Canada Is Too Afraid to Confront Islamism

Ashti Waissi 

 

 

Canada prides itself on being an open and pluralistic society that embraces diversity while defending democracy and individual freedom, but there is a growing gap between what Canada says it stands for and what it is actually willing to confront. Nowhere is that more obvious than in our continued reluctance to deal with Islamism as a distinct ideological threat.

Look, this is not me targeting everyone practising their faith, especially Muslims. Islam is the core of Islamism, but I want to focus on how Islamism has become a political ideology and how the use of Sharia law to influence government, law, institutions, and society is becoming increasingly dangerous and worrisome. Traditionally, Islam is considered a religion, but over the past 10–15 years, Islamism and radical Islamic ideologies have become increasingly political. Islam is no longer being treated only as a religion people practise; in many parts of the Western world, it is also being used as a political ideology, and that is where the danger begins.

Canada has become so afraid of offending people that we are increasingly unwilling to draw that line clearly, and I believe this hesitation has become a serious weakness.

The warning signs are already here. In recent years, Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have disrupted multiple terrorism-related plots and charged individuals connected to ISIS-inspired activity and other forms of religiously motivated violent extremism. Security agencies have also warned about younger people becoming radicalized online through extremist propaganda, private messaging platforms, social media, and ideological networks that can influence them long before they ever come into contact with an organized terrorist group.

The nature of the threat has also changed. Islamist extremism today does not always require someone overseas giving direct orders. Radicalization can happen quietly, online, inside mosques, or in homes across Canada. Individuals can consume propaganda, become absorbed in extremist communities, and slowly begin viewing violence as a religious or political obligation without ever formally joining an organization.

That makes the problem much harder to detect, but terrorism is only the most extreme end of a much larger ideological problem. Our government and institutions should not wait until there is an act of terrorism before they act; they should begin when the ideology and radicalization are starting to take root.

Many governments and institutions in Western countries believe that not every Islamist becomes a terrorist and not every Islamist organization openly advocates violence. But this is where I believe they get it wrong, because Islamist ideology can create the conditions for radicalization, one person at a time, and make extremist views more acceptable long before violence occurs. We cannot ignore Islamic ideologies growing in our society simply because they present themselves as “peaceful.”

Let’s not forget that Canada has increasingly witnessed rhetoric and activism that reject Western democratic values, justify extremist movements, promote antisemitism, or frame political conflicts through rigid religious and ideological narratives. Some of these ideas remain completely legal, but legality does not automatically mean they are healthy for a democratic society.

An ideology does not need to produce a terrorist attack before we are allowed to question it. That is where Canada continues to make a serious mistake. For years, politicians, institutions, media organizations, and even government officials have been so afraid of being labelled “Islamophobic” that legitimate criticism of Islamism is often treated as though it is an attack on Muslims themselves.

It is not, because you can have legitimate criticism of Islam and its radical ideologies without attacking people who practise the religion. Criticizing Islam or raising concerns about ideologies that threaten democratic society is not the same as attacking Muslims. We have the right to criticize and raise awareness about any ideology that seeks to weaken our democracy or undermine the rights and freedoms of other religious groups, including Christians and Jews. Criticism should be proportionate to the damage done to freedom, democracy, and human rights.

The term “Islamophobia” has become so politically powerful that it can shut down legitimate questions before they are even asked. Politicians worry about offending constituents they believe voted for them, institutions worry about reputational damage, media organizations become cautious with their language, and experts or critics are often dismissed before their arguments are even heard.

That kind of silence and hesitation only allows radical Islamic ideologies to grow, and that is part of their goal: to silence those who question their ideology and influence.

Canada keeps making the same mistake by treating Islamism as if it is simply part of ordinary religious practice. When we refuse to separate religion from political ideology, we make it much harder to confront the real problem.

Sure, religious freedom should protect a Muslim’s right to practise and worship freely, but it should not protect Islamic political ideology from criticism or make it immune from scrutiny. Again, protecting a Muslim person and protecting Islamic political ideology are two different things, and our government officials still fail to understand that distinction.

The existence of Islamism is not a conspiracy theory or simply a matter of personal opinion. Islamist movements exist around the world and operate through political organizations, charities, religious networks, advocacy groups, online spaces, and social movements. Some are violent, some are political, and others work through ideological influence that can create the conditions for radicalization and eventually lead to terrorism.

Canada needs to understand those differences clearly instead of pretending the problem disappears simply because discussing it makes people uncomfortable.

Our approach is still far too reactive. We wait until somebody is arrested, until a terrorism plot is discovered, or until extremist rhetoric becomes impossible to ignore, and then we ask what went wrong.

But violent extremism is usually not the beginning of the process. It is the outcome. Before violence comes ideology, propaganda, grievance, identity, radicalization, networks, and a worldview that slowly convinces someone that democratic society is illegitimate or that violence is justified.

The problem is that Canada only confronts the final stage instead of addressing the roots of the problem from the beginning. As long as we continue doing that, we will always be behind.

That is why the ideological environment matters. Concerns have already been raised about organizations and networks operating legally in Canada that have ideological connections or historical links to broader Islamist movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Those connections do not automatically mean criminal activity, but they absolutely justify serious questions about influence, funding, political access, and long-term objectives.

Those questions should not be considered hateful. They should be considered responsible.

The same applies to public funding and government partnerships. If organizations receive taxpayer money, participate in government consultations, advise public institutions, or gain political influence, Canadians have every right to know what those organizations believe, who they are connected to, who funds them, and whether their values are compatible with a liberal democracy.

Transparency is not discrimination, and scrutiny is not Islamophobia.

Canada also needs to become much more serious about who we listen to when discussing Islamism. Our politicians and government officials should be listening to people who have actually lived under Islamist societies, because they understand this ideology far better than many Western politicians ever will. Yet those voices are often sidelined because their experiences do not fit the politically comfortable narrative or the progressive liberal agenda.

Government committees should also hear from experts who are willing to speak honestly about Islamist ideology, radicalization, extremist networks, and ideological influence. Reports and studies that raise these concerns should be examined seriously instead of being dismissed simply because their conclusions are politically inconvenient.

The real problem is that Canada has become too afraid to speak with confidence. We are so careful with our language and so worried about offending people that we are forgetting the purpose of our democratic values in the first place.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to criticize religion. Pluralism does not mean every ideology should be treated as equally compatible with democracy. Tolerance does not mean tolerating movements that reject the very freedoms that make tolerance possible, and diversity does not mean Canada should abandon its own standards just to avoid making people uncomfortable.

Islamism takes advantage of weak institutions, political fear, and societies that are too hesitant to defend themselves. This is where Canada is getting it wrong. The more we avoid confronting the ideology directly, the more space we give it to grow.

Addressing that does not require abandoning Canadian values. It requires finally defending them.

Democracy, pluralism, freedom of expression, equality between men and women, secular government, and individual liberty are not values we should be embarrassed to defend. They are the reason so many people around the world have wanted to come to countries like Canada in the first place.

If an ideology seeks to weaken those freedoms, we should be able to say so without apologizing.

---