Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.
Oct. 27 marked the beginning of a hebdomadis horribilis for Muslim women in Canada, as they learned they could not depend on civil institutions to include and protect them.
Let’s begin in Montreal. Appearing on the current affairs show Tout le Monde en Parle, Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante was asked about a pencil-sketch poster featuring a hijab-clad woman standing between two men. The sign says “Welcome to city hall.” Some had expressed discomfort with the sign for showing religious garb in a municipal building. Ms. Plante acknowledged the discomfort, reiterated the laïque (lay) nature of city hall, and stated that the sign would be removed.
The Mayor’s message was clear: all people are welcome at City Hall, except if you wear a hijab. This hits deep. I arrived in Montreal at the age of three from India. I experienced first-hand the openness, inclusivity and vibrancy of a special city, which allowed me to thrive in the dynamism of a francophone culture. The decision to remove a welcome sign because it features a woman in hijab goes against everything I know and love about Montreal.
This issue is part of a larger debate in Quebec about laïcité, which is distinct from secularism. The latter has its roots in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, where the individual has inalienable rights free from state intrusion. The former has roots in the views of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, where the individual obtains freedom through the state. In secularism, the state cannot favour any one religion; in laïcité, it cannot be seen as promoting any religion. During the Quiet Revolution, Quebec society methodically removed the hegemonic influence of the Catholic Church, which was seen as particularly detrimental to women. As Quebec lurches toward institutional laïcité today, it seems unbothered that just as the Catholic Church refused to uphold, let alone acknowledge, the personal agency of women, so too does laïcité. For the target of this debate in Quebec over the past two decades has been women in hijab.
The arguments have been tiresome: the hijab is a symbol of oppression; women who wear it have been brainwashed; they serve unwittingly as tools of Islamists, and so on. There is no willingness to respect the intelligence of Muslim women and their agency to make deeply personal choices about their faith. It is a patronizing attitude, which we hear even from some feminists: the need to protect these women from the evils of religion. It echoes Donald Trump’s unnerving promise to “protect women, whether they like it or not.”
Some critics of the hijab point to Iran and Afghanistan, where draconian laws dictate what women must wear in public. What is the relevance? Isn’t the answer to coercion personal agency? Isn’t this the cornerstone of civil society: The opportunity for every woman to exercise her conscience and intelligence in a meaningful way that benefits her personally, and society as a whole? Now Montreal’s City Hall, a civil institution by the people for the people, has removed the welcome mat for a certain group.
The devastating remarks by Ms. Plante were followed by those of assistant Crown attorney Moiz Karimjee on a separate issue. Last May, during a protest at Ottawa City Hall, Lorna Bernbaum was filmed ripping off the hijab of pro-Palestinian protester Hayfa Abdelkhaleq. Ms. Bernbaum was charged with assault, mischief and criminal harassment. Ms. Abdelkhaleq was so traumatized that she left both her job and Canada, feeling unsafe in this country.
According to Mr. Karimjee, members of Canada’s Arab, Palestinian and Muslim communities also felt a diminishment of safety following the assault. He also acknowledged Ms. Abdelkhaleq’s right to protest, while describing Ms. Bernbaum’s actions as “a serious offence against law and order.” And yet he dropped all charges. Why? Because he opined that part of Ms. Abdelkhaleq’s protest, which included the chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” was problematic. It could be perceived as genocidal, stating “anyone chants this at his or her own peril” because they could be charged criminally.
While Ms. Abdelkhaleq was not charged, her chant was a key factor in preventing the Crown from pursuing a conviction. The situation has echoes of blaming a sexual assault victim for provoking her assailant because of her clothing. This sets a terrible precedent: Muslim women cannot count on the justice system if they are assaulted in broad daylight. It also signals that protesters invite assault if their slogans are perceived the wrong way.
And thus ended a horrible week, when Muslim women realized that civil institutions, such as city hall and the courts, cannot be relied upon for inclusion or safety.