Happy in Head Covering: Photo Review

Click to read:
Secular Lens, Religious Vision | The Jewish Week
"Italian photographer’s view of religious women upended by project", by Chavie Lieber.

A member of the Breslov sect dances at sunset near her home in Beit Meir, Israel. photo by F.  Valabrega

"Italian photographer Federica Valabrega always believed religious women were oppressed and unhappy," the article opens. But the Italian photographer decided to document her discoveries about oppressed religious women, in various places, in print, and wound up presenting a diverse collage of women, head covered and all, who were living free and happy lives. This short article relates her story, and a couple of pictures. From the story:

"Valabrega noted that she’s made great strides in understanding the way the different communities within religious Judaism interact. When she first started her project, she was not able to distinguish the different sects, and many of them looked the same to her. Now, she said, she’s able to distinguish members of different communities by their dress and their conduct, by their head coverings and their accents. She’s also come to learn that while the rest of the world believes these women are unhappy and subjugated, she finds them powerful, capable, and complacent — and often the pillars of their home."

See the artist's home page, http://www.federicavalabrega.com, for more. Click to view her "portfolio" and choose the section "Daughters of the King". After reading her brief summary, click the photo to open the slide show and view her other photos added here at this time. I hope that Federica will return to the project to add more dialogue along with the photos in the slideshow, so that viewers can find the happiness of the women along with her.

"French Far Right Leader Calls for Kippah Ban"

"French Far�Right Leader Calls for Kippah Ban" - in The Jewish Voice
26 September 2012

French politician Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, sparked controversy this weekend with a call to ban the traditional Jewish head coverings known as kippah (in Hebrew, or yarmulke in Yiddish).

Le Pen, known for her anti-immigrant and nationalist positions, has long called on banning Islamic head coverings such as the niqab and burka, and has now added kippot to the fray.
“Obviously, if the veil is banned, the kippah [should be] banned in public as well,” the French daily Le Monde quoted Le Pen in an interview published Sept. 21.

French President Francois Hollande denounced Le Pen’s call for a ban on religious head coverings, saying, “Everything that tears people apart ... divides them, is inappropriate.”

...

For more, click the title linked above.

At least she's consistent to some extent. What's next, then, mandatory unisex haircuts for men and women so that you can't tell them apart in France? What are people thinking?

Wearing Headcoverings and Fear of Islam

Amnesty: Europe Must Fight Anti-Muslim Prejudice - ABC News: By ANGELA CHARLTON Associated Press
PARIS April 24, 2012 (AP)

In this article, the author explores the European actions of nations and locations which seek to ban head covering and face covering, which seem rather a response to fear of Muslim activities than a protection of women's equality, as reported by Amnesty International.  The report is titled "Choice and Prejudice," and "pays special attention to national laws or local rules against wearing headscarves or face-covering Islamic veils." Noted in the end of the article is the notorious example of the Norwegian mass-murder by a man who feared a Muslim takeover of Europe. Also noted in the article, to remind all of us who haven't the personal experience or memory, that Muslims have been a part of the fabric of Europe for generations, and there is no "telling them to go home." So head coverings are now to many in Europe, simply a rebellious religious statement, and as such bring fear to the uneducated and emotional and sometimes physical harm to those who wear them.  The opening line begins with this phrase: "European laws on what girls and women wear on their heads. . . "

Headcoverings in the News this week

Headcoverings that make the news are almost always the head coverings of Muslim women, and usually the news is that a Muslim woman someplace has been told that she cannot wear her covering, that the head coverings are going to be banned in some place, or the news is the opinion of some that a Muslim woman's head covering is a sign of oppression from the men. In almost every case, as well, comes the clarification from others that while head covering is not specifically commanded in the Quran, nor the style or color, modesty by men and women is; so to ban head covering is to order a woman to dress immodestly according to her spiritual beliefs. It takes away her cultural heritage. It tells her that her personal convictions and feelings are worthless because she does not conform to a world that, to her probably, appears godless and without conviction. There is so much that can be said, and has been said, about the ignorance and oppression of those who want to deny a woman the right to choose to cover and/or dress to her own level of comfort and modesty. Here is one article from this week:


"France’s ban on Muslim burqa is discriminatory and unwise"
in The Signal, by Miranda Sain

. . . The justifications of the ban range from preserving the French culture to women’s rights, and national security.

The proposed ban further accentuates the divide between the West and Islam in regards to women’s rights. Many Western societies view Islamic head coverings, like the burqa, as being oppressive to women. Many, like Sarkozy, see the burqa as a sign of subservience.

However, in many instances, it is a woman’s autonomous decision to wear a burqa on the grounds of modesty. The Quran does not mandate women to wear a burqa. The Quran only requests women to dress modestly in order to protect themselves from harassment. (This passage can be found in Sura Al Hijaab 33:59.) Just like with abortion in the United States, what a woman decides to do with her body, whether it deals with reproduction or her clothing choice, should be left to her own discretion. That decision should neither be made for her by a man nor a governmental body. . . .

I recently came across a new headcovering blog, which includes one author's take on this as well:

"Banning Head Coverings?"
in "Journey of the Veil" at blogspot

The writer includes a few links to news and discussion in her article, and concludes with her own thoughts:

The discussion veers from Muslim coverings to Jewish and Christian coverings as well, pointing out that were America to ban Muslim coverings, more likely than not we would all be affected.
This is not only an attack on so-called women's oppression, but on modesty itself. The author of the first article says that she takes it as an "affront" when she sees a woman who is covered and is wearing a headscarf. Seriously? Because sure, those women are being modest just to offend you. Specifically. *rolls eyes* Perhaps she needs to consider why it makes her uncomfortable. It seems that people have a need to do away with reminders that they are not living as they should.

Do we really want the government in our closets? Um, no. I hear they have a horrible sense of fashion.

Which reminds us that head coverings in the news, which on the surface equates to Muslims in the news, really affects every woman in the news, because Muslim head covering is for feminine modesty - whether the style is an identifier of Islam or South Asia and the Middle East or not. It is a two-edged attack: against this one religion, and against all spiritually minded people who desire to behave in a way that demands submission to a wiser and "Higher Power" (as AA puts it).

Headcoverings are not Hats

Headcovering news:

1. Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge

2. France: Woman Wearing Hijab Denied Entry By Bank (VIDEO)

The comments and reasons all complain that women should not be allowed to wear a head scarf because everyone else goes into courtrooms and banks (and pools and schools and basketball courts and etc.) and takes off their hat. Or graciously put, "doffs their hat".

Hat. Did you read that?

HAT.

Yes, they should take off their hat as a sign of gracious respect in the Western world. BUT.

A head scarf is not a hat.

Read this:

A brim is what makes a head covering a hat — without a brim, it isn’t a hat, but a cap or a beanie or such. So not only are hats not back, but we no longer even know what they were or what to call them.

Found this quote in "Political Mavens"' commentary: "Hats are not back," by Neil Steinberg.

The purpose of a hat, cap, beanie or such is very different from a hair covering scarf. The end result of a hat or cap or even do-rag before a bank video camera is different from a hair covering scarf. The look is different. Different people wear them.

Enough ignorance already.

See also, "It's not a hat, Judge; it's a hijab!" Feel the frustration.

Full Modest Swimsuit with Headcovering Banned in France

Yes, it's all over the news, if your news is set to follow articles with a form of the term "head covering".

The facts are: a woman in France takes her family to a local swimming pool dressed in the modern "burkini" style swimsuit -- it's OK for a while, but finally she is formally asked to leave -- the reason given is "hygienic reasons" (I can recall certain public pools that we cannot swim in with shorts and tops of any kind, for hygenic reasons).

So one cannot swim in public in France (and some other places in this world) if one wishes to be modestly attired.

If someone can give me the doctor's report on modest attire in pools being unhygienic, PLEASE pass it on. I don't understand this one, and am not willing to wade through the comment sections of the various reports on this to find it.

Here are a few, some with illustrations:

- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/12/Woman-in-burkini-banned-from-pool/UPI-73581250121344/
- http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/dubai/20014554.html
- http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99470/The_ban_on_French_burkinis
- http://www.smh.com.au/national/burqini-creator-pours-water-on-french-ban-20090813-eiyk.html
http://bollywood.rightcelebrity.com/?p=1267

------------

EDIT: The hygiene rule was bugging me, so I wanted to pass this on to you all as well. The health issue as addressed in the press:

"An official in charge of swimming pools for the Emerainville region, Daniel Guillaume, said the refusal to allow the local woman to swim in her "burquini" had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with public health standards.

"These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," Guillaume said in a telephone interview.

"We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked," he said.

Guillaume said France's public health standards require all pool-goers to don swimsuits for women and tight, swimming briefs for men - and caps to cover their hair. Bathers also must shower before entering the water."

Of course, I also found this comment elsewhere ...

"Just having people in a giant tub of water is pretty unhygenic. That's why they chemically treat them. So I think maybe the reason, isn't so reasonable."

For more on unhygienic swim pool behaviour, see this article at About.com

Follow up Discussions About Muslim Headcovering

"Local Muslims speak out on veils and tragedy," in the Victoria (AU) Advocate discusses reaction and understanding of the recent tragedy when a hijab covered woman was stabbed to death in court in front of her family.


"Beyond Mini-Skirts and Veils," at "KABOBfest" includes some interesting points in the overall discussion of women wearing a headcovering in a secular society, especially in the light of the stance of French government.


Being informed is good for us.

"burqas are 'not welcome' in France"

Sarkozy says burqas are 'not welcome' in France

PARIS (AP) — President Nicolas Sarkozy lashed out Monday at the practice of wearing the Muslim burqa, insisting the full-body religious gown is a sign of the "debasement" of women and that it won't be welcome in France.

The French leader expressed support for a recent call by dozens of legislators to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full-body garment in France.

In the first presidential address in 136 years to a joint session of France's two houses of parliament, Sarkozy laid out his support for a ban even before the panel has been approved — braving critics who fear the issue is a marginal one and could stigmatize Muslims in France.

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause in a speech at the Chateau of Versailles southwest of Paris.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

In France, the terms "burqa" and "niqab" often are used interchangeably. The former refers to a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan with only a mesh screen over the eyes, whereas the latter is a full-body veil, often in black, with slits for the eyes.

. . . "

Muslim Head Scarf in Europe and the US

Because what affects those in one part of the world affects all of us.

"French Headscarf Ban Not Discrimination, Says European Court"
05.12.2008, in DW-World.de
Copied article:

Europe’s top courts have ruled in favor of a French school that expelled two Muslim girls for refusing to remove their headscarves for physical education classes. The ruling fuels the debate over secularism in France.

The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a complaint by two French Muslim girls that their school violated their freedom of religion and their right to an education. The girls were expelled after repeatedly refusing to remove their headscarves for physical education classes.

photo: "Headscarves have been banned in French schools" from website

The teacher had said that wearing a headscarf was incompatible with physical education classes. The girls, Belgin Dogru and Esma-Nur Kervanci, are French nationals and were 11 and 12 respectively when they were expelled from the school in the north-western town of Flers in 1999.

For secularism's sake

Based in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday, Dec. 4 that the school's move to expel the girls was not out of line, emphasizing that the girls had been able to continue their education via correspondence classes.

"It was clear that the applicants' religious convictions were fully taken into account in relation to the requirements of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and public order," the court said in a press release.

A Muslim woman adjusts the headscarf of a young girl Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Religion has no place in France's schools

The court also observed that the purpose of the restriction on the applicants' right to manifest their religious convictions was to adhere to the requirements of secularism, a hot topic of debate in France.

Secularism is taken very seriously in the country's state schools, and in 2004 a law was passed that bans pupils from wearing conspicuous signs of their religion at school.

France is home to Europe's largest Muslim minority.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Morocco moves to drop headscarf"
By Richard Hamilton, BBC News, Rabat; from MoroccoBoard.com
From the introduction to the article:

Morocco is making major changes to religious education, in particular regarding whether young girls should wear headscarves.A picture of a mother and her daughter wearing headscarves is being removed from the latest editions of a text book.A verse from the Koran that says girls should don veils has already been taken out of the books.Other Arab countries have made similar changes, worrying that the veil could be used as a symbol of extremism.

photo of picture removed from text book from this website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Women’s Liberation"
in middle-east-online.com, 2008-12-06

Beginning:

As I witnessed the ensuing barrage on Islam, Islamic values and culture, and the infamous declaration of the ‘new crusade’, I started to notice something called Islam. Today I am still a feminist, but a Muslim feminist, says Sara Bokker.

Sara Bokker begins by telling where she comes from: "I am an American woman who was born in the midst of America’s “Heartland.” I grew up, just like any other girl, being fixated with the glamour of life in “the big city.” Eventually, I moved to Florida and on to South Beach of Miami, a hotspot for those seeking the “glamorous life.”" She also writes:

Most of the women I know wearing Niqab are Western reverts, some of whom are not even married. Others wear Niqab without full support of either family or surroundings. What we all have in common is that it is the personal choice of each and every one of us, which none of us is willing to surrender.

An interesting and insightful personal experience with the coverings that are now verboten in much of Europe. Will her rights to cover her head in North America also be taken away in our secular world? Will mine?

Headcovering Bans

"We Have Not Forgotten: Hijab Bans"

October 05 2008, Contributed by: Nicole, to ModernTraditional.com News

Please read this whole thoughtful article, linking hijab bans to culture, tradition, modesty, secularism and racism, at the title linked above. This is the introduction:

Some years ago, I announced with shock and horror, that some French government officials had begun aggressively attempting to ban "religious expressions" in schools, including but not limited to Islamic, Jewish, and Sikh head coverings. The racist and hypocritical laws somehow passed, despite the protests from religious and secular people who believed that the bans should not include clothing worn specifically for the purpose of modesty and/or self defense. A person who wishes to cover themselves for spiritual/psychological reasons is doing so for the same reasons that someone undergoing chemotherapy may cover their head due to hair loss. Wearing modest clothing is not an exclusively religious act, and is in fact, separate from one's religion. Taking off someone's clothes doesn't change their belief system. To force someone to expose their body who may have smooth skin is as much a violation of privacy and right to self defense as to force someone photosensitive or with another skin disease, to expose themselves.

Not to mention, it is impossible, sans actual religious symbols, to definitively say what a person's religion is by how they are dressed. On a hot day, even an atheist may don a scarf. So how in the world will someone decide who can wear what? If a Rastafarian wears a flowing head scarf, is it then okay because she is not Muslim? If a woman is wearing a bonnet, will someone check her to see if she is a Quaker or Amish? If she is, will they decide that she may not wear a bonnet, and her Muslim friend can, since the bonnet isn't viewed as stereotypically Islamic? Since when does racism, and ethnic sterotyping become part and parcel with being secular? Aren't we, as people in western nations, supposed to be getting away from that irrational mentality?

Please read this entire article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Headcovering bans in France are not geared toward any one group of people, we are reminded. Everyone is included. Read the whole article, "Sarkozy welcomes Sikhs sans turbans", by Tejinder Singh at the EU-India Summit in Marseille, France; 30 September 2008, in NEurope.eu. A portion follows:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at the concluding press conference of the European Union/India Summit in Marseille, France, stood next to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh wearing a light blue turban, as he answered this reporter's (Tejinder Singh) question about the wearing of turbans by Sikhs in France. Regarding the required Sikh head covering, an integral part of their religious identity, Sarkozy, replied curtly, "Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France."

Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, "But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don't apply only to Sikhs, they apply to Muslims or others. They apply to all on the territory of the French Republic."

The practice by Sikhs of allowing one's hair to grow naturally is a symbol of respect, the most important of the five outward symbols required of all Sikhs, and the turban is worn to cover the uncut hair. Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, "These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever."

Making it clear to the Sikh community in France that they have no option other than to conform to the rules, Sarkozy made the paradoxical statement, "We respect their traditions and their customs and we are convinced that they too respect the laws, traditions and customs of the French Republic."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

See also these short letters to the editor, regarding French Muslim Students in Catholic Schools, in the NYTimes.com.

"Headscarves, Secularism, and Religious Freedom"

This article so well sums up so many things, I thought I'd re-produce it here. Please give full credit to the author at the title link:

"Headscarves, Secularism, and Religious Freedom"
By Nick Gier, Unfiltered, New West Politics, 8-16-08

I thought I would never get a consulting job until the day that the ACLU gave me a call. Some Muslim prisoners in the Boise penitentiary were complaining that the warden was forcing them to cut off their beards.

For $25 an hour I agreed to research the issue of beards and religion and write a report. I interviewed Muslim imams and Jewish rabbis, and I found that certain sects of each did indeed require beards as part of male religious identity.

Certain sects of orthodox Judaism do not even allow the trimming of beards because they read: "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27).

I also discovered that Sikh men may never cut their hair or their beards. Sikh women also must cover their heads, and they may not remove hair from any part of their bodies.

The Jewish Talmud requires that women cover their hair while in public, and Orthodox Jews still follow that tradition. In earlier times Roman Catholic women had to cover their heads during Mass, following Paul's injunction that a "woman who prays with her head unveiled dishonors her head" (1 Cor. 11:5). Some Pentecostal, Independent Baptist, and Mennonite women cover their heads in public as well as in church.

The passage most often cited from the Qur'an (24:31) has more to do with general modesty, although the specific injunction to cover the bosom with a veil does of course imply veil wearing, a common custom for women in the Middle East and now seen by many Muslims as a religious requirement for their women.

Recently Abercrombie Kids refused to hire a Muslim woman because she was told that her headscarf did "not fit the Abercrombie image." Abercrombie's own Code of Business Conduct and Ethics prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, and religious headscarves are now explicitly included in new guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Muslim headscarf (hijab) can be worn in several ways: very loosely as former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto did; completely covering the hair; or covering the head except for the eyes.

U.S. citizen Sultana Freeman is now suing the State of Florida because she refused to show her full face for a photo required for a driver's license. Freeman's attorney believes that she will win her right to drive on the basis of legal precedent, because 14 other states have made exceptions for Christians who claim that taking photographs of them is a violation of the Second Commandment.

General American tolerance of the hijab stands in contrast to French intolerance. A 2004 law prohibiting the wearing of hijab in France's public schools was passed by a vote of 494-36 in National Assembly. Recently a Moroccan woman was denied French citizenship because she wore the burqa, which covers the entire body.

Most Americans and Europeans are proud of their commitment to a liberal secular democracy in which church and state are kept separate. But the Latin word "liberalis" means "pertaining to the free person," and a liberal society should protect, first and foremost, its citizens' right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs to do infringe on the rights of others.

Turkey's radical secularists have also been undermining the liberal foundations of their modern nation. Over the years the Republican People's Party abolished capital punishment, legalized abortion, extended women's rights, liberalized the economy, but also banned the hijab in public.

In the past several decades there has been an Islamic revival in Turkey, and a moderate Muslim party has won the last two elections, the second one by a 47% margin. Turkey's chief prosecutor brought charges against this party claiming and it had threatened Turkey's secular society by bringing back the hijab in public.

This month the Turkish supreme court ruled 10-1 against the party. The prosecutor had recommended that 70 party members be banned for five years, but that punishment required at least seven judges to rule in favor. The vote was 6-5. One vote the other way would have thrown Turkish society into chaos, and most of the world is now relieved that a crisis has been avoided.

Religious persecution in Europe was one of the primary reasons for the American and French Revolutions, and failure to respect the rights of believers of all faiths will lead us into times just as dark as the religious wars of pre-Revolutionary Europe.

Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years. Read or listen to his other columns at http://www.NickGier.com.

Open Minded About Muslim Headcovering

"Muslim women in hijab come to the fore"

News & VIEWS, dailymirror.lk, By H. Omer
First part of the article follows. Please read the entire article at the title linked above.

My eyes popped upon seeing the photos of the winners of the 1st and 2nd places for Oralists at the Jessup International Law Moot Competition for 2008. They were women, they were Muslim and they were in hijab. The ‘Jessup’ is the Olympics for law students and winning the prize for Oralist is like winning the 100 metres. Muslim women are now coming to the fore and doing it all in hijab. (photo here from the UCL Laws: News page)

Reflecting on this, one does wonder whether to say that the Islamic attire of hijab is backward or oppressive is one big, fat, pseudo-intellectual lie. If not, how does one explain the hijab clad Shaheed Fatima, the Human Rights Barrister, with a BCL from Oxford and a Kennedy Scholar to Harvard and the winner of the ‘Professions Woman of the Future Award’ at the prestigious Women of the Future Awards in 2007?

The hijab is a head covering worn by a Muslim woman, done as a requirement of her religion. No other female attire has been subject to so much scrutiny and of course criticism. To the critics the hijab is a symbol of patriarchy and oppression. A seeming critic, M.A. Nuhman in an article titled “Ethnic consciousness, Fundamentalism and Muslim Women” identifies the Purdah or the hijab as “a manifestation of the ideology of female segregation and subordination”. Given that the Muslim girl in hijab is now a common sight in schools and shopping malls, it is useful to examine the validity of these criticisms.

There is very little evidence that the hijab has stifled or restrained a Muslim woman from pursuing her goals and aspirations, as a person and as a woman. Well it has restricted her choice of wardrobe but what else has the hijab stopped? The interesting point is that hijab is worn by a Muslim woman when she goes out of her home, not when she’s stuck at home. Thus the hijab is a symbol of emancipation in itself.

Side note by me: if you've seen some of the previous posts here or blogs and websites elsewhere that show the incredible variety of modest, Muslim approved fashion out there, including the variety of headscarves and styles, I'm not sure it's fair to say the her wardrobe is "restricted" either.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I cover my head, not my brain, says Turkish first lady"

Hayrünnisa Gül, the wife of Turkish President Abdullah Gül, underlined in an interview with an English newspaper that it is her head she covers with the Islamic headscarf -- not her brain.

The first lady, who was interviewed by Janice Turner of UK daily The Times, said she did not believe headscarves should be forced on women. “To me, women should not be forced to wear headscarves. It would be hard to find anyone in İstanbul who would disagree with me, at least in public,” Mrs. Gül was quoted as saying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Whatever happened to freedom of religion"

In "mommuck, quamish, and such" at blogspot, the author reflects on the recent move in France to deny a Muslim woman citizenship on the basis of her wearing of the extreme modest clothing of her particular culture. Again, I paste here only a portion of the comments made; please read the entire article, which includes more information on the wearing of Muslim head covering and modest clothing, at the linked title here.

I myself find the burqa to be, in many cases, a symbol of the oppression of Muslim women. For many of them, especially women in Iran, the burqa (or chador, for that matter) has been forced on them by fundamentalist regimes. They have no choice but to wear the burqa, regardless of their personal religious views.

BUT!

For many other women, especially the more conservative Muslim women, the burqa is a symbol of their modesty and chastity. It is their way of being obedient to what they perceive to be God's law. Whether of not I agree with their point of view is irrelevant; I believe that we should respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit.

So when I read that a woman in France was being denied citizenship for her religious practices, I couldn't help but be outraged. Yes, I know, it's France (maybe they never had freedom of religion). But still! This was done with complete and utter disrespect for a long-valued tradition based on a deeply rooted fear of Islam and anything associated fundamentalism. And it makes me very angry.

(photo also copied from this blog article)


Also, read a follow-up article on the woman who was considered "too Muslim" for France.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More education on this topic is coming to the UK, and apparently the most necessary topic concerning Muslims is their headcovering. Notice the titles and first sentences by each of these correspondents in their articles covering this move:

Muslim panel to advise on rights and wrongs of veil, by David Barrett and Joe Churcher, of the Independent.co.uk

"The wearing of the Islamic veil will be one of the issues examined by a panel of Islamic experts that is being set up by the Government."

Imams to counter 'mistaken' Muslim beliefs, by Richard Ford, Home Correspondent to the Timesonline.co.uk

"A board of Islamic experts is to be set up with funds from the Government to offer advice to Muslims on issues such wearing a veil and the role of women in public life."

Read the above articles and judge for yourselves what this might mean.

French Denied Veil

"Too Muslim To Be French?"
Saturday, Jul. 12, 2008, By Bruce Crumley, in Time.com

The news is that France has denied a woman citizenship - married to a Frenchman and living in France with very good French language skills - on the basis of her "extreme" Muslim faith. The article points out that the first thing the official reported when she reapplied was that she showed up heavily veiled, with a face covering too. One wonders if they would have reacted the same way if she'd been wearing just a head covering and not a face covering. Where do they draw the line between secular assimilation and freedom of religion? Read the full article at the linked title above.

Some people just don't get it

Paper: Muslim Women Sidelined at Obama Rally

Go to this website to listen to the NPR broadcast from All Things Considered, June 18, 2008

Two Muslim women who attended Barack Obama's event Monday in Detroit were told they couldn't stand behind the candidate, Politico reported. One was told her head covering was an issue, and another was told by an Obama volunteer that for political reasons they didn't want Muslims appearing with him on TV. Melissa Block talks with Ben Smith, senior political reporter at the Politico.

--------

Obama Camp Apologizes to Muslim Women

By Sarah Wheaton, of the New York Times

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has apologized for keeping Muslim women wearing headscarves out of a key shot at his Detroit event.

Full text of this article at the linked title above.

---

Turbans get Sikh students expelled
first part of the article from the Edinburgh News:

THREE Sikh students have been expelled from a French school for refusing to remove turbans. It was the first time Sikhs were forced out under a new French law banning conspicuous religious signs and apparel in the classroom, their lawyer said.

Officials of the Louise Michel high school in Bobigny, near Paris, decided to expel the three teenagers at disciplinary hearings ordered by a court, said lawyer Felix de Belloy.

The ruling was the latest twist in France’s effort to apply a new law banning religious symbols at public schools. The ban, which includes Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, took effect at the start of the school year.

At least eight Muslim girls have been expelled under the law. Islamic headscarves were its main target because of concerns that growing Muslim fundamentalism in France was weakening the nation’s secular roots.

Turbans were not a focus of the debate over the measure, but Sikhs later learned the head covering would also be outlawed.

This story is also available at other posts, including the BBC News/Europe, under the title "Turbans Get French Sikhs Expelled." The BBC site also includes internal and external links to further information on the "Headscarf Debate".

---

Muslim teen awarded £4,000 over headscarf snub

LONDON (AFP) — An employment tribunal has awarded a Muslim teenager 4,000 pounds after a the owner of a hair salon refused to employ her because she was wearing a headscarf.

The tribunal dismissed a claim of direct discrimination, but found that woman, Bushra Noah, had suffered indirect discrimination and awarded her the settlement for "injury to feelings".

The salon owner said she needed stylists to reflect the "funky, urban" image of her central London salon, and that new hires with conventional hairstyles were asked to re-style it in a more "alternative" way.

In its judgement, the tribunal said it accepted Noah had not been treated differently because of her Muslim headscarf, but that it doubted there was as severe a risk to the business by employing someone wearing a head covering as the owner believed.