While I was away: Multiculturalism articles of interest

Siddiqui: No, Mark Carney, Canada is not the most European non-European country

Not seeing much evidence for this in polling data and of course lands once occupied by Europeans were also subject in many cases to periods of conquest by other groups and countries:

… Carney has demonstrated no real feel for this new Canada and seems unaware that when he talks of Canada’s great affinity to Europe, he grates on many, especially Indigenous people and Canadians of non-European stock. His enthusiasm is particularly offensive to those of us who’ve come from lands once occupied by European colonialists — racist, cruel and rapacious.

Contrary to Carney’s assertion, Canada is the least Western of Western nations. As philosopher John Ralston Saul has argued, we are a “Métis nation,” shaped by Indigenous Peoples and their values of moderation and compromise — reflected in the 1867 British North America Act, a compact between the Indigenous, the English and the French. We can draw a line from that to this contemporary blessing: Canadians rate pluralism and multiculturalism as our top virtues when Trump and several European populists have turned skin colour into a major fault line of the West.

Anti-immigrant parties are doing well in Britain and across Europe — Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Finland, etc. They are cheered on by Trump who fans the fears of Europe facing “civilizational erasure” and becoming “majority non-European,” i.e. non-white. Far too many mainstream Republicans are proclaiming the United States to be a “Christian nation” and echoing far-right Europeans in asserting that “Christ is king.”

In Canada, however, no overtly anti-immigrant, let alone racist or religion-based party can hope to win a national election or even muster a few seats….

Urback: Woke 1.0 was crazy. And it’s not over yet

Good discussion of how woke should be interpreted and allowance for growth and change: 

… That’s what made, and makes, Woke 1.0 so “crazy,” to borrow Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s characterization. It wasn’t simply the furor with which the public attacked perceived transgressors, or the haste with which punishments were doled out, but the inherent contradiction of the whole find/shame/banish exercise, which was supposed to be about bettering individuals’ social awareness, but left no space for betterment. “Wokeness” is about recognizing racial (and other) privilege, about understanding our own inherent biases, and about acknowledging the structural barriers that disproportionately affect some people more than others. The whole idea is that through learning and growth, we can make a better, fairer society.

But Woke 1.0 made no allowance for growth – neither past nor present. People were defined by singular statements or actions, flattened into one-dimensional caricatures of themselves. Those who transgressed from accepted dogma were booted from their jobs immediately, without time to actually understand why “reverse racism” could be considered a regressive concept. And those who were fired for historical wrongs were made to wear and serve penance for past indiscretions, even if they could demonstrate they were no longer that person.

Indeed, the moment was all about unlearning prejudices (which is why every company suddenly seemed to have a DEI czar onboard), but no one cared to listen if someone claimed to have already unlearned their prejudices….

Terry Newman: Concordia handbook teaches students to hate Canada, the West, police ….

Link to handbook: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13XQ5sTNcXhrcQfRT73ca-PyuYeeZgzHm/view 

Sigh…Good example of woke 1:

…The next part of the handbook is called a “Survival Guide.” The first section is titled, “Ni Canada, ni Quebec” (neither Canada, nor Quebec). It criticizes Prime Minister Mark Carney for evoking Canada’s “glorified settler colonial past” in his recent forward guidance video, and accuses the Liberals of passing a “massive anti-immigration bill giving the state powers to abandon due legal process and to cancel immigration status for migrants at will.”

The handbook also has strong words for two Quebec political parties. It complains that both the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) and Parti Québécois (PQ) are moving toward more right-wing policies, including the CAQ’s banning prayer in public institutions and the PQ’s call for a referendum. It also complains that: “The Quiet Revolution-era promise of a Québécois welfare state and shared prosperity for all is now more or less a thing of the past, abandoned in favour of xenophobic rhetoric and the so-called “defence of Quebecois and Western culture and values.”

The federal government doesn’t escape the handbook’s criticism either. Students are told that the federal government is only more tolerant of minorities than Quebec “on the surface,” and frames the plight of migrants as one in which they are required to accept that “money rules the land, that you’ll be blamed for the political and economic failures of the government, and that your immigration status can be revoked at any time, resulting in your deportation, especially if you protest in solidarity with Palestine….

Elkouri: Blé d’Inde, hijab, colère

Good column:

…Pour les directions scolaires qui ont l’odieux d’appliquer la loi 94, la situation est intenable sur le plan humain.

Comment annoncer à des parents bénévoles appréciés que l’on ne peut plus accepter leur aide ? Quel message leur envoie-t-on ? Quel message cela envoie-t-il à leurs enfants ?

« Ça nous écœure. On a honte », me confiait la directrice d’une école primaire de la grande région montréalaise. Car cela va fondamentalement à l’encontre des valeurs d’inclusion de la société québécoise.

Comment accepter que l’école québécoise inclusive devienne un lieu d’exclusion ?

Étonnamment, en pleine campagne électorale, cet enjeu qui suscite de vives inquiétudes est passé sous silence.

À la veille des élections, Joanne espère que son cri du cœur nourrira la réflexion et servira surtout à ramener un peu d’amour, d’inclusion et de bon sens dans un monde qui en a bien besoin.

Je l’espère aussi.

Moderate new Muslim group aims to broaden dialogue beyond certain ‘politically charged issues’

Will be interesting to see how active and influential this organization will become:

There are roughly two million Muslims in Canada. But they don’t see themselves in conversations being held in their name in Ottawa, says a leader of the new Muslim Policy Institute (MPI).

The MPI, launched this month, is dedicated to including Canadian Muslims in the dialogue that shapes policy about how they live.

“The questions MPI cares about most, like belonging, opportunity, the pressures families are facing, and what Muslim Canadians actually prioritize, are often overlooked. Meanwhile, the national conversation keeps circling one or two politically charged issues,” said Nika Jabiyeva, the institute’s managing director of operations and partnerships, told National Post.

Jabiyeva said research last year revealed that although Islamophobia was a concern for the community, bigger concerns for Muslim Canadians, like most Canadians in general, were the cost of living and housing.

MPI “doesn’t claim to represent two million people,” she said. The group’s purpose is to learn “what shapes Muslim Canadian life and identity, from youth and professionals to women in leadership and elders, and bringing that to the public and into policy.”…

Immigrants aren’t a monolithic voting bloc in Alberta’s referendum on secession

Immigrants, both overall and within different groups, are never monolithic with considerable variation:

The temptation to portray immigrants as a monolithic pro-Confederation voting bloc, therefore, ignores the complexity of their experience, concerns, and aspirations. Consequently, in this referendum, both sides of the separation debate would be advised to acknowledge that newcomers are neither automatic defenders of the Confederation nor guaranteed supporters of the independence campaign. They are a diverse and evolving constituency whose political choices are formed by the same mixture of fears, hopes and interests that influence every voter.

This referendum may actually prove that the voices of Alberta’s immigrants may not be the loudest in the public square, but they could prove decisive in shaping the province’s political future.

Innocent Madawo is a political commentator based in Edmonton.

Khan: Canadians must not stand for the notwithstanding clause’s pre-emptive use

We will see where the SCC ends up, hopefully with some guardrails given excessive invocation:

…Canada’s judicial system and Charter of Rights say otherwise. When a provincial or federal legislature proposes a law that a court has ruled would deny Canadians of their fundamental freedoms, legal rights or equality rights, it can invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the order. Legislatures can also deny those affected the ability to plead their case before the courts by invoking the clause pre-emptively, as Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have done or have threatened to do.

The Supreme Court of Canada has deemed such pre-emptive use legal. But is it just? Quebec’s Bill 21, which the legislature shielded with a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in 2019, has been making its way through Canada’s courts. It is now being considered by the Supreme Court – but not because it might violate fundamental individual freedoms. Instead, the case is being heard because it allegedly violates English-language minority rights, which the clause cannot override.

The Supreme Court will also hear a case from Saskatchewan in which the government used the clause pre-emptively to remove any challenge to a law requiring parental consent for students under 16 to use preferred pronouns at school. Unlike the courts in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, though, Saskatchewan’s appellate court said that it would examine the case despite the clause being used, and let the public know how it violates fundamental freedoms. Pretty bold on its part, in contrast to the helplessness shown by courts in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. And now Canada’s highest court will decide whether lower courts can do the same: step in and issue a declaration when a Canadian is not allowed to argue for basic freedoms.

So here we are. You can fight a traffic ticket in court; people accused of serious crimes have their day in court to mount a vigorous defence. And yet, our Charter not only allows our legislators the absolute power to override basic rights, it grants the power to deny any opportunity to fight against those violations. It feels Kafkaesque – but the better descriptor might be Trumpian, in how it bullies the powerless. How ironic that Canadians appear largely united in our displeasure with that man, yet accept a system that allows governments to take our vulnerable minorities’ freedoms away without legal recourse….

Amnesty International: Black communities in Canada say reparatory justice must be enshrined in new UN rights declaration

Some issues are more specific to Blacks, some are more generic to all minorities and are class, not identity based. Some are just unrealistic, politically, and are unlikely to change the reality on the ground.

  • Establish an independent Black Equity Commissioner with enforcement authority and protection from political interference
  • Mandate disaggregated race-based data collection under community-controlled governance frameworks grounded in Black data sovereignty
  • Recognize collective rights of historic Black communities, including the ancestral land and cultural rights of African Nova Scotians
  • Invest in Black-led infrastructure through independent institutions, legal-defence capacity, and stable multi-year funding
  • Regulate artificial intelligence and surveillance technologies to eliminate anti-Black bias, including through independent equity audits and meaningful representation in technology governance
  • Reform education systems to centre Black Canadian history, identity, and culturally responsive teaching
  • Address barriers facing Black newcomers in immigration, housing, credential-recognition, and access to culturally appropriate supports

“Black communities in Toronto, Nova Scotia, and Ottawa gave their time and trust to this process, knowing how often consultation has ended without action,” said Lerato Chondoma, a director with the Black Canadians Civil Society Coalition. “They have brought clarity and good faith; the obligation now rests with governments. We call on Canada to show publicly, with timelines and benchmarks, how and when it will act on the recommendations contained in the report.

McWhorter: When White People Like Hannah Gann Pretend to Be Black

Another interesting discussion:

… These cases suggest a subtype of modern white identity. For this person, the commitment to contesting the evil of whiteness is all-consuming, an ideological North Star that orients her entire worldview. It is an extreme expression of the outlook that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called “Woke 1,” in which the world is always neatly divided into wicked white oppressors and virtuous nonwhite victims. For a white person with these beliefs, it is a short step to wanting not to be white, to escape the original sin of that privilege.

To be the victim is to be not just innocent but also more interesting. It also can provide a sense of meaning in a modern world that no longer gives ready answers to the question of life’s purpose. “Who am I? What am I for? I’m … Black!” The decision may be eccentric — skin darkening as part of your morning routine? — but it is hardly counterintuitive….

Modern cases like Gann’s are something else. And because the fetishizing of Blackness and the reviling of whiteness is a natural outgrowth of our progressive intelligentsia’s worldview, I see little that will stop them from appearing from time to time. While Krug disappeared from public life, Dolezal presses on in her simulation, and recently said she’d like to sit down for a meal with Gann. Perhaps Gann, too, will ultimately decide that her self-identification as Black and Palestinian is valid, regardless of biology and family history.

This sort of thing will remain rare but never go extinct — no more perplexing than the occasional four-leaf clover. Get ready for another case in a year or three.

Khan: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

As we do in the face of antisemitism and other forms of hate:

…Local communities can play a key role in strengthening social cohesion. This was demonstrated by the good people of Clarington, who came together at a town hall to support the harassed Muslim family, and stand firmly against fear-mongering. 

Human connection is a powerful currency in this more isolated digital age, as we can learn we share much in common. Our hearts, like this land, are expansive enough to offer comfort and solidarity in the face of hatred. The Clarington approach can serve as a blueprint for strengthening communities across Canada against Islamophobia, antisemitism, and hate in general.

Source: We need solidarity in the face of Islamophobia

Khan: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach 

Of note:

…The Muslim community in Sydney has taken a clear stand: it will not receive the body of the deceased terrorist, nor perform funeral rites over it. Dr. Jamal Rifi, a prominent Muslim leader in the city, said: “We don’t see [the offenders] as inside the fold of Islam or as Muslims,” adding, “what they have done is not condoned by any of us and it is killing innocent civilians. We know it is a verse in our book, killing an innocent civilian is the same as killing all humanity.”

Australian authorities have yet to indicate if the attack was related to Israel’s violence against Palestinians. Nonetheless, this is an opportunity to clearly delineate the actions of a government from those of Jews worldwide. It is not antisemitic to criticize and oppose the Israeli government’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians in Gaza and its brutal military occupation of the West Bank. The war crime of Oct. 7, 2023 cannot justify war crimes in which tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed and populations are starved. It is antisemitic, however, to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government. It is antisemitic to vandalize Jewish institutions, businesses and communities in protest. It is antisemitic to instill fear in Jewish communities – and Muslims know all too well the danger of being blamed and targeted for the actions of a few.

After the terrorist attack at a Quebec City mosque during which six worshippers were gunned down in cold blood, and after the murder of three generations of the Afzal family in London, Ont., by an Islamophobe, Canadian Muslims understandably feared for their safety. And while government and law enforcement responded to assure a shaken community, it was grassroots support and love by ordinary Canadians that helped in the healing process. 

Our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours are hurting and fearful. Let us all reach out with wings of mercy and compassion, to build stronger communities – and to build a stronger Canada.

Source: We have to confront what Ahmed al Ahmed fought on Bondi Beach

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?