In Canada’s public buildings, we make room for wellness rooms, lactation spaces, flexible breaks for health and caregiving. Yet when Muslims request a quiet space to pray or when a public official names anti-Palestinian racism suddenly ordinary inclusion is cast as a breach of “neutrality.” What is routine for some becomes suspect for others.

The smear campaign against Amira Alghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia is a case study in this selective standard. The claims range from recasting prayer space as a religious “takeover” to attacking the recognition of anti-Palestinian racism (APR) as politicized bias. What ties these attacks together is a permission structure that treats prejudice against some communities as more explainable, more tolerable, even policy-relevant and then uses that perception to push those communities out of public life.

Neutrality in Canadian law does not mean erasing religious life from public institutions; it means the state neither favours nor hinders it, while accommodating sincerely-held beliefs up to undue hardship. In practice we already do this across contexts from dietary accommodation, to scheduling flexibility without controversy. But when the same principle is applied to Muslims, the standard abruptly tightens and the debate becomes about presence; who is allowed to exist comfortably inside Canadian institutions. 

This moving target also appears in how some commentators police tone and vocabulary. The same voices that insist “all forms of hate must be named” object when Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR) is named, claiming the label is political. But naming patterns of dehumanization is how Canada has made progress against antisemitism, anti-Black racism, and anti-Indigenous racism: if you can’t name a harm, you can’t measure or reduce it. Refusing to name APR ensures that Palestinians and by extension many Muslims remain outside the circle of empathy that drives public policy.

There is a practical outcome to these selective standards: fewer qualified Muslims will accept public appointments if the price of service is self-erasure. The current pile-on signals that even minimal, lawful inclusion like a multi-use quiet room for prayer can be reframed as a loyalty test. The signal is clear: you may serve, but only if you disappear as a Muslim.

We have seen this before. After 9/11, ordinary Muslim life was repeatedly reframed as a security concern. Today the vocabulary has shifted to “neutrality,”and “values,” but the function is the same: casting ordinary inclusion as exceptional risk. The pattern repeats whenever Muslims gain visibility, as journalists, educators, advocates, or policymakers. When prayer is treated as provocation and naming a measurable bias is branded partiality we are shrinking the circle of who gets to belong.

Qualified people watch the treatment of Amira Alghawaby and other Muslims public servants being smeared and will conclude that service will cost them their safety and dignity. Many will quietly opt out.

Canada’s promise is a public square where no community has to disclaim its identity to be allowed to serve. We keep that promise by applying our standards evenly, naming harms consistently, and refusing to let old prejudices rebrand themselves as “values.”