Danish Military Unit Under Attack Over Headscarf

COPENHAGEN — A Danish military unit has become embroiled in a dispute about Muslim headscarves after it allowed a hijab-wearing woman to complete a training course.

The Home Guard, a home defense corps of thousands of volunteer soldiers, does not allow headscarves and violated that rule when it allowed Maria Mawla, 27, to wear one during its 10-day basic training program, spokesman Joergen Jensen said Monday.

"We made a mistake internally," Jensen told The Associated Press.

The issue became national news in Denmark after the populist Danish People's Party, known for its anti-Muslim outbursts, expressed shock over an article about Mawla posted on the Home Guard's Web site.

The July 14 article, which has now been removed, described Mawla as a devout Muslim of Lebanese origin who said her headscarf posed no practical obstacles during training. A picture with the article showed her wearing a green headscarf under a camouflage hat.

"I must say that I'm shocked to discover that the Home Guard not only allows members to wear the Muslim headscarf, but also boasts about it," Ib Poulsen, the Danish People's Party's spokesman on defense issues, said in a statement. It demanded that the Home Guard ban the Muslim headscarf, calling it a symbol of oppression of women and discrimination.

Later Sunday, Home Guard chief Ulrik Kragh said the headscarf was not allowed in the corps because it violates the Danish military's uniform rules. Kragh said the Muslim woman could remain a member of the Home Guard if she respected the uniform rules.

Mawla told Danish media she was angry about the statement.

"I feel it's really discriminating," Mawla told the Jyllands-Posten daily. "And it makes me feel like a bad citizen."

She didn't answer calls seeking comment Monday.

Jensen, the Home Guard spokesman, said the uniform rules would be reviewed later this year. He said the article about Mawla was removed from the Web site "because of this controversy. We don't want her to suffer. She made no mistake herself."

Critics said the Home Guard was caving in to pressure from the Danish People's Party, which is highly suspicious of Islam.

"Enough is simply enough," said Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, a Palestinian immigrant who was ridiculed by the Danish People's Party officials in 2007 because she wore a headscarf during a campaign to enter Parliament. "It's about time that Danish People's Party is put in place and learns that we live in a democratic society."

The party holds 25 seats in Denmark's 179-seat Parliament but is a key backer of the center-right government. Party leaders made headlines with anti-Muslim rhetoric during the 2006 uproar in Muslim countries over Prophet Muhammad caricatures printed by a Danish newspaper.

__

Associated Press Writer Karl Ritter in Stockholm contributed to this report.

Comments

[Sivels]

02:43 PM on 07/21/2009

the percentage of muslims in denmark who identify themselves as danes is below 40%. I don t blame the muslims, I blame danish society, we need to become more of a melting pot, treating everybody as individual­s in eyes of the law.. Because we have so high taxes in Denmark people are being discrimina­ted against

[guzmao12345]

10:40 AM on 07/21/2009

As a Jamaican Muslim who has visited and lived in Europe, I have been increasing­ly alarmed by what I would call a growing anti-Musli­m racism in some parts of Europe. I have been alarmed for instance by the specter of ppl like Wilders and the Danish People's Party. However, despite the Danish People's Party's involvemen­t in this story, I am of the opinion that the Military must be supported in this instance. The rule about uniforms and headdress existed prior to Mawla joining this unit. If wants to serve in this unit she should be prepared to follow its rules about uniform.

If Ms. Mawla can't follow the present rules she really has only two choices; disengage from the unit or lobby for the rule to be changed. She cant stay in the unit and expect to be an exception to the rule. I would disagree with those though who say that the military ought not to make any allowances for religious clothing. It can be done fairly easily by looking at the rules and making changes wear possible, as is the case in places like India and Canada as someone else rightfully pointed out.

[ShaistaC]

03:52 AM on 07/21/2009

The military has a right to insist on a particular uniform- and if it was not allowed, that is fine. However, looking forward I hope that they relook this requiremen­t. At a time when European countries are concerned about the lack of integratio­n of muslims, surely letting muslim women volunteer serve their country is a better way of fostering integratio­n than precluding them from serving if they wish to follow their belief system. Times are changing and there are going to be increasing numbers of muslim men and women who are essentiall­y Western, but also muslim. Europe and other Western countries can either engage with them, or risk alienating them. My suggestion for a more peaceful society is to accept women wearing headscarve­s and appreciate the integratio­n and mutual understand­ing between dutch muslims and christians that will result from bonding through training. And to appreciate the gesture made by those that truly want to serve their country. We need to move beyond these artificial boundaries and become more accepting of each other. One of the bases of Western culture is supposed to be tolerance and understand­ing- foster it.

[rv1979]

02:08 AM on 07/21/2009

A society which forces the hijab off is just as bad as a society which forces it on! come on ppl its the postfemini­st era get with the program.

[bismillah001]

09:52 PM on 07/20/2009

Man.. Sucks to be non-white/­non-Christ­ian in Denmark. It's kind of crazy that the Danish Peoples Party holds a quarter of the seats in parliament there. It's a pretty disturbing trend that's been happening across Europe - ethno-popu­list right wing parties increasing their influence.

Granted there are certain stereotype­s, I'm glad "American" doesn't have all these assumed racial/rel­igious categories bound up in it they way "French", "English", "German" and "Danish" do.

[gakabani]

08:53 PM on 07/20/2009

Thus us plain Muslim bashing, if she was a Christian around 1945 she will be covering her head with a scarf a no problems. This pure hypocracy. Europe always needs to hate someone. Anti-semti­c to the core.

[sheilaofmiami]

06:52 PM on 07/20/2009

While it is "out of uniform", they can be blended well enough that most head pieces should be allowed.

[who38]

11:55 PM on 07/20/2009

Would you also accept an orthodox Jew who refused to cut his curls or a Sikh who must wear a turban which conceals a knife or an Amish girl with a bonnet? This female soldier knew the uniform requiremen­ts before enlisting; why should she get special favors? If you can justify that, why shouldn't half the regiment show up in a skirt if they choose? As for her feeling like "a bad citizen" that is her problem.

[SFA]

04:01 AM on 07/21/2009

In India ,there are large number of sikh's in the army.
they wear there turban & follow every aspect of their religion while serving in the army.

Fundamenta­lism which tries to make every one like mirror image of themselves is wrong.

As wrong in Saudi Arabia or Europe.

[jajenkins]

06:36 PM on 07/20/2009

In Canada RCMP officers can wear hijab, turbans etc... when working. It doesn't hinder them at all. The police should consist of and have the look of the people they are serving. I don't see why the "home-guar­d" should be any different.

And may I just point out that Muslims in Denmark have been accused of not "assimilat­ing" - well, no one can ever accuse this particular lady of that again. She was rejected over a piece of cloth, not because she doesn't want to be a fully-func­tioning member of the society.

[drsharm]

02:10 AM on 07/21/2009

Rock on - great comment ! !

[Tuckerndfw]

06:35 PM on 07/20/2009

I agree that the military should not make exceptions but the furor over head scarves is ridiculous­.

When I was a kid (a long time ago), most American women wore head scarves or hats in public. It was the fashionabl­e thing to do but it was based on the biblical injunction that women should keep their heads covered.

My mother never left the house without a head scarf or hat. We were Baptists.

[Bafun]

07:43 PM on 07/20/2009

Exactly! it was a long time ago...

[Tuckerndfw]

08:53 PM on 07/20/2009

My mother has been dead for about ten years. I expect if she was still alive, she'd still be wearing a scarf or a hat when she left the house.

Does that mean she was oppressed or a religious extremist?

My point is that women who choose to wear a scarf typically do so by choice as a matter of custom or religion, not because they are attemping to make a political statement, nor are they oppressed.

Wearing a scarf has been blown way out of proportion­.

[PWM]

05:32 PM on 07/20/2009

The military should make no allowances for religious clothing.

[Smirk]

06:25 PM on 07/20/2009

I'm inclined to agree.

[Ira7]

10:43 AM on 07/21/2009

Same here. I hear a lot of complainin­g not about rights, but about SPECIAL rights that they want. With your rights come responsibi­lties, and one of those is following the damn uniform requiremen­ts

[EmanuelWazar]

10:40 AM on 07/21/2009

In other words, are you saying then that the military suppresses ALL religious clothing,.­.. or just the ones it does not like? Are military members then compelled to renounce ALL religious expression­? Or just the "inconveni­ent" expression barred? The military then is wholly "areligiou­s"? I wouldn't,.­.. say... expect to find CHAPLAINS,­... or references to "god" in ANY military communicat­ions,.... or religious celebratio­ns like CHRISTmas, or SAINT Patrick day recognized as official festivals,­....and CERTAINLY I would NEVER find a single bible in ANY.......­. would I? Or are we only excluding from participat­ion only those expression­s of faith that are A) "Foreign" B) "Inconveni­ent" C) "unusual" ? Whats the difference between a cross chain and a scarf? That the scarf has the gall to be publicly visible? Or is it that it's for "practical­" reason that we bar them? Really? Funny. Seems Muslims, Hindus, Buddist, and Jews in their respective national armies dont seem to have these "practical­" problems. But yes. Here. We are "special". Non of that tolerance here, no sire.

And finally, while certainly the MILITARY operates different from civil society, I understand that while signing a requiremen­t form can alter one's exercise of civil rights, it does not abolish them altogether­. How can a democratic pluralist state square away with an exclusive highly discrimina­ting and selectivel­y repressive military organizati­on, which after IS under civilian control, vis-a-vis the executive?

[who38]

12:48 PM on 07/21/2009

All religious clothing should be suppressed while a person is on duty.