Reasonable Accommodation: Just Another Term for Legislated Marginalization

Quebec, you are my home. I love you. I love your markets and your lively streets; I love your pocket neighborhoods and your commitment to the greater good. I love your pacifism, your reason, your academy. I love your linguistic plurality, your dry humor and your outdated armed forces. I love your loose public health codes and your flexible importation laws. I love your jazz festivals, your lights, your seaway. I love the way you roll your eyes at bar crawling Bostonians. But this year, you've let me down. If I belonged to the Netherlands, I'd be saying the same thing to her.

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 Iraq. And yet, today I see an very anti-socialist rigidity and racism bubbling under the surface of my home and native land. And if this is happening inside your borders, Canada, I feel unsafe everywhere else, too.

In February of 2007, Asmahan Mansour, age 11, was given the choice to de-hijab or get off the soccer field. Jean Charest, Quebec's premier, defended the referee's actions. Charest said he played soccer as a boy and recalled a referee telling players to tuck their shirts into their shorts. "It's a case of safety in sports," said Mario Dumont, leader of the Action democratique du Quebec. Safety first. Right.

The broader subject of reasonable accommodation has been in the news in Quebec after the town of Herouxville, comprising 1,300 mostly white, French-speaking residents, adopted a code of standards for immigrants. The code stipulated that: Women should be able to show their faces in public and should also be permitted to drive and write cheques. And it is "completely outside norms to... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc." Um. Duh?

And this is not all. In March of 2007, a woman was banned from working as a corrections officer at the Bordeaux prison because she refused to roll up her veil. All this, in a political atmosphere where 'reasonable accommodation' is in hot debate. Reasonable accommodation is a political term used in the PQ in reference to the so-called 'dynamic of multiculturalism' in a predominantly Western, French speaking province.

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 31 March 2008. Its formal title is the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences. Its commissioners are professors Charles Taylor, a well-known federalist philosopher, and Gérard Bouchard, a separatist. Doubt can be cast on Bouchard's fitness to serve as an impartial chair, as before the commission held even one public hearing, he announced in an interview that "sovereignty" was the solution to calm Franco-Quebeckers' cultural insecurity.The commission is having ' open' conferences in various Quebec regions, such as the remote Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Iles and Saguenay, Quebec, where religious accommodation is mostly irrelevant because few minorities exit there. The committee will listen to individuals and organizations and experts in Quebec identity, religion, and integration of 'cultural communities.' But why not in the places that really matter? Because this is just a show - cultural communities have no voice, at least not really.

Before formal proceedings began, Bouchard and Taylor said they found insecurity in Quebec's "pure laine" population in focus groups across the province. The commissioners feel that the paranoia that Muslims, for example, are somehow taking over our society (when they represent 1.5% of Quebec's population) can be countered by facts - as if feelings of insecurity stemmed by bigotry should even be justified at all. (An aside - As once oppressed minorities in Quebec, themselves, French Quebeckers insecurity about loss of culture should be an equalizing factor, but yet again, the marginalized become the marginalizers, I guess.)

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 Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society."

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 February 18, 2007. It was the ref. And the premier. And all the people who feel entitled to see her hair - as if seeing it is somehow their human right. Because her rights and her beliefs don't actually matter. They aren't 'ours' (meaning her beliefs don't belong to the majority), so therefore, it is clearly unreasonable to accomodate them.