Who Gets to Belong? Québec’s Forums and the Colonial Obsession with the Hijab
-
The Commission’s procedure normalized a hierarchy between racialized people and white Franco-Québécois largely through the structure of the citizen forums, which were a central part of its process. These forums placed Franco-Canadian Québécois in a position of implicit power, as they were seen as the ones who could decide who did or didn’t belong in Québécois society. Testimonies often followed a predictable pattern: Franco-Québécois participants expressed concerns about losing a "pure" Québécois identity, while racialized groups and immigrants were left to justify their presence and offer reassurances. This dynamic granted the majority unspoken authority, as if they alone could determine what was acceptable and who truly belonged.
The emphasis on open dialogue further complicated matters. Instead of focusing on legal rights and obligations, the Commission shifted the discussion toward tolerance and generosity from the Franco-Québécois majority. This approach once again centered the concerns and opinions of the majority, sidelining the rights and lived experiences of racialized groups and immigrants.
The debate around secularism exacerbated these dynamics. Much of the public consultations revolved around Muslim practices, particularly the hijab, framing Islam as a threat to Québécois identity. The hijabi Muslim woman became a symbol of oppression, while non-Muslim Québécois were portrayed as progressive and tolerant guardians of modern values. This framing reinforced a hierarchy where the majority positioned themselves as arbiters of cultural and societal norms, further marginalizing racialized communities.
Alia Al-Saji explains that colonial desire plays a big role in how the hijab is represented and understood in colonial contexts. This desire is tied to the need for control and knowledge, but it’s also fueled by a sexualized “curiosity”. Because of this, Muslim women wearing the hijab are racialized and objectified. In the colonial imagination, the hijab becomes more than just a piece of clothing—it’s seen as a barrier to understanding and control, as well as a symbol of cultural backwardness that the West feels it has to “unveil.”
For colonial powers, the hijab was frustrating as it symbolized resistance to their gaze, which only made them more determined to dominate and expose it. Al-Saji builds on Fanon’s work to show how, in colonial Algeria, women wearing the hijab were treated as objects to be “unveiled”—literally and symbolically. This wasn’t just about understanding. It was also about control and power, tied to a fantasy of revealing and possessing what was hidden. The hijab became an obsession, representing colonial fears of the “other” and their frustration over not being able to control women. This justified their domination and intervention.
At the same time, the hijab’s hypervisibility in colonial discourse erased the individuality and agency of the Muslim women who wore it. Instead of being seen as people with their own perspectives and choices, they were reduced to symbols of oppression and targets for so-called “liberation.” The hijab became overloaded with meanings like backwardness, submission, and danger, which erased its complexity. This allowed Western powers to frame themselves as progressive saviors, while ignoring the lived realities and agency of Muslim women.
In the end, colonial desire for knowledge, power, and control shaped how the hijab was viewed—as something that needed to be conquered, exposed, and “fixed.” This wasn’t just a misunderstanding. Indeed, it was about maintaining colonial dominance and the West’s superiority while silencing the voices and choices of the women who wore it. The image of the hijab in colonial discourse wasn’t neutral—it was shaped by a controlling, possessive, and exploitative gaze. -
Your discussion post provides a sharp analysis of the Commission’s procedures and their inherent power dynamics, as well as the framing of the hijab in colonial and contemporary contexts. I’d like to extend this discussion by exploring the implications of these hierarchies and the intersections of race, gender, and colonial desire.
The Commission's reliance on open dialogue as a vehicle for inclusion may seem progressive on the surface, but as you point out, it merely recasts existing hierarchies in a more palatable form. The expectation for racialized groups to "justify their presence" and offer reassurances about their compatibility with Québécois identity reveals the unequal distribution of power. This process frames belonging as something granted by the Franco-Québécois majority, rather than a fundamental right of all individuals within society. By centering the fears of the majority, the Commission shifts the burden of proving worthiness onto racialized groups, effectively perpetuating exclusionary narratives under the guise of tolerance.
The framing of Muslim practices, particularly the hijab, further entrenches these dynamics. As you note, the hijab is hyper-visible in both colonial and contemporary imaginaries, serving as a focal point for debates on identity and secularism. This parallels Alia Al-Saji’s insights into how the hijab has historically been racialized and objectified within colonial discourse. The hijab becomes not just a symbol of resistance but also a site of colonial obsession, where the act of "unveiling" symbolizes dominance, control, and possession.
In the context of the Commission, this colonial gaze resurfaces in secularism debates, where Muslim women’s choices are over-determined by the majority’s anxieties about cultural purity and modernity. The hijabi Muslim woman is constructed as both a threat to and a test of the majority’s "tolerance." Yet, as Al-Saji notes, this framing erases the agency and individuality of Muslim women, reducing them to symbols that either affirm or challenge the majority’s identity. The preoccupation with the hijab as a marker of "backwardness" mirrors colonial attempts to control and "fix" the cultural other, often through narratives of liberation that are steeped in paternalism and Orientalism.
What’s particularly insidious is how these dynamics allow the majority to position itself as progressive and tolerant, while simultaneously perpetuating systems of exclusion and control. The secularism debate, for instance, casts the majority as defenders of modern values, obscuring the structural racism embedded in these policies and public discourses. This framework not only marginalizes Muslim communities but also reinforces the broader racial hierarchies within Québécois society, maintaining the Franco-Québécois majority’s dominance.
Ultimately, the parallels between colonial and contemporary representations of the hijab highlight how deeply these power structures are entrenched. The hijab, overloaded with meanings imposed by the majority, becomes a tool for reinforcing colonial-style hierarchies in modern contexts. To truly move beyond these dynamics, there must be a shift away from frameworks that place the majority as arbiters of belonging and identity. Instead, policies and dialogues must center the lived experiences, agency, and voices of racialized groups, recognizing their equal stake in shaping the society they are part of.