Big Pharaoh has a very amusing, witty post about his reaction to the case of a Muslim woman in Britain who won the right to wear the Jilbab — a traditional Muslim gown.
Miss Begum, whose parents are both dead, had worn a regulation shalwar kameez (trousers and tunic) until September 2002 when she informed the school authorities she intended to wear a full-length gown called a jilbab.
Speaking outside court Miss Begum, who now attends a school where the jilbab is allowed, said Denbigh High School’s action could not be viewed merely as a local decision taken in isolation. "Rather it was a consequence of an atmosphere that has been created in Western societies post 9/11, an atmosphere in which Islam has been made a target for vilification in the name of the ‘war on terror’," she said.
"It is amazing that in the so-called free world I have to fight to wear this attire."
Source: [BBC]
Meanwhile, Subzero Blue (MMM) has a totally different point of view. I read and thought about both of their perspectives and I must say that I found Big Pharaoh more convincing; no hard feelings MMM 😉
Well I think that Pharaoh is headed in that direction, Arash. He just gets tripped up in the sarcasm of the moment. He is in essence saying that the problem is declaring that “my religion dictates this” is a flawed argument because religions could theoretically dictate anything.
Eman and MMM bring into play the idea of “respect.” Eman says:
There is a flaw in this idea as well. That being that Eman goes on to say what “she” believes, what she thinks upsets the social order. And that is really the issue there. Society makes the rules over time. In the case of Begum perhaps a new wrinkle has been created that will allow for greater religious freedom in the schools. But perhaps not.
Society in the end dictates and in its amorphous largess it is unknown what that future might be. The nudist example could, one day, be closer to truth than we could imagine now. But the point is that how we feel personally is not at issue. What was at issue was the rules.
I don’t know if this is true, but I would bet that no one is trying to suggest Ms. Begum cannot wear jilbab outside the school. They are saying that the rules of this particular school say you must wear the school uniform, as I understand it. So personal choice has been taken away for reasons the school has deemed necessary. Now when anyone decides to attend this particular school, they are made aware of this fact and they have the choice to accept it and attend or to go elsewhere.
Also, it would be wise to remember that what goes in the school does not represent what goes on in society at large. Sometimes freedoms are curtailed in the name of school order. This is accepted as children are not regarded as members of society in the same sense as adults, for good or bad. I believe uniforms got their start this way.
The politics of dress are strong amongst the young, as we may all recall. Putting students in uniform dress alleviates a distraction from learning, or so the thinking goes.
I’m suggesting three things: 1) What we individually “believe” or regard as acceptable is not a usable standard for what society allows; society is ever-changing, however 2) The schoolhouse is not the same as the courthouse or the clubhouse. Things inside the school are, by necessity (most educators would say), a bit dulled in an effort to provide a good learning environment. 3) As Arash quite rightly suggests, if someone doesn’t agree with a particular school’s dress code they have the freedom to choose another school.
Now I can make arguments against these ideas. For example, one could suggest that the purpose of a challenge and case like this is to evolve society’s rules so that they better fit things today. The court is allowed to make that judgment, and, as the judge of society, it issues a ruling. In this case it favors Ms. Begum. If society as a whole endorses this idea, representatives introduce a law and if they can come to agreement that change then becomes the law of the land.
The problem here is that it is difficult to divine the standard the court used because of numbers 2 and 3 above. Why allow the disruption to this particular school when the rules were made clear in the beginning. The fear is that anyone who chooses to make such a fight ties up the court, time and money. And while it may be worth it to some segments of society, it is not worth it to all.
At the end of the day we establish rules to govern our society. They function on both a macro and micro level. When I go from one place to another, I realize that the rules I must follow change. I cannot carry a gun on the streets of Washington, D.C. even though I can do so on the streets of Richmond, Virginia. For society to function, I have to accept these rules.
If I don’t like the rules of a particular place I have several choices: 1) I can go there and break the rules and expect to face consequences. 2)I can go there and accept the rules and just deal with my unhappiness or 3) I can try to challenge the rules.
I suppose if my argument sways it’s that I’m torn on that last one. I want there to be an avenue for challenge so the rules can evolve. But at what limit and at what cost?!? Isn’t it a dangerous precedent to say that children should be allowed to challenge the dress code of their school? Wouldn’t that effort be better spent in educating those children, particularly when they arrive at the gate with a copy of the rules and an understanding of their purpose? One of the primary purposes of a school is to indoctrinate children with the importance of society and its rules.
I don’t think anyone should prevent an individual’s right to pursue their religion in their own way on their own time and in their own space. It does beg some questions, however:
These are difficult questions to answer in these troubling times. I’m just not sure that a young girl and her method of dress in the schoolhouse is the right forum to examine them.
Perhaps it just bothers me that I see the schoolhouse as a microcosm of multicultural society, where all have cast off their garments to become equal and uniform for the greater purpose of learning. And, if the school is not a religious school, then why should religion be brought to bear upon those attending? Isn’t a non-religious school that way to create a neutral ground upon which new and divergent ideas can be explored without prejudice?
I disagree. Pharaohs’s example doesn’t hold. It shouldn’t be problematic if people wanted to go about naked either, but just because that seems far-fetched doesn’t mean the opposite action is wrong.
However, if a school makes it clear in its contract that a certain uniform should be worn in school, and if other schools are available to a pupil, then Miss Begum should be content with being transfered to a facility that allows her to wear the jilbab.
http://aquacool.blogspot.com/2005/03/as-long-as-respectful.html
This is my opinion 🙂
Muslim Girl Wins School Dress Case
This is good news… A 16-year-old British Muslim girl has won the right to wear full Islamic dress at school. Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that Shabina Begum had been “unlawfully denied … the right to manifest her religion.”…
Of course not 🙂 Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
For example, I disagree with what Big Pharaoh wrote and you were convinced of. You shouldn’t have hard feelings about that either 😉
Anyway, I honestly believe any person is free to wear whatever they want wherever they want as long as it’s respectful.
It’s no one’s business but theirs.