Many believe the Irish Council of Imams was set up at the behest of the Irish government who wanted a ‘Catholic-like’ hierarchy that they could deal with. There was no consultation with the community, no discussions to determine who might best represent the us. The criteria was that they simply be an imam of a mosque recognized by the others, essentially it was an opportunity for the Ikhwaan to ‘keep it in the family’ and imams who didn’t tow the line were duly rejected.

Among this obscure group is an imam who believes the Prophet Muhammad visits his mosque every Juma’ah, and a Rawa’fid Shia who despises the companions of the Prophet. They have a predilection for surfacing to rightfully condemn the activities of France, but remain wholly silent when the same issues arise here – please note their absence in the hijab debate.

The Irish Council of Imams is an unacceptable imposition on the Irish ummah that should be rejected by all conscientious Muslims, they may well represent themselves but they have no right to extend that claim beyond the confines of their Clonskeagh castle. If they want to be representative, then let them put their nominations to the vote!

Absurdities come in many varieties. The latest example is the French ban on burqa. Worse, the French action is proving contagious.

In Denmark, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who heads a right-wing government, has hinted at a ban on burqa, even though no woman in Denmark wears it. The notorious rightwing Jyllands Posten newspaper had to retract a story that three or four women wear it in Denmark. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden is being quizzed by the press corps on the subject of burqa.

But the respective countries’ media have found merely 100 women in Sweden and 1,900 in France who wear burqa. A sizable minority among burqa-clad women consists of European converts. From France to Sweden, rightwing elements are up in arms against these roughly 2,000 burqas, supposedly for the rescue of European Enlightenment.

However, only three decades ago, rightwing governments in France encouraged Muslim immigrants to grow beards and wear burqas. Islamised immigrants were considered a safe bet against unionised immigrants.

The ultimate victim of the burqa ban is enlightenment itself, even though the effort to undermine enlightenment is sophisticated, with Europe’s culture being invoked. How absurd! Enlightenment does not need protection by governments headed by rightwing politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy. If Pakistan were to go Taliban tomorrow and the Taliban imposed burqa on Pakistani women, they would justify their action by invoking the French ban on burqa. No one banned burqa in Pakistan, but no woman in my family wears it anymore, although my mother used to.

By the way, long before Sarkozy’s France got alarmed at burqa, the founding fathers of Muslim countries like Turkey and Tunis, Mustafa Kemal Atarurk and Habib Bourguiba, had banned headscarves — for entirely different reasons though. In both these countries now, many young women wear headscarves, as a symbol of defiance. Last year in Istanbul, I saw a girl in a Che-shirt, with her head covered by a headscarf. Ironically, Islamists have thrice won general elections in Atarurk’s Turkey. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Islamist. Bans never work.

The burqa ban is a discriminatory measure directed not merely against French Muslims but ultimately against the democratic rights of the entire working class of France. Instead of leading to integration, the ban on burqa will contribute to anti-immigrant and communalist sentiments, thus fuelling divisions among French citizens. The Nazis targeted Jews before settling scores with broad layers of the working masses.

The ban negates the basic rights of religious freedom and a citizen’s control over his or her own body. It grants the French state new powers to intervene in matters of individual choice on what dress to wear. In essence, it is false to equate the progressive democratic principle of secularism (separation of church and state) with a government edict that abridges individuals’ right to dress the way they want.

In a grotesque way, the French ban is France’s “Talibanisation.” Many proponents of the ban claim that it is directed against the oppression of women, of which the burqa is a symbol. This argument is an example of sophistry. It is impossible to attribute a democratic and liberating character to a law that stigmatises an entire group of people, based on their dress choice.

The inevitable result of this discriminatory law will be to encourage the development of religious separatism and communalist thinking among Muslim immigrants who feel, justifiably, that they are being singled out for persecution. Religious prejudices can be fought back through the political development and education of the masses in the struggle for democratic rights, not through state decrees imposed from above, by governments that serve the interests of the elite.

Source: The News.com

Let me open this by saying quite candidly, that it is my belief that the proposed French ban on the Hijab (the burka is simply a version of the hijab) has little to do with so-called French values and everything to do with good ‘ole French imperialism.

Ever since the French revolution, there has been a strong antipathy toward perceived religious encroachments into French public life. During the French colonial enterprises, France brought this extremist interpretation of secularism to its colonies, which unfortunately included a number of Muslim lands and one of their favourite torturous acts against Muslim women was to strip them naked and cover their heads. In this way, what the women denied them by covering was now on display, and the tables turned – the women couldn’t see the men. It is against this perverse backdrop that the French ban must be questioned.

When a liberal democratic state legislates against women covering, but has little to say about how much is removed – then it’s fair to ask whose interests the state is working for. Where does it stop?

European Muslim women have demonstrated quite visibly that they have the ability to engage in everyday activities without adorning themselves or removing essential items of clothing. They are very clear about why they go into the public domain and make a conscious effort to not be alluring or light entertainment for the opposite sex. But this wouldn’t be enough for the French because of their view of the Muslim woman in general. They feel denied the freedom of lusting after the female form and like many of their European counterparts insist that they remove their covers so that they might view and enjoy what non-Muslim women contentedly show off freely.

Unfortunately European women have learned that in order to obtain the pick of the crop, be it the best housing, careers or men, that something has to be removed, shortened or decorated with rouge and lipstick. In a recent educational article one professional pointed out that she managed to obtain her position because of her ‘looks’, knowing all along that the other candidates were far more experienced and qualified than herself.

But back to France, who is to police the numerous women who choose not to comply, Les Francais Taliban, no doubt! Their menfolk shunted of to prisons for aiding and abetting women in burqas. Imagine that, it’ll be a criminal offence to overdress! It does sound utterly ridiculous that a group of grown men and women would give way to such rampant emotions surrounding their own insecurities and identity crises. And what of the increasing number of indigenous Muslims, are they not French anymore because of their choice of religion? My only advice at this point – get a grip! What is distinctly French today will almost certainly evolve over time, as it has done so already. From where I’m standing the future looks decidedly Muslim – Vive la France.

Umm Is’mael

MPAC.ie
An’Nisa (Women’s) Faction

Source: MetroEireann (Print Edition)

France’s insidious war on Islam and Muslims took on an odious turn today as it was revealed that a Moroccan man had been denied French citizenship because he ‘apparently’ forces his wife to wear the veil, refuses to shake hands with the opposite sex and believes in segregation.

How they came to the conclusion that he ‘forced’ his wife to cover hasn’t been revealed and is unlikely to be as it would expose the secularist charade. The fact is the French don’t believe a woman could have the common sense to cover up of her own volition. As Sarkozy’s wife has indicated a predilection of baring her assets for public consumption, should we assume that he now forces his wife to cover up? Can he prove he doesn’t?

We would urge Muslim countries that have French citizens/expatriates to impose upon them the strictest dress codes possible and enforce 100% compliance with the Sharia. Any failure to meet Islamic standards should result in immediate deportation.

France’s Muslim population might also consider a mass emigration and plunge the country into a crisis. With the sudden loss of doctors, lawyers, police and army personnel etc – the country would come to a standstill. Gulf nationals who use French banks might contemplate switching to more tolerant states such as the UK and tourists from Muslim lands should ponder other destinations. All of this coupled with a total boycott of all French products in every Muslim country would indicate our collective resolve.

Fight them in the way they fight you O’Muslim, and let’s face it they need you much more than you need them.

The French Catholic Church warned Paris today against banning Muslim full-face veils. It said France must respect the rights of its Muslims if it wanted Islamic countries to do the same for their Christian minorities.

‘If we want Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries to enjoy all their rights, we should in our country respect the rights of all believers to practice their faith. ‘A dialogue in truth among believers will help us go beyond mutual mistrust. The path will be long and hard,’ Bishop Michel Santier, the top French Catholic official for inter-religious dialogue,said.

Read more: Mail Online

This is what we said at the beginning of this debacle, you simply cannot strip Muslims of essential rights and then expect your actions to go unanswered. There are thousands of French civilians in Muslim lands, and thousands of Christian minorities spread across the Muslim world who don’t want to suffer the indignities dished out to their Muslim counterparts in France and elsewhere.

The French or European attitude toward its Muslim minorities will largely determine the Muslim world’s attitude toward non-Muslim Europeans.

So the French have come to the realization that like many of their European counterparts they are wholly devoid of a culture and uncertain of who they are amid the amalgam of numerous people and traditions. Their answer, construct an identity in opposition to the only group of people in Europe who seem to have one – Muslims.

It isn’t a new idea, Hitler, in writing his Mein Kampf, had similar thoughts of a Reich, or a nation comprised of a people who distinguished themselves from ‘a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.’ He was of course referring to the Jews, but the rhetoric was and is remarkably similar.

The danger in banning the Hijab/Burka/Niqab is that inevitably it can and does become a political tool of opposition. The French should be wary of making the same mistakes of those who foolishly took that route before. In 1935, the shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, also outlawed the chador or the Burka, urging his countrywomen to “cast their veils, this symbol of injustice and shame, into the fires of oblivion”. The move was “part of his Westernisation campaign whose primary aim was to weaken Islam” Women who resisted had their veils forcibly removed and troops killed hundreds of protesters at mosques.

Forty-four years later, when Iranian women took to the streets in an Islamic uprising against the Pahlavi dynasty, they flaunted the chador as a symbol of protest against the regime and its Western backers.Source

The French may indeed move to restrict Muslim women, but if history teaches us one thing – banning only serves to popularize and oppression will add to its symbolism.

As France moves to restrict the rights of Muslim women, we think it’s time Muslim countries looked at the law of reciprocation as a means of showing France and other states that each move they make can and will be matched.

For example, there are thousands of French nationals working in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, etc, so why not impose a ban on all French women who do not fully cover in public places. Similar to the proposed French ban, impose restrictions on public transport, public buildings, schools, etc. In other words make life extremely difficult for them unless they actually cover themselves, but like France – don’t impose a full ban, if they want to cavort in their own homes, they may do so!

Islamic culture is too important to allow the wanton display of flesh and the looseness of western morals to impinge on our culture and right to be free from such fitnah. We think this would be a good start, after all – if they can do it, why can’t we?

Across Europe, governments are actively engaged in discussions on what it means to be a citizen of their respective countries. This spurt of national soul searching has been prompted by the influx of Muslim communities who all share a common tradition – Islam. And it is this bond and assurance of who Muslims are that has irked Europeans, because quite frankly they don’t have anything that vaguely resembles a culture.

Take France for example. Discussions are underway to try to tease out what it means to be French, all the rhetoric thus far points to a fascist, xenophobic and deeply Islamophobic state, but we’ll wait for the final outcome before we cast any stones. But for the French to attempt to define their society by virtue of its opposition and wanton subjugation of Muslim culture does point to the inadequacies of the former. After all, if a woman wearing a Burka is a threat to any European culture, then what does that say of the substance of western culture?

It seems that the targeting of Muslims and Islam has become a kind of national theatre in France. Unlike theatre, however, the disturbing trend can and will turn ugly — in fact to a degree it already has — if the French government doesn’t get a grip on reality. The world, including France, is a complex, multifaceted and fascinatingly diverse place; it cannot be co-opted to fit national specificities determined by a group of irritable far right racists with distorted interpretations of themselves and others.

Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the “shortcomings” of Islam.

Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1,400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin colour, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today’s standards.

The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or “academically”, the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.

The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque’s minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism.

These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries that guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self- expression and freedom of speech.

In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord.

The Washington Post reported on 19 December that Bilal Mosque in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. “Two pig’s ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig’s snout dangled from the doorknob. ‘White power’ and ‘Sieg heil’ were spray-painted on one side… and ‘France for the French’ on the other.”

Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the “Jews of Europe”, and that many British Muslims feel like “aliens in their own country”.

While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists — who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states — insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss.

There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it’s one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a by-product of misguided and unchecked globalisation, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal.

The European Union, which started as a purely economic body, has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organisation that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of them. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalised and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.

Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need of constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions, unlike the subjugation or targeting of other groups with political or economic clout.

But is there more to it? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: Does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding “No”. Only nine per cent of Turkish citizens — a country with a Muslim majority — shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs. Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs.

Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country’s immigration minister, stated on 16 December that Muslim veils would be grounds of denying citizenship and long- term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a “national identity campaign” for ensuring an exclusive identity of France — one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims.

Sarkozy, Besson and Europe’s rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies. Radicalisation is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervour throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe’s woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.

Source: Al Ahram

Europe, once depicted as the proud flag bearer of tolerance and multiculturalism has been exposed for the sham it always was. Religious minorities living within dominant ‘cultures’ have been all too aware of the two-tier system that is in place, a system that grants the recognized ‘state’ religion special status over and above other religions within said state. Ireland is no exception.

And perhaps Islam more than any other recognized religion has borne the brunt of this increasing repression as European states struggle to forge their own identities while facing down the threat of an established and universal culture that transcends time and place. As writers have pointed out, this fear is largely to do with their own cultural inadequacies, if they had any certainty in themselves and who they are, the threat would simply not exist.

Be that as it may, they have responded to their obvious inadequacies by targeting Muslims and their religion and we wholeheartedly agree with Bouthaina Shaaban and the call to list such countries as those which discriminate on religious grounds against Muslims. There simply cannot be double standards on rights abuses, as the Arabs would say, ‘when you point a finger, three more point back at you.’

Cases of Religious Discrimination in Europe: The Shocking Truth

France – Hijab bans in schools, Burka ban being mulled over, personal freedoms curtailed. ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Switzerland – Minaret bans, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Germany – Mosque bans, hijab bans in place, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Ireland – Hijab bans in An Garda Siochana, objections raised against minarets and domes on mosques. ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Netherlands – ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market. Hijab bans
Greece – Muslims “denied official recognition and freedom of expression & association.”
Croatia – Muslims denied “citizenship papers and fundamental legal rights.”
Belgium – hijab bans, freedom of religious expression denied, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.

In response to the increasing incidences of hijab bans throughout Europe, the Islamic Human Rights Commission put together a report of specific violations. Although the report addresses the hijab specifically, the points are broad enough to encompass a number of concerns.

VIOLATIONS OF LAW: INTERNATIONAL LAW

a. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 spoke of the ‘advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief’. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is considered a fundamental human right. Indeed, as noted by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief 1981 (‘1981 Declaration’) ‘religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements of his life’(vi). Under the A.9(1) of the ECHR,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes…freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance (vii).

The European Court of Human Rights has consistently stated that this right is at the core of a democratic society, claiming that ‘[i]t is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been won over the centuries, depends on it’ (viii).

The second part of A.9(1) protects the freedom to ‘manifest’ ones religion or belief ‘in public or in private, alone or with others’. The manifestation may include ‘worship, teaching, practice or observance’. In Vereniging v Netherlands, (ix) the European Commission of Human Rights stated ‘A.9 primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds….[i]n addition it protects acts which are intimately linked to these attitudes such as acts of worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of the religion or belief in a recognised form’. Indeed, in Mannousakis v Greece (x), the Court held that the right of manifestation of belief excludes the discretion of states to determine ‘whether religious beliefs or the means used to express them are legitimate’.

Under A.9(2) ECHR, ‘[f]reedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others’. Indeed, the right enshrined in A.9 is so fundamental that the limitations in A.9(2) are even narrower than those relating to the freedom of expression, association and assembly contained in the ECHR. The European Court has consistently stated that there must be a narrow construction of these limitations together with a broad interpretation of the freedoms guaranteed. Any restrictions on freedoms must be ‘construed strictly’ and can be justified only by ‘convincing and compelling reasons’ (xi).

It is fundamental to remember that, to a Muslim woman, the wearing of the hijab is not merely a personal display of faith – it is an obligation imposed by her religion. Proponents of the ban claim that the hijab cannot be tolerated in a secular state educational system because the mere fact of wearing it amounts to proselytism. Yet for those who wear it, it is simply a matter of personal obedience to God. It is also imperative to remember that even if evidence is adduced to show that the hijab amounts to proselytism – this is not a legitimate reason under international human rights law to ban it from being worn. In fact, such a manifestation of one’s religion would be protected under ECHR provisions relating to freedom of expression. A.10 ECHR provides that this right includes, ‘freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference’. This right is often considered the cornerstone of personal freedom and is vigorously upheld. Indeed, the Court has stated that it ‘constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man’ and applies to the freedom to express an opinion, even when it might ‘offend, shock or disturb’ (xii). In reality, this is the same freedom of expression advocated by European countries which criticise states such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for their human rights standards. Human rights law is not specific to culture or country – it exists precisely to contradict every form of state oppression – whether it be in the name of religion or secularism.

A further argument being made to support the ban is that childrens’ autonomy is being overridden by parents and communities who are coercing them into wearing the hijab. However, once again, there is little evidence to support this and even if this is the case – it is impossible to justify replacing parental control over a child’s actions with state control over the dress of individuals of an entire section of the community. Indeed, the idea of human rights is based on the notion that for each individual there is an area of personal liberty immune from state invasion. In recognition of this principle, A.2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (1952) (to which France, Germany and Belgium are signatories) states, ‘[n]o person shall be denied the right to education…the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’. This is one example of the intention of international legislation to endorse the right of parents to protect children against the use of educational institutions by the state for ideological indoctrination of its own ideas. It seems that while the apparently proselytising nature of the hijab is being criticised by state authorities, the same authorities are also engaging in their own form of proselytism by banning religious symbols – that of furthering their own secular agenda. This has particularly serious consequences if we remember that it is precisely in the human mind that attitudes and prejudices take form. By imposing the fictional absence of religion in schools that exist within a multi-faith society, it is arguable that the Government is simply promoting the development of uniform intolerant attitudes within young minds.

b. Freedom from discrimination

Under the ECHR, the limitations on freedom under A.9(2) are subject to A.14 which provides that Convention rights ‘shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.’ (xiii) The European Court has stated that discrimination on the basis of certain grounds, such as race and sex, is particularly serious and has stated that ‘very weighty reasons’ would have to be advanced before such treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (xiv). A ban on the hijab, turban and kippa is unfairly discriminatory towards particular ethnic groups – namely Jews, Sikhs and generally Muslims from a particular racial group. Furthermore, in Germany, the ban is only applicable to the hijab and specifically excludes Jewish and other religious symbols – a clear instance of religious discrimination. Although Germany has purported to justify this on the grounds of the Christian nature of the country, it is unlikely that the European Court will consider Germany’s margin of appreciation in interpreting the ECHR wide enough to allow such flagrant discrimination.

Furthermore, a ban on the hijab would clearly affect women for whom this religious dress is considered mandatory under Islam. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979, to which France, Germany and Belgium are signatories, provides that the term ‘discrimination against women’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women…on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ (A.1). A.2 places an obligation on states to ‘condemn discrimination against women in all its forms’ and ‘to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women…’.

c. The right to education and work

The right to education is recognised in many major human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (A.28) and CEDAW, which provides for equal rights for men and women the field of education (A.10) and employment (A.11) (xv). UNICEF has recently reported that millions of children worldwide are still denied the basic right to education – with gender disparity ensuring that the majority of those children (65 million) are girls (xvi), many of them being in the Arab states or sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps it is then ironic that the ban on headscarves in public schools will deny girls access to schooling in countries of the so-called ‘developed’ world. No child should have to choose between practicing the tenets of their faith and acquiring a basic education – yet for Muslim girls in certain European countries – this may be the stark choice that they face.
Furthermore, for the proponents of the ban to argue that the hijab inhibits the successful integration of Muslim girls into French society is paradoxical. Integration is, after all, a two way process. France cannot expect Muslim girls to become its integrated citizens while marginalising them by effectively denying them education. A ban would lead to increased educational exclusion, lack of employment opportunities and thus social deprivation – ironically adding to the myth of the ‘oppressed’ Muslim woman in a veil. The end result would be the creation of an ‘apartheid’ system in the heart of Europe – discrimination against a group of citizens who are denied education (or forced into substandard educational systems) and effectively the right to work thus forcing them into a spiral of economic and social isolation.

It’s time to put an end to the double standards of the EU and its respective states.