Speaker’s ruling on keffiyeh upholds tradition meant to stop division

Article content

The rules around what is acceptable to wear in parliament come from a time when political divisions were deeper than they are now.

Article content

It’s too bad that so many people, especially in the media or political establishment, don’t understand this before they pronounce on an issue, like the keffiyeh.

Article content

The decision of Ted Arnott, Speaker of the Ontario legislature, to say that the wearing of a keffiyeh is not allowed has been described as a ban. In reality, it is the upholding of the rules that were put in place to allow parliament to function instead of boiling over into partisan and sectarian battles.

In Canada’s early days we were bringing together a collection of communities – English, French, Irish, Catholic, Protestant. Those divisions may seem small now but our first political assassination in Canada was Thomas D’Arcy McGee, an Irish immigrant, MP and member of Sir John A. Macdonald’s government, who was killed for being on the wrong side of an issue, according to the gunman.

Article content

Article content

So, we have rules in parliament, be it the House of Commons or provincial legislatures, on how to behave in order to pave over differences enough to allow for civilized debate. This includes not being allowed to call your political opponent names — like not being allowed to call them a liar even when they are lying through their teeth.

It’s all an attempt to promote civil discourse, this also extends to how members of a legislature are allowed to dress.

Roman Catholic priests elected to the House of Commons have had to seek permission to wear their clerical collar rather than a shirt and tie. Those of Scottish heritage are normally granted permission, if requested, to wear a kilt on Robbie Burns Day, but it’s not a given.

Article content

Generally, though, wearing anything that can be construed as political in any way is forbidden.

This includes MPs or MPPs wearing a daffodil to support the Canadian Cancer Society in April or a member of the legislature wearing a local junior hockey team jersey during a playoff run. Each of those requires the consent of the legislature before it can happen.

In fact, when you see MPs or MPPs wearing a particular ribbon on their lapel during question period for a specific cause, even as wholesome as cancer research, it’s because the members of the legislature agreed to this ahead of time.

These rules, in place over generations, were instituted to ensure the debate in the legislature remained focused on the task at hand and wasn’t enflamed by divisive symbols. An MP or MPP wearing a Freemason’s apron or Orangeman’s sash and bowler hat would have not only been offensive to Irish and French Catholics years ago, it could have led to violence inside and outside of the legislature.

Article content

Wearing a keffiyeh post Oct. 7, as many MPs in Ottawa have, or as some have done at Queen’s Park, is purely a political statement and should not be allowed under the rules. This is especially true because the people wearing them are not Palestinian, they are not Arabs, they are wearing them to make a political statement of solidarity.

That is what the rules are designed to prevent.

This isn’t an attack on Palestinians or Muslims, this is the equal application of rules that have been applied to other cultures and religions beforehand.

We shouldn’t upend our system over false claims of bigotry.

If these rules are changed, or if they continue to be flaunted in Ottawa under Speaker Greg Fergus, then there will be no ability to enforce the rules at all. All political statements using clothing or props will be allowed.

That isn’t a road we want to go down. Speaker Arnott’s ruling isn’t divisive, it’s the opposite of that.

[email protected]

Article content