Touchy, touchy, touchy.

Quebec isn’t the only place in Canada to suffer from Islamophobia. We see its ugly face right here in Toronto. But the level of denial in Quebec is something special.

Hicham Tiflati, an Islamic law and religious studies scholar, has just been forced to part company with Montreal’s Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence, where he was a researcher. The centre aims to prevent extremism, to help family and friends of those who become radicalized, and to wean people away from it.

Tiflati’s problem? He co-authored an article for the Star’s opinion page last week with University of Waterloo academic Amarnath Amarasingam that had the temerity to suggest Quebec has a problem with Islamophobia.

The article cited the struggle of a young Muslim woman in Montreal to overcome hostility and prejudice — a man spat in her face after telling her to go back to where she came from. It noted in passing that the province is “often openly hostile” to the Muslim identity in a “unique and quite worrisome” manner.

That will hardly shock anyone who has followed Quebec’s sulphurous identity wars in recent years, in which crucifixes, hijabs, Jewish skullcaps and Sikh turbans have become weapons of opportunity. The town of Hérouxville became notorious for setting “standards” for newcomers. Muslim women were not to veil their faces, except at Halloween. And there was to be no public stoning of women, burning them alive or hurling acid at them. “We’re telling people who we are,” one councillor explained.

Things got so bad that the premier asked academics Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor to look into the problem. After hearing from thousands of Quebecers, they issued a massive report that lauded Quebecers, rightly, for “a wealth of good faith and willingness” to accommodate minorities. But they also noted that the 70 per cent French-speaking majority is “apparently unsure of itself and subject to outbursts of temper” toward its 1.5-per-cent Muslim minority, among others. As Bouchard put it, francophones are “a majority that fears its minorities. “We have to change that.”

That’s basically what the article said. So why cut Tiflati adrift?

Changing attitudes begins by encouraging debate and discussion, as the commission did, not by shunning academics who tell it like it is. It’s absurd to censure an academic who is making a positive contribution — trying to deradicalize young people — for an article pointing out the obvious: that hostility alienates people and can radicalize some.

However, change doesn’t come easily. The article was seen as “Quebec bashing” in some circles. The director of the centre was quoted as calling it “inappropriate and exaggerated.” And Tiflati was suddenly a pariah. The answer to “Quebec-bashing,” apparently, is to soft-pedal the problem. But this denial isn’t helpful. It certainly won’t foster the change Bouchard and Taylor urged.

It’s the centre’s reaction that is exaggerated and inappropriate.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: