Chapter 1—Introduction

Islamophobia has wreaked devastating consequences in Canada in recent years. Now, communities still mourning the loss of loved ones following the mass shooting at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, and the pickup truck attack against a Muslim family in London, Ontario in 2021, are facing a new wave of hateful rhetoric and violence. During this study, several witnesses noted the increase in Islamophobic incidents over the past year.[1] Women wearing the hijab are being harassed, assaulted, and spat on in public. Mosques are being threatened and vandalized. Canadian Muslims are being blamed for acts of terrorism abroad; some are losing their jobs due to their religious and political beliefs.

This new wave of Islamophobia has emerged within a broader context of rising hate towards several minority groups, set against the backdrop of resurgent geopolitical tensions, the growing force of extremism online, and other polarizing forces. The common threads linking these bigotries cannot be ignored. And yet, Islamophobia in Canada today is a distinct and especially virulent form of hate—one that calls for its own, carefully tailored response.

On 21 March 2024, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (the committee) adopted a motion to undertake two independent studies “in view of the alarming escalation of antisemitism and Islamophobia in Canada.”^[2]

In June 2024, the committee held three meetings on the issue of Islamophobia, during which it heard from 19 witnesses, including victims of Islamophobic attacks, Muslim youth, mosque leaders, civil society organizations, and university professors.^[3] The committee also received over 40 written submissions. The committee wishes to express its gratitude to all those who participated in the study, and to commend, in particular, the courage shown by those who appeared before the committee to share their own lived experiences of Islamophobic violence and hate.

According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 census, Canadians who identify as Muslim count 1,775,715, representing 4.9 % of the Canadian population.^[4]

Chapter 2—What We Heard

2.1   Recent Manifestations of Islamophobia

The committee heard deeply disturbing evidence detailing recent experiences of Islamophobia and related forms of discrimination in Canada. The impacts felt by the victims, their families and their communities are palpable in the evidence. While a comprehensive review of such incidents is beyond the scope of the report, the committee feels that hearing the experiences of those most directly affected by Islamophobia is critical to grasping the full extent of the problem. What follows, therefore, is a description of some particularly concerning examples of Islamophobia heard throughout the study.

2.1.1   Physical Violence, Threats, Harassment and Vandalism

The recent history of Islamophobia in Canada has been marked by two horrific acts of deadly violence: the mass shooting that killed six worshippers and injured many more at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, and the pickup truck attack on the visibly Muslim Afzaal family in London, Ontario in 2021 that killed four people and left a nine-year old boy orphaned. In her testimony, Amira Elghawaby, Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, stated that “Canada holds the devastating and regrettable distinction of having the most targeted murders of Muslims of any G7 country. Quite simply, being Muslim in Canada is not as safe as it should be.”^[5]

The committee heard deeply moving testimony from those affected by these tragedies. Ali Islam, a close relative of the Afzaal family, described how his own children lost their sense of safety and belonging following the 2021 attack. “The innocence of all the children in my family vanished, especially that of my nine-year-old great-nephew, now an orphan,” he told the committee. “For my wife, the effect of the violent expression of Islamophobia is that, in her mind, she now says a final goodbye whenever the children and I walk out the door every single day.”^[6]

Maryam Al-Sabawi of the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia, a close friend of 15‑year old Yumna Afzaal, who was killed in the attack, testified:

Sleepless nights, fear of trucks and an inability to go for walks have caused me to reflect on what was actually taken from us on June 6, 2021. We didn't just lose Yumna and her beautiful family. We also lost our sense of belonging, our sense of community, our sense of safety and our sense of self. We even lost our innocence. […] All of it was taken because of hate that was left unchecked, hate that was given endless opportunities to grow and hate that was carefully incubated through the silence of others.^[7]

Boufeldja Benabdallah, Co-Founder and Spokesperson, Centre culturel islamique de Québec, described the many Islamophobic threats and incidents leading up to the 2017 shooting at his mosque, including threatening and hateful messages sent to the mosque, swastikas graffitied on the walls, a pig's head and feces left at the door, and hateful rhetoric on the radio and in leaflets portraying Muslims as foreign agitators. He testified that it was “a small step” from these incidents to the tragedy of 29 January 2017, when “we lost six parents, six fathers, who left six widows and 17 young children, and 45 people suffered psychological trauma, including one who is still in a wheelchair after being hit by six bullets, one of which is still in her neck.”^[8]

Stephen Brown, Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), described how the shooting continues to affect mosque attendance and worshippers: “I remember talking to people who still can't go to pray at the mosque because every time the door is behind them, and it's impossible for them to focus on praying because they're terrified that somebody's going to come in the back door.”^[9]

While these incidents represent the most extreme manifestations of Islamophobia in Canada, they are not the only examples of hate-motivated violence targeting Muslim communities. As the evidence demonstrates, Muslim individuals, families and institutions are still too often confronted with physical violence, threats, harassment and vandalism rooted in Islamophobic, anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian sentiments.

For example, Shaffni Nalir, General Manager, Toronto Islamic Centre and Community Services, described repeated Islamophobic incidents targeting his mosque in recent years, including an email threatening to “[k]ill every muzzie” and to “do a Christchurch all over again” which forced the mosque to close its doors for four weeks. He recounted how, on 18 November 2023, these “threats to our mosque turned into action”^[10] when congregants, who had heard loud bangs on the windows and door, rushed outside,

only to be met with an individual on a bike hurling racist threats at us, saying, “You effing Arabs. You effing Muslims. We're going to finish you all.” Then this individual spat several times in our direction and rode off.

[…] Shortly after, this individual returned and threw a large rock at a group of congregants who were socializing in front of the mosque. Thankfully, he narrowly missed the elderly caretaker of the mosque by a few inches. He then yelled, “You're all dead” and sped off once again.^[11]

Mr. Nalir explained that he has since had difficulty focusing on his prayer,

because I'm always thinking about who will walk in and how I will respond to protect my community members. […] This individual robbed our community of its sense of safety at our mosque, which is the foundation of our community.^[12]

As the committee heard, the danger has only intensified since the eruption of the war in the Middle East on 7 October 2023 (October 7). For example, Ms. Elghawaby and Dr. Nadia Hasan, Assistant Professor, School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies, York University, noted that, just days before the conclusion of this study, the home of a Muslim family in London, Ontario was deliberately set on fire.^[13] The home was displaying lawn signs supporting the victims of the 2021 truck attack and expressing solidarity for Palestinian human rights.

Several participants also underscored the increasing frequency of direct attacks on Muslim individuals, particularly women who wear head coverings and are thus visibly Muslim.^[14] According to Dr. Hasan, “[t]hese attacks range from Muslim women having their hijab ripped off to being physically assaulted—punched in the head, punched in the stomach—and Muslim women being spat on, a wildly common phenomenon since last fall.”^[15]

Dr. Jasmin Zine, Professor, Sociology and Muslim Studies Option, Wilfrid Laurier University, pointed to a news report of female Muslim students at Western University being physically assaulted, spat on, and told they should be “raped and killed.”^[16] Mr. Brown told the committee about several recent incidents in which hijab-wearing women, including one who was peacefully protesting, were the targets of aggression. “These sorts of incidents are happening with alarming frequency in Canadian streets. […] For some reason, people feel that it's okay to accost Muslim women in the street who are wearing a hijab,” he stated.^[17]

Fauzia Mazhar, Executive Director, Coalition of Muslim Women of Kitchener-Waterloo, and Dr. Zine testified that Muslim students have also been heavily targeted by hate-motivated attacks, especially those who have advocated for the Palestinian cause in the wake of October 7.^[18] Dareen Shilbayeh of the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia told the committee:

Being a student on campus and being a passerby and community member in London, Ontario, I have seen an incredible spike in confidence in carrying out hate crimes or verbal assaults. I have been a victim. Almost everyone I love who is visibly Muslim has been a victim of verbal assaults and physical harassment.^[19]

Student Omar Babili recounted jumping out of the way of a vehicle accelerating towards him while protesting in Victoria, British Columbia. The driver had been arguing with another protestor before turning on him.^[20] “The trauma of that day has been etched into my mind. I experience sudden flashbacks of what happened, and I cannot help but live in constant fear,” he told the committee. “Every time I leave my house, I am gripped by anxiety wondering if this could happen to me again or to someone else just because they are exercising their freedom of speech.”^[21]

Such attacks have not been limited to university students. Indeed, one of the most heart-wrenching examples of hate-motivated violence involved a young Muslim boy named Hamza enrolled in a special needs program at a high school near Toronto. As Mr. Brown recounted,

Hamza was violently attacked by a group of students who were calling him “Hamas” instead of Hamza, among other racist and Islamophobic slurs.

That vicious attack left Hamza bloodied with a fractured nose. He was having difficulty breathing, among other health issues, but the school failed to call an ambulance or respond to Hamza's medical and other needs.^[22]

2.1.2   Expressions of Hate and Misinformation

The increase in physical violence and threats rooted in Islamophobic, anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian sentiments has not occurred in a vacuum. As several witnesses observed, such acts are the natural consequence of a climate in which hateful rhetoric is left unchecked.

Some of the comments sent to volunteers organizing a vigil for the Afzaal family in London, relayed by Dr. Islam, are illustrative:

“Islamophobia is not a thing.” “When will the City of London stop sucking Islamic ****?” “Stop pandering to a people who would sooner slit your throat than help you.” “People like you are the problem.” “What have ‘muslims’ done for us, besides nothing?” “No sympathy.” “Stop terrorizing Jewish folks in Toronto.“ “Piss on Islam.” “You all will be held accountable. We are coming for all of you.” “Keep London Pure.”^[23]

Dr. Zine told the committee that such hateful rhetoric is promoted and amplified by a coordinated “Islamophobia industry.”^[24]

What is unique about Islamophobia, particularly in Canada and the United States […] is the way that Islamophobia is networked and purveyed through various groups in this country. White nationalists, far-right media, Islamophobia influencers, Muslim dissidents, Hindutva activists, pro-Israel fringe-right groups, conservative think tanks and security experts all work together in concerted ways to promote demonizing anti-Muslim campaigns.^[25]

According to Dr. Zine, approximately $1.5 billion has been circulated through 39 anti-Muslim organizations in the United States whose mandate is to promote Islamophobic propaganda. While more research is needed to determine the applicable figures in Canada, Dr. Zine told the committee that she has documented similar associations and networks in this country.^[26] She also mentioned that the Israeli government has been “accused in published reports of involvement in an operation aimed at reducing support for Palestinians in Canada.”^[27]

2.1.2.1  Online Hate

The committee heard that Islamophobic rhetoric is increasingly being spread online. As Dr. Islam remarked: “The way that hatred was spread in the past is very different from the way it is now. […] There's a way of getting radicalized and falling into echo chambers and filter bubble[s]. That happens online.”^[28]

The committee heard disturbing evidence detailing the role of social media platforms and other technology companies in the current proliferation of online hate. Imran Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an organization devoted to researching disinformation and hate speech on social media, was emphatic on this point:

Our research has shown time and time again that social media platforms and search engines are irresponsible managers of our digital information ecosystem, because their business models have systemic problems that affect the prevalence of Islamophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ+ and other forms of identity-based hate.^[29]

Mr. Ahmed described four key findings of the CCDH’s research. First, in their quest to maximize attention and engagement, social media algorithms end up promoting Islamophobia and other forms of hate.^[30] Furthermore, because the algorithms prioritize engagement of any kind, they not only feed those with hateful inclinations, but also victims of hate and the general public.^[31]

Second, online hate is fueled by financial incentives.^[32] The CCDH found that social media accounts that began posting antisemitic or Islamophobic content after 7 October 2023 grew four times faster than before the attack.^[33] As Mr. Ahmed explained, “[t]his quantified how bad actors are able to exploit conflict to grow their following, disseminate hateful messages and potentially profit from this hate.”^[34] Dr. Zine affirmed that profit is an important driver for many “Islamophobia influencers,” in addition to political objectives.^[35]

Third, social media companies often fail to enforce their own rules on hateful content even when it is reported. Indeed, the CCDH found that Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube failed to act on 89% of the Islamophobic posts they reported, including hashtags such as “#deathtoislam, #islamiscancer and #raghead” which received over a million responses.^[36]

Fourth, the research found that “online hate has off-line consequences.”^[37] As Mr. Ahmed explained, the dominance of social media as a form of communication means that it has a “resocializing effect on the off-line world,” the result of which is “a growing normalization of hateful ideas and hate speech itself.”^[38] Online hate has thus been recognized as a factor in hate-motivated attacks across the globe, “from Christchurch to Pittsburgh.”^[39]

Both Mr. Ahmed and Dr. Zine invoked the “illusory truth effect” to explain the power of the Islamophobic rhetoric circulating today.^[40] As Mr. Ahmed explained:

If we see something frequently, we think it's more likely to be true. That's part of the reason that when we are being bombarded with hate content, we end up concluding there can be no smoke without fire, and we start to normalize hateful attitudes, conspiracy theories and lies.^[41]

According to Dr. Zine and Dr. Islam, the power of these discourses is also linked to the current “post-truth context,”^[42] in which “any idea that links to an emotion or is in a message that evokes fear, anger or a sense of injustice will trump any communication that tries to be factual.”^[43]

There is no doubt that education, especially in the early years, plays an important role in addressing these challenges. Hence Secure Canada’s suggestion to “[i]nvest in civic education initiatives across schools and communities that teach critical thinking, digital literacy, and resilience against all forms of hatred and extremism, including anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism, and other forms of bigotry.”^[44]

Still, education is only one piece of the puzzle. As Mr. Ahmed noted, this “doesn’t change the fact that [people] are being bombarded.”^[45] He called for legislative measures to promote greater transparency with respect to social media algorithms, content enforcement policies and advertising, and to hold social media companies accountable for the harms they cause, citing the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act as helpful models in this regard.^[46]

Dr. Islam expressed support for Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act), which is currently before the House of Commons, as a means to address online hate. “To my general knowledge, this is a very positive development and it's overdue,” he opined.^[47] Samya Hasan, Executive Director, Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, described the bill as “welcome legislation” for those doing anti-hate work and for many Muslim communities, but also stressed the need for strong oversight measures to avoid the overcriminalization of Muslims and other racialized groups.^[48] As Husein Panju, Chair, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association (CMLA) cautioned:

Equity-seeking groups like ours are often the victims and the targets of hate speech, but there also needs to be some more consultation to ensure that any such measures do not overly censor legitimate, non-hateful speech from equity-seeking groups as well.^[49]

2.1.3   Systemic Islamophobia

While the threat of extremist actors peddling hate is clear, the committee was reminded that Islamophobia can also be more insidious, systemically shaping government policies and actions. As stated by the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council (CMPAC):

Muslims and Palestinians frequently encounter systemic discrimination across crucial sectors such as employment, education, housing, and law enforcement. These challenges are compounded by policies that disproportionately impact these communities, exposing deep-rooted societal inequities that demand urgent attention from policymakers.^[50]

Canada’s national security policies, including its anti-terror financing regime, were highlighted as particularly problematic. Both the CMPAC and Dr. Anver M. Emon, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Islamic Legal History and Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, University of Toronto, described how structural Islamophobia in this area has influenced the auditing of Muslim charities by the Canada Revenue Agency.^[51] As Dr. Zine explained, such biased practices are based on the idea that Muslim charities are fronts for terrorist organizations such as Hamas.^[52]

Dr. Emon also highlighted his findings as chair of a working group examining the Department of Finance’s national inherent risk assessment (NIRA) of 2023:

We found that NIRA 2023 creates the conditions for Islamophobic bureaucratic practice reasoning in its selection of what it calls “high-risk jurisdictions”, in its analysis of threat actors and in its assessment of which threat actors use charities as funding channels.^[53]

In Dr. Emon’s words, Canada’s anti-terror financing regime is “little more than crumbling sediments from the moral panic over 9/11.” He was also critical of the terrorist entities list, which he described as a “blunt instrument” and a “fearful reminder of the presumed Muslim threat.”^[54]

While acknowledging that there is no easy solution for these issues, Dr. Emon urged the committee to recognize “that structural Islamophobia in Canada's public and private institutions exists, runs deep and must be addressed through the commitment of substantial and sustained public resources.”^[55] He suggested that Canada’s national security regimes must do more to account for gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) policies and the constitutional right to equality.^[56]

At the provincial level, several individuals expressed concerns about Quebec’s 2019 Act respecting the laicity of the State (commonly referred to as Bill 21), which prohibits public sector workers such as teachers, police officers and judges from wearing religious symbols while exercising their functions, in the name of secularism.^[57] Bill 21 invokes section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) of the Canadian Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) to avoid constitutional scrutiny.^[58]

Several witnesses argued that Bill 21 disproportionately affects Muslim women, and thereby exacerbates Islamophobia. For example, Mr. Brown stated:

Since 2019, the Quebec government has been legislating discrimination. The impact of Bill 21, the state secularism law, has caused psychological distress to countless Muslim women, who must now choose between their faith and living in Quebec, a place many call home.^[59]

Dr. Hasan spoke of the devastating impacts of the bill on Muslim women’s livelihoods in Quebec. Her research on this issue found that Muslim women have experienced increased physical violence and aggression in the workplace since Bill 21 came into effect.^[60] In addition, she told the committee that “[w]omen applying for jobs in health care are being asked about their religious identity, which is categorically illegal,” and that “[o]ver 40% of women reported that they were asked about their religious identity during a job interview.”^[61] According to Dr. Hasan, the bill has also negatively affected Muslim women’s mental health and sense of safety, to the point where “73% of Muslim women in Quebec are considering leaving the province altogether.”^[62]

The committee heard that the impacts of Bill 21 also extend beyond the workplace, and beyond Quebec. For example, Leila Bdeir and Krista Riley of Vanier College in Montreal noted that they found in their study that the political tension created by the law has increased anxiety for Muslim students on campuses. They noted that students feel particularly unsafe on public transit.^[63] Ms. Elghawaby spoke of the broader impacts of the law as follows:

What I have heard from women across the country, including in Quebec, is that, again, this law 21 is not only impacting women in particular professions […] . It also has an impact that sets up right through society. The moment you have what has been termed, to this committee, “second-class citizenship”, where some people have fewer rights than others, immediately that gives licence or permission to those who may hold discriminatory views to treat these citizens differently from others.^[64]

As Mr. Brown stated, “Canada cannot be a liberal democracy if we have one set of rules for one type of people and another set of rules for another type of people based on their identity.”^[65]

2.2   The Current Context

2.2.1   The Surge in Islamophobia After 7 October 2023

As the examples provided above demonstrate, Islamophobia was already well-rooted in Canada when the war in the Middle East began with Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that it has since drastically escalated, alongside related forms of hate and discrimination. Many witnesses highlighted the increased targeting of Palestinians in particular, often referred to as anti-Palestinian racism (APR). “For the past eight months, things have only gotten worse. We are seeing a terrifying rise in Islamophobia everywhere, compounded by anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism,” stated Ms. Elghawaby.^[66]

According to Mr. Brown, the number of hate incidents targeting Muslims or Palestinians reported to the NCCM increased by 1,300% in the final quarter of 2023.^[67] Mr. Panju told the committee that his organization’s Muslim Legal Support Centre had seen a 400% rise in intake “on issues ranging from employment discrimination to improper treatment in schools” since the war began.^[68]

On a regional level, Ms. Mazhar relayed that her organization’s anti-hate services program documented a 212% increase in Islamophobic, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian hate in the Waterloo area when comparing the final quarter of 2023 to the same time frame in 2022.^[69]

Ms. Elghawaby offered the following synthesis of the available data:

[B]etween October 7, 2023, and March 5, 2024, a variety of organizations collectively received over 1,000 incident reports related to Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism, with the large majority of cases being handled by NCCM and the Muslim Legal Support Centre, which have operational legal clinics. This number represents nearly seven cases received per day in this period. The cases ranged from discrimination to defamation, doxing, blacklisting, assault, vandalism, harassment and violations of civil liberties.^[70]

The statistical evidence accords with the firsthand observations of those who participated in the study, many of whom described a sharp increase in Islamophobia, APR and other forms of discrimination since the start of the war.^[71]

2.2.2   Underlying Causes

2.2.2.1  9/11 and the War on Terror

Several witnesses viewed the current rise in Islamophobia as harkening back to the way Muslims were treated in the wake of 9/11. “The dehumanization of Muslims that is transpiring in Canada is disturbing in its similarity to the post-9/11 era and the ensuing war on terror,” stated Ms. Elghawaby.^[72] “It saddens me that we are once again back to feeling othered and excluded, unable to freely exercise our rights and freedoms, our loyalty to Canada questioned and our efforts to contribute positively overlooked or dismissed.”^[73]

According to Dr. Zine what we are seeing today is “built on the architecture of post 9/11 Islamophobia that has cast Muslims as quintessential violent radicals that must be surveilled and disciplined by the state.”^[74] “Muslim Canadians are being actively and intentionally portrayed as outsiders and foreigners—as the ‘other.’ This is a depiction […] that eventually has real, brutal and deadly consequences,” stated Dr. Islam.^[75] Indeed, as Dr. Zine pointed out, several deadly attacks on Muslims around the world in recent years have been spurred on by conspiracy theories that portray Muslims as a “fifth column,” or as “wolves in sheep's clothing.” [76]

Another consequence of this discourse, according to some witnesses, is that Muslims are consistently called upon to account for acts of terrorism perpetuated by extremists abroad. “[W]henever a serious international situation has occurred, part of society has constantly been asking us to explain why Muslims are like that and why Islam is like that,” remarked Mr. Benabdallah.^[77]

As elucidated by Dr. Hasan, the events of October 7 have rekindled this sense of distrust, to the detriment of Canadian Muslims’ civil rights and physical safety:

We have also seen racist epithets like “terrorist” and “terrorist sympathizer” being thrown around with impunity, triggering not-so-distant memories of the swift clawback of rights, freedoms and safety that such terms unleashed on Muslim communities after 9/11. Seeing the ease with which such dangerously racist tropes become repopularized and weaponized, even against our children, it is as though they had never truly left our collective consciousness. These are also the tropes that come up in nearly every act of Islamophobic violence. This rhetoric is not benign.^[78]

When compared to the experiences of Canadian Muslims after 9/11, Dr. Zine opined that “the present circumstances are far worse.”^[79] As she noted in her brief, hate incidents against Canadian Muslims “have escalated in this country over the past two decades and now exceed the level we saw after 9/11.”^[80]

2.2.2.2  Other Underlying Causes

The committee heard that the conspiracy theories and stereotypes arising from the global war on terror have been compounded by other factors. As Dr. Islam explained, Islamophobia has many different causes and manifestations. Along with many other forms of hate, it has been fueled by white supremacist ideologies and amplified by the polarizing forces of social media.^[81] As discussed above, Dr. Zine testified that it has also been promoted by a coordinated Islamophobia industry.^[82]

The CMPAC and Asif Khan, National Secretary, Public Relations, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada, also underscored how traditional media have perpetuated anti-Muslim sentiments through disproportionately negative coverage that fosters “an environment of fear and suspicion.“^[83] According to Mr. Khan, “[t]he media should be encouraged to publicize the multitude of good works done by Muslim communities, and government should play its role in trying to publicize and raise awareness of these issues.”^[84]

Perhaps the simplest cause of Islamophobia, however, and the easiest one to tackle, is ignorance. Dr. Julie Macfarlane, Emerita Distinguished Professor of Law, touched upon this point when speaking about her research on the role of Islamic law in Muslim marriage and divorce: “One thing this research taught me was how woefully ignorant I was and how many of us, I believe, have grown up not understanding anything about Muslim culture and about Islam as a religion.”^[85]

Mr. Nalir agreed. “[W]hen people look different, naturally there's ignorance. However, when that's addressed, not just among the common people but by people in power, I think it gives strength and makes it okay to talk about Islam,” he remarked.^[86] Dr. Islam and Dr. Emon both pointed to storytelling as one way to rectify ignorance, emphasizing the importance of centering Muslim and other marginalized voices.^[87]

The importance of education was also a recurring theme throughout the evidence. For example, Ms. Hasan urged the federal government “to encourage and work with all provincial governments to mandate the incorporation of identity-affirming, anti-Islamophobia education for all publicly funded schools in Canada.”^[88] The CMPAC similarly asserted that the government must “[i]mplement educational programs aimed at promoting cultural understanding, challenging stereotypes, and fostering empathy towards Muslim and Palestinian communities.”^[89]

2.3   Defining Islamophobia

In her testimony, Ms. Elghawaby provided the following definition of Islamophobia, drawn from Canada’s anti-racism strategy:

Islamophobia is racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.^[90]

Some of those who participated in the study expressed reservations about the term “Islamophobia,” in part due to its overemphasis on Islam as a religion.^[91] The terms “anti‑Muslim racism,” “anti-Muslim hatred” and “anti-Muslim bigotry” were offered as preferable alternatives.^[92] However, as Mr. Khan and Leah Ross recognized, the term “Islamophobia” remains widely used and accepted.^[93]

2.3.1   Islamophobia, Anti-Arab Racism and Anti-Palestinian Racism

Islamophobia intersects in important ways with other forms of hate and discrimination. Given the current geopolitical context, particular emphasis was placed on the need to recognize Islamophobia, anti-Arab Racism and anti-Palestinian racism (APR) as distinct but intersecting forms of discrimination.^[94]

The evidence highlighted the risks of conflating Islamophobia and APR in particular. In their brief, the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (ACLA) explained the difference as follows:

Islamophobia, broadly defined, is the fear and hatred of the Islamic faith and Muslim people. APR targets those who are Palestinian or advocates of Palestinian rights to suppress any criticism of Israel’s decades-long apartheid and occupation of Palestinian land and people. It can and often manifests without any religious connotation.^[95]

Common reference was made to the ACLA’s definition of APR as:

A form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives. Anti-Palestinian racism takes various forms including: denying the Nakba and justifying violence against Palestinians; failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine; erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians; excluding or pressuring others to exclude Palestinian perspectives, Palestinians and their allies; defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer or opposed to democratic values.^[96]

The committee heard that a key aspect of APR is the threat it poses to civil liberties. In the words of the ACLA: “Without the recognition of APR, Palestinians and allies remain vulnerable to discrimination and reprisals from the chilling effect on open discourse, peaceful assembly, and the expression of views in support of Palestinian human rights.”^[97]

Dr. Emon described the committee’s focus on Islamophobia as “a fundamental category error”—one that “erases the hatred of Palestine and Palestinians and instead collapses it into the category of Islamophobia.”^[98] He explained that this conflation “reduce[s] a geopolitical, historical and colonial conflict to a simplistic religious one,” and warned that it could lead to “misguided policies.”^[99]

Many of those who participated in the study called for APR to be formally recognized and addressed within Canada’s anti-racism strategy. For example, Dr. Emon recommended that the committee “advise the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat to undertake sustained analysis of anti-Palestinian racism, acknowledge its pervasiveness, and develop and promote resources to combat it.”^[100] The CMPAC called on the committee to “[r]ecognize the interconnectedness of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia in policymaking, advocating for policies that address both forms of discrimination holistically.”^[101]

As Dr. Hasan and Mr. Panju noted, direct engagement with Muslim and Palestinian communities is needed to better understand APR and its intersection with Islamophobia.^[102] The CMPAC also noted that support for research and data collection initiatives stemming from these communities is essential to inform evidence-based policy decisions that account for community needs.^[103]

2.3.2   Anti-Palestinian Racism and Antisemitism

The committee received several briefs concerned with the current understanding of anti-Palestinian racism as it relates to Zionist Jewish identity that creates friction with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism already adopted by the federal government.^[104]

As some of these submissions pointed out, those who advocate for the recognition of APR have identified both Zionism and the IHRA definition of antisemitism as perpetuating this form of discrimination.^[105]

Several individuals and organizations felt that, rather than protecting a group of people, APR as currently defined and applied seeks to protect a particular political narrative from scrutiny, leaving no room for competing perspectives.^[106] This was contrasted with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which “explicitly allows (and protects) legitimate criticism of Israel and its government.”^[107] While recognizing the importance of combatting discrimination against Palestinians, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and Canadian Women Against Antisemitism argued that this should be addressed through existing protections against discrimination based on national or ethnic origin, rather than as a particular form of racism.^[108]

Despite the tension between conceptions of APR and antisemitism, Dr. Islam told the committee that Islamophobia and antisemitism (along with other forms of hate) can sometimes arise from similar underlying causes, such as white supremacism.^[109] For example, he reminded the committee that the perpetrator behind the recent attack against his family in London, Ontario took inspiration from an attack involving a man in California who, after attempting to set a mosque on fire, went on to shoot three people in a synagogue. In another example, Mr. Benabdallah told the committee that the same groups who sent hateful and threatening messages to his mosque sprayed the walls with swastikas.^[110]

As already discussed, Mr. Ahmed underscored the role of social media platforms in promoting multiple forms of hate, including both Islamophobia and antisemitism.^[111] Regarding the current context, he added that “white supremacists absolutely crucially understand that this is an opportunity for them to spread hatred against Muslims and Jews and to play them off against each other.”^[112]

2.3.3   Islamophobia and Gender

Another key point of intersection is between Islamophobia and gender. “[A]ll sorts of stereotypes exist around Muslim women, particularly those who choose to wear the head covering, the hijab,” explained Ms. Elghawaby.^[113] These women are targeted in many ways, including by workplace and employment discrimination, and by physical attacks, especially post-October 7.^[114]

In Ms. Mazhar’s words:

Women and youth in Canadian Muslim communities are bearing the brunt of Islamophobia. They're more at risk of physical assault, verbal abuse, harassment in public spaces and educational environments, and bullying, intimidation and discrimination in workplaces and educational institutions.^[115]

As already noted, some witnesses testified that discrimination against Muslim women has been exacerbated by the enactment of Bill 21 in Quebec, along with other government actions. The committee has endeavoured to be mindful of the significant ways in which Islamophobia is gendered throughout the report.

2.4 Repercussions for Pro-Palestinian Advocacy

Many witnesses suggested that attempts to silence, admonish or retaliate against those speaking out on behalf of Palestinians have become an increasingly important dimension of Islamophobia in the wake of 7 October 2023. “We have seen Muslim communities being targeted with Islamophobia because they support the Palestinian people and Palestinian human rights,” asserted Ms. Hasan.^[116] This phenomenon exemplifies the intersection of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism (APR).

Several examples of physical violence directed at pro-Palestinian advocates have already been recounted in section 2.1.1 (Physical Violence, Threats, Harassment and Vandalism). In her testimony, Dr. Zine also mentioned several incidents reported at Western University, including a female student wearing a keffiyeh who was physically assaulted, another who was spat on at convocation, and yet another who had her tires slashed on campus because she had a Palestinian flag on her mirror.[117]

The evidence provides many other examples of repercussions faced by Muslims, Palestinians, and other individuals who have attempted to speak out on behalf of Palestinian rights. The treatment of protestors at the many pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have taken place across the country since October 7 provides one example. On the one hand, Mr. Babili described these protests as “show[ing] the good side of Muslims.”^[118] He emphasized that many Christians and Jews have come to support the pro-Palestinian cause, and that many people are becoming more educated about Islam, which helps to reduce Islamophobia.^[119] At the same time, the committee heard that peaceful protestors have been repeatedly vilified as terrorist sympathizers, have faced false accusations of antisemitism, and have at times been confronted by violent police crackdowns.^[120]

Dr. Hasan described how the administration at York University forcibly removed a protest encampment with the help of police, noting that many other universities have done the same. She remarked:

It's important to remember that these encampments have been largely peaceful protests, and that they're not a new phenomenon. […] I think we all need to ask some questions, important questions, about why these particular ones are being clamped down on and criminalized with such force on so many campuses around the country.

The student right to protest and the culture of dissent, protest, critique and critical thinking are at stake, in my opinion.^[121]

The committee heard that many individuals have also faced discrimination in employment for their advocacy on behalf of Palestinians, or simply for being Palestinian. “Palestinian members have been terminated from jobs and have missed job and promotion opportunities due to their identity,” asserted the Canadian Association of Professional Employees for Palestine (CAPE for Palestine). While this is not a new phenomenon,^[122] it is clear from the evidence that such incidents have become more frequent since October 7.

The CMLA informed the committee that, since October 7, their Ontario legal clinic alone has handled 123 cases of unjust dismissal and 45 cases of employees being placed on leave in similar circumstances.^[123] The clinic has also assisted individuals who have faced other forms of professional retaliation, blacklisting and workplace bullying and harassment due to their support for the Palestinian cause.^[124] When asked about people losing their jobs for expressing opinions on the Middle East, Mr. Panju stated: “That's right. This has been happening on a widespread basis and was accentuated at the time of the conflict. There's a need for proper discussion about what constitutes hate in our communities.”^[125] In his view, the government should do more to ensure that employers treat their employees fairly and abandon blacklists.^[126]

The ACLA similarly asserted that it had received “many inquiries from individuals who have experienced workplace reprisals for showing even the simplest support for Palestine—for instance, a “Ceasefire Now” post on Instagram.”^[127] According to them, federal employees have felt threatened, isolated, and excluded from equity and anti-racism policies.^[128]

Speaking to his experience in the Atlantic region, Abdallah Yousri, Imam and Executive Director, Ummah Society, described two cases in which Muslim women were fired from professional positions for alleged comments they made in the wake of October 7. Both were the only Muslim women working locally in their respective fields.^[129] He also informed the committee of “many imams and Muslim chaplains, like Imam Aarij Anwer and many others [who were] also fired from their jobs in hospitals and universities, with no legal consequences.”^[130] Mr. Yousri remarked: “Firing many Canadian Muslims and threatening many others in an attempt to silence them has been a shameful and horrible act that shocked thousands in our community, including our imams and community leaders.”^[131]

Some witnesses also underscored the consequences some students have faced for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. Mr. Panju told the committee that his organization had heard “numerous concerning examples from lawyers and law students across Canada who have faced harsh and unwarranted consequences in response to legitimate speech regarding this conflict.”^[132] As an example, he highlighted the recent controversy at Toronto Metropolitan University’s Lincoln Alexander School of Law, wherein students who signed a letter supporting all forms of Palestinian resistance were subject to a fierce backlash from the legal community:

Students were doxxed on various social media platforms. There were various organizations and commentators who urged that they be named, expelled, deported and labelled as terror apologists. Many students received disturbing and threatening emails, phone calls and messages that included threats of violence and death, as well as graphic videos and images.^[133]

Faisal Kutty, Faisal Bhabha and Alex Neve told the committee that students who signed the letter were also blacklisted by several Toronto law firms and screened out of summer jobs by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. Moreover, a group of prominent lawyers threatened to withhold professional placements for students if the law school did not punish the signatories.^[134] Retired Chief Justice J. Michael MacDonald, who was hired to investigate the incident, ultimately found that the letter, while “greatly flawed,” was not antisemitic or in violation of the school’s code of conduct.^[135]

The committee also received evidence from individuals who anonymously recounted experiencing discrimination during the course of their medical training due to their support for Palestine. In addition, CAPE for Palestine relayed examples of APR in Ottawa schools, including “students suspended for pro-Palestine social media posts, Palestinian flags confiscated, students discouraged from displaying Palestinian heritage and from raising funds for Gaza.”^[136]

Several participants viewed these responses to pro-Palestinian advocacy as a threat to freedom of expression—or what Dr. Zine called “the Palestine exception to free speech.”^[137] Mr. Yousri noted “I have even counselled Muslim lawyers who are fearful to utter a word or even express their pain to their colleagues while they mourn the loss of immediate family members in Gaza,” highlighting the chilling effect of discrimination towards pro-Palestinian advocates on Muslim communities.^[138]

2.5   The Legal and Policy Framework

Canada has several existing legal tools to combat discrimination and hate, including Islamophobia. Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code set out certain offences for hate propaganda targeting an “identifiable group,” which includes a section of the public distinguished by race, religion, or national or ethnic origin.^[139]

Section 318(1) makes it offence to advocate or promote genocide, defined as certain acts committed with the intent to destroy all or part of an identifiable group. Under section 318(3), proceedings for this offence can only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.

Section 319(1) makes it an offence to publicly incite hatred against an identifiable group in a way that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, except in private conversation, while section 319(2.1) sets out a specific offence for willfully promoting antisemitism by “condoning, denying or downplaying” the Holocaust.^[140] The consent of the Attorney General is required for the latter two offences (s. 319(6)). A person charged with either of these offences may avail themselves of certain defences, including that “in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text” (s. 319(3)(b)).

The Criminal Code also sets out an offence for committing mischief related to certain forms of property that is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, religion, or national or ethnic original, amongst other factors (s. 430(4.1)). In addition, evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate is an aggravating factor upon sentencing under section 718.2(a)(i).

There are also a number of relevant constitutional protections under the Charter, though all are subject to reasonable limits under section 1 of the Charter. Section 2(a) of the Charter protects freedom of conscience and religion, which preserves the right of Muslims to identity with and openly practice their faith, while section 15 protects against government discrimination based on religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour and sex, among other grounds. Of potential importance to those engaged in protest or other advocacy activities on behalf of Palestinians, the Charter also protects freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (s. 2(c)) and freedom of association (s. 2(d)). Several witnesses emphasized the importance of preserving these civil liberties.^[141]

In addition to the above laws, non-governmental organizations such as universities often have their own policies against hate speech and discrimination.

2.5.1   Suggested Legislative Reforms

The committee heard some recommendations on how existing laws could be reformed to better hold perpetrators of Islamophobic hate accountable. Bill C-63 was already briefly discussed in section 2.1.2.1 (Online Hate). In addition, the CMPAC recommended the enactment of hate crime legislation “specifically targeting Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism, with provisions for robust penalties and comprehensive support for victims without infringing upon privacy and rights of individuals.”^[142] Dr. Islam advocated for amending the Criminal Code to include a vehicle as a weapon that may be prohibited under a weapons ban.^[143]

Many witnesses were asked to comment on Bill C-373, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism),^[144] which would eliminate, as a defence to the wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism, the fact that a person was expressing a religious opinion. While unfamiliar with the specifics of the bill, some expressed support for the idea that inciting hatred and violence should never be tolerated. “In my opinion, it should be forbidden. No hate should be allowed,” stated Mr. Babili.^[145] “[Y]ou can certainly disagree about theology. I don't see how it should extend to hatred or a promotion of prejudice—and certainly never to violence,” added Dr. Islam.^[146] Others, however, criticized the underlying assumption that Muslims or other religious minorities are fomenting hate.^[147] Mr. Yousri emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of expression and freedom of religion.^[148]

2.6   Responses from Authorities

Despite the legal tools that exist to counter hate and discrimination in Canada, the committee heard that the responses of those in positions of power to Islamophobia have often been inadequate and have sometimes perpetuated the problem. For example, Mr. Brown highlighted the failure of the authorities to respond to the many Islamophobic incidents leading up to the Quebec City mosque shooting in 2017, describing the response of politicians and the media as dismissive and “shameful.”^[149]

Regarding the post-October 7 context, Mr. Yousri observed “anger and frustration for lack of accountability towards the aggression taking place against members of the Muslim community here in Canada.”^[150] Ms. Shilbayeh told the committee that she and her peers have had to use a “buddy system” to ensure their safety while walking on campus. “It's really heartbreaking to know that we are not supported and we are not protected,” she stated.^[151]

The evidence regarding the responses of elected officials and governments, the justice system, schools and universities, and communities is outlined in further detail below.

2.6.1   Elected Officials and Government

One of the recurring themes heard by the committee was the importance of strong leadership from elected officials and others in positions of power. While Mr. Khan expressed appreciation for the government’s forceful condemnation of past anti-Muslim hate crimes,[152] Ms. Shilbayeh criticized the “shaky” public messaging on Islamophobia.^[153] As Dr. Islam put it:

The messages the government has sent on this I don't think are convincing. I keep hearing ‘Diversity is our strength.’ It's a mantra. It doesn't carry any meaning for me. Why is it our strength? How has government shown that it's our strength? If you don't have an answer to that, I don't think people are going to believe it at face value when you say it.^[154]

Several witnesses also called out elected officials for perpetuating dehumanizing anti-Muslim narratives, both historically and in the present moment.^[155] With respect to the latter, Mr. Brown stated:

Unfortunately, the response that the Muslim community in Canada has been receiving for months from our elected leaders has been duplicitous: One says they care about our concerns, and the other immediately turns around, further spreads misinformation and makes a deliberate attempt to villainize an entire community as hateful and intolerant people.^[156]

Some of those who participated in the study suggested that government rhetoric and policy choices have contributed to discrimination against Palestinians and their supporters in particular.^[157] As Ms. Hasan observed “we've seen the majority of politicians either mis-characterize or wrongfully smear the legitimate advocacy for Palestinians, or stay deafeningly silent.”^[158]

The call for political leaders to more firmly and unequivocally denounce Islamophobia and related forms of hate resounded throughout the evidence. “We need political leadership to speak unequivocally in support of the protection of the rights and freedoms of Muslim and Palestinian communities and, by extension, of all Canadians,” stated Dr. Hasan.^[159] Mr. Brown similarly emphasized the need to protect civil liberties, “including the ability to critique foreign governments.”^[160]

Ms. Elghawaby highlighted some of the work her office has done to combat Islamophobia, including following up on recommendations made at the 2021 National Summit on Islamophobia, which she described as 35% complete.^[161] She also touted the launch of a guide for law enforcement on anti-Muslim hate crimes, a digital tool kit highlighting the resilience of Muslim women and girls for Islamic History Month, and the government’s new anti-racism strategy.^[162]

However, the committee also heard about the limitations of existing government programs to combat Islamophobia. Speaking on behalf of his family, Dr. Islam pointed to a “lack of resources and insufficient willpower to understand hate and to talk about how it develops, how it's propagated and how it can be combatted.”^[163] He asked Parliament to do a better job of conveying why this issue matters.^[164]

Mr. Nalir commended the federal government’s Security Infrastructure Program but noted that it is difficult to access:

We have no time to sit and wait, send applications, hear a response, this and that. We've been told no too many times. It's unfortunate, but we'd rather just protect ourselves by trying to raise money. We have little kids selling cookies to raise money to pay for our security guard. That's the reality at our mosque and at many other mosques I think.^[165]

He suggested providing a liaison to assist with the application process in emergency situations.^[166]

2.6.2   The Justice System

While strong leadership is essential, robust accountability measures must also be in place to effectively combat hate and discrimination. Dr. Zine emphasized that hate speech laws are an important tool in this regard. When it comes to online hate in particular, she opined that criminal prosecutions are more effective than reporting directly to social media companies.^[167]

To facilitate the reporting and prosecution of hate crimes, Mr. Yousri emphasized the need to fund hate crime units in police services across the country. He noted that the first and only such unit in Atlantic Canada was established only recently and is struggling to operate due to a lack of resources.^[168]

As it stands, the committee heard mixed evidence about the effectiveness of law enforcement in responding to Islamophobic incidents. On the one hand, Mr. Nalir expressed appreciation for the increased attention his mosque has received from law enforcement. “Engagement with law enforcement and having them present have put a band-aid over the wound and it has helped,” he stated.^[169]

On the other hand, some of those who participated in the study were strongly critical of how Muslims, Palestinians and their allies have been treated by law enforcement, particularly since 7 October 2023. For example, Mr. Panju pointed to “police officers using a disproportionate amount of force and tactics on pro-Palestinian demonstrators” as something that has contributed to Islamophobia.^[170] The CMLA highlighted the police crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protestors in Alberta in May 2024, which involved officers in riot gear using explosives, batons, shields and special munitions to forcibly remove individuals from university encampments, as a particularly egregious example.^[171]  According to Jamila Ewais, the police are also failing to address the safety concerns of Palestinian students on campus.^[172]

The evidence regarding the treatment of hate crimes within the court system was also mixed. On the one hand, Dr. Islam and Ms. Elghawaby commended the court decision finding that the Afzaal family truck attack amounted to terrorism. According to Ms. Elghawaby,

it sends a very strong message that not only were they targeted as individuals […] but they were specifically targeted with an ideological motive in place. The ideological motive is indeed to send a message about the place of Muslims in this country and whether or not they belong. It was a message that was very painful for many, and we continue to carry it.^[173]

In Dr. Islam’s view, the finding enhances the safety of visible minorities by serving as a deterrent to those who might use a vehicle as a weapon.[174]

On the other hand, the committee heard some disappointment regarding the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of the Quebec City mosque shooter.^[175] The decision struck down a law that had allowed for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, reducing the shooter’s period of parole ineligibility to only 25 years. As Ms. Mazhar explained:

If I talk from the perspective of the Muslim community, Canadian Muslim community in general, of course, there was a lot of disappointment with this decision. It was perceived that Muslim lives are probably not as important as other lives lost.^[176]

While expressing support for a restorative justice approach, Ms. Mazhar acknowledged the pain and trauma imposed on victims’ families through repeated parole hearings. Dr. Islam commented that the parole system seems to be “weighted very heavily toward rehabilitation without giving proper weight to deterrence.”^[177] In his view, those who have committed the most heinous crimes should stay in prison.

2.6.3   Schools and Universities

As with law enforcement, there were concerns about the treatment of Muslims, Palestinians and their allies within educational institutions. Mayada Elsabbagh, a Palestinian Muslim professor at McGill, described “alarming levels of intimidation, marginalization, and threats to safety targeting faculty, staff, and students who are speaking out against genocide.”^[178] She also criticized the conflation of Islamophobia and APR in university Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies, which she viewed as facilitating the erasure and dehumanization of Palestinians on campus, especially after 7 October 2023.^[179]

These concerns were echoed by others. Dyala Hamzah, an Associate Professor of Arab History at the University of Montreal, criticized her institution’s policy of “denial and dismissal” with respect to APR.[180] Dr. Zine made reference to attempts by university administrators to evict student protestors from campus via court injunctions.^[181] Adrian Deveau and Karina Roman Justo of the Art History Decolonial Action Group at Concordia University relayed how faculty members have warned students against talking about Palestine, and ignored the safety concerns of pro-Palestinian students.^[182] Some of the briefs submitted to the committee also suggested that pro-Palestinian events on campus have been improperly scrutinized and sometimes canceled by university administrators due to security concerns.^[183]

Perhaps most concerningly, according to the testimony of Mr. Babili and Mr. Brown, educational institutions have failed to support students and their families. For example, Mr. Babili recounted reaching out to his department to ask for an exemption from his final exams due to the anxiety he was experiencing after being attacked. “Their response was far from supportive,” he told the committee.^[184] Despite his efforts to seek support, nobody from the university reached out to help him or show concern, leaving him to navigate the situation on his own.^[185] The lack of support for Hamza, the young boy who was beaten at school, was similarly concerning (see section 2.1.1 (Physical Violence, Threats, Harassment and Vandalism)). According to Mr. Brown, Hamza’s parents experienced such frustration with the school’s response that they were forced to move to another school, while the bullies stayed put.^[186]

2.6.4   Community

The committee heard that the burden and weight of combatting Islamophobia has in many instances fallen overwhelmingly upon Muslim communities. “Unfortunately, Muslim youth have to take that into their own hands now, and really, it's a responsibility that should not fall on their shoulders,” stated Ms. Shilbayeh.^[187]

Mr. Khan spoke of an “increase in political activism and advocacy among Canadian Muslims,” particularly in the context of the current war.^[188] He also highlighted the solidarity of many Jewish Canadians in supporting the Palestinian cause and combatting Islamophobia, which he described as “foster[ing] a profound sense of unity and mutual understanding between Jewish and Muslim communities in Canada.”^[189]

Many of the community-based initiatives described in the evidence centred around training, education, and raising awareness. For example, Ms. Shilbayeh told the committee that the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia has developed educational resources for school boards and law enforcement agencies.^[190] As explained by Ms. Hasan, the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians has also worked with various school boards to develop anti‑Islamophobia strategies in partnership with the NCCM. “Teaching children to be empathetic is a lot more impactful than teaching adults to unlearn the hate and bias that they've been exposed to all their lives,” she explained.^[191]

The Ummah Society has started to provide training to local police officers, first responders, government officials and others about Islam, Muslim culture, and Islamophobia, and has seen positive local impacts as a result. “Mandating such training for government officials and making it a requirement for receiving government funding, I believe, would make a huge difference,” stated Mr. Yousri.^[192]

Mr. Khan, for his part, emphasized the importance of raising awareness about Islam to counter ignorance and cultivate interfaith solidarity. As an example, he described how his community reached out to a person who fired bullets into one of their American mosques: “[W]e invited him to our mosque, and over time he came to see that this hatred of Islam was entirely misplaced. He became an ally and supporter of Islam, so the best means to remove ignorance is through education and by reaching out with open arms.”^[193]

Mr. Khan also told the committee that his community has been holding interfaith events across the country for several years. “The idea is to focus on your commonalities, not on your differences,” he explained. “I think they [the interfaith programs] allow for everyone to realize that […] we're all part of the same human family.”^[194]

The committee also heard about the work of the Coalition of Muslim Women of Kitchener-Waterloo, including its anti-hate services, launched in 2021. These services allow for the reporting and documentation of hate and discrimination, as well as providing support to victims.^[195]

Several stakeholders called on the government to increase its support to community-based efforts to tackle Islamophobia: “We need to support leaders and community organizations that are already doing the work, and that need help to do it, with financial support and otherwise,” stated Ms. Elghawaby.^[196] Ms. McFarlane emphasized the importance of working with community Imams, who are a “very important source of influence.”^[197] Mr. Panju added that, in addition to money, “there needs to be tangible action and engagement.”^[198]

Chapter 3—Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1   Building on Prior Work

Several of those participating in the study^[199] recommended implementing the 13 recommendations made in the 2023 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ report on Islamophobia (reproduced in Appendix A of this report).^[200] The evidence supporting these recommendations was gathered during 21 public meetings as well as through site visits to several provinces and written submissions. As Dr. Zine and Ms. Elghawaby noted, recommendations were also put forward by several organizations at the National Summit on Islamophobia hosted by the federal government on 22 July 2021,^[201] to which the government responded with a number of commitments.^[202]

While some of the above recommendations and commitments are being advanced through various initiatives, the committee heard that more needs to be done to ensure they are effectively implemented. Mr. Brown, for example, called for a specific action plan on Islamophobia to be incorporated as an addendum to Canada’s anti-racism strategy, with a timeline for implementing the Senate recommendations.^[203]

The committee agrees that the government must build on the work that has already been done to address Islamophobia, and consequently recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada fully implement all recommendations of the 2023 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ report entitled Combatting Hate: Islamophobia and its impact on Muslims in Canada and follow through on all of the commitments made at the 2021 National Summit on Islamophobia.

In addition to this recommendation, the evidence collected by the committee during this study brought forward new issues and proposals, particularly (but not exclusively) regarding the treatment of Palestinians and their allies in the context of the ongoing war in the Middle East. Additional recommendations arising from this new evidence are set out below.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada:

• formally recognize discrimination towards Palestinians as a distinct group;
• invest in research to better understand this form of discrimination, including how it intersects with Islamophobia and anti-Arab discrimination; and
• develop a concrete plan to combat this form of discrimination in consultation with Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada, in its public communications, firmly and unequivocally denounce Islamophobia and related forms of discrimination, including discrimination towards Arabs and Palestinians.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada develop, in consultation with Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities, and respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, initiatives aimed at promoting cultural understanding, challenging stereotypes and fostering empathy towards these communities, and provide sufficient resources to ensure the efficacy of these initiatives.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada, in line with its commitment to build strong communities and celebrate multiculturalism,  respecting the jurisdiction of, and in consultation and collaboration with, the provinces and territories, provide funding for civic initiatives in communities across the country that teach critical thinking, digital literacy and resilience against all forms of hatred and extremism, including Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination, anti-Palestinian discrimination, antisemitism and other forms of bigotry.

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada develop legislative measures or policies to promote greater transparency with respect to social media algorithms, content enforcement policies and advertising, and to hold social media companies accountable for the harms they cause.

Recommendation 7

That the Government of Canada develop legislative measures to address online hate in consultation with, notably, members of Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities, and that such measures include rigorous oversight mechanisms to guard against the suppression of legitimate speech from such groups.

Recommendation 8

That the Government of Canada enhance Public Safety Canada’s Security Infrastructure Program by providing a liaison officer to assist with the application process in emergency situations.

Recommendation 9

That the Government of Canada provide additional resources to community-based initiatives to combat Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination and anti-Palestinian discrimination across the country, including research and data collection initiatives.

Recommendation 10

That the Government of Canada provide additional resources to establish and maintain dedicated police hate crime units across the country.

Recommendation 11

That the Government of Canada take active steps to better understand and address Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination and anti-Palestinian discrimination in federal workplaces, including revising relevant laws, policies, and professional development initiatives.

Recommendation 12

That the Government of Canada increase resources available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and other relevant federal agencies to develop programs aimed at preventing antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination and anti-Palestinian discrimination in the workplace.

Recommendation 13

That the Government of Canada, respecting the jurisdiction of, and in consultation and collaboration with, the provinces and territories affirm the need for educational institutions, including universities, colleges and post-secondary institutions: to support the freedom of expression, academic freedom, safety and well-being of all students, staff and faculty; to provide clear direction on the difference between feeling safe and being uncomfortable; to increase representation of Muslim, Palestinian and Arab faculty members; and to dedicate resources to support students, faculty and staff, including designating Special Advisors to the Presidents to provide advice on civil liberties, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.

Recommendation 14

That the Government of Canada provide funding for the further collection of quantitative and qualitative data regarding experiences of Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination and anti-Palestinian discrimination on university campuses across the country.

Recommendation 15

That the Government of Canada convene a national review committee, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal representatives, university administrators, faculty members, and students, to understand the impact of increased Islamophobia, anti-Arab discrimination and anti-Palestinian discrimination across campuses, and to develop non-binding recommendations to ensure a healthier campus environment.