The Senate committee on national security and defence’s new report, “Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada,” makes 25 recommendations, many of which are agreeable, necessary, and overdue. In particular, its calls for the government to bar foreign sources of funding for radical groups in Canada, to investigate the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations as potential terrorist entities and to publish a “Wanted Terrorist List” of Canadians with terrorism-related warrants, are welcome.
Of special note is the 22nd recommendation, “legislation to protect Canadians who are participating in the public discourse from vexatious litigation.” As the report explains, the threat of libel suits has too often stifled legitimate debate in this country on issues related to terrorism. It would be a democratic and liberal improvement if the various sides in these arguments were obliged to address each other in the court of public opinion, rather than courts of law — still less the notoriously ill-named human rights tribunals.
One recommendation contained in the report is something we cannot support, however. It calls for investigating options “for the training and certification of imams in Canada.” In their explanation, the senators explain that some “foreign-trained imams have been spreading extremist religious ideology and messages that are not in keeping with Canadian values.” Doubtless this is true, but the conclusion that the state should thereby take it upon itself to certify imams is a red line which should not be crossed.
Surely readers of other faiths would not appreciate a government claiming the authority to decide which of their own religious officials would be allowed to serve their community.
Many commentators, including Canadian Muslims, have denounced this recommendation as discriminatory. They’re right. Surely readers of other faiths would not appreciate a government claiming the authority to decide which of their own religious officials would be allowed to serve their community. Indeed, the idea of a state-approved priest, rabbi, or minister would be unthinkable. To single out Muslims for such treatment, therefore, would be grossly unfair.
It is, second, an assault on religious freedom, one of the core principles of Canadian society, enshrined in the Charter of Rights. The state may not dictate what religion we practice, or how, or in what terms. Neither can it decree who may or may not conduct religious services or represent the faith.
Third, the proposal is too broad. It would cast all foreign-born or trained imams under suspicion. Islam is a global religion. Surely the senators did not mean to suggest that being an observant Muslim from another country is itself cause for alarm?
Fourth, such a regime of government oversight would be simply unworkable. Apart from engendering further suspicion among Canadian Muslims that the government has something against them, it would involve federal officials in the thorny business of evaluating whether a given imam’s teachings represented the “true” faith, an issue which has proved difficult enough for full-time Islamic scholars, let alone bureaucratic trainees.
Even if it were to disapprove of a particular imam, the government would scarcely be able to prevent him from preaching, or to insist that he use the government-approved interpretation of Islamic theology in place of his own. And even if somehow it accomplished that, it would do nothing to address the security agencies’ concerns that Canadians are self-radicalizing using materials produced by jihadists all over the world.
There is much in this preliminary report that we like. We look forward to the final version, to come by year’s end. But state certification of Islamic religious officials is a step too far, and we are glad to see the Conservative government has rejected it out of hand.
National Post