Sheema Shills for M-103

One would expect Sheema Khan, founder of the entity formerly known as CAIR-CAN (later the NCCM), to argue in favour of M-103, the Liberals' anti-"Islamophobia" motion. And that, essentially, is what she does in her latest Globe and Mail column. However, the arguments she uses here are, in a word, incoherent. For, on the one hand, she calls on Canadian Muslims to acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns re some Islamic "values":

Let us recognize that some of this fear is genuine, due to terror attacks in Europe, the United States and here in Canada. While Canadian Muslims seek protection of their rights, they must also emphasize their love and defence of this nation. 

Those who worry about an erosion of “Canadian values” should be engaged in an honest manner, rather than with denunciation. The cultural values surrounding women, critical inquiry, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience in many Muslim countries are often at odds with prevailing Western norms. Canadian Muslims must begin to have meaningful debates on how to reconcile these two world views.

At the same time, though, she can't help but practise a little da'wa and blow smoke re the motivations and actions of Islam's founder:

Following the killing of six worshippers at a Quebec City mosque, Muslims are facing a “Taif” moment. Ten years into his Prophethood, Mohammed visited the town of Taif, after facing increasing hostility in Mecca. The nascent Muslim community had just emerged from a harsh three-year boycott by the Meccans. His wife and closest confidante of 25 years, Khadijah, had died that year, as had his uncle who had provided tribal protection. 

Seeking refuge, he entreated the leaders of Taif for protection and an opportunity to share the beauty of faith. Instead, he was literally chased out of town, under an onslaught of rocks and debris. As he rested, bleeding and exhausted, he humbly prayed, acknowledging his weakness and humiliation by the town’s people. Instead of blaming others, he beseeched God: “As long as You are not angry with me, I do not mind,” reaffirming his commitment to faith and humble service. Soon afterwards, he was given the opportunity to punish the people of Taif. He declined, hoping one day that they would embrace the faith. 

The Prophet’s magnanimity in the face of hostility was recently exemplified by Imam Hassan Guillet, who delivered the eulogy at the funeral of three of the Quebec City victims...

Yes, I'm sure the men of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza were similarly struck by his "magnanimity".

Or would have been, had "the Prophet" not seen fit to systematically chop off all their heads.

Are such (clearly non-magnanimous) actions in synch with "Canadian values"?

More to the point, with the passage of M-103 will it soon be considered a "hate crime" in Canada to even pose such a "blasphemous" question?

Update: Canadians are right to ask how M-103 will affect their ability to express their concerns about problematic aspects of Islam. An incident that occurred some years ago involving Shahina Siddiqui, a member of the NCCM board (then still known as CAIR-CAN) and B'nai Brith Canada's then-legal counsel David Matas, could provide us with a clue or two. Here's how the National Post's Joseph Breen reported on it back in 2008:

B'nai Brith Canada revealed yesterday it is the defendant in a hate speech case at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that is based on anonymous and vague accusations of Islamophobia and has taken nearly five years to investigate. 

"The [Manitoba] Human Rights Commission itself is supposed to be promoting human rights, but in our view in this process it's violating some pretty basic rights: a secret proceeding, a faceless accuser, failure to disclose documents. These are basic procedural rights that are being violated," said David Matas, a prominent human rights lawyer and senior legal counsel to B'nai Brith. 

The Jewish human rights group has long been co-operative with and supportive of Canada's human rights commissions, but has recently called for reform to prevent their hijacking as a political platform. This is the first and only time it has been named as a respondent in a hate speech case. 

At issue is a conference B'nai Brith sponsored at Winnipeg's city hall in October, 2003, for first responders to acts of terrorism, such as police, firefighters or paramedics. 

A central topic was Islamic terrorism, and the presenter was the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Center, a consultancy based in Arlington, Va. 

B'nai Brith had a representative there, but did not attend all the sessions, and although it was not publicly advertised, there was no formal security to keep people out. 

Four months later, a complaint was filed with the MHRC by Shahina Siddiqui, the Winnipeg-based executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association of the United States and Canada, and a member of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations. 

Her complaint alleged a violation of section 18 of the Manitoba Human Rights Act, which prohibits statements that "incite, advocate or counsel discrimination."...

It should be noted that this "hate speech" funny business occurred before Parliament struck down Section 13, the "hate speech" component of Canada's federal "human rights" code. And while the provinces never bothered to expunge similar language in their own codes, the federal action effectively put an end to the practice of "Islamophobes" like Mark Steyn being hauled in front of one of Canada's many "human rights" Star Chambers (in Steyn's case, it was the one in British Columbia) to answer for their illegal "hate speech".

The question to ask on the cusp of M-103's passage: is it a backdoor method of reinstituting Section 13, without actually having to officially reinstate it?