"While I believe it is important to report on the activities of Islamic fundamentalist groups and their activities in Canada, the language and framing by Postmedia outlets in their non-stop coverage of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) misrepresents the group and presents a misrepresentative picture and an Islamophobic narrative that generalizes political Islamic theoretical discourse as inherently extremist, which is not always the case."
January 20, 2025
To Postmedia Leadership,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) to raise my concerns about your Islamophobic editorial “Hatred is not welcome here,” which was published across at least 15 Postmedia outlets (which includes Sault This Week, The Elliot Lake Standard, The Sault Star, The Timmins Daily Press, Timmins Times, the Mid-North Monitor, Ottawa Sun, The Sudbury Star, Edmonton Sun, Kirkland Lake Northern News, North Bay Nugget, Cochrane Post, NewsCaf, Calgary Sun, and the Toronto Sun). With a potential reach of 2,781,070 readers over the next 30 days, this piece is a calculated, SEO-driven piece of Islamophobic propaganda masquerading as opinion. Its publication under the Postmedia banner raises serious ethical and reputational questions about the company’s journalistic standards and corporate responsibility.
While I believe it is important to report on the activities of Islamic fundamentalist groups and their activities in Canada, the language and framing by Postmedia outlets in their non-stop coverage of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) misrepresents the group and presents a misrepresentative picture and an Islamophobic narrative that generalizes political Islamic theoretical discourse as inherently extremist, which is not always the case.
In this editorial, Postmedia has published a concerning number of factual inaccuracies and contextual gaps about the fringe group HT. This does a major disservice to Canadians who engage in Postmedia content.
Sensationalist Framing and Conflation of Unrelated Issues
“The last thing this country needs to import is more hatred. Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct.7, 2023, there have been marches through our major cities in which participants have uttered antisemitic threats. They’ve climbed the walls of Mt. Sinai Hospital in Toronto and defaced businesses owned by Jewish Canadians. One girls’ school has been shot up three times.”
To be clear, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is not implicated in any of the incidents mentioned. This manufactured association unfairly stigmatizes Muslims and Palestinians as complicit in extremism which is also a clear example of anti-Palestinian racism as defined by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association.
The editorial also misrepresents HT’s goals, falsely suggesting that the group seeks to establish a caliphate in Canada. This claim is demonstrably false. HT’s stated aim is to re-establish a caliphate in Muslim-majority countries. Such distortions serve no purpose other than to provoke fear and division.
Indeed, Hizb ut-Tahrir (Ht) is a global Islamic organization that advocates for the establishment of a Caliphate in the Muslim world, however, it explicitly rejects violence as a method for achieving its goals.
There is extensive research and articles about HT that illustrate their political goals and the method they aspire to achieve their aims through non-violence. We don’t have to endorse their beliefs, but as a journalist, you do have the responsibility of covering the group based on facts.
Here is a list of sources from western media and academic scholars on the group:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/7/6/islamic-states-caliph-lauds-iraq-rebellion
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explainer-what-is-hizb-ut-tahrir/3kz6k5yjh
https://mondediplo.com/2008/06/04caliphate
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/7/6/islamic-states-caliph-lauds-iraq-rebellion
I highly suggest you look at this chapter titled Hizb ut-Tahrir: Dreaming of Caliphate by Meerim Aitkulova from the peer reviewed academic text “Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements.” I’ve attached a pdf copy in this correspondence.
Your characterization of HT is unsupported by evidence and contradicts the organization’s long standing ideological stance against armed struggle. It also undermines your integrity as a corporation that funds journalistic newsrooms in Canada by implying guilt through association rather than relying on substantiated facts.
“In a statement on its website, the group said it promotes Islamic values within the Muslim community and pushes back against ‘the corrupt foundation of liberal democracy and the erroneous thoughts that emanate from it.’
Yes, in Canada, freedom of speech is protected. But we do not welcome voices that seek to stir up hatred against another segment of the population.
A caliphate, by definition, is theocratic, misogynistic, undemocratic and antisemitic. We don’t need one in Canada.”
Indeed, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) advocates for the establishment of a Caliphate, but this rooted in 20th-century Islamic political thought. This ideology emerged from figures like moderate (liberal) thinkers such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, who sought to revive Islamic governance while rejecting colonial rule. Rather than delving into extensive historical detail, it is important to recognize that HT's vision, while controversial, is fundamentally a critique of colonialism and imperialism. At the time of the groups founding, these concepts were central to the political struggles in the Arab world during the British and French colonial eras.
Additionally, academic scholar Meerim Aitkulova highlights that HT’s interpretation of “jihad” is more nuanced than often perceived in the West. While jihad can encompass physical struggle, its primary meaning lies in the inner, non-violent battle against personal ego and moral failings, often referred to as the “greater jihad.”
HT’s approach to greater jihad aligns with this nonviolent tradition. The group explicitly rejects offensive jihad, violence, and terrorism as methods for achieving its political goals. Its vision of a Caliphate is rooted in intellectual and political engagement, not armed struggle.
To equate HT’s ideology with violent extremism not only misrepresents their stated principles but undermines the credibility of your reporting. Such framing conflates peaceful political advocacy with terrorism, perpetuating sensationalism over substance. If we are to foster informed and meaningful public discourse, accuracy and nuance must take precedence over fear mongering rhetoric.
While HT’s political vision warrants critical scrutiny, simplifying their political ideology as “theocratic, misogynistic, undemocratic and antisemitic” is such a ridiculous and sensationalized statement meant to frame them as an oppressive regime -- even though HT has never governed in any political capacity and likely never will. This mischaracterization reduces the idea of a caliphate to such stereotypes without context or nuance which dehumanizes Muslim political ideologies and fuels xenophobia.
Islamophobic Tropes and Disinformation
The reference to the British government’s designation of HT as a terrorist organization conveniently omits the fact that this decision is controversial and not shared by most Western democracies, including Australia. By selectively citing this example, the editorial manipulates the narrative to legitimize the suppression of non-violent political dissent.
Canada’s anti-terrorism laws require, or at least they are supposed to, provide substantial evidence of violent activity or direct support for terrorism to designate an entity as a terrorist organization. HT’s record does not meet these criteria, as it operates within legal frameworks in countries like Australia, where similar accusations have not resulted in proscription.
While we don’t agree with their political views, framing HT as a security threat has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate misrepresentation of the organization. By equating nonviolent intellectual debate with extremism, such reporting risks criminalizing legitimate political discourse, thereby undermining the fundamental democratic values of freedom of expression, thought, and assembly. These principles are cornerstones of a free society, ensuring that diverse perspectives can be debated without fear of persecution or marginalization.
I appreciate that Postmedia wishes to champion of freedom of expression but the editorial stances of some of your newsrooms and their coverage of Islamic groups they disagree with reveal such a blatant double standard.
For instance, the National Post and the Toronto Sun have repeatedly provided a platform to far-right fringe pro-Israel groups such as Tafsik and other fringe voices like raging Islamophobe Mosab Hassan Yousef.
Groups like Tafsik openly espouse ultra-nationalist views, often advocating policies that have been widely criticized as discriminatory against Palestinians and other marginalized communities. Despite their fringe status, your newsrooms frequently legitimize them in Canadian media as defenders of democratic values or representatives of Jewish advocacy. They are seldom subjected to the same level of critical reporting or alarmist framing as HT. This selective scrutiny fosters an implicit narrative that far-right Jewish advocacy is acceptable, while any political movement rooted in Islamic ideology is inherently suspect.
Such a disparity in treatment perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Muslims and reinforces Islamophobic narratives that frame Islamic political movements as uniquely threatening. It also contributes to an environment in which Muslim communities are disproportionately surveilled, marginalized, and excluded from the political sphere. At the same time, it emboldens far-right groups by granting them a veneer of legitimacy, even when their views conflict with the values of pluralism and equality that democratic societies purport to uphold.
This inconsistency is not only unethical but also undermines public trust in Postmedia publications as a source of balanced and objective information.
When your readers see that groups like Tafsik are given a platform to voice their views without the same degree of skepticism or critical interrogation, it exposes a troubling bias in your journalistic priorities. This bias contributes to a distorted public discourse in which fringe ideologies from one community are amplified, while peaceful advocacy from another is mischaracterized and suppressed. While the editorial claims to uphold Canadian values of free speech, it simultaneously calls for the silencing of HT’s non-violent rhetoric.
In this context, your media outlets have a profound responsibility to approach these issues with nuance and accuracy. Sensationalized coverage not only fails to inform but also deepens societal divides, eroding trust between communities.
Freedom of Speech and Double Standards
Moreover, your portrayal conflates HT’s anti-Zionist stance with antisemitism, which is a distinction critical to understanding their ideology. While HT opposes the State of Israel on political grounds, their rhetoric does not equate to hatred of Jewish people. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani’s draft constitution from 1953 of the future HT states that this future Caliphate “will be governed by sharīʿa law and that people of the book (Christians and Jews) will be allowed to practice their religion freely by paying jizya (a special tax, historically levelled on Christians and Jews), while other faiths will not be tolerated until they convert to an acceptable religion within the Caliphate.”
Again, as documented by scholar Meerim Aitkulova, HT has faced severe repression across various regions globally, despite its explicitly nonviolent stance. This repression is particularly stark in Central Asia, where governments in countries like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan have banned HT outright, citing national security concerns. Members of the organization have been subjected to mass arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and even torture. These measures are often justified by vague accusations of extremism or terrorism, even in the absence of evidence linking HT to violent activities.
In the Middle East, governments such as those in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have similarly banned HT, viewing its calls for the re-establishment of a Caliphate as a threat to state sovereignty and political stability. Members of HT in these nations often face detention, close surveillance, and suppression of their publications and activities. These actions highlight a pattern of conflating political dissent with security threats, which stifles legitimate political engagement.
I emphasize these abuses because I want to illustrate that characterizing HT merely as a "radical Islamic group" without acknowledging this context oversimplifies the issue and risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes about Islamic political movements.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The absence of a byline on this editorial raises serious questions about accountability. Sensitive topics such as Israel and Palestine demand transparent authorship to ensure editorial integrity. Postmedia must explain why it continues to publish unsigned editorials that promote division and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
The rhetoric in this editorial also has real-world consequences. Muslim-Canadians and Palestinian Canadians already face systemic discrimination and Islamophobia. Editorials like this one only exacerbate their marginalization by presenting them as threats to Canadian society. Responsible journalism requires sensitivity to these dynamics.
I understand that Postmedia is primarily owned by Chatham Asset Management, a U.S.-based hedge fund. Chatham has been linked to cost-cutting measures and the prioritization of profits over journalistic quality. Given this context I have few questions that I believe Postmedia should address for transparency.
- Why does Postmedia publish editorials on sensitive issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict without a byline? Shouldn’t such pieces have transparent authorship for accountability?
- How does Postmedia reconcile its role as a news organization with publishing content that could perpetuate hate against marginalized communities, including Palestinian-Canadians and Muslim-Canadians?
- What editorial standards are in place to prevent the publication of content that may fuel hatred or Islamophobia? Are these standards being followed?
- Does Postmedia consider the potential harm its editorial choices cause to communities already facing systemic discrimination in Canada?
Lastly, I believe post media ought to issue a public clarification acknowledging the inaccuracies and harmful generalizations in the editorial and giving you this opportunity to reflect on your editorial practices and prioritize ethical, informed, and inclusive journalism in Canada.
I trust that you will take these concerns seriously and address them appropriately. As advocates for fairness in the media, we remain committed to ensuring accountability and amplifying awareness of these issues. Should the concerns outlined here remain unaddressed, we will explore further avenues to advocate for responsible journalism, including submitting a formal complaint to the National NewsMedia Council or the Quebec Press Council. Additionally, these concerns have sparked significant public interest on social media, and I am considering further engaging the public through detailed analysis on these platforms.
I hope Postmedia will take this opportunity to reflect on its editorial practices and demonstrate a commitment to inclusive and ethical journalism.
I look forward to your response.
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East