The fact that someone as insightful and intelligent as Anne Applebaum has written such a awful piece about the headscarf issue in Turkey tells us something. Western liberals like Applebaum (and most readers of Slate) sympathise with Turkish secularists like Zeyno Baran -- and somehow these sympathies turn their brains to mush.

To argue in favor of the headscarf ban one needs to come up with a very strong argument as to why:

(1) a democratically elected government shouldn't be able to follow through on an openly stated intention to change a law that was originally introduced in the 1980s by a post-coup government appointed by the military;

(2) women shouldn't be able to dress how they want, where they want;

(3) women who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs should be denied access to higher education.

Maybe there is a powerful argument in favor of the headscarf ban that overrides these concerns for democracy, liberty, and access to education. Since I sympathise with Turkish secularists too, I wish there were. But Applebaum doesn't have one, and in her efforts to find one she ends up in a complete mess, saying that the headscarf ban is justified because a headscarf is a political symbol . . . not really the sort of argument one typically hears from people who generally support democratic norms.

What I would love to see is for Applebaum to think a bit harder, take some more time, and try again.