The BBC reports:
A Bangladesh court has ruled that people cannot be forced to wear skull caps, veils or other religious clothing in workplaces, schools and colleges.
This ruling comes after reports emerged that a college in the north of Bangladesh forced women to wear veils.
The high court also ruled that women cannot be prevented from taking part in sports or cultural activities.
The court said that wearing any form of religious clothing, for students and employees, should be a personal choice.
It has also asked the authorities to explain why it should not be made illegal to prevent girls from taking part in sports and cultural activities.
In April this year, the court ordered schools and colleges not to force women to wear the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body except the eyes and hands.
Mahbub Shafique, one of the lawyers who filed the latest litigation, told the BBC how this ruling goes a step further.
“The difference between these two is that, this particular ruling today doesn’t apply only on females it also applies to males as well.
Barring the enforced veiling of women or the enforced wearing of skull caps is is a welcome legislation and acknowledgement of the fact that women and young men are forced to wear clothing and other outward symbols of religiosity.
13 Comments
Good news for Bengalis everywhere.
A Bangladesh court has ruled that people cannot be forced to wear skull caps
Since when was wearing a topi anything other than mustaHabb/praiseworthy?
This ruling comes after reports emerged that a college in the north of England forced women to wear veils.
I must’ve missed this one, Faisal, any chance of a link or could you elaborate?
Hakeem, sorry that was a typo. I’ve corrected the error.
Bangladesh puts Pakistan to shame, again.
“Barring the enforced veiling of women or the enforced wearing of skull caps is is a welcome legislation and acknowledgement of the fact that women and young men are forced to wear clothing and other outward symbols of religiosity”
Likewise the welcome barring of enforcing of secular clothes in places like Iran is and (sic) acknowledgement of the fact that women and young men are forced to wear clothing and other outward symbols of irreligiosity
You mean the same “secular clothes” and “symbols of irreligiosity” which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being “forced to wear”?
What a piss-poor argument.
This is a pointless ruling: Beggardeshis are too poor to afford things like skullcaps or veils and if they do buy them they just end up eating them cos there isnt any food
Anyway nature will solve this problem in time. Thanks to Global Warming “Bangladesh” will soon be under water and the world will thankfully be rid of this “basket case” nation (cf Henry Kissinger)
No I mean the dot heads worn by wannabee Hindus like yourself
Good for Bangladesh, this is a good sign.
Enlightened progress means a post-religious society which drops all trappings of faith and religious backwardness.
I’d say keep that Marwan comment up as proof of the racism, obnoxiousness and moral vacuity of that person. Nothing can condemn a person as much as their own words and the above are very damning.
I notice how “me” posts on Pickled Politics and is forever trying to get sympathy for the rise of Islamophobic attacks on Muslims in Britain, but comes here and posts garbled racist nonsense about Bangladeshis, Ahmadis, Hindus, Jews, gays etc.
The troll is a very nasty, racist Islamist, and is banned from this site.
The question I would like to bring this discussion back round to is this:
Advocates of the burkha and religious symbols in the West are forever going on about how banning it is a form of enforcement. However, there is very little attention paid to the massive phenomenon of the veil and the skullcap being forced on young men and women in Islamic societies.
Is dealing with the “enforcement” issue a better way of applying legislation against the burkha than applying a blanket ban? Or is it more of the same thing?
Of course! So it should be that people should be free from impositions of any type of religious persuasion by the political authority.
I would add though that does this apply to private schools where a uniform may require some of these things at the free choice of the student at University?
If so how do you decide what is a dress code of the school and what is religious attire? I think they can be identified but again that would be on religious grounds and contradicts secular principles.
This court ruling is well pointless.
Bangladeshis don’t look to the courts for guidance on social etiqueette.
Bangladesh is an overwhelmingly religious country and wearing of religious garb like tufi or burka is expected and people just conform with that prevailing expectation. Besides people generally wear the garb of personal choice-although whether they have a genuine choice is open to question.
As for girls taking part in PE, it isn’t seen as seemly by 99.5% of the girls parents, family and society. The girls themselves don’t care overmuch. And participation in ‘cultural events;’ girls singing and dancing in public, especially in front of strange men would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Bangladeshi families. Although Bangladeshis enjoy cultural events as much as anyone else.