Rose Hamid could have been no more pacifist than handing out pens at a Republican rally in Washington DC. Inscribed was the word “Salam” meaning peace. Not exactly an act of hostility. But she was wearing hijab and was, therefore, evicted from the premises even as Donald Trump did nothing to stop it.
This is the second time it has happened and the hijab in the West has now become not only a garb of controversy but also a matter of adverse legislation. In some parts of Russia it is already banned.
While the European Union seems to be collectively ensuring that the burqa or veil is being prohibited under the canopy of speeding up integration, few would argue that it is also being done because the western mind harbors a distinct suspicion of the garb as indicative of something in the realm of a disguise.
The euphemistic use of integration to stop its wearing in schools, universities and the workplace is likely to pass what with Germany also joining the naysayers.
Thing is what next? The hijab could also come under the same umbrella as a practice, which indicates no interest in “integration” and this could be followed by beard.
One does not integrate by legislation or by dress. Integration into society is a matter of the mindset and in a polyglot society acceptance of each other’s customs and traditions can actually strengthen the social fabric if the approach is not destructive.
And it is people like Trump who will give this sort of negative imaging credibility if they come to power. If his staff can ask a woman doing nothing but preaching peace through gifts be shown the door how much worse will be if he does become the president.
In fact the more one underscores the differences in tradition and makes them into issues the deeper the divide. In Germany, for example, the government confesses that the burqa is not a common sight. Since that is the case why impose ban on it in specific places and make it such a priority that it has to be debated as a “preventive” legal fiat at the highest levels of the government. Why generate resentment when there is no real cause for it.
If the far-right in the Christian Union bloc has its way they would ban the veil entirely. Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel who has been the vanguard in the effort to help the stream of refugees has come out in favor of limited bans. And while she has officially rejected any connect between the refugees and terrorism it is difficult not to connect all such steps as stemming from a fear that is perpetuated by denial.
This is the second time it has happened and the hijab in the West has now become not only a garb of controversy but also a matter of adverse legislation. In some parts of Russia it is already banned.
While the European Union seems to be collectively ensuring that the burqa or veil is being prohibited under the canopy of speeding up integration, few would argue that it is also being done because the western mind harbors a distinct suspicion of the garb as indicative of something in the realm of a disguise.
The euphemistic use of integration to stop its wearing in schools, universities and the workplace is likely to pass what with Germany also joining the naysayers.
Thing is what next? The hijab could also come under the same umbrella as a practice, which indicates no interest in “integration” and this could be followed by beard.
One does not integrate by legislation or by dress. Integration into society is a matter of the mindset and in a polyglot society acceptance of each other’s customs and traditions can actually strengthen the social fabric if the approach is not destructive.
And it is people like Trump who will give this sort of negative imaging credibility if they come to power. If his staff can ask a woman doing nothing but preaching peace through gifts be shown the door how much worse will be if he does become the president.
In fact the more one underscores the differences in tradition and makes them into issues the deeper the divide. In Germany, for example, the government confesses that the burqa is not a common sight. Since that is the case why impose ban on it in specific places and make it such a priority that it has to be debated as a “preventive” legal fiat at the highest levels of the government. Why generate resentment when there is no real cause for it.
If the far-right in the Christian Union bloc has its way they would ban the veil entirely. Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel who has been the vanguard in the effort to help the stream of refugees has come out in favor of limited bans. And while she has officially rejected any connect between the refugees and terrorism it is difficult not to connect all such steps as stemming from a fear that is perpetuated by denial.
