek the Republican Party's nomination for president few though he would be successful.  But his entry into the US presidential race shattered America’s political culture as he defeated his Republican rivals for the nomination and eventually went on to become president.  Since winning the presidency, he has proceeded to tear down the institutions, and the checks and balances, that hinder his personal and political ambitions, and in the process unleashed a political ugliness that threatens the democratic foundations of the US.

In the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, a former newspaper reporter fired by The Times for forging quotes in a story he filed, was for a long time derided as a buffoon.  Critics and various journalists labeled him a “clown”, a “racist and bigot”, a “jester”, a “self-absorbed sociopath”, and a “serial liar.”  The public disrepute was so widespread that his own father, a former EU employee, went on a BBC show 10 years ago to defend him and claim, "my son is not a buffoon".  However, like Trump he went from one political success to another, eventually becoming prime minister of the UK.

Neither Trump nor Johnson ever cared about facts, principles, ideals or morals, because they got in the way of what these men wanted to achieve.  However, in their politics, they demonstrated the worst elements of modern fascist ideology.  Some of these included: 
*  protection and enhancement of the power and wealth of corporate / financial elites;
*  support for ethnic supremacy, nativism and ethno-nationalism;

*  disdain for civil liberties and human rights;
*  identifying "enemies" as a unifying cause;
*  contempt for fact-based policy and decision-making; and
*  tolerance of widespread racism, bigotry and misogyny.

RELATED:

*  Trump and the Rhetoric of Fascism

*  Donald Trump's fascist song of love: Total submission to him; widespread racism for all

*  History Holds the Antidote to Trump’s Fascist Politics
*  Donald Trump's attacks on Ilhan Omar show fascism is coming to the US

*  The American version of fascism is alive and prospering

Trump defeated Hillary Clinton – a seasoned (but widely disliked) opponent with a big war chest – and her Democratic Party's internally rigged election machine.  He then went on to reshape the right-wing Republican Party in his image, and stacked his cabinet with individuals bent on dismantling those laws and state institutions that stood in the way of them lining their own pockets, and protecting the interests of the public.

RELATED:

*  ‘Morally empty’ Johnson is courting fascism, says peer

*  'Terrible collaboration’ speech: Johnson flashes his fascist credentials

*  113 MPs accuse Johnson of “fascism” and demand the recall of Parliament

*  Boris Johnson accused of cosying up to 'fascist'

*  Boris Johnson Threatens to Suspend Parliament, Reminiscent of Dissolution

   of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany?

Johnson ousted from the mayorship of London, Ken Livingston – a seasoned and decent mayor and Labour politician.  To gain the leadership of the UK Conservative Party he knifed Prime Minister Teresa May in the back and then gave it a twist to secure the keys to 10 Downing Street.  Since taking power he has proceeded to use every legal executive power vested in the PM's office to hobble the Parliament that - at least in theory - represents "the will of the people".  Furthermore, Johnson appointed to his cabinet unscrupulous individuals who wear their elitism and depravity on their sleeves, and wage war against decency, religious "others" (particularly Muslims), ethnic non-Whites, immigrants and asylum seekers.

Scotland’s highest civil court in a unanimous decision ruled that Johnson acted "unlawfully" by misleading Queen Elizabeth to gain her assent in shutting down the UK Parliament to prevent Brexit opponents from attacking him in the House of Commons in the run up to the Brexit deadline.

Despite all of this, despite the mountains of evidence available, despite the destructive path they have put their nations on, despite the lessons of history from Nazi Germany, gullible voters have made these sociopaths leaders of their respective nations, and Western mass media have yet to label either of them as the fascists they are.

Regrettably for the masses, by the time corporate media and the journalists they employ wake up to the reality in front of them and recognize that both of these men are fascist in their politics, the new "gestapos" in US and UK will be knocking on the doors of their news outlets and paying midnight visits to journalists’ homes, preventing them from publishing their "Adolf Trump" or "Adolf Johnson" features!

What follows will be a repeat of history that will destroy lives and societies, a history that could be avoided if the "guardians of democracy" in the media only open their eyes to the truth before them and warn their publics of the dystopia towards which these two men are leading their nations.

With thanks to Prof. Maung Zarni for the foundation of this commentary.

© 2019 The View From Here.  © 2019 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

A glimpse of nuclear terror and horror on a day that Japan will never forget

By Fareed Khan

On August 6th and August 9th, 1945 the United States committed the single worst act of terrorism in history when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it was justified as an act of war, the overwhelming majority of victims were civilians – men, women, children who were not involved in any way in the Japanese military.

This clip from the 1983 Japanese animated movie “Barefoot Gen” about the Hiroshima attack gives a glimpse into the horror and terror that the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were subjected to when the U.S. dropped its atomic bombs on Japan.

The US justified its use of atomic weapons by claiming it was the only way to end the war with Japan without sustaining many thousands more American casualties. Many U.S. politicians, scientists and military experts came forward before the nuclear attack to state that the war could have been ended quickly without the use of the atomic bombs. They included:

• Admiral William Leahy, chief military advisor to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman; 
• General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; 
• General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific; 
• General Curtis LeMay, future head of the U.S. Air Force; 
• Navy Secretary James Forrestal; 
• former President Herbert Hoover; 
• Albert Einstein; and
• Some of the lead scientists of the Manhattan Project.

In a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombing, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said (in a 1963 interview in Newsweek):

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

The death toll in the days, weeks and months after those nuclear attacks resulted in a conservatively estimated 150,000 dead in Hiroshima and 75,000 dead in Nagasaki. In the decades following the attacks, tens of thousands of the survivors died from various cancers as a result of exposure to radiation.

War is state terrorism on an epic scale but the perpetrators rarely if ever see the inside of a court or are convicted for their crimes. World War 2 was an act of terrorism instigated by Germany but involving most of the nations of the world. The decisions by both the Allies and the Axis powers to target civilians in their military strategy were criminal acts of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, and the 1925 Geneva Conventions.  America's decision to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki with their atomic bombs, where the majority of victims were civilians, were acts of terrorism and unspeakable evil.

History is written by the victors in that the most egregious and criminal acts of the victor nation are rarely if ever brought to light or prosecuted.  The US and its World War 2 allies wrote the history of the atomic attacks on Japan to put the US and the Allies in the most positive light. However, anyone who seeks the truth will discover that nations that create empires build those empires on foundations of evil and the bodies of the innocent.

The reality is that US President Harry Truman, who had the final say on going ahead with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a war criminal and should be remembered as such. And the United States is a terrorist state not just for what they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also for their actions in the 70+ years following World War 2 where they have (directly and indirectly) attacked any nation that dared to oppose their foreign policy, challenged their economic hegemony, or stood in the way of their global ambitions.

Of all the nations on Earth, the US is the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the world. On the one hand it holds itself up as the shining light of democracy, human rights and freedom, and on the other hand it undermines democracy, violently violates human rights, and destroys the freedom of people in other nations whose governments dare to stand up to the US. For modern examples all you have to do is look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela.

It seems that if you are not an ally or friend of the US, the only way to keep them from interfering in your nation's business or violating your sovereignty is to do like North Korea and build your own nuclear weapons – the very weapons that made the U.S. a terrorist state in the first place.

To date the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons against an adversary. As the world marks the 74th anniversary of the 1945 attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let us hope and pray that no other nation ever becomes the second.

© 2019 Fareed Khan.  All rights reserved.

Quebec court’s refusal to grant injunction against “secularism” law during constitutional challenge shows systematic prejudice towards racialized religious minorities in Quebec’s justice system

By Fareed Khan

 
The refusal by a Quebec Superior Court judge to suspend application of certain sections of the Quebec government's "secularism" law (Bill 21), while a constitutional challenge works its way through the courts, shows how ingrained and pervasive the stereotypes at the heart of this issue truly are, and that the judge doesn’t accept the negative impact of the bill on those most affected.  It also shows how deeply rooted the biases against racialized religious minorities are not just in Quebec society broadly, but also within Quebec's justice system, which is supposed to protect the rights of minority communities.  What else would explain the decision to allow the continued enforcement of a law that violates the fundamental Charter guaranteed rights and civil liberties of Quebec's religious minorities, while there are legal challenges to the law underway?

 

 

A Superior Court judge in Montreal announced the decision to refuse the request for a stay of the law made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) on July 18th.  In addition, the CCLA and NCCM had sought an injunction to freeze the two most controversial sections of the law, which included measures to ban the wearing of religious symbols and clothing by public school teachers and other public authority figures in the workplace.

It has been common practice, since the Charter of Rights became law, for laws that may be unconstitutional to be temporarily suspended as the legal challenges worked their way through the justice system and a final decision is rendered, usually by the Supreme Court.  Such actions are generally taken to prevent the application of a law that could be deemed unconstitutional from violating the rights of Canadians during the legal process.  The fact that the judge refused to impose the requested injunction, despite numerous legal precedents across Canada where such action has been taken in previous constitutional challenges, raises the question as to whether Quebec's legal system has been infected by the ideology of what can be termed “radical secularism”.

This refusal by the Quebec courts to impose the requested injunction sends a message that inequality, intolerance, exclusion, segregation and isolation of those who visibly practice their faith in Quebec are completely acceptable.  This is the sort of law that one expects to see under a fascist regime, because it is about targeting, isolating, demonizing and punishing visibly religious minority communities and stripping them of their rights.  The fact that this is happening in Canada is unbelievable.

There have been incidents in Quebec courts in the past where members of religious minorities have been told by judges to remove head coverings worn as an article of faith.  The most recent example involved Quebec court Judge Eliana Marengo who refused to allow a Muslim woman to appear in her court wearing a hijab.  Marengo's case is currently before Quebec's judicial council where a request has been made to remove her from the bench for her alleged misconduct.

While those opposed to Bill 21 may have lost this first skirmish the battle won't stop here, and an appeal of the Quebec court's decision is guaranteed, as is the fact that this will end up at the Supreme Court.  The diversity of Quebec communities that are opposed to this violation of fundamental rights by the Quebec government are determined in their conviction that this unjust law must be withdrawn.  Of course, the fly in the ointment is that while this law works its way up to the Supreme Court there are thousands of Quebecers whose rights will be violated and livelihoods threatened under this legislation.

The CCLA and NCCM are expected to lay out their next steps in response to the Quebec Superior Court's decision in the coming days and weeks before the Quebec Court of Appeal.  As rights activists wait for this there is growing moral support coming from provincial and municipal governments from outside Quebec, as well as from ordinary Canadians.  This is an indication about how much Canadians value defending the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the Quebec government stands alone in its bigoted attitude towards how Canadians practice their faith.

© 2019 The View From Here.  © 2019 Fareed Khan.  All rights reserved.