When the French government decided to place a prohibition of overtly religious symbols in state schools (or ‘the headscarf ban’ as it is more widely know), I bet they thought that they were removing a splinter from the soft tissue of the body politic.
But it looks like the wound is beginning to fester:
Muslim protests have been taking place in France and other countries against a French bill which would ban headscarves from state schools.
Up to 5,000 protesters, mainly Muslim women in scarves, rallied in Paris.
Many of France’s five million Muslims see it as an attack on their religious and human rights.
And that view is not confined to French Muslims either:
“Ultimately, if I have to choose between further studies or my turban, I will keep the turban.”
Fourteen-year-old Vikramjit Singh, who lives in suburban Paris, says giving up his studies would perhaps ruin his material life.
“But if I have to give up my turban, I am sacrificing my spiritual life. And that is totally unacceptable to me,” he told BBC News Online.
For Sikhs, wearing the turban is crucial to their religious identity.
I get the feeling that this one is going to run and run.
Lovely. So what goes *on* these people’s heads is more important to them than what goes *in* them.
I’m glad we’re going to build a Moon colony, I want to get away from this madhouse of a planet.
As far as I’m concerned, that Sikh can pack his bags and head back to Amritsar tomorrow. If the French choose to make this their law, so be it. For those who object, there aren’t any guards keeping people from leaving France. I doubt strongly that the European French will shed any tears over the departure of any Muslims, Sikhs, etc.
On net balance, I suspect the French believe these non-assimilable Third World types are more trouble than they’re worth. Particularly so when they have the unmitigated gall to reject the mission civilatrice of La Belle France. Expect more of this type of thing–and the start of jailings followed by forced deportations back to country of origin. It’s already happened by the planeload within the last decade. If there’s a terrorist incident in France as a result, the pace of removals will drastically increase.
If these people are smart, they’ll shut up and do as they’re told so they can keep sucking off the EU welfare state teat. If they don’t, they’ll get “roughed and cuffed” and have the opportunity to nurse their lumps and bruises on the one-way flight back to where they came from.
The way I see this, it is really just a rather good argument against state schooling… as these people are getting a state education at other people’s expense, maybe they should consider withdrawing from the theft based state system and just educate in private Muslim schools or at home.
Since the “positive discrimination” humbug and the appointment of a Muslim Prefect in the Jura will not calm down the veiled and the veiling ones, the countdown until the French government back off on this one, starts now.
Frogman,
Do you really think the French government will back down on this one? This seems to go to the very heart of what constitutes “True France.” If France isn’t going to allow itself to become a completely Muslim country, it’s got to start cracking down someplace and this seems like an obvious point. Or do you feel France and the French are so craven that they and their Government can’t even stand up to Third World pressure groups within their own borders? The guys who won the Battle of Algiers surely wouldn’t have any problems with this lot.
Nice work on your blog, BTW.
Frogman,
You should start a pool on your site as to how many days it’ll take Chirac Inc. to capitulate.
When in Rome do as the Romans do! I dont see any problems with a group of people wanting to express their religious beleifs or for that matter wearing whatever they choose to, I also dont see any problem with any particular religious sect following the direction of their leaders that say killing and maiming innocents in the name of their God is religiously correct. The French government has the right under their constitution to forbid not only the wearing of clothing but also the forbiding of murder, assasination, slaughtering of 3,000 innocents in the twin towers, bombing of aircrafts and terrorist activities which can most be attributed to the moslem zealots who perpatrate these crimes against humanity. My comment is, if they wish to wear any garb that reinforces their belief in their religion there is a place to do it. BACK IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY where their wishes will be accomodated. The statement that there is over 5 million moslems living in France just doesnt cut it, as there is more than 60 million french national who live there and go about their daily business without interfering with one another. So why should they submit to the will of a few zealots who after all only wish to disrupt the flow of things HOORAY! for France
Français faible et pathétique. Pardonnez-moi, but who friekin cares what people wear!!! Just shows how low Europe has fallen. Since when do civilized countries start enforcing dress codes? Lets see the list: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, ummm….France. Great, shows progress, a nice multi-national club.
In the US (and most normal countries), people can wear whatever they want at school or in the public. We have people going to school with spiked hair, red hair, green hair, tattoos, turbans, black dyed Gothic hairstyles with trench coats, headscarves, people wearing bandanas like pirates…and no one gives a shizzat.
Countries that enforce dress codes (i.e France, Iran and the likes) simply highlight their own insecurities. Is this the level France is at now days? Threatened by a small minority of people wearing headscarves and turbans? A piece of attire? Are they going to start banning non-french clothing next? (French police checking labels on clothing making sure no one is wearing Italian name brands)
What a joke. It isn’t suprising hearing about this stuff, especially from France. A country that never ends in making jokes about itself. A country that has become ever synonymous with wussy, spineless, finicky, whining, weak. A country that was adamantly against the war in Iraq, I might add, but is now scurrying like a 3rd world country begging for a “portion” in post-war contracts. A country with no base like that, will never get any respect worldwide, and will continue to be a butt for many future jokes.
Très très triste.
Cyrus
–In the US (and most normal countries), people can wear whatever they want at school or in the public. We have people going to school with spiked hair, red hair, green hair, tattoos, turbans, black dyed Gothic hairstyles with trench coats, headscarves, people wearing bandanas like pirates…and no one gives a shizzat.–
Yes, Cyrus, that’s why some school are choosing uniforms and most if not all schools have dress codes.
—
All Chiraq has to do is ask where in the Koran or hadiths does it specifically say women must wear headscarves?
In the Koran, it doesn’t, they just must be dressed “modestly.”
And if the Koran is the actual word of Allah and he didn’t SPECIFICALLY require headscarves, it’s man’s interpretation.
Wouldn’t be the first time man interpreted incorrectly.
Sandy P is correct. The scarf is not a religious symbol or requirement. In non-Islamic countries, is is a badge.
DF – Do you really think Chirac will back down over this? Strangely enough, I do not. I think he is more than aware of how fed up to the back teeth 60m French are with constant special concessions to the most unproductive and troublemaking segment of French society. (BTW, the French I know seem to exempt Moroccans.)
Arab boys in the estates/ghettoes that ring the big industrial cities are raping white girls as punishment for not wearing scarves. This is not a good way for an already highly unpopular group to court favour with the taxpayers (of whom they are seldom one themselves). DF, you are French and I’m not, but I see signs that the indigenous French are with M Chirac on this and I think he won’t tack.
As far as the Sikhs are concerned, their numbers are small, they are industrious, responsible members of society, they get along well with other people and they regad their religion as private. They have never expressed the faintest interest in trying to turn France into a Sikh theocracy.
David, the number of protesters mentioned on French TV news was 10,000, not five. And that’s not including the yo-yos who were demonstrating, for some intricate reason, in Britain and Sweden.
PS Dan McWiggins – I’m mainly in accord with your comments, but since when did we take the considered pronouncements of little 14-yr old boys seriously? No one has appointed this kid spokesperson for the Sikh religion.
Cyrus Shahrzad – We care about what people wear in this instance because it is being worn as a sign of aggression against the host society. It is not required by their religion.
When a country starts enforcing fiddly little behavior edicts in this way, IMO it’s going to the dogs. That goes for France more, ironically, than Iran. The Iranians have religious reasons, France is merely panicking. A health civil society takes personal eccentricities such as weird religion in its stride. An unhealthy one runs the risk of fragmenting into “tribes” along cultural or ethnic lines. At which point civil war is inevitable.
Those who have read my comments here on Arab/Islamic issues know that I am not prone to political correctness nor to whitewashing the violence, backwardness and oppression that are rife within Islamic societies. But I have to say that I strongly oppose the banning of the veil or any other Muslim clothing. France is a totalitarian society and has been since the French revolution. This is just another nail in the coffin of freedom. Make no mistake, I think the veil is obscene. But in banning it, the state is being given the power to ban ANY clothing or religious icons.
Freedom of religion is essential to a free society. I agree that French Muslims should assimilate themselves, learn to speak French, and obey the law, and I think that any Muslim who preaches Jihad against the West and Israel, or who gives aid to or participates in Jihad, should be deported immediately. But this law is an ass. The French government will use it to crack down on any manifestation of what it considers un-French culture. Already evangelical Protestant Christians in France are subject to fascist surveilence tactics and harassment.
All of this could have been avoided if France had taken a rational, national interest based approach to immigration and not allowed large scale immigration of Muslims in the first place.
I can’t believe there are so many “libertarians” here cheering the notion that the French state should instruct its <
citizenssubjects on appropriate headwear.This ban is yet another example of French self-delusion, in offering, as a solution to a problem – voluntary alienation/disassimlation of a significant section of its muslim population – assistance in pretending it doesn’t exist.
Frank: that’s because they aren’t libertarians, they’re “conservatives” – parochial cultural-authoritarians.
Sandy:
“Yes, Cyrus, that’s why some school are choosing uniforms and most if not all schools have dress codes.”
Some are, but most aren’t. The reason why ‘some’ inner city American schools are setting up uniforms, is largely because people were wearing gang clothing and this led to violence and drug dealing. Yet even in these schools, they make exemptions for religious gear: jewish caps, turbans, headscarves.
“All Chiraq has to do is ask where in the Koran or hadiths does it specifically say women must wear headscarves?”
Since when does a head of state dictate religion? (unless you’re Iran or Saudi Arabia) Is Ayatollah Chiraq going to start issuing weekly religious edicts now? What if someone decided to create their own religion that asked women to wear headscarves (ie, a new French Falun Gong sect), what do you do then? Will France ban that religious group because it is not an “officially recognized religion,” (i.e, like what is done in China?). See it simply shows how shallow French freedom of religion is and their own insecurities. France is a conformist nation, a modern, sexy, totalitarian state under the guise of Liberté.
“In the Koran, it doesn’t, they just must be dressed “modestly.””
Who cares what it says in the Koran or whatever religious book a person reads. People have different definitions for what they mean by modesty. Do I want the government in my bedroom each morning telling me which shirt or slacks I should be wearing to work? These are all signs of a totalitarian state. A person should be comfortable to wear anything they want and in a school setting, yes, it should be presentable, practical. I mean if some chick comes to school in a burka and you cant see her eyes, ok, now that’s a problem. If France wants to be anal about it, they can easily make a liberal rule, that if people decide to wear headscarves, skullcaps, or turbans for whatever reasons, it should blend in. For instance, if a person has black hair, then the turban, headscarf, or skullcap should be the same color.
“And if the Koran is the actual word of Allah and he didn’t SPECIFICALLY require headscarves, it’s man’s interpretation.”
Who cares about interpretations. A secular government has no role in religion, nor should it involve itself in making religious ministeries. If a person feels modest by wearing a headscarf, it’s their religious right to do so.
“Wouldn’t be the first time man interpreted incorrectly.”
But your interpretation is as good as any others (Unless, you’re in a theocratic state and the grand Ayatollah, then your interpretation is absolute)
—————————————
Verity:
“Sandy P is correct. The scarf is not a religious symbol or requirement. In non-Islamic countries, is is a badge.”
Well, that’s your interpretation Comrad Verity.
“DF – Do you really think Chirac will back down over this? Strangely enough, I do not. I think he is more than aware of how fed up to the back teeth 60m French are with constant special concessions to the most unproductive and troublemaking segment of French society. (BTW, the French I know seem to exempt Moroccans.)”
Then stop immigration! Its France’s fault for letting them in. It’s a simple thing to do. But just like what we do here, we criticize Mexicans all the time for taking away our jobs and for invading Texas and Florida, but then when they come here corporations need them for low paying labor. Bush recently said he would legalize their illegal status, isn’t that amazing? A right wing leader legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants!!?? It’s a complete cessation to corporate interests, France needs that poor segment for its scrap work.
“As far as the Sikhs are concerned, their numbers are small, they are industrious, responsible members of society, they get along well with other people and they regad their religion as private. They have never expressed the faintest interest in trying to turn France into a Sikh theocracy.”
You can’t be serious. France turning into a theocracy over a few people wearing headscarves, is the biggest, fanciest, delusional, stretch I have ever heard of. France, despite its finickiness, is still in many ways the grand-daddy of secularism and freedom. It basically started that for the rest of the world in the modern era. If France is worried about turning into a theocracy, then that’s a complete reflection of a society’s insecurities and quite frankly the end of the world for me. Verity, wacko people may have aspirations to do whatever they want. In Iran, where my parents are from, look what this minority of people tried doing. They tried installing a theocratic regime, which today 98% of the public is now against. It failed! In less than 3 years, I guarantee you that there will be a revolution in Iran and this theocratic piece of shit will be out the window. The age of theocracies are over, the fringe groups who want it will gradually lose their luster if they are ignored. In France, there is no way of any ayatollahs coming in power, ever. But by forcing religious rules, its blowing something way out of proportions and is giving importance to people who really have no power. Why give them the attention? Things like this are best ignored.
“Cyrus Shahrzad – We care about what people wear in this instance because it is being worn as a sign of aggression against the host society. It is not required by their religion.”
That’s an interpretation. Wearing clothes is not a sign of aggression. Blowing up buildings and suicide bombings is. When people do that, then go ahead and lock em up.
————————-
Julian Morrison:
“When a country starts enforcing fiddly little behavior edicts in this way, IMO it’s going to the dogs. That goes for France more, ironically, than Iran. The Iranians have religious reasons, France is merely panicking. A health civil society takes personal eccentricities such as weird religion in its stride. An unhealthy one runs the risk of fragmenting into “tribes” along cultural or ethnic lines. At which point civil war is inevitable.”
Well said, I couldn’t agree with you more. My worry is that since France is making such a huge issue out of this, it ends up looking tremendously weak. Worrying about religion is a thing of the past. A government, a proud nation should keep its head up and move forward fully confident in themselves.
——————————-
Shawn:
“Freedom of religion is essential to a free society. I agree that French Muslims should assimilate themselves, learn to speak French, and obey the law, and I think that any Muslim who preaches Jihad against the West and Israel, or who gives aid to or participates in Jihad, should be deported immediately. But this law is an ass. The French government will use it to crack down on any manifestation of what it considers un-French culture. Already evangelical Protestant Christians in France are subject to fascist surveilence tactics and harassment.”
Shawn, you bring up an excellent point about “French culture” and totalitarianism. This is what its really about. The French are just so uptight today, because they failed to eventually influence the world like their Anglo counterparts. French go wacko when a Starbucks opens in a city, because it’s a sign of American imperialism in their view. France has been reduced to a reactionary state. They want to preserve every little thing that’s left. If a person is wearing a headscarf, it doesn’t look French to them…so they panic and ban it. The sign of a great powerful, confident country is that its able to absorb these little non-issues and move forward. Look at America. We got hit with a terrible catastrophe, and look at how we took it. We didn’t ban headscarves or stupid things like that. Instead, we kicked out or jailed any suspecting terrorist.
Now America is looking forward to taking over the Moon and Mars, and France is worried about headscarves. A perfect example of what separates these two countries.
J’aime l’Amérique
Cyrus
Nice theory, Julian – but when the hijab represents everything a libertarian should oppose: national-socialist Islamism, racial (Arab) supremacism, the brutality of sharia, collective militancy, political violence, censorship of dissent and individual freedoms, I find it hard to agree.
Is the hijab a freely chosen article of clothing?
Or is it a uniform, an abdication of individuality, a chauvinistic statement of Islamic aggression and cultural imperialism?
Not many libertarians who would support the imposition of sharia law, and reinforcing secularity a reasonable way of resisting the jihad against our individual freedoms.
emo, what libertarians should oppose is the initiation of force, most especially the initiation of force by the state. A libertarian wants to live in a country where Nanny State does not tell people how to live, what to eat, what to put in our bodies, or, as in this case, what to wear. I could care less what the hijab represents, any more than I care about what the plain and modest clothing the Amish wear reprsents. So long as Muslims obey the non-initiation of force principle, are economically self-reliant, and in no way support jihad, then they should not be subject to descrimination in the law, or have their freedom curtailed.
I have argued here on several occasions that the West allowing large scale Muslim immigration was and is a huge mistake. But what is done is done. If we resort to these kinds of methods, such as banning clothing, then what are we fighting for? Not for freedom, and that is the only principle worth fighting for in the end.
Doesn’t matter. A healthy society allows and ignores silly uniform-wearning. Much like for example, the UK doesn’t persecute skinheads just for dressing as skinheads. Actions, deeds, are what count.
To Julian Morrison who I’m guessing has never been to France in his life, and Shawn: We are talking religious imperialism here.
I have always been a courteous commentator on this site, but I will not accept sneering ignorance used as a weapon to tell me what my politics are. I am a libertarian. I am against anyone being bullied, and that includes indigenous people being bullied in their own countries and attempts to force them to adopt the ways of the immigrant. Check it out.
Unless I missread the situation entirely, there is as yet no suggestion at all that muslims are bullying non-moslem french girls into wearing headscarves. So that’s a “straw man”.
Yeah they do so in places like Iran – so turn your ire on the Iranians who do such. Innocent until proven guilty, judge deeds not attitudes, etc etc.
Julian Morrison opines: Unless I missread the situation entirely, there is as yet no suggestion at all that muslims are bullying non-moslem french girls into wearing headscarves. So that’s a “straw man”.
Hey! You misread the situation entirely!
Do try to inform yourself – in order to give your weighty thoughts credibility – before making haughty, uninformed judgements and maligning fellow posters.
Julian Morrison – Oh! I almost missed this priceless little provincial lecture: “judge deeds not attitudes, etc etc.”
Exactly, darling. Do try to keep up.
I can reference a couple of articles that suggest it’s not a straw man at all. Not conclusive proof, of course – but food for thought.
‘any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore’
‘every teenage girl – regardless of religion – has to wear the Muslim veil if she does not want to be harassed or killed’
also French Sharia Watch @ merdeinfrance
One thing is evident – *violent* cultural and religious imperialism by Islamists in France is a serious threat to moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and women especially.
It’s okay, French suppression of the free expression of religion is no big deal. Muslims in France have a perfectly acceptable method of protesting it which is freely available.
I’m talking about suicide bombings – on buses, in schools and restaurants, at police stations and in airports.
What’s that you say — suicide bombing is wrong, illegitimate, and no way to protest recent developments in France?
Um, okay, I’ll buy that. But if I concede, perhaps you can explain why the French intelligentsia cheer on Palestinian terrorism so stoutly. Right for me, but not for thee…
Oh, and one other thing.
This is a good illustration of how content neutral state action targeted at removing the problems tied closely to single groups, are often unfair burdens to everybody else. Christians who cannot wear a cross to school, Jews who cannot wear a kippah, and Sikhs who cannot wear a turban are all punished by this overbroad rule.
The problem of overbreadth also plagues other ideas that sound reasonable – focusing increased attention on Arabs in airports for one example. You may have a good chance of stopping a specific behavior – but the overbroad (yet facially neutral) standards are overinclusive and unnecessarily punitive toward people who haven’t done anything wrong at all.
The example of the Sikhs is particularly touching – if anybody has a reason to be against Islamofascism, it’s Sikhs.
Sad.
While I have no sympathy for the absurd French government [err, sorry for the redundancy – it occurs to me that French governments are all absurd, probably due to their state run “elite” schools that their leaders all attend], one fact needs to be mentioned: Wearing the Hijab is NOT a religious practice, but a political one! The darned things were only invented about 30 or 40 years ago as a statement of pan-muslim identity!
So all the BS about this being freedom of religion is just that, BS.
Furthermore, it gives the French government the opportunity that the increasingly anti-Semitic French are likely to approve of: the forced removal of a true religious symbol – Jewish skullcap (whatever it’s called).
The solution to sharia-bullying if that goes on, is to come down like a ton of bricks on the bullies – not hassle innocent school kids.
Which story has more deterrent effect: “headscarves banned” or “sharia bully gets jail, huge fine”?
Damn. For the first time, I’m wishing Samizdata had left on the “Libertarian” part.
Re emo’s post, there is one very simple American solution: Arm the girls, or at the “very least” teach them self-defense.
Verity, with all due respect, you cannot claim to be a libertarian, and then condone the state telling people, especially its actual citizens, what they can and cannot wear. These are mutually contradictory positions. And it does not matter what the hijab represents. It does not matter if it is religious, or if it is a political statement. Freedom means the freedom to wear what I like, regardless. I sometimes wear a t shirt that says “celebrate diversity” that has pictures of a large number of various hand guns underneath. That is a political statement about my support for gun ownership rights. Should the state have the right to ban me from wearing it? I have recieved comments from some leftists who think so.
I am very aware of the problems associated with large Muslim populations, and I am aware that a real kind of violent jihad is being waged against Westerners and Christians in places like France. But banning the hijab is not the answer, and in fact it will not solve the problem anyway. All it does is create a law that can be, and knowing France will be used against all religions. Why should Jews and Christians be punished for problems they are not responsible for?
France and other European countries with large Muslim populations do need to take tough action, but there are better and more effective ways to do it than this. For a start, all Muslim immigration to Europe should be stopped immediately. This could be done by simply banning immigration from certain countries (the entire Middle East and North Africa). Next, Europe should cease to take in asylum seekers and refugees from those same countries. Next, they should begin enforcing the law in areas that have dominant Muslim populations. Politicaly correct attitudes to policing in places like France and Britain just encourages Muslims who are committing acts of violence. If the laws against assualt and rape were aggressively enforced, and the penalties radically increased, including the death penalty for gang rape, then this would be a start. Also, many Muslims in France are not actual citizens. France should begin repatriating all non-citizens from the country, except of course tourists and those on temporary work visas. I would have no problem with Muslims being repatriated back to their countries of origin if they are not citizens.
Tough action to deal with the very real problems you are rightly concerned about can be taken without creating silly laws that simply curtail the rights of all citizens.
Julian Morrison – Your post is so monumentally ignorant I hardly know where to begin. They are not “hassling” innocent schoolkids. They are imposing a dress code that ensures that all children will be treated equally and not with reference to the cultural (the headscarf isn’t religious) badges they’re wearing.
– Which story has more deterrent effect: “headscarves banned” or “sharia bully gets jail, huge fine”? –
What the hell are you talking about? What is a shariah bully? Deterrent effect on what? What deterrent effect? I cannot follow what you’re trying to say.
Your post only has two small problems: you know nothing about radical Islam in Europe and you have never been to France in your life. You’re looking at this problem through ethnocentric eyes and you cannot imagine that anything is different elsewhere in the world. Yet you’re smugly proposing two different headlines for the French media, which you don’t understand, for reading by the French public, with which you have absolutely no familiarity.
Verity, it is certainly your prerogative to support this measure by the French government, what you can’t do is claim to be libertarian while supporting a state-mandated dress code.
There are two separate arguments here,
1. That the solution to the Islamification of certain banlieues is to ban veils.
2. That the interests of an individual (such as someone who wishes to wear a headscarf) should be subservient to the interests of French society or the French state.
I would hold that, for the first, specific argument, this is a misguided, typically French, initiative, analogous to the creation of the Islamified slums in the first place. The purpose of the ban, if effected, would be to create an illusion of assimilation. If we cannot see the visible signs of talibanisation, then we can easily convince ourselves that it is not happening. Further, this ban will have absolutely no effect on the Osama fans in Sarcelles.
As for the second argument, this is where you diverge from libertarians. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Well actually, Frank, I’m not trying to have it both ways. Schools are a reality of life in the West. I am not discussing whether that’s a good or a bad thing. They’re here.
Surely, if you’re a libertarian, you would agree that all organisations can make their own rules. Golf clubs should be able to exclude women if the paying members feel like it, for example.
The paying members of the state schools in France, i.e., the taxpayers, do not want some children to be set apart by scarves. It gives the wrong message to indigenous girls – that there’s something peculiar about being born a girl that has to be covered up. A few scarf-wearing Muslim girls dotted around a school in many areas of France would not even be interesting enough to be remarked upon. But the areas that need to be addressed are the big city banlieus with majority N African populations, where indigenous French children are outnumbered.
The taxpayers – the club members, if you will – want this ban. No one is banning scarves elsewhere than in the taxpayer funded classroom. No one is stopping grown women from wearing scarves.
I’m not going to get into meticulously detailed nitpicking on tangential matters such as whether I’m a libertarian. Actually, my politics are none of your business and I’m not obliged to defend myself against you or anyone else.
Verity,
I really don’t care what your politics are, you are the one who trumpeted your libertarianism above. My point is that anyone who defends this ban cannot, in honesty, describe themselves as a libertarian. Your supporting argument is about defending the right of the collective (the taxpayers) to impose its will on individuals.
“The paying members of the state schools in France, i.e., the taxpayers, do not want some children to be set apart by scarves.”
err… apart from the taxpaying muslims who like headscarves on women, presumably. Your argument entirely leaves out the fact that the parents of headscarf-wearing kids are members of the “club” too, since it’s a hard one to opt out of.
Verity – the libertarian position is that Muslims should be allowed to wear headscarfes in schools, just as neo-nazis should be allowed to wear swastikas. Wearing an article of clothing does not infringe anyone’s individual rights, therefore it is wrong ban it.