1 Rights: Does government have a right to ban wearing the hijab?
Yes Religious freedom has limits; head scarves are outside of protections Religious freedom has some obvious limits. Religiously-endorsed death-by-stoning, for instance, does not receive the protection of freedom of religion in secular democracies. Therefore, it need only be determined that head scarves are inappropriate andsocially harmful in order for it to be banned. Indeed, head scarves are an oppressive, undemocratic, and socially harmful symbol that should not, therefore, receive the protection of « freedom of religion ». Wearing head scarves is unlike religious extremes such as stonings Christina Duval. « Banning the hijab. Against the ban, for secularism. » Workers Power. Feb 2004 – « In justifying the former, [Rumy]Head scarves are not fundamental to Muslims expressing their faith. Head scarves are not an essential element of the Islamic faith and the connection between believers and their God. In fact, the Quran does not explicitly call for the wearing of veils. Veils are, rather, a cultural expression in the Islamic community. A ban on veils, therefore, does not fundamentally restrict the freedom ofreligion of Muslims. makes the error of rolling together the headscarf issue with religious practices that socialists unequivocally call for the banning of: such as death by stoning for sex outside marriage or clitoridectomy[…]Such practices are clearly examples of savage and cruel religious oppression and are imposed on the women involved. Socialists think donning the headscarf is wrong, since itis a symbol of Islam’s oppression of women, but adopting the symbols No A head scarf ban violates the right to freedom of religion and expression Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in 2004: « The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religiousobligation. »[1]

Banning head scarves upholds equal treatment and opportunity Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently than others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm theunity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. Muslim women opposition to veils is not adequately represented Leslie Cannold. « For equality, ban the hijab in public schools ». The Age. August 31, 2005 – « It is largely Muslim men who are insisting that « their » girls and young women will be upset, concerned or made fearful bythe banning of the hijab from public schools. But given such leaders are rarely democratically elected, little less by a voting base that includes women, how can we know whose interests they really represent? »

and practices of oppression (even if due to family and cultural pressure) is clearly not in the same category as being physically damaged or attacked in the name of religion. » Wearinghead scarves does no harm and violates nobody’s rights « France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious Freedom ». Human Rights Watch. February 27th, 2004 – « Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function(such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses—which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited—do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s…