Might this senseless tragedy have been prevented? Is the banning of ostentatious display of religion better?

Question

In Ontario yesterday a 16 year old girl was choked to death by her father apparently after a dispute over her refusal to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic headscarf worn by women. Her 26 year old brother is in custody for obstruction of justice:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071211/wl_canada_nm/canada_crime_hijab_ca_col;_ylt=ArmD9NTV6CphjsyWiTvPugdvaA8F
One poster observes:
"This tragic event illustrates the need to define the limits of reasonable accommodation for newcomers. The father & his obstructing son appear to have been forcing their Islamic traditions on [the daughter] for some time. Had society taken a stand and banned ostentatious religious clothing/jewellry from being worn in public schools for example as France has done...".

What do you think?

Kate - this is Canada calling. Rio - you failed to address the question; I say put the kids in school uniforms and nix the rest of it. Why shouldn't we do as the French have done?

This is SUPPOSED to be a secular society we're in.

Is too much freedom too much for religious zealots to handle? Should their rights be curtailed in order to preserve a greater public freedom, the freedom FROM religion?

'Selma Djukic, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, called it a case of domestic abuse.

"This is a tragedy. This another woman that has succumbed to domestic violence and we need to look at what kind of services are available to families who are immigrants and who are trying to make it in the Canadian framework," Djukic said.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_re_ca/canada_head_scarf_killing

Answer 1

Altercations between teenage children and their parents are quite common. This father killed his child, with the help of her brother because of the perception that women must obey the religious rules of dress and more importantly, because this girl essentially had no freedom of thought or behavior in her father's household. Religion should be separate from state.
Read no to the state's banning of religious garb.

But no child should be murdered over a difference of opinion. Many teenagers run away from home. Some are out of control and others are running from abuse. Some parents abandon their incorrigible children to group homes or boarding schools. Some children go to court and become emancipated. Most families compromise.

Might this have been prevented? We don't know what takes place inside a family's home. Obviously, this man had a murderous compulsion and he chose to execute his own daughter for defying him. There were other options, but he was beyond thinking of them and his daughter had no one to protect her. It isn't so much the fault of his religious views but the nature of his own character. No. If this girl had been able to seek outside help, she might still be alive.

I propose that children are offered a place to come within their schools and communities where they can go for aid and protection.
C. :)!!

Answer 2

Here is what I think.

What the father did was illegal. What the son did was also illegal, for different reasons. The newcomers failed to obey the law of the land. That is the most basic and most simple analysis.

To suggest that one ban religious attire to prevent a much more serious crime seems superficially logical, yet if as happened here, a father is prepared to commit one of the most heinous crimes that exists, I wonder if any other statute would really have prevented it.

The bans in France have not really been that successful. They have caused huge resentment, they have widened divisions and not closed them.

But then there is the broader point being raised, which is a separate point and should be treated separately and not conflated and that is - does forcing a woman to wear a Hijab against her will constitute a violation of her basic human rights. The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes".

I believe women should be allowed to dress as they please, whether that means a bikini or a Hijab. The imposition of the fathers will in this situation is actionable as a criminal offense, perhaps even a hate crime. What he did afterwards would should rightly be prosecuted as a religiously motivated hate crime, and the brother should incur the fullest penalty for obstructing justice.

My position would be to stand as advocate to the womans rights. What happened was the worst kind of familial abuse with predictably tragic consequences. It does not matter the motivations behind it, as it would not matter if it was a white atheist father who didn't like his daughter dressing in skimpy outfits with similar results.

Let us a civilized people draw a line that abuse is wrong, and that murder is wrong. That human rights cannot and should not be violated. That is enough.

Answer 3

veiling is a cultural tradition, not specifically Islamic. 60% of the worlds Muslims live in Indonesia and central Asia, and the vast majority of those women do not veil, and are rebuked for doing so. The idea of "Islamic" veiling is from Egypt in the 70's as a reaction to the secular government. It is held on to as a form of resistance against the western commodification of womens bodies.
banning these symbols only reinforces the feeling of an "oppressive west " that wants to destroy Islam and Islamic culture. France's ban was ONLY of the hijab. Christian girls could still wear crosses, and jewish girls could still wear the star of David. The "we are secular!" reasoning of France was nothing more than an excuse to pass value judgments on and discriminate against Muslims.

This case is a case of one man who did not respect the law and culture that he was in, and was deranged enough to commit a horrendous crime like this. forcing people not to wear something is not much different that forcing someone to wear something. The only difference is that instead of using "religion" as an excuse, "freedom" (and is it free if it is forced instead of chosen? i dont think so) can be used, and the effect is the same. freedom becomes cheapened and meaningless, just as religiosity has in places where it is used as an excuse to oppress. Just because it is oppression using values that you agree with does not make it any less oppressive.

Answer 4

Great link and a very interesting situation. Personally, I am always in favor of more freedoms and more rights. Child abuse will not be prevented by forcing people to conform to a certain secular appearance. You can't force your views on someone - religious beliefs are found on the inside, and no amount of "persuasion" is really going to change that.... as much as the Taliban, and apparently, you, hope otherwise.

This is not a "secular" society. It is one where the individual's right to free expression of religion is very dear to all of us. I say this as the daughter of an Agnostic and a Buddhist. The world you would hope to live in is one I would hate.

Answer 5

Contentious but interesting. At the time the french government was banning the wearing of religious apparel in schools in France (all religions, including xian), there was some comment by women that they approved of the new laws because 'enforcers' in some communities were harrassing girls and women who did not dress in ways that were 'approved'.

I do think people should be able to dress as they please, and certainly don't think anyone whould be able to TELL others how to dress, particularly for 'religious' reasons.

Should governments get involved ~ that's more problematic.

As long as the government prioritises the rights of parents over the rights of children, and religion prioritises public adherence as demonstrated by costuming ahead of the welfare of the individual, then I guess we'll never know if things could be different.

Cheers :-)

Answer 6

Sometimes I wish we could ban religion, since it's so often been used as an excuse for crazy and violent behavior. But I'm all for freedom, not repression. Since fathers and mothers find lots of reasons to kill their kids, I don't think banning displays of religion will make a lot of difference. We're stuck with go to jail, directly to jail, since there doesn't seem to be a shortage of crazy people, no matter what their religion is or lack of religion is.

Answer 7

Yes, this is SUPPOSED to be a secular society we live in. However, secular often times loses out to zealotry, stubbornness and any other label you want to give it, such as in the case of this young girl. Any country or society can do what they want, people are still going to do what they want.**Another thing I would like to say that girl's dad was bang out of order; he acted brashly; let's hope that his brashness has rendered soul his soul in half and that it will be his punishment; a punishment even more severe than what society will ever give him.

Answer 8

"....Had society taken a stand..." - Say what? Well, society has its chance now to set a precedent with these two idiots who believe slaughtering their own innocent and helpless child is better than letting her choose what clothes to wear. I swear, being in the sun too long fries the brain. Somebody should do a study on that.

Answer 9

Such a complex question.
To take anothers life is unacceptable.
To take this life, in the manner described defies all known rational thinking.
France has taken a stand regarding ostentatious religious clothing and it is effective.
In The United States of America, your constitution would not permit this.

I realised that after I posted- sorry.
Canadian Law closely follws UK law.
I doubt that in The UK we would follow the example of France as this would cause civil unrest. Hence I am presuming that Canada will not follow for maybe the same reason.

Answer 10

Laws BANNING certain clothing is exactly as subjective and perverted as are laws that REQUIRE certain clothing. This horrible story and loss of a child's life is about MURDER. Who cares what the freaks' "issues" were? Who cares what country they are in? Murder is murder.

Any so-called "faith" that tolerates murder is a lie. Any so-called father who murders his own child is a monster. The disease is fundamentalism and magical-thinking. Religiosity breeds a feeble-mindedness that cripples and deforms the human conscience. For monsters like this father and many like him, male and female, in the world today in every society, they are so spiritually and socially crippled with magical-thinking and seeing the "letter of the law" rather than the more moral "spirit of the law" that they regress into the savagery of pre-human conscience. When they enter the restaurant of goodness and health, they eat the menu rather than order off it. They and their "faiths" are failures of the human spirit.