Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
There is, obviously, no reliable way of knowing how much compulsion is involved, and how much is free choice

Actually, some of the articles quoted in this discussion interviewed fired girls who insisted on wearing hearscarves at school against the advice of their parents. Maybe in a link from Wikipedia I also read of an example from before the ban in the nineties when a girl became an obvious "born-again Muslim" fundie (the same way boys do), and even rejected a compromise offer allowing her to wear a headscarf but calling on her to attend science and physical exercise classes. This latter case indicates to me that there are other ways to identify forced or voluntary fundies than enforcing headscarf bans with zero distinctions and a threat of expulsion.

It's about enabling an environment where a girl's worth is not defined by wearing a headscarf or not, and where nobody has a right to make assumptions about her sexuality depending on whether her hair is visible or not.

That sounds nice, but by having headscarf-wearers expulsed, the ban assuming all of them to be proselytizing fundies, and switches the onus of neutrality from the state to the citizen (perhaps you missed this).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 08:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, choose your anecdata. Obviously, those who considered the headscarf ban an important human rights issue found articulate, outspoken girls who chose to wear a headscarf (or chose to defend it, once it became an issue, whatever their original reason for wearing it). The fact that it was easy to find such cases naturally leads the journalist or blogger (who has a narrative to tell) that this is the prevalent situation.

But consider : those girls who wear scarves because that's what is expected, and what the family wants, are also expected to not put themselves forward, because it's not their place to be in the limelight.

So you get a self-selecting sample, which can not be expected to be representative.

(perhaps you missed this)

No, I must have read it a dozen times since it was published ten years ago.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think I or the article claimed that one example is the prevalent situation. The reason I brought it up was to counter your impression of an exclusive or all-prevalent situation (which was free of any data, anecdotal or not).

I must have read it a dozen times

Yet you ignore it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I neither made nor implied any such claim; on the contrary, I made it clear that, regardless of the different motives that might have inspired girls to want to wear scarves in school, their education would be better served by not wearing it. And that this is within the purview of the schools.

And yes, I remain unpersuaded by the writer's thesis. Sure, the spirit of the law of 2004 is not the same as that of the law of 1905; times have changed. The question was seen as stopping a snowballing situation (the holiest girls wear scarves, others are shamed into joining them...) which ends up with a strongly proselytizing effect.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 09:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series