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

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