The Politics of Hijab: From Tehran to Trudeau

Abbas Goya

"While some traditional Christian denominations—such as the Amish and certain Orthodox communities—practice head covering, it is generally regarded as a personal choice rather than a universal religious obligation. Christianity places greater emphasis on modesty and propriety than on prescribing specific garments for women.

In Orthodox Judaism, women are expected to follow tzniut (modesty), which includes covering the body—particularly the collarbone, elbows, and knees—and typically wearing skirts. Married Orthodox women are also required to cover their hair, commonly with scarves, hats, or wigs.

Buddhism does not prescribe comprehensive dress codes for women in its scriptures. However, modest attire is encouraged, especially in temples and religious settings.

Islam, by contrast, generally requires women to observe hijab—the modest dress intended to regulate bodily exposure. While interpretations vary, most Islamic scholars maintain that women must cover their entire body, excluding the face and hands, in the presence of men outside their immediate family." Google AI

In its stricter interpretations, hijab includes sack like garments such as the niqab or burqa, which cover most or all of the body and face. In some Islamic states, including Iran and Afghanistan, forms of hijab are enforced by law.

In Western countries, initiatives such as “World Hijab Day” have emerged under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity. Some leftist political groups express solidarity by wearing a scarf as the hijab. Supporters often frame this as a defense of religious freedom. Yet such gestures often ignore the coercive contexts in which hijab, which literally acts as a chain on women's body with its three kg weight, imposed—by law in certain countries and by entrenched patriarchal authority within families in all others. The political implications of these positions are complex and require deeper discussion.

In Iran, the original post-revolutionary imposition of hijab evolved over time. The full-body covering consisted of a headscarf, manteau, and trousers if women chose not to wear chador. Although the form changed, the principle of compulsory bodily covering remained. These adaptations reflected ongoing resistance by women, who sought to push back against strict enforcement.

Mandatory hijab in Iran has never been a religious symbol; it has functioned as a mechanism of state power. Resistance began almost immediately after the February 1979 Revolution, with protests erupting on March 8 of that year. Over the decades, women’s rights movements challenged compulsory veiling and broader gender discrimination. Mansoor Hekmat coined the phrase gender apartheid, some forty years ago.

Despite superficial changes in fashion and enforcement, the underlying requirement of bodily coverage has persisted. Even so-called “Islamic swimwear” reflects this logic of full-body concealment.

The 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, who was detained over hijab violation, marked a turning point. Although the Islamic Republic has not formally repealed compulsory hijab laws, enforcement has fluctuated, and many women today assert greater—though still limited—freedom in dress.

Wherever political Islam has consolidated power—whether as a governing authority or as a dominant political force in opposition—controls on women’s dress have often accompanied broader restrictions on civil rights along with crackdown on labor rights. Compulsory hijab functions as a tool for regulating women’s bodies and reinforcing patriarchal authority.

Opposition to compulsory hijab, therefore, is opposition to state control over women’s bodies. However, this raises a complex question: does rejecting hijab conflict with freedom of dress?

In a secular state, freedom of dress concerns the relationship between the individual and the state. The state should neither impose any dress code nor enforce religious doctrine. A secular government must separate religion from public administration and education, both public and private.

In positions of state authority—where officials exercise governmental power—religious symbols, including headscarf, should be restricted to preserve institutional neutrality. Minors should not be subjected to compulsory religious dress. Additionally, safety regulations may justify restrictions in certain workplaces where loose garments pose physical risks.

Public health and identification requirements can also create limited exceptions. For example, face coverings may be restricted where identity verification is necessary, such as in airports or certain secure facilities. In environments such as swimming pools, safety and hygiene regulations may determine appropriate attire.

However, a secular state cannot impose a blanket prohibition on hijab in society at large without infringing on individual liberty. Its responsibility is to uphold secular governance, protect public safety based on evidence, and ensure equal rights.

Beyond the role of the state, civil society organizations and political movements remain free to criticize religious practices, including hijab. Like any social practice, it is open to public debate.

Hijab is not a piece of cloth, a symbol, nor a private matter but part of a broader patriarchal structure. The debate ultimately centers on coercion, autonomy, and gender equality.

Just as societies have challenged practices deemed harmful to public well-being, such as smoking, practicing hijab can be challenged as harmful to women’s well-being and emancipation.

---

Freedom of expression means little when one is cut off from the means of expression. As a socialist who criticizes political Islam, and the Iranian state in particular, I have consistently faced a total media blackout in the West—from right-wing to left-wing outlets alike, without distinction. The last attempt I made was trying, unsuccessfully, to publish the following in early 2022.

Trudeau’s “Hijab-Gate”: Systemic Oppression of Children

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau summarized opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21—the province’s secularism law—by claiming: “A Muslim teacher loses her job just because she’s Muslim.” [1] According to Trudeau, the law constitutes a violation of human rights because a person allegedly lost her employment due to religious affiliation.

This claim does not withstand factual scrutiny.

What Bill 21 Actually Does

Bill 21 [2] prohibits certain public employees in positions of authority—such as teachers, judges, and police officers—from wearing visible religious symbols (including hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and crosses) while performing their duties. Importantly:

Fatemeh Anvari did not lose her job.

She remained employed by the Western Quebec School Board but was reassigned to a non-classroom position. As reported, “she had to move to a position outside the classroom because she wears a hijab.” [3]

She was not removed because of her religion.

No one asked Anvari to renounce Islam or change her beliefs. She was reassigned solely because she chose to wear a visible religious symbol while occupying a position of authority.

Thus, Trudeau’s framing is factually incorrect on both counts.

Headscarf Is Not Even Equivalent to Islam

Headscarf is not practiced as a universal or mandatory wear among Muslim women—either in Canada or globally. Many Muslim women do not wear a scarf, yet their belief remains intact.

Therefore, asking a teacher not to wear a hijab while exercising institutional authority is not equivalent to asking her to abandon her religion. The same logic applies to Christianity: a Christian does not renounce their faith by choosing not to wear a cross.

Children’s Rights and Educational Neutrality

Bill 21 does not prohibit belief; it restricts the public practice of religion by authority figures while delivering state services. Teaching is such a role. Wearing religious symbols in the classroom is an expression of religious practice in everyday life, not merely a private belief.

The purpose of Bill 21, when applied to teachers, is to protect children’s right to a religiously neutral educational environment. This is the heart of the issue—not an employment dispute, as Trudeau suggests.

By wearing a hijab in the classroom, Anvari introduced a visible religious influence into the learning environment of 8- and 9-year-old children, thereby compromising that neutrality.

Influence of Teachers on Children

The influence teachers have on children is profound. This is illustrated by a letter written to Anvari by a student: “I actually think your hijab is awesome!” [3] While seemingly innocent, this example demonstrates precisely why neutrality matters: children naturally emulate authority figures and absorb their values, beliefs, and symbols.

This influence alone justifies removing religious symbols from the classroom.

Children Are Especially Vulnerable

Children are not autonomous adults. They are dependent, impressionable, and inclined to imitate caregivers and educators. They have not chosen a religion, tradition, or worldview. Their placement in a classroom is largely accidental—determined by geography, not consent.

It is society’s responsibility to protect children from the unequal effects of this “blind lottery” by ensuring a neutral educational environment. Preventing or influencing a child’s social and civil rights—such as the right to unbiased education—should be treated as a serious offense.

Just as society rejects physical harm to children justified by culture or religion, it must also reject ideological intrusion justified on similar grounds.

Trudeau’s Role in Systemic Harm

Trudeau’s claims are not merely inaccurate; they are politically dangerous. When voiced by the country’s most powerful official, such distortions legitimize the erosion of children’s rights to secular education. In this sense, Trudeau’s statement contributes to a systemic oppression of children.

Political and Media Mobilization

The Canadian government has mobilized an extensive propaganda apparatus—encompassing state power, major political parties, and mainstream media—to oppose Bill 21. This effort prioritizes religious accommodation over children’s rights.

Notably, support for this position spans the political spectrum, from the Liberal Party to the Conservatives and the NDP. The broader economic motivations behind this alignment—particularly the reliance on cheap labor—are beyond the scope of this text but cannot be ignored.

This nationwide campaign risks reversing decades of progressive, secular achievements and may serve as a model for regression in other Western countries.

Secularism as a Means, Not an End

While Bill 21 is largely fair and equitable, some of its justifications are weak. The claim that it exists to protect the “Quebec nation” because it is secular is unconvincing. Secularism is not an abstract virtue; it is valuable only insofar as it protects human rights—in this case, the rights of children.

Ironically, Bill 21 makes no explicit reference to children’s rights, even though they are its primary beneficiaries.

What Must Be Done

Countering the Canadian government’s reactionary and oppressive propaganda will require a sustained and collective effort. The defense of chyildren’s rights—and of genuinely neutral public education—demands nothing less.

***

Sources:

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6291118

[2] National Assembly of Québec, Bill 21 (An Act respecting the laicity of the State), Introduced on March 28, 2019

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=5&file=2019C12A.PDF

[3] https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6278381