Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for February 23, 2018

Host Piya Chattopadhyayi

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

SHEILA NORTH WILSON: We've all failed her. We as a nation need to do better for our young people — all of us. This is not right. This is not the Canada that I want to be a part of.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAYI: That was Grand Chief Sheila North. In the minutes after a jury returned its not guilty verdict yesterday in the death of Tina Fontaine. A death that was tragic, gruesome, and as of today, still unsolved, and it is a painful open wound for her loved ones, and many more across our country. Raymond Cormier was acquitted of a charge of second-degree murder, but there was much more on trial in that Winnipeg courtroom. So we're starting today with the case of Tina Fontaine, and the elusive fight for a larger justice.

PC: Then, in India, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is making waves in the local media — just not the kind he was likely hoping to make.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A report on Indian TV]

PC: It is the scandal that is overwhelming Trudeau's trip to India, including his meeting with the Indian prime minister today. In half-an-hour, I'll speak with the CBC journalist who broke the story. As well as Ujjal Dosanjh, the former BC Premier who's been outspoken against Sikh extremism.

PC: And actress Sophia Hayat is just one of many Muslim women speaking out recently about terrible experiences while on pilgrimage to Islam's holiest site.

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIA HAYAT: Islam, as we know, tells you to respect women, and to physically touch a woman who isn't your wife. Those rules don't apply if you were in Mecca.

PC: You'll hear about the #MosqueMeToo movement, and the backlash that that is stirring in an hour.

PC: Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyayi. And this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

Part one: Injustice is a way of Indigenous life, say advocates dismayed at verdict in Tina Fontaine murder trial

Guests: Niigaan Sinclair, Nahanni Fontaine, Scott Newman

SOUNDCLIP

THELMA FAVEL: She was a little girl with a big heart. She was very, very tiny — she was very petite — but big, big heart. Right now, you know it's hard right now because, like I said, it’s like somebody just took my heart out. And they just keep stomping on it. Because why would someone do this to my baby?

PC: Tina Fontaine was Thelma Favel’s great niece. And that was Thelma speaking in August 2014— soon after the 15-year-old Indigenous girl's body was found. Wrapped in duvet, weighted with rocks, in Winnipeg's Red River, Tina Fontaine’s death was a gruesome contrast to the beauty and promise we see in the pictures of Tina, everywhere in the news once again today. In the years since her death, there has been anguish, and frustration, and demands for justice in her case. But "not guilty" was the verdict yesterday in a Winnipeg court. A jury could not find 56-year-old Raymond Cormier guilty of the second-degree murder charge he faced in her death. "Not guilty" in this case means no closure for Tina Fontaine's family, or the many across the country whose hearts her case has touched. But it's also an indictment of sorts in the eyes of many: An indictment of the system itself, that fails too many young indigenous people — and girls and women especially — and of the very project of reconciliation in this country. Niigaan Sinclair has been supporting Tina Fontaine's family through the trial. He is also an associate professor in the Department of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba. Nahanni Fontaine has been at the forefront of bringing attention to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, she is Manitoba's NDP Justice critic. They are both in our Winnipeg studio. Hello.

NAHANNI FONTAINE: Good morning.

NIIGAAN SINCLAIR: Bonjour. Good morning.

PC: Niigaan Sinclair, you were with Tina Fontaine's family last night. First of all, how are they doing?

NS: Well, sporadically throughout the week, I’ve been in contact with the family. But really, it's been two organizations — Moon Voices and the Manitoba Murdered and Missing Women and Indigenous Girls Coalition — who have really been with the family. I've just been a supporter. I’ve really just been there to be present. The key is in all of this is to really think the family has asked for us to think of Tina this week, and to really have love for Tina. While this is a massive, overwhelming injustice, it's important also to remember that this was a beautiful young woman who should be remembered now.

PC: What did you do last night after hearing the verdict?

NS: I spent time with my children, and many messages on social media working on the press release for our event today that were holding in Winnipeg.

PC: Nahanni Fontaine, when you heard the verdict “not guilty”, what did you think?

NF: Well, actually, along with many other folks, I was in the courtroom. And I was actually sitting directly in back of Thelma. And it was a moment I think of confusion in some respects because the jury when they rendered their verdict, it was quite low. And Thelma's niece, who was sitting directly beside her, started crying. And I just, of course, was just watching Thelma. And Thelma didn't really have a reaction right away because she didn't hear. And so she you know she said what she said “not guilty”. And then all of a sudden you know she understood that it was a “not guilty” verdict. And so to watch her break down and cry, and really see the manifestation of all hope lost for justice for Tina. You couldn't help but start to tear up. And so I — like many other folks in that courtroom — started to cry alongside her. But also, there was an immediate response to support Thelma. Like, literally, physically, and spiritually, and emotionally — everybody gathered around her to start supporting her.

PC: We will talk about the larger context of all of this in just a bit. But I want to ask you again were you expecting a “not guilty verdict” in this case?

NS: This case was about something much larger than in the courtroom. This is about the treatment of young Indigenous women. This is about the way that 150 years of policy put Tina in that moment, and put her in a violent situation. And it's really also about both during and afterwards who are the privileged voices in this trial?

PC: And we'll talk more about that, but I'm just wondering going into this like yesterday when we knew the verdict was coming out, I mean I'm just wondering what your expectation was in a legal sense? Did you expect a “not guilty” verdict?

NS: No, injustice is a way of Indigenous life in Canada, continually with the Colten Boushie case and with this one.

PC: As you both know — and anyone who has been following social media, certainly, since the verdict — There's a lot of frustration out there. The Assembly of First Nations is calling the verdict a setback for justice and reconciliation. So I want to bring in another perspective, and then Niigaan Sinclair and Nahanni Fontaine I will come back to you. Scott Newman is a lawyer and spokesperson for the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association of Manitoba, and he has been following this case closely. He too is in Winnipeg. Hello.

SCOTT NEWMAN: Good morning, Piya.

PC: I want to ask you about based on the evidence in this trial, what do you think of this verdict?

SN: I think it's the just and correct decision based on the evidence that was presented to court. This was a very thin case from the very inception of it. It's a case where there was very little in the way of direct evidence. You had forensic evidence that frankly was a gaping hole in the case. There wasn't even an ability to say how it was that that Tina passed away because the autopsy was inconclusive. And it wasn't just a situation where the forensic evidence was inconclusive. There is actually exculpatory evidence for this particular accused. There are a number of DNA cuttings taken from the blanket that was wrapping Tina in this case. And there were a number of different hairs that were seized. And when those were DNA tested, they definitively excluded Mr. Cormier.

PC: And the Crown’s case was based largely on wiretap evidence of what they called “a confession” by Mr. Cormier; that was what they said you know got him charged in the first place. How do you see that part of it?

SN: Well, this was a situation where there were a number of wiretaps; the police put a secret recording device in the apartment, and there were also body packs that had been worn. They had 62 separate interactions with Mr. Cormier — undercover police officers that were recorded. And as well, by one count, there's over 10,000 conversations that were recorded. The recording quality as one might expect with devices that are designed to be hidden was quite poor; it was hard to hear at times. And a lot of the conversations were equivocal; they were open to interpretation. For instance, one of the examples that was put forward as a confession was Mr. Cormier saying I'll make you a bet: Tina died because of a reason. And the defense quite rightly said well, why would you need to make a bet? If this is a confession, if this is the individual saying I killed Tina Fontaine, why would he say I'll make you a bet: she died because of a given reason? That doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of an alleged confession. At one point, he says put yourself in the shoes of a psychologist or psychiatrist, and then proceeds to put out a theory of the case. It's hard to say that's a confession. Why would he need to put himself in the shoes of a psychologist or psychiatrist? Sounds much more like someone who's watched too much TV and wants to try and be an amateur psychological profiler like we see on television programs. So a lot of the comments when you take five or six of them out of 10,000, and you take them out of context, they were equivocal. And you've got to remember Mr. Cormier was a poorly-educated individual, rambling, high on meth a lot of the time, quasi-homeless, mental health concerns. When you're taking an individual who's got those particular vulnerabilities — who might not make a lot of sense on his best day — to take disconnected comments out of context really pushes the bounds of belief and credibility and rationality to say these are clearly confessions.

PC: OK. In a word or two, I mean given what you've said, do you think there are grounds for any appeal in this case?

SN: Well, what happened is with an acquittal from a jury trial is — for very good public policy reasons — the Crown has very limited ability to appeal. We don't want appeal courts to be willy nilly overturning and forcing people into a second trials just because they disagree with the evidence; there's no such thing as an unreasonable acquittal. So the Crown can only appeal on the basis that the judge made an error by disallowing evidence to go before the jury, which isn't the case here, or by saying that the judge made an error in this charge. And I've read the charge, and there's really nothing there that I think the Crown will be able to hang their hat on in terms of saying that this was an unfair trial.

PC: And briefly Scott Newman; I have to let you go. But as you see it, was justice done in this case in your mind?

SN: I think you have to look at what the definition of justice for Tina means. Does that mean that we have to put someone in jail, whether or not we have evidence that they did it? I don't think that's justice for Tina. I think the focus needs to be on making sure that our system, which is largely the same as it was when she was found in 2014, isn't creating more Tinas. We need to protect her and, of course, our sympathy goes out to the family and friends for this absolute tragedy. There's multiple failures to the child welfare system. We have to make sure that doesn't happen again.

PC: OK, Scott Newman, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

SN: Thank you. Good morning.

PC: Scott Newman is a spokesperson for the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association of Manitoba. He's in Winnipeg. Nahanni Fontaine, let me bring you back in. What do you think of how Tina Fontaine's case was handled?

NF: You know I think it's really important to situate Tina Fontaine within the broader text of MMIWG, and actually what she represented From coast to coast to coast. And why Tina Fontaine's case gained such prominence and national attention is because, first off of, the grotesque nature of how she was disposed and murdered and her body rendered to the Red River. But, certainly, that she represents all Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls across Canada. And so when we look at this case, which has such an impact emotionally, mentally, and spiritually for Indigenous peoples across the country. You know I would I would suggest and I would I would counter that justice was not served. This was a case that in many respects offered some semblance of hope and faith in the justice system for Indigenous peoples. It was the one case where we thought here is the quintessential example of a victim in every single way. Surely, surely, she will get justice. And, unfortunately, that is not what we have seen with this. And that is why this is so important.

PC: I want to read a couple of statements: The first one from Carolyn Bennett, the Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. She relates sympathies to Tina Fontaine's family. She also said this, “We need to examine all the factors that lead to these violent acts, including policing, child welfare, health care and the social and economic conditions. As a society, we can and must do better to improve outcomes for Indigenous girls and women.” And from Minister Jane Philipott, Minister of Indigenous Services, also relayed her sympathies to Tina Fontaine's family and the community. And then she says in a tweet, “Tina's story shows our failure to protect the safety and wellbeing of Indigenous children. We're working together on major reform of the child welfare system. We must do better. Justice and our common humanity demand it.” Niigaan Sinclair, when you hear those words from the two ministers that says what to you?

NS: I have to address something that your previous guest had said.

NS: This is an individual who had motive, and had the means. And the reason why in which he would say he bet is because he didn't think of her as a human being. And you know time and time again throughout all of the wiretaps, he's seen as treating her absolutely like an object — like much the way policy treats Indigenous women in this country. And this is absolutely about the entirety of the system. The reason why it's the same system yesterday as it is today that your guest talked about is because that is the exact same system that puts Indigenous children and young girls and women in the situation involving violence. And then at the end of the day, even though you know in any other case involving any other Canadian if there was a motive and a means that would be enough. But in this case, somehow it's not enough because it's a young Indigenous girl. This case is about a system, and it's also about 150 years of policy. But most importantly, it's about a situation where Indigenous women face every single day. And so you know when we listen to Nahanni speak, the entire country needs to listen to these voices today. The entire country needs to hear what the experience of Indigenous women and young children.

PC: I want to bring in the verdict that came out just recently in the case against Gerald Stanley, who was also found not guilty in the death of Colten Boushie as that particular case was. And they are not similar cases — their situations are different — but there are the larger contextual issues of all this where people are seeing parallels. There are people who say you know what? Two juries found two people who were accused not guilty, we don't know what the jury was thinking, and there are many, many others as you both well know that are saying this is about historical injustice, and we need a systemic fix. And that's why I want to read you the two statements from the ministers. And Nahanni Fontaine, put this in the larger context, and the idea of a justice in the larger sense.

NF: Well again, I think that what we've seen in the last couple of weeks are moments that are not separate are divorced from the historical context of this country. In many respects, it is a historical continuum that Indigenous peoples’ access to justice is somehow less than the rest of Canadians. And you know I would suggest to you or I would ask and I would pose the question to Canadians and folks that are listening to this is that if the scenario were reversed in the case of Tina Fontaine, if this was a 15-year-old girl who was raped, who was murdered, who was wrapped up, who was thrown in the river, weighted down by rocks. If this was a nonindigenous girl murdered, and the accused was an Indigenous man, I ask and I pose the question: what would be the response? And I suggest to you that the response would be entirely different than what we're seeing. And I know that it is actually even difficult for me to say it out loud. But it is a question that we have to pose, and it is an uncomfortable question, and an uncomfortable experience that we as Canadians have to explore.

PC: And when you say the response would be different. Would you mean a response in the legal sense? In the social sense? What do you mean by that?

NF: I mean in all sense. I can't imagine any response — judicial or otherwise — that wouldn't use the full weight of the law to punish that individual. And that's not what we see today. And that's not what we saw a couple of weeks ago.

PC: Niigaan Sinclair, it has been a tough time recently with these cases for Indigenous communities across our country. What do we need to be thinking about as Canadians today?

NS: It's very easy. We need to turn to people who have had the direct experience of 150 years of policy — people like Nahanni — and people like you know thousands and thousands of Indigenous women and children who have experienced this. And you know people like myself need to step aside and stand beside these individuals when they speak. We need to listen. And most importantly, when they speak, we need to act. When they direct us, we need to act. When we need to change policies, change services, change police, change justice to be able to take direction from these people with experiences. And that's all really that we need to do.

PC: Nahanni Fontaine, after the Gerald Stanley trial, I mean there were calls to change the jury system. A specific call that we need to change that in Canada many people argue. From the case of Raymond Cormier, what specific call do you think should be made?

NF: Well, I think, again, it is the broader view and perspective and reality in respect of accessing justice for Indigenous people. So, certainly, I think after the Stanley case, the calls for justice reform grew louder. But that's something that Indigenous people have been calling for years. In Manitoba, you know we have the 1991 Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which was born out of the murder of Helen Betty Osborne. So here we are how many years later, talking about a justice system that has failed Indigenous women. First with Helen Betty Osborne, and then countless others and now just not even 24 hours with the murder of Tina Fontaine, so, certainly, I think that a systemic, thorough, robust reform of the justice system is certainly needed.

PC: We will leave it there. Thank you to both of you.

NF: Miigwech.

NS: Miigwech. Thank you.

PC: Nahanni Fontaine is a longtime advocate for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and she is the NDP Justice critic in Manitoba Legislature. : Niigaan Sinclair has been supporting Tina Fontaine's family through the trial. He is an associate professor in the Department of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba. And we reached both of them through our Winnipeg studio. All right, the “CBC News” is next. And then not the trip to India Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had likely envisioned. I'll be joined by the CBC's Terry Milewski, and former BC premier Ujjal Dosanjh, and others. To walk through Trudeau's trip and the controversy that has been overshadowing him. I'm Piya Chattopadhyay, you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part two: Trudeau’s troubled visit to India ‘highlights Canada’s soft stance on separatism’

Guests: Terry Milewski, Ujjal Dosanjh, Michel Juneau-Katsuya

PC: Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay. And you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

PC: Still to come, a pilgrimage to Mecca is meant to be a spiritual high point in many Muslims lives. But more and more female pilgrims are speaking out against an ugly reality they've experienced during Hajj: sexual harassment and assault. And as Mecca experiences it's a #MeToo moment, there's also a backlash to those speaking out. I'll be joined by outspoken journalist Mona Eltahawy with her story in half-an-hour.

PC: But first, an invitation to scandal.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Prime Minister Modi and I welcome the conclusion of and progress on cooperation agreements in areas such as civil nuclear science, technology, information technology, automotive sector cooperation, intellectual property, smart cities, and Customs Enforcement.

PC: And so it went. A joint press conference held today by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the end of his eightday visit to India. And although Prime Minister Modi made reference to the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Trudeau's visit by saying there should be no space for people who misuse religion to promote to promote separatism. Prime Minister Trudeau steered clear of making any such statements. But all week controversy has been gathering like storm clouds. Most significantly, that controversy came in the person of Jaspal Atwal, a Sikh separatist once convicted of attempted murder against an Indian politician in Canada. He was photographed with Sophie Grégoire Trudeau — the prime minister's wife. It also emerged that Mr. Atwal had been invited to dine with Justin Trudeau and some of his ministers at a formal reception. That made news in India, and at home, and took the prime minister far off his intended messaging for the trip.

SOUNDCLIP

JT: Obviously, we take the situation extremely seriously. The individual in question never should have received an invitation. And as soon as we found out, we rescinded the invitation immediately. The Member of Parliament who included this individual has — and will — assume full responsibility for his actions.

PC: Now Canada has long had a reputation among Indian leaders for being soft on Sikh extremism. But if one of Mr Trudeau's goals during this visit was to change that impression, it is safe to say these new revelations about Mr. Atwal will make that very, very difficult. The BC resident was convicted of attempted murder for shooting and Indian cabinet minister on Vancouver Island back in 1986. And besides a picture with Ms. Trudeau, Mr. Atwal was photographed alongside the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Amarjeet Sohi. Terry Milewski broke this story. Terry is a long-time journalist with CBC News. And he joins us from Ottawa. Terry, hi.

TERRY MILEWSKI: Hi, Piya. How are you doing?

PC: I'm OK. How did you find out about Mr. Atwal’s presence in India?

TM: Well, a source contacted me and sent me some of the pictures of the various events, the picture with Sophie Trudeau, the picture with Amarjeet Sohi, the infrastructure minister, a couple of other pictures, including the extraordinary invitation from the Canadian High Commissioner in New Delhi to the dinner reception with the prime minister. And this is all sufficiently extraordinary only if you know who is Jaspal Atwal.

PC: And who is he, Terry?

TM: Well, he was a member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, banned in Canada, and the UK, and the US, and India for many years as a terrorist organization. And he was one of four men who attempted to assassinate a visiting cabinet minister from Punjab, who was on holiday on northern Vancouver Island in 1986. The attempt failed; the cabinet minister, Malkiat Singh Sidhu, survived. And the four men were convicted and imprisoned. After that, there were various other legal cases — most of which went badly for Jaspal Atwal. And there was also a bit of a fiasco when he was somehow invited to witness I think it was the 2012 BC budget introduced by Christy Clark's government as it then was. And a Liberal staffer had to resign when it emerged that he had given Atwal the invitation. So all of this is to say that Atwal is very well-known in Surrey BC, and too CISIS and the RCMP, and for good reasons.

PC: And so, Terry, when the source sends you this picture and other information, and you see that as Jaspal Atwal. And you, of course, have been covering Sikh extremism in Canada since the days of the Air India bombing. So you're familiar with him; he lives in Canada. First of all, Terry, I mean you say what to yourself? And then how does this guy end up meeting with Canadian leaders in India?

TM: Well, especially what made it even more remarkable is the timing. Because this came on the very day that Trudeau made his most strenuous efforts to deal with the Indian objections to Canada's long-standing reputation in India as being soft on separatism, and not just separatism, but extremism. Canada, after all, has tolerated for many years the public display of a permanent martyr posters celebrating the Air India bomber — the chief Air India bomber, Talwinder Pamar — as some kind of hero — a martyr of the Sikh cause — teaching children that Canada's worst ever mass murderer is some kind of hero. And this is always stuck in the Indian government's craw. This was true under Mr. Harpers government and before, and continues to this day. And so just two days ago was the day when Trudeau came out and made a clear statement A, that he condemned those posters, which is the first time I've heard that, and was a significant move for any Canadian government. And B, that he stood for a united India. And on that day, it was just not the right day for it to emerge that a man like Jaspal Atwal had the inside track, and was posing with the PM's wife.

PC: OK, Terry. We do know that Randeep Sarai — one of 14 Liberal MPs who accompanied the Prime Minister as part of the delegation to India — you know apologized. Said this was my mistake for inviting Atwal to this, and that it was him and him alone he says that did so. And we heard Prime Minister Trudeau's response in that clip that we played. How big of a blunder is this?

TM: Well, it's pretty serious. Although, I think it's survivable because both parties — the Indians and the Canadians — have been trying to get over this considerable obstacle. And I think that Prime Minister Modi's effusive welcome to Trudeau, giving the lie to all those stories: oh, Trudeau’s being snubbed and so forth. They’re trying to patch it up. It remains to be seen how successful that will be. But there's no question that if the government of India is taking this in stride, after all, the more they say about it the more it focuses an unflattering light on their own failure in giving Atwal a visa. I mean that's the second-day story, of course, in India. But as I say, for all that the government is taking this in stride, the Indian media certainly is not; they're having a field day with this.

PC: And Terry, as you mentioned, Prime Minister Trudeau condemned some of the martyr posters that are here in Canada. And I believe you wrote that he was the first federal political leader to do that. But as you also say, there is a history in this country no matter who is in power of handling Sikh extremism with a great lot of controversy surrounding it. So put the Liberal’s you know handling of this in the context of former Conservative and NDP politicians as well.

TM: Well, that's the most remarkable part of this story is that all parties guilty of playing footsie — call it what you like — with the extremists and the Sikh separatist movement not-withstanding the fact that they are a tiny minority of the Sikh community in Canada. But they are politically very active. They offer to deliver ridings in a series of elections both provincially and federally — notably in Ontario and in B.C. in the case of Mr. Harper, I went along on a couple of trips that he did to India, in which he brought along some MPs who were friendly — who played nice with the separatists. The Indians, of course, noticed that immediately and were angry about it. Harper was berated on this score by the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, himself a Sikh. And Harper's representatives appeared at Vaisakhi parades honouring Talwinder Pamar — the Air India bomber — and without apology. More recently, we've seen Jagmeet Singh — the new leader of the NDP — refusing five consecutive chances in an interview I did with him on “Power and Politics” to condemn the martyr posters; he just could not find any words to object to those martyr posters at all. And sotThe fix that the Liberals are in now is of a piece with what's been happening for all parties. And this may, I hope, be an occasion to finally end that.

PC: OK, Terry, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

TM: Thank you, Piya.

PC: Terry Milewski is a long-time journalist with CBC News. He's in Ottawa. We did reach out to Liberal MP Randeep Sarai. He didn't respond, but the PMO — the Prime Minister's Office — sent us that statement which I mentioned earlier. Well, here in Canada, one of the best-known advocates against Sikh extremism is Ujjal Dosanjh, the former premier and attorney general of British Columbia — and a former federal health minister — has long been outspoken on the subject. And that has made him a target in the past. Here he is speaking from his hospital bed back in 1985, describing a violent attack in which he was nearly beaten to death.

SOUNDCLIP

UJJAL DOSANJH: I hear some footsteps running towards me, and I hear thumps on my head — five or six within the space of a second or two. In the meantime, my partner runs to my aid, and the man starts walking away from me. And I take one good look at him, and he was carrying an iron bar about two to three feet in length with one bolt attached at the end that he was hitting me with.

PC: Now Jaspal Atwal — the same person who was photographed with Prime Minister Trudeau's wife in India this week — was charged in relation to that assault on Ujjal Dosanjh, but he was never convicted. Ujjal Dosanjh is with me now from his home in Vancouver, hello.

UD: Hello.

PC: You have been an outspoken critic of Sikh extremism for decades. When you listen to yourself from 1985 then, and then see the person that was charged but not convicted back in the news, you're thinking what?

UD: That nothing much has changed; that we had more violence in the ‘80s. The attacks on people who opposed Khalistan were more strident. Now these people are more sophisticated, and the political parties, as Terry just said, play footsie with them. And all political parties without exception.

PC: Play footsies meaning to try to get their vote?

UD: And ignore their activities. I have never condemned them. And I think this is the first time anyone has done so. Prime Minister Trudeau ought to be commended for that; better late than never.

PC: How is a convicted Sikh extremists like Jaspal Atwal, who is from Canada, but went back to India at some point to try to go to dinner with the prime minister, and see his entourage, able to get so close to Canadian leaders? Who should be held responsible for what happened here?

UD: Well, you know I mean young MP Sarai you know I don't blame him exclusively because in the community — although it's a large community now — but it still operates almost like a village. You go to big wedding parties, and receptions, and people mingle, and you'd see someone like Jaspal Atwal invited to those as well — he may be a relative or a friend. And you bump into them; I've bumped into him several times in my life and since. And he can take pictures with anyone. And my belief is that I haven't spoken to Sarai since this story broke. My belief is that this chap may have helped him in terms of donating money or being a volunteer on his campaign. And in one of his weaker moments to please him, he got him on the list. But the issue for me is much larger than that: where was PMO? Where was the RCMP or the security clearance? And where was the High Commission? And where was sort of the political test on not just the security test on this issue, where was the political and diplomatic test? You're going to India to repair a relationship, and you don't vet people that you're taking with you or allowing at your receptions? So it's a bigger failure than just Mr. Sari’s.

PC: And is that failure in your view this incompetence or total disregard?

PC: I think it's incompetence on the part of the PMO or the RCMP or the commission, but it's a disregard on the part of the political people: cabinet ministers, MPs, and one should ask the Prime Minister. You know, obviously, he's met the man; there are pictures of him with him. He may not know who he is. So I think there is sort of a bit of looking the other way. And you know can Canadian politicians have been able to get away with it. India has never been as direct or as angry as it is today. And I think that finally it has sort of come home to Canada perhaps — I hope it has — that Indians are very sensitive about anybody talking about the division of the country. We lived through 1947, millions were butchered crossing newly-minted borders by the British. And India is never going to allow that to happen ever. So they're very sensitive; we are about Quebec. If somebody else came in like Charles de Gaulle came in 1967, and raised a ruckus with his slogan. You know so we should be careful if we want to have better relations with one of the largest economies in the world, and the largest democracy in the world.

PC: And put this week and this controversy and what has happened within that bigger relationship for me, Mr. Dosanjh. What does this say about Canada-India relations right now?

UD: I think you know I hope Canada-India relations improve. I saw the hugs between Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Modi. I believe we shall overcome and, hopefully, the relationship improves from where it is. I have every hope for it. You know these are temporary obstacles, particularly if the Canadian politicians from now on become more careful. You know I've been talking about this for years. Nobody has paid any attention to people like me, and finally this political bombshell explodes on an occasion when it shouldn't have for the sake of this relationship. And I'm actually, in a sense, I'm saddened, but I'm happy too because it has brought this issue to the fore. And, hopefully, now Canadians will hold all major political parties and politicians to account for their vast infractions. And for the future if any.

PC: Ujjal Dosanjh, good to talk to you. Thank you.

UD: Thank you.

PC: Ujjal Dosanjh is a long-time advocate against Sikh extremism. He was nearly beaten to death in a violent assault back in 1985. Mr. Dosanjh is also a former premier and attorney general in BC — and a former federal health minister. He joined us today from his home in Vancouver. Now, let's go back to one of the last times that Jaspal Atwal was in the news. This is from May 26, 1986,

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: A quiet Vancouver Island highway was the scene of a bloody ambush on the weekend. A visiting Punjabi cabinet minister had his car forced to the side of the road. Malkiat Singh Sidhu was then shot four times. Today, the police in Campbell River weren't talking, and the security was tight. Four Sikhs — all from the greater Vancouver area — arrived at the courthouse in a blacked-out van, escorted by four police cars.

PC: Jaspal Atwal was one of those four men brought into court. He would be convicted of attempted murder in the shooting of that Indian minister, as we heard earlier. He was also a member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which Canada banned as a terrorist organization during the 1980s. Michel Juneau-Katsuya investigated Sikh extremism as the Asia Pacific bureau chief for CICS — the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — and he is with us from quality Trois-Rivieres, Quebec today. Hello.

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Good morning, Piya.

PC: So when you see that same person that I was just talking about, Jaspal Atwal, invited to meet our Prime Minister in India. And as a former CISIS agent, Michel Juneau-Katsuya, what are you thinking?

MJK: Man, there's nothing new under the sun, unfortunately. For decades, CSIS and the RCMP have been trying to warn the political leaders of this manipulation that has been done by not only the Sikh, but various organisations. We saw exactly the same thing with the Tamil and the Tamil Tigers, for example, in the Toronto area. Trying to sort of get close to the political leaders, gaining a certain form of legitimacy, and yet, all the background checks and all the warnings were there, but people ignored them? This is where I've got a problem.

PC: So yeah, help me understand that part of it. Because this invitation comes from a Liberal MP from British Columbia who says you know what? I shouldn’t have invited the guy, right? Wouldn’t there have been any due diligence beyond that to discover the background of Jaspal Atwal? I mean it was it was Terry Milewski who did the due diligence apparently. I mean where was the RCMP and the PMO?

MJK: Yeah, and Terry did; a job that could have been done way sooner than getting to the PMO or getting even to the RCMP or CSIS. It's a reflex that is not been installed within the political-elected officials where you need to sort of verified the people to try to sort of get access to you or get access to higher leaders than you because people want to try to use you. It would have been very easy for political staff in the regional office to be capable to simply go on the Internet and type the name of the people that wants to try to go there. Now, these people are — as Terry was pointing out — are extremely well-known in the community. Not to believe that somebody didn't know all about the story or the background of this individual is had to imagine. But let's say that it’s a young person, lack of experience, go directly to ask for meeting with the minister or with the prime minister. At that level within the policy, it should be standard that you do a background check, and you request the RCMP and CSIS, and you listen to them. But the problem is that life is very fast lane in politics, they go very quickly, they don't do their background check, or worse: they don't even listen to what CISIS and the RCMP will say.

PC: OK, so a politician says I made a mistake. A staffer perhaps a young staffer — a new staffer — doesn't do their due diligence. What about CSIS or the RCMP? Don't they vet people who are invited to meet with our Prime Minister?

MJK: Not automatically. They will vet the list that the people will be sending to them. And that's one of the problems that exists: they do not all the time sent lists to the RCMP and to CSIS. Therefore, there's no background check that is done by the organizations that do have the information and could warn you.

PC: But in this case, if the list was sent to CSIS and the RCMP, all the people who were going to be at this dinner — we’re inviting all these people to dinner. Would the RCMP and/or CSIS have vetted all those people?

MJK: Well, at this point, I don't think that the vetting has been done. Obviously, because this is like the paramount individual that would have rung all the red flags for the RCMP and CSIS. And everybody would have been capable to tell the premier or his staff to say hey, don't bring this person; he represents a security risk. Obviously, here, either they were ignored or simply they didn't get the information. Or somebody in the political staff circle of the premier decided that hey, I'll do what I want.

PC: So going forward, what would you suggest to the prime minister, or any other politician to avoid these kinds of incidents in the future? Because, as you said, it's not only this party and this prime minister and Sikh extremists; you've seen this before with the Tamil Tigers and other terrorist groups.

MJK: a terrorist group, and also international interference. We had Mr. Dick Fadden, the former director of CSIS several years, ago who tried to warn the general public and the political elite of the interference and the influence coming from Chinese intelligence services and other organisations of that nature. This is part of the game. Somewhere, somehow the democratic system works with gaining influence and getting your issues in front of the political leaders by going through your elected official — local elected official. We need to now develop reflex and a habit to do background checks because people will try to manipulate you — people will try to gain influence on you — so that influence can be can be sort of led to change the course of action of our political elite, which ultimately are making the final call and decisions on the law, on regulations, on the direction of the country. So we need to sort of develop at the first level a better sort of understanding that you do by background checks. And particularly now that we have the internet, like come on. A lot of people should be capable to do those checks. Then if you want to get access to a higher level minister or prime minister, definitely, automatically you cannot be received if you have not gone through a background check by the RCMP and CSIS. This is done automatically. Overnight, you put the name into the system, the system spits out right away if there is a flag on that person. There's no reason why it should sort of slip through the cracks. But the only way it will slip through the cracks is if a human being has not done their job.

PC: OK, we will have to leave it there. Michel Juneau-Katsuya, thank you.

MJK: Always a pleasure, Piya.

PC: Michel Juneau-Katsuya is a former officer with CSIS. He was in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec today. All right, coming up in our next half-hour, we'll be talking about the #MosqueMeToo hashtag, and the backlash against it. And what it means in the offline world. I’m Piya Chattopadhyay, and you are listening to the Friday edition of The Current. We're back in just a bit.

[Music: Theme music]

Back To Top »

Part three: ‘I reject the silencing of women in any community’: #MosqueMeToo creator speaks up for those who cant

Guests: Mona Eltahawy, Syed Soharwardy

PC: Hi I'm Piya Chattopadhyay, and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Call to prayer]

PC: The call to prayer at Mecca — Islam's holiest site — and a destination for some 2 million or more Muslims from around the world each and every year. The pilgrimage is known as the Hajj. And all Muslims who are physically and financially able to make it are expected to undertake the journey at least once in their lives. But it seems that Mecca may be having its own #MeToo movement. Female pilgrims are speaking out about experiences of sexual harassment and abuse during Hajj. They're describing a problematic environment for Muslim women. But just as problematic to some observers is the backlash those very stories are causing. Mona Eltahawy is a journalist and the author of the book “Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution.” Mona was sexually assaulted when she was a teenager, while on the Hajj pilgrimage. And in order to support other women who are now speaking out, Mona Eltahawy started a hashtag: #MosqueMeToo. Mona Eltahawy is with us from Montreal, hello.

MONA ELTAHAWY: Hello, Piya.

PC: Tell me about when you traveled to Mecca — what happened?

ME: Well, it was 1982, and I was 15-years-old, and I went with my family on Hajj; it was our first ever Hajj. We had just arrived in Saudi Arabia about three weeks before. And I mean entering the Grand Mosque in Mecca is an awesome, incredible experience because you know Muslim homes around the world usually have a picture of the Kaaba — that black, cubicle structure — up in in the apartment or a home somewhere. And it's towards this Kaaba and Mecca that Muslims pray five times a day. So to enter this incredible sacred space was overwhelming. And what Muslims usually do when you go to Mecca is you circle the Kaaba in something called the tawaf. So we were doing the tawaf — circling the Kaaba — and it's very crowded. But you know you know as a woman when someone bumps into you in a crowd, and you know when someone is intentionally putting their hand on your backside. And I felt a hand intentionally on my backside. I tried to squirm away; I wasn't able to. I couldn't turn around to see to see who it was. And I burst into tears after many minutes of not been able to get away from the grip of the sexual predator. So I burst into tears, and my parents you know asked what's wrong? And I didn't have the words to tell them. And for the first time in my life I'm covered from head to toe with the exception of my face and my hands — what we usually call hijab, but in Hajj, it's called Ihram. So I burst into tears, and my family decided that we would go to an upper level of the Grand Mosque where it's less crowded. And we completed the tawaf. And then we went downstairs to embrace the Black Stone. The Black Stone is one of the corners of the Kaaba. Now the other Hajj rituals are not segregated — and I never want them to be segregated. But the embracing of the Black Stone is segregated, and so there's a Saudi policeman who stands by the black stone. He called on us to come and embrace the Black Stone. So when it was my turn I bent down to embrace the black stone and the Saudi policeman groped my breast. Now at this point — having already been sexually assaulted by a man I assumed was a fellow pilgrim — something broke inside me. It took me years to grapple with. I just I had no words — no mental capacity — to deal with what had just happened to me.

PC: You were 15 at the time?

ME: I was 15-years-old and I had never been touched consensually or non-consensually by a man on any part of my body other than a physician.

PC: As you say, you're on the most holy pilgrimage that is asked of every Muslim to do at least once in the life. You’ve arrived at the most holy place in your religion to pray, and you were sexually assaulted. What did that say to you then? And what does that say to you now?

ME: Well, at the time, I just wanted to hide from men. Obviously, I did nothing to be ashamed of, but I felt deep shame and a deep sense of violation. And, at the time, the only way that I could handle that was to literally hide from men by wearing hijab full time. When I first wanted to start wearing hijab, because I was 15 my parents told me you are too young. So I kept insisting I wanted to wear it because I just could not handle any more sexual assaults or being groped. And for me, the solution at the time was just to hide. But, obviously, it has nothing to do with the way a woman or a girl dresses; sexual assault is fully the responsibility of the sexual predator. And the shame fully belongs on the man. And it took me years to get over this. So I began to wear hijab at the age of 16. I very soon realized that it was not for me, and I struggled and fought to stop wearing hijab. And I eventually did when I was 25. But as a young girl, I had no power, I had no solution, and I was both ashamed and also very angry that this very spiritual, holy, sacred experience had been ruined for me.

PC: And then someone named Sabika Khan comes along, and she shares her experience on Facebook. And some people might know the story and others might not. So tell us Sabika’s story?

ME: Well, about two weeks ago, someone sent me a link to an article about the story of a young Pakistani woman called Sabika Khan, who posted on Facebook that she had been sexually harassed during the tawaf. She was not on Hajj — her family was visiting Mecca. And she was sexually harassed. And she wrote a post and she said this is going to upset many of you, but I have to share this because my experience of being in this holy site was ruined by this man who sexually harassed me. And I thought my goodness, here we still are, you know? Because after I was sexually assaulted in Mecca during Hajj, it took me years to be able to say what had happened to me. And when I finally started to speak out, I was warned by an Egyptian Muslim woman to stop saying this in front of non-Muslims because it would make Muslims look bad. So the next time I spoke about it publicly was on Egyptian television — a primetime Egyptian TV show in 2013 — where I spoke about this in Arabic. But just to give you the kind of the taboo around this: they experienced such a backlash that the segment producer who had me on was lucky had his job after I appeared because he told me you are the first woman who spoke about being sexually assaulted during Hajj. So that was 2013. And then in 2015, I wrote again about my sexual assault in Hajj in my book that you mentioned because I wanted a permanent record of what had happened to me. So when I read about Sebika Khan's post, I thought my goodness, it keeps happening. And I also read that she faced an onslaught of abuse and hate. And I realized that Sebika was a young woman who didn't have the platform that I have, and was not as heard as I am. And I consider all of that that I have a form of privilege. And I believe if you have privilege, you obliged to fight ten times harder than those who don't. So to support Sebika, I wrote other another thread on Twitter. And I said here I am again sharing what happened to me on Hajj. And this time around — unlike last year — when I posted it on the day that Hajj began, might my tweet thread went around the world. Indonesia woke up and it's like this tap was just turned on. And then it was shared in Urdu, and Hindi, and Arabic, and Turkish, and French, and German, and Spanish, and so many languages — and it started to go viral. And I had said in my thread I want my Muslim sisters to share their experiences under #MosqueMeToo. Let’s speak out if we can because many women can't at the moment.

PC: The hashtag is what I want to talk to you about, Mona. You so you said #MosqueMeToo. And just for people who may not be familiar with you Mona and your Twitter presence, you worry you have an enormous following. You were very forthright and opinionated. You tweet several times a day. So this isn't like someone with you know ten followers tweeting; you knew exactly by using that hashtag, that it would probably take off. Why was it so important for you to do that?

ME: it was important for me to share again my experience of being sexually assaulted at Hajj because I wanted to support Sebika Khan. I wanted Sebika and the women who shared their experiences with her to know that they were not alone. It's very hard to share your experience of sexual assault anywhere, of course it is. But imagine the multiple layers of difficulty when you're trying to expose sexual assault at the holiest site for Muslims in sacred space.

PC: So I want to talk specifically about that because you're calling it out, right? But the important part I want to talk about is the mosque part of the #MosqueMeToo. Because you know whether we call it a movement or something else, we are in this time of a #MeToo story. So what is your intention of making these stories stand out from the other #MeToo stories?

ME: My concern all along as a feminist, and as a feminist who is Egyptian, and a woman of colour, and Muslim, and so many other identities, was that #MeToo in its current iteration, was turning into oh, look what these famous and powerful white men are doing to famous white women. And I worried that it was not making room for marginalized women. So I created #MosqueMeToo because I wanted it to be a place for Muslim women where we recognize each other's experience. But I also was seeing some Muslim men who were saying yeah, all of these disgusting filthy things happen in Hollywood, of course, they are because those people have no morals, but it's different for Muslims. So I wanted to place it squarely as a Muslim thing, for Muslim women, and to confront this denial that this doesn't happen; it does happen. And this idea that no, no, we’re too good for this is also one of the factors that is silencing women. And I reject the silencing of women in any community.

PC: Let me ask you this, Mona: I mean we are hearing these stories from every walk of life, and the differences with #MosqueMeToo versus #MeToo. But what needs to be addressed differently within the Muslim community when we quote/unquote “out these issues”?

ME: Well, when we out these issues, we also have to be aware. I mean at the beginning of any conversation has to be because I'm not naive and I know what happens in the real world and in the so-called “virtual world” is that it's very difficult for Muslim women to speak out about any kind of abuse from within the community because Muslim women are caught between a rock and a hard place. And the rock is a racist, Islamophobic right-wing that exists globally. That is all too eager to demonize Muslim men, and wants to weaponize my words and the words of any Muslim woman speaking out against Muslim men. And say you see, even Muslim women are saying this. And the hard place is a Muslim community that feels beleaguered by these racist Islamophobes and the right-wing. And wants to defend Muslim Muslim men — it wants to defend Muslim men against any accusation. And would rather Muslim women shut up than give ammunition as they say to that racist, Islamophobic right-wing. And I tell that Muslim community I'm a Muslim woman; I'm very well aware of that terrible dynamic. But just as I tell the racists and the Islamophobes in the right-wing I will never ally with you because you are not my friends; you do not care about Muslim women. I also tell the Muslim community if I have to choose between the community and women, I will always choose my Muslim sisters. So that's the beginning of any conversation. Then I want yes, we have to talk about practical steps to address this. And I think that a very important step would be for the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca to have a sermon at any time — any time would be great — but especially in the run up to hajj. In which he says Muslim women have been sharing their experiences of sexual assault and harassment in the holy sites. This is unacceptable anywhere; this is unacceptable in Mecca and the holy sites. Muslim women deserve to be free of sexual violence anywhere. And Muslim women deserve to be respected everywhere, including here in the holy sites. I think that would send out a tremendously powerful message that would be heard across the Muslim world because I believe there are many worlds that we exist in.

PC: I want to raise another concern that has come up from other Muslim women, and I'm going to play some tape. This is from Alia Hogben, she's executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

SOUNDCLIP

ALIA HOGBEN: I support Mona for doing this, and hope that other women will come forward and join her. If something is wrong then it needs to be criticized. But I think what will happen is that some of us women are saying that in mosques and Islamic centres, even in Canada. Men and women are separated and that's the traditional way of praying. And when we raise it as we say why do we have to do it that way? Why can’t men and women pray in the same room, or side by side? I think what this might do is somebody is going to say oh, you know that's why men should be separated from women. And if that happens, that'll be a very tragic thing. So I hope that it doesn't allow the traditionalists in our community, especially men, to say even Muslim women are saying that men and women should be together because they're sexually abused. Or you know there's violence and so on, and start to segregate us even further. Rather than men should mind their own manners and you know control their own urges, rather than saying that women somehow should be segregated. And that's the biggest fear for me.

PC: Mona Eltahawy, what do you say to that fear that the idea that men and women — Muslim men and women — should be separated and in holes of prayer is for the protection of women so these things don't happen?

ME: My simple answer to that is that any man who assaults women is also capable of assaulting boys and men. I think we have to expand this definition of sexual harassment and assault to one that it's just men who do this to women because it's not about men in the holy sites, or men in the secular space, or segregating people. It's about patriarchy. And patriarchy is institutionalized misogyny that enables and protects men from harming women, and enables and protects men who are abusive. When you look at #MosqueMeToo, you will hear many women and men who have said well, I know men who have been sexually assaulted in the holy sites — and men themselves who shared experiences of being assaulted and holy site. So I think the traditionalists who would jump onto this and say ha, this is another great reason that we have to segregate people. I think they’re again being in denial.

PC: Mona, you have been speaking out and fighting against the backlash that has come your way for many years. And I want to ask you about how you handle sexual assault now? And I want you to tell me and our listeners about what happened in a dance club recently to you.

ME: I'm now 50-years-old, and about five or six days after I began that hashtag — after days of hearing stories of Muslim women sharing their experiences. After days of hearing from too many Muslim men who wanted to deny that this had happened and called us liars and attention seekers. And you're making Muslims look bad. And days of Islamophobes and racists and right-wings saying ha, you see it's terrible — we told you it was terrible. My beloved and I decided we go out dancing because I love to dance. And there we are dancing and having a great time. And I felt a man's hand on my backside, and I was like are you kidding me? After almost a week of doing this, are you kidding me? Is this really happening? When I was 15, I froze and I burst into tears; I just did not know how to handle this. But between 15 and 50 many things have happened. And among them is I have developed the ability to grab that hand that assaults me. But that night, I didn't just grab the hand, I turned around — it was immediate, it was instinct. I was fueled by instinct and rage and it was beautiful. I grabbed him so hard it caught him by surprise. He fell on a platform on the dance floor. And I basically sat on him and I punched him about 10 to 15 times. And all the time as I was punching him, I was yelling don't you ever touch a woman again. Don't you ever talk to me again; it was glorious. And it was like decades of rage came out on this man. But it was you know it was a reminder that sacred space, secular space, all space patriarchy enables and protects men to do whatever they want to our bodies. And I was not having it; I was done. I am now 50-years-old, shameless, and I will punch you. If you grope me, I will break your hand. Now I almost broke my hand punching this man, but it was worth it.

PC: Mona, you said it was glorious. There are lots of people listening right now who are saying it was assault what you did. You say what?

ME: I say I was defending myself. You know the really interesting thing here is when I said I was sexually assaulted at 15 so many men came on and said why didn't you make a fuss? And then when I said I defended myself — because this was self-defence against a man who assaulted me — and I described how I punched him and I said it was glorious. Lo-and-behold, so many men came on and said oh my goodness, Mona, you made too much fuss. So what is it? Which is it men? Am I making too little fuss? Am I making too much fuss? I think, at the end of the day, men need to address themselves. Men need to step up and tell each other stop assaulting women.

PC: And your message to other women, especially Muslim women, and especially those who are finding themselves in a similar situation to what you did when you were 15. You say what to them?

ME: We as women understand how to survive. And we as women must act in the way that we see best in any given situation. My message isn't go out there and endanger yourselves because I know that we are in danger all the time. Some people have said to me don't you think you're making women's lives even more dangerous? Even more dangerous than what? Are people aware of the horrendous rates of violence — sexual or physical — against women around the world, whether it's in Montreal or in Mecca? So my message to women is take care of yourself. Let's talk women about how we can better defend ourselves. And insist that men stop assaulting us. I also would encourage them to start these conversations because you'd be surprised at what you'd hear. And most importantly, for those of us who can speak out, speak out now because it helps those who are, for now, unable to speak. Because I would love a day where we are able to speak, and we've we don't hear the voices of everyone, we have to ask why?

PC: Mona, thank you for talking to me. I appreciate your time very much.

ME: Thank you so much for having me.

PC: Mona Eltahawy is an author and journalist, who started the online hashtag #MosqueMeToo. Mona Eltahawy was in Montreal. Well, as we heard that hashtag has gotten lots of traction and reaction from around the world — both positive and negative. Joining me with his thoughts on this conversation is Imam Syed Soharwardy. He is the founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. And he is in Calgary. Hello.

SYED SOHARDY: Good morning.

PC: What do you think of this #MosqueMeToo that was started by Mona Eltahawy?

SS: I think it's about time to start and create awareness about the abuse that people face during these Hajj ceremonies, as well as in the holy mosque in Mecca. I have lived in Saudi Arabia for almost seven years. I have taught in Saudi university for seven years. My children were born in Saudi Arabia. I have been to holy mosques for hundreds and hundreds of time during those seven years. So I complete sister Mona what she said. But, at the same time, we have to recognize that all Muslim men are not angels; they are humans. And there are bad elements and good elements. So there are bad people who go for Hajj and who commit crime who assault women or men, and who do wrong things. Theft also takes place. So it does not mean that the holy sites are protected by criminals who commit these crimes. So we have to understand that.

PC: In the broader #MeToo movement the same things were said: it's not all men. And people would argue back and say why we're not saying it's all men, but it's some men. And that's why we need to raise these issues. So I'm curious in the MosqueMeToo sense of all of this, do you agree that there is a need for a distinct conversation online and offline, by which I mean in real life about sexual harassment, assault, and abuse that does take place, whether in Mecca or in mosques around the world, again, not everywhere and not by everyone, but there is a problem?

SS: No, there is a problem. So we cannot deny and we should not deny. But at the same time, in others mosques other that the holy sites as you know the traditional ways that there is less chance — I'm not saying it is not possible — there less chance for the other mosques where women get sexually assaulted the way it takes place in the holy sites in Mecca and Medina Shereef because there are men and women all together there. So what I think the most important thing yes, we have to talk about it. Yes, we have to create awareness about this bad thing that is taking place there. But I think there is a huge responsibility that the government of Saudi Arabia — the clergy of Saudi Arabia — has to play. I mean I don't think that the Saudis do not know — the government does not know what is going on. They know it. I have discussed when I was in Saudi Arabia many, many years ago. I have discussed this thing because I have been told, I have discussed, and I have seen with my own eyes that there are some bad men who commit these kind of crimes I call it. And the Saudis know. I have discussed with Saudis also. So this is not something they do not know. But there has been nothing done because they don't see the importance of protecting women. And because in that society, women just got the right to drive, and women just got the right to vote. So in that society, I think it is very, very important for everybody to raise this concern and create awareness about it. And the government of Saudi Arabia has to come to the plate and do everything to catch these criminals. The clergy — the imams — they have to stand up and say this is wrong. And anybody caught has to be reported to police and has to be punished by the law.

PC: And what about your role and responsibility as an Imam in Canada, and others — and many, many Canadians go to Mecca to do Hajj every year. What is your role you know in passing along the message that this is not OK, and you need to speak out?

SS: Absolutely, this is my goal. And the other Imams across Canada or other parts of the world that when we go for Hajj, we make sure that our women, or girls, our sisters, wives, our mothers, they know that if they get assaulted by anyone then they should not let it go. They should be standing up, they should be reporting it, they should be catching that person, identifying that person. This is not something that we should absorb. I have always said it because I vote against violence across this country that accepting violence is an endorsement of violence. So we cannot accept violencew we should not tolerate violence, and the women and the men both have to stand up, whether it takes place in a holy site or anywhere else.

PC: And Imam Soharwardy, Mona Eltahawy raise some of this. And perhaps you've already heard some of this, or maybe after having this conversation, you will hear this at Friday prayers and as the weeks go on, which is this: We don't need to talk about this. Let us not air our dirty laundry from our communities. There is already Islamophobia. And we don't need to perpetuate that. And yes there is a problem, but it exists everywhere. What would you say to someone who says that to you?

SS: No, no. As Mona mentioned, there are Islamophobes who use these kind of tragic incidents or bad things and to create hate against Muslims, and bad mouth about Islam. But this is not something that we should let it go. I think as a Muslim, it is my responsibility too to discuss and try to stop the bad thing that goes on within our own community. in our faith or our society, that is our responsibility. I don't want that any Islamophobe should be identifying these problems. I think if there is a problem — and there are problems — we should discuss and stand up against it.

PC: And another concern she raised is that — and we heard in the tape there — is that maybe some will say well, this is why men and women should pray separately in our mosques; this will protect the women if we keep them apart. What do you think of that?

SS: Logistically, it is not possible in the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. It is not possible because there are millions and millions of people at the same time. Yes, in other mosques around the world that is maybe possible, and that has been over tradition. But it is not possible in Mecca and Medina because millions of people are there. It is government's responsibility. It is every man's. Every women's responsibility to know that there are bad elements in that group in that worshipping place. And we need to stop it in order to protect the sanctity of our holy sites. We need to stand up and we need to identify those culprits.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

February 23rd, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This