Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Khan: We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to assaults on Muslim women 

Agree:

…The scourge of hate is corrosive. It cannot be effectively addressed in a siloed fashion, where each affected group stands alone. Here’s an idea: next time when there’s a hateful incident against one group, let’s have a few representatives of all affected groups stand together to condemn the hate. There are fundamental disagreements between affected groups, but all agree that no member of our Canadian family should be subject to intimidation, threats or violence.

Source: We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to assaults on Muslim women

Khan: I’m not offended when people praise my spoken English

…These days, the people who most often compliment my spoken English are Uber drivers from the Middle East or South Asia. Go figure. When I tell them I’ve been in Canada for more than 50 years, they understand. And then we move on to other topics, learning a little about each other’s life experience.

I have been at the other end as well. Once in Petra, Jordan, I came across a local girl – no more than 10 or 11 years old – who was selling postcards and trinkets to tourists. Her English was impeccable; her diction divine. I couldn’t help but remark how well she spoke English, and asked her where she learned to speak so well. She pointed to a collection of buildings, beyond the surrounding hills. I could see satellite dishes. “BBC,” she said. I was amazed at her intelligence and ability to absorb linguistic skills. 

Language expectations can lead to comical situations. At one of my daughter’s soccer matches, the opposing coach was yelling instructions at his players in a thick Scottish brogue. I could barely understand a word. A fellow parent concurred. We both laughed at the imaginary scenario of a brown woman (me) yelling, “Speak English!” at a Caucasian male.

Not everyone sees these exchanges as innocuous. As Mr. Harris, the Liberian youth advocate, alluded, the main issue is the set of low expectations behind the compliment. Even though well-intentioned, it can be viewed as a “microaggression” – a term popularized by Columbia psychology professor Dr. Derald Wing Sue to describe “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups.” 

To be honest – and I speak only for myself – I haven’t figured out how sincerely complimenting my language skills is hostile, derogatory or a reflection of negative attitudes. As for expectations, the most important are those that I place on myself – not those held by others. And if someone appreciates my language skills, why not simply accept a simple act of kindness?

I do know that in our attempts to avoid offending sensitivities, we sometimes close the door to simple, personal communication that can actually strengthen common human ties. And if there are misunderstandings, these can be cleared up without causing too much fuss. Let’s have a bit more faith in the better side of human nature. 

Source: I’m not offended when people praise my spoken English

Khan: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause 

Unlikely to become an election issue, provincially or federally, but good points:

…Constitutional clauses that grant considerable powers can become destabilizing over time. Down south, the rule of law is being threatened by the rule of the presidential pardon. Here, we are morphing into the “True North, Strong and Free – Notwithstanding.”

We can reverse the trend through sustained public engagement. We must demand that our elected officials refrain from using the notwithstanding clause – and if they do use it, to not to do so pre-emptively. We must ensure that laws with the potential to harm basic freedoms are fully challenged in court in the light of day so that the public is fully aware.

We can also make it an election issue. As premier, Mr. Ford has threatened to use or has used the clause four times: in 2018, to reduce the size of Toronto’s municipal council; in 2021, to restrict third-party spending before an election; in 2022, to prevent education workers from negotiating or striking; and in 2024, to clear homeless encampments. If he truly cares about fairness for all Ontarians, make him pledge not to use this threat again. Other provincial and federal leaders should also be challenged on their views on the clause.

During this period of intense patriotism, let’s define who we are: a generous, centrist people who believe in fairness. Especially when it comes to our basic freedoms.

Source: Political leaders need to be challenged on the notwithstanding clause

Khan: Montreal’s hijab decision shows how institutions fail to protect Muslim women 

Largely gets it right but laïcité affects other religions and religious “headgear” as well (e.g., Sikhs, Jews). Most advertising these days features ethnic diversity but less so with respect to religious diversity:

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….

Source: Montreal’s hijab decision shows how institutions fail to protect Muslim women

France’s ban on athletes in hijabs makes a mockery of the Olympic charter

Of note (I am generally cynical about the IOC stated values, ethics and behaviour, but not the athletes):

The International Olympic Committee touts the 2024 Olympic Games as the first to nearly achieve gender parity. While six countries have no female athletes who qualified, gone are the days when the IOC repeatedly acquiesced to Saudi Arabia’s insistence on excluding women from its Olympic team. In advance of the 2012 Olympic Games, Saudi Arabia relented to prolonged international pressure and included female athletes for the first time. Since then, the country’s female participation rate has tripled, from roughly 10 per cent in 2012, to 30 per cent this year, including its first-ever female swimmer, 17-year-old Mashael Al-Ayed.

Heading into the Paris Olympics, IOC President Thomas Bach has effusively declared the Games as “the youngest, most inclusive, most urban and most sustainable.” But he didn’t mention the situation some athletes from France are facing.

You see, Olympians from across the world are welcome in Paris. Except French athletes who are Jewish, Sikh or Muslim and choose to wear religious apparel as part of their faith. These women and men are banned from the French Olympic team, in accordance with the French interpretation of laïcité (secularism). While Olympic athletes from other countries are permitted to wear religious apparel in Paris, French athletes cannot because of the religious “neutrality” of the state, which dictates that civil servants are forbidden from all religious expression. According to the French government, Olympic athletes are technically civil servants.

Not surprisingly, this ban disproportionately affects Muslim women. This was made clear last September when France’s Sports Minister Amélie Oudéa-Castéra announced that French Olympic athletes “will not wear the head scarf,” thus ensuring “the prohibition of any type of proselytizing and the absolute neutrality of the public service.”

Compare the French position to the Olympic Charter, which states: “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognized human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement.”

And here we are: France has unequivocally banned its Muslim female hijabi athletes, while hosting the Olympic Games under the auspices of the IOC, whose very charter bars such discrimination.

The IOC’s response to the French position – “freedom of religion is interpreted in many different ways by different states” – is like the waters of the Seine: murky at best. By justifying discrimination, the IOC has rendered basic human rights meaningless. No Mr. Bach, you shouldn’t be boasting about how inclusive the games are. With its “move along, there’s nothing to see here” attitude, the IOC has shamefully abandoned French Muslim hijabi athletes who aspire toward the Olympics. It has made a mockery of its own charter.

Let’s not forget the role of France’s sports organizations, whose intransigence against hijabs has expanded over the years. As Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Gender Justice in Europe writes: “Even at amateur levels and in regional competitions, several sports federations have banned sports hijabs. So, after training for years, excelling in their sport, coaching young girls and considering sports as a professional career, young Muslim women athletes are told to remove their hijabs or give up on their dreams.” A Muslim cannot play organized soccer, basketball or volleyball anywhere in France – even at a recreational level – if she wears a hijab. This, even though FIFA, FIBA and FIVB have authorized sports hijabs. No other European country has such draconian bans.

The ban extends to the opening ceremony. Sprinter Sounkamba Sylla was initially barred owing to her hijab, but worked out a deal with the French Olympic Committee to wear a cap instead of a head scarf as a compromise.

Les Hijabeuses, a group of soccer players, has challenged the French ban before the European Court of Human Rights. In June, they organized an “alternate Olympics,” which was more inclusive than the IOC’s version. Co-founder Founé Diawara captured its essence: “Our fight is not political or religious but centred on our human right to participate in sports.”

As Ms. Błuś states, “the Olympics should be for all women, including Muslim women.” This should be obvious in 2024, but it’s not. In the past, such challenges have sparked women to mobilize in solidarity with their sisters. In 2012, we raised our voices demanding the IOC sanction Saudi Arabia for excluding women on its Olympic team.

Today, only two countries immediately come to mind where I cannot play amateur sports, nor swim in my burkini: France and Afghanistan. France is not Afghanistan. But it is a G7 nation that is a signatory to international human rights treaties. It purports to be a champion of women’s rights. We must raise our voices again to demand the inclusion of all women in sports.

Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.

Source: France’s ban on athletes in hijabs makes a mockery of the Olympic charter

Khan: Ontario’s keffiyeh ban dares to define the scarf’s meaning for everyone, Regg Cohn: Israel and the UN have allowed the kaffiyeh. Why does Queen’s Park need to ban it?

More commentary. Not in favour of this kind of one-off decision. If the legislature chamber is going to allow this, it needs to revise the policy to allow symbols with significant political meaning in a consistent manner:

….The ban is a betrayal of the ideals of the Emancipation Act that Mr. Arnott proudly co-sponsored – namely, upholding the “ongoing struggle for human rights.” After calling on independent MPP Sarah Jama to leave the House for wearing a keffiyeh, he sent an official to deliver the message in person. In an iconic photo, a white man leans over the desk of Ms. Jama, a Black woman clad in a hijab and a keffiyeh, and seated in a wheelchair. Let’s hope the Ontario Black History Society, recognized in the Emancipation Day Act, chronicles this shameful event and sends a letter of protest to Mr. Arnott.

Ontario MPPs had two opportunities to reverse this ban by unanimously voting against it. Yet Robin Martin and Lisa MacLeod, two PC MPPs, supported the ban,keeping it in place. It’s reminiscent of the case of the town of Saint-Apollinaire, Que., in 2017, when 19 naysayers were enough to nix plans for a Muslim cemetery run by the Islamic Cultural Centre, which also operated the Quebec City mosque where six worshippers were massacred just a few months before. That vote was rooted in ignorance and prejudice. Plus ça change.

Premier Doug Ford says he personally opposes the keffiyeh ban. But by declining so far to put forward a government motion to end it, he is failing to stand firmly for the basic human rights of all Ontarians. Now it’s up to the rest of us to strive toward a just society with human dignity at its core.

Source: Ontario’s keffiyeh ban dares to define the scarf’s meaning for everyone

From Martin Regg Cohn:

…Put another way, if it walks and talks like a political protest, it’s a protest. When so many people of all backgrounds suddenly don the Palestinian kaffiyeh, it’s no longer merely cultural or sartorial but political.

Yet even if the Speaker was speaking the truth — and Stiles was surely straining credulity by claiming the kaffiyeh isn’t political at this point — Arnott made the wrong call. Technically, he’s right, but practically his ruling was unenforceable and unsupportable.

Which is why no party leader supported him last month — not just Stiles but her Green, Liberal and Progressive Conservative counterparts asked him to reconsider. Yes, even Premier Doug Ford, mindful of a hard-fought byelection last week with many Muslim voters, echoed the NDP’s call.

The Speaker reminded them all that he is merely their servant, and that they are free to overrule him. But when MPPs were asked to give unanimous consent to permit the kaffiyeh, a number of Tories demurred, leading to the present standoff….

Source: Israel and the UN have allowed the kaffiyeh. Why does Queen’s Park need to ban it?

Khan: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 

A welcome revision to her earlier post neglecting Israeli victims, one that has been all too common in much commentary and activism:

….Recognizing the suffering of “the other side” is not a sign of weakness, but rather, a recognition of our shared humanity. We all want human dignity, security and a better future for our children. Let’s work on healing the pain. This will entail difficult conversations that forge a path toward justice for all aggrieved parties.

Source: Women’s rights advocates should stand up for victims on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Khan: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

Of note:

… Perhaps the most jarring analysis is the Court’s dismissal of arguments by the bill’s opponents based on section 28, which enshrines gender-equality rights in the Charter. That argument makes the point that Bill 21 disproportionately restricts the freedom of religion and expression of Muslim women compared to men. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield laws that discriminate between women and men – i.e., it cannot override section 28.

In fact, during the drafting of the Charter, Canadian women demanded the exclusion of section 28 from the notwithstanding clause. They had the foresight to ensure that gender-equality rights could not be denied by the potential whims of future governments.

But Quebec’s appeals court took great pains to explain that section 28 is, in fact, included in the notwithstanding clause. How? Well, by actually being included in each of the rights enshrined in sections 2 and 7 to 15, and thus having no stand-alone value in of itself.

For example, the Court considered a hypothetical law that gives police the power to detain and search all women unaccompanied by a male in public between midnight and 5 a.m. This violates sections 8 (security against unreasonable search) and 9 (no arbitrary detention). The Court argues that if the notwithstanding clause was invoked to shield the law, section 28 cannot be used to declare the law unconstitutional on the basis of gender inequality, since its only value lies in its association with existing rights – not rights that have been suspended.

The Court’s logic reminds me of the following imperfect analogy: it’s the pre-1960era, section 28 is an unmarried woman, and her only value is through her association with a man, say a father, a brother, a husband, a son (any one of sections 2 and 7-15). Where no such man exists, she has no real inherent value of her own.

The Court’s logic is also dangerous, as it means there is no real protection for women against discriminatory laws if a legislature pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. Her personal agency and equal opportunity can be taken away at the behest of a hostile legislature. Just ask Muslim women in Quebec.

Source: Gender-equality rights, it turns out, aren’t safe from the notwithstanding clause

With Islamophobic incidents on the rise, Muslim Canadians are worried 

Of note:

Clearly, people are hurting, and will need time to heal. In the meantime, we should allow people to express their deep pain and loss in a humane way. Perhaps this will open a window for Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis to recognize their common humanity, thus forging bonds of mutual respect here. Finding meaning in adversity is the foundation of resilience, which all communities will need going forward.

Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.

Source: With Islamophobic incidents on the rise, Muslim Canadians are worried