Montreal – Sada Online

Just days before the Quebec election, Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum, told Sada Online that participation by Quebec’s Muslim and Arab communities in the election is “a necessity that is not up for debate,” arguing that turning out to vote strengthens the community’s social and political weight and affirms its role as an active part of Quebec society.

In the interview, Majzoub discussed the choice between voting according to one’s convictions and “strategic voting,” stressing that circumstances vary from one riding to another. He urged voters to avoid voting randomly and to review the positions of parties and candidates before making their decision.

He also rejected the idea that boycotting the election or casting a blank ballot is an effective collective option, warning that negativity can lead to frustration and isolation.

The interview also addressed the controversy surrounding Quebec Liberal Party candidate Valérie Assouline in Saint-Laurent. Majzoub said that many community members felt the party’s handling of their concerns had led to “a certain erosion of trust,” while stressing that the organizations he represents through the Muslim Community Consultative Table have not called for a boycott of the Liberal Party, whose publicly stated general policies affirm openness toward the different components of Quebec society without discrimination. Pasted markdown

Full interview

We are on the eve of the election. How important is it for community members to turn out in large numbers? And does the turnout rate itself affect the community’s political and social weight in the future?

First, many thanks to Sada Online, to you, brother Hussein, and to the entire team for your continued work and the efforts you consistently make. Elections are an important issue for the community in general, as is shedding light on the challenges the community faces, as well as on the parties, their platforms and their positions on issues that matter to the community. So, many thanks to you for that.

In our view, the participation of community members in Quebec is a necessity that is not up for debate, because community members must participate in decision-making and in shaping decisions. This is a civic duty and a right for all citizens, and we see no reason why the sons and daughters of the community should not participate in the decision-making process.

As for the community’s political weight, so to speak, and the need to focus on its concerns and ensure that political parties hear about the challenges it faces and the policies that have become known to everyone, we see every day what young men and women, educational institutions, mosques and community centres are facing. So how can there be an occasion to determine who will steer Quebec for the next four years without the community participating?

As for political influence, what matters greatly to us is that the community remains alive and engaged. I previously wrote an article on your website about the necessity of participation and presence. The issue is not only that our participation will change the balance of power; participation in itself means that we are an engaged community and part of the fabric of this society.

There is no doubt that participation gives the community its social standing, while its presence gives it confidence that it is not merely a marginal component of society. Pasted markdown

Some voters say they cannot find a party or candidate who represents all of their priorities. What should they know before deciding to abstain from voting?

Naturally, finding the ideal candidate or the ideal party is not something that exists in reality.

Here, we want to make something extremely important clear: we are not a group isolated from the rest of society. In fact, Quebec’s Muslim and Arab communities are deeply integrated into the everyday economic, social, local and geographic life of all components of society.

The community’s religious understanding rejects isolation; such a concept simply does not exist. On the contrary, it calls for being among people and integrating into society. Positive social integration is one of the principles of the faith to which the Muslim community belongs and, frankly, also part of Arab cultural understanding.

As for finding a candidate or party that represents everything that matters to a voter, no. But there are many parties and candidates, and certain policies within some parties, that serve Quebec society in areas such as health and education, fighting corruption, reducing taxes, for example, and the economy. All of these issues concern us as members of Quebec society.

As for our own particular concerns and issues, yes, we may find some candidates and parties that are closer to our concerns and others that are further away.

Unfortunately, many community members want to be told whom to vote for, even though the information is available and widely accessible. Someone who follows Sada Online alone, for example, can get a clear picture of the parties and candidates. Electoral platforms are also widely available on social media and in French- and English-language newspapers and media.

But before voting, we must avoid random voting. Some reading is necessary — not necessarily in-depth reading, because the issues are very clear — before going to cast a ballot. Pasted markdown

Some people propose casting a blank ballot as a way of protesting the available choices. Does a blank ballot have any real political impact? And in terms of the political message, what is the difference between doing that and not going to the polls at all?

Of course, some have proposed the idea of casting a blank ballot or boycotting the election. In our own view, and in our view as the Canadian Muslim Forum, which believes in the necessity of positive integration, and as the Muslim Community Consultative Table, we discussed this matter and concluded that neither a blank ballot nor a boycott achieves any objective.

A blank ballot may indeed be a form of protest expressing a lack of conviction in any of the parties, but it also carries the dimension of not participating in the decision-making process. Individuals who do not wish to choose any of the available options may do this, but for it to become collective advice, I do not believe it sends a message.

The reality is that political parties and candidates want people who vote for them, and they listen to those who vote for them. As for those who do not vote for them, with the exception of a few who may have ethical and social principles that lead them to listen both to those who vote for them and those who do not, the political establishment generally listens to those who participate and engage with it.

Therefore, we believe that the concepts of boycotting and casting a blank ballot may send a negative message.

I would like to point here to something I previously addressed in my article: “Our presence is a necessity, and our decision to participate is of great importance.” There are generations of young men and women looking at the first and second generations today and asking: How do they respond to events? How do they respond to challenges? Is it through frustration? Or through isolation, as happened with communities in Europe?

And with you, brother Hussein, and with Sada Online and Sada Al-Mashrek, I have repeated this in podcasts and many interviews: we will strive to avoid conveying a message of negativity and frustration to our children, because negativity generates negativity, negativity may generate frustration, and frustration generates isolation.

Isolation has very serious consequences. It leads to withdrawal into oneself, to the emergence of what are known as “ghettos,” and to many negative phenomena, examples of which we see among communities in Europe. Unfortunately, we may see that some of these phenomena have begun to emerge within our own communities.

In any case, we do not see this as something positive. Pasted markdown

There is a great deal of discussion this time about “strategic voting.” What does it mean in practice? And what should voters examine in their own riding before deciding whether this option is appropriate for them?

On this issue, the discussion always comes down to strategic voting versus approaching the election riding by riding, rather than having a general vote directed toward a particular party.

Strategic voting has its time and circumstances, particularly if we are talking about applying it across all electoral ridings. What we may consider appropriate in one riding may not be appropriate in another.

In one riding, for example, the competition may be between candidates from two major parties. We may believe that the policies of one of those parties would be less harmful to the community, or more beneficial to it, and therefore choose that party in order to prevent the other party — which may have agendas that we believe do not suit the community or address its concerns — from winning.

For that reason, we are not advocates of what is called “general strategic voting.” To some extent, we support taking strategic voting into consideration, but not applying it across every riding.

There may be parties that have little chance of forming government but that reflect our concerns. Here, if you allow me, it is important to point out that for a party in Quebec to have a particular official status in the legislature, it must have either 12 seats or 20 per cent of the popular vote.

That is one aspect. Another is the annual financing of political parties, where funding is linked to each vote. This means that if the community participates in one riding, or several ridings across Quebec, and votes for parties that may be relatively small in terms of influence but whose voices can convey the community’s concerns, this benefits those parties — whether by helping them reach 12 seats, obtain 20 per cent of the popular vote, or through annual financing. Pasted markdown

Can we even speak of one electoral choice that is appropriate for the community across Quebec, or do differences among candidates, levels of competition and circumstances from one riding to another make the decision primarily a local one?

To a large extent, this question continues the previous answer. Every period has its own circumstances. I believe that at one point, during the federal election, there was a general tendency within the community toward strategic voting.

At the moment, however, I do not believe we are facing a general strategic choice in the full sense of the term. Rather, as we said, it is riding by riding and based on the local situation in each riding.

For example, there may be a group of activists in a particular riding who can study the situation and follow the polls regarding the chances of this or that party, or this or that candidate. In such a case, there may be a move toward strategic voting in one place, as we mentioned earlier.

Elsewhere, the choice may be based on whom we see as more reflective of the community and its concerns — and those concerns are indeed very numerous.

At the same time, we reiterate that when we speak about the community and its concerns, these are not the only things that attract our attention when assessing political parties. There are also policies relating, as we mentioned, to education, health, the environment and the economy. Pasted markdown

Allow me to ask: Why don’t Islamic institutions openly name the candidate or party they support, so that the choice is clear to Muslim Quebec voters?

Here, we must point to an extremely important issue. At the Canadian Muslim Forum, we are not among those who advocate that institutions openly declare whom they support or do not support.

There are several considerations. The first concerns the nature of these institutions and the rules governing their work. Most of our institutions are charitable organizations, not lobbyists. Most also have a religious dimension, or they are educational institutions or community centres.

Accordingly, legally speaking, they can participate and support policies, but they cannot carry party flags and announce that they support one party and oppose another.

Let me give you an example. In a particular riding, there may be several candidates, including one whose clear and explicit position gives the impression that he does not merely fail to accommodate the community’s concerns but may even be hostile to them. Yet if that candidate wishes to visit the institution, in principle, the institution’s doors are open to all candidates. That is the first point.

Second, I personally do not prefer institutions doing this, because our role as institutions — including the Forum, even though the Forum’s work is advocacy — is to explain, to place information before people, and to shed light on party policies and orientations, on candidates, and perhaps on the history of their statements and positions.

Therefore, our role is to explain, to draw attention to issues, and to provide information. The choice is then left to each individual. This is fundamental to democratic engagement. Pasted markdown

To what extent is there currently coordination and consultation among Muslim institutions on issues of common concern? Do you believe there is a need for a permanent coordination mechanism, rather than coordination only during election campaigns or when a crisis occurs?

Coordination among community institutions exists to a considerable degree. The Muslim Community Consultative Table, praise be to God, is, in fact, one of the successful community bodies across Canada, not only in Quebec. We say this humbly and by the grace of God.

It is a table that meets around issues concerning the community and develops common positions. Some institutions may not participate in the Table, which is perfectly normal, but that does not necessarily mean they disagree with its positions.

Not everyone necessarily has to sit around one table. What matters is that there are no contradictory directions.

Of course, in practice, this may happen. There have been cases where the Table had one position and there was a general community position, and then one institution adopted an opposing position. This is not desirable, but it does happen, and I do not want to give it more weight than it deserves.

It is true that a political team may exploit such a situation, and this happened during the most recent election when one incident of this kind was exploited. But ultimately, the Table reconvened and there was agreement to continue with the original principled position.

So such things may happen, but we should not exaggerate their significance or fall into a discourse of frustration — saying, “There is no unity, there is no unification,” and so on.

The reality is that this happens in every community, not only the Arab and Muslim communities. There may be exceptions here and there, but by the grace of God — and I say this humbly, based on years of work since 1994 — community members, institutions and figures are, to a large extent, aligned on the major issues, including Islamophobia, Palestine and issues of concern to the community.

As for coordination among institutions not being limited to elections, that is correct, and greater coordination is certainly needed.

But, brother Hussein, as I believe I have mentioned in one or more podcasts and previous interviews, coordination is necessary, but we must be realistic and logical.

In Montreal and its suburbs alone, there are around 70 institutions. Seventy institutions cannot sit together and communicate continuously. This is not only because doing so is difficult, but because every institution has its own concerns and nature of work: youth organizations, mosques, women’s organizations, schools, weekend schools, community centres, and others.

We therefore have to be realistic and not expect every institution to be able to respond to every issue or be fully informed about every detail.

I want to clarify a point here that may surprise many people: our concept of “unity” within the community is somewhat unique and is not found in the same way in other communities. Italian, Greek and Jewish communities, for example, do not bring all their members and religious and cultural institutions together around one table. Instead, they give a mandate to a body to represent them, and everyone supports that body in representing them in a particular place or on a particular issue.

The idea of everyone sitting at the same table is something one might wish for, but in practice it is not easy.

We meet the administrations of many institutions, all of which operate on a volunteer basis, and they may not know what is happening in political or media work or in public affairs. There is nothing wrong with that, because it is not part of the institution’s mandate in the first place.

So how can you bring everyone together when they do not all have the same level of information or understanding of these issues? That is where the difficulty lies.

But is coordination among the main institutions necessary? Yes, without question. And praise be to God, by God’s grace, this coordination exists to a significant degree within the Muslim Community Consultative Table. Pasted markdown

Let us turn to the Valérie Assouline issue. Concerns were raised within parts of the community over her candidacy, but the Liberal Party decided to maintain her as its candidate. Do you believe the party truly understood the reasons for those objections and the message the community was trying to convey?

There is no doubt that the Valérie Assouline issue was a trigger for several reasons, and the community had a clear position on the matter.

This is not a personal issue between the community and Valérie Assouline, of course. But the candidate had previous positions that gave a clear impression — positions that may have concerned the Muslim community, its beliefs and its understanding, as well as the issue of Palestine and other matters.

Why was this surprising, as many community members expressed? Because she had no history with the Liberal Party. She had previously been with the CAQ, then with the federal Conservative Party, and she had taken very strong positions toward Liberals in general. Following the Gaza war, she also took positions from which she did not back down.

It was therefore surprising that she would be nominated in a place such as Saint-Laurent, which is one of the ridings with the highest proportion of community members in Quebec.

I want to make an extremely important point clear: every party is free to decide whom it considers appropriate to nominate. But it was expected that the Liberal Party would take this issue into consideration, especially since there are procedures before candidacies are approved during which candidates, their partisan and political histories, their statements and so on are reviewed.

What happened within the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ)? This surprised everyone. Letters of objection and other messages were sent, but, frankly, they fell on deaf ears.

Let us be realistic: this was one of the surprises the community did not expect, particularly because the community, like other communities to a large extent in Montreal and the Laval area, has traditionally voted almost automatically for the Quebec Liberal Party.

But in reality, there was, to a large extent, little willingness on the part of the party and its leadership to listen, despite direct communication. Pasted markdown

After the meeting that took place with Assouline and community representatives, do you believe the fundamental concerns were addressed? Did you come out of that dialogue with answers or clarifications that were different from what existed beforehand?

Frankly, we learned about the meeting between Assouline and community representatives after it had taken place. This was at a time when the community had already taken a clear and public position through several meetings.

The Consultative Table issued a clear statement and sent letters to the party leadership. At the same time, Saint-Laurent institutions held a meeting with a Liberal Party representative at the ICQ mosque, and their position was clear and explicit in rejecting the meeting. Brother Hussein, you were present.

Later, we heard that an unannounced meeting had taken place between some institutions and Ms. Assouline.

According to what reached us and what we heard — since nothing official was issued on the matter — the meeting was not comfortable, particularly because it was not held in Saint-Laurent, the riding concerned; it was not public; and nothing was publicly issued afterward.

Based on what later emerged from some of the brothers who attended or were informed about what happened, it was clear that the meeting produced nothing. This was expected because it did not meet the conditions for success that the community had set, including a public apology, clarification of previous positions, and so on.

There is another extremely important point: this issue concerns Saint-Laurent. If a meeting was to take place, it should have been held in the Saint-Laurent riding and should have been public.

But the community had already taken its position, and Ms. Assouline apparently did not consider it appropriate to issue a clear public apology for what had happened.

To a large extent, the community’s concerns remain. This is what we have genuinely observed, particularly among Saint-Laurent institutions with which we have been in contact. Some of them still do not feel comfortable with or accepting of the position taken by the Liberals on this matter. Pasted markdown

In your view, was there sufficient clarification or an apology regarding the previous positions that had raised concerns within the community?

As I mentioned, no apology or clarification reached us directly, and this must be pointed out. Pasted markdown

Has Assouline’s continued candidacy, despite the objections, affected the level of trust in the Liberal Party among parts of the community? And how do you see the relationship with the party after the election?

There is no doubt that the party’s failure to listen, in addition to being surprising, led, let us say, to an erosion of trust between members of the community and the Liberal Party.

However, as the Consultative Table made clear, it did not call for a boycott of the Liberal Party in any way, because channels of communication with the party remain open, whether with candidates or with some actors within the party. Communication and contact have not been severed.

This point must therefore be made clear. We, as the Muslim Community Consultative Table, have a very clear position: we defined the framework, the concerns and objections, and the limits of how to deal with the situation.

The Table stated explicitly and clearly in its statement — which is available on your Sada Online page — that we did not call for a boycott.

We also emphasized another extremely important point: we do not claim to represent the entire community, nor do we have any authority over any individual’s choices. We are here only to express the community’s concerns, apprehensions and interests, and to serve as a bridge of communication with decision-makers within political parties — nothing more and nothing less. This must be made clear. Pasted markdown

Should the Assouline issue be viewed as a matter concerning Saint-Laurent alone, or can the way a party handles community concerns in one riding influence voters’ behaviour in other ridings?

I will be frank: I do not believe the Saint-Laurent issue can be viewed as something that concerns us alone. We are trying to keep the matter within the Saint-Laurent riding, but there are concerns — legitimate concerns — that this could represent a political direction for the party in the next phase.

Although the party, or some within it, says that all party members must adhere to the party’s general policies, we must point out that we have not heard anything from the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ), or others, about Bill 21, Bill 9 and Bill 94.

On the contrary, when Mr. Richard Milliard was asked about banning prayer in the streets, he said he would not reverse that decision or that law. Some media may have focused only on that point, but the statement came at a very, very sensitive time.

I want to point out something here: many Liberal Party candidates who contacted community institutions in their ridings heard the same message and comments that the Muslim Community Consultative Table had conveyed, even outside Montreal.

I can assure you that this happened even in ridings outside the city of Montreal and outside the island. Some Liberal Party candidates visited institutions, which is normal during elections, and they heard the same message, together with the Table’s clarification that we are not boycotting the Quebec Liberal Party. Pasted markdown

The election ends and the results are announced. What comes next? How can the community turn participation from voting once every four years into an ongoing relationship with elected representatives and political parties, following their positions and holding them accountable for their promises?

This question is at the heart of everything. It is the whole story from beginning to end.

There is a complete, or almost complete, absence of the community from volunteering and public engagement in all its forms, except for a very small number of people. To a large extent, those few people engage in this work for themselves without carrying or reflecting the community’s concerns, because that is not why they are there in the first place. Rather, they have a personal desire or political ambition, and that is 100 per cent legitimate and 100 per cent their right.

That is where the problem lies.

I have personally been told for many years, and I was told again recently, even from within the Liberal Party: “Mr. Majzoub, you are not there.” And that is true. To a large extent, we are not there.

Our young people do not have this ambition to become part of the political establishment, and this does not happen overnight. There is no volunteering, no joining, no donating. As a community, elections arrive, and then we are surprised and suddenly mobilize.

When we are not at the table, as the saying goes, we become part of the menu. You are not present when discussions take place, you are not present when decisions are made, and you are not present when party policies are shaped. Quebec and Canada, to a considerable degree, still enjoy freedoms and openness.

And, by the way, I am not speaking only about partisan politics. I would go further than that. At the Forum, our work is not partisan, and we are absolutely not a political lobby. Our objective is to encourage community members to be a positive part of society.

We are not sufficiently present in volunteer work with seniors, homeless children, or feeding the poor. This has a major impact, and the same applies within political parties.

Therefore, until we become a continuous part of civic work, volunteering and membership — whether in political parties or elsewhere — we will continue to face this problem.

I pray to God that the situation changes, but until this moment, personally — and I say this with all humility, as we are on the ground just as you are, brother Hussein — we do not see a major change in this direction. The clearest evidence is what we are facing in this election. Pasted markdown

If we are not asking you to tell people whom to vote for, what advice would you give voters so that they can decide for themselves whom to give their vote to?

Naturally, this is clear, explicit and taken for granted, despite the question we are asked every day: as institutions, we do not tell voters whom to elect.

But I want to point to a very important distinction. Institutions do not do this, but individuals can. If one person asks another, that person has the right, as a matter of freedom, to say: “My opinion is such and such.”

We see this among volunteers working with candidates during elections, as they try to persuade citizens to support a candidate or a party’s policies and knock on people’s doors. So, at the individual, one-to-one level, there is no problem.

But as institutions — such as the Canadian Muslim Forum, CCMM, ICQ, CCL and others — an institution cannot tell people: vote for this candidate or that one.

What voters need to do — and this is extremely important — is read and research. I sit with many people who, God willing, possess great knowledge, whether in secular or religious studies, economics, information technology, medicine or engineering. Then questions are asked that frankly show that the person has not taken even five minutes to search online, even though everything is available now.

So I hope everyone will take the time to read, and it does not require much. If, for example, I am in Saint-Laurent and there are three or four candidates, I can look up their names and the issues that matter to me, see their positions, and then vote 100 per cent according to my personal convictions and according to what I believe serves the common interest of Quebec society as a whole.

At the same time — and there is nothing wrong with this — I can also consider what I believe serves the interests of my own community, particularly given the situation of the Arab and Muslim community, which is being very severely targeted.

Unfortunately, what we are now seeing in terms of rising Islamophobia, violent incidents, attacks against girls, intimidation and harassment is not something to be taken lightly at all.

My final message, as always, is this: we are people of this country. We belong to it, we are proud to belong to it, and we contribute to its development. Our children live here. In some areas, such as Saint-Laurent, we are not small in number.

Our children were born in this country, studied here and work here. We are staying in this country, and it is our country. We must not approach things from the perspective that we are immigrants who came here and that is the end of the story. No. We are people of this country. We contribute to it, we pay our taxes, we have duties, and we have rights.

Rights are not a service or a favour granted to us; they are our rights. We should not accept being second- or third-class citizens.

My message to everyone is that our faith requires us to be a vibrant and contributing community. No frustration and no despair. We participate once, twice, three times and four times; we make our voices heard, and we do not simply say that no one listens to us. We must continue. That is the minimum required.

I extend my sincere thanks to you for giving us this opportunity, and God willing, we will have other meetings and follow-ups.

And brother Hussein, once again, from the heart, we know your efforts and the time you devote to this work. Sada Online has become not merely a media platform, but a platform for raising awareness, delivering information, motivating and educating. We congratulate you and everyone on your team on this development. May God bless you. Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy and blessings.