Surely this comment from today's Globe and Mail says it all:
For all his frankness, despite the black skull cap and full beard and the kurta, Mr. Shaikh, a born-and-bred Torontonian, is a good Canadian boy with Canadian sensibilities.
Blatchford goes on to note that Mubin Shaikh was unwilling to use the "N word" when testifying against the "Toronto 18" (now the Toronto 11) yesterday. This was in reference to a black 9mm gun allegedly in possession of the group, and their nickname for it.
Has Blatchford shifted position since she scribbled this?
Not at all.
With her, it's always about categories, one group against another, one cause against another. Here, yet again, we see the binary firmly in place. The Other is racist. Our boy isn't.
And as for the long-sleeved shirt, beard and skull cap, despite these, he's reassuringly "Canadian." He's even got a sense of humour.
Now imagine if she had been referring to, say, an Orthodox Jew instead. "Despite the dangling locks and black skull cap, Moishe, a born-and-bred Torontonian, is a good Canadian boy with Canadian sensibilities." Just how long would she last as a columnist in the Globe and Mail?
What is a "Canadian," exactly? Why is Mubin Shaikh a Canadian despite what he chooses to wear and believe? What should he wear, in order not to disguise himself, somehow, as a non-Canadian? What should he believe?
The floor is open.