Reasoning Behind Headscarf Ban in France
Patrick Weil writes for Open Democracy:
After we heard the evidence, we concluded that we faced a difficult choice with respect to young Muslim girls wearing the headscarf in state schools. Either we left the situation as it was, and thus supported a situation that denied freedom of choice to those – the very large majority – who do not want to wear the headscarf; or we endorsed a law that removed freedom of choice from those who do want to wear it.
We decided to give freedom of choice to the former during the time they were in school, while the latter retain all their freedom for their life outside school. But in any case – and this is the fact I want to emphasise at the start – complete freedom of choice for all was, unfortunately, not on offer. This was less a choice between freedom and restriction than a choice between freedoms; our commission was responsible for advising on how such freedoms should both be guaranteed and limited in the best interests of all.
The key, it seems, is the fact that Muslims who do not want to wear a headscarf should be allowed to do so and their choice should be protected - even protected from pressure applied by other Muslims.
Whereas for a majority of women the headscarf is an expression of the domination of women by men (a view strongly expressed by many women refugees from Iran), it can also be the articulation of a free belief; a means of protection against the pressure of males; an expression of identity and freedom against secular parents; a statement of opposition to western and secular society. The state has no right to “adjudicate” between these meanings, or to interpret religious symbols tout court. After all, if the headscarf had been banned (for example) on the basis of discrimination against women, it would have been necessary to do so not only in schools, but across the whole of society.
[I]t has become clear that in schools where some Muslim girls do wear the headscarf and others do not, there is strong pressure on the latter to “conform”. This daily pressure takes different forms, from insults to violence. In the view of the (mostly male) aggressors, these girls are “bad Muslims”, “whores”, who should follow the example of their sisters who respect Koranic prescriptions. ... [I]n the increasing number of schools where girls wear the hijab, a clear majority of Muslim girls who do not wear the headscarf called for legal protection and asked the commission to ban all public displays of religious belief.
By banning the headscarf, the state basically provides "cover" for those who don't want to wear it but, because of their age and social situation, find themselves unable to stand up to social pressure to conform. Instead of having to say "no, I don't want to," they can now simply point out that they aren't allowed to. They no longer have to take responsibility for the choice.
Obviously it would be nice if they did take responsibility, but the reality of the situation of children in peer groups is that this can be difficult in the best of circumstances. In France, though, the circumstances are far from ideal because radical groups have been trying to use the public schools to pressure more moderate Muslims to adopt conservative and fundamentalist practices. This, now, will be denied them.
After reading Weil's explanation, I am much more sympathetic to the banning of headscarves than I was previously. I'm still not sure that it won't lead to even more problems, but now at least I can see that it was recommended for good reasons and that there is a justified basis for thinking that it will have good results.
Read More:
Comments
this is not an appreciated explanation in my opinion the right for those Muslim girls who want to follow and practice their religion by wearing the headscarf should be more important and protected and should be taken into consideration more than those girls who dont wish to wear the headscarf.
Why?