Hijabs at a Harvard gym

Ruth Marcus“It’s a measure of America’s multicultural journey over the past half-century that we’ve gone from ‘God and Man at Yale’ to Allah and Woman at Harvard. In a contretemps scarcely imaginable in William F. Buckley’s day, Harvard has closed one of its gyms to men for six hours a week so that Muslim women can exercise comfortably. ‘Sharia at Harvard,’ warned blogger Andrew Sullivan. A Harvard Crimson columnist blasted ‘Harvard’s misguided accommodationist policy.’

“Meanwhile, a separate controversy has flared over broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer from the steps of Harvard’s main library during Islamic Awareness Week. Three graduate students, writing in the Crimson, argued that the prayer sowed ‘seeds of division and disrespect’ by declaring that ‘there is no lord except God’ and that ‘Mohammad is the Messenger of God’. Harvard, they wrote, ‘should not grant license to any religious group, minority or otherwise, to use a loudspeaker to declare false the profoundly important and personal beliefs of others.’ …

“My reaction is more along the lines of: ‘Get a grip.’ It’s reasonable to set aside a few off-peak hours at one of Harvard’s many gyms. It’s not offensive to have the call to prayer echoing across Harvard Yard, any more than it is to ring church bells or erect a giant menorah there.

“I share the apprehensions stirred up by the more radical followers of Islam, with their drive to restore the caliphate and subjugate women. But I come to this issue as a member of another minority religion, Judaism, whose adherents often seek flexibility from the majority culture in order to practice their faith. As with Islam, my religion’s more observant believers endorse practices – segregating the sexes at prayer, excluding women from engaging in certain rituals – that I find disturbing, bordering on offensive. I have relatives who would shrink from shaking my hand. Still, I would defend to the death their right not to touch me.”

Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, 26 March 2008

Cf. Debbie Schlussel’s comments

Swiss minister sparks veil outcry

Micheline Calmy-ReySwiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey has been widely criticised for donning a white headscarf to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well-known for her stand on women’s rights, she has provoked headlines such as “Just like a submissive woman”.

Socialist MP Maria Roth-Bernasconi said it was irritating that she had angered feminists in Iran. Ms Calmy-Rey said she was observing protocol. “When you are a guest you respect local customs,” she said.

Social Democrat MP Liliane Maury Pasquier accepted that customs had to be observed. But she was quoted by one newspaper complaining that the minister should have shown solidarity with “the women who fight against wearing the headscarf”.

Swiss daily Le Matin said on Wednesday it was shocked that Switzerland’s “icon of a liberated woman” had been transformed into an image of one who was oppressed.

BBC News, 20 March 2008

Swiss court rules veil is no obstacle to citizenship

Switzerland’s Federal Court has overturned two decisions by local assemblies to refuse citizenship on the grounds of women wearing a religious veil. Muslim organisations welcomed the rulings, which were announced on Wednesday, as a “step forward”. Under the Swiss federal system, communities also have a say on naturalisation issues.

The court ruling came after two local assemblies in canton Aargau, in northern Switzerland, rejected applications for Swiss citizenship by a Turkish woman and a Bosnian couple last year. Objectors said the veil was a sign of inequality between men and women and was therefore unconstitutional.

But Switzerland’s highest court found that wearing a veil was an expression of religious beliefs, which are protected under the Swiss constitution. The veil in itself was not a sign of the debasement of women, the judges wrote. The court urged citizens to look beyond their prejudices and said the fact that a Muslim woman wore a veil did not mean she was flouting the basic values of Swiss society.

Local decisions on citizenship applications have been a controversial issue over the past few years. Swiss citizens are due to vote on an initiative that aims to enshrine communities’ right to decide on naturalisation requests in the constitution. Launched by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, it demands that voters be free to decide on how to proceed on citizenship questions and that appeals against negative decisions be no longer possible.

Swissinfo, 5 March 2008

Muslim ejected from Louisiana mall over hijab

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on local, state and national law enforcement authorities to investigate a recent incident in which a Muslim woman was allegedly ejected from a Louisiana shopping mall for refusing a security guard’s demand to remove her religiously-mandated headscarf, or hijab.

CAIR said the 54-year-old woman and her daughter-in-law were leaving the food court of the Oakwood Mall in the New Orleans suburb of Gretna, La., on February 22 when a security guard approached them and allegedly told the older woman that she had two options: remove her headscarf or leave the mall. (The woman’s daughter-in-law was not wearing a headscarf.) The guard did not offer an explanation for his demand.

During the long walk out of the mall, the guard reportedly followed the women and even called for back-up. The daughter-in-law told CAIR that the two women felt “humiliated” by the stares of other shoppers as the guard followed them out of the mall. When two more guards came to the scene, they did not offer assistance to the women, but they did confirm the reason for the first guard’s ejection order. The family, all of whom are American citizens of Palestinian heritage, has retained an attorney and is exploring their legal options.

“It is unbelievable that an American of any faith would be denied access to a public area merely because she wished to carry out the requirements of her faith,” said CAIR National Legal Counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili. “We call on local law enforcement authorities and the FBI to determine whether any civil rights or criminal laws were violated during this disturbing incident.”

CAIR press release, 29 February 2008

Airport tells faithful to take off turbans, veils

Security at Brisbane Airport has gone into a spin after an unprecedented crackdown on turbans and other culturally-sensitive headgear worn by passengers. A federal investigation has been launched into an edict by the company in charge of the airport’s security to demand passengers remove for security checks religious headwear, including turbans, veils and Jewish skull caps.

At least one international flight was delayed at the weekend when staff from the company, ISS Security, demanded 13 people of the Sikh religion remove their turbans and a Muslim woman to take off her face veil. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development is investigating whether the clampdown by ISS breached federal airport policy.

It is standard airport practice around the world that religious headwear is only removed after conventional screening methods raise an alarm. But ISS employees yesterday said a directive was issued on Saturday demanding all passengers remove their religious headwear for security checks, regardless of whether there was any cause for suspicion. “We were told you have to take them off, or you’ll be stood down,” one worker said.

NEWS.com.au, 26 February 2008

Headscarf row flares again in Danish parliament

Asmaa Abdol-HamidCOPENHAGEN — Tension about the possibility of a Muslim politician addressing the Danish parliament in a headscarf has flared again, but Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen tried to calm the debate on Tuesday.

“It’s up to parliament to decide dress codes, and if some people were to get up on the podium wearing a [Muslim] headscarf, I would not leave the room,” Rasmussen told reporters. “In my opinion, people’s ideas and points of view are more important than what they wear,” he said, adding however that “it would be beneficial for Danish society if the public sphere were exempt of some religious displays.”

Rasmussen’s comments came after his liberal-conservative government’s ally, the extreme-right Danish People’s Party (DPP), rekindled a row over whether women wearing the Muslim headscarf, or hijab, should be allowed to address parliament. DPP spokesman Soeren Espersen said last week that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, a Dane of Palestinian origin, should not be permitted to address parliament while wearing a hijab.

She failed in her bid to become the first headscarf-wearing Muslim in Europe to be voted into parliament in last year’s general election, but there is a possibility that she could stand in temporarily for a parliamentarian from the small far-left Unity List Party.

Daily Times, 26 February 2008

See also Islam in Europe, 24 February 2008

Update:  The Copenhagen Post reports that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid has decided to take a one-year break from party politics. She is quoted as expressing her “disappointment in the left wing” over its response to Islamophobia, stating: “while there’s all this hubbub out there over Muslims, with one over-the-top suggestion after the other, the Red-Green Alliance has been disturbingly silent.”

JP back on bench after veil uproar

The magistrate reprimanded for refusing to deal with a Muslim woman because she was wearing a veil says he is delighted to have returned to sit on the bench.

Ian Murray, of Bath Crescent, Cheadle Hulme, was back at Manchester Crown Court last week following an absence of more than six months. But he says the furore surrounding his decision to walk out when faced with niqab-wearing Zoobia Hussain – who subsequently complained – has not diminished his appetite to be part of the judicial process.

He is currently awaiting the outcome of his own complaint over the treatment he received during a probe into his actions, which resulted in a formal reprimand and training on “appropriate judicial guidelines”.

Stockport Express, 20 February 2008

It’s all very well to be sensitive to Islam, but …

“There may no longer be much in the way of ideological enthusiasm for what can be described as multiculturalism. But in practice it gathers pace anyway, and there remains an unwillingness to take even a normative stance against it. Tony Blair may have declared that he considered the veil to be ‘a sign of separation’. But there is little sign of any appetite for issuing any formal guidance that might suggest that such dress is not in keeping with the values and aspirations of modern British life.”

Deborah Orr in the Independent, 13 February 2008

Orr’s sentiments are enthusiastically endorsed by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

No blanket niqab ban: Holland

THE HAGUE — In a retreat from the previous cabinet’s plan for a general ban, the Dutch government has said it would now impose a partial ban on niqab in the western European country. “Face coverings are undesirable in an open society, they hinder communication between people and undermine equal chances for men and women,” Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in statements cited Saturday, February 9, by Reuters.

He says the government will impose a face veil ban on its civil servants and in schools, and it will enter talks with public transport companies on adding a ban to their terms and conditions for passengers. The government wants clauses to the contracts of public employees forbidding them from wearing face-covering garments.

The cabinet has decided against a broad ban on niqab in public as that would violate the principle of freedom of religion. “Wearing Islamic face-covering veils is an expression of religion and freedom of religion can only be infringed in very special and specific circumstances,” Internal Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst said in a statement cited by Agence France-Presse (AFP).

If the talks with other bodies like private transport companies fail, the cabinet can always introduce enforcement regulations, the minister said.

Shortly before being voted out of office, the previous centre-right Dutch government proposed a complete ban on niqab in public, citing security concerns. A new centrist coalition government of Christian Democrats, Labour and the Christian Union came into power in February 2007 and has taken a more conciliatory line on immigration.

Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders — who has angered Muslims with his fierce criticism of Islam — called the government’s reported retreat “very disappointing and cowardly”, according to the Dutch news agency ANP. Wilders sent a bill to parliament last July proposing a ban on niqab in public.

Islam Online, 9 February 2008