In her article entitled "Standing with Each Other: Indigenous-Muslim Relation-Making on Turtle Island," author Memona Hossain offers a thoughtful exploration of solidarity between Indigenous and Muslim communities across Canada. 
​
According to the article, these communities are bridging their unique histories of resilience and resistance to colonial systems. For instance, the Indigenous pursuit of sovereignty and the Muslim struggle against Islamophobia intersect deeply through shared histories of dispossession, marginalization, and resilience. Through this connection, both communities can navigate their respective identity, resist colonial structures, and advocate for justice. This helps them manifest powerful relationship-building and allyship in the face of systemic inequities. 

Moving beyond documenting the challenges each group faces, this study aptly highlights the active ways these communities stand together by supporting each other's rights and dignity.

If you’re an advocate of human rights and community-driven allyship, this article presents a powerful resource for the transformative potential of solidarity work on Turtle Island. We encourage you to access this wonderful analysis on how Indigenous and Muslim communities are uniting for justice. Read the full paper here.
Memona Hossain is a PhD Candidate in ecopsychology and has been a lecturer at the School of Environment, University of Toronto. Hossain serves on the Board of Directors for the Muslim Association of Canada, Faith & the Common Good, and the Willow Park Ecology Centre, is an advisor & content contributor for Faithfully Sustainable, and has launched the Islam & Earth project.

The Religions and Social Sciences Journal (RSS Journal) is a Canadian open-access academic journal dedicated to interdisciplinary studies at the intersection of religion, social sciences, and cultural studies. Access the journal here. We thank the RSS Journal for publishing this important piece. ​

On September 17, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution, overwhelmingly demanding that Israel “end its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. More than just a symbolic rebuke, the resolution calls for concrete action, including sanctions against Israel and a prohibition on any member state from engaging in activities that sustain Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza. This bold stance marks a significant shift in how the international community is addressing Israel’s decades-long occupation, drawing concern from Israel and its allies, particularly the United States.

A Step Beyond Symbolism

UNGA resolutions are often dismissed as toothless, unenforceable statements without the force of international law. Critics may ask: does this resolution bring any tangible change? The answer lies in the evolution of global attitudes toward Israel’s occupation. While past resolutions have condemned Israel’s actions, this one goes further by making a specific call for action. It demands that member states actively sanction Israel for its violations of international law, a clear departure from the more passive language of previous resolutions.

According to Mondoweiss, this resolution, while not enforceable, "adds another log to the growing fire of anger toward Israel." It directly challenges the status quo, placing moral and political pressure on nations that have normalized relations with Israel or are otherwise hesitant to criticize it.

Why This Resolution Matters

The significance of this resolution lies in the breadth of its support and the specific actions it demands. 124 countries, including major powers like France, China, and Russia, as well as regional players such as Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, voted in favor of the resolution. These nations, many of which have normalized relations with Israel, are now publicly endorsing a call for sanctions.

This broad coalition sends a clear message: Israel’s ongoing occupation and settlement activities are no longer tolerable, and the international community will not remain complicit in sustaining them. Even countries that abstained from the vote, such as the United Kingdom, now find themselves under growing scrutiny. The United States, notably the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to oppose the resolution, finds itself increasingly isolated in its unwavering support for Israel.

This vote also comes in the wake of a pivotal ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared all of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza illegal and non-temporary. The ICJ further ruled that states are obligated not to assist in maintaining Israel’s occupation. The UNGA’s resolution bolsters this legal verdict, reinforcing the demand that member states must take tangible steps to end their complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Israel’s Unease

Israel’s reaction to the resolution has been telling. While Israeli officials and their allies in Washington have downplayed the significance of the UNGA vote, behind the scenes, they have been mobilizing diplomatic efforts to mitigate its impact. Earlier this month, Israel pressured members of Congress to intervene with South Africa, urging it to drop its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. These actions reveal Israel’s genuine concern over the growing international legal and political pressure it faces.

This concern is well-founded. The UNGA resolution not only aligns with the ICJ’s ruling but also places unprecedented pressure on member states to act. A country that votes in favor of this resolution but fails to follow through with sanctions or other measures may face serious questions from its citizens and the international community. This resolution could serve as a turning point, forcing Israel and its allies to confront the reality that their impunity can no longer be taken for granted.

Toward a New International Consensus

While it is true that this resolution cannot compel Israel to comply, it is a significant step toward shifting international opinion and laying the groundwork for future action. The growing association of Israel with apartheid, aggression, and now genocide, makes it increasingly difficult for states and private sector actors to justify deepening ties with Israel. As Israel's behavior becomes more egregious, more countries and companies will view it as a risky partner, limiting its economic and political clout.

The UNGA’s resolution, backed by the ICJ’s legal authority, signals that the international legal system is finally taking steps to hold Israel accountable. While past efforts have faltered, this recent vote offers a glimmer of hope for Palestinians and their advocates. The global community is starting to unite around a clear demand: Israel’s occupation must end, and there will be consequences for those who continue to support it.

Conclusion

The September 17 resolution represents a shift from condemnation to action and places significant pressure on the international community to follow through. While it may not bring immediate change on the ground, it is a clear sign that Israel’s days of unchecked occupation may be coming to an end. With mounting legal, political, and economic pressure, the global consensus is shifting—and Israel and its allies know it.​

By: Tazeen Hasan, Justice For All Canada, Campaign Manager
​
Gerrymandering refers to the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one party or group over another, undermining the core principles of democracy. This practice can dilute the political power of certain communities, skew electoral outcomes, and perpetuate inequality. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, recent electoral manipulations by the Indian government are a textbook example of gerrymandering, designed to erode the political influence of the region’s Muslim majority.
​
Following the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomous status, India has undertaken significant changes to the region’s electoral landscape. The changes are not subtle and demonstrate a clear attempt to reshape the political future of the disputed territory to the detriment of its Muslim majority population.

According to the 2011 census, Muslims in in Jammu and Kashmir comprise 68.3% of the entire population, while Hindus make up 28.2%. However, the 2022 Delimitation Commission allocated 47 assembly seats to the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, which has 56.15% of the state's population, and gave 43 seats to the Hindu-majority Jammu region, which has 43.85% of the population.

According to veteran Kashmiri analyst, in this 90-member assembly, the 28% Hindu population will now hold 34.44% of the seats. 

Although Hindus are in the majority in the Jammu division, the Muslim population makes up 34.21%. Through unfair delimitation, the Muslim-majority constituencies in Jammu have been reduced from 12 to 9. As a result, Muslim representation in jammu will decrease from 32.43% to 20.93%. In the previous assembly, out of the 37 total seats in Jammu, 12 were Muslim-majority constituencies.

The Mechanisms of Gerrymandering in Kashmir

1. Redrawing Electoral Boundaries: The Indian government has altered the boundaries of electoral districts in Jammu and Kashmir. This redistricting has created a skewed balance by combining areas with Hindu-majority populations into single constituencies, effectively increasing their representation.
2. Increasing Seats in Hindu-Majority Areas: To further undermine the political voice of Muslims in the region, the Indian government has increased the number of electoral seats in districts with a significant Hindu population. These changes ensure that Hindu-majority areas are overrepresented in the legislative assembly. New electoral constituencies are introduced in Hindu majority areas while 3 times more populous Muslim majority areas have been merged with other districts. 
3. Reducing Representation in Muslim-Majority Areas: Simultaneously, Muslim-majority areas have seen a reduction in representation. This artificial reduction directly impacts the ability of the Muslim population to influence policy and governance, marginalizing their role in the democratic process.
4. Appointment of Non-Elected Members: Perhaps the most blatant manipulation is the new provision that allows the governor, who is directly appointed by the central Indian government, to nominate five non-elected members to the assembly. This further tilts the balance of power away from the electorate and places it in the hands of a government with vested interests in diminishing the region’s Muslim majority.

According to a veteran political analyst, the intent behind these measures is clear: the Indian government is attempting to convert the Muslim majority in Jammu and Kashmir into a minority in the Assembly. By diluting Muslim representation through gerrymandering, India seeks to legitimize its control over the region and suppress voices of dissent.

The Disadvantages of Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering has far-reaching consequences for democracy, and its implementation in Kashmir is no exception. Some of the critical disadvantages include:

1. Erosion of Political Fairness: By redrawing district boundaries to favor a particular group, gerrymandering undermines the fairness of elections. In the case of Kashmir, this means that the electoral process no longer reflects the will of the majority, but rather the strategic interests of the Indian government.
2. Marginalization of Minority Voices: Gerrymandering systematically reduces the representation of marginalized communities, in this case, the Muslim majority. This deprives them of their rightful influence in governance, further alienating them and deepening social and political divides.
3. Undermining Democratic Institutions: Manipulating electoral boundaries weakens trust in democratic institutions. When elections are rigged to ensure a predetermined outcome, the credibility of democracy itself is at stake. For Kashmir, a region already fraught with political tension, this can lead to greater unrest and instability.
4. Perpetuation of Inequality: Gerrymandering institutionalizes inequality by giving disproportionate power to one group over another. In Kashmir, the Hindu minority’s political influence is artificially inflated, sidelining the Muslim majority and perpetuating an uneven playing field.
5. Further Radicalization of Helpless Kashmiri Muslims: One of the most dangerous consequences of gerrymandering in Kashmir is the potential for further radicalization. As the political influence of Kashmiri Muslims is systematically diminished, their sense of political disenfranchisement deepens. Feeling powerless in the face of systemic injustices, some may turn to more extreme forms of resistance. When the political process is rendered inaccessible and unresponsive, disillusionment and anger can fuel radicalization, creating an environment ripe for conflict. This cycle of suppression and extremism only escalates tensions, making peaceful resolution even more elusive.

The Call for International InterventionThe gerrymandering in Jammu and Kashmir represents a grave threat to democracy, human rights, and regional stability. As one of the world’s foremost advocates of democracy, Canada must take a stand against these anti-democratic practices. The Canadian government has long championed human rights and democratic values, and it is essential for Canada to act now.
Canada should publicly condemn the exploitation of electoral process through gerrymandering in Jammu and Kashmir and call for free and fair elections in the region. Furthermore, as a member of international organizations like the United Nations, Canada can urge the global community to hold the Indian government accountable for its actions, which contravene democratic principles and the right to self-determination.

In conclusion, election-manipulation in Kashmir is not merely a local issue but a direct assault on democratic governance and human rights. The international community, including Canada, must take a firm stand in defense of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, ensuring that their voices are heard and their rights respected. Without intervention, the gerrymandering in Kashmir risks becoming a dangerous precedent, signaling that democratic manipulation can go unchecked in regions of political dispute. The world cannot afford to be silent.

​

Written Format of Justice For All Canada’s address at the UN Human Rights Council.
By: Tazeen Hassan, Justice For All Canada, Campaign Manager

My name is Tazeen Hasan, and I am honored to represent Justice For All, an organization dedicated to combating global Islamophobia particularly the one which leads to genocide. It is a privilege to address the 56th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. I extend my gratitude to all the organizers of this event for addressing such a timely and relevant issue that impacts 2 billion Muslims worldwide, constituting nearly one-fourth of the world's population. We live in a world where Islamophobia intersects not only with settler colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing but also culminates in genocide, as witnessed in India, Kashmir, China, Myanmar and now in Gaza.

Unfortunately, we are gathering at a time when the Israeli bombardment of Gaza has entered its ninth month, a situation deemed a plausible case of genocide by the ICJ. While it is evident that 75-years long Israeli aggression towards Palestinains is driven by settler colonization, the silence of Western powers appears rooted in Islamophobia. During the recent G7 summit in Italy, a special event was organized for Ukraine, yet Gaza received no comparable consideration, despite widespread acknowledgment that Israeli actions against Palestinians are far more brutal than Russian actions in Ukraine. Prompt arrest warrants were issued against Putin, whereas warrants against Netanyahu still remain pending. These double standards are clearly indicative of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia has existed as long as Islam itself. The persecution of Muslims by the Quraysh was an early manifestation of this prejudice. Islamophobia fueled the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Eurocentric orientalists, and the vilification of the Prophet by Voltaire in 17th century France. Islamophobia manifests in various forms: the Naqab and Burkini bans in France, discriminatory immigration policies and  the anti-immigrant shift in Western politics, the rise of far-right power in recent EU election results, predominantly Muslim no-fly lists in Canada and the US, and the suspension of anti-war peaceful student protesters at Harvard and Columbia, where their constitutional rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were denied.

This pattern is also evident in media and narrative framing, with any criticism of India and Hindutva being labeled as Hinduphobia, and criticism of Israel being labeled as Anti-Semitism. 

Neither Islamophobia nor the use of arts to express it is novelty. Islamophobia still persists in various forms of art. For example, the 2015 film 'American Sniper' which vilified Iraqis who suffered from a war waged on the fabricated pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, Bollywood movies like 'Kerala Story' and 'Kashmir Files' depict Muslims as villains and aggressors, perpetuating negative stereotypes. Films like 'Article 370' also whitewashed the Indian genocide in Kashmir.

When Islamophobia is combined with majoratarianism, occupation, settler colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, it often results in genocide. In India, this manifests through majoritarianism and legislations like the CAA, which strips citizenship rights from Muslims. The Chief Minister of ​the biggest Indian state of ​Uttara Paradesh, is known as 'Bulldozer Baba,' ​because he gained notoriety for demolishing Muslim homes with bulldozers. His influence extends beyond India; in 2022, an Indian independence rally in New Jersey prominently featured a bulldozer adorned with images of Yogi Adityanath, celebrating his anti-Muslim policies. This blatant display abroad begs the question: what else but Islamophobia could drive such actions in the world's largest democracy?

Islamophobia is fueling yet another genocide. Millions of Uyghurs in north west of China have been detained for signs of extremism. Simply having a beard, naming children Muhammad or Omar, fasting during Ramadan, or having more than three children results in sentences of 10 to 20 years in prison. Even those not guilty of practicing their faith were sent to reeducation camps, where they were coerced into abandoning their Islamic and Uyghur identities. Upon release, they are sent to forced labor camps to become part of China's export industry. Families have been torn apart, with children sent to state-run orphanages. Uyghur women face forced sterilizations to curb Uyghur births. According to genocide convention, preventions of births in a community and transferring its children to another community is considered genocide. This genocidal project under the pretext of combating islamic extremism is almost at its completion.

The stateless Rohingya of Myanmar are enduring a slow genocide for decades, which escalated into a full-scale genocide in 2017 when they suffered brutal killings, rapes, and the burning of their homes and villages by the Burmese army. Around one million Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, where they now face a miserable humanitarian crisis.

Canada was the first Western country to recognize the Rohingya genocide in 2018. Six years later, we are still in the initial stages of discussing whether we should offer them immigration. The same holds true for Palestinian children in Gaza, who endure genocide while the world watches, leaving them nowhere to seek refuge. In stark contrast, the Western world immediately and unconditionally opened its doors to Ukrainians as soon as conflict broke out there. These double standards glaringly highlight Islamophobia in geopolitics.
​
Islamophobia is also manifesting itself in the environmental genocide of Kashmir under the BJP government. Time doesn't allow me to explain the genocidal policies of the Indian government which are fatal for the population of Kashmir. 

We inhabit a world that upholds international law, and we all share international obligations under genocide convention, Un charter of human rights, and International covenent of civil and political rights. In the end I will appreciate The UN general assembly’s resolution in March as a significant milestone in combating Islamophobia. However, I on behalf of Justice For All Canada recommend that UN the develops the mechanisms to combat geopolitical Islamophobia which is intersecting with occupation, settler colonization, apartheid and leading to genocide.