Islamophobia motion: Iqra Khalid, Irwin Cotler offer conflicting takes on their conversation

Click to play video: 'MPs show little compromise on contentious Islamophobia motion before House of Commons' MPs show little compromise on contentious Islamophobia motion before House of Commons
WATCH: Liberal MP Iqra Khalid and Conservative MP Scott Reid join Vassy Kapelos to explain the two sides on Motion103, a non-binding motion that seeks to commit parliament study racism and provide solutions to this growing problem – Feb 19, 2017

Iqra Khalid, the Liberal MP behind a contentious anti-Islamophobia motion in Parliament, says a highly respected former MP told her that changing the word “Islamophobia” would “water down” her bid to address racism and racial discrimination.

In a separate interview, however, human rights activist and former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler said he only told Khalid he supports her motion “in principle.” Were he a sitting MP, he said, he would propose amending the wording of the motion to make it more widely acceptable.

WATCH: Liberals attack spread of ‘misinformation’ over Islamophobia motion

Click to play video: 'Liberals attack spread of ‘misinformation’ over Islamophobia motion' Liberals attack spread of ‘misinformation’ over Islamophobia motion
Liberals attack spread of ‘misinformation’ over Islamophobia motion – Feb 16, 2017

“I told her I am in support in principle, but I do believe the motion would be more widely supported if she changed the word ‘Islamophobia’ to ‘anti-Muslim bigotry,’” Cotler said. “It would achieve the same purpose and garner more support.”

Story continues below advertisement

Cotler said he and Khalid spoke in the government lobby behind the House of Commons when he was in Ottawa last week.

READ MORE: Motion condemning Islamophobia somehow controversial for Conservatives

“He said he has no problems with the term Islamophobia, and that if I sought … a term that the [Conservatives] may be compatible with, [it would be] a watered-down version of what Islamophobia actually is,” Khalid said, offering a conflicting version of Cotler’s view.

The inclusion of the word “Islamophobia” in Khalid’s motion has caused a maelstrom in Ottawa, with a number of Conservative MPs – including several leadership hopefuls – saying the motion is an attack on freedom of speech.

The fact the word “Islamophobia” is included – yet not explicitly defined – could suppress freedom of expression, some Conservatives have argued; without a clear definition of the term, could the criticism of any element of Islam or Muslim culture become forbidden, they’ve asked.

READ MORE: Muslim groups call for action on Islamophobia

Khalid’s motion calls on the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear” and condemn Islamophobia, as well as all other kinds of “systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Story continues below advertisement

In the event Khalid’s motion passes, as is expected with the Liberals’ stated support issues yesterday, the matter will be referred to a Commons committee for study. Motions presented in the House, however, have no legal implications or requirement for the prime minister or his cabinet to take any action on the matter.

WATCH: 25% of Canadians support Trump-style travel ban., says new poll 

Click to play video: '25% of Canadians support Trump-style travel ban: poll' 25% of Canadians support Trump-style travel ban: poll
25% of Canadians support Trump-style travel ban: poll – Feb 20, 2017

In opposing Khalid’s motion – and her refusal to amend or add to it – Conservative MP David Anderson introduced his own motion which will go to a vote this week.

Anderson’s motion is broader in scope than the Liberal’s; it asks the House to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.”

Cotler was first asked his opinion on Khalid’s motion last week and said he’d recommend a “more expressive” word than Islamophobia.”

Story continues below advertisement

Some Conservatives took that to mean he supported their party’s motion, but Cotler later said he wasn’t aware of their motion and hadn’t read it, so could not supporting of it.


Sponsored content