News
Understanding the Wet'suwet'en struggle in Canada – Al Jazeera English
Montreal, Canada – Mass demonstrations, sit-ins and blockades have gripped parts of Canada over the last month as a movement to support the leaders of an Indigenous nation who are opposed to a multibillion-dollar pipeline project in northern British Columbia (BC) grows.
The hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation have come out against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which seeks to transport liquefied natural gas from northeast BC to a terminal on the coast near the town of Kitimat.
More:
The 670-kilometre (417-mile) pipeline will cut across traditional Wet’suwet’en lands that cover 22,000sq km across northern BC.
The hereditary chiefs, who under Wet’suwet’en law claim authority over those traditional territories, said they never gave their consent for the project to move forward. They have raised concerns about the pipeline’s potential effects on the land, water, and their community.
On Sunday, a Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief and government ministers said they reached a proposed arrangement on how to move forward. The details of the agreement will not be released until they have been presented to the Wet’suwet’en people.
While Sunday’s agreement represents an important step in a conflict that has gripped much of Canada, the struggle of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs raised important questions of Aboriginal title, land ownership and consultation with First Nations.
“I think it would be a mistake to understand what’s happening right now as just about a natural gas pipeline,” said Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law in Vancouver, before the agreement was announced.
“There are much deeper, underlying issues that remain unresolved and that I think are at the root of this,” Kung told Al Jazeera.
Aboriginal title
Key among those underlying issues is the fact that the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s claim to their ancestral lands, through which the pipeline will be built, remains unresolved.
Aboriginal title refers to the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to use and occupy the lands they occupied for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers. Aboriginal title was “recognised and affirmed” in the Canadian constitution in 1982, and the courts have laid out the test for Indigenous nations to prove their title claims.
In a 2014 case, Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that Aboriginal title flows from the sufficient, continuous and exclusive “occupation” of the land. That can include Indigenous culture and practices, such as hunting or fishing. “Where Aboriginal title has been established, the Crown must not only comply with its procedural duties, but must also justify any incursions on Aboriginal title lands,” the court wrote.
In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to determine Aboriginal title in a case involving the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan nations, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.
The court found that the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs were the rightful holders of title to their unceded territories and recognised that the community’s Aboriginal title had not been extinguished, explained Robert Hamilton, assistant professor at University of Calgary Faculty of Law.
But “for procedural reasons [the Supreme Court] sent the case back to trial” and it was not picked up again, Hamilton told Al Jazeera in a phone interview before Sunday’s announcement.
He said the court signalled to the federal and provincial governments that Aboriginal title remains an outstanding issue that must be resolved. “‘Here’s the test that we’re going to use in determining where Aboriginal title exists … so, you had best get on with the business of negotiating with these parties that have outstanding Aboriginal title claims,'” Hamilton said, about what the court said in Delgamuukw.
The Wet’suwet’en title claim was never resolved, however.
Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief Frank Alec Woos speaks during a news conference at the Mohawk Community Centre in Tyendinaga, Ontario [File: Lars Hagberg/AFP]
On Sunday, Wet’suwet’en Chief Woos, who also goes by the name Frank Alec, said the proposed agreement with the government picks up where Delgamuukw left off.
“What we were always here to do is to protect our yintah [land] … We say to all the developers out there, our pristine waters, our headwaters, our wildlife habitats, our traditional sites … we are going to protect it,” Chief Woos said during a news conference.
It is still unclear what was decided, however, and details of the proposed deal are expected to be presented to the Wet’suwet’en people over the next two weeks.
“While we have disagreement on this issue, we are developing a protocol … to recognise rights and title for the future,” BC Indigenous Relations Minister Scott Fraser said on Sunday in a news conference alongside Chief Woos. “I ask for some space and calm to allow us to continue that work.”
Consultation and accommodation
When Aboriginal title is asserted, as in the case of the Wet’suwet’en, the government holds a duty to consult and accommodate the community when their rights may be infringed by a government decision, such as a resource extraction or development project.
That is a lower standard than when Aboriginal title is established under Canadian law, said Hamilton, as in the Tsilhqot’in Nation case.
The level of consultation and accommodation must be proportional to the potential adverse effects of a decision, or to the strength of the assertion of Aboriginal title, the Supreme Court said in a 2004 decision involving the Haida Nation, also in BC. “The Crown is not under a duty to reach an agreement; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation in good faith,” the court said then.
Supporters of the Indigenous Wet’suwet’en Nation’s hereditary chiefs pass by CN Rail as they march as part of protests against British Columbia’s Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Montreal [Christinne Muschi/Reuters]
Governments often outsource the consultation process to third parties, such as the Canada Energy Regulator (formerly known as the National Energy Board). But consultation must be carried out in good faith and what is known as the “honour of the Crown” must be upheld.
The process is flawed, however, because the government is “aiming for the floor” – in other words, it works to meet the minimum standard required, Kung told Al Jazeera. He said the consultation framework was also meant to be temporary until underlying land issues can be resolved, but it is instead “treated as an indefinite norm and as the end of the line in terms of obligations”.
“Obviously, that approach is not working,” Kung said.
Who is consulted?
The groups that are consulted often also become a matter of contention.
In its 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised that the rightful Wet’suwet’en titleholders were the hereditary chiefs.
The nation is divided into 13 houses and five clans: Gilseyhu, Tsayu, Laksamshu, Gidimt’en and Laksilyu. Under Wet’suwet’en law (Anuk nu’at’en), the traditional territory is divided between the houses and clans, and the hereditary chiefs hold authority over their respective areas.
Supporters of the Indigenous Wet’suwet’en Nation’s hereditary chiefs block the Pat Bay highway as part of protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Victoria, British Columbia [Kevin Light/Reuters]
But the federal and provincial governments have “maintained a policy of denying the Wet’suwet’en title to the land for decades”, said Bruce McIvor, principal at First Peoples Law who represents the Unist’ot’en, a house group of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.
“As long as they maintain the position of denial, they’re in a stronger position to force through major resource extraction projects, such as pipelines or open-pit mines or hydro dams. The legal obligations on them are significantly lower,” McIvor told Al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, TC Energy said it “has the utmost respect” for the Indigenous systems of governance in BC and “strived to engage with all the Indigenous groups along the pipeline route”. It said it has engaged in “a wide range of consultation activities” with the hereditary chiefs, including 120 in-person meetings.
The company also said it reached agreements with 20 First Nation bands along the project route, including five Wet’suwet’en bands. Those deals “were developed over many years through collaborative engagement”, it said on its website.
Indian Act chief and councils
The First Nations band council and chief system were created by the Indian Act of 1876, the federal law under which the government regulates and manages the lives of First Nations. The act gives the councils and chiefs, who are elected by First Nations band members, the power to administer the day-to-day running of reserves, the First Nations communities that also were created by the Indian Act.
McIvor said while some First Nations have been able to work through the chief and council system with the support of their members, in the case of the Wet’suwet’en “no one really thought that you can simply go speak to the Indian Act chief and councils”.
The rightful titleholders are the hereditary chiefs, he said, and “to say otherwise is either willful ignorance or simple intention to encourage disagreement”.
Supporters of the Wet’suwet’en nation Indigenous group who oppose the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, protest outside the provincial headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Surrey, British Columbia [Jesse Winter/Reuters]
It is not clear how many Wet’suwet’en people on an individual level support the Coastal GasLink project or how many are against it. Some have publicly expressed support for the project, some have shown reticent support, and others are strongly opposed.
In the BC Supreme Court decision in late December to issue an injunction allowing construction to continue on the pipeline, Justice Marguerite Church stated that “the Indigenous legal perspective, in this case, is complex and diverse”.
Church also said “the Wet’suwet’en people are deeply divided” over the project.
McIvor said it is understandable that some Indian Act band councils and chiefs would sign on to the project, as communities are impoverished and have been unable to benefit from projects in their territories. “Unfortunately, this is ripe for companies and for [the] government to take advantage of,” he said.
Beyond Canada
Beyond Canadian law, Indigenous rights are also enshrined in international legal frameworks, notably the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). While Canada initially opposed the declaration, it has since signed on and pledged to incorporate it into its national laws. To date, BC is the only place in Canada to pass legislation that aims to get its laws in line with UNDRIP.
That move was welcomed in November as a key step on the path to reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the government. But at the height of the standoff on Wet’suwet’en lands, BC Premier Horgan said the legislation was not retroactive and would not apply to the Coastal GasLink project.
“We want everyone to understand that there are agreements from the Peace Country to Kitimat with Indigenous communities that want to see economic activity and prosperity take place,” he said on January 13. “This project is proceeding and the rule of law needs to prevail in BC.”
Protesters demonstrate in downtown Seattle, Washington, to support the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, a community in British Columbia, Canada opposing a natural gas pipeline [File: Ted S Warren/AP Photo]
Brenda Gunn, associate professor at the University of Manitoba faculty of law, explained that UNDRIP lays out the government’s obligation to obtain Indigenous peoples’ “free, prior and informed consent” if their rights will be affected by a decision.
“One of the key aspects of free, prior and informed consent is the notion of ‘free’ – and this means without coercion and it also means the right to participate according to their own government institutions and determine for themselves who represents them,” Gunn told Al Jazeera.
She said “free” also means people should not seek to divide and conquer Indigenous peoples, or in the case of the Wet’suwet’en, not pit the hereditary chiefs against the band councillors, chiefs or anyone else who supports the Coastal GasLink project.
“Free, prior and informed consent includes the ability to give or withhold consent. You don’t effectively have consent in law if you’re not allowed to say no,” Dunn said.
On Sunday, Canada’s minister of Crown-Indigenous relations, Carolyn Bennett, said major projects need to be put before an Indigenous nation as outlined by UNDRIP.
“It means that at the very first idea of a project, that the rights holders would be there at the table with their Indigenous knowledge and the voices of their nation,” she said during the news conference alongside Chief Woos.
What’s next?
The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have repeatedly laid out their demands: withdraw federal police (RCMP) officers from their traditional territory and order Coastal GasLink to suspend construction while nation-to-nation discussions with the government are continuing.
It is unclear which, if any, demands are part of Sunday’s proposed agreement, and what the future of the pipeline may be.
Wet’suwet’en land defenders have set up camps and checkpoints to reclaim their traditional territories in the area slated for pipeline construction and stop the project from moving ahead. They have also insisted that the RCMP leave the area and for Coastal GasLink to stop building – and it is unclear what Sunday’s proposed agreement may mean for them.
In January, RCMP officers removed dozens of Wet’suwet’en land defenders and their supporters from the camps along the pipeline route to allow the company to continue with construction activities.
“Obviously, [the RCMP is] not out there to protect the Wet’suwet’en people; they’re out there to protect the CGL employees. We need to correct that,” Wet’suwet’en Chief Woos said on Sunday.
After three days and nights of talks NO agreement on Coastal GasLink has been reached. However, a tentative agreement has been reached on Wet’suwet’en rights and title. This will not be publicly released until Wet’suwet’en people have a chance to review over the next few weeks. pic.twitter.com/2Zevt7FNmP
— Gidimt’en Checkpoint (@Gidimten) March 1, 2020
Late last month, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) said it could not issue a final certificate authorising construction on the pipeline through a section of Wet’suwet’en territory until Coastal GasLink went back to negotiate with the leadership about some outstanding potential effects. The office said concerns about the project’s effects on a Wet’suwet’en healing centre still needed to be addressed. It gave Coastal GasLink 30 days to conduct more consultations and provide an updated assessment.
“It is very distressing, after we’ve faced assault rifles and endured arrests at the beckoning of CGL, to now be advised by EAO to work collaboratively with them to address these gaps,” Karla Tait, a Unist’ot’en house member and volunteer director at the Unist’ot’en healing centre, said in a statement.
In a statement, Coastal GasLink president said construction that was paused for talks between the Wet’suwet’en chiefs and the government will resume on Monday.
“While much has been accomplished, much work remains and we wish all parties success as their work continues and the Wet’suwet’en people consider the proposed arrangement,” David Pfeiffer said.
It was also unclear whether Sunday’s proposed agreement addressed the presence of the RCMP in Wet’suwet’en traditional territories.
Still, Chief Woos told reporters Sunday’s announcement represented “quite a milestone for all of us to view this together”.
“We’re at a point, in this moment in time, to see if the arrangements will work in all aspects of what we stand for as Wet’suwet’en,” he said.
Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.
That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.
In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”
“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.
Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.
“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.
Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas war continues.
Premier calls for reversal
Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.
“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.
“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”
When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”
Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.
“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.
Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.
Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7.
Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”
Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.
Liberals also call for reversal
Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.
“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.
Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.
Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”
She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance.
“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.
“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”
Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”
Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP
Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part.
“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.
Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.
“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.
Peggys Cove now has a new bylaw to guide development and protect the iconic fishing village’s heritage, but some say the process to create those rules was unfair.
After more than two years of consultation and five different drafts, this week the province approved a new land-use bylaw that will replace one from 2003.
It aims to preserve the “authentic, traditional fishing village” spirit of the cove, while allowing commercial uses where residents can benefit financially from the thousands of tourists who flock to see the area and lighthouse.
But Paul Paruch is one of many who have voiced concerns about conflicts of interest with the Peggy’s Cove Commission, which led the process with support from Upland Planning consultants.
“[I’m] very disappointed, let down,” Paruch said Thursday.
Paruch and his wife, Claire, had hoped to see their property zoned commercial, as Claire has run a hotdog stand there for years. The couple bought a home there with plans to retire and also rent it out, Paruch said, which would also not be allowed.
The new bylaw addresses everything from dwelling size to regulations on building materials. It also has turned many residential lots along Peggys Point Road into mixed-use “core” zoning that would allow for commercial, residential and community purposes.
Vendors and buskers are no longer allowed in the cove, unless they’re accessory to a special event.
Brian Cottam said the new bylaw is a major blow for him and his wife, Kelly Westhaver. Although an early draft of the bylaw zoned their land at 173 Peggys Point Road as commercial, that changed to residential after other residents voiced concerns about having that zoning so close to the lighthouse.
A sale of $1.3 million fell through on the land because a core designation was a condition of the purchase, Cottam said.
“This sale was going to allow us the ability to relax a little and enjoy life, but that has been stripped away,” he said in an email.
Bylaw ‘effectively expropriates’ private land: lawyer
Another property owner, Eleanor McCain, will be getting the commercial zoning she pushed for to allow for new businesses.
However, a lawyer for McCain did raise concerns about how the conservation zone was applied to the rocky waterfront side of her client’s land and many others in the cove. Nancy Rubin of Stewart McKelvey said in a letter to the commission the move “effectively expropriates” private land without any evidence of why it was needed or if it was based on any scientific studies.
Paruch, Cottam and McCain have argued the commission members who run their own commercial enterprises, or are connected to businesses in the cove, are in direct conflicts of interest. The commission is made up of residents, the sitting councillor and representatives from the province to make decisions on changes in the area.
Three commission members must be from the community, but where there’s about 40 permanent residents, it is hard to avoid friendships and family ties.
The Nova Scotia ombudsman’s office is investigating the commission following recent complaints. Both Paruch and Cottam said they had hoped this independent report would lead to the province rejecting the proposed bylaw.
But John Campbell, a lifelong cove resident and owner of the Sou’wester Restaurant in the village and other properties, said the bylaw strikes the right balance.
“I think overall it’s going to be a good thing, but you know when you go through a process like this, not everybody’s going to be happy,” Campbell said.
Campbell said he’s become an “easy target” for the arguments around conflicts of interest, as his daughter Nicole Campbell is commission chair. He said he didn’t get everything he wanted in the new bylaw, pointing out that his request for land to be zoned commercial near the lighthouse was refused.
Campbell agreed that something should change with the makeup of the commission to avoid conflicts in the future, but more analysis should be done on what the fairest approach is.
“It’s a very unique place, Peggys Cove, and you know it’s good to have discussions about it,” Campbell said. “It’s my community that I grew up in, and my closest friends are in, and you know I feel like I could make a living there.”
Economic Development Minister Susan Corkum-Greek said she has faith in the commission’s process, and nothing in the draft report from the ombudsman prevents her from approving the bylaw.
She said the province is also looking at modernizing the legislation governing the commission and the area.
“I think this is an important step, but … it is a first step,” Corkum-Greek told reporters Thursday.
The bylaw will see a new development officer appointed to handle permits and variance requests, while anyone who wants to change their zoning can apply to the commission.
News
Ontario Legislature keffiyeh ban remains, though Ford and opposition leaders ask for reversal – CBC.ca
Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.
That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.
In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”
“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.
Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.
“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.
Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas� war continues.
Premier calls for reversal
Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.
“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.
“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”
When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”
Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.
“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.
Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.
Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7.
Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”
Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.
Liberals also call for reversal
Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.
“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.
Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.
Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”
She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance.
“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.
“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”
Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”
Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP
Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part.
“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.
Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.
“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.
In Venice, 1OF1 and Collector Ryan Zurrer Introduce Web3 Phenom Sam Spratt to the Art World – ARTnews
Explore local comedy, art and music: Five things to do this weekend in Saskatoon, April 19-21 – Saskatoon Star-Phoenix
With matchup vs. Kings decided, Oilers should be confident facing familiar foe – Sportsnet.ca
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
-
Investment19 hours agoUK Mulls New Curbs on Outbound Investment Over Security Risks – BNN Bloomberg
-
Sports17 hours ago
Auston Matthews denied 70th goal as depleted Leafs lose last regular-season game – Toronto Sun
-
Business16 hours ago
BC short-term rental rules take effect May 1 – CityNews Vancouver
-
Art15 hours ago
Collection of First Nations art stolen from Gordon Head home – Times Colonist
-
Investment16 hours ago
Benjamin Bergen: Why would anyone invest in Canada now? – National Post
-
Tech18 hours ago
Save $700 Off This 4K Projector at Amazon While You Still Can – CNET
-
Tech17 hours ago
'Kingdom Come: Deliverance II' Revealed In Epic New Trailer And It Looks Incredible – Forbes
-
Science19 hours ago
Jeremy Hansen – The Canadian Encyclopedia
