Unless I’m misreading their biographies, I don’t believe that NDP MPs Christine Wong-Tam and Joel Harden have Levantine lineage. Did Harden’s activism stem from his experiences as a young Palestinian trying to survive in Gaza? Or is it because of his position as a student activist who rails against capitalism within the comfort of a Canadian university? I think I’ll leave it to Mr. Harden and Mr. Wong-Tam to clarify.
Surely they understand the confusion they have caused this week by going against the Ontario Legislature’s rules banning the wearing of the keffiyeh, but the keffiyeh is by no means a political symbol, but a cultural symbol deeply tied to Arab identity. I’ve heard that it’s a beautiful piece of clothing. Mr Wong Tam was simply embracing his culture by wearing the clothes in the chamber. And it was “not a prop” when Mr. Harden used it to nonverbally protest against the speaker banning headscarves in Congress. Did everyone get it right?
You can go along with the tenuous argument that the keffiyeh has not taken on new political meaning since the war in Gaza began, or you can accept the reality that symbols evolve. What was once just a piece of clothing is now a visible symbol of Palestinian resistance. That’s why political undergrads in Arabic as much as Tuna Pot are suddenly wearing it to drink their morning coffee. That’s not a bad thing. It simply acknowledges that context matters when talking about how symbols and gestures are used and perceived.
It is within the presiding officer’s rights to ban keffiyeh in the chamber (earlier this week, the presiding officer scaled back the ban on keffiyeh throughout the building). The rules specifically prohibit “the display of partisan or political messages or obscene signs, banners, buttons, or clothing” in Congress, and specifically prohibit the use of keffiyeh to send political messages. It is reasonable to argue that there is. Harden, Ms Wong-Tam and independent MP Sarah Jama did not wear them in parliament before the war.
But the Speaker has discretion, and it would have been better to leave the fight alone, especially given that the conflict has been a distraction from more important issues at Queen’s Park for weeks. In fact, this spectacle gave Mr. Jama a wider audience for his statements on Gaza, including in the past: Deny The rape of an Israeli woman, and more recently, phone (to “globalize the intifada”) than he would have gotten by just wearing a keffiyeh in parliament.
And while there is no doubt that the keffiyeh has become a political symbol, its meaning is not universal. B’nai Brith Canada issued a statement claiming that the keffiyeh’s “innocuous origins as a cultural symbol have been tainted by extremists” and that it has “become a symbol of division used for incitement.” But that is no more true than some pro-Palestinian activists claim that the Israeli flag has been transformed from a harmless symbol of patriotism to an inciting symbol of “genocide.”
Keffiyeh is useful for those who want to show solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who reject Western involvement in supporting Israel and want an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and, of course, deny the rape of Israeli women. It is also worn by people.and by others People who openly praise Hamas. If it is a symbol whose sole or primary interpretation is hateful, like the swastika or the Hamas flag, there is no question that it should be banned from the legislature. right. But the freedom to wear cultural dress should be preserved in parliament, even if it has taken on more complex meanings in recent months.
Regardless of whether the keffiyeh’s message is inflammatory or not, it is political, which is clearly against the rules, and by allowing it the speaker is using the Legislature as a prop, sign, button, flag, symbol. Some may argue that there is a danger of turning the country into a circus full of people. This is because a myriad of causes are common. But the keffiyeh is an ambiguous case. This is not, for example, a sign with a political slogan, and in this case it would be defensible for the Speaker to allow it at his discretion (which he has already done by relaxing the rules). Additionally, banning political symbols may be an attempt to maintain a sense of civility in the legislature that doesn’t really exist. There is already a lot of activism, posturing, and stupid theatrics. Adding a scarf won’t make the place look too dilapidated.
Thus, while there is no doubt that the keffiyeh has taken on political significance, banning it serves little practical purpose and at the same time creates an unnecessary distraction. And I think we can all agree that Mr. Harden must be allowed to celebrate his heritage.
