A major Canadian medical journal has retracted a letter to the editor by a prominent surgeon in Quebec who expressed reservations about a photo the journal had published of two young girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
The photo in question (above) ran on the cover of the November 8, 2021 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.The image prompted a letter from Sherif Emil, an endowed chair of surgery at Montreal Children’s Hospital of McGill University. Published December 20, the letter voiced concern that the photograph used “an instrument of oppression [the headcovering] as a symbol of diversity and inclusion.” (That’s in the title of the letter, which the journal now acknowledges writing, not Emil.)
As the CBC reported, Emil wrote that:
“Many of my trainees, colleagues and patients’ parents (and some adolescent patients) wear the hijab … I respect each woman I interact with, as well as any woman’s choice to express her identity as she desires” …
“But respect does not alter the fact that the hijab, the niqab and the burka are also instruments of oppression for millions of girls and women around the world who are not allowed to make a choice.”
The letter, which is no longer available online, contrary to Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines that recommend marking it retracted but leaving it on the web,triggered an outcry on social media. The National Council of Canadian Muslims tweeted:
Emil responded on Twitter, defending himself against accusations of Islamophobia and reiterating his argument:
Within 72 hours, however, the journal had backtracked, retracting the surgeon’s letter and issuing an apology.
Here’s the notice, which is dated December 23:
The letter “Don’t use an instrument of oppression as a symbol of diversity and inclusion” (DOI:https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.80742; author: Sherif Emil) published in the Dec. 20, 2021, issue of CMAJ has been retracted by the interim editor-in-chief of CMAJ because the editorial process for the article was flawed and biased, and the letter should not have been published.
CMAJ acknowledges and is deeply sorry for the considerable hurt that many people across Canada have experienced from reading this letter. A formal apology from the interim editor-in-chief has been published at https://www.cmaj.ca/content/193/51/E1935.
The apology, from Kirsten Patrick, begins:
I sincerely apologize on behalf of the CMAJ for my error in publishing the letter by Dr. Sherif Emil, which did not contain appropriate subject matter for publication by the CMAJ and which has disgusted many readers across Canada. I sincerely apologize for the considerable hurt that so many people, including medical colleagues and learners, have experienced from reading the letter. I take full responsibility for the inadequacy of editorial process that led to this error. Furthermore, I should point out that the title of the letter was authored by the CMAJ and was not the responsibility of Dr. Emil.
Patrick added that the journal’s editorial advisory board was not involved in the publication of the letter, and that she and her colleagues:
will urgently review the journal’s processes for considering, reviewing and publishing submitted letters; we will act to ensure proper rigour through a process that seeks to reduce bias, with necessary checks and balances.
Finally, she wrote, the journal’s masthead is “currently lacking” in Muslim representation:
and I shall seek to remedy this. My March editorial also called on readers to hold me and CMAJ accountable. You have again called on us to do better on tackling bias and structural change at the journal. While it’s clear that CMAJ may have lost the trust of many stakeholders this week, I hope that with humility and action we can earn it back.
Emil did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Well that’s unfortunate. I feel some sympathy for the editors, who seem out of their depth. But they now owe the letter writer two apologies, and the situation seems beyond repair.
I thought we left this kind of ugly sentiment behind when Christopher Hitchens died.
What sentimentsdo you find ugly?
Could someone explain exactly what is so terrible about the author’s claim: “Some women face harassment and discrimination for their choice to wear the hijab. That is real, and it is also wrong. But respect does not alter the fact that the hijab, the niqab and the burka are also instruments of oppression for millions of girls and women around the world who are not allowed to make a choice.”
Is that such a fundamentally unreasonable statement? Is the author incorrect that the hijab, niqab, and burka have—for many girls and women—associations with oppression? I expect that for many people the hijab is a harmless symbol, or even a mere fashion statement—but can’t the same be said of the Confederate battle flag, which is certainly a symbol of oppression to many people?
To be clear, the author did not argue that women shouldn’t wear hijabs. In fact, he explicitly said women should be able to dress however they please without being subjected to discrimination or harassment. What the author argued is that showing a toddler in a hijab isn’t a good way to represent cultural diversity. Perhaps the author is wrong about that—but if he is, then isn’t the appropriate course of action to present a counterargument pointing out the flaws in the author’s statements? Instead we get a retraction and a generic, uninformative statement from the editor apologizing for hurt feelings.
What’s more, retractions usually leave the content accessible in some form, but mark it as retracted. They didn’t do that here. They removed it entirely.
There’s a real debate to be had about individual choices made in environments of social influence. Perhaps a medical journal isn’t the place where we will have the most fruitful debate about it, and it should instead be debated in philosophy journals. But I’d at the very least want any retractions to follow the norms of acedemic retractions in journals.
The author’s statement is unreasonable because it is built on stereotypical and prejudiced view that is not based on data or facts. It might be true that some women are forced to wear hijab, but it is not true that hijab is an instrument of oppression. On the contrary, forcing women not to wear hijab is not talked about, in spite of being as oppressive as forcing it.
Sugar coating this statement by the author with the talk about respect does not cover the inflammatory and islamophobic nature of this statement.
Facing it with a counter argument would not be sufficient, knowing that statements of othering and degrading were weaponized by the hideous acts of violence that were taken against Muslims recently in Quebec and in Canada in general.
If history teaches us anything, dehumanizing starts in academic work if left unnoticed.
That seems a fair point Wasem – it is not hijab that closes schools for women and girls in Afghanistan, nor is it hijab that bans them from travel without a male escort. It is the Taliban’s Islamist values, their military force and their population’s acquiescence and/or support that is the instrument of oppression there. In other contexts, where hijab is worn more freely, it is merely cloth that oppresses nothing but sunburn or cold weather. But I do think it’s reasonable to make the association between hijab and Islamist oppression of women and girls even if it should probably be argued that hijab is a symbol of oppression rather than an instrument of oppression.
You should read Marjan’s Starapi’s “Persepolis”.
Saner times:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/12/gender.uk
It’s well documented that millions of girls and women are forced to wear the hijab. It’s not some stereotype unsupported by data and facts. In some Muslim countries, the hijab is even enforced by law—there are over 80 million girls and women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan alone.
And it would be absurd to suggest that the familial/cultural pressure to wear the hijab simply disappears where not officially enforced by law. On the contrary, a 2014 University of Michigan poll found that the vast majority of respondents in Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Iraq did not support freedom of dress for women. And there have been documented “honor killings” of Westernized women by their own Muslim relatives even in Europe and North America.
We should also acknowledge how the hijab, burka, etc. fit into a larger disturbing context in much of the Islamic world—namely, a sexist view of “modesty” that treats women as temptresses who are to blame for men’s lusts. To have a knee-jerk reaction of “that’s not what the hijab represents for ALL Muslims” or “that’s not what the hijab represents for ME personally” misses the point.
It is also documented that millions of women were forced to remove their headscarf for decades as a result of the laïcité (secularism) application in Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, and the Hujum (storming or assault to achieve gender equality) policy in Central Asia republics. The root of forcing women to wear or to remove their headscarf is the tyranny of ruling regimes, regardless of what they called themselves: “Islamists” or “Secularists”. As the Guardian’s editorial puts it “I also think that to forbid girls from wearing the veil, as the government of France is considering doing, is to be every bit as repressive” (Thanks, gcmale for sharing).
The same University of Michigan poll found that other Muslim majority countries such as Turkey and Tunisia were in favor of women to be able to choose their own clothes. Thus, it is an Egyptian or Pakistani issue, and not a “Muslim” issue.
Honor killing is a heinous cultural practice that has its roots in rural and tribal norms. Similarly, the “sexist view of modesty” is a part of the patriarchal cultures that dominate several countries in the developing world including countries with Muslim majorities.
Islamophobic views equate hijab with “barbaric cultural practices” and enhances the “us” versus “them” distinction and calling hijab “an instrument of oppression” represented these views.
Wasem, you say: “The same University of Michigan poll found that other Muslim majority countries such as Turkey and Tunisia were in favor of women to be able to choose their own clothes. Thus, it is an Egyptian or Pakistani issue, and not a ‘Muslim’ issue.”
You’re misrepresenting the results of the poll (see here: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/). Even in Turkey, barely more than half of the respondents supported free dress for women. Here are the percentages of respondents who said women should be able to dress how they want: Tunisia 56%, Turkey 52%, Lebanon 49%, Saudi Arabia 47%, Iraq 27%, Pakistan 22%, Egypt 14%. Iran and Afghanistan, where the hijab is mandatory, weren’t included in the poll.
So clearly we can’t dismiss the problem as merely “an Egyptian or Pakistani issue.”
In any case, it doesn’t actually matter whether you blame individual regimes or Islam for oppressive dress codes. So to insist that it’s not a “Muslim issue” is a red herring. An instrument of oppression remains an instrument of oppression regardless of who you blame for using it.
When a little girl of 6 or 7 year old wear a hijab it has nothing to do with choices and by using that pictures the CMAJ is actually promoting the religious endoctrination of little girl.
Would you find acceptable to have a Jewish boy/girl with a kippa/wig and call it instrument of oppression?
Are millions of women in Jewish societies at risk of being brutalized if they leave the house without a kippah? If they were, then I would definitely sympathize with people who viewed the kippah as a symbol of oppression, and I would definitely sympathize with people who were disturbed by seeing a young child depicted in one. Wouldn’t you?
Bonjour,
Vous pensez vraiment que le voile est un instrument d’émancipation des femmes ? Si vous allez au bout de votre raisonnement, il faut alors considérer que le retour des Talibans est une bonne chose pour la cause des femmes.
Vince le probleme n’est pas est ce que le hidjab est un instrument de contrainte ou d’émancipation mais surtout de laisser le libre choix à chacun de faire ce qu’il ou elle veut tant que cela ne viole pas le droit des autres. D’un autre coté , est ce qu’un journal de médecine de l’envergure du CMAJ est le lieu où ces problèmes doivent être discutées ? Je vais vous étonner en vous disant oui le voile est un instrument d’émancipation des femmes car elle reprend possession de son corps . Quant à l’interprétation qu’en font des attardés mentaux et des frustrés tel que les Talibans, là je vous rejoint.Allez Bonnes Fêtes et que le monde soit un havre de paix et de communion et non pas une agora de haine et d’invectives !!!
On ne parle pas ici de femme mais de très jeunes fille. Venez surtout pas essayer de me convaincre qu’une jeune fille de 6 ou 7 ans peut faire un choix éclairé sur ce sujet. C’est pour moi de l’andoctrination religieuse sur des enfants. Rien de moins.
The academic left once again proves its censorious nature. Retraction, despite no misconduct, for expressing a reasonable opinion.
After they’re done with the CMAJ, they’d better cancel the feminists complaining about the treatment of women under the Taliban. The problem is our media is too intolerant and lacks sufficient representation of theocratic Islamists to be sufficiently diverse. There must be no criticism, only inclusion.
Calling the hijab an instrument of oppression is code for calling Islam a backwards/oppressive religion. I doubt the author would have bothered writing a letter had the cover showed a christian or jewish woman with a headscarf.
I can’t speak for the author, but I can confirm that I think many flavors of Christianity and Judaism are backwards and oppressive religions, especially on women’s reproductive rights, homosexuality and gender roles. So many social justice causes get thrown out the window for the sake of Islam.
I don’t think hijab oppresses people, but it might be one of the ways Islam does.
“Calling the hijab an instrument of oppression is code for calling Islam a backwards/oppressive religion.”
No, it’s calling the hijab and other islamic dress codes involuntarily imposed on females backwards & oppressive. And criticism of one aspect of islam is not a condemnation or criticism of islam as a whole. Please get over yourself.
“I doubt the author would have bothered writing a letter had the cover showed a christian or jewish woman with a headscarf.”
You know this how, exactly?
“The letter by Dr. Sherif Emil, which did not contain appropriate subject matter for publication by the CMAJ “ was about the cover of a recent CMAJ issue. The cover was ppropriate scope for the editors but not for letters to the editor. Whatever happened to publishing rebuttals?
The practitioners of islam do not publish rebuttals. They immediately cry “Islamophobia!!” and demand that the offending material be permanently removed. It’s the typical modus operandi of islamic organizations like The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the United States. And as we’ve seen here there are few, if any, that want to go against these organizations and the twitter mobs they control. Hence the permanent and irrevocable removal of the “Letter” that dared to criticize islamic practice in violation of COPE guidelines.
It’s difficult to see why any comment was necessary about this cover photo. The people depicted are two young girls such as might be encountered in the course of one’s medical practice. Whether you think the dress worn indicates something or nothing, your job is to see the person, not to pass judgement. Whether or not such a photo is put on the front of CMAJ has no wider effect and comment is therefore superfluous.
True enough. The cover just showed two young girls reading. I just get irritated with editors who could have simply rejected the controversial letter as being out of scope. Instead, they publish it, add a leader that is far more inflammatory than the submitted letter, and then publish their impassioned retraction of such a terrible letter. What the heck, editors?
Read Dr. Emil’s letter — pubmed link posted by Andrew this morning — and you might change your mind.
Two things. The citation here in Retraction Watch was mostly about CMAJ’s disappointing behaviour in censoring the letter under religious pressure, not about the content of the letter. Second, it is impossible to discuss Dr. Emil’s views because none of us can read his letter, owing to it having been censored by the Journal and removed from view.
So the question is, Can advocates claiming to speak for an organized religion—a notoriously censorious and intolerant one at that—compel a scientific journal to take down material they object to…and can that religion exert exert prior restraint on publication by getting its representatives onto editorial boards? In Canada the answer to both seems to be Yes.
The original letter can be read here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8687514/
Perhaps a link should be included in the RW article.
Damn that letter was reasonable. It expressed similar sentiments to what many of us have said in this comment thread, only more carefully and eloquently.
It makes me think the academic left doesn’t actually care about women. God forbid someone speak up for things that feminism has usually championed for (white) women – being able to wear what they want without social pressure, not being burdened with modesty requirements, not being sold or forced into marriage, participating in the same activities that men and boys can. Why don’t Muslim women deserve these same rights and freedoms?
I agree that “Muslim women deserve these same rights and freedoms”. They should be freed from patriarchal and paternalistic attitude of both their “Islamists” and their “other / secularists” guardians.
I agree that Muslim women, like any women, should be able “to wear what they want without social pressure, not being burdened with modesty requirements”. At the same time, they should be able to wear what they want without being “burdened with modernity requirements”, without somebody telling them if you chose hijab, you chose an “instrument of oppression”.
They should be able to choose their headscarf, without the false association that this choice will make them “being sold or forced into marriage” and it will hinder their abilities to “participating in the same activities that men and boys can”.
Why I see the letter is not reasonable because it asserts the association between oppressive practices against women and Muslim symbols. This association that is built on prejudice and bigotry is unfortunately socially acceptable – Islamophobia.
Enhancing Islamophobia is not helping Muslim women. It is in fact deepening their intersectionality.
Thank you Andrew. That was most helpful. An amazingly lovely letter. If my grandchild ever needs a surgeon, I hope he or someone he has mentored is on call that night.
Here’s an example of how a professional journal deals with the expression of controversial views which are relevant to its subject area. This takes some attention and effort on the part of the editors.
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202009/rnoti-p1293.pdf
Much the same would apply to letters with comments on the journal itself, when they touch on matters that divide the community.
TRUE. IT REPRESENTS SYSTEMIC MISOGENY OF ISLAM