Canada: Bad Jobs and Biases

Rubaba Hussini, from Afghanistan, found her ‘hijab’ (women’s head and body covering) was posing to be a problem when it came to finding work. “I wore my ‘hijab’ to college and everything was fine,” she says. But when she started looking for a co-op placement as a part of her diploma in Early Childhood Education, she was very disappointed. “I would call up people for an interview and everything seemed to be working out, until I went and met them. Then things would change. After failing in 10 interviews, I went for an interview without the ‘hijab’ and was instantly hired as a child care worker.”

Subuhi Jaffary, Employment Counsellor at South Asian Women’s Centre, a Toronto-based not-for-profit outfit, agrees that Muslim women who wear the ‘hijab’ have problems seeking work. Jaffary’s clients include immigrant women hunting for jobs and support. “I had a client who wore a long ‘hijab’. I had to teach her how to present herself. She shortened her ‘hijab’ to a scarf. That made it more fashionable and acceptable in this society.” Jaffary said her client is now studying nutrition at a community college and has been able to find co-op work. “It took her three years to finally make it to the job market.”

There are some small-time employment avenues available to students, including sales jobs, baby sitting and service jobs like waitressing. However, these are just to make some extra cash as they usually pay around CA$8 to CA$13 per hour (US$1=CA$1.02). Also, these are not a part of the course work.

Many Asian students feel that it is not so much the colour of the skin, but the front cover of the passport that decides the response that they get in the job market after graduation. This is because second generation Canadian-Asian women students do not feel racially discriminated at work.

News Blaze

On the job with a hijab

Scarf sparks controversy and assumptions in modern workplaces

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Sharon Hoosein, a nurse practitioner who works for a hospital in Mississauga, Ont., wears a hijab — or headscarf — as a symbol of her Muslim faith. She says she has experienced few problems at work as a result of wearing the hijab, except for the odd person making a false assumption about Muslim women being cloistered, uneducated and oppressed.

“I’m on my maternity leave now and people ask if I’m coming back. I can’t help but feel people were asking that because they thought [staying home] is what my culture and religion wants me to do,” she says. “I married a man from the Middle East, and when I say that he changes diapers and that I go out and leave the kid with him for hours, they’re so surprised.”

The hijab — and how it is received in the workplace — has had much more than its 15 minutes of fame. In June, the Canadian owner of a hair salon in London, England, was ordered by an employment tribunal to pay $8,000 in damages to a young stylist who was refused a job because she wears a hijab.

And in May, the Bouchard-Taylor report found that Muslim women in Quebec face discrimination in the job market for wearing the hijab, and cited the case of a young woman who “saw her job applications rejected by 50 pharmacies before she was finally able to land a job with an Arab pharmacist.”

By wearing the hijab in the workplace, some Muslim women believe they are not only keeping the faith — they are also helping tear down cultural barriers.

Saher Zuberi, an accountant, recalls one such barrier-breaking moment. “My coworker turned to me and said, ‘You know, I always thought that women who covered their heads were submissive and dominated by their husbands, that they were meek and mild. And then I met you. And you’re one of the most independent, outspoken women I’ve ever met.’ “

Some Muslim women consider wearing the hijab an obligatory religious commandment set out in the teachings of the Koran. Other women consider it a physical expression of their faith, to communicate to the world that they are practising Muslims.

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, does not cover her head. She says that the issue of veiling is extremely controversial within the Muslim communities, and that the Koran’s dictates imploring female modesty can be interpreted in myriad ways.

The perception that veiled Muslim women are dominated by male family members can be pervasive among Western non-Muslims. When Katherine Bullock came to Canada from Australia to go to Queen’s University, she saw women wearing the hijab on campus and felt pity. She believed the hijab to be a “symbol of women’s oppression.”

Bullock was raised Anglican and became an atheist during undergraduate studies. She later married a Muslim man and immersed herself in the study of Islam and other religions. When she decided to convert to Islam in 1994 at the age of 25, she adopted the hijab as a symbol of piety.

Working on a PhD at the University of Toronto, Bullock chose her thesis topic — now a book entitled Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil: Challenging History and Modern Stereotypes — based on the negative reactions she received once she put on the hijab.

The Vancouver Sun

Wearing Hijab at School

Another Day in Muslim Women’s Life

Wearing the hijab has been a controversial topic for many years. However, after 9/11, it has come under international spotlight. Since then, a lot of people around the world have been afflicted with Islamophobia. Women wearing the hijab became the center of attention wherever they went, and they have become the target of many insults, prejudice, and racist remarks. This has also been the case among many Muslim females attending public schools.

Many public schools and other educational institutions banned Muslims from wearing the hijab. They try to justify their decision by saying that it is unacceptable, as it does not promote the integration of students. Another reason cited is that hijab is a sign of discrimination against women. Other major criticisms of the head cover are that it denotes women’s subordination and signals political extremism.

Previous Incidents

There have been numerous incidents in various parts of the world in which young women and girls were expelled from schools because of wearing hijab. In one incident that occurred in February 2002 in Singapore, four 7-year-olds were thrown out of school for wearing hijab. These young, innocent girls were then forced to travel abroad to continue their education.

There are other similar incidents that have taken place in the UK, Spain, Turkey, France, and various other countries. In France, two sisters Lila and Alma, aged 18 and 16 respectively, turned up at school one day wearing hijab. The school suspected that their parents must have “encouraged” the girls to wear the hijab, but after some investigation, they were “shocked” to discover that their father was a non-practicing Jew. The father explained that his daughters had come under no pressure from radical Muslims. “They have simply ‘got God’ – like so many teenagers always do, and their religion of reference happens to be Islam.” Unfortunately, they were also expelled from school. Now, they are continuing their studies from home.

Light Amid Darkness

However, despite the negativity there is a glimpse of hope. There are several young Muslim women who are successfully wearing hijab in public schools. These young Muslim women feel modest when they are covered up. Hijab brings about self-respect and makes them feel more confident about themselves.

Sumayya Syed, a 16-year-old from Canada, maintains that when a woman is covered, men cannot judge her by her appearance, yet are forced to evaluate her by her character and morals. “I tell them that hijab isn’t a responsibility, it’s a right given to me by Almighty Allah who knows us best. It’s a benefit to me, so why not? It’s something every woman should strive to reach and should want.”

Syed emphasized that a major plus is that people actually evaluate her on who she is and not on her beauty or clothing. “It protects me from the fashion industry. Wearing hijab liberates you from the media that brainwashes you into buying this and that,” she added. “Hijab allows me to be who I am. I don’t have to worry about being popular by buying things that are considered ‘cool’.”

Another student, Hana Tariq, a 15-year-old, said that hijab lets you know who your real friends are. “People who are friends with you because of the way you look aren’t real friends, but people who judge you according to your personality, because you can alter your looks, but you can’t really change your personality.” Tariq added that hijab helped her develop a real identity.

A sixth grader in the eastern Oklahoma town of Muskogee was asked to leave school because she refused to remove her hijab. The US government joined her lawsuit against the school and she emerged victorious.

Challenges

Young women from different countries face challenges daily because of wearing hijab. Nowadays, unfortunately, people who do not adhere to their society norms are disrespected. Those who are different are often treated with disdain and are ostracized.

There is almost no difference among reactions toward hijab: Girls are treated with hostility, not only by fellow students, but also by teachers. They are often a minority and become outcasts, which makes them feel insecure. They become alienated from the rest of their classmates, and they are constantly ridiculed.

Most people are under the impression that all women who wear hijab do not know English and are immigrants. One student said that her classmates think she is uneducated, and to prove the opposite, she makes extra effort to answer questions asked in class. This takes many of her classmates by surprise ,as she contradicted their thoughts about young Muslim women wearing hijab.

Students are also treated differently by being looked at in a strange manner; often making those wearing the hijab feel uncomfortable. Their school property is at times vandalized and even stolen.

After 9/11, the ill feelings that have been portrayed by others toward Muslims have heightened. Hijab is one of the symbols of Islam, and therefore when Muslim women are seen wearing it, they are hated, not for personal reasons but for political reasons. However, this has a direct impact on them and on how they are made to feel.

As a student in Johannesburg, South Africa, I was fortunate that for eight years of my schooling days, I attended Islamic schools and there was no pressure imposed on me for wearing hijab. However, in the late 1990s when I attended public schools, I was confronted by many challenges because of wearing hijab. The principal of my school was a Muslim, yet I encountered many problems with him when I requested permission to wear the headscarf. I was fortunate that he eventually agreed. The journey was not without obstacles though, as I used to be subject to racial prejudice by some teachers and fellow students.

Islam Online

Emotions run high over Maclean’s article

B.C. hearing told story promotes hatred of Islam. Others see this as an issue of free speech

Jun 07, 2008 04:30 AM

Western Canada Bureau Chief

VANCOUVER–A high-profile B.C. Human Rights Tribunal heard yesterday that an article published in Maclean’s magazine drew responses from readers that called for the mass killing, deportation and forced conversion of Muslims.

Faisal Joseph, the lawyer representing the Canadian Islamic Congress, said there is a conspicuous link between the 2006 article published in Maclean’s and real evidence of hate.

“There has never been a case in this country where there has been such clear, concise evidence of hatred,” said Joseph in his closing summation yesterday to the three-member tribunal hearing the case.

The tribunal looking into the article, “The Future of Islam,” published by Maclean’s in 2006, yesterday concluded a week of testimony that drew larger than normal crowds for a human rights hearing. The article is an excerpt of a book, America Alone, by Mark Steyn.

The hearing has become polarized between those who see a freedom of speech issue and those who see hatred against a religious community.The tribunal was called after two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress – president Mohamed Elmasry and Dr. Naiyer Habib – complained, saying the article promotes hatred against Islam and incites fears Muslims are taking over the world by criminalizing the religion and its followers.

Dr. Habib, a B.C. cardiologist, testified that a handful of Muslims hold extremist views. He said he was ashamed to see Islam demonized in that way.

But Steyn has countered there is no hate in his article, just the use of incontrovertible statistics about the growing number of Muslims, compared to declining births among women in the European Union, Canada, Japan and Russia.

At the start of the week, Steyn supporters waved blank signs to signal their belief the hearing would lead to a loss of free speech.

“This trial shames this province,” Steyn said outside the hearing yesterday. “No genuinely free society should be this comfortable with state regulation of opinion.”

Steyn and Maclean’s have dared the tribunal to rule against them.

Steyn said yesterday that if his side loses, “we can take it to a real court and if necessary up to the Supreme Court of Canada” to win the “liberties of free-born Canadian citizens that have been taken away from them by tribunals like this.”

During the week, while Steyn supporters continued appearing in the public gallery, a growing number of Muslim Canadians also began attending to show their concerns about what they consider is a growing hatred for their religion.

Read More at Toronto Star

Those wearing the kippa, the hijab or the turban shall forever be barred from jobs

In Quebec, equality for minorities just talk

May 25, 2008

Quebecers have gone bonkers over immigrants and religious minorities for no good reason.

That’s the conclusion of the commission on reasonable accommodation. But co-chairs Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor say so diplomatically, while telling Quebecers what they need to hear.

Calm down, there’s no crisis, only a perception of one, fed by sensationalist media. Minorities are not making unreasonable demands. Hijab, halal, kosher, kippas and kirpans are no big deal.

Seeing the religious certainty of some Sikhs, Muslims and Jews, you fear “the return of religion.” But what you see is “in no way comparable” to the Catholic church’s power in the past.

Immigrants are good for Quebec. They are more educated than you. Stop discriminating against them, especially in the workplace.

But Taylor and Bouchard make two highly questionable recommendations. Both spring from their rejection of Canadian multiculturalism in favour of Quebec’s politically correct interculturalisme. They don’t define the latter any better than the Quebec government ever has, except as a cover for the supremacy of the French.

Most Canadians support the primacy of the language in Quebec. Many reluctantly accept Quebec as a distinct society. The House of Commons even voted to designate Quebec “a nation” (Stephen Harper’s gimmicky formulation).

Now, Taylor and Bouchard talk of the primacy of “the majority ethnocultural group, i.e., Quebecers of French-Canadian origin.” Ironic, given that many complained to the commission about the ethnocentricism of minorities.

Inwardness is bad for minorities but good for the majority.

Such contortions were inevitable, given Quebec’s refusal to accept the central Canadian reality that all citizens, and cultures, are equal.

In not confronting that reality, Bouchard and Taylor trip into their second dubious conclusion.

The president and vice-president of the National Assembly, as well as provincial judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and prison guards, should be barred from wearing religious signs and clothing on the job. But not teachers, health professionals and students.

This is a sop to two powerful groups: the Bloc Québécois and the Council on the Status of Women. Both had told the commission that the “neutrality of the state” required it to ban religious symbols.

So, Taylor and Bouchard suggest removing the crucifix from the National Assembly and ending prayers at city councils, but add:

“We acknowledge that certain duties may imply a duty of self-restraint.” Thus, the aforementioned officers “could be required to relinquish their right to display their religious affiliation in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality that their function requires.”

Thus, those wearing the kippa, the hijab or the turban shall forever be barred from those jobs.

This is so absurd that it runs counter to the commissioners’ own persuasive assertions elsewhere: “The right to freedom of religion includes the right to show it.

“By prohibiting the wearing in the public service of any religious sign, we would prevent the faithful from certain religions from engaging in careers in the public service, which would contravene freedom of conscience and religion, and would largely complicate the task of building a public service that reflects Quebec’s population. …”

The Taylor-Bouchard justification for such discrimination is unsustainable in the court of logic or law. It’s hard to imagine that these two intellectual giants would not see that. We can only conclude that they are trying to square the circle, dragging Quebecers into accepting pluralism (and the equality that it entails), while keeping interculturalism (with its premise of the dominance of the majority).

That Bouchard and Taylor could not hide the contradictions at the heart of the Quebec enterprise was exposed when Jean Charest led the National Assembly in unanimously voting to keep the crucifix. Expect municipalities to continue with their prayers. Expect the opposition to continue playing identity politics.

Strip away the sophistry and what we see is not pretty: Old-stock Quebecers have abandoned Catholicism and swear by secularism, but they refuse to give up their quasi-religious tribalism and its dogma of making others subservients to it.

Toronto Star

Allow hijabs, ban prayers at council meetings: report

Sara Asfour (right) attends College Jean Eudes where she has had to remove her hijab to attend school, while her sister Hebah is permitted to wear hers at Institut Reine Marie.

The crucifix is out. The hijab is in. Preaching reconciliation with Quebec’s minorities, the long-awaited Bouchard-Taylor report on the integration of immigrants recommends removing the crucifix from the Quebec legislature, allowing students to keep wearing their hijab, kippas, turbans and even kirpans in class, and banning prayers at city council meetings.

But the controversial report, written by scholars Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, also spells out what should be considered unreasonable demands by religious groups for special treatment.

For example, they can’t refuse that a male doctor attend to a female patient, or ask that boys and girls be segregated in swimming classes. It would also be “absurd” to take down the cross on Mount Royal or an old building that have long been converted to secular use, the chairmen of the $5-million commission say.

“Our recommendations are in keeping with what is commonly called ‘the path Quebec has followed’,” Taylor , a McGill University professor emeritus of philosophy, said in a statement Thursday, releasing the report after a series of leaks in The Gazette.

“We are proposing neither a break nor a radical shift but only measures to facilitate intercultural relations and the normal development of a pluralist, modern society,” Taylor said before addressing the media at a Montreal news conference.

Added Bouchard: “We must rightly insist on secularism and interculturalism, but we must adopt vigorous measures to more broadly foster the integration of immigrants and combat discrimination. Our consultations reveal that members of the ethnic minorities are seeking employment much more than accommodation.”

Titled “Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation,” the report runs 307 pages long.

Among its 37 recommendations, judges and cops should not be allowed to wear religious symbols, the government should produce “a multi-denominational calendar” of religious holidays, and “step up measures” recognizing foreign skills and diplomas in the workforce, and more funding should be freed up for immigrant women.

And the report recommends new policy: Quebec should adopt “basic texts” that define “open secularism” and “typically Quebec-style interculturalism,” the commissioners say.

In its recommendations, the commission takes no official position on the French language, deeming “this theme to be on the margin of its mandate.”

However, in the body of the report, it’s emphasized that French should be better taught in schools and to new immigrants – and so should English.

At a lock-up Thursday, journalists were given a chance to read the full report in French as well as two news releases and a list of the report’s 37 recommendations. Also included was a 95-page abridged version of the report, available in English and French.

All the documents – as well as a dozen studies the commission ordered specially from independent experts on various aspects of the accommodation question – are now available on the commission’s website. www.accommodements.qc.ca.

The much-anticipated report has been the talk of the province this week after parts of the final draft were reported in The Gazette since last Saturday and then posted in their entirety on the newspaper’s website.

Thursday’s release mirrors word-for-word the contents of the draft’s three last chapters that were excerpted by The Gazette.

In the draft – dated two weeks before Thursday’s report went to the printers – as well as in Thursday’s official report, Bouchard and Taylor discuss what they call the media-fanned flames of the accommodation crisis that began in March 2006. That was when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Gurbaj Singh Multani, an orthodox Sikh teenager who wanted to keep wearing his kirpan (a small, sheathed dagger under the shirt) to school.

Other controversies followed, involving demands and deals made with orthodox Sikhs, Hasidic Jews and hijab-wearing Muslim women, mostly over issues of clothing they say is part-and-parcel of their religion.

The crisis came to a head in Jan. 2007 with the publication of a “code of life” by the village council of Herouxville, in which foreigners were advised that public stonings, burnings and genital mutilation of women are not allowed in the community.

Fearing unrest over immigrants and religious minorities on the eve of a divisive provincial election campaign, several days later Premier Jean Charest hastily announced he’d name a special body to defuse the crisis: the Bouchard-Taylor commission.

From mid-September to late December, the two scholars – Bouchard is a historian and sociologist and Taylor is a philosopher – criss-crossed the province. They took their road-show to 17 cities and held a series of live-to-TV-broadcast public hearings attended by more than 3,500 people.

They also received over 900 briefs from individuals, interest groups, political parties and university academics, among others. In early January the commissioners sat down to digest the material and begin writing their report. Their deadline, originally set for March 31, was extended to May 31 after the Charest government agreed to give them more time.

Montreal Gazette

National Post

The Canada

Canada

Muslim head scarf no threat to Quebec values, report says

Muslim head scarf no threat to Quebec values

Jeff Heinrich , Canwest News Service

Published: Monday, May 19

MONTREAL – The Muslim head scarf is no real threat to Quebec values and most women in the province wear it by choice, not out of coercion. That’s what a commission on the integration of immigrants concluded after a year of study costing $5 million.

In the final draft of their report – which was submitted to the provincial government Monday and is expected to be made public at a news conference Thursday – scholars Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor say Quebec society will have a lot to lose if it restricts the wearing of the Muslim head scarf strictly to the home and outdoors.

Saying the province’s 130,000 Muslims, especially Arab Muslim immigrants, are “along with blacks, the group that is the most touched by different forms of discrimination” in Quebec, Bouchard and Taylor plead for an end to bickering over the hijab.

“Let’s finish with the head scarf, which has caused so much distress in the last few years,” the commission’s chairmen say in their report, parts of which The Montreal Gazette obtained last week.

“In light of a great number of unequivocal testimonies, we can take it for granted – believe us – that the young girls or women who wear it give it various meanings and are motivated in contrasting ways, some of which, it’s true, don’t jibe with the dominant values of our society.”

In a footnote, the professors explain some of those different meanings: “Sometimes it signifies submission and oppression, pure and simple, sometimes prudishness, respectability and modesty, and sometimes a way of affirming one’s identity or autonomy or even feminism.”

“But by trying to combat these situations, isn’t there a risk that we’ll harm other citizens who made a perfectly clear choice? How is it possible to disentangle the two? And in the end, what happens to the freedom of each and every one to display her deeply held convictions, as long as they don’t impinge on the rights of others and don’t lead to anybody being put out?”

Devout Muslim women – a small minority of Quebec Muslims overall – suffer intimidation and discrimination in the Quebec job market for wearing the hijab “because employers fear getting demands for accommodations,” the commissioners say, recounting testimony from several Muslims in public hearings last fall.

They cite the case of a young hijab-wearing woman studying to be a pharmacist who “saw her job applications rejected by 50 pharmacies before she was finally able to land a job with an Arab pharmacist.”

The commissioners also write that the hijab is a lightning rod for a wide range of opponents in Quebec, all of whom see it in a negative light.

“Diverse voices are raised to denounce the Muslim head scarf: those of radical feminism, those of republican egalitarianism and – we heard various ways of it being expressed – also those of intolerance.”

That condemnation shouldn’t happen, they say.

“The freedom to manifest one’s religion or one’s conviction is recognized by all the great international legal conventions and by the Quebec charter (of human rights and freedoms),” they say in a footnote.

In another footnote, Bouchard and Taylor talk of some Quebecers’ “often irrational” opposition to the hijab, which they see as a denial of a woman’s femininity, a symbol of her submission to men and to God, or simply a restrictive piece of clothing that would be better left in a drawer.

They quote from a brief submitted to them in November by a woman during their 17-city tour of the province: “In 2007, in Quebec, when a Muslim women wears the veil, I tremble,” the woman wrote.

The hijab should be greeted in day-to-day life as a possibility to connect with someone with a different way of life, according to Bouchard and Taylor.

They also say it’s wrong to think that all veiled Muslim women are somehow under a man’s thumb.

“There’s a strong feminist current among Muslim women. It follows an original path and is a model that differs from Quebec feminism. It goes along with the wearing of the head scarf.”

Lest anyone think the veil is a sign of Muslim extremism – even a subtle form of terrorism – the commissioners try to set the record straight.

“A word on fundamentalism and the threat of terrorism,” they write. “There is, indeed, among Muslims in Montreal, a small minority of rigorists who are solidly rejected by their religious brethren. It’s true that in this type of milieu the germs of terrorism can appear. The threat is therefore not non-existent. What is the right attitude to take?

“Our position is this: Let’s let the police do what they can to disrupt the terrorist threat wherever it is – and it does exist. For the rest, as citizens, we have the duty to treat people equitably and without reproach.”

The Canada

Canada

Sameness is not good

Leonard Stern, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008

With so much religious conflict in the world, we’re starved for feel-good examples of cross-cultural cooperation. You’d think one of them would be the story, reported last week, of non-Muslim university students wearing hijabs to show “solidarity” with a Muslim friend. Unfortunately, it’s hard to muster much enthusiasm for this, well-intentioned though it may be.

The story concerns Carleton University’s women’s fencing team. One of the fencers, Mozynah Nofal, is from Egypt and, as an observant Muslim, covers her hair. Happily, this does not violate the fencing rules; she is permitted to wear the hijab during competition. Yet because she nonetheless stands out, her non-Muslim teammates have taken to wearing hijabs, too. “We decided since Moza can’t take the hijab off to be like us, we would put the hijab on to be like her,” explained one of the girls.

Canada prides itself on being a pluralistic society, but since when did pluralism mean we have to erase all evidence of minorities among us?

It would be one thing if Ms. Nofal were being persecuted or harassed for wearing the hijab. But that is not the case. She is comfortable with her hijab, as are the fencing authorities. The only ones who seem discomfited by Ms. Nofal’s public display of religiosity are her teammates. They noticed she was different and so wanted to blur that difference.

This is classically Canadian. In some places where difference is not tolerated, women would be ordered to remove their hijabs. In this liberal country of ours, we don the hijabs ourselves. One can’t help but wonder if similar impulses are at play: the impulse to take a giant iron and flatten out the textures that make the fabric of human society interesting.

Resistance to assimilation is called particularism. Sikhs who insist on wearing their kirpans are expressing particularism, as are Hindus who don’t eat beef and Jews who circumcise their sons and refuse to put up Christmas trees.

Totalitarians detest particularism, which is why they outlaw religious and cultural freedom. Fascists sought to create an Aryan master race; communists sought to create a muscular proletariat class. Everyone was supposed to look the same and have the same beliefs. In totalitarian systems, minorities that maintain their own customs and traditions are reviled, because they challenge the totalitarian project. China’s Falun Gong know all about this.

Yet many liberals detest particularism as much as the totalitarians do. The liberal faith in our common humanity can mutate into aggressive calls for assimilation, and resentment of those who resist — of those who “don’t mix.”

The young Muslim fencer appears to be OK with her non-Muslim teammates’ wearing hijabs, but it’s possible that another observant Muslim might have said, “The hijab is for me a religious obligation, a reminder to myself that I am Muslim — that I am special and different. If my non-Muslim friends start wearing hijabs, it will drain this very special symbol of its meaning, and weaken my Muslim identity.”

Ottawa Citizen

Fencers’ scarves make a point

Muslim girl’s teammates at Canadian school don head covering to show unity, support during final competition

Everyone asks Mozynah “Moza” Nofal questions. Why does she wear a scarf on her head? Why does she always dress in long sleeves? What’s it like to be Muslim?

Nofal graduated from Cobleskill High School and is attending Carleton University in Ontario, Canada, where she is a member of the fencing team.

Her teammates asked how it felt to fence with her scarf under her face mask. They also wanted her to know they love and support her. So in the final competition of the year, when other teams dyed their hair the same color to show unity, her teammates donned head scarves, called hejab or hijab.

“We’ve always noticed that she’s the only fencer in Ontario that wears a hijab; it must feel lonely or different,” said Rachael Gardner, a sophomore on the fencing team. “We all really respect the confidence she has in her religion.”

Nofal, 16 and a freshman, couldn’t stop laughing at first.

“I didn’t imagine they would do something like that,” she said. “For me, it’s a really big thing when someone puts on a hijab because it’s such a religious act, but for them it was part of being a team. … I thought it was really sweet.”

Nofal’s mother, Hadeer Abo El Nagah, who is Egyptian, is a former visiting professor at SUNY Cobleskill who teaches at Carleton University.

The Muslim religion instructs that women should only display their beauty to their husbands and family members.

“Exposing parts of your body makes guys think of you in a sexual way,” Nofal said. “To prevent that, you don’t dress in a sexual way. It’s not all about the hijab. That’s an extra step. The whole idea is to dress properly.”

Nofal doesn’t see wearing the hijab as a sacrifice.

“I don’t date. I don’t do things most girls here would do,” she said. “I don’t think of that stuff as more valuable than believing in my religion.”

As for fencing with the scarf under her mask, she said she’s been doing it since she began fencing and doesn’t even notice.

“It’s sweaty and uncomfortable,” Gardner said. “It makes me respect her even more.”

time sun union

Hijab Battles Around the World

Tayyibah, St. Paul Minnesota. Fatima, Creil, France. Samira, Algiers, Algeria. What do these women have in common? They are all Muslim, and they’ve all had a run-in with the law.

Their crimes, you ask? Wearing Hijab, or the Islamic head scarf. Worldwide there seems to be a growing consensus that a few yards of cloth on a woman’s head, especially if it covers part or all of her face, is a threat to education, women’s rights, public security and even to freedom of religion itself.

MUSLIM COUNTRIES NOT IMMUNE TO THE TREND
Amazingly, countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim are not immune to this trend. Indeed, it seems they have led the charge.
For many years, Turkey, followed more recently by Algeria and Tunisia, has had a prohibition on wearing Hijab.
Egypt, up until a few weeks ago, also forbade women students to wear scarves. Morocco forbade its citizens living in France to join protests against Hijab strictures there.
Women who defy the bans may be arrested, denied jobs and education, fined or even thrown in prison. More recently, moves against the Hijab have been made in European and American countries.
THE CASE OF HIJAB DISCRIMINATION IN FRANCE
This September in France, the national minister of education issued a directive that effectively banned head scarves from the classroom. On October 3, police were called in to prevent 22 Muslim girls from entering their school wearing the Hijab.
Since then polls have shown that 86 percent of the French populace supports the education minister’s decree.
The general perception is that Hijab is a threat to secularism and the separation of religion and state. In particular, there was concern that Hijab is responsible for dividing Muslim and non-Muslim students.
Some even claim that it is an Islamist plot to “demolish the secular public system” (Le Point Magazine).
Others worry that head scarves introduce religious influences into the public school and places undue strain on other students to conform to Islam’s dress or moral code.
HIJAB: A VIOLATION OF A WOMAN’S RIGHTS?
Another claim is that Hijab constitutes a violation of the female’s human rights because it is a form of discrimination.
Yet, it is common in France for students to wear crosses or yarmulkes (the Jewish skullcap) and for Jewish students to be exempted from Saturday classes. Defending his discriminatory decision, [French education minister Francois] Bayrou declared, “My instructions to school heads will be very clear. We will continue to accept discrete religious signs, as has always been the case. But we cannot accept ostentatious signs that divide our youth.”
BENAZIR BHUTTO ON THE HIJAB
Visiting Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto added insult to injury, when addressing the French Diplomatic Press Association on November 3.
[She]said that Muslim girls who want to wear head scarves perhaps “want to make an identity of their own and to observe what they consider to be their traditions,” and declared “luckily my father did not ask me to wear a veil, otherwise I might not be here before you today.”
HIJAB DISCRIMINATION IN AUSTRALIA
Sociology professor Gary Bouma, of Melbourne’s Monash University, who authored [the] Australian Bureau of Immigration and Population Research’s report, says wearing the Hijab “clearly sets a woman aside as different and as a serious Muslim,” adding “that wearing the Hijab made it difficult for them to get jobs.”
The report, which said that many of Australia’s 150,000 Muslims have experienced harassment and bigotry, was released by Immigration Minister Nick Bolkus on November 4, just days after his government announced new laws carrying jail sentences for inciting racial hatred.

Read More