Protesters rally during a March. File
Mashoka Maimona, Tribune News Service
Right after 9/11, my mom started wearing the hijab in Sarnia, Ontario — a town with little diversity on the US border. She had made a conscious and unilateral decision to do so, despite the reservations and anxiety my father and I shared about the potential ramifications of her choice. After all, there had been a spike in hate crimes against Muslims following the deadliest terrorist attack on North American soil.
To the teenage me, it was a bold feminist choice. A woman, my mom, made the choice to don a religious garment because it made her feel closer to her faith, regardless of how it might cause strangers to treat her. And when I visit my parents, I exercise that fundamental right to equality and freedom to choose when I wear a bikini to Sarnia’s beautiful Canatara Beach. I make the call — not my husband, not my parents and certainly not the state.
That is the beauty of Canada, our adopted home. People have had the freedom to wear their faith on their metaphorical sleeves, should they choose. As a Muslim woman in Canada, I could always dress however I pleased.
The Quebec government took away some of that Canadian freedom with Sunday’s passage of a controversial bill that bans many public employees in the province from wearing religious symbols at work. Teachers, judges and police officers, among other civil servants, can no longer wear Muslim headscarves (hijabs), Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and other symbols of their faith in the workplace.
Even more alarming, the law also prohibits anyone wearing face coverings — Muslim women wearing niqabs (face veils) are the primary target — from receiving government services that include healthcare and using public transit.
Quebec is the first jurisdiction in North America to ban religious symbols for public servants, which sends a dangerous message: It is perfectly acceptable in a democratic society to flagrantly limit individual rights and freedoms.
The law does not clearly define what a religious symbol is, how the ban will be enforced or what the penalties are. It appoints the government as the arbiter of religious authority that arbitrarily determines which symbols are “religious” — and violate the law — and which are “cultural” expressions and therefore permitted. Meanwhile, a giant gold crucifix hangs over the speaker’s chair in Quebec’s National Assembly. The government’s position and provincial consensus appears to be that the cross is a “cultural symbol.”
Quebec is not alone in banning hijabs and niqabs. In May, Austria approved a law banning Muslim headscarves in primary schools. The scarves and other conspicuous religious symbols have also been banned at state schools in France.
With its ban, Quebec’s ostensible goal is to ensure strict secularism and the separation of the state and religion. However, the ban does not target all religions, but singles out particular faiths that call for religious symbols and garb. It targets women who wear the niqab or burka with a provision that does not allow the wearing of face coverings while receiving government services. Instead of allowing women to decide whether to cover their faces, Quebec’s ban will isolate women by pushing them out of public life. Fewer will be able to get a public education, progress in their public service careers, travel on public transportation or obtain healthcare from the publicly funded system.
In enacting the ban, Quebec invoked a rarely used loophole that allows the government to override basic constitutional rights. While that may make it more difficult to overturn the law in the courts, a legal challenge has already been filed in Quebec’s Superior Court by a University of Montreal student training to become a teacher, the Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. and the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
In May, three UN investigators warned the Quebec legislature about the risk of violating fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and equality. They reminded the province that it is bound by international human rights treaties that cover religious rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — a treaty Canada signed in 1976 that Quebec must also comply with.
Prohibiting specific religious dress is a textbook example of religious persecution. Where is the recognition of the values of equality and fairness public servants need to be able to bring to their roles? History has shown us time and time again that targeting minority groups can lead to systematic persecution, violence and worse.
Quebec’s new law could have far-reaching consequences that go beyond keeping many people from working in the public sector or from securing government services. The message is an authoritarian one: Dress, think, believe like us — if you don’t, you are not one of us.
What is a definition of Islamophobia for? It is to help prevent a social evil, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims correctly states in its thoughtful report. Baroness Warsi, the force behind it, has candidly described how “dinner party” Islamophobia has become acceptable,
Must our politicians disappoint? That is the question that is keeping some of us on the liberal left up at night. The latest let down is Justin Trudeau. While Trudeau was never as left wing as many of us economically, his leadership style on social issues did seem like a breath of fresh air. He appeared to be willing to take action that went against the narrative of the day, making genuinely tough decisions on issues like immigration where the easy option would have been to turn people away.
The starting para of the column is so sorrowful - it paints such a bleak picture of a common Indian citizen that one questions existence itself - the existence of a God. Of course, with the reverence of the cow, God is a public debacle and religion is a word I have come to hate, I wish it weren’t ever invented.
Theresa May never seemed to appreciate the importance of tempo in politics. She was not good at surprising, disrupting and confusing her opponents. Boris Johnson has learned from her mistakes.
What happens to a democracy when people stop talking to one another about what matters to them and the country? When people are afraid to speak their minds because they fear the personal blowback likely to come their way? Or worse,
The other day I saw a report of an airstrike hitting a medical facility in Idlib, killing a paramedic and an ambulance driver. Not a legitimate military target, but a medical facility. Then, shortly after, an airstrike hit again.