JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995, Page 53

Canada Calling

Israeli Escort for Canadians in East Jerusalem Opens Rift

By John Dirlik

A trip to Israel organized by the Canada-Israel Legal Cooperation Programme (CILCP) which was intended to promote a closer relationship between the two countries ended up instead underscoring their differences over the status of Jerusalem.

The visit last month by Canada's Chief Justice Antonio Lamer sparked an unexpected controversy when the Canadian Embassy objected to the proposed itinerary because it included a tour of the Old City of Jerusalem with Israel's chief justice.

Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, and Canadian Ambassador Norman Spector argued that having Lamer visit that part of the city accompanied by an Israeli official would imply acceptance of Israel's claim. "Our policy is that any Canadian officials visiting the territories, including East Jerusalem, should do so under the auspices of Canada," said Spector.

The Canadian Embassy had proposed to Israeli officials that Lamer be accompanied by a "neutral" escort, but this offer was rejected by Israel, which cited security reasons. Angered by the Canadian request, the Israeli chief justice and other Israeli judges then boycotted a reception at the home of the Canadian ambassador. In the end, Lamer decided to visit the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem with his Israeli counterpart without informing anyone.

Organizers of the trip expressed disappointment with the Canadian Embassy's reaction, saying it only served to "politicize what was a non-political visit." McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler complained that had the Canadian government "not intruded, this would have been a normal visit with no political overtones."

The Israeli Foreign Ministry also took issue with the reason for the Canadian objection, arguing that an Israeli escort for Lamer "does not suggest support for a permanent Israeli occupation of the territories." David Oren, head of the ministry's Canada Desk, said that it was only natural for Israel to accompany foreign dignitaries since Israel was responsible for security in the occupied territories.

But Ambassador Spector defended his position and insisted that the Canadian reaction was no different than that of most countries with embassies in Israel. He noted that even U.S. President Bill Clinton cancelled his itinerary when the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem insisted on accompanying him on visits to religious sites in the Old City.

Lamer's decision to visit the Wailing Wall with the Israeli chief justice despite the directives of the Canadian Embassy may have pleased his Israeli hosts, but it disappointed at least one Canadian observer. Ian Watson of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations said he wasn't surprised by the Israeli insistence that Lamer be accompanied by an Israeli official because "they are always looking for opportunities like this to push their claim to Jerusalem." But he described as "inappropriate" Lamer's disregard for the Canadian Embassy's guidelines. "He [Lamer] wasn't traveling as a private citizen. He was traveling in his official capacity and should have respected the Canadian position," said Watson.

Criticism of Hijab by Quebec's Nationalist Group Provokes Outrage

The president of Quebec's foremost nationalist institution provoked sharp criticism over his remark that the headscarf worn by some Muslim women was incompatible with the values of Quebec society.

Fran´ois Lemieux, who heads the staunchly separatist St. Jean Baptiste Society, said that wearing the hijab "defies the values of the equality of men and women that we have here in Quebec." His comments followed a recent controversy over the case of a young girl who was sent home from school when she refused to remove her headscarf.

Lemieux was roundly condemned by Muslim groups, who suggested his comment was grounded in ignorance. "Mr. Lemieux should be more enlightened about Islam," said Mayada Mourabet Hakim, president of the Arab Canadian Women's Association. "He should meet some leaders of the Muslim community so he can have more information about Islam before making public statements about it—especially since he is the president of a very important and very old institution," she said.

Hakim, a Muslim who does not wear the hijab, suggested that remarks such as Lemieux's demonstrated a level of intolerance that risked radicalizing hijab-wearing women. She said some Muslim women might react to such intolerance by a greater identification with their religious community, rather than making efforts to integrate into Quebec society.

An editorial in the Montreal Gazette coined the term "Hijabophobia" to describe the ongoing debate over the headscarf, and pointed out that the hijab does not violate the moral or legal standards of Quebec any more than did the attire worn until recently by Roman Catholic nuns. It defended the use of the head scarf as long as Muslim women felt free to wear or not wear it.

Muslim groups suggested his comment was grounded in ignorance.

Freedom of choice was also the sentiment shared by Homa Hoodfar, an Iranian-born anthropology professor at Concordia University in Montreal. Hoodfar said she strongly opposes efforts to prohibit the wearing of the hijab, just as she opposes any attempts by countries such as Iran to enforce its use. "It's not the veil I object to," said Hoodfar. "It's the notion that somebody should think they can tell women what to wear and what not to wear."

Despite the widespread condemnation of his remark by Muslim groups as well as by the media, Lemieux stood his ground and refused to apologize. But he did eventually backtrack from his earlier categorical rejection of the garment by saying he was opposed to the hijab "to the extent that it represents religious fundamentalism, which is incompatible with a democratic society."