
As Canadians, we pride ourselves on being the friendly neighbors to the north, a Utopia of sorts, where we reject assimilationism and support pluralism, we give everyone health care, we love our public universities, and we condemn the war in
In February of 2007, Asmahan Mansour, age 11, was given the choice to de-hijab or get off the soccer field. Jean Charest,
The broader subject of reasonable accommodation has been in the news in
And this is not all. In March of 2007, a woman was banned from working as a corrections officer at the
Legally, this movement is meant to determine to what extent a society should reasonably shape its rules and values to "accommodate" religious or cultural minority citizens. Reasonable accommodation, by my understanding, is meant to draw the line of what is acceptable to the majority in granting equal rights to the 'other.' Lots of pretty words for something very ugly.
Now, a sort of good outcome: Reasonable accommodation has deemed that women wearing niqab can vote, provided they bring with them two other forms of non-photographic identification (this seems reasonable, right?).
Premier Charest publicly acknowledged this as a "bad decision" and said further that the discussion had already occurred in his province, which forbade the practice. I mean, why let them vote at all? After all, real Canadians don't wear niqab.
Worse still, a reasonable accommodation commission has been put together by Charest to investigate these so-called 'unreasonable accommodations'. This two-man commission is scheduled to report back by
Before formal proceedings began, Bouchard and Taylor said they found insecurity in
And this is on the record. All over the world. I shudder to think of what is said off record and behind closed doors.
Just last year, in 2006, the Dutch banned the burqa and niqab in public.
Dutch MP Geert Wilders: "It's a medieval symbol, a symbol against women...We don't want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in
These are not new issues, but when I am faced with the same line of reasoning from otherwise open and liberal individuals, daily about whether I'll ever, gasp, cover my head, I get very very sad. I'd like for a second, to pull each person out of their paradigm and talk about equality and feminism within the Islamic framework. But I am not sure I'm the best person to articulate it yet. However, here's a pretty standard secular argument that also works: As a woman I have the right to wear tight jeans and low cut tops in public; I have a right to be free from harassment because of this. The body is not supposed to be public domain, and we, as women, have a right to not be commodified or objectified regardless of our clothing choices. If I can take it off, can't I also put it on? Why is what I wear as a woman still, and again, so politically significant? Why am I so highly policed, and my choices, so highly charged? There is still a blatant inequality in existence, the way I walk in the world is now a political symbol of progress or regression. We've come so far as Westerners that we've doubled back over and violated our own beliefs.
Where is the discussion? Where is the pluralism? Where is the acceptance and understanding that we, as feminists, as Quebeckers, as academics, and as the so-called 'culturally competent,' so pride ourselves on? Why can't we see that what we want to build is understanding? We lack humility, and we have a surplus of fear at our disposal that we can use to justify our bigotries. We fear "islamists" and sikhs and all those other words that really just mean "not us."
Have my people become so linear in their thinking that they forgot the premises from which they began? Think women's liberation, think religious freedom - all those TENETS (sigh.) that we've fought for in recent history, with suffrage as the leading example. Recently, we burned our bras and lost lives for equality, we fought in wars to promote religious freedom. And now we are the same people who support a premier who tells little girls that they are not 'progressive' enough to play on the field. A piece of clothing becomes an insurmountable emblem of difference? Or, is it because she was challenging the dominant belief that women who wear hijab aren't liberated?
She was Canadian enough to play soccer, and therefore she had to be stopped? Was it just too confusing for people? Would it somehow soften the images of Muslim women to Canada's white secular children to be playing alongside a hijabi? I don't know what the underlying roots of the issue are, but I'm pretty sure some of these arguments might apply.
It doesn't really matter though. In the end, the message to Asmahan and girls like her is this: "You are oppressed because you wear that. Your line of thinking is wrong. My line of thinking is right. Yield to my line of thinking or I'm going to show you what oppression really feels like."
And to Asmahan, I'm pretty sure it wasn't her hijab that made her feel unworthy or oppressed on