Thanks for the unworthy honor, Myrtus... I'll reciprocate the courtesy, in English furthermore. For those who haven't followed the prior exchange, it's all here.

I didn't intend any offence when I ascribed you feminist opinions which you apparently do not hold. Nor do I see feminism as favoring the superiority of one gender above the other, but this is hardly the point.

My main point is that the decision on wearing or not wearing the hijab should not be made by an employer, a husband, the legislator or a judge, but by each individual woman. In other terms, I am against compulsion when it comes to the headgear a woman wants to wear or not. I am at a loss to understand how this can be made into the political test so many opponents to the hijab, and some of its proponents, want it to be - it is an everyday decision made by a woman and with no direct bearing on her political views.

I can back up that last assertion. As you may know, the last Moroccan elections, however flawed they were, had 30 our of 325 seats reserved for women (the so-called national list) - to which we should add the four meritorious female candidates who got elected in competition with men in the local constituencies. All Moroccan parties taking part in the elections thus presented a national list of 30 women. The electoral leaflets provide us with the photographs and the names of those female candidates. All major parties, including the islamist PJD, the moderately secular USFP and the far-left PSU, presented both covered and uncovered female candidates, thus reflecting the diversity of Morocco's women.

The argument you make about the headscarf being a political symbol is thus wrong, in my opinion, and certainly it cannot be backed up by facts (a survey would be needed for that purpose), but only by ideological prejudice. But even were it to be true, I fail to see how this could be taken to support a ban on the headscarf. Because if wearing a headscarf is considered as a political statement - an interpretation I strongly refute - then logically not wearing a headscarf should be regarded as a political symbol as well, stating the opposite of whatever the headscarf is supposed to represent in political terms. Unless you're prepared to run a political system imposing an ideology on people - as the French, the Turks, the Iranians and the Saudis do - I fail to see how you could simultaneously ban one non-violent political symbol and tolerate, no, impose the opposite symbol (i.e. no headscarf) on women, all the while pretending to maintain the principles of fairness and equity which distinguish liberal democracies from other less desirable political systems.

It is ironically those very vocally opposed to the hijab - in France, Turkey or other countries, discussing or imposing a ban on wearing the hijab in some instances - who have thus contributed to make a political issue out of some women's headgear. It is also ironic how many opportunistic crusaders for women's lib have jumped on the headscarf issue, while being largely apathetic on gender issues closer to home. Even more ironic is the fact that the uncompromising stance of these latecomers runs contrary to what vocal defenders of women's rights in countries where women's headgear is regulated by law (I'm not hinting at France or Turkey here...) have to say about the state mingling with what women choose to wear or not to wear on their head. Take Shirin Ebadi for instance, the Iranian lawyer who became the first Muslim woman to win Nobel's peace prize (in 2003): she doesn't wear the headscarf unless compelled to by Iranian's oppressive laws, and wise from her experience, has also vocally opposed France's ban on wearing the hijab at school, stating the obvious: " i[it should be left to Muslim women everywhere to decide whether they wanted to cover their heads]i ". Another Iranian feminist, the renowned cartoonist Marjane Satrapi, a francophone secular woman who doesn't wear the headscarf, has also opposed the French ban on the hijab at school, underlining the similarity between those who want to impose hijab on women and those who want to ban it:

Marjane Satrapi : Je vais répondre autrement. Le voile en lui-même n'est pas un problème. La fixation qu'on a faite sur le voile de la femme iranienne a masqué le vrai problème de l'Iran, qui est le problème des droits de l'homme. Je pose cette question : si demain la femme iranienne enlevait son voile, l'Iran deviendrait-il un pays démocratique ? La réponse est non. Par contre, si on a la liberté d'expression et de pensée, toute personne qui n'aura pas envie de porter le voile pourra ne pas le porter. Je ne suis absolument pas quelqu'un de religieux, mais je ne suis pas dans la tête de quelqu'un qui est religieux. Si les gens ont envie de porter le voile ou le tchador ou se couvrir de la tête aux pieds, et s'ils sont contents comme ça, et qu'ils ne m'obligent pas à faire comme eux, je m'en fous, ce n'est pas mon problème. Qu'ils les portent. Quand je vivais en Iran, j'avais une copine très religieuse, très voilée (on ne pouvait pas voir une mèche de ses cheveux) et je lui demandais tout le temps : pourquoi te voiles-tu comme ça ? Elle me répondait : je ne te demande jamais pourquoi tu portes des minijupes, alors laisse-moi vivre. Si les gens sont contents avec leur pratique religieuse et qu'ils ne sont pas agressifs vis-à-vis des autres, je ne vois pas où est le problème.

Loosely translated:

I'll address your question differently. The headscarf in itself isn't a problem. The obsession with Iranian women's headscarf masks Iran's true problem, which is the lack of human rights. Let me ask you: if Iranian women were to uncover themselves, would that fact alone make Iran a democratic country? The answer is no. However, if freddom of expression and freedom of thought are guaranteed, then everyone who doesn't want to wear a headscarf will be free not to wear one. I'm absolutely not religious, but I put myself in the head of someone who is. If people want to wear a headscarf or a chador or cover themselves from head to toe, and if they are happy with it, and do not compel me to dress like them, I don't give a damn, it's not my problem. Let them wear it. When I lived in Iran, I had a very religious friend, wearing a tight veil (you couldn't catch a glimpse of her hair) and I always asked her: why do you wear your veil like that? She replied: I never ask you why you wear miniskirts, so let me live my own life. If people are happy with their religious practice and are not aggressive towards others, I don't see where the problem is.

Neither do I.

By the way, the picture you show and your comments conflate the niqab with the hijab - you really shouldn't, if you intend to make a rational contribution to the debate. The hijab is an ordinary headcloth in most muslim countries (let us put aside Iran and Saudi Arabia, which do what many opponents of the hijab advocate, i.e. legally impose a dress-code on women), while the niqab definitely isn't. Wearing the hijab for the average muslim - or rather Moroccan muslim, as I know that country best - usually simply means that according to your understanding of religion, this is the proper thing to do. Wearing the niqab means either you're an extremist, or you're unlucky enough to be married to one - in any way, it certainly isn't considered as a normal thing to wear by Muslim society at large.

PS: If you read French, you'll find many worthwile reflections on the banning of the veil at Les mots sont importants, a grouping launched by Pierre Tévanian and Sylvie Tissot, among others.