Painting Muslims as a threat to Canada irresponsible | Opinion

Article content

At the antisemitism hearings in the House of Commons justice committee in May, one witness accused “radicalized faculty” of indoctrinating university students. A speaker from the advocacy group Secure Canada raised unsubstantiated fears of “radicalized kids” and “Islamists who also love Hitler.”

These allegations should give us serious pause. Uninformed, bad faith arguments obscure what many see as Israel’s indiscriminate violence in Gaza. The “radicalization” discourse, which emerged in the wake of 9/11 and continues to echo through these proceedings, relies on racist stereotypes of dangerous Arabs and Muslims to cast them and the larger pro-Palestinian movement as a threat to Canadian society.

Article content

As Independent Jewish Voices has stated, the Commons committee hearings are not a genuine interrogation of antisemitism. They propagate the idea that people showing solidarity toward Palestinians have predispositions towards irrational violence.

“Radicalization” is an evocation of the value-laden terminology that emerged during the “War on Terror” to stoke fear about Muslims and Arabs. In the mid-2000s, state security agencies became almost singularly focused on so-called “homegrown terrorism”: acts of political violence by Muslim-identified perpetrators who were born or raised in western countries. In this context, radicalization, as anti-racist scholar Arun Kundnani notes, came to be understood as a “psychological or theological process by which Muslims move towards extremist views.”

Radicalization was incorrectly understood as a precursor to terrorism, where religious (specifically, Islamic) ideas propel individuals into committing violence. Radicalization “theories” were bolstered by the 9/11 attacks, which were seen to be irrational acts by religious fundamentalists who hated “the American way of life.” The “Clash of Civilizations” theory, with the civilized West on one hand and allegedly barbaric Muslims on the other, loomed large in this framing.

Article content

Simplistic models of radicalization suggest there is a linear and identifiable pathway to radicalization. This contradicts extant scholarship in criminology, which views violence and crime as having complex reasons. Few scholars think behaviours or attitudes can be definitively identified before acts of violence. Even when violence appears probable, cautionary claims are made. This caution is abandoned with “radicalization.”

Over the last two decades, policing and national security agencies have adopted radicalization theories with enthusiasm. They believe that radicalization indicators can be identified by police and adjacent actors and, thereby, neutralized. In most cases, police determined that there was something inherent in Islam driving radicalization and, in this way Muslims, or those identified as Muslims, became targets of state security agencies. Muslims and Arabs faced increased surveillance. Children became targets based on the premise they have the potential to become radicalized in the future.

Our research on RCMP training workshops on radicalization revealed how Muslim-ness gets pathologized. Change in appearance (such as growing a beard, for example), in friends, or in religious practice could be identified as signs of radicalization, resulting in people becoming ensnared in the national security nexus. CSIS has made many warrantless visits to homes and workplaces of Arabs and Muslims, interrogating them about family members, friends, and acquaintances.

Article content

It is essential to understand how the “radicalization” discourse is being mobilized as part of Israel’s deadly military campaign in Gaza. Remarks at the House of Commons committee and by Israeli state officials maintain that most Palestinians are “radicalized” to hate Jews. This false and one-sided claim dangerously conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. It draws on racist ideas about inherently violent Arabs and Muslims to justify the killing of children in Gaza or to delegitimize any form of pushback against the occupation of Palestinian territory. At the House of Commons committee hearing, the spectre of “radicalized” faculty and kids calls upon the state machinery and public opinion to sanction force against pro-Palestinian protesters across the country.

It is beyond hypocritical for defenders of Israel to weaponize “radicalization” while Israel appears to flagrantly violate international law. The relentless killing of Palestinians has unfolded in real time and yet, Parliament hosts a hearing of bluster and deflection — even justification — of Israel’s aggression in Gaza. This a spectacle of moral bankruptcy.

Fahad Ahmad is an Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology, Toronto Metropolitan University. Jeffrey Monaghan is an Associate Professor, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University.

Article content