{"id":10031,"date":"2022-10-06T17:57:45","date_gmt":"2022-10-06T14:57:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=10031"},"modified":"2022-10-06T17:57:46","modified_gmt":"2022-10-06T14:57:46","slug":"liberalism-against-the-hijab","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=10031","title":{"rendered":"Liberalism against the Hijab"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The reasonable but persuasively simplistic slogan that “women should choose what they wear” stumbles on a vital detail: there is no choice without freedom, no freedom without alternative choice. If the dilemma is hijab or violence (direct or indirect, psychological or physical) it is not a dilemma but a trap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate over whether there is any environment out there in which the hijab is a free choice, a choice that is preferable to the free choice to discard the hijab without prohibitive costs, can drag on. Some, for example, believe that enforcement is only direct enforcement. In their opinion, family pressure, psychological blackmail, abusive tradition and communalism as indirect parameters of enforcement should not count as a violation of self-determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s assume, as things really are, that there are women who voluntarily choose to spend their lives wrapped in the hijab: what does it matter? How is it related to current affairs? Mahsha Amini was murdered because she was not covered properly. If she freely chose her Hijab, did she also choose her murder? Did she agree to be killed if the symbol of her faith was not properly encased? Progressivism for progressivism’s sake and virtue signaling often tend to distort the topic of discussion: instead of talking about the girl who perished for not properly submitting to the hijab, we talk about the right of those not yet perished to continue to they voluntarily submit.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Is it a contradiction to defend in the West the right to the hijab, while at the same time expressing solidarity with the women of Iran who are risking their lives to shake it off? No, there is no contradiction, because in both cases we support the right to free choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We support the right to free choice in what we wear because it leads to a better society, not because we like all the possible clothing choices that make up the mosaic of our societies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tolerance of the use of symbols in your costume (be they religious, national or fan symbols) is not based on our agreement with them or recognition of majority acceptance. It is based on the belief that everyone has the right to choose their image. As long as it does not limit the freedom of the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument that the hijab in the West symbolizes a divisive attitude because it separates the women who adopt it from the majority of the rest also applies in reverse to theocratic societies: Relaxing the hijab, like abandoning it, is a resounding choice of “separation” – and he does well. The dancing triple twirl of the woman in white before throwing her hijab into the fire was one of the most beautiful images that will be remembered for a long time. It means courage, confidence, grace.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Banning one symbol in societies that allow almost all ideas is much louder than another ban in societies that ban almost everything. It risks creating a idiosyncratic “heroism-resistance” that will reinforce\u2014rather than weaken\u2014oppressive symbols. By banning the hijab, we exclude women who wear it from both education and public space: we exclude them from the heavy artillery of our civilization’s conquests. How smart can that be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s worth thinking about whether the rush to collectively express our distaste for the hijab and those who wear it actually also attempts a shallow (and dangerous) instrumentalization of difference: we quickly construct an “us” of superiority to hide our many differences. which we did not dare to recognize and discuss. Thus we create a tentative common identity through exclusion. Often, as the experience of countries that have discussed and implemented banning the hijab has shown, the next step is triggered, namely attacks of indiscriminate violence against women who wear the hijab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, by banning the hijab in the West, we are not showing our cultural superiority or unwavering commitment to the principles of free choice. We show sad defeatism, because it’s like saying: “you don’t show an attitude of tolerance and respect for diversity because you force women to cover their hair. Now you will see what we will do to you. We will also abandon the values \u200b\u200bof tolerance and respect for the free choices and we will become exactly like you!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Religion is a personal matter. How a woman approaches the divine is about her and God, not whether she wears a hijab.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The reasonable but persuasively simplistic slogan that “women should choose what they wear” stumbles on a vital detail: there is no choice without freedom,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10032,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[821,390],"tags":[3737,160,1259,3736],"class_list":["post-10031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asia","category-politics","tag-hijab","tag-iran","tag-liberalism","tag-mahsha-amini"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10031"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10036,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10031\/revisions\/10036"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}