What a stunning coincidence. In many nation-states around Europe, simultaneously, laws are being debated that ostensibly have no connection to one another — defending secularism in France, defending women’s rights in Belgium and Sweden, defending states’ rights in Germany, defending the autonomy of state-funded Christian schools in Spain and Italy — and yet, miraculously, despite these disparate if lofty ideals, they all converge on the exact same effect: Muslim women will not be allowed to wear headscarves in public schools.<\/p>\n
If there is anything redeeming about this sudden flurry of legal innovation, it is that collectively these laws betray a certain embarrassment about their aims. In each case, the proscription against Muslim women is officially construed as a secondary effectThe silliest example of such a secondary effect is not France’s law against “conspicuous religious symbols” being used to ban the headscarf, but the defence in Spain of a state school run by nuns<\/a> that forbade a Muslim girl from obeying the same biblical precept that obliges nuns to wear habits! Sorry, but that merits a rare exclamation mark.<\/span>. To me, this signals that the proponents of these laws know they are treading on shaky legal ground. They know they can’t just come right out and say, “we’re going to make a law forbidding Muslim women from wearing headscarves at school,” because its intent would be laughed out of any human rights tribunal.<\/p>\n Hence the proscription as side effect. It’s the same desired effect, minus the intent. Countries are doing an admirable job of coming up with their own home-grown solutions, though with varying levels of precision: Sikhs are still in limbo in France<\/a>, it turns outUpdate 2003\/02\/15:<\/b><\/span> Scott Martens on A Fistful of Euros surveys<\/a> the state of the headscarf debate online.<\/span>.<\/p>\n France is the furthest along this road to madness; if ever the lunatics end up running this asylum, blame the one with the Napoleon complex.<\/p>\n For bonus points, this has got to be the stupidest editorial<\/a> I’ve read in years. But I’d love to be trumped.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What a stunning coincidence. In many nation-states around Europe, simultaneously, laws are being debated that ostensibly have no connection to one another — defending secularism in France, defending women’s rights in Belgium and Sweden, defending states’ rights in Germany, defending … Continue reading