I’m always impressed with La Belle Province and her ability to serve up controversy. Recently a judge in Quebec decided that a hijab was considered not to be suitable attire for her courtroom and dismissed a case when the litigant refused to comply with her request. The judge’s words courtesy of the CBC:
“Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo says in the recording.
“The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”
The stage is set and the result:
“When El-Alloul first appeared before Marengo, the judge asked her why she had a scarf on her head. El-Alloul replied that it was because she is a Muslim. The judge then said she would take a 30-minute recess.
When Marengo returned, she told El-Alloul she had a choice: remove her headscarf immediately or apply for a postponement in order to consult a lawyer. El-Alloul replied that she couldn’t afford a lawyer and that she didn’t want to postpone the case. Marengo then adjourned the case indefinitely.”
Boom. Tinder meet match. Religious freedom versus the institutional values of a secular court.
There are a multitude of ways to look at what transpired in the courtroom but here are two that I think represent both sides of the argument.
A. In a secular court of law, the secular values and rules of a society must be followed. If a judge rules that what you’re wearing to be inappropriate for the proceedings it behooves you to follow the same standards that everyone else must follow.
B. Canada is a multicultural society and we respect and treasure the cultural practices that every Canadian brings to the table and, if secular protocol can be reinterpreted to allow for the diversity of cultural expression within secular institutions we should do so.
Before we go into further discussion we should note the reaction from El-Alloul, it was one of shock and dismay:
“[…] But what happened in court made me feel afraid. I felt that I’m not Canadian anymore.”
“El-Alloul said she’s speaking out because she doesn’t want what happened to her to happen to any other Muslim woman. When she insisted I should remove my hijab, really I felt like she was talking with me as … not a human being. I don’t want this thing to happen to any other lady. This is not the work of a judge. She doesn’t deserve to be a judge.”
El-Alloul is rightly quite upset at the outcome of her hearing (or lack thereof). There should be a more amenable solution available to the parties involved – a transfer to a different judge that has a more liberal interpretation of ‘suitably dressed’ might have saved a lot of ink and electrons as this story blossomed across Canadian news networks.
This seemingly simple case of what “suitably dressed” means and how it is enforced speaks to how intersectional an issue multiculturalism is. Institutional power in Canada remains largely white and male and thus reflects the normative values of what is considered ‘normal’ culture here in Canada. From this orthodoxy we get the notions such as:
1. Why should our Canadian institutions cater to every whim of the minorities?
2. If it is good enough for everyone else, what is the problem here?
3. Why aren’t secular Canadian values being learned by new Canadians?
Under the assumption that we are a multicultural society, clearly, point 1 is out to lunch. The very point of having a tolerant open society is that we appreciate and try to accommodate the everyone and their preferences within the state structure of Canada.
Point 2 is problematic because the words “everyone else” usually uses the dominant culture as a touchstone thus, by play of words, avoids the obvious racism associated with similar statements.
Point 3 has the most merit as new Canadians do adopt Canadian values and standards, but the process of acculturation takes a great deal of time, often generations before the values of the dominant culture are ingrained. It is unrealistic however to expect that somehow Canadians of all types have a switch that can be flipped instantaneously that would guarantee cultural assimilation.
The Hijab should be allowed in Canadian courtrooms as it does not interfere with workings of the court or the dispensing of justice.
However, as an open and tolerant secular society we should also have the ability to rightly name and not adopt cultural practices that would be corrosive to our society. For instance, honour killings and female genital mutilation, have no place in Canadian or any other civilized society and I can assert this claim with a good deal of confidence because we need only to discuss the negative impacts these practices have on those societies who still practice these modalities (cultural relativism be damned).
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
6 comments
March 1, 2015 at 5:51 am
bleatmop
I have a few thoughts on this. They do not necessarily relate to each other nor are they intended to form an argument because I have yet to decide on what side of this is the right one.
1. I live in an area with both a lot of bigots and a lot of Hutterites. I’ve heard a lot of bigots bemoan about women wearing a hijab but have said nothing about seeing the Hutterite women wearing their head scarfs.
2. I think to get a context on the judges actions, to see if they are motivated by bigotry or by a strict interpretation of the law needs to be done. Has the judge asked nuns that appeared in her courtroom to remove their habits? Hutterites their scarfs? These questions should be asked and an answer found before we judge the judge.
3. At what point does religious accommodation go to far here? Do we allow Burkas that completely cover a persons identity in a court room? Does that violate a person’s right to face their accuser? Do we allow Sharia law when it is mandated by a persons religion? Some of these answers are clear, some of them are not. The real question is how do we determine the line for what is acceptable religious accommodation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 1, 2015 at 11:14 am
The Arbourist
@bleatmop
1. Religious in/out group distinctions are divisive; factor in some racism and voila you have their position. :)
2. Agreed. Context is so very important in these situations.
3. Very good question. I think it would in Canada’s best interests to see that all new Canadians are given every opportunity benefit from Canadian culture and Canadian values. Traditions are important, culture is important, but so is living harmoniously in a safe secular society with the rule of law. Accommodation cannot not be a completely one-sided affair, especially when it comes to harmful cultural traditions.
LikeLike
March 1, 2015 at 12:23 pm
tnt666
In the 80s and 90s, we, in Quebec, had tons of immigrants from French-speaking Arab countries and NONE of them were fundamentalists. They were coming to a secular and that was a positive in why they were coming here.
It’s only in the last decade that Canadians have substituted “freedom of religion” for “freedom of fundamentalism”, this is leading to major pitfalls in society, whether it be radicalistion of youth, religification of business, proliferation of religious schools, lowering of educational standards, ghettoisation of neighbourhoods, and the worst, increased mistreatment of women.
It is NOT secular Canadians who are mistreating Muslim women, it is Islam. Blame needs to be placed where appropriate.
LikeLike
March 1, 2015 at 12:54 pm
The Arbourist
@tnt666
Coincidence that the change you mentioned happened with Canada’s slew rightward under our benevolent conservative government?
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 2, 2015 at 4:43 am
Arkenaten
While western society is not technically Christian, it has, over the centuries become accustomed to its … customs.
The rapid expansion of Islam in the ‘West’ and the mere thought of having to accommodate another culture/religion seems to have caught many people on the hop and left them a bit befuddled as to how to respond.
Furthermore, as the ( western) image of Islam is generally considered to be negative, so a negative response, albeit seemingly knee jerk, is probably understandable.
What such cases highlight more is how intrusive(?) religion is,either overtly or covertly and how does a secular society deal with all religion in a fair and unbiased manner, as was highlighted by the excellent question pertaining to nuns etc.
Maybe there is an opening for an enterprising individual?
How to Fast-Track non-religious belief among Humans.
LikeLike
March 2, 2015 at 11:33 am
tnt666
The right wing loves religious cheap working immigrants, there is no coincidence, it is methodology.
As for customs, Canadians, and Quebecers more so, have been working very hard to END Christian “customs”, so why let new religious customs supersede these efforts, it makes no rational sense.
LikeLike