Let's be reasonable

Editorial

Reasonable accommodation. These are the two words upon which Canada's multicultural fabric is highly dependent. The nature of cultural difference means that, from time to time, society will be forced to determine how far we are prepared to bend our norms to accommodate difference.

This has been a frequent issue in recent years. Canada went through a somewhat wrenching debate on turbans in the RCMP, after which it was determined that, whatever security and symbolic issues may have been at stake, the turban caused no demonstrable impact on the ability of a Sikh officer to do his job.

A similar battle took place over the kirpan, the Sikh ceremonial dagger, in public places such as schools. This, at least, had a more tangible potential for social disruption, in the sense that the kirpan could conceivably be used as a weapon. But calmer heads generally prevailed here, as well, with obvious and simple precautions put in place to ensure the ceremonial item could not be unsheathed under certain circumstances.

There are generally simple solutions to many of these challenges.

So it was disturbing to see Quebec Premier Jean Charest wade into the debate over a Muslim girl's right to wear her hijab during a soccer tournament in a Montreal suburb. The coach ordered the headscarf removed on the grounds that it posed a danger to the player or her teammates. The premier compared the order to a team demanding that its players tuck in their jerseys.

Hardly. Tucking in jerseys is a small matter of decorum and appearance. A hijab or other religious or cultural-based vestment is a deeply meaningful and fraught article of clothing. It is not akin to tucking in a jersey and, indeed, it is insulting to even make the comparison.

That such an issue should arise in Quebec – in the midst of a provincial election campaign – is cause for deep concern.

Quebec – can we speak frankly? – has a tolerance problem. Perhaps because of the nationalist influence or a confluence of historical realities, Quebec has a history of religious and racial intolerance that makes it a province pas comme les autres. Do not misunderstand; other provinces have their problems, but Quebec is unique and always has been, on this issue, as on many others.

As recently as when Jacques Parizeau blamed "money and the ethnic vote" for his loss in the last referendum, and as far back as Henri Bourassa and Abbe Groulx, Quebec society has produced a strain of intolerance, often gussied up in the guise of maitres chez nous, that has had marked impacts on Jews, Muslims, people of color, Anglos and others, over the years. Other parts of Canada have similar strains, but even Prairie populism and old-fashioned Anglo-Canadian bigotry do not have (at least anymore) the influence at the upper echelons of society that various forms of intolerance have held among some Quebec leaders over the centuries.

For Charest, a man of erstwhile principle and decency, to wade into this issue of a young soccer player's hijab is an indication of a deeply unpleasant strain reasserting itself. Charest seems to be playing to the threat he sees emerging from the Action Democratique leader Mario Dumont, a young gadfly who has indicated recently he is not above fanning the embers of racial intolerance for a few votes. For Charest to play Dumont's game – rather than condemn it passionately – is a sad sign that politics in Quebec may be on a downward slide.

It seems almost puerile to give credence to the assertion that a hijab could endanger a young soccer player. OK, perhaps it could become entangled around the neck of a player – but this is infinitesimally less likely than, say, a player suffering an injury from any number of other potentialities, from a ball to the face or a kick to the kidneys. It's nothing less than ridiculous. So why the issue?

To suggest that the accommodation of a young woman's hijab is an unreasonable expectation in a multicultural society implies we do not have a multicultural society at all. It is hardly less significant that this.

What Charest is criticizing is not the hijab, but what it symbolizes: a society that is willing to make reasonable gestures of accommodation to people who are different. A young soccer player's hijab half a continent away may not seem like a big deal to you. But it should. Particularly if you, or someone you care about, wears a kippah, peyos, a shtreimel or anything else that could be considered non-conforming to stringent emerging Canadian standards.

^TOP