Normalizing the Hijab is Unacceptable
2024-07-31
Journalist and antisecularist Toula Drimonis is at it again. She claims that the image of a hijabi at the entrance to Montreal’s newly renovated city hall is just hunky-dory, with no religious significance! On the contrary, the hijab is loaded with religious and political meaning, regardless of whether the woman wearing it is aware.
Sommaire en français Journaliste et antilaïciste Toula Drimonis récidive ! Elle affirme que l’image d’une femme en hijab à l’entrée de l’hôtel de ville de Montréal, récemment rénové, est géniale et n’a aucune signification religieuse ! Pourtant, le hijab est chargé de sens religieux et politique, que la femme qui le porte en soit consciente ou non.
Ce billet de blogue est disponible en français : Le conformisme lassant de Toula Drimonis
If there were ever any doubt about the vacuity of the words “inclusive” and “diverse” when used by antisecular ideologues, that doubt has been dispelled by Toula Drimonis’ latest diatribe “Montreal City Hall’s inclusive gesture is met with anger,” published 2024-07-25 in the Montreal Gazette. Drimonis’ refuses to recognize the duplicity of the choice of image which welcomes visitors to the newly renovated city hall. After removing the crucifix from council chambers in accordance with Bill 21, the new image displays three persons, of whom one is a hijab clad woman.
But, claims Drimonis, this image is not in council chambers, so it “has no influence whatsoever over city hall and civic governance” and “doesn’t represent religion.” Nonsense. The choice of an image of a hijabi is laden with significance, just as the hijab itself has objective meaning regardless of the intention of the woman wearing it. Drimonis herself admits that the image is in line with the “multicultural and diverse” nature of Montreal, blithely ignoring the fact that multiculturalism is a very tendentious ideology, a euphemism for cultural relativism and multi-tribalism. It is incompatible with universalism which is necessary for human rights. But multiculturalism, supported by buzzwords such as “diversity” and “inclusivity,” is the ideology promoted by both Drimonis and mayor Valérie Plante.
This choice of image is a deliberate affront to secularism and to the Quebec population which enthusiastically supports it. It is a declaration that religious affiliation takes precedence over all other considerations. In particular, religions and their symbols are afforded a level of respect and deference beyond all reason and which would never be granted to political ideologies and symbols.
…the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women […] a stamp of purity…
Does Drimonis grasp the meaning of the hijab? Of course it is a religious symbol, which is reason enough to avoid it in this context. Any partisan display, religious or political, would be unacceptable. Furthermore, the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women. The hijab, like all variants of the Islamic veil, is a stamp of purity, indicating that its wearer is a good Muslim woman and, more importantly, that any woman—especially a Muslim woman—who does not wear one is impure and deserves to spend eternity in hell. This meaning is independent of the mentality of the woman wearing it. She may be unaware of that meaning, as Drimonis is, or at least pretends to be.
The Islamic veil is odious. To normalize it is unacceptable. To celebrate it, as city hall and Drimonis do, is obscene. As a society we should be taking steps to discourage the spread of such an extremely misogynistic symbol, especially given that that spread is a deliberate strategy of Islamists.
Civil service symbol bans such as those in Bill 21 are a matter of professional ethics. They are just the sort of measure that is required: banning all religious symbols (thus avoiding discrimination) in certain formal circumstances, i.e. when the bearer is an on-duty civil servant or schoolteacher, but maintaining full freedom in other contexts. But Drimonis fails to distinguish between the civic context where the ban applies and the public but non-civic context (e.g. non-employees going about their private business in public) where it does not.
The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience.
Drimonis is notorious for her opposition to secularism in general and to Quebec Bill 21 in particular. She uses a dishonest ploy which is a common among antisecularists: she claims to support secularism while offering a false definition of that term, robbing it of meaning. In an article published shortly after the law was adopted in 2019, she wrote that “true state secularism has nothing to do with the banning of religious symbols.” Yes it does, in certain circumstances. The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience. That freedom includes both freedom of and freedom from religious belief. Bill 21 recognizes that citizens and schoolchildren have a right to civil services and institutions free from religious proselytism, including the passive proselytism of symbols worn by working staff.
Drimonis would apparently allow religions free rein, as if she considered them to be totally innocuous. Is she unaware that, in Islam for example, apostasy is considered a heinous sin? This tenet is utterly incompatible with freedom of conscience. As for those of us who support separation between religion and State because we see religions as potential threats to human rights, which indeed they are if they gain political influence, Drimonis treats us with contempt, as if our attitude were the unfortunate symptom of a mental illness. She displays similar contempt for the rights of schoolchildren to an education free of ideological proselytism.
In Europe, France is in the vanguard of secularism. That secularism is under threat from religious bigots such as Islamists and pious Catholics, and that threat is made much worse by the support of islamogauchistes such as the political party La France Insoumise (LFI).
Here in North America, Quebec is in the vanguard and secularism is similarly threatened. The objective allies of political Islam here in Canada are tedious conformists like Toula Drimonis who are willing to flout schoolchildren’s rights, just so they can claim, self-righteously, that they are defending “stigmatized” religious minorities when in reality they are facilitating religious fanatics. The most fanatical are men whose aim is to normalize the veil and make it practically mandatory for Muslim women. The aim of the hijab is to stigmatize Muslim women who do not wear it.
Next blog: Les critiques de la cérémonie d’ouverture des Jeux Olympiques se trompent de cible