Appui à la juge Eliana Marengo

Attire in court

This last week (Feb 26?) the judge Eliana Marengo in Quebec refused to hear a case from Rania El-Alloul, a woman who wanted to wear a hijab in court. The judge said that no religious clothing (attire, garb) is allowed in court.

So then the question is: What is religious clothing or attire?

The following could most likely be qualified as religious:
1.The kippa, headgear for Jewish males.
2.The turban, headgear for Sikh males.
3. The kirpan, a sword, dress paraphernalia for Sikh males.

Non-religious clothing or attire:
1.The hijab, burka, niqab – it is not required by the Qur’an (Koran), but a symbol of subjection of Muslim women to Muslim men.
2.Nun’s outfit – is a uniform of their profession.
3.Police, firemen outfit – to identify their profession.
4.Sari, dhoti, longhi – outfits worn by certain cultural groups.

The question is really: What clothing, attire, outfit or uniform is acceptable in court, and for that matter in a school, college, hospital, on the street or anywhere else? Do we want to legislate all that?

For a court, I would say the main requirements are:
1.Can we see the face clearly? I think the hijab, burka and niqab should not be allowed in court on that basis, because the headdress prevents the full and clear view of the face. It is not religious clothing, so a woman can’t claim religious privilege.
2.Clothing must be neutral and commonly acceptable. By wearing a hijab, burka or niqab, a woman is overtly identifying herself as belonging to a certain group of people. Someone wearing a pin, pendant, ring or other small item is not identifying him or herself so overtly.

Sincerely,

Ed Hoyer