This week was International Women’s Week and the class attended two seminars concerning the experiences of Indigenous women and Muslim women in face of racism and discrimination.

The first seminar was on March 2nd and was titled “Climate Change, Pipelines and Violence Against Women” where Lucy Everett and Jen Gobby spoke about the changes in Canada: the installation of the controversial pipeline and its affects on the surrounding Indigenous communities. They mention that not is the land considered for the pipeline project inhabited by Indigenous Communities but it actually belongs to them and is supposed to be protected by law. But somehow the Canadian government has decided it’s its prerogative to do with it as they please, ignoring the promise they made to the Indigenous communities to protect their land and ensure that they do not endure what their past has experienced. They also mention the missing and murdered Indigenous women and how their cases are most of time closed before even being investigated, another way they break their promise to help protect the communities. With quiet protests constantly being shut down, like the ‘Red Dress’ where the red dresses hung from strings meant to commemorate the women are being taken down by very eager police officers, with some even smiling for pictures. They also mention that climate change affects those who are the least responsible for it the most. How the rich fossil fuel and polluting businesses have the ability to afford food and safe housing as well as access to fresh water allows them to not suffer from the effects like someone who lives in poverty.

The second seminar was on March 4th and was titled “Living in the Shadow of Law 21” where Nadia Naqvi and Laity Fary Ndiaye spoke about how Law 21 has affected them and the women around them. For context, Law 21 is the ban of all religious symbols for workers in the public domain such as teachers and police officers. We first hear from Nadia Naqvi, a high school science teacher who has known nothing but being Canadian. She speaks about the discrimination she witnessed her parents endure while she grew up and the discrimination she then faced as well. Discrimination by students and even collegues of hers. She is advocate for Muslim women and has even spoken at meetings and court appearances about overthrowing Law 21. She spoke about how although she is currently immune to the bill under the grandfather clause but is unable to move up in the ranks of her profession due to the bill. We then hear from Laity Fary Ndiaye who is community organizer and a lecturer as well as an advocate for Muslim women. She actively promotes for a more inclusive space for muslim women to be able to thrive. She speaks about how she as a non visible Muslim is affected by criticism she overhears in her life and the surprise others are filled with when they discover she is in fact Muslim. 

Both seminars were very fascinating, as a climate change advocate myself, it was extremely interesting to hear about such current issues in such a well spoken presentation. Ms. Everett presented a very eloquent and expressive presentation on the numerous effects of climate change on the planet and the population. I learned a lot about the situation from an entirely different view point and how it’s not only an environmental issue, it’s a culture and political issue too. As for the second seminar, I learned a very important thing: how the grandfather clause has a very small window of coverage. It only applies to those who say in the exact same spot in their career, which no one does, everyone moves up in their professional lives and knowing that so many people are going to be halted for the simple fact that their religion comes with aesthetic guidelines. What’s even more appalling is that this bill is supposed to protect religious minorities from discrimination but it only protects those who are doing the discriminating. Both women made some very crucial points; one being that we should put a stop to the ones holding prejudiced views, not the ones going about their day acting harmless. And how we need to acknowledge how misogynistic this bill actually is. Although it does affect men who wear visible religious symbols, it is very clear that this bill is directed towards women who wear hijabs and other Muslim clothing items.

I’ve learned a lot over the course of the week that just passed, about the Indigenous communities, religious minorities and the Canadian government. These seminars have given me real life testimonies that allow me to understand the privilege I and so many others are given while so many people suffer the consequences of not filling the mold.

This year’s International Women’s week covered topics like environmental justice, violence against women, Bill 21, Missing and Murdered Indigenous girls and women, and the government’s involvement in all these sectors. Women from different backgrounds and ethnicities had various examples of situations in which they found themselves being victims of violence and/or oppression. The women who spoke at the panels were discussing how they are treated on a daily basis, the microaggressions they encounter and how society refuses to acknowledge them (microaggressions and women).

In the panel “Climate Change, Pipelines, and Violence against Women”, Lucy Everett and Jen Gobby examine climate change and the government’s decision to build pipelines on Indigenous territory. They examine how different communities are impacted but are not all affected the same way. Being one of the biggest emitters, the speakers wanted to bring light on the responsibility the Canadian government has on emitting greenhouse gases and their engagement with pipeline construction companies. Lucy and Jen gave us insight on who suffers directly from the decisions the government makes, the jobs they make out of settler colonialism and how it creates an intergenerational trauma within the Indigenous community. Another issue that was brought up was violence against women, specifically Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada. They gave us statistics to give us a better idea of how many Indigenous women represent the population and how many are either missing or murdered. This panel was meant to inform people why it is important to Indigenous people to fight for their land and water, why pipelines are destructive and harmful for nature, wildlife and ecosystems. Lucy and Jen pointed out how we must be conscious of the consequences of colonialism as allies.

The Bill 21 has caused a lot of controversy, the government believes that separating religion from government is an act of secularism. Speakers Nadia Naqvi and Laïty Fary Ndiaye were criticizing this law because it mostly targets Muslim women who wear the hijab and it interferes with their job or career. They introduced us to the different ways Muslim women are treated, whether they are visible minorities, whether it’s their skin or hairstyles. This law ostracizes and belittles Muslim women, and this notion makes these women feel like they do not have a place in society or individual rights (Kimmel 149). Both Nadia and Laity explained in this panel how they suffer microaggressions everyday because of their skin color, hairstyles and the use of the hijab. This panel was made to inform us that there are organizations that are developed for women to fight against structural oppression and to teach us about the inequalities between women.

The two panels informed us of the violence women must endure on a daily basis and how every microaggression and laws like Bill 21 that promote secularism is actually just a politically correct term for islamophobia. These symposiums were very inclusive and rejected white feminist ideologies, as it should be.

The talks at the International Women’s Week provided me with insight that I did not previously have. Both talks shared messages of the infringement of women’s rights by men.

My greatest take-away from the first talk might well have been about the “man camps”, the camps where workers (usually in the sector of resource extraction) set up camp in indigenous land. Lucy Everett informed us that there is evidence that when these workers are there, rates of kidnapping, and violent crime (murder, rape, assault, et cetera), increase. This indicates that the workers commit these atrocities, usually at the expense of indigenous women.

In 2007, the United Nations released the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As the name indicates, this was a declaration of rights that the UN found to “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”. 144 countries adopted this declaration and four countries voted against it: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. One significant reason that these countries likely rejected the declaration was because it would hinder natural resource extraction (even though it’s not their land to extract resources from). And, now, Canada is extracting resources from Wet’su’weten land.

Though I missed the second lecture, I have read about Bill 21 and I do believe it is an infringement on women’s freedom. Bill 21 was tabled on March 29, 2019, and went into use June 16 of that year. The law is officially titled: “Act Respecting the Laicity of the State”, and its main function is to ban people working in Québec government jobs from wearing religious symbols. Despite being a religious symbol, the hijab is a fundamentally different issue than the other religious symbols as I will elaborate. In the Québec government’s eyes, and the eyes of those whose support Bill 21, women who wear hijabs are victims of misogyny and the hijab is itself sexist. There is a line in the official text of Bill 21, “the Québec nation attaches importance to the equality of men and women”. The origins of the hijab are not entirely clear. Some believe it started as a symbol of status, whereas others believe it started to curb sexual desire. In Iran, women are required by law to wear hijabs, which makes it a sexist issue as women are forced to do something hey may or may not want to do at the behest of men. Anyway, all this to say, that these conditions are not the case in Québec. Women who wear the hijab in Québec want to wear the hijab, they are not under any obligation to do so. Personally, I know a family of Syrian refugees who are muslim. They have a little girl who has not yet started wearing her hijab but she is excited to do so, she sees it as a rite of passage, a symbol of growing up or becoming a woman. I think it’s this idea that a lot of Muslim women relate to, the idea that the hijab was an important milestone in their life and a constant reminder of their faiths. To be banned from wearing this item, so meaningful to your life would be very unpleasant.

Sources

UNDRIP- UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/un_declaration_on_the_rights_of_indigenous_peoples/)

Official text of Bill 21- Légis Québec (http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/L-0.3?langCont=en#ga:l_i-h1)

Bill 21 Dates- Projet de Loi Nº 21 (http://m.assnat.qc.ca/fr/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-21-42-1.html)

Reasons for Wearing a Hijab- Why do Women wear a hijab? (http://theconversation.com/why-do-muslim-women-wear-a-hijab-109717)

Women are Required to Wear a Hijab in Iran- Milani, Farzaneh (1992). Veils and Words: The Emerging Voices of Iranian Women Writers, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 37–38, ISBN 9780815602668

History of the Hijab- Aslan, Reza, No God but God, Random House, (2005), p.65–6

One thing that shook me to the core was the fact that “the native only own 0.2% of their land while Canada owns 89% of stole land”. That being said, to my knowledge, amongst Indigenous there are no stereotypes regarding “male jobs” or “female jobs”. Whereas in Canada and the States, female jobs are examples of “nursing and teaching” whereas men are the engineers of society. (Kilmartin, Smiler 228) Thus, women are likely to be affected by climate change compared to men due to inequality. Throughout history, “women nearly always contributed equal or larger amounts compared to men”. (Kilmartin, Smiler 228) Yet, the men still take the credit for it.

As for Navqi’s and Laity’s presentation, it is not a surprise to my knowledge that throughout their lives, they experienced severe Negrophobia or Islamophobia. Nadia experienced racism way before Law 21 came into place. Growing up, Nadia saw her father get beaten for no reason, a teacher telling her to go back to her country, etc. Nonetheless, even after becoming a teacher she was bullied by students and their parents. Whereas for Laity, she stated skin colour, or her hair style did not matter back where she grew up in Senegal. She was looked down on differently when she went to Paris. Because of Law 21, she cannot move up to be a part of administration due to her hijab. That being stated, “it is proven that for white people, racialization happens differently because they are culturally a dominant group in our society”. (Kilmartin, Smiler 225)

In conclusion, people of colour, specifically women are oppressed because of the phobias people have to a certain race. Also, white privilege does exist and it undermines the experience and knowledge a person of colour has just because of a skin colour. Hopefully near future, skin colour does not come into consideration.