2013-05-23T16:56:43-04:00 Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=mubin-shaikh Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mubin Shaikh Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1749408 2012-08-07T07:34:26-04:00 2012-08-07T07:44:15-04:00

Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mubin-shaikh/ recent shooting at the Sikh Temple has brought racial hate-motivated violent extremism to the fore -- that is, provided we are ready to have such a discussion.

In fact, I knew right away it was a hate-motivated attack and very likely with the attacker thinking the Sikhs were Muslims. After all, brown skinned and wearing turbans, isn't that what the Racist Right has been depicting Muslims for all these years? Will it take an attack on the "right" target to finally realize what's happening? It's called "radicalization" and it happens to "us" and to "them" and the end results tend to be the very same.

Violence against Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims is not new. The best estimates have close to a 1,000 reported incidents of assault/intimidation/threats with a handful of fatalities. The level of hate required to ambush police (which is a common trait among white supremacist offenders) and to storm a place of worship, then systematically start firing at worshipers, is far above what most racists tend to express.

This type of fanaticism is best known through incidents such as the one by the violent Jewish extremist, Baruch Goldstein against Muslims praying, and in places like Nigeria where violent Islamist extremists target Christian Churches.

But this is America. Things are supposed to be different, right?

America is not unlike any other place where the brown-skinned turban wearers are viewed with deep suspicions. Sikh women also cover their hair, and with the presence and prevalence of anti-hijab narratives, hateful, ignorant people tend not to know the difference. This is not to say "let's get the right target," because the point is that NO community should be wholesale targeted for the actions of its extremists and the same holds true for "white America."

This brings us back to the Breivik moment facing America: where hateful rhetoric against a particular community (Muslims, in my argument here) is left to continue to a level of depraved indifference to the facts and in turn, brings retaliation against a community that simply "looks" Muslim (Sikhs, in our example here) -- as if that is enough to justify such violence. It is constantly perpetuated by the likes of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and others -- people who were quoted by Anders Breivik of Norway.

Just like Breivik, Wade Michael Page was a frustrated white supremacist who subscribed to extreme views of racial superiority and a twisted sense of patriotism and nationalism in which America is being "saved" from Muslim hordes with the magical power to suddenly overtake the Army, National Guard and the various "patriot" Militia movements. Apparently, we are so good at it; we've taken over the White House, the Secretary of State and following Panetta's trip to Egypt in which he praised Mr. Morsi of Egypt -- even the Secretary of Defense.

Whereas Breivik practiced with video games, Page was a trained Army operator, specializing in "Psychological Operations" and all the while, growing increasingly hateful in his views towards non-whites. He was discharged from the Army as a problem soldier, tried his hand at music by sharing the white supremacist narrative and was overall, a dysfunctional, hateful human being. It was the tattoos regarding 9/11 that led the Police to call in the FBI and investigate this as a "domestic terrorism" incident.

It is extremely well known to the FBI that there are various types of extremists in the military, and contrary to the flights of fantasy by the "Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating all levels of government" circus, there are far more white supremacists in the military than Islamists, and I know this from discussions with those intimately connected to the Ft. Hood shooting investigation and in the Army's search for "insider threats."

The point I am trying to make here is that hate-motivated violent extremism directed against Muslims or look-alikes, in this case here, is a growing reality in white America and is the direct result of narratives that perpetuate the, us vs. them mentality. Shortly after the Sikh Temple shooting, a Mosque in Missouri was burned down to the ground after an initial attempt in 2008. It happened in Joplin, not far from Rush Limbaugh's area of influence. Think these are all coincidences and that hate speech has no responsibility in hateful actions? I don't.

Lastly, I want to make it a point that the primary victims here are not Muslims but Sikhs -- just like with Breivik who, although he hated Muslims, targeted white Norwegian children in Norway instead, and this is no way lessens or increases my condemnation of these crimes: Evil is evil. It is necessary for Americans and others to come out in solidarity with the Sikh community to repudiate the hateful rhetoric that drives racists to want to kill people in their very places of worship.

God bless the victims and God bless the police officer who took multiple shots but succeeded in taking out the shooter and preventing many, many more deaths. America, this is your moment: take it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1556132 2012-05-30T13:36:50-04:00 2012-07-30T05:12:13-04:00

Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mubin-shaikh/ grants of $1-million to academic institutions to "study" terrorist threats to Canada. The scheme is named after the Air India plane, Kanishka that was hit by Sikh terrorists in 1985, resulting in the death of 329 people, mostly Canadians.

Twenty-seven years after the worst attack on Canadian interests, the best this government has been able to come up with is $10-million dollars to fund academics to study what we already know?

Even more than a decade since 9/11, the Canadian government has fallen woefully behind other nations when it comes to anti-terrorism funding and where to best allocate the resources. And while most nations have assisted at-risk communities in some way, the current Canadian government has done nothing of the sort to help those affected most.

While there is no doubt of the value of academics when it comes to research on the effects of ethno-nationalist conflicts and diaspora communities, this funding scheme is essentially reinventing the wheel since there is already a huge body of literature around the Air India bombing -- not to mention that scathing rebuke and criticism of agencies like the then-newly formed Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The latter agency is hands-down among the most broken of Canadian institutions and ultimately both are free of any meaningful oversight to this day.

This lack of oversight is actually part and parcel of the current Canadian government approach to national security -- that it's frankly none of the business of Parliament and somehow remains the sole right of political parties to decide what they want to do in terms of accountability of national security operations and by extension, I would add, how and where funding opportunities should be allocated.

This remains a very counter-productive aspect of national security mechanisms in Canada because national security MUST always be a non-partisan issue and deserves to be kept in balance with other national interests.

Before the Conservative government majority, certain Liberal members of Parliament, notably Derek Lee (his credentials regarding oversight are impeccable and has literally written the book on Parliamentary procedure) was involved in trying to set up the "Office for National Security Accountability" and it was supposed to be a non-partisan venture involving select members of the Parliament -- elected by the people -- to make sure we had our eye on the ball at all times.

It would have allowed for a fact-based approach to national security versus the ideologically driven approach of the current government. Sadly, after all was said and done, more than 10 years after 9/11 and 27 years after the Air India bombing, this current government continues to pursue an ideologically-driven approach which ignores the findings already available regarding "resiliency of communities" and incredulously demands that we still need to think about whether or not foreign ethnic, sectarian or nationalistic conflicts abroad affect minority communities here; of course they do! Do we need millions in funding to go towards trying to figure out what we already know?

I would strongly suggest to the Canadian government to actually get out in the communities affected (not just the two officers for "Community Outreach" the RCMP managed to think could cover the entire province of Ontario) and build some credibility as opposed to thinking we can just legislate away these problems or that somehow bullets and bombs can destroy ideology and curb radicalization. None of this has worked in the past 10 years and no amount of money and the research that comes from it, will have traction on the ground and the ground is where it counts when it comes to diasporas, not the halls of academia.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1137650 2011-12-12T01:29:20-05:00 2012-02-10T05:12:01-05:00

Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mubin-shaikh/
In the case before the Supreme Court now stands the question of whether a veil-wearing Muslim woman should be allowed to testify in court with the niqab remaining on. The defence posits that they need to read her facial features, since the eyes are insufficient alone. I wonder if this means Muslim women with veils cannot be lawyers or judges, an idea abhorrent to any lawyer or judge.

It just so happens I know this woman personally I will say nothing else because of the publication ban that prevents identifying her in any way. I can reiterate the allegations: that the woman alleges she was sexually assaulted when still very young. After years of torment, she finally decided to bring the matter before the courts.

It is a full and complete travesty that this case has been made out to be about the face covering and not about the sexual abuse this woman alleges she suffered. It is a travesty because this woman has come out against all odds, against the threat of being "shamed" by her community, against the monumental pressures of having to testify against these alleged attackers, and we have fixated on the dress of the woman making the complaint.

Forget about the fact that one of the biggest responsibilities we have is to encourage marginalized women to come forward with these complaints so we can bring to bear the full force of law in her protection. Forget about the fact that some victims of sexual assault don't necessarily see the alleged attacker when testifying in court. Canadian courts can extend two options: a physical screen where the face is covered, or the alleged victim testifies via video link. She could be wearing a clown suit for all we know -- her face would never be shown anyway.

So why the big deal? Obviously, this plays into the larger debate (persecution some would say) of Muslim women and religious head coverings. Shamelessly, many have joined the "ban them" bandwagon as if to say we respect only your rights when you look and dress like "us." The negativity is so great that a New York woman who alleges she was attacked because she wore the full face covering was met with comments akin to "She asked for it."

Are Muslim women being portrayed so lowly that they don't even deserve the same treatment as non-Muslim victims of sex assault? Did she "deserve it" because she covers? Should we force her to uncover herself just to prove to us how traumatized she really is?

These are not the questions we need to be asking. In fact, we only need to ask one question: when does she get her day in court?

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1028380 2011-10-24T22:33:38-04:00 2011-12-24T05:12:01-05:00

Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mubin-shaikh/
Mohammad Shafia (centre), Hamed Shafia and Tooba Mohammad Yahya, behind police officers to the left, arrive at the Frontenac Court courthouse in Kingston Ontario on Friday, October 21, 2011.


"And when the girl-child buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed. (Quran 81:8)"

This verse from the Quran seems to be the most appropriate for this story. A man, along with his (second) wife and son, stands accused of orchestrating the murders of his three daughters and a first wife (who could not bear children, hence the second wife).

In the early hours of June 30, 2009, a woman of Afghan background dared to do the unthinkable: learn how to drive. You know what I'm talking about: the moment for most young people when they finally get to be in control of something that's for all intents and purposes a big deal, for once in their life.

This is not a story from Kabul, Afghanistan where the family originates. This is a story from Kingston, Ontario -- home to the Royal Military College campus, Canadian Forces Base Kingston and even the Kingston Penitentiary that may well become the new home of the family members accused in this alleged case of honour killings in Canada.

Evidence in this case is still emerging as the trial continues, but quite a bit of information (not evidence) is already available through the initial coverage of this case in mid 2009. The Crown's allegation is that the father had begun to perceive the liberal attitudes taken by four women constituted an egregious display of immorality and as such, warranted their death. Keep in mind, he had been in Canada for a whole two years, having come from a place, which is for all intents and purposes, a failing state.

Recently, we have heard allegations in court that the father, in collaboration and conspiracy with the mother and son, orchestrated this killing to reclaim this supposed lost honour by having young girls who might have become rebellious.

"What will people say" is another major problem in such a mindset: If someone in the community just whispers that the girls have done something wrong (to us it would be small, to this mindset, anything is a trigger: Facebook, text messaging, you name it), they are guilty until proven innocent. Was this proof for the father that the girls had been corrupted by the West? Generally speaking, learning to drive would only give them the opportunity to have free sex, which surely would be the next step (is how the thinking goes in this Old World mentality). This is why women are practically locked up so as to "save" them from themselves (yes, it's always her fault).

Honour killings are not exclusive to Muslims; hardline Sikhs, Hindus and Christian Arabs are notorious for them also for not cooperating with arranged marriages or otherwise exerting inklings of feminine self. The overwhelming majority of honour killings and FGM that occur in Muslim societies do so in the harsh and austere environments, which constitutes much of the geography of places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and North Africa. This if of course, not to say, "the desert made 'em do it" but to note the environment in which the Quranic verse was first revealed and the kind of mindsets it tries to correct.

Girls being buried alive still happens in India (mostly Hindus) due to male gender preference (to do the farming of course) and modern female infanticide is manifested by using ultrasound to find out gender early so that if it's a girl, the fetus can be aborted (China). I would qualify this as another form of "honour killing" not because I believe conception equals life (I do not), but ending the life of a female child because of gender or imagined immorality that supposedly comes with it.

This anti-female child attitude is condemned in another verse also:

When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on? (16:57-58)

In the end, child or adult femalicide (yes, it's a real word) is among the pre-Islamic practices that are expressly prohibited, lacking honour completely and subject to findings of guilt by God. As for judgement in a court of law, well -- the case continues...
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.953602 2011-09-08T09:12:48-04:00 2011-11-08T05:12:02-05:00

Mubin Shaikh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mubin-shaikh/ controversial anti-terrorism measures have already earned the wrath of interim liberal leader Bob Rae, who said Harper would face a "good debate" over them in Parliament, and NDP MP Paul Dewar, who described them as "draconian" in an email to Huffington Post Canada.

I do support both of the "controversial" elements in the measures: the preventive arrest and the investigative hearings. Let me explain why.

First, it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

As Canada found with the Toronto 18 terrorism prosecution -- the largest of its kind in Canadian history -- this was meant to be not only a test of intelligence sharing but also of the legality of existing anti-terrorism legislation as validated by the courts. What the government found was that indeed, the laws were wide enough to incorporate a number of activities that could legally be construed as terrorism.

Referencing the Toronto 18 case in which I testified five times over four years, it was clear that had there been no such legislation, the offences that the Superior Court found to be criminal would probably not have been denounced as required. It would be inconceivable to have a case first and then introduce the laws to deal with the offences under scrutiny.

Secondly, the public spectacle element (arresting 18 people, some on the highway during rush hour traffic, others just as they exit the Mosque) remains a problem especially when the government says nothing in support of the case for fear of derailing it. This left the window open to professional propagandists to then fill the void with all sorts of conspiracy theories and attempts to delegitimize the case -- almost as if they were judge and jury together. It created a narrative that was never really responded to and thus left many Muslims to simply deny the reality of the charges and otherwise dismiss it away as a group of hapless youth whose reach exceeded their grasp and otherwise not a serious threat.

It is true that there was no reasonable prospect of such attacks taking place but the criminal offence is not to succeed with a catastrophic terror attack but to a) form a group with the express intention of perpetuating and committing acts of violent extremism and b) taking steps to realize those objectives. The group did both those things and for that reason fell into what we refer to as a criminal offence. Eleven were eventually found guilty, either though guilty pleas or judgements of the court -- three are serving life sentences since deterrence and denunciation must remain a major function of the court system.

The backdrop of the case provides the reasons why these enforcement measures are necessary.

Take the case for "Investigative Hearings." Here, if a person is reasonably suspected of having some vital information, they are required by law to give up that information. Believe me when I tell you, the Muslim community in general would make mincemeat of the Muslim who testifies against "his brothers" and I am aware I am making such generalizations but given my first hand observations in this regard, I have every right to.

I was personally labelled a traitor -- an apostate -- a hypocrite and regular wishes of my death and suffering filled the extremist forums. Given that reality, we cannot leave it to the community to volunteer this information and take it to its logical extension: testifying in open court. This is a very stressful and life-consuming process. In this sense, the Investigative Hearing would help the person who would otherwise not testify out of fear from criticism by saying they are being coerced by the government under threat of imprisonment. Thus, it saves the spectacle of a public prosecution and the "shame" of being exposed publicly by reporters who are not there to tell the truth but to "tell the story."

Let's move to the Preventive Arrests: in one case earlier this year, a young Somali man was about to go to Somalia to join Al Shabab. The police had to wait until he was literally on the plane before they could arrest him. Why upset an already skittish air travel industry? He could have been arrested without such an incident through a preventive arrest because frankly, we do not have the resources anymore to be sending people overseas to gather evidence to prosecute offences in Canada.

I do understand the concerns people have about arresting people of what we might think could happen but the reality is, the government agencies have a duty to citizens to reasonably mitigate such danger. I know how much of that intelligence is collected. I know the dangers people have to go through to get it. It would be an enormity to have it -- and not use it -- just like this legislation before us.]]>