I'm a 31 year old American expat living in Oslo, Norway, with my bulldog, Ada, and my husband, Johannes. My interests include interaction design, especially information architecture, philosophy of mind and ethics, cognitive psychology, sociobiology, feminism, yoga, fat acceptance, knitting, pottery, and cooking.More on the Hijab issue
Aftenposten had a good editorial by Zakaria Saaliti about double-standards in the current debate about whether or not women in the police force should be allowed to wear the hijab. For those who don’t read Norwegian, the main points were:
- Those against allowing police to wear the hijab claim that the hijab is a tool for repression. If Norwegian society forbids the hijab in the police force, then it’s Norwegian society, rather than Muslim men, that is repressing Muslim women.
- Those against allowing police to wear the hijab claim that this could lead to violence. This is analogous to the argument that women who wear provocative clothing are responsible for any sexual harassment or violence they experience. Based on this argumentation, the caricatures of Mohammed that caused such an uproar in 2006 should never have been printed for fear of how Muslims would react.
- Society looks to examples from other countries only when those examples support its views, in this case ignoring the examples set by Swedish, British, Australian, and American society. Women have likewise had the right to wear the hijab in the military in Norway for two decades with no negative results.
- Norwegian society ostensibly wants its police force to mirror its population, yet excludes a large demographic by forbidding the use of the hijab by its police force. This is especially ridiculous given that the police have long had problems with recruiting immigrants, and female immigrants in particular.
Another paradoxical argument I’d personally like to illuminate is that the hijab will prevent women from performing the duties required of a police officer, for example potentially making it difficult for them to enter mosques. While it’s possible that this is the case, I’d say that the potential negatives are far outweighed by the potential positives, not the least of which is that Muslim women would feel much more comfortable asking a hijab-clad police officer for help than they would any other officer. Given that this is a group particularly at risk for violence, that’s a benefit society should be loath to dismiss.
Saaliti concludes his editorial by stating that the signal Norwegian society sends to immigrants is that if we want to participate in Norwegian society, we have to look like Norwegians, think like Norwegians, and act like Norwegians–Norwegian society’s claim that it is pro-integration is in reality only lip service. Even though I primarily get a pass on these issues given that I don’t look so different from ethnic Norwegians and come from another Western country, I frequently experience the feeling that Norwegian society’s self-proclaimed goal of integration is merely dissemblance. I can’t imagine how infuriating it must be for hijabis, the very women who are informed by seemingly well-intentioned Norwegians that they are subjugated by Muslim men and Muslim society, to experience an analogous form of subjugation at the hands of their would-be liberators. I’m far from a moral relativist, but this kind of self-righteous paternalism perpetrated by Norwegian society towards groups they perceive to be less morally enlightened than themselves has got to stop.
Hey Sarah, in case you’re wondering, I am actually reading your blog!
Thanks for sharing these issues. I agree that the cultural conformity argument is groundless, but I think that an argument might successfully be made against the practicality of any head clothing that interferes with one’s peripheral vision or one’s ability to move quickly in an emergency.
Hi, Carl! Cool to see you here.
I totally agree with you—that women wearing the hijab are just as able to perform their duties as women not wearing it is the most important caveat. Aftenposten reported today about a politician who thinks that if the hijab should be forbidden because it is a cultural symbol, then a particular kind of rain hat should be forbidden for the same reason. When I first saw the picture attached to the article, I’d figured that the politician felt that those rain hats should be forbidden for just the reasons you cite as problematic about the hijab. That’s the very reason I’m not fond of hoods or hats, even in inclement weather. But perhaps it’s an acceptable exception in the case of rain hats because they’re purely functional? I don’t have any cultural associations with them, personally, but then, I’m from the West, and we seldom have cultural associations with stuff from our own cultures. 
Ah, let me correct that, since there is no image with the article. I didn’t know what a “sydvest” was, actually, so I looked it up on Google Images. This is the kind of hat they’re talking about:
Hi, Sarah
I suppose this discussion has been rather hard to ignore, seeing as the media seem to really enjoy it.
I don’t initially support the suggestion to allow women wearing hijab while wearing a uniform. In the same way that I would not support a suggestion allowing a police officer wearing political buttons, kippah, turban, cowboy boots, cowboy hats, fur hats, čiehgahpir (the Sami four-pointed hat), lederhosen or pink bunny slippers.
The way I see it, it has nothing to do with religion and culture, but with a uniform being just that.
I have absolutely no objections to women wearing hijab when they’re in civilian clothing, of course, but I think that whenever you’re required to wear a uniform, the same rules on what you’re permitted to wear should apply to everyone.
–
Ina
I’ve had this discussion with several Norwegians I respect, and their arguments have been similar to yours, Ina. What’s interesting is how those arguments differ from my perspective. I don’t see the job of police officers as “representing the state”, as others have put it–I think their job is to keep people safe. I think a uniform helps to serve that purpose by identifying clearly the people who have been hired to do that job. So it seems to me that by prohibiting a woman from wearing a hijab from taking a job as a policewoman, the government is making a statement about who is capable of keeping people safe, and I find that really offensive.
Hi, Sarah,
Well, to me, it is more the principle of things.
If a certain position has restrictions or rules regarding uniforms, I am sceptical to changing those rules for certain groups of people, especially when it happens in the way that was attempted in this case.
If wearing a hijab is not against those rules, then I have no problems with it. If it is, I believe it is important to find out whether or not it would be a problem to change the rules to allow it. However, I also think it is important to make sure that this is not a political decision made by one single politician (or his aides), because changings those rules might have unexpected consequences.
It would be wrong to add to the rules a specific rule that allows using hijab, while not considering other similar wishes from other groups. That would, in my opinion, be discrimination. For instance, consider the kippah. I suspect that the entire debate in the Norwegian media would be completely different if, say, a male Jew had expressed a wish to be able to wear kippah with his police uniform. But technically, there are no differences between those two; both are used to cover the hair (well, I guess the hijab can cover a lot more than that, but I am assuming we are still just discussing the headscarf
), and both are by some considered to be religious statements, though they are not necessarily that.
It has, in my opinion at least, nothing to do with whether or not someone is more or less capable depending on what they wear, but with following the rules for that specific profession.
In other words, what is needed is not some political decision that one single group should get a dispensation from the uniform rules, but rather a discussion, also involving the people who are currently working in the police, on whether the rules need an update and be made more inclusive.
My point here is, the government is not actively prohibiting a woman wearing a hijab from taking a job as a policewoman. But with today’s regulations, with regards to the uniforms, she cannot wear a hijab while in uniform. The rules say clearly that civilian clothing should not be used visibly together with the uniform. This is a general rule, and not something meant to stop any single groups from applying to a position.
For that matter, there are also rules against wearing visible neck ornaments and other ornaments ‘attached to the body’, though small ear piercings are permitted, on how to wear your hair, rules for beards, and it is not permitted to use hairbands, for instance.
There are also rules on how to handle suggested changes to these rules. From what I understand, there is a group whose responsibility it is to look at suggested changes, and then forward the suggestion together with their comment to the Police Directorate.
So, maybe the rules need an update, but I do not consider it disrespectful to any group of people to say that until these rules are changed, the current rules apply, and if someone wants the rules changed, he or she should do this in the correct manner. The decision lies with the Police Directorate, and after that, with the Department of Justice. However, having someone in the office of the Minister of Justice send out a statement that these rules have been changed, without consulting neither the Police Directorate nor the Department of Justice does not, to me, seem like the correct way of doing it.
In other words: If this is done through the proper channels, involving the involved groups, and the ones whose responsibility it is to deal with these decisions decide to allow it, I do not have a problem with it. What I _do_ have a problem with is that a politician decides on his own to micro-manage a profession, without involving the groups that usually handle it.
I also believe the media have been handling these issues badly. They are turning this into a debate over religion (regardless of whether or not a hijab is really a religious clothing). The problem with that is that when/if the debate now is raised on a more general basis, people will still think of the hijab debate, and possibly let their feelings concerning that case colour their arguments and opinions of the broader issue.
The debate _should_ have been whether or not to change the rules for the police uniforms, to allow a certain level of personal customisation.
–
Ina
Aaah…well, I can totally agree with everything you say there, then. This issue was most definitely handled poorly by both the press and the politician (can’t remember his name). Using the proper channels legitimizes the change in rules, if any. Giving special dispensation to a particular subgroup is only going to stir up ire, and justly.