What do you think of the impending banning of hijabs in France and Belgium?

I think the banning of religious regalia in general is a dangerous road to go down. This is the kind of attitude that has brought about the need for Muslim-only schools. Segregation just breeds ignorance and fuels prejudice, rather than promoting an open dialogue and encouraging understanding of cultural differences.

France does have laws on secularity in public schools, and prohibits students wearing any sort of religious symbols in public schools—crucifix, Star of David, etc.

@jeanmay – yes, I agree that it is a dangerous path. But is allowing it also dangerous for everyone else? I am not taking a stance on this, just asking.

In the context of France & it’s history, I can understand their argument, even if I don’t really agree with it….. although there is no such historical imperative in Belgium, & it does rather smack of institutional racism.
I think banning such things in this country would be a travesty. Our country has a history of Liberal Democracy & outlawing religious or cultural clothing, symbols goes against our inspirationally inclusive society.

Without wanting anyone to jump down my throat… If I lived in a Muslim country I would have to keep myself covered, and wear a hijab, so why not dress in a western style when in the west?
I am not saying this is right or wrong, just a thought.

@partyparty That’s a fair point….. I would answer it by saying that while Muslim countries do, generally, require women to wear something covering their head. The west has no requirement for people to expose their head. Additionally, it is only a matter of a couple of decades since women in the west regularly wore head scarf’s when going out, so I don’t know why it’s such an issue.

@jeanmay I’m a Christian. Would it be okay if I wore a ski mask into the bank because my religion requires it? My freedom to practice any kind of religious practice stops where it infringes upon the safety of others. Same for the Muslims.

Actually I don’t think they should ban them at all but they should sanction an all hijab Go kart race and the Tour De France would definitely be more interesting if all the cyclists wore hijabs !

I can see banning anything that conceals identity in certain public places, for security reasons. Banning religious garments simply because of the religious association is not acceptable to me. People should be free to express their faith (or lack thereof) without interference as long as it does not directly threaten others. Deliberately concealing identity is generally considered threatening behaviour. The headscarf that does not conceal the face is another matter; should turbans and yarmulkes be banned also?

Isadora Duncan was nearly decapitated in 1927 when her scarf got caught in the wire wheel of her sports car. Ban scarves too?

@plethora – do you think they should be banned in certain activities where it creates danger for the wearer?

@stranger_in_a_strange_land – excellent answer. I totally agree with you

@plethora No, it wouldn’t be ok for a few of reasons. Firstly, Christianity doesn’t require any external sign of devotion such as a Hijab. Secondly, ski masks have nothing to do with anything. Thirdly, you’d be totally entitled to wear a cross around your neck if you wished & no-one would bat an eye-lid.

@partyparty 1)“Western style” is not “no head covering”. “Western style” is “wear whatever the hell you damn well please”. 2) If a woman from an African tribe in which it is common to not wear anything covering the breasts were to come here, she would be expected to wear a top. How is you being expected to wear a hijab in a Middle Eastern country any different?

@plethora A ski mask in a bank is a true and absolute sign of a criminal. Are you trying to assert that any woman wearing a hijab is indicative of a criminal? Exactly how does a woman wearing a hijab infringe on your saftey?

I think it’s a dangerous and slippery slope. Why not outlaw nuns, hats and scarves then?

If you’re going to ban one, ban them all, or don’t ban any. Anything else is just going to stir the pot.

Recently a lady in the UK was forced to remove her crucifix at work. Discrimination?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7089691.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531598/Company-policies-vary-on-the-right-to-wear-a-crucifix.html

@partyparty Absolutely & it should never have happened.

Everything having to do with Christianity is slowly but surely being banned from the public eye for fear of offending someone who may not share in the beliefs associated with it. Why is it acceptable to fight for the rights of other religions/beliefs while denying another? If one is to be restricted, all should be restricted and if concessions are made for one, concessions should be made for all.

A hijab is a headscarf, it does not conceal the face. The full face-covering is known as a burqa. Is it the hijab or burqa that is proposed to be outlawed?

@partyparty It’s discrimination if they allow other religions’ paraphenalia (star of david, Muslim prayer mat, etc). It’s not if they don’t.

In school I am all for uniforms and conformity, including not allowing religious clothing. I had not thought before about going as far as not allowing relgiious jewelry, but I think I am ok with banning that in school also.

As far as banning the hijab in general, outside of school, I think that is too extreme for me. Then you have to ban yamaka’s and everything else than can be perceived as a religious head covering.

Banning the burqa I completely support. You must be identifiable. You can’t wear a KKK sheet and you can’t wear a burqa. I understand they represent very different things, but in the end they hide identity, and that is what I have a problem with.

@JLeslie are you also in favor of banning baseball caps, sunglasses, and fake beards? If not, why is their ability to “hide identity” okay, but burquas’ not?

@MrItty The lady I refer to in my link states that in the hospital where she worked there were people wearing hijabs and religious bracelets. This must be discrimination of the highest order… in my eyes.

@partyparty if that’s true, then I completely agree with you.

@MrItty Those don’t completely cover your face. But, your point is a good one. I have to think about it.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Yes I understand what you are saying. The burqa completely covers the face – except for the eyes of course. Do you think these should be banned?

@partyparty In a public setting where other means of concealing the face are also forbidden, yes. Not for its religious significance, for public security.

On the one hand, religious people should follow the same rules as everyone else. If there’s a rule against head coverings in general, that includes headscarves. It would be unfair and unnecessary to excuse people because their religion says so.
On the other hand, people should be at least legally free to support whatever religion they choose. There should be no laws to discourage religious expression for no other reason than to discourage religious expression.

So whether I’m cool with it depends on whether they’re being banned for independent reasons or just because they’re too Muslim.

@partyparty
“If I lived in a Muslim country I would have to keep myself covered, and wear a hijab, so why not dress in a western style when in the west?”
I should hope Western nations are developed enough not to have to stoop down to the level of backward Shariah theocracies like those.

I think it is dangerous, stupid, narrow-minded, racist, atavistic, cowardly and a violation of human rights. Other than that, it’s OK with me.

I’m in favor of a ban of the chador and burqa in all western societies. To me it’s a human rights violation. No one has the right to confine a woman to a mobile prison and forcing them to renounce their individuality. Both dress codes are disgusting to say the least. When crimes are being committed it’s very difficult to identify cloaked people. When the women really are doing it by choice it creates a dilemma of course.

I have an issue with extreme attitudes. In western societies streakers and fully-cloaked people are not acceptable. Otherwise the dress code should be very liberal. Covering your hair is acceptable. Actually in the past this was done in Europe and America as well, for example during harvest (protection against dust because of dry and windy weather). Shampoo was a luxury 100 years ago. Nuns also cover their hair. If girls and women want to wear a headscarf that’s fine. A face without hair still gives women an identity. If they are forced to do it, it’s not acceptable. A problem arises if a headscarf sends a political message, as for example understood in Turkey. There is a growing movement which wants to dismantle the secular system and build a theocracy. Therefore there are rules about headscarves at Turkish schools and universities.

When we communicate with other people facial expressions are extremely important. A whole section in our brains is dedicated to this. There is a lot of research on mirror neurons. We are social creatures and our social brains need to connect with others. Fully cloaked faces is a perverse and hideous tradition and it contributes to the destruction of our very humanity which includes the need to look at each others faces.

Chadors and burqas are not a general Islamic tradition. They are a cultural tradition of parts of particular countries. Go to Turkey or Indonesia and you will barely see them (except on a few religious zealots). Running around naked and running around fully cloaked is not our tradition. And this does not restrict the freedom of religion that we need to maintain and protect.

Do you think there is a chance that banning them in schools actually helps children avoid being teased or bullied? Or, teachers treating them differently? Of course childen, and especially adults, should not be doing this, but that is one of the reasons many people support uniforms to begin with, make all of the children the same so to speak, although we typically think of it in terms of income level I think. Plus, I would guess that most children want to fit in, and if there is a rule in the school that trumps what their parents would favor otherwise, maybe that helps children.

Yet we in this country had no problem banning people in the south from wearing a rebel flag because others were offended by “What it stands for”.
I can at least see the logic in not wanting people wearing something that conceals their faces.

It is a slippery slope when religious items and garb start being banned. I don’t think it should be banned. The hijab, does not cover the face. It covers the hair, ears, throat and neck, but a hijab does not cover facial features. Why should it be banned?

Seems like a silly idea.
It also seems silly not to remove a hijab for a security screening.

Frankly, I think we all should go around with masks of anonymity. We should also hide guns under our clothes. Then, whenever someone decides to rob someone else, we’ll have no idea who it is.

Hey! Wait! Isn’t that a lot like the internet?

Immoral and counterproductive to its stated goals.

@JeffVader @MrItty Are we on the same planet guys? Let me simplifiy, since I have apparently caused some confusion by using a ski mask in this hypothetical example. Let’s say it is a motorcycle helmet (or any other friggin thing that conceals the face from identity). Banks require that motorcycle helmets be removed because they conceal identity. Hijabs also conceal identity. Get the connection now?

Crosses do not conceal identity. Nor does any religious emblem that a Muslim might wear any place except over their faces. So no problem unless it covers the face. Got it now?

@plethora, it’s not illegal to wear ski masks or motorcycle helmets in public, however.

I don’t have a problem requiring hijabs to be treated the same as any other article of clothing or equipment that conceals the face. The problem is that none of those other things are banned.

@plethora Perhaps the confusion arose as the Hijab does not cover the face or hide identity…. it’s basically a head scarf.

Yeah, but if you wear a ski mask into a bank or retail store in the middle of the day that would be kind of suspect. It would be expected that you remove your mask. If you are on the ski slopes different story. Just like I go topless sometimes on South Beach, but I don’t walk into a resturant topless, not even on South Beach. Time and place.

@Qingu Ok, I can buy that. Although, given the cultural adhesion of those who wear it, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to get compliance without banning it.

@JLeslie Where on the beach?

@plethora No, we’re obviously not on the same planet. On yours, apparently hijabs cover the face. In the real world, a hijab covers the hair. It is no more concealing than a hat.

@plethora Do you mean topless on the beach? Yes, on the beach.

@plethora And @MrItty is right, just the hair, you are confusing it with a burqa maybe which conceals the face.

@plethora It’s not that I was confused about the ski mask comment. I just see no connection. The Hijab is not some random piece of clothing, such as a ski mask. It is culturally, & religiously important. Hence my comparing it to someone wearing the cross. & then combined with fact that it doesn’t obscure the face….. perhaps you can now see where the rest of us are coming from.

@JeffVader @MrItty Ok…my mistake. Ban the burqa! Or anything else that covers the face, regardless of a religious excuse.

@plethora Now, I do have some issues with the Burqa as it’s much more of a cultural, rather than religious thing…. Islam requires the head be covered, but not the face. That’s an optional thing supposedly designed to give women freedom from men ogling them in public. I still wouldn’t ban them though, but I might insist that in certain circumstances, that they be removed, or at least shifted to one side so the face is exposed. I just feel banning is a heavy handed approach & isn’t really in keeping with British values.

@JeffVader They always have an option if they don’t like your heavy handed approach (assuming you are British, Jeff). They can go live somewhere else. I know the Muslim population hasn’t been at all heavy handed with UK citizens….except for the occasional suicide bombers.

I don’t think anyone cares that the hijab can lead to accidents. And I’m very torn on this issue. I agree with @mattbrowne that, in some ways, the rise of the hijab and the burqa is an extension on an increasibly mysoginist interpretation of the Qu’ran and the Hadith (and I am opposed to this on all counts) and it is sexist. However, I do know that many Muslim women agree with this direction (hoora for internalized sexism, in some cases and being shamed into it, in others, and for free choice, in a minority of women) and I don’t agree that they should be banned from doing so. I don’t think banning the hijab solves the underlying problem within the Muslim society when it comes to current shifts.

@plethora, okay… you want to ban ski masks and motorcycle helmets as well?

Do you see the problem here?

Also, let’s keep this in perspective. There are maybe a few hundred women in belgium who wear burqas. I could be wrong, but I don’t think any of them are suspected of using the veil to conceal their identity as secret ninja islamofascist assassins.

So I think your fear of the burqa is really kind of cowardly and bizarre.

To address something said early on:

@partyparty, “Without wanting anyone to jump down my throat… If I lived in a Muslim country I would have to keep myself covered, and wear a hijab, so why not dress in a western style when in the west?”

Because Western countries aren’t barbaric theocracies.

@mattbrowne, I agree with you that nobody should be able to force someone to wear a burqa or otherwise dress in a certain manner. By force, I mean with violence or a threat of violence. And there are already laws on the books preventing husbands from beating or threatening their wives, or fathers their daughters.

Your post ignores that some Muslim women choose to wear the burqa. They have chosen to believe in a misogynistic ideology out of 7th century Arabia, but it’s their choice. Perhaps they were manipulated or cajoled by their friends and family; perhaps not. But if no violence is involved, the government does not have the right to limit their choice—even if that choice is stupid and misogynistic.

Frankly, the idea that all women must have been forced to wear the burqa because they’d never come to that decision themselves is a little misogynistic in and of itself. Women are quite capable of deciding to belong to barbaric religious ideologies just as men are.

@Qingu It is misogynistic to you. You should clarify that. You should also clarify it is your OPINION that choosing to wear a hijab or burqa is stupid. You certainly are entitled to your opinion. Just as those women who believe wearing a hijab or burqa is the correct thing to do according to their religious beliefs on modesty. I find your accusations about Islam to be barbaric and stupid myself, but that is my opinion.

I am not saying I disagree with you in some instances. Personally I find it is a huge double standard the way some Muslim men dress, especially here in the West, while some Muslim women cover themselves head to foot. However, it is opinion, which you are offering, NOT fact.

It is my opinion, and I’m perfectly willing to defend it. The ideology behind the burqa is that women need to cover themselves up so they don’t tempt men to sexual excitation. Which is to say, it’s not a man’s responsibility to control his sexual urges; it’s the woman’s fault for tempting them. (no such requirement exists for a man to cover himself so that women don’t become sexually excited, of course)

This misogyny stems from the tribal culture of Muhammad’s era, and it’s also found in the Quran, which claims women witnesses are worth half as much as men, and that a woman is like a “field” to her husband and he can go into her whenever he wants (i.e. there is no such thing as marital rape).

If you disagree that this is indeed “misogyny” and “barbaric,” I’d love to hear why.

That said—just to be clear—I think women should be free to wear burqas.

Women (and men) should be free to wear whatever they want, and to believe in whatever bronze-age mythology they want, provided they aren’t directly harming or threatening other people.

In regards to schools, I cannot agree with secular education. The banning of religious regalia in schools smacks to me of thinly veiled fascism. I was living in Paris at the time of the 2005 civil unrest, when the government declared a state of emergency. I lived and worked in central Paris, close to the Champs-Élysées, and personally saw no evidence of this ‘emergency’. No burning cars, no angry mob, nothing. Business as usual. Why? Because minorities in French society are marginalised; pushed to the outskirts, their problems generally ignored. I am suspicious of the motives of “banners”, and even more so given that we’re talking about the French government. They are sending a dangerous message about tolerance to a society already rife with racial tension.

The ‘safety’ issue doesn’t wash with me, (the exception being the Sikh ceremonial knife) and I really am dubious about the reasons for banning. What problem are they trying to fix by banning, and isn’t there some other, less extreme measure that can be taken? Where do we draw the line? Will women teachers not be hired to work in French schools because they choose to wear a headscarf? Should male teachers be made to shave their beards? Where does it end?

As for the issue of enforcement, the hijab was enforced in Iran by civil law, not Islamic law, and any enforcement on women is by some deemed to lack religious merit. When the liberal Shah banned girls wearing headscarves in schools, parents simply stopped sending their children to school. A whole generation subsequently were denied their education: not the original intent. Forcing women either to wear or not wear the hijab (or any other form of religious regalia), can be counter-productive to the intended aims, as well as infringing on freedom of expression.

We can neither undo nor deny the steady stream of immigration that has resulted from colonialism and globalisation. Instead we should be celebrating diversity in our society, and encouraging freedom of expression.

@Qingu Well, I do agree with you in theory, as noted above. I just raised the practical problem of getting compliance in such a deeply rooted cultural practice. So yes, on a practical level I would favor banning them

Now that you raise the issue of banning ski masks and motorcycle helmets. If necessary for the safety of our citizens, yes. But since neither one of those are deeply rooted cultural practices, i doubt that would be necessary.

In case you are unaware, motorcycle helmets are REQUIRED by law. Kind of the opposite of banning, but enforcement is by the state. There was a day when no one even considered wearing a helmet, and when the law was considered as a means of enforcement, there was a hue and cry heard throughout the land about trampling of individual liberties. Same could be said of seat belts.

@plethora, that doesn’t really make sense. Because it’s “impractical” to require Muslim women to show their faces in the extremely rare cases of bank and government IDing… you want to just ban them outright? How on earth is that more practical?

Then you say you wouldn’t want to ban motorcycle helmets and sky masks because… they aren’t deeply rooted cultural practices?

Do you even know why you want to ban burqas or are you just making this up as you go along?

@Qingu Well, often I do make it up as I go along, but not this time. But I’m pretty sure I don’t want to explain it again.

@plethora Yeh…. the suicide bombers did rather put a blot on things I must say. True though, the one’s who weren’t born here could always leave…. It just wouldn’t feel very British to make them, especially as so many are citizens of the Common Wealth.

@Qingu – My post does not ignore that some Muslim women choose to wear the burqa. Above I wrote that their choice creates a dilemma, because it restricts their freedom. Walking naked through downtown also creates a dilemma, because it restricts the freedom of people who object to the idea of wearing clothes when the weather is warm. My point is, there are local dress codes. I support the idea that western female journalists must wear a headscarf in Iran. We’ve all seen this on tv. Our general western local dress codes rule out complete nakedness and complete cloaking. Of course there are exceptions. Nakedness is okay in strip bars and at nude beaches. So are ski masks in skiing areas and helmets on motorcycles. But when the motorcyclist enters a bank or the subway or a restaurant and sits at a table he can’t wear the helmet because of the dress code.

@mattbrowne, I suppose I’m more okay with specific local estbalishments being able to prohibit burqas (and motorcycle helmets, and ski masks, and whatever else makes them uncomfortable) than with having the government having a blanket ban on them that really just seems targeted to antagonize a tiny ethnic/religious group more than anything.

@Qingu – Yes, maybe local bylaws might be a better approach.