He's probably right, Quebec is in no mood to see Mulsim orthodoxy grow into a meaningful part of Quebec society.
Let's first start by telling it like it is.
I refer only to Muslim female head coverings because this is what the law is really about, a limitation on Islamic orthodoxy, with all other religious restrictions targeting Jews, Sikhs and even Christians really nothing more than a smokescreen meant to offset protest that only one religion is targeted, which of course it is.
As for Orthodox Jews and Sikhs, pertaining to the proposed law, they are irrelevant, the numbers wearing kippahs or turbans in Quebec are minuscule and for those who do, there are precious few that fall under the dictates of the proposed law.
Most Quebecers outside greater Montreal have never seen a real live person wearing a kippah or turban and the number of Quebec adherents doing so is falling precipitously.
For next-generation Jews, adhering to kosher food restrictions and wearing kippahs doesn't fit in with modern life. For Sikhs, following the five tenets of Sikhism is onerous, with the prohibition on cutting all body hair a mean task, especially for women.
However, for Muslim women, orthodoxy endures and although the number of Muslim wearing hijabs is a statistic impossible to come by, the number is not inconsiderable.
In Montreal hijabs are a common sight, unlike the ultra-rare kippah and turban.
In the public debate, one in which the francophone media has largely been supportive of the Premier, the reality of Quebec's vehement opposition to Islamic orthodoxy is glossed over or willfully ignored because both the Premier, his party, its followers and media minions wish to maintain the fallacy that the debate is over a few rags of clothing.
And so, while Jewish, Sikh and Christian symbols are part of the law, you'd never know it from the public discussion.
I have never heard a Quebec politician, journalist or even nationalist say publicly that the kippah makes them uncomfortable.
Quite a difference to the Hijab where bashing is common and where even a sitting Quebec provincial judge felt empowered to throw defendant out of court for wearing a hijab, resulting in the good judge being brought up on disciplinary charges by the judicial council.
"Quebec's newly appointed minister responsible for the status of women is standing by her position that the Muslim hijab is a symbol of oppression.
Speaking to reporters after being named to the portfolio Tuesday, Isabelle Charest said the head scarf " is not something that women should be wearing."
"In February 2007, soccer player Asmahan Mansour, part of the team Nepean U12 Hotspurs, was expelled from a Quebec tournament for wearing her headscarf. Quebec soccer referees also ejected an 11-year-old Ottawa girl while she was watching a match, which generated a public controversy."Make no mistake, Quebec's opposition to orthodox Islam is deep and well-rooted with a majority of franco-Quebecers not just suspicious, but downright fearful of having proponents establish themselves in Quebec as a meaningful minority.
Those Muslim women who wear the Hijab, the Niqab, the Chador or other Islamic dress that serve to hide women's bodies from the public are viewed with utter disdain and rejection by a Quebec public which utterly rejects the perceived misogynist philosophy behind it.
Of course, many Muslim Quebec women who wear the uniform of orthodoxy proclaim that they do so by choice and perhaps for some it is, but for most, it is not a choice, but rather a family decision made by the head of the family, the all-powerful patriarch.
Whether they wear the symbols of orthodox Islam by choice or by force, it really makes no difference because of it is the underlying values that the dress embodies, the fact that women must hide their body in public that remains the bugbear.
Does the rejection of this orthodox philosophy make Quebec Islamophobic?
I would remind readers that Quebec does not have a problem with Muslims.
The majority of mainstream Muslims are well established and peaceably entrenched in Quebec society, with the majority living and working in French and employed in mainstream jobs both in the private and public sector.
That the veil is repressive, unnecessary or irrelevant is a view shared by the majority of mainstream Muslim women who hold values commiserate with those of the Quebec majority, English, French or minority.
Values that hold women equal to men.
Would one call those Muslims who oppose the veil as a symbol of female repression, Islamophobes as well?
Nonsense.
Now before the liberals and the progressives amongst you get your hackles up in protest, holding that everyone is welcome to believe what they want, it just isn't so.
Society puts limits on acceptable behaviour and where exactly that line is, even though it's a difficult line to demarcate.
We don't allow slavery, polygamy, child marriage, criminality, forced marriage, female circumcision or exploitation of minors, to say the least.
We do not even allow certain 'unacceptable' thoughts or views to be expressed in literature.
Canadian customs officials are renowned for seizing books and magazines at the border because of the glorification of child pornography, even if those works don't contain any images and where no child was harmed in its production.
In other words, written thoughts about sex with children is deemed illegal.
We don't allow (or we are supposed to not allow) sermons by clergy that promote hate or encourage violence.
So the underlying values of orthodox religion are fair game for debate and we as a society are as much justified in opposing its misogynistic attitudes as we are in opposing other behaviour deemed unacceptable.
The 10,000 strong Hassidic sect of Judaism in Quebec have had a running battle for years with the education department over the education of children who are forced to pore of religious texts for the majority of the long school day to the detriment of the three R's and where girls are segregated and taught that their only option in life is to stay home and pump out babies, one after another.
These children are ill-equipped to make free choice about their future when the time comes and remain prisoners of imposed religious dogma by limitations on their education and skills.
Sadly the Quebec government has actually treated that sect with kidd gloves, fearing a backlash from the media and the mainstream Jewish community which turns a blind eye to what can only be viewed as child abuse.
As for orthodox Muslims, it is common for mainstream Quebec Imans to preach openly about female subservience and obligation, with some imams even organizing clandestine polygamous marriages.
For the Anglo community, opposition by its institutions and leadership to Quebec's secular law is kneejerk, without much consideration to what the community really feels about the place of orthodox religion in Quebec.
While the proposed law is roundly criticized and rejected in the Anglo media in Quebec and across Canada, it remains a fact that the law has quite a bit of support.
While those who object to the proposed law throw around the word ISLAMOPHOBIA recklessly, those who support limitations on religious excess cannot be viewed as intolerant, perhaps quite the opposite.
Defending women and children from religious excess should be viewed as a noble and just cause and in Quebec the message is clear...
Religious dictates that penalize women and children are to be rejected and that those who support those ideals should be opposed.
I will close with one thought for those who complain that the Hijab cannot and should not be equated with religious intolerance.
Recently we have seen attacks by liberals on some individuals who wear Donald Trump's signature "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." hat which they view as a symbol of intolerance.
While we are all free to wear what we want, those who continue to wear the MAGA hat in public today are well aware of the message it is sending, even if the original basis of the hat was benign.
Right or wrong, wearing a MAGA hat in public sends a message, just as hijabs do and pretending they don't is disingenuous.
In Quebec, the war on orthodox religion has been declared.
It is a fight that has been brewing for quite some time and has a lot of support not only from the few who are intolerant, but the many who are tolerant and forward thinking, who oppose outdated and misogynist precepts as unacceptable in Quebec's modern society.
You've been fooled if you think this bill has anything to do with religion. 90% of quebecers have never seen a hijab and would not be able to tell the difference between a hijab and a turban.
ReplyDeleteThere are two motivations behind this bill, the first being to cause conflict with the federal government. The separatists can then come back and tell us once again how our values are so different from the rest of Canada and how the federal government isn't respecting our choices etc etc. "We should be able to make our own decisions!" Sound familiar?
At the same time, just like Trump in the US, it's a great way to cash in on the wave of xenophobic nationalism sweeping the whole world. And who are the xenophobic nationalists here? The separatists!
It's a good plan, Legault is clearly much smarter than his PQ separatist friends. The best way to control people is with fear, and this government knows that. Boooohoo, the scary first generation muslim immigrants are coming to get you, and the ROC is letting it happen!
Mr Editor,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I have quite often disagreed with you over the years, but I think that you are here giving a fair description of the situation.
Not siding with any of the sides in the ban debate, I don't know what to think about it, but one good thing that came out of it: Charles Taylor whom I criticized many times (several times on this blog) for being naive in being a pequiste apologist from the anglo side - the distinguished professor has finally seen the light and realized who he was dealing with for all these years.
ReplyDeleteDr. Taylor is a living proof that someone can be very book smart (or academically smart), yet still lack street smarts, be socially naive, and not understand that some people don't respond to niceness with niceness; in fact some people may see other's niceness as weakness. Maybe Taylor was living too sheltered a life ensconced inside McGill and lacking the practical perspective.
But better late than never for Taylor to realize this.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/expect-sparks-to-fly-as-bill-21-hearings-are-launched-tuesday
adski: This is why there is a TV character named Sheldon Cooper, and Jim Parsons on the Big Bang Theory played it to perfection. I personally know a PhD in psychology who is a bloody know-it-all who disses everybody he knows and is exactly what he labels everybody else. He criticized his now former best friend for dating a Francophone, then because he cannot find someone who he desired of his own ilk, married a Francophone after criticizing his former best friend for dating one--two, actually. He, the Great Doctor of Psychology, as far as I know is still, decades later, going to HIS OWN therapist! So much for the protected world of academics à la Michael Ignatieff! Yes, there's a reason I put the "gnat" in bold letters! He's another academic gnat!
DeleteTaylor has flip-flopped more than a stack of buckwheat pancakes, but as you say, he finally learned that being an apologist for the xenophope nationalists doesn't work. I was a teen in a English Quebec high school when Bill 22 came out, and every damn prediction I made about where this was heading caused many around me to laugh, including my own parents. We're now over 40 years past that time and nobody, BUT NOBODY is laughing now!!!