Update #2~ Quebec Woman in Hijab Controversy Rejects Money Raised

From Yahoo.com

Wearing the Hijab when she went to court, Rania El-Alloul poses for a photograph at her home in Montreal, Saturday, February 28, 2015. A crowdfunding campaign in support of El-Alloul, who was refused her day in court because she was wearing a hijab, has raised more than $20,000 in its first day. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes

The Canadian Press – Wearing the Hijab when she went to court, Rania El-Alloul poses for a photograph at her home in Montreal, Saturday, February 28, 2015.

 

A Quebec woman who was refused her day in court because she was wearing a hijab has said no thanks to more than $50,000 raised on her behalf through a crowdfunding campaign.
 
The money collected on the gofundme website was to be used to help Rania El-Alloul buy a car.
 
As of midday Friday, the campaign had raised more than $52,000 in donations from 1,000-plus people over 14 days.
 
The drive was in response to a judge’s refusal on Feb. 24 to hear her case against Quebec’s automobile insurance board, which had seized her vehicle.
 
El-Alloul said in a letter on the website that while she appreciates the financial support offered by the “generous and warm-hearted campaign,” she can’t accept the gift.
 
“The awareness raised by this campaign has brought us people from all over, who have offered support to carry this issue forward,” El-Alloul wrote.
 
“As a result, I believe that these funds can be put to better use helping those whose rights have been forfeited and stories left untold.”
 
Campaign organizers said they would like to earmark some of the money to help El-Alloul, who is pursuing legal action through the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
 
Amira Elghawaby, the council’s human rights co-ordinator, said Friday it has been in discussions with El-Alloul for the past few weeks.
 
“We are getting legal opinions at the moment in terms of what’s the best way forward for her,” she said.
 
Elghawaby said El-Alloul has until March 24 to file a judicial complaint.
 
Quebec court Judge Eliana Marengo told El-Alloul her case would not be heard unless she removed her headscarf, saying it wasn’t appropriate to wear in her courtroom.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Yep….knew that she would now look into other legal options. If the judge just had kept her biases to herself and allowed this woman to do her court thing for her car, the woman would have had no beef….but no….the judge had to exert her power over a woman wearing a hijab. Which is perfectly legal for the woman to wear….the judge just didn’t like it cuz we have to put these people in their place!
The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems. My great grandparents went through the same thing being immigrants to Canada. They came from an area in Crimea.

 They were a sect of Russian dissenters, known for a radical pacifism which brought them notoriety during the 20th century. Since they arose as a peasant group in southern Russia with orally transmitted teachings and traditions, their origin is obscure.

 Their doctrines appear to have been at least partially derived from those of a 17th-century renegade preacher Danilo Filipov, who dissented radically from the Orthodox Church.

 The Doukhobors rejected church liturgy, believing that god dwells in each human being and not in a church; they rejected secular governments; and practiced pacifism. They replaced the Bible with orally transmitted psalms and hymns, which they called the Living Book. These are sung to this day at the molenie (religious gatherings). Group decisions are made collectively at sobranie (community meetings). Doukhobors do not use any religious symbols at these meetings except for the display of bread, salt and water, which represent the elements that sustain life.

 Some Doukhobors revere their chosen leaders, whom they regard as especially inspired by god, but Doukhobors generally believe that all people are equal because all have god within them. Many of them still live by the slogan coined by one of their leaders, “toil and peaceful life.” Most Doukhobors no longer live communally, but many are still vegetarians and all practice pacifism.

 During the late 18th century, the group was persecuted by the tsars and the Russian Orthodox Church for heresy and pacifism. In 1785, an Orthodox archbishop called them Doukhobors, or “Spirit-Wrestlers.” It was intended to mean “Wrestlers against the Holy Spirit,” but the group adopted it, interpreting it as “Wrestlers for and with the Spirit.”

 In 1895, they publicly burned their weapons in what is now known as The Burning of Arms, which may have been the first pacifist protest in modern times. 

 Persecuted again, many of the Doukhobors were allowed to emigrate to Canada, assisted by novelist Leo Tolstoy and his followers in addition to British and American Quakers and Russian anarchists. More than 7,500 sailed to Canada in 1899 and settled in what was to become Saskatchewan, where they lived as a community.

 Read more Here

 Anyways….they had a difficult time fitting in as they lived in their communes ( Much like the Hutterites in Canada)……the women covered their heads also with kerchiefs and wore different clothing than the Western ladies. This brought about much the same reaction as we see today with those muslim ladies who also wear headscarves and other cultural dress.

 Young Doukhobor girls in Saskatchewan~

Doukhobor women

 

To this day there is still mistrust of the doukhobors even though most have now assimilated and are Canadians, dressing in western clothing.

 After two days of debating with folks on the Yahoo news site, I came to this conclusion …..It seems that sometimes no matter if one has assimilated to the values of the host country…..it sometimes just isn’t good enough to how some people think one should be assimilating.

 ~Blessed B~

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Update #2~ Quebec Woman in Hijab Controversy Rejects Money Raised

  1. Kathy says:

    Wasn’t there something earlier about if she accepts this money it diminishes her welfare income? Perhaps she’s looking at the longer time frame, at least in part.

    The headgear in those two pictures more resembles a head scarf or a babushka like the old Russian and Polish women wore, and were normally removed once indoors.

    As long as we have judges with attitudes and stubborn muslim women there are going to be clashes. Either could have cooperated with the other for the short time it would have taken for her court appearance.

    • vonMesser says:

      While many women removed their scarves indoors for cultural reasons, religious did not. This MIGHT be considered in the same category as the veil and wimple of the Catholic Nuns of days past, or the Orthodox monastics of now.

      • Blessed B. says:

        This is true! Some do not remove their head covering. Hutterites here do not remove their head covering.

    • Blessed B. says:

      Yes….. if she accepts the money she would be off of welfare and most likely have to pay back what she has already been given. I think she knows this and doesn’t want to jeopardize anything for the long term.

      The headscarves in the two pictures are what I grew up learning to call Babushkas. The ones they normally wore out to special functions and celebrations were very beautiful. The women would embroider little flowers or designs on them. I have one of my Baba’s that she did when she was just a teenager. It has little roses all along the edge. You can’t even tell which side is the right side up! Both sides look the same!

      Yep….the judges are not supposed to bring in their own personal biases or feelings into the court room. This one did.

  2. Grouchy says:

    I may be WAY off base here, but I remember my Great Aunt, who was a daughter of German Refugees in the 1870’s, wearing a head scarf any time she left the house. She passed on in the mid-1960’s, God Rest Her Soul. But I also remember my mother in the mid to late 1950’s wearing a head scarf at various times.
    Times change, styles change, but some attitudes are based in stone.
    And the more effort made to change those attitudes, the more firmly they become entrenched in the individual, and the narrower the blinders on the eyes of all concerned.

    • Blessed B. says:

      You’re not off base Grouchy. Women back then wore hats or head scarf when they went out. My mom even did…though I think it was more to hide the bad hair day than anything else! LOL!

      Right now everyone is concerned about the muslims….but there was a time when any immigrant came to Canada that the others ( mostly English!) would have a conniption fit over what those immigrants were wearing! Old attitudes die hard!

      I personally don’t care what any of them wear as long as they stick to our laws, learn English and don’t try to hurt anyone.

      • vonMesser says:

        …………… stick to our laws, learn English and don’t try to hurt anyone………..
        ……….That says it all right there, BB

        Remember back before the mid-1960’s 95% of women and girls wore hats to church. I counted today, there were 14 hats in my church at liturgy this morning. Not bad for 76 people – about half being female.
        Was at a funeral Saturday in another church. Well attended. 3 hats and 1 head scarf.

  3. Clyde says:

    Any bets on WHERE this money will be going to ? Since this case was NOT something that involved seeing her whole head, this judge screwed up BIG time, and gave MORE fuel to the ” people hate us because we’re muslims” fire. Any idea if the judge was elected, or appointed ?

    • Blessed B. says:

      Not sure where they’ll put the monies but it will most likely go to a muslim group.

      Yep….the judge did screw up big time! Judges are appointed. Depending on whether it’s for a Provincial Court or a Federal Court then it will depend on who gets to say yes to those candidates.

      This judge could be in a bit of hot water…here’s why!

      ~Quote~ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/choosing-judges-in-canada-1.866668

      People who apply to serve on the bench are also expected to understand that — if appointed — they will be expected to conduct themselves in a manner that attracts no criticism to their office. They won’t be allowed to:

      ■Engage in public debate about any of their decisions.

      ■Express personal opinions on major social issues that could lead to a perception of bias in their decisions.

      ■Engage in any outside business.~~

      I believe that she expressed her personal opinion on a major social issue!