To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Pannonian]

There’s no absolute. It can be modesty, national pride for some, or just fashion. From what i’ve seen some Muslim girls have begun to replace them with hats and beanies, it’s the idea not the veil itself. You can’t ban a mentality and that’s why it’s foolish to ban it in schools because you are placing restrictions on freedoms.

So uniformity and nationalism in schools and campus? More like this is a violation of human rights and constitution just as much as religion is. Bigotry on both accounts, it’s also religious discrimination. Islam is not universally understood among muslims to have the authority to interfere with national pride or identity. Presenting the ban with the reason that what the dress represents is in violation of France's standards as Brenus sees it is contradictory, and i doubt the ban was imposed for that reason.

and a lot of people are learning to get the sand out of their vags. Societal/family pressure is irrelevant to the cloth itself and its widespread voluntary uses.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Or get out. Considering how Britons and other westerners have been treated in the hellhole called the middle east, I think we're justified in insisting on our standards being followed here. Or more relevantly, given how some of these transplanted middle easterners have insisted on their right to impose their standards here, I think we're right in insisting on our standards being followed.

[Montmorency]

In Soviet Britain, you only wear tracksuits and dinner jackets.

Deal with it.

[AE Bravo]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Or get out. Considering how Britons and other westerners have been treated in the hellhole called the middle east, I think we're justified in insisting on our standards being followed here. Or more relevantly, given how some of these transplanted middle easterners have insisted on their right to impose their standards here, I think we're right in insisting on our standards being followed.

Sorry to say that that is a yuppy attitude considering the generalizations and value judgements. Britains and westerners have been treated with the utmost respect in the wealthy or functioning states of the middle east. They receive higher wages, religious adherence is never enforced (can eat publicly in Ramadan, don't have to adhere to overly modest dress codes and can wear miniskirts, and their religious holidays are observed). Christmas is also celebrated regularly in a number of Arab countries. The middle east is not a total hellhole fortunately, there is light in the pit.

There is a lack of cultural mutual respect and it's because of the conflict the west has with the worst of the middle east. This puts the progressive parts of it in a situation where it is wrongly disrespected despite the display of improving tolerance. I just want to make clear that I'm not against "do as the Romans do" but no need to go full totalitarian on it, the lack of respect for ethnic origins is unreal, and quite arrogant for harmless cultural features. A total shutting down of a different culture shows that same lack of respect, perpetuates hate and exclusivity. You know as well as I do they will never be truly French, so how are they to advance in your society without a marginal and compatible source of self-esteem...?

[Pannonian]

Sorry to say that that is a yuppy attitude considering the generalizations and value judgements. Britains and westerners have been treated with the utmost respect in the wealthy or functioning states of the middle east. They receive higher wages, religious adherence is never enforced (can eat publicly in Ramadan, don't have to adhere to overly modest dress codes and can wear miniskirts, and their religious holidays are observed). Christmas is also celebrated regularly in a number of Arab countries. The middle east is not a total hellhole fortunately, there is light in the pit.

There is a lack of cultural mutual respect and it's because of the conflict the west has with the worst of the middle east. This puts the progressive parts of it in a situation where it is wrongly disrespected despite the display of improving tolerance. I just want to make clear that I'm not against "do as the Romans do" but no need to go full totalitarian on it, the lack of respect for ethnic origins is unreal, and quite arrogant for harmless cultural features. A total shutting down of a different culture shows that same lack of respect, perpetuates hate and exclusivity. You know as well as I do they will never be truly French, so how are they to advance in your society without a marginal and compatible source of self-esteem...?

Liberal democracies have certain fundamental decencies that allow for a fair bit of individuality. British culture doesn't demand much for an individual to be regarded as British. It doesn't even make the demand, although I think it should, that a UK citizen should think of themselves as British over some other entity. Just about the only thing it does demand is that any individual should respect others. Even this minimal requirement is failed by those idiots who bring their form of extreme Islam here. Muslim culture is welcome as another eating culture, and source of harmless cultural quirks. Just like any other culture. It's not welcome as an alternative state.

[AE Bravo]

Muslim culture is welcome as another eating culture, and source of harmless cultural quirks. Just like any other culture. It's not welcome as an alternative state.

The hijab fits under the category of those harmless cultural quirks, not a representation of the desire to build a state or an opposing identity that trumps nationalism. Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim Brit but I'm sure he values his nationality first and foremost.

[Papewaio]

Might as well get bent out of shape by an Amish beard as a Muslim hijab.

[rvg]

Everything depends on the woman. If the woman is good looking, she should be obligated to walk around in a bikini. The fat and ugly ones must wear burkas.

[AE Bravo]

Why? Why cultural attire should have an exemption as well as religion? And why modesty should be considered? Why a women should be modest? Your restriction on freedom are larger than mine. Modesty? and what after?

This is a display of cultural intolerance towards forms of social discipline that value harmless modesty. When Muslim women collectively raise their middle fingers to hijab than that’s when it isn’t needed. When many women WANT it around that’s another issue. Why you trying to somehow champion their cause? Do you want to free Muslim women from shackles of religion or whatever? That must be what this is.

Why is a hijab so different from a necklace, an Allah tattoo, henna tattoos? I don’t see a ban on henna, which is described as a substance from heaven in Islam. This is clearly a religious thing, ban it also to be consistent at least.

Try to go to work in an office with all this, and you will see how much time it will take to the manager to call you in. Lots and lots of clothing and fashions are banned from places of work. So why the hidjab should be exempt of clothing regulations in work places?

These things can be seen as too immature in some workplaces. The hijab does not interfere with the professional environment in any way.

Well, explain this in the Mosques preaching that the hidjab is part of the requirements to be a good and obedient Muslim, then I will agree when they will.

I don’t disagree, these preachers should stfu. Unfortunately this is not happening. Their popularity can easily fall off as seen in other countries if they stop getting attention and tolerance from authorities. If efforts were done to crack down on these poopsmiths just as much as the zealous stripping of the hijab they will fall out of public favor. I guess that KSA oil money is needed there though.

Until you succeed in doing so, I will accept the opinion of French Imams telling it is, so the hidjab will be ban in Public Offices.

Why should you? This is again, a value judgement popularized by these imams. It shows a lack of understanding of the history of the clothing, set by contemporary preachers. It is fatwa-based, Saudi Arabia inspired political ideology. Again, that KSA oil money reigns supreme here again.

It’s interesting because in a few years from now KSA will not have the money to fund this nonsense and preachers will slowly vanish from the radar, leaving a huge void in Islam in the west for people with sense to fill in.

The law was passed in order to prevent discrimination based on religion. Racism is an other issue.

So the law is discriminatory first. That is okay, but you presented in a way that seemed that it was on the grounds that it violates human rights, baseless. You also went on about how the tenets of the faith violate the constitution, which they do, but somehow connect that with the hijab as if its banning was a result of this.

By definition there is only one race of humans, other races being horses, cows, goats, pigs and others.
So we can play on wording if you want.

There is no play on words, it’s pretty straightforward. Islam knows no race, the ideology does not promote one race’s exceptionalism. If goats ganged up on a pig cus he’s pink that’s racist. When a goat just can’t help but kill other goats for not having long enough goatees it's a non-racial offense.

[Beskar]

Everything depends on the woman. If the woman is good looking, she should be obligated to walk around in a bikini. The fat and ugly ones must wear burkas.

Good to see you're staying classy.

[Strike For The South]

All Europeans are dirty little fascists and bans on the burkua just prove that.

[Brenus]

"The judge can say whatever he/she likes, I asked about the wording the LAW uses.
No matter what you wrote, you didn't link to any law so that others might make sure of the wording of it. Until you do this I will condsider my opinion (i.e. laws can't use phrases like too high, too short, common sense) correct." Be my guest. You retain the right to be wrong.

[Fragony]

All Europeans are dirty little fascists and bans on the burkua just prove that.

Spend some time, come back with an opinion

[Gilrandir]

Constitution says all human beings are born and stay equal under the law.

One of the misconseptions I always object to. Let me quote Atticus Finch (To kill a mockingbird) on that:

Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal, a phrase that the Yankees and the distaff side of the Executive branch in Washington are fond of hurling at us. There is a tendency in this year of grace, 1935, for certain people to use this phrase of context, to satisfy all conditions. The most ridiculous example I can think of is that people who run public education promote the stupid and idle along with the industrious—because all men are created equal, educators will gravely tell you, the children left behind suffer terrible feelings of inferiority. We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe—some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they’re born with it, some men make more money than others, some ladies make better cake than others—some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of men.

We should ban nonsense like the burka that interferes with the wellbeing of the general population.

I think in Russia being gay interferes with the wellbeing of the general population. Why is the West so persistent then about gays not "being banned" in Russia in any way?

"I know nobody brought up the hijab but I thought this was banned in France as well." Only in public places: The scarf is banned for civil servants, as we have a law separating state and religions. No civil servant is allowed to wear (obvious) religious symbols. You can wear a small cross, David star, hand of Fatima or the little bird for the Protestants (as they were banned to wear a Cross by the Catholic Kings of France, they took a bird as symbol, and it stays).
Burkas are banned.

And you call it democracy? Who determines the size of a symbol to ban it or to let it stay? A law? Or a strolling patrolman? If a law, how can, say, 5 cm cross be a symbol and, say, 7 cm - a flagrant violation of the separation the state from the church?

British culture doesn't demand much for an individual to be regarded as British. It doesn't even make the demand, although I think it should, that a UK citizen should think of themselves as British over some other entity.

So you would like to determine what others SHOULD THINK? Thought Police announces enrollment of the new eager employees?

[Husar]

So you would like to determine what others SHOULD THINK? Thought Police announces enrollment of the new eager employees?

While I would replace British with European, I generally agree with his sentiment and think you misinterpret what he is saying.
It's not about controlling what people think, but about not letting those stay who think the entire country should be changed or converted completely or who think that they are either above the law or can create their own laws against the law of the land and against human rights. I don't think that is evil thought control but perfectly justified in this case.

[Montmorency]

One of the misconseptions I always object to. Let me quote Atticus Finch (To kill a mockingbird) on that:

A dramatically-silly comment.

Aside from the fact that Brenus was referring to the French Constitution, any high-school student can tell you that Jefferson's statement was about the spiritual, moral, and political (above all, from the contemporary perspective) aspects of personhood.

[Pannonian]

While I would replace British with European, I generally agree with his sentiment and think you misinterpret what he is saying.
It's not about controlling what people think, but about not letting those stay who think the entire country should be changed or converted completely or who think that they are either above the law or can create their own laws against the law of the land and against human rights. I don't think that is evil thought control but perfectly justified in this case.

I wonder what Gilrandir thinks of those Ukrainian citizens who regard themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian, and who've taken up arms against the country they were formerly a part of.

[Brenus]

“you have to be French” Nope. But you have to respect the French Constitution and laws.

“you are placing restrictions on freedoms.” As it can be said for you can’t go naked in front of a school.

“So uniformity and nationalism in schools and campus?” Uniforms at schools? Not in France… In England and US, perhaps, not in France. Please stop to be hypocritical. Clothes codes are imposed in every day jobs or places. Length of the dresses to shirts colours in offices. And no one have an objection about it. It seems only the religions want exemptions: can’t be criticised, can’t be offended, can’t be mocked etc.

“and i doubt the ban was imposed for that reason.” Yes it was. Some religious extremists tried to introduce (successfully) the scarf in schools, then by pure cowardice the then French Government gave the responsibility to the headmasters to decide what to do, when the law is clear enough.
This law was voted in 1904, so hardly aimed at Muslims.
Of course the religious fanatics took advantage of it until some did remind the law to the population, and finally enforced it.

“You know as well as I do they will never be truly French” , they WERE French before Savoie, until they earned a well-deserved independence. Stop clichés, please.
The battles for France by Muslims is quite easy to find on any research engines, and if there is one culture and customs that Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Malians and others former colonies or protectorates know is the French ones, as we speak the same language and had of lot of kids together.

“I actually think that hijabs can actually look very nice, that may also be a reason why some girls wear them” Agree, but as said before, it is not about fashion.

“One of the misconseptions I always object to” So you think that the law should discriminate? How and under which standards? To be different in strength or intelligence, or skin colours?

“Who determines the size of a symbol to ban it or to let it stay?” A decree in schools does exactly this, reason why young girls can’t wear too mini-skirts or too high heal, or can’t come bare chest in schools. It is as well call common-sense.
It is amazing how people do not realise how many regulations and clothing codes are actually enforced.

“If a law, how can, say, 5 cm cross be a symbol and, say, 7 cm - a flagrant violation of the separation the state from the church?” 5 cm would be too much, but yes, that is the principle. It is like make-up, you have to find the right balance. In everyday life, it works fine.

“And you call it democracy?” Yes. A democracy is a political construction ruled by laws voted by elected (less and less) men and women. The set of rules is not perfect and you don’t have to agree with them. However, you have to apply them. You might think it would be better to drive in the other side of the road, but you will have to obey the law.

[Kralizec]

Muslim culture is welcome as another eating culture, and source of harmless cultural quirks. Just like any other culture. It's not welcome as an alternative state.

This sums up my thoughts better and more briefly than anything else I've read or heard on the subject.

[AE Bravo]

Nope. A religious symbol is not allowed when you work as civil servant. The Islamic priests are claiming it is part of the religion, so logically, in place where strict religious neutrality is required, the scarf is banned.

And strict religious neutrality should be respected. France is iirc the only country that applies this totally. My issue is the dismissal of the fact that this is a violation of human rights and freedom, that you claim Islam is against. Whether or not it is religious freedom is irrelevant, freedom is the key word. Not saying it’s good or bad, but to ban something and call it a representation of religion, which has no place in the country, on the basis that it violates the things you mentioned is akin to Islam’s attitude towards non-religion. Both are against human rights and both are bigoted value judgements. It is a decision that obstructs freedom of expression (clothes) that does not interfere with liberal democratic values.

The justification of this law needs adjustment because making such an arbitrary connection between all of Islam's problems to the hijab is uninformed and hypocritical for practicing - not religious intolerance, but cultural intolerance.

All right. Last week, schools issued a warning about young girls rolling their belt shortening in doing so the length of it. So UK schools are not allowing students to be free to wear a perfectly and absolutely not religious attire in schools.

This is not an example of a cultural attire, it’s under the category of common courtesy or public modesty and perfectly fine. I was more referring to banning a culture, banning timbs and champion hoodies with baggy jeans, low pants, a pair of j’s, and snapbacks. This also stems from a culture that contains elements of misogyny, racism, and violence. Objects from patriarchal cultures can morph into expressions of freedom, equality, and overall trendy dopeness no problem.

Really? When you divide mankind between the ones who should rule because they follow a whatever, and others who can be killed, enslaved and/or having a inferior status, that is the definition of racism.

Sure it places itself on a pedestal, but not based on racial groups. So by definition it is not racism.

So if a cleric preaches it is ok to kill gays, or relapses, or atheists, or to beat your wife until she submit, (do you want all the list of practices acceptable in the Koran and forbidden by the Convention of Human Rights, or is it enough?), you prosecute and punish.

But my question was how does this ban against the hijab prevent racism. You condemn these things and the preachers, but why is the hijab thrown in there if it presents no threat to values and convention of human rights. This is all irrelevant, why would you bring it up other than to discredit a piece of cloth? You’re assuming that the hijab endorses these things but it doesn’t, just like a Raiders hat doesn’t promote violence or gang-related activities and sexism.

[Brenus]

"France is iirc the only country that applies this totally." So?

"My issue is the dismissal of the fact that this is a violation of human rights and freedom, that you claim Islam is against." As it is not. You are the one saying it is not a piece of Religion clothing. So, usual norms of office clothing apply at the leisure of the manager. Or, like it is claimed by the Muslim clergymen, it is part of Islam so the law on separation state/religion apply.
We have a saying in French: You can't have the cream, the money of the cream, and the smile of the shopkeeper, and it is exactely what you try to have.

"This is not an example of a cultural attire, it’s under the category of common courtesy or public modesty and perfectly fine." Why? Why cultural attire should have an exemption as well as religion? And why modesty should be considered? Why a women should be modest? Your restriction on freedom are larger than mine. Modesty? and what after?

"I was more referring to banning a culture, banning timbs and champion hoodies with baggy jeans, low pants, a pair of j’s, and snapbacks" Try to go to work in an office with all this, and you will see how much time it will take to the manager to call you in. Lots and lots of clothing and fashions are banned from places of work. So why the hidjab should be exempt of clothing regulations in work places?

"The justification of this law needs adjustment because making such an arbitrary connection between all of Islam's problems to the hijab is uninformed and hypocritical for practicing - not religious intolerance, but cultural intolerance." Well, explain this in the Mosques preaching that the hidjab is part of the requirements to be a good and obedient Muslim, then I will agree when they will. Until you succeed in doing so, I will accept the opinion of French Imams telling it is, so the hidjab will be ban in Public Offices.
And no law make a connection between all Islam's problems to the hidjab. The law voted in 1904 banned all religious symbols and uniforms for Public Servants and in Public Institution as schools. The law apply for the Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and others.

"But my question was how does this ban against the hijab prevent racism." And my answer was it doesn't. The law was passed in order to prevent discrimination based on religion. Racism is an other issue. The French lawmakers at that time passed this law against the Catholic Church. A bit too long to explain, but the idea was there are enough possibilities to segregate population without adding one that can be avoided.
If you don't know a person is Jew, or atheist, or whatever, you can't discriminate on these grounds. Simple, no?

"You’re assuming that the hijab endorses these things " Yes I do, but not the law. The law says no religious whatever in etc. The law applies, that why it is a law. Jews can't wear Kippa, too apparent religious symbols are forbidden.

"Sure it places itself on a pedestal, but not based on racial groups. So by definition it is not racism." By definition there is only one race of humans, other races being horses, cows, goats, pigs and others.
So we can play on wording if you want.
Jew is not a race, it is a religion, however the extermination of the Jews by the Nazi was based on a racist ideology. So is Islam. Or other religions, by the way.