THIS refers to the news reports from Canada that a Quebec judge refused to hear the case of a woman wearing hijab.

Rania El-Alloul was jolted with fear when she went to the judge to get her car back which was confiscated because her son drove it under a suspended licence. Judge Eliana Marengo asked El-Alloul to remove her scarf or appoint a lawyer to get her car back. When El-Alloul explained that she couldn’t afford a lawyer nor remove the scarf because she was a Muslim and it was a part of her religion, the judge told her that she had to take a 30-minute break. Later, she adjourned the case indefinitely.

“I felt like I’m not a Canadian anymore,” said El-Alloul in an interview. She told the interviewer about the absolute happiness and joy she felt when she first landed in Canada and wore a scarf back then.

We recently heard and saw that about 1.5m people marched in Paris to show solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo workers who were killed. The reason for all these demonstrations and protests was the freedom of expression that we can clearly see was totally rejected in this Montreal car case.

Since dress is undoubtedly a way to expressing oneself in front of others, judge Marengo’s act must be considered a crime against freedom of expression. If a nun or a priest or a Jewish rabbi had come for a case, would the judge have adjourned the case?

Syed Omer Nadeem

Karachi

Published in Dawn, March 9th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play