No. No parents have the "natural rights" to indoctrinate and oppress their children, especially if that piece of oppressive rag is transforming the child into a sexual object in the eyes of Islamists. Why do orthodox Muslims compel their teenager girls to wear the headscarf? Because Islam treats teenager girls as sexual objects.
Parents have a right to teach their kids whatever the fuck they want without the state preventing it. The same authority which prevents parents from "oppressing" their kids through religious indoctrination can also be used to prevent parents from "oppressing" their kids through secular indoctrination. How about if France decided to ban parents from teaching their kids your sort of anti-Islamic views because it is "oppressing" the children with "islamophobic hatred"? Would you support that? Because that is exactly the kind of door you are opening when you say the state has authority to prevent parents from "indoctrinating" their children.
Don't you see it? All parents force their children to wear hijab. Parents are much more stronger than their children. If they want their children to wear the Islamic veil, they can use a variety of coercive methods, most of which would fly under the radar. Do you really think children and teenagers have a natural and healthy inclination to wear veils that will transform them into sexual objects?
The proposed French law is not simply banning children from wearing the niqab/burkha, it is banning
everyone from wearing it in public, adults included. How can you possibly say this is not an infringement upon their right to religious expression?
Also, how exactly are you planning to prosecute parents who force their children to wear hijab? That would require extensive monitoring and state interference, which you seem to oppose.
Same way child abuse is prosecuted-- someone has to report it, then it's investigated.
Yes, 27 years ago. But the military was only pushing for something that deeply troubled the Turkish population. For the record, there were almost no hijab-wearing women prior to 1960, so a law banning something that did not exist would be absurd. The Turkish Left supports the ban on hijab, with the exception of some fringe groups. This means that the ban on hijab is not just the whim of the "military junta" as you suggest.
I didn't say it was a "whim", but it is true that it was forcibly imposed by the military, is it not?
The European Court of Human Rights supports the Turkish ban on hijab, for the record.
So? They'd probably support a ban on civilian ownership of firearms too, but I'd still think it was bullshit.
The ban on hijab also protects the rights of non-hijabi girls, since there are many underdeveloped parts in Turkey where peer pressure compels teenagers and adult women to wear the headscarf.
It is not the state's proper role, in a free society, to protect people, even children, from "peer pressure". Nanny-state nonsense.
Topic: French Hijab Ban Rears it's Head Once Again