I don’t care whether Muslim schoolgirls wear headscarves or not. Nor do I care if they want to look different from the majority and stand out like sore thumbs. Mrs. Bishop is not trying to marginalize them; they are already marginalizing themselves.

And, despite what Arabs and Malays call headscarves in their own language, here they are headscarves in OUR language

As usual Ms Bishop is attempting to keep herself in the news - as usual not for a worthy cause.

This makes her very much a typical politician. She is trying to harness a cause to boost her own ego.

As she used to have so much potential - what 25 years ago - her Lady Astor like protestations continue to be sad. She can seize the trivial from the jaws of need.

While other countries have had female politicians who can stand on their own two feet eg Thatcher and currently Helen Clark, we've had a pretty sad run - sadly Ms Vanstone appears to be the best at the moment...

So Irfan, your prose provide hope and don't let some very ordinary politicians distract you.

Regulating what people can wear is just silly. I remember once getting all indignant about arab women "opressing themselves by wearing chadors", when someone pointed out to me that really, if thats what you're used to, thats what you wear. They said "how would you like it if someone said you could not wear jeans?"

Also, why is the talk of "muslim headscarves"? many people wear scarves around their head, necks, etc. It seems particuarly fashionable amoung older women from Greek and Italian backgrounds. My young cousin of Anglo-Aussie background wears thin scarves as brightly coloured head-bands to keep her hair back and accessorise her outfit! Despite my Anglo-Aussie background I've wrapped a scarf around my head and neck, "muslim style" when it was windy and cold... what is the big deal? Is a scarf only offensive if you happen to have darker skin and worship god in a temple with a cresent on a minaret?

Irfan is correct on this one. Bronwyn and Sophie might have backed the wrong horse on this issue hoping it would be a rallying point. So for as an issue it is hopefully witheirng on the vine and will continue to do so.
What did alarm me however was John Howards qualified defence of those who elect to wear the hijab - he only decried a ban becuase it was not practical to implement; you got to figure if he could over come those practical barriers he'd be all for it based on his form to date.

And as for what we call that which muslim women wear on their heads Leigh seems concerned the sanctity of OUR language is under some sort of threat. What would he suggest we call a croissant, or a foccacia or a baguette or a volkswagon or a kindergarten - all these are words with roots in foriegn languages that we've adopted quite happily

Sneekeepete,

croissant - roll or bun
focaccia (note spelling) - bread according to ingredients
baguette - bread or loaf
VolkswagEn (note spelling)- brand name, not a common noun, same world-wide.

There is another aspect to this issue which does not seem to get any airing. I'm interested in opinions on this one and playing devils advocate a bit.

- Why should people get an exemption to rules which apply to others based on a religious belief (as opposed to other beliefs)?

Most kids at school are required to conform to certain dress/grooming standards. They wear a particular uniform, can't wear certain items, have limits on what they can do with their hair etc. I can see both sides of the arguments for and against this.

Is there a valid reason why a child should not be able to wear a mohawk haircut to school (assuming that is culturally significant in their family) and another can wear a headcovering because it has religious significance to the childs family?

In the adult world why should one employee be expected to dress to a cultural norm (long pants, long sleeve business shirt, tie etc and another wear clothing quite out of keeping with that standard)?

Why should a religious activity get exemptions from taxes, rates etc and other activities not get exemptions?

R0bert