Ms. Applebaum suggests a double standard about head scarves. Why of course head scarves suggest something about the political & social beliefs of the wearers. I imagine a nun's habit suggests a certain stance on abortion & sex ed after all! The problem with Turkey & France is that they lack a 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prevents issues like the head scarf from becoming a constitutional crisis like that faced in Turkey. The attempted constitutional coup in Turkey is no more than the tyranny of the elite over the popular will.

In this country faith competes in the marketplace of ideas, not the halls of parliament. Can you imagine if we banned crucifixes or the yarmulke? Or to Ms. Applebaum's direct point, what if we just banned Southern Baptists from expressing their faith because they believe that women should be subservient to men? While I don't believe such outlandishness I can't very well force my Southern Baptist friends to believe as I do.

Further, you can't validate bans on religious expression by asking non-believers. Why, of course, Sarkozy's government thinks the ban on head scarves was successful. He's not Muslim is he? Asking Sarkozy if the head scarf ban was good for France would have been like asking George Wallace if Jim Crow was good for the South. "It sure is!", he would've said!

France may not face the crisis today that Turkey faces over head scarves, but make no mistake there is a poor, French Arab teenager being indoctrinated by an opportunistic imam over the French government's "abuse and sullying" of good Muslim girls.

Ms. Applebaum's analysis of the situation suggests its ok to ban religion expression--and even political expression--with which we disagree. But she's right in that the head scarf suggests a specific political & social view. No doubt as long as observant Muslim women can't wear the head scarf in school, the head scarf will remain a potent political symbol--for them and their husbands.

This is not at all her argument. I read it as follows: Assume that most Muslim traditions tend to stifle women's self-reliance and accomplishments, or are otherwise unfair to women through the eyes of a secular Anglo-American observer. Then, a ban on headscarves is not so much a ban on religion, but a license to escape its dictates. It leaves women who would like not to wear a scarf the room to do so without facing negative consequences from fellow (especially male) students.

I'm not sure I agree with this argument, but it's not what other people are reading into the article.

But even that argument, which is not what the author wrote by the way, is completely backwards.

It essentially states "we believe some women may or may not want to remove their hijab (and that's what we want too), therefore we'll force all women, even those for whom it is an essential part of their identity, to do so". Fascist much?