veiled4allah: more nations quail in fear of the mighty headscarf veiled4allah: more nations quail in fear of the mighty headscarfThe debate over headscarves that divided France has reached Italy, with a kindergarten asking a Muslim trainee teacher to remove her headscarf because it might frighten children... ...The issue arose last week when a private kindergarten in Samone, in northern Italy, voiced concern about the headscarf worn by a prospective intern, Moroccan-born Fatima Mouyache, who was being placed by a teacher training service.I'm sorry, but if you're "frightened" by a piece of fabric on a woman's head, you've got some major problems. This kind of thing is just ridiculous.
The Miele & Cri-Cri kindergarten said it had agreed to accommodate Mouyache's schedule of daily prayers, but asked the training service if she would be willing to remove her headscarf. The school said it feared it might frighten the students.
In a statement sent to media organizations, the kindergarten said it wasn't acting out of prejudice but merely to avoid "the negative reaction of the children who aren't used to seeing this type of dress" and the possibility that parents might be uncomfortable with it.
In an interview Thursday in the Rome daily La Repubblica, Mouyache said she couldn't understand how the veil, which covers her hair but not her face, could frighten anyone.
If it did make children afraid, she said she could be flexible: "In front of women and children, I can take it off," she said.
After the story was publicized, the town council in nearby Ivrea offered Mouyache a position in another kindergarten and she accepted.
"We decided to offer her a position at the nursery in Ivrea to complete her training, with or without the veil, just as she likes," Andrea Benedino, a municipal official in Ivrea, said.
While saying many Samone parents agreed with the school's position, Benedino said he too didn't understand how the veil could frighten children, noting it was similar to those worn by Catholic nuns.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 07, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: veiling discrimination. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: muslim women, religious practice, piece fabric, because people, people might, muslim, people, Muslim, islam, Islam, religious, women, wear, because, headscarf, should, freedom, hijab, think, yet, religion, rights, wearing, again, much
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Confused about veiling? Read 'Why Do You Dress Like That?'
Learn more about Anti-Hijab Discrimination. We need to stand up for freedom of religion!
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with veiling, discrimination
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: veiling, discrimination
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: veiling, discrimination
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: veiling, discrimination
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: veiling, discrimination
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: veiling, discrimination
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: veiling discrimination
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title more nations quail in fear of the mighty headscarf (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) veiling discrimination (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: No cause for alarm ...
As-Salaamu 'alaikum, Remember that this is a private nursery, and that state schools in Italy have not taken the same attitude as the French. No country in Europe has actually introduced anti-headscarf laws except France, although Belgium and some states in Germany have proposed them.Subject: Re: No cause for alarm ...
That's a good point, but as a veiled Muslim woman, it's a concern to me if there are some countries where the way I dress for the sake of my modesty and my faith is seen as "frightening", a threat, or illegal. That's why I highlight these stories.Subject: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Hello,"I'm sorry, but if you're "frightened" by a piece of fabric on awoman's head, you've got some major problems. This kind of thing is just ridiculous."
Disclaimer - I've only stumbled over your blog two days ago so I suppose I might be repeating earlier comments (yet given that you devoted the blog to this topic, I suppose you won't mind too much).
C'mon, you know that people aren't afraid of the scarves as such but by what they *can* stand for. Mr Benedino of the report above is right to point out that Catholic nuns wear clothing that is far more "scary" than the scarves of most muslim women around here.
Here by the way is in a state of Germany that is currently in the policy design process for a teacher-head-scarf legislation, as required by the constitutional court last year. As you might know, the legislation for teachers is different in each German state, so this is mostly a political rallying issue for the post-modernist (though, not feminist, in this case) groups as well as the traditional Christian ones (just as the gay marriage thins is in the US).
As opposed to France, and its loi pour la laicité, in Germany only teachers could only be affected if they are representing the - secular - state. Now, of course, this is evidently designed to keep muslim scarves out and thereby fulfilling the wishes of the majority of people while trying to preserve the individual rights of religious expression as much as possible.
But along the same lines of argument, the German Constitutional Court required Bavarian schools in 1993 to remove crucifixes if only one of the pupils in any given group asked them to do so because of a perceived infringement of his *negative* freedom of religion, ie asked not to be confronted with symbols of a different religion.
Obviously, this did not go down well in a heavily Catholic state, so it should not be too surprising that they are more than eager to keep the scarves out if any muslim pupil (and remember, there is a significant Turkish, mostly Anatolian minority of living predominantly in cities, sometimes as many as 10% of the population).
I suppose there is no real way to solve this issue as long as either side of the debate is not willing to accept that the sword does indeed have two, possibly more, edges.
The Afghan-German woman, who fought for her "rights" to wear a headscarf while teaching all the way up to the constitutional court was supported in her fight by, let's sa, muslim groups of doubtful origins, whith doubtful political aims. She never acknowledged that the headscarf can be perceived in different ways - just as the feminist activist on the show.
As many other traditional cultural, or religious symbols, for some to wear it is a legimiate expression of religious freedom (or, as in the case of many young muslim girls in French Banlieues, as means of sexual protection from their male peers).
For others, certainly many of the women in traditional societies like Afghanistan, it isn't. And beyond those who would not wear it if it weren't for the social pressure to do so, there will always be the problem of what economists call "acquired/socialised bad taste", meaning that they will exhibit revealed preferences to wear a Burqua or comply with many other queationable features of certain (often more tribal than Islamic) traditions.
As the feminists need to accept that there is more than one way to happiness and that there are women who choose to wear a headscarf by their own free will, so will the proponents of headscarves have to accept that they are possibly infringing on other people's *negative* religious freedom, because of what the scarve can be perceived to stand for. That is not usually the case among those muslims who decide to completely ignore the "when in Rome" factor except to defend their own rights by legal means in societies very much concerned about the often tough fate of immigrant minorities.
As I said I only recently discovered your blog so excuse my saying this if you said so before - I have yet to hear a Muslim (well, one who is seriously concerned with religion) accept the fact that people of other faiths, and, more importantly, other cultural traditions can possibly perceive the headscarf as something irritating, religiously, idelogically, or simply visually. And I have yet to hear a Muslim (again, one who is seriously concerned with religion) that these people do have rights, too.
Maybe Islam doesn't care about compromises. And that considereing the rights of other people could be construed as weakness in someone's personal pursuit of the (non-violent) Jihad. But if that were indeed the case, then, with time, the pre-modern, dysfunctional features of Islam would receive even more attention than they do already.
Bit long, but quite an interesting topic.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
You've certainly posted a very interesting comment. I'm afraid I have to tell you that I do have a problem with people who think that a piece of fabric I wear on my head is a threat to their religious freedom. The way I see it, there are lots of things that other people say and do, and ways that they dress that I might dislike, find offensive, or otherwise have a negative view of. But I don't go around trying to prevent them from saying, doing, or dressing that way and imposing my views on them. As long as they're not actually causing harm to me, I leave them alone. And I hope that they will leave me alone as well even if they find what I say and do or the way that I dress to be offensive to them.There simply is no damage to any person that is caused by a piece of fabric on my head, any more than there is by any other article of clothing I wear. It does not limit anybody else in any way. No one has yet brought any evidence or argument of any harm other than offended feelings. In a free society we expect and allow that some people will use their freedom in ways that offend us, just as we know that the way we use our own freedom may offend some people.
If you do take the time to read through my archives, you'll see that I am absolutely opposed to enforcing veiling on anybody and have said so several times. I am also opposed to enforcing non-veiling on anybody. To me they are the same issue. The state is limiting the autonomy of women in order to impose a single view of what they should be like.
And I care a lot about this issue because it is very personal to me, because as someone who wears a headscarf I could potentially have my options or my rights limited because some people don't like it. That's why I come on so strong about this. If someone is going to tell me to alter the way I dress every day, they'd better have a damn good reason for it because that is a very basic part of my freedom and my autonomy, to dress the way I choose as long as it doesn't harm or limit anybody. (I wonder who next will be told to alter the way they dress because it offends some people)
I'm sorry if you think that by veiling I am somehow forcing my views on you or anybody else (an interesting side question: why do people assume that they know without asking me exactly what my views are about veiling or what my personal reasons for it might be?) but it's not something I'm going to give in on. Hiding my religion in my house because it might offend people is not a way that I can live.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Hi again, thanks for the quick reply.Let me just set one thing straight: I do not think that *you* are trying to force your views on anyody. You quite rightly point out that I have no idea what your personal reasons for veiling are (well, I'm guessing from the title of the blog that they are religious). All I said was that there's a chance some people might not see it this way and might - possibly inadvertendly and influenced by the Christian missionary heritage - connect it to, say, fears about Islamic expansionsm ("dar al-Islam" and "dar al-Harb") - as you acknowledge:
"No one has yet brought any evidence or argument of any harm other than offended feelings. In a free society we expect and allow that some people will use their freedom in ways that offend us, just as we know that the way we use our own freedom may offend some people.
Other than offended feelings... well, fair enough. This is only about offending feelings, isn't it - even without referring to the dreaded Salman Rushdie issue. Feelings of shame, or possibly of religious guilt on one side, probably unwarranted, yet real, feelings of cultural estrangement and possibly, again, expansionist Islam on the other.
Taking Kant's categorical imperative ("act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" it becomes apparent to me that there is no self-evident way of resolving this as long as some people can make credible claims to being offended. Who's rights are more important in this case?
Is it really such an abominable demand that a woman representing a secular organisation make no claims about religion (and again, thereby creating probably unwarranted, yet real fears about cultural estrangement and, again, expansionist Islam.)?
Hiding my religion in my house because it might offend people is not a way that I can live.
Well, this is certainly exaggerated - but what about someone belonging to some kind of nudist relgion walking around underessed in Kabul all the time making the same arguement. How to reconcile his demand to practice nudist religion among pre-modern Pashtuns? Clearly, the nudist would be asked (or more likely ordered) to hide his religion in his house as you put it, because the majority of people would be offended by his behavior. A more theological example would probably be the discriminating nature Islam has in mind for infidels living in the Caliphate, no?
Now as I said, I don't think the veil *as such* is offending people. But as opposed to Christian girls wearing a scarf, the same piece of apparel is politcally charged if worn by a Muslima. And even this is not usually considered a problem as long as the veiled woman does not claim to speak for a secular state. I wonder if why tension cannot be seen by everyone.
Even in France, the ban of scarves only covers public - aka secular - places. This measure is certainly controversial, and more often than not, fiercely opposed by religious Catholics who do not like to leave their wooden crucifixes at home either.
So, I suppose, in the end, there are two layers of conflict - one between Christianity and Islam, which is perceived as violently expansionist at a time when Christian missionaries are usually only building schools and hardly speak of scripture whereever they go. And there is, in my opinion, an addtional layer of ideological conflict between laicism/modernism and religiously dominated lifestyles that many liberals fear are likely to try to take the world back into the medieval if they ever could. That's also part of the conflict Europe has with evangelical pre-millenialists in the American bible belt and the US policies their religious believes are informing to such an extent under the current US administration.
Islam has, in my opinion, the added problem of being a religion that has yet to prove it's ability to develop in line with modernizing societies and the society-wide secularisation this most likely entails. Right now the result of increasing alphabetization is not enlightenment but a sort of 30-years war in the greater middle-east. Lot's of reasons for that, to be sure, but it's hard to claim that Islam has no effect at all, as it there certainly comes close to being the all-encompassing othopraxic guide for life that it, in my modest knowledge, claims to be.
Let me end this reply on a more positive note though: More dialogue is necessary, and I'm glad I found this blog so I can participate and learn at least little bit.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
I'm glad that you say that you will keep reading and learning because at times you've made some rather sweeping claims about what "Islam" is like. When you make a statement about what "Islam" is like, you are implicitly making a statement about what I believe, since I am an adherent of Islam. Many of the statements that you made about the nature of "Islam" do not reflect my beliefs. This leaves two options: either "Islam" is not like that, only the views of some Muslims, or I am not a "true Muslim" because my beliefs are divergent from what you think "Islam" is like.I hope that you will take the time to read both my website and my blogs thoroughly to learn more about what I do and don't believe (there are some good links on the veiled4allah sidebar). Perhaps "Islam" is not what you think it is. Perhaps it offers more diversity and more flexibility than you imagine. If you find this to be the case, I hope that you will be more careful in the future before making sweeping statements about what "Islam" is like and therefore pre-judgments about the beliefs of Muslims that you encounter.
BTW, secularism is an ideology just as much as any religion, if having a religious belief is incompatible with secularism as you seem to be arguing.
It is one thing if as a teacher or government official I speak up and promote my religion to people. In that case, yes I agree that that is inappropriate. However, a headscarf is silent. You assume that you know what it means, but there is no way to be sure. Maybe a woman just thinks it's fashionable. Are we going to ban women from wearing fashionable headgear as well and have a blanket rule that no headgear may be worn? Or are we going to ask each woman why she wears it and then only allow "acceptable" reasons (such as fashion) while denying the "unacceptable" reasons (such as religion)?
When the state starts determining that some reasons and viewpoints are acceptable and others are not, we have a problem. Or at least, I have a problem with living in such a state. I condemn this attitude whether it comes from Muslim states enforcing the veil or Western states prohibiting it. What is your view? Is one OK, but not the other?
Getting back to the headscarf, I also wear long skirts as a way of following religious directives of modesty. I would no more go outside in a miniskirt than I would with an uncovered head. Should that be prohibited too? If wearing a headscarf is promoting my religious beliefs, then so is wearing a long skirt because the reasoning is the same in both cases. Where do we draw the line? How much of a woman's attire are we going to police? How far are we going to go in controlling how people choose to live their lives?
You might want to read this post on Islam and individual freedom to learn more about my views.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Hi, again thanks for the quick reply. Actually, I should go to bed, but I'm really enjoying this conversation. I will read the post you linked to as well as the introductions linked therein (and I just put a couple of "Islam and the West" books on my nightstand)."... made some rather sweeping claims about what "Islam" is like... This leaves two options: either "Islam" is not like that, only the views of some Muslims, or I am not a "true Muslim" because my beliefs are divergent from what you think "Islam" is like."
I hope I always qualified my statements as my personal - perceived - point of view. I don't know exactly which statements you are referring to. Yet I think there is always a third option - Islam could be neither unitary nor unequivocal and thus allow for a variety of opinions? But, again, that's just me speculating.
"BTW, secularism is an ideology just as much as any religion, if having a religious belief is incompatible with secularism as you seem to be arguing."
Of course secularism is - some kind of - ideology, in that it has behavioral consequences. And in my opinion, secularism is not per se incompatible with having a religious belief, yet the behavioral consequences of both have a tendency to clash as religious behavior is much more centered on the - please excuse the term -"transcendental rate of return" whereas secularism by definition has no such possibility and is therefore behavioriallly focused on the "now".
"However, a headscarf is silent. You assume that you know what it means, but there is no way to be sure. Maybe a woman just thinks it's fashionable. Are we going to ban women from wearing fashionable headgear as well and have a blanket rule that no headgear may be worn? Or are we going to ask each woman why she wears it and then only allow "acceptable" reasons (such as fashion) while denying the "unacceptable" reasons (such as religion)?
Well, it's silent and yet it is not at the same time. There was a recent series of interviews in the liberal German weekly Die Zeit in which one converted German Muslim teacher literally suggested that stoning of a few treacherous wives is prone to save so many marriages. She also argued not to ban teacher's religious signs. Let's just say the stoning bit has not helped her position. Again, I don't want to "ban headgear". And I most certainly wish that the reasons for wearing one would not have political implications or offend anyone for whichever reason, for then it would truly be just a piece of apparel and could be worn by those who want for whichever reason, even when speaking for a secular organisation. But, I'm afraid, at this point, that's not what reality is like.
"When the state starts determining that some reasons and viewpoints are acceptable and others are not, we have a problem. I condemn this attitude whether it comes from Muslim states enforcing the veil or Western states prohibiting it. What is your view? Is one OK, but not the other?"
Again, theoretically, I entirely agree with you. Yet in the real world, states, Western and other, are in the business of translating the majority's moral worldview into legal code while protecting certain inalienable rights of minorities. Western states have come a long way since Rousseau's volonté générale but the general problem remains. It's easy to see at the cracks in the system -
In the post about libertarian Islam you linked to you quote "The purpose of the law is the preservation of civilization, that is "(1) of the religion, (2) the soul (life), (3) the intellect, (4) progeny, and (5) property" Using this list as an example for the moment, what happens when the order changes? In the German legal equivalent of Row vs Wade, the German Constitutional Court did not allow abortion except in a very narrowly defined range of dangerous cases in 1975. Yet in 1993, based on the same legal code, it abortions were granted within 12 weeks after a mandatory session to explore financial aid or other ways to protect the fetus. Society had moved on, the system folllowed slowly. That's what states do, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
"Getting back to the headscarf, I also wear long skirts as a way of following religious directives of modesty. I would no more go outside in a miniskirt than I would with an uncovered head. Should that be prohibited too? If wearing a headscarf is promoting my religious beliefs, then so is wearing a long skirt because the reasoning is the same in both cases. Where do we draw the line? How much of a woman's attire are we going to police? How far are we going to go in controlling how people choose to live their lives?"
Clearly, there are some people in this debate who have a deep interest in controlling the lives of other people. Not a few of them are sitting on the Muslim bench, by the way. Western feminists are happy to sit on the other.
But it's not about the scarf per se - it has simply become the one distinguishing element and as such has developed a live of its own as a symbol - when you look at a Coca Cola logo you might think it's just that. A logo on a coke bottle. Yet for Naomi Klein the same thing represents the horrible exploitation of the third world in the name of anonymous plutocrats sitting in Atlanta.
I don't know where we the line should be drawn. That's what the debate is helping me to find out, hopefully. Personally, I have quite a range of experience with Muslims that my ambivalence in this matter draws from.
A friend of my mother's married an Afghan immigrant doctor in the Seventies. He was apparently quite Westernised, I don't remember, as I was too young then and he died in the early 80s. Then his wife converted to Islam, started to wear a shador and became the spokesperson for a very traditional Islamic group in Germany. The last time I heard her speak on a talk radio show, she sounded a tad bit like the Taliban minister of information, which of course, she would not have had the opportunity to become.
Others include a Turkish-Cypriot friend I had in the early eghties. He was a guy, so he never had any problems apart from spelling German, but it was really strange for me that I was chucked out of his family's living room where we were playing video games when his rather aggressive father arrived with his veiled wife and daughter who were then locked into the kitchen until I had left.
Yet other examples are stories of friends being threatened with Anatolian parental violence should they ever attempt to see their daughters again after school. I've seen thirteen year old girls being forced to wear headscarves so their fathers would not call them whore as soon as the other girls in seventh grade developed an interest in make-up.
Unfortunately, a significant part of the Muslims I've met seemed not to share your interpretation of "there is no compulsion in religion". But I've also met very open minded, unveiled Iranian girls.
All I'm trying to say is that - as much as I would wish for everyone to wear whatever he or she likes for whatever reasons he or she deem important, a headscarf, a veil does, if only implicitly, raise a whole lot of issues. Unfortunately, if someone who clearly wants to wear one can not wear it, these issues will also hang in the air.
It's not so simple. But, again, I would like to close on a more positive note. Yesterday, some American reader left a comment to one of my posts over at fistfulofeuros.net saying that Europe was doomed for its attemps of "multiculturalism". I disagreed arguing that it could become a strength, but, for the time being, alas, it is not.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
When you speak in favor of a rule that would ban me from wearing a headscarf because some other people who wear headscarves are bad, in your opinion, I've got a problem with that. All I want is to live my life in peace and dress how I choose. You are defending a policy that would strip some of my freedom from me because of something that somebody else did. I don't see how you can expect me to like that.Yes, the Muslim world is screwed up. So are many other regions of the developing world. Yes, a lot of Muslim individuals are screwed up. So are many individuals of other religions. When I see or hear about problems in the Muslim world or in Muslim individuals, I try to speak up about it and argue for what I believe is a better way of understanding Islam to eliminate these problems. I can't control how other people act, all I can do is speak up and hope that they'll listen. I also don't want to feel like I have to spend all my time criticizing everything that's wrong with the Muslim world or anything bad that ever happens there before I can criticize policies in Western countries that I think are problematic.
I can see from your comments that you're very thoughtful and have a lot of good ideas but this issue evokes a very visceral response from me: get your laws off my body. And, as I said to open this comment, when my ways of expressing myself are to be limited because of something that somebody else did that doesn't involve me, I've got a problem with that.
Surely there is a better way to work with Muslims in the West than by trying to regulate their dress and behavior above and beyond the normal rules in society or by singling them out!
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Hello again, just a brief note to let you know I am still very interested in this discussion, however, things have been busy and I ahve not yet have the time to read everything I said I would."When you speak in favor of a rule that would ban me from wearing a headscarf because some other people who wear headscarves are bad, in your opinion, I've got a problem with that. All I want is to live my life in peace and dress how I choose. You are defending a policy that would strip some of my freedom from me because of something that somebody else did. I don't see how you can expect me to like that."
I would never expect you to *like* it. Yet if there is a conclusive theoretical and social case to be made for such legislation to be in the best interest of all, I hope you could respect, possibly even endorse it. Being stripped of *some* freedom because of what other people do, or have done, is - however unfortunate - an experience everyone makes to some extent, because legistlation cannot be appropriate in each and every instance. And, again, some kind of compromise is the essence of living together.
"I also don't want to feel like I have to spend all my time criticizing everything that's wrong with the Muslim world or anything bad that ever happens there before I can criticize policies in Western countries that I think are problematic."
No, where policies *are* bad, they need to be criticized. Comparative analysis should only be used after a decision that the the law does not meet a predefined theoretical standard.
"Surely there is a better way to work with Muslims in the West than by trying to regulate their dress and behavior above and beyond the normal rules in society or by singling them out!"
I agree. I think it is of vital importance for Western societies to talk to their Muslim members far more than has been done to this day. But it is the second part of your sentence that we are debating: Is requiring Muslimas to take off the scarf or veil when representing a secular institution a "regulation above and beyond the normal rules in society" - I am still ambivalent, but I suppose I don't think so as long as the veil can be perceived as a political statement for a social order which in many ways contradicts some of the most fundamental liberal values, as long as it simply *is not* just a piece of cloth.
I mean, we would not be having this discussion if there weren't something more important about it, would we?
I'll be back after some more reading.
Oh, by the way - I stumbled over this on the web
link
Have you heard about it? If so, any opinion on it?
note: comment edited to add hyperlink
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
If only Muslim religious practice is being limited, then yes Muslims are being singled out.I'm sorry, but you have still not given me a good enough explanation why I should be restricted from wearing a piece of fabric on my head. We're not talking about something that is dangerous to others here, or anything that impinges on their freedom in any way. It's a freaking piece of clothing!!!
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
"If only Muslim religious practice is being limited, then yes Muslims are being singled out."Well, the proposed legislation does not single Muslims out as it would ban the wearing of *visible* religious symbols for teachers of *any* faith. But equality generally means that equal things are to be treated equally, and unequal things are to be treated unequally.
So there's the question whether the hijab is actually different from other forms of religious symbols because of what it can be perceived to stand for...
"We're not talking about something that is dangerous to others here, or anything that impinges on their freedom in any way."
That obviously depends upon the definition of "dangerous" that is applied and will thus vary from community to community. It is certainly not physically dangerous. But if there is evidence - an there is - that there are women who do not wear the hijab voluntarily someone's rights will inevitably be infringed - the rights of those who wear it truly voluntary or the rights of those who prefer not to wear one but do not have the means to exercise this right because it is limited by, say, their own family and would thus welcome a valid (legal) escuse not to do so.
You clearly belong to the first group. Most younger Muslim women I have met clearly belong to the second group. Are the rights of those who voluntarily wear a hijab *always* more important?
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Tobias, you are obviously a very intelligent and thoughtful person, but you are simply not going to change my mind on this issue, not with the arguments that you are making.You bring up the bogey-man of Muslim women being forced by their families to veil. I know a very large number of Muslim women, online as well as in real life. Of those who wear hijab (quite a number do not), I would say that about 98% chose voluntarily to do so. Those who do not wear hijab have also voluntarily made that choice. Maybe this is unique to Muslim women in the U.S., Canada, and the UK or because my sample is weighted towards people who have internet access and such people might have different views than those who do not.
In any case, parents always control what their children wear. Ask any teenage girl who's tried to go out wearing a skirt that her mother thinks is too short or too much makeup. Once again, you are proposing an idea that goes off in a very dangerous direction: just how far do we want to go in giving the government the power to over-rule the decisions that parents make for their children? Implicit in your suggestion is the idea that hijab is somehow "bad" or "too much". By whose standards? Yours? Why are your standards so much better than anyone else's? I personally find it more problematic, and more potentially dangerous to the child, for pre-teen and younger girls to dress up in "sexy" clothes, yet I see that about as often as I see Muslim women in hijab.
Another thing that seems to be implicit in your view is that Islam is somehow unique among religions and, implicitly, bad and that treating it different is therefore justified. No, and no again. Your vision is a mirror image of what you no doubt dislike about Muslim countries: some views/religions are preferred over other views/religions and the state interferes in peoples' right to choose their own way. Sorry, but that is just as offensive to freedom when the ideology is secularism as it is when the ideology is Islam. Don't complain about Muslims who want to enshrine Islam as a preferable religion in their country and limit the practice of other religions when you would do the same in favor of secularism. Don't complain about Muslim states that try to control how women dress and limit their participation, when you would do the same in favor of secularism. The appearance of double standards really ticks me off, especially when I'm getting the short end of the stick.
This debate is not going anywhere. As I view things, you are proposing an unreasonable restriction on my personal autonomy and freedom of expression and trying to justify it by what I consider to be weak arguments. I probably appear to you to be a fundamentalist and unreasonably opposed to what you consider to be justifiable laws. We are simply shouting past each other and not advancing anywhere.
I've stated my position as clearly as I know how. My headscarf does not harm anyone and as such I expect and demand the freedom to wear it if I choose. Get your laws off my body.
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Hello again,"You bring up the bogey-man of Muslim women being forced by their families to veil. ... Maybe this is unique to Muslim women in the U.S., Canada, and the UK or because my sample is weighted towards people who have internet access and such people might have different views than those who do not.
This is not a bogey-man in my experience. But I believe that the group are referring to is different from the group of people I am (implicitly) talking about - second and third generation immigrant women struggling between two cultures.
"In any case, parents always control what their children wear.">/I>
Thas is a fair enough argument, also the one about government intrusion and the sexy clothes. Remember that I was never talking about a general ban of wearing hijab which would be just as problematic as the situation for these immigrant girls is now - I am arguing that not allowing their teachers to wear it could be a useful compromise.
"Another thing that seems to be implicit in your view is that Islam is somehow unique among religions and, implicitly, bad and that treating it different is therefore justified.
Well, I suppose that for you, Islam is also unique among religions, which is probably why you chose to convert. I suppose there is a chance that I am not too excited about certain elements of Islam - as I have witnessed it - many times. Given that most Muslims I know hail from Muslim countries (esp. Anatolia) and their still largely pre-modern societies there is also a chance that my scepticism about the social consequences of *this particular form* of religious expression is mirrored in my statements. However, my personal feelings should not be too much of an issue here. I certainly try to abstract from them as much as possible.
I agree that extreme secularism is as bad as religious extremism, as is very easy to see from the example of totalitarian regimes. However, I don't think there is problem of double standards - so far. It's just a matter of balancing two incompatible positions.
"This debate is not going anywhere. As I view things, you are proposing an unreasonable restriction on my personal autonomy and freedom of expression and trying to justify it by what I consider to be weak arguments. I probably appear to you to be a fundamentalist and unreasonably opposed to what you consider to be justifiable laws. We are simply shouting past each other and not advancing anywhere.
That's not an unreasonable description of my perception. I am certainly slightly disappointed that you - as open to discussion as you appear to be - fail to even recognize that other people might not share your point of view, especially as you mention in your article about veiling that wearing a hijab is an act of active representation of your religion and what it stands for - if the latter element is different for than for most people, how could their perception of the symbol not be different from your's?
If a debate such as ours is not leading anywhere how can we expect a far less informed social, or even political debate, to go anywhere? I mean, you are clearly committed to explaining your faith to non-adherents, as witnessed by the numerous articles on your site. So there should be a possibility to move beyond "we agree to disagree" if there is ever a way to advance this debate.
I'm going to write one more comment based on your own writing about veiling later. For the moment, here is a part of a statement from a Norwegian group promoting religious freedom that I think summarises the state of the debate over here quite well - http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=278
"Most opposition to the Muslim headscarf in Western Europe is based on two main arguments: the principle of the secular state and the scarf's repressive role in relation to women's rights in society and their right to choose. Can one be sure that Muslim women are expressing themselves freely when they claim they are wearing the headscarf as an expression of their religious convictions, or when they say that they see the scarf as liberating rather than oppressive?
No, of course, there are no guarantees, and discriminatory and extremist attitudes do exist within Islam – there are women who are being coerced into wearing the hijab, burka or niqab against their will. There are women who are unable to uphold their rights, and women who are simply not aware of their rights as women not to be oppressed and abused by men. Nevertheless, this is not a problem unique to Islam, but an issue that should be addressed within all religions and cultures.
But this is not only a question of women's rights to choose or refrain from wearing the hijab. The controversy over the hijab has been reduced to a question of colliding cultural values. The hijab, for decades regarded by the Western world as a symbol of the repressive nature of Islam, is for many Muslim women much more than a symbol, it's an expression of their faith and personality, and a cultural or religious obligation which they choose to follow. If a Muslim woman finds it demeaning to be forced to remove her hijab in school or at work, how does this promote human rights?
Of course there are discriminatory and extremist attitudes within Islam; they also exist within other religions and cultures. Yet nothing will be gained by taking a heavy-handed, didactic position towards Islam. Rights are perceived differently in dissimilar cultures, and in a multicultural society it is important to find a pragmatic "golden mean". Wearing a headscarf no more makes a person a fundamentalist than does wearing a cross.
The main challenge lies in the integration policy of European countries – to what degree should immigrant cultures be accommodated, and how will second and third generation immigrants adapt into French, German or Swedish society? Should hijabs be banned from the public space? Should Muslims be allowed to refuse medical treatment from medical personnel of the opposite sex? Should there be 'women only' days at public pools? Should religious practice have a say in whether you can go to school or apply for a job? Some of these questions are easy to answer, some require more reflection, and they will continue to pose difficult challenges to Europe in the years to come."
Tough choices... golden mean...
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
First, the passage that you quoted is acceptable to me. The problem is that it's not what I hear you saying.Second, I don't know whether you believe this or not, but I am as frustrated as you are by this discussion. I have tried over and over again to explain the many reasons why I feel that a hijab ban is both wrong and potentially dangerous (slippery slope).
I guess I haven't said so in this particular comment thread, but I did in a new entry that I posted that's also about hijab: I also don't think that such policies will be effective. In fact, I think that they will be counter-productive. The very people who would force their wives or daughters to veil are the same people who would be upset and offended by the government making a law against hijab. If hijab is banned in school, they will withdraw their daughters from school. What has that accomplished? More ghettoization of the Muslim community and more distrust between them and the rest of society. The exact opposite of what you intend.
In my new entry, I also posed a question: do you support the banning of yarmulkes? Do you think that would go over very well with Jews? Do you think that it would be effective towards any end, or would the anger and outrage against it derail it. If any country made such a ban a focus of their policy the way that hijab bans are being made a focus of policy, there would be a firestorm, and rightly so.
Third, I'll try one more time to explain my position. You are asking Muslim women to give up a measure of their autonomy and their freedom of expression. You argue that this will prevent harm because some women are forced to veil. As I pointed out, the very people who force their women to veil are the ones who will simply withdraw from any place where veiling is forbidden. So you haven't explained exactly how the harm will be prevented or why worse harm won't result from it. If the policy brings no benefit, and it also causes harm (to women who have their choices restricted), then why should it be enacted?
I start from a position that all things should be lawful unless they are clearly proven to be harmful. In my opinion, you have not presented evidence of any harm caused by allowing women to freely wear hijab that is greater than the harm of preventing them from doing so. Therefore, in my opinion, hijab should remain lawful.
There's one other thing I don't know if you've noticed. I have not made a single argument along the lines of "it should be allowed because God said so". My arguments are all in terms of when rights should be restricted or allowed. They are political rather than religious arguments.
If you read the new entry (about Oklahoma), you'll see that my understanding of religious rights is consistent with the general understanding in America. The American constitution guarantees free exercise of religion. There are debates here over how far that goes, but the general rule is that unless the government can show a compelling interest, it cannot limit religious exercise. As an American, I am asking you to show a compelling governmental interest. As an American, I feel that you have failed to do so. Perhaps your viewpoint as a European is different. I don't know.
I have never said that your arguments were all invalid. I have said that they are not sufficiently convincing to justify a restriction on peoples' religious practice. I think that very few arguments are sufficiently convincing to justify a restriction on peoples' religious practice. If we switched this discussion over to yarmulkes or Christian crosses, every argument that I made would be the same, even though I'm neither a Jew or a Christian.
You have come here and chosen to comment on one single entry and to look at my writings on one single issue. I've spent so much time replying to you over and over again that I'm starting to feel like my entire blog is about this subject, which is far from the case. Maybe it would help you to read my writings on other subjects. Do a search of the blog for "civil liberties" and see what comes up.
As a general rule, I oppose most attempts by governments to restrict the liberty of their citizens. I oppose this whether the governments are Muslim or Western and whether the citizens are Muslim or non-Muslim. I oppose restrictions on political expression as well as religious expression. I believe that this is consistent
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of headscarves?
Haven't found the time to reply yet -"You have come here and chosen to comment on one single entry and to look at my writings on one single issue. I've spent so much time replying to you over and over again that I'm starting to feel like my entire blog is about this subject, which is far from the case."
True, indeed, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to you about it. I know from my own blogging experience how much time it can cost to reply to comments. Sometimes I simply don't. It is just that I feel there is a chance to get a better idea about what's right in this matter.
Will write more later.
Subject: headscarf law in France
You can think what you want, but France will not ban women from dressing as they like in the "public place"..they are too individualistic..........the headscarf legislature would(will) apply only in PUBLIC SCHOOLS..and eventually in the workplace, if you are a civil servant, thus representing the state of France.
Subject: Re: headscarf law in France
It's very simple, my dear. I don't want to have to choose between dressing the way I like and getting an education. When Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran, or some other Muslim country bans women from getting an education unless they wear a veil, people in the West shriek in outrage. France is starting down that same road in its own way and to me it's just as outrageous.Defend it all you want, but to me France is putting its ideology above freedom and it's no place I want to go.