If Canadians need to reflect on themselves and their country, then politicians also need to consider that they can do better in the past and can do more in the future.

In addition to proposing the idea of ??”Freedom in Canada,” Trudeau used that speech six years ago to condemn the then Conservative government for trying to prohibit new Canadians from wearing a veil when they were sworn in. After reviewing the policy and the Conservative Party’s remarks surrounding it, Trudeau cited some of the most shameful events in Canadian history.

“This is not the free spirit of Canada, my friends,” he said. “This is the spirit Komagata Maru. of Saint louis. of ‘Not much.'”

Most of the responses to these remarks focused on Trudeau’s comparative choices. Jason Kenney, the author of the nicab ban, said that the Liberal Party leader has demonstrated “Grotesque lack of judgment.”

How much has changed since 2015?

Six years later, it may be difficult to imagine that a mainstream political party would propose such a ban, and it is easier to imagine that observers would agree to such historical comparisons. This may be considered a small measure of progress.

But the 2015 election-during which Stephen Harper also Suggest He will consider extending the ban on Nikabu to public service-this is not the last word in Canada’s anti-Muslim prejudice.

In 2017, there were Proposal 103. Proposed by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, it asks the House of Commons to condemn Islamophobia and support a study on how the federal government can better combat racism and discrimination. It did not pass quietly or easily. Eighty-six Conservative Party MPs-including the current party leader Irene O’Toole-voted against.

Watch: Erin O’Toole, leader of the Conservative Party, speaks at the London Vigil

O’Toole’s first reaction to the London attack this week described it as “The terrorist act of Islamophobia. “He uses the word “Islamophobia” in the book. His speech in the House of Commons the next day.

Perhaps this can be regarded as some small measure of progress. But even if O’Toole seems to turn a page this week, should politicians be allowed to move on so quietly?

Does he regret voting for M-103? What is his current view of the words and deeds of the veil of the former Conservative government of his cabinet minister? That the same government talked about”Barbaric cultural customs? “

At present, the time for Conservative Party leaders to publicly reflect on these choices seems ripe. But O’Toole is not the only federal leader currently facing problems.

Walking on the fence of Act 21

When Trudeau delivered that speech in 2015, he was ahead of other leaders on the veil issue. Unfortunately, it was possible at the time to think that he was taking a political risk by criticizing the Harper administration’s ban so loudly. The New Democrats ultimately blamed their failure in the election that year on Tom Murkell and was eventually forced to condemn this policy.

If Trudeau is now ahead of his federal counterparts in this matter Quebec Act No. 21, Which would prohibit civil servants in the province from wearing religious headdresses or symbols, but he did not lead too much.

Otul Postponed to Quebec Last September, when he was asked about the so-called “secularism” law-now he might be asked another thing. New Democratic Party leader Jagmit Singh criticized the bill, but did not say that his government will intervene.

Trudeau criticized the bill, but still The only one among the leaders of the Federation said The federal government may one day need to participate in legal challenges against it.

It’s not much-but Trudeau seems to be going backwards this week. When asked by a reporter if he thinks Bill 21 “facilitates hatred and…discrimination”, the prime minister replied: “No.”

This answer needs an explanation-especially since Trudeau himself used “Discrimination“When it comes to Act 21.

Imagine a non-selfish argument formally opposed to the federal government intervention At this time in Act No. 21.

There is no doubt that some politicians in Quebec will be happy to have the opportunity to turn this into a fight with Ottawa. If Act 21 fails, it may be best if the failure is clearly driven by the Quebecers.

As A legal scholar said, The exact role of the federal government in cracking down on provincial laws is controversial (although if Quebec uses the despite clause and ultimately supports the bill, Trudeau may need to seriously consider accepting the challenge of constitutional reform).

Refusal to participate will not get Trudeau out of trouble

But the refusal to legally participate does not prevent the prime minister-or any other federal leader-from speaking clearly and forcefully about provincial legislation. If anything, refusing to intervene will only increase the considerable responsibilities that the Prime Minister has already assumed, and fight hatred and systemic racism in other ways.

In this regard, the Trudeau government has its own say.It drafted a Anti-racism strategy And invested 45 million U.S. dollars for this. It emphasizes the diversity of federal appointments.

The government promised to introduce legislation soon to combat the online dissemination of hate content-although the fall elections will at least postpone the implementation of such a bill. In terms of the importance of words, Trudeau’s rhetorical leadership in recent days and years may be commendable.

But after London, the questions worth asking have to do with what should be done—and why these things can’t happen soon. Tragedy should never be a prerequisite for action, but it can inspire people to redouble their efforts. It creates moments that can be seized to advance progress.

The National Council of Muslims in Canada has Appeal to the prime minister Convene a national summit on Islamophobia, bringing together representatives from all levels of government. NCCM stated that such a meeting would be “a start.”

It may be difficult to find a good reason not to hold such a gathering, even if it must be held in a virtual way.

Trudeau said in that 2015 speech: “The reason Canada is like this is because Canadians are built like this.”

Canadians take into account the reality of their country, this sentence seems to have a double meaning-positive and negative.

But the reasons for deliberate efforts and political leadership are as reasonable now as they were then.