Hi,
This is Shakira Hussein, coming belatedly to this forum. I've been preoccupied by a family health crisis.
On a personal note, the SMH article (which was based on a telephone interview) contains a few errors - eg, my mother is taken aback at being described as Pakistani (my father is Pakistani, my mother is Australian). And I studied Urdu at university, rather than learning it from family. I'm pretty sure that I would not have mis-stated my mother's country of origin, and a lot of the other quotes don't really sound like me, so I wouldn't read this article as a too literal account of my views.
On the lines cited by Kees Bukhuyzen - media quotes of verbal interviews are seldom exact, having been edited so as to read more clearly in print. I don't expect to be quoted word for word in such circumstances. But my thoughts are more complicated than the quote in the SMH would suggest. To clarify: my fieldwork was in part with Pakistani Islamist women. One of the aspects of my discussions with them that struck me most forcefully was how these women - who believe that women in Muslim countries should be legally compelled to cover their hair - cite "hijab debates" in the West to support their arguments: Muslim women in the West are having to fight for the right to wear hijab, so Muslim women in Muslim countries should feel fortunate to have governments who encourage/mandate hijab. This is not the view of all Pakistani women, only of these particular women. And it is not a view that I endorse. I am troubled by the fact that when Muslim women in Western countries legitimately defend their choice to wear hijab, their voices are appropriated by those who don't believe in choice at all.
As I recall, the quote cited by Kees Bakhuyzen is based on a reference to Pakistani Islamist women in particular, not Pakistani women in general. I have written elsewhere at greater length about Muslim women in both Pakistan and Australia.
Shakira Hussein

Hi anarkali

<<I have written elsewhere at greater length about Muslim women in both Pakistan and Australia.>>

Are your articles available in the internet? Links please?

@ Shakira Hussein: Thanks for your comments and explanation. Looking forward to read more of your articles in this and other discussions - Kees Bakhuyzen

I would like to take issue with those who applaud France for being a wonderful model of secularism for banning the wearing of religious symbols. This was a knee jerk reaction from France, a country that doesn't know how to deal with its own religious mix.

A truly secular country would not see the need to ban what people wear, which is a part of our freedom of expression. This is not a true act of secularism, as they are really just applying and reinforcing another religion, that of atheism.

Turkey is possibly falling into the same trap. I hear that Turkey is banning female university students who want to study wearing head dress.

True secularism should be able to see past what people wear or don't wear. Australia is a better example of secularism than France, in that we haven't got our knickers in such a knot about such things (at least at the legal level).

Dan S de Merengue said "This is not a true act of secularism, as they are really just applying and reinforcing another religion, that of atheism."

Sigh.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to (seemingly) intelligent people that atheism is not a religion? It is the absence of religion. It is the absence of "faith" - belief in the undemonstrable. The French know from a hard fought revolutionary war, how dangerous unfettered monarchy/theocracy are. Good luck to them in their campaign to prevent religious symbols being used to drive a wedge between citizens, whose first allegiance after all, SHOULD be to harmonious co-existence with their fellow citizens and the laws that govern all equally - NOT to the supernatural figment of their imagination's choice.

stickman, you say -

<atheism is not a religion>

Supposing that’s right, according to a God-focused definition, perhaps that’s not the point. Atheism is still a belief, even if atheists don’t agree about anything else. And it’s still a belief that can be imposed. A belief that is now immersed in its own litany – “delusion”, “evidence”, “reason” etc. And, as we’ve discovered in recent times, a belief that can be accompanied by contempt for theists, or “religionists”. Further, as much of the 20th century showed, once atheism gets caught up in an ideology, it can be just as dangerous as anything else: we all saw that ditching God didn’t make ideology safe.

So, supposing you’re right and it’s not a religion, so what? Why not respond to the real point, which is that (arguably) what France is doing is to impose atheism (whether it’s a “religion” or not). One of the mistakes atheists make is to think they are somehow neutral. Many of us used to agree, but I think the strident arrogance of many new atheists has cured us all of this delusion. I’m not referring to you here: your posts seem quite moderate in temperature.

I wonder if France would ban an atheist symbol, if one emerged from current discourse – eg a symbol based on evolution from ape to man. If they did, then they would be truly secular. Perhaps they will.

Pax,