Trudeau under pressure to intervene in hijab row

The dismissal of a Canadian teacher for wearing a hijab has sparked fierce condemnation of Quebec’s ban on religious symbols and anger towards Justin Trudeau for his reluctance to intervene.

The law, known as Bill 21, passed in 2019, bans the hijab, turban and kippah for public servants in “positions of authority” in Quebec, including police officers, lawyers, judges and teachers. Critics say it targets minorities under the guise of secularism.

While rights groups and Quebec’s right-leaning government have clashed in the courts and in public forums, most Canadians had not seen the law in action until this month, when Fatemeh Anvari, a primary school teacher in Chelsea, Quebec, was sacked. While employees hired before the law’s passage could continue wearing religious symbols, Anvari, previously a substitute teacher, was given a full-time contract in October.

The idea of a popular Muslim teacher being removed from the classroom in a country run by a global progressive has angered rights groups and the wider public and prompted protests at Anvari’s school, including by students and staff. “We love you Ms Fatemeh,” one child scrawled on a sign.

In an interview with CTV News, Anvari said she did not want to become the story. “I don’t want this to be a personal thing because that won’t do any good to anyone,” she said. “I want this to be something in which we all think about how big decisions affect other lives.”

On Wednesday Trudeau, who was voted in as prime minister in 2015 after promising a “feminist” foreign policy and a gender-balanced cabinet, said: “I don’t think that in a free and democratic society, a person should lose their job because of their religion.”

Yet he has been wary of intervening, saying the matter should be handled provincially and that a fight between Ottawa and Quebec would be unhelpful. However, he has not ruled it out.

Critics say the prime minister, who heads up a minority government, does not want to alienate Quebec’s electorate, which is vital to his success at the ballot box, and of the Francophone province’s history of secessionism. Many have expressed concern that Quebec is treated differently to other provinces.

Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the left-wing New Democratic Party, who shore up Trudeau’s Liberals in parliament, said that Anvari had been sacked “because of the way she looked” and that he supported federal intervention in the law. The mayor of Brampton, a diverse Toronto suburb, has called on 100 fellow mayors to “join the fight” against Bill 21.

The Conservative MP Kyle Seeback said Anvari’s reassignment to a diversity-focused literacy project was “an absolute disgrace” although the Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, is not willing to intervene.

François Legault, the popular premier of Quebec, insists Bill 21 is “a reasonable law” that reaffirms the separation of church and state. He said Anvari should not have been hired in the first place. Fears that Quebec’s culture and language are under threat has boosted support for Legault.

Legal attempts by rights groups to block Bill 21, which invoked the rarely used “notwithstanding clause” allowing provinces to override Canada’s charter of rights, have failed.

Now, however, Anvari’s dismissal and the wave of public anger that has followed have given fresh life to its opponents and fuelled calls for Trudeau’s government to intervene and take Quebec to court.

Razia Hamid, 37, left Quebec for Brampton a few months after Bill 21 became law, ending an 11-year stint in the French-speaking province.

“It’s what [the law] represents: to live in a province that has created a tiered society,” she told The Times. “Making individuals choose between their identity and their work is not a choice anyone should have to make.” She said the law institutionalised racism and made her feel less safe.

Hamid, who does advocacy and works as a marriage counsellor, said she was disheartened by Trudeau’s refusal to act when rights were being infringed upon. “All these leaders are going to have to answer for which side of history they want to stand on when this dark period is spoken about.”