The hijab debate in Denmark once again creates strong reactions
A few days ago we mentioned the proposals from the government-appointed commission, the proposal to ban the hijab in primary schools is the one that has caused the most debate. The opposition comes from different groups, problems that are being launched include the fact that it is not high how many girls in primary school wear the hijab, the proportion who wear it voluntarily or under duress, that it is not compulsory schooling in Denmark and thus the parents can take girls out of the school, and that it may be religious discrimination to ban a religious symbol.
The commission, which in this package of measures must try to ensure minority girls their freedom rights, has so far presented a proposal. The other eight measures, which have not created much debate, are as follows:
– Municipal contingency plans against honour-related social control
– Better use of the public health nurse’s approach to ethnic minority families
– Strengthened knowledge of and focus on honor-related social control in kindergartens and primary schools
– Course on modern Danish child-rearing for selected ethnic minority parents
– Children’s groups in the Danish kindergarten must reflect the population
– Adjustment of Christian knowledge to avoid exemption
– Strengthen sex education in primary school
– Tightened control of Muslim independent schools
Distinctive discrimination
The argument with religious discrimination can be understood, therefore Denmark should, as for example France has done, ban all religious flashy symbols in school. It is not “worse” than that, and that it will primarily affect Muslims says in itself where the problem lies. But if Denmark, like France, wants the identity and value orientation of children and young people to be linked primarily to the country and not to their religion, then you don’t have many other choices yet to suppress personal religious symbols – and in particular linked to children.
Of course, it would have been best if the religious practitioners took this seriously themselves, and treated their religion as a private matter, and otherwise would act in a way that seemed as unifying as possible, whether it is in school or in society in general. Simply show loyalty to the country, with the same rights and duties.
But this is where many Muslims in the West stand out, we have to push Islam, among other things, by marking with the hijab. As I have mentioned several times over the years, none of them have the stamp of Muslim on their foreheads, therefore there will be no basis for any discrimination – given that they themselves do not have a need to mark that they is. Muslims and hence directly or indirectly demand discrimination. And, in my opinion, it takes far too many, at the same time that they also push their children into this marking role.
Fear of touching hijab
Ahmad Mahmoud, a member of the commission, believes that even though Denmark has a restrictive line towards problems in the immigrant environment, the fear of touching the hijab does not escape the roof.
– We have had the debate many times, but it doesn’t matter. We are not afraid to talk about it and criticize it, but we do not dare to implement a change. We in the commission think it is time to do so when it comes to children who wear the hijab, says Mahmoud Berlingske.
Mahmoud says that the commission has assessed whether it is at all possible to introduce rules banning the hijab without, for example, also banning a piece of jewelery with a cross.
– We have had the debate, and it has been a very healthy debate. Therefore, we also give our support if it is possible to introduce a general ban on the use of religious symbols. It must be up to the government to find out how it can be done legally, he says.
But if we make rules so that some girls can’t wear the hijab, even if they want to, aren’t we the ones carrying out social control? ask Berlingske.
– It will affect young girls as voluntary users. But shouldn’t we also talk about what makes one-year-old girls think it’s completely normal to wear a hijab? retorts Mahmoud.
He and most of the commission, whose members have considerable experience with these problems, compare the presentation of the commission membersr, is convinced that the reality is that far too many girls are forced to wear the hijab. Precisely that the members of the commission primarily possess experience with social control of girls, many desk experts will probably feel heavy hearted.
– A necessary evil
Ahmad Mahmoud is supported by Ali Aminali, writer and radio host, who in a chronicle in Berlingske, at the request of the newspaper, admits that he has doubts, but he has landed on the hijab ban appearing as a necessary evil. Because even though he will «never automatically» be a supporter of the state interfering at «this level», he believes the arguments for banning the hijab in primary schools are strong.
Firstly, it is strange that girls under the age of eight wear the hijab, as the religious opinion is that women/girls must cover themselves in such a way that they do not stir up the opposite sex.
The second is that the hijab is a symbol of Islam, and not “just a piece of clothing”. Just ask a random imam or religious woman if she wants to trade for a hat. Secondly, that it is naive to believe that children choose to wear the hijab because they want to. Most of my practical experience from the vulnerable areas, there are times when the parents or the environment have required or subtly «encouraged» girls to use hijab.
Among other things, Aminali refers to studies on the consequences of the French ban (we will come back to that in a separate article), but most of all he warns against «bending our values and norms».
Do we want to maintain the secular direction society has taken since we threw the church and religion out of power, or are we in the process of bending our societies so that we once again have to give way to religion?
Culture battle
According to Aminali, much of the public conversation is dominated by well-integrated, not particularly religious Danes with an immigrant background and their “hijab is just a piece of fabric” rhetoric.
We must then remember that the group that really considers a hijab ban problematic are strongly believing Muslims who would like to restrict our freedom of expression and demand special religious considerations. We are talking about people who refuse to recognize homosexuals, are in favor of gender segregation and maintain their children in a parallel society, where religion and honor codes are more important than the norms and values of the majority society.
What is going on, he says, is a “proper culture battle between religious and democratic values”. Not least it is about newcomers from MENA countries not being met with Danish history and their critical view of religion. You have simply not been clever enough to set boundaries when special considerations are required; here, but no further. Therefore, cultural collisions are becoming more numerous and a larger part of everyday life, Aminali points out.
Volunteering?
Organized Muslims react in the usual way to hijab bans in schools. Danish Islamic Religious Association – as Berlingske points out “protects the interests of Muslims” – believes the proposal involves a violation of Muslim schoolgirls’ “right to practice their religion”. In addition, they refer to children’s awareness:
Children today are very conscious of their choices. And so is the Muslim girl.
In a press release from the organization it is further stated that “legislators should not decide how Muslim girls go to school dressed”, on which they point to “rights of freedom are a supporting foundation in Danish society”.
Organized Muslims quickly pick up how they in the West must argue for continuing the limited freedom rights of Muslim girls and women. “Social control of girls and women should be investigated and fought, but not at the expense of girls’ right to wear the hijab”, indicating that they have at least realized that this social control exists – but not obviously that it has anything to do with the hijab to do.
Rather, they turn the problem on its head:
(…) a hijab ban will be a violation of human rights which will increase polarization and unhappiness in school.
This opens up another interesting angle, which is both about «a piece of clothing» and religious texts. Because if a hijab ban in school is a violation of human rights, it must be a violation of precisely the freedom to practice one’s religion. Then hanab per se, unlike for example the use of a cross, must be a religious injunction. Do you have any rights? No social control? To the extent that the Danish Islamic Faith Society “looks after the interests of Muslims”, it must be the Muslim men we are talking about (who, by the way, also have Islamic dress codes, without anyone bothering to care so much about it).
The Jewish Society in Denmark does not support the proposal for a hijab ban in school either, but we understand their argument. They point out precisely “the religious reasons for wearing the hijab”.
We can probably state that the voluntary use of the hijab is a bit shaky, and “child’s conscious choice” sounds a bit hollow. The supporting foundation of freedom rights in Danish society once again enters a cultural battle between religious and democratic values in the balancing of special considerations. When will come: here, but no further?