Canadian parliamentarians this month are studying “Islamophobia” and “other forms of discrimination and racism.” The study flows from the passage of Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s controversial M-103 resolution, which decries Islamophobia.

However, the resolution fails to define Islamophobia. Nor does it specifically mention any other forms of discrimination, such as anti-Semitism.

Despite what the extreme left in this country would have Canadians believe, anti-Semitism remains the most pervasive and pernicious form of hatred in Canada. The anti-Semitic BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, which seeks to cripple and ultimately destroy the Jewish state of Israel, has spread across Canadian university campuses, intimidating many Jewish students.

Nevertheless, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is holding forth on Islamophobia, taking testimony from various witnesses. What the Trudeau government will do with the committee’s recommendations is anybody’s guess. However, it is possible that the Liberals could conceivably put forward legislation that grants Islam some form of protection from criticism, satire or ridicule — protections that no other religion in Canada enjoys.

Defamation of religion

For years, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been actively working together at the United Nations to internationalize their odious blasphemy laws, which are used to stifle criticism of Islam. In addition, their blasphemy laws are used to persecute Christians, minority sect Muslims, writers, bloggers and thinkers.

Canada and the United States have always voted against so-called defamation of religion resolutions at the UN. But Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continue to press the community of nations to adopt Islamic-inspired limits on freedom of expression and speech.

As public debate over M-103 raged, Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah, whose life has been threatened by Islamists in India, took to Twitter on Feb. 18 to pose a rhetorical question: “Why did Iqra Khalid MP meet the Pakistani High Commissioner to Canada before she tabled motion #M103 on Islamophobia?”

In some respects, many in the Canadian media already adhere to unacceptable limits placed upon the freedoms of speech and expression. The chilling effect of Islamist violence and political correctness is real.

For example, a decade ago, in the wake of a Danish newspaper’s publication of satirical cartoons that depicted Mohammad, the Muslim prophet, many Muslims took to the streets in different parts of the world to riot, causing death and destruction. Canadian media outlets were so intimidated by the violent displays that they refused to even show readers or viewers what all the fuss was about — even though the cartoons were the biggest news story in the world.

Only Ezra Levant’s Western Standard dared to publish the cartoons — for which he was dragged before a human rights body to defend his right to publish cartoons that some found offensive.

The massacre at the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and the brutal murders of secular bloggers in Bangladesh and in other Muslim-majority countries demonstrate how far Islamists are willing to go to limit free speech and punish those who criticize Islam.

Last month, Mashal Khan, a journalism student at Pakistan’s Abdul Wali Khan University in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, was lynched by a mob of Islamists at that supposed institution of higher learning. Why did they murder him? Another student had accused the reportedly secular Khan of blasphemy.

Oppose bigotry

Let us be clear: there is no place for anti-Muslim bigotry, discrimination or persecution in Canada. Freedom of religion is a human right and should always be protected. And everyone has the right to practise their religion — as long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of any other individual.

However, freedom of religion does not mean that religion is immune to analysis, criticism or satire. All religions, including Islam, should be subject to vigorous discussion. And if critics, writers, artists, poets or commentators choose to ridicule or satirize a religion or belief — so be it.

Of course, Muslims should also take a hard look at their own communities and their own bigotry toward other Muslims. What do you call it when Sunni Muslims persecute Shia Muslims, or vice versa? What do you call it when Sunnis and Shias persecute Ahmadi Muslims? What do you call it when a family from Afghanistan murders four female family members near Kingston because the victims wanted nothing more than to live as ordinary Canadian citizens?

Citizenship

Instead of studying Islamophobia, Parliament should examine what it means to be Canadian in the age of multiculturalism, mass migration and religious diversity. In fact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should study the writings of his late father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the principal architect of Canada’s multiculturalism policy.

The late prime minister was an erudite scholar who wrote extensively about the nation-state, multiculturalism and the notion of citizenship. The Essential Trudeau, edited by Ron Graham, is a collection of PET’s writings on various issues and political philosophy. And the 1998 book includes updated versions of articles Trudeau wrote in the 1960s.

Pierre Trudeau correctly drew a clear distinction between the sociological and political definitions of nation. In the sociological sense, the nation is an ethnic group, tribe or linguistic group. He cited French-Canadians as an example of a nation in the sociological sense.

In the political sense, Trudeau asserted that the nation was country or a people. For example, Switzerland is a nation and the Swiss are a people, even though they speak different languages.

Pierre Trudeau objected to mixing the nation in the political sense with the nation in the sociological sense. “The state must govern for the good of all the people within its boundaries,” he wrote. If the state starts to favour one ethnic, language or religious group, Trudeau believed that the nation-state would slide “from patriotic nationalism to ethnic nationalism.”

Trudeau, who was a law professor before entering politics, believed that “a state was better if it included many ethnic groups and governed for them all, not as a group but as individuals.” That promise formed the basis of his “belief in federalism and why the Charter of Rights insisted on the equality of individuals.” To avoid the “strident and chauvinistic” tone of nationalism, Trudeau believed “the liberal will strengthen the sense of nationhood by encouraging the growth of the national individual, and of the industries and cultural institutions through which he most effectively expresses himself.”

Nationhood is little more than a state of mind, Pierre Trudeau wrote. “The will of the people is in constant danger of dividing up — unless it is transformed into lasting consensus.” And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should heed his father’s warning.

Forging a national consensus, asserted the elder Trudeau, is a “mysterious process” that must take into account history, language and other factors. “A consensus can be said to exist when no group within the nation feels that its vital interests and particular characteristics could be better preserved by withdrawing from the nation than by remaining within,” he argued. And he maintained that developing a national consensus is vital to national unity.

Multiculturalism

According to Pierre Trudeau, “the modern state is a pluralistic society whose citizens must come together on the basis of their citizenship.” And he believed that citizens must come together as individuals “with equal rights and mutual tolerance — not on the basis of their ethnicity or background or religion.”

If people cleave to their ethnicity or religion — and fail to come together as equal citizens — the modern pluralistic society becomes “a self-defeating principle,” he declared. In other words, newcomers must integrate into Canadian society as individuals and adopt Canadian civic values.

Long before he served as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff was a brilliant scholar, writing eloquent and penetrating books about human rights and ethnic nationalism. And he has never shied away from tough questions, including how to reconcile conflicting human rights demands.

“We cannot speak of rights as trumps,” Ignatieff wrote in his 2001 book Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. “When political demands are turned into rights claims, there is a real risk that the issue at stake will become irreconcilable, since to call a claim a right is to call it nonnegotiable, at least in popular parlance,” he wrote.

According to Ignatieff, “compromise is not facilitated by the use of rights claim language.” And as Pierre Trudeau noted, consensus is vital to the notion of nationhood.

Ignatieff contends that discussions about rights create a common framework that helps citizens in conflict to “deliberate together.” From Ignatieff’s perspective, discussions about rights always require compromises, “sometimes painful compromises.”

The way forward

Political correctness and the timidity of the political class in promoting a national identity threaten Canadian nationhood. The policy of multiculturalism must serve the national consensus and reinforce civic values.

However, if every group turns the national discourse into a demand for rights, the nation will be ripped apart by competing claims that pit various ethnic groups and faith communities against each other. Meanwhile, Canadians with deep roots in this country could come to resent newcomers who demand that Canada change its ways and come to resemble some foreign society.

Both the left and the right have to stop yelling at one another and calling each other names. Now is the time for a rational, mature discussion of multiculturalism and citizenship.

To that end, Canadian citizenship should be based on civil values, which include liberal democracy, equality of the sexes, the freedoms of expression and speech, tolerance, and national service.

Follow Geoffrey P. Johnston on Twitter @GeoffyPJohnston.