Wie der Keffiyeh im Queen’s Park zum Blitzableiter wurde | Das Tragen eines Keffiyeh in der Legislaturperiode wurde mit der Begründung verboten, es handele sich dabei um eine „politische Botschaft“. Was sagen die Regeln – und wie geht es weiter?

>It’s rare for a controversy at Queen’s Park to ensnare both the premier and the Speaker of the house: the jobs are filled by MPPs and almost always from the same party, but their job descriptions are so different that it takes some work for a dispute to be broad enough to involve both the head of the government and the servant of the legislature. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what happened this week, as leaders of all parties (official and otherwise) challenged the determination by Speaker Ted Arnott that wearing the keffiyeh at Queen’s Park constitutes a “political message” in attire that’s forbidden by the longstanding rules of legislature.
>
>The disagreement might have been put to rest quickly on Thursday morning when NDP leader Marit Stiles moved for unanimous consent to reverse Arnott’s decision, but Eglinton–Lawrence MPP Robin Martin voted no, defying Premier (and leader of her party) Doug Ford and thwarting any resolution until at least next week.
>
>…
>
>Arnott, speaking to the house, said, in effect, that it’s not his job to rewrite the rules of the legislature after he’s been specifically asked to enforce them — that’s the job of MPPs themselves.
>
>“As Speaker, I am the servant of this house,” Arnott told MPPs on Thursday morning. “While I made my decision in this regard after considerable research and reflection, 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.”
>
>Had Stiles’s unanimous consent motion passed, the issue would now be decided. With Martin’s dissenting vote on Thursday, the matter will continue to simmer all weekend on social media and in other forums; it won’t be revisited until Monday at the earliest. Unanimous-consent motions, however, can by definition be thwarted by any single MPP. That could potentially be Martin again or another dissenter. Nepean MPP Lisa MacLeod has voiced her support for both Martin and Arnott, saying in an emailed statement that “true to his unimpeachable character, Speaker Arnott chose parliamentary convention over political weather veins [sic].”
>
>The controversy has divided members of the house and also at least some members of the Progressive Conservative caucus from their leadership at a time when the party is contesting a Milton byelection that most observers expect will be a competitive race between the Liberals and PCs. According to the 2021 census, 30,000 of the community’s 124,000 residents are Muslim. The government would obviously prefer to have this issue put to rest before the vote on May 2.

Ultimately it would appear that political expediency will overturn this particular decision, but it also raises the issue of the proliferation of old and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations, not just for parliamentary behaviour, but also in our laws as well. Though frequently seen as a monumental task, it might be worth going through the effort of cleaning these up so that our public servants can function more effectively and accountably.