Mahsa Amini, 22, died on September 16 following her arrest by the Iranian morality police for having “badly worn” her hijab, exposing a few strands of hair. His death caused a shock wave that goes beyond borders. This tragedy has aroused popular anger in Iran and demonstrations of protest against the obligation of the hijab are setting the country ablaze. The latter are repressed in police violence, thus multiplying deaths and arrests.
Posted at 2:00 p.m.
Unfortunately, this case is far from unique. Contemporary history shows us that in several Muslim-majority countries, thousands of women who refuse the hijab are beaten, raped, disfigured by acid, repudiated, imprisoned or murdered if they dare to appear in public without a veil. More often than not, it is men in the family or on the street who take care of it rather than the State.
By what miracle does this sexist symbol suddenly turn into a “free choice” that deserves the protection of our charters, as affirmed by the solidarity, the liberals, the federalists and even feminists, who oppose the law? Quebec on the secularism of the State (PL21)? Should we speak here of a miracle or a lack of judgment? Maybe a bit of both. It is above all a matter of ignorance and blindness to the ideology that accompanies the hijab.
Can we honestly defend the hijab as a symbol of freedom when we see the extent of the repression associated with this symbol?
If we must of course believe those who say they wear it by choice, the meaning of this sexist symbol remains the same. The sacralization or trivialization of the hijab, conceived as a religious obligation or a symbol of feminine modesty, has as its corollary the stigmatization of all unveiled women. The latter are then perceived as shameless women or women of little virtue, who deserve the harassment and violence they suffer. It is this misogynistic message that the dominant discourse that advocates the hijab constantly hammers home.
This is why it is absurd to put on the same footing the obligation and the prohibition of the hijab, by dismissing back to back those who impose it and those who wish to ban it in certain places. This middle position, defended by those in solidarity, the liberals, the federalists and even feminists who believe they are defending a fundamental right, is nonsense. There is no common measure between the obligation of the hijab, whatever the justification (religious, moral or other), and its restriction in certain places in the name of the principle of religious neutrality. It is high time to reject this deception which is based on lame logic!