THE PROHIBITION OF THE MUSLIM HEADSCARF: CONTRASTING INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES IN POLICY AND LAW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law and state policy towards the Muslim headscarf differs widely from country to country.1 Western states in which the wearing of the headscarf is, or has been, a contentious issue, tend to follow one of two broad theoretical approaches: assimilationalist or culturally pluralist, although rarely in a pure form. Often policy will be made up of one, whilst containing threads of the other. This article will focus on the law and state policy predominantly in six countries where the headscarf issue has arisen, and where different political or legal approaches have been adopted, giving rise to different results or consequences. Often the veil debates in each country will give rise to the same broad issues. For example, integration, religious freedom, secularity and health and safety are all debated in respect of the Muslim headscarf. However, it is often the case that one issue will be more important or prevalent in one particular country than in another. For example in the UK integration has been highlighted in the recent debates, but in the US the concerns rest with the concept of religious freedom, per se. In France and Turkey there has been a need to protect secularism, where the veil has been particularly attacked as a form of pressure by Muslims on others or else regarded as a symbol of the oppression of women. Bans on the headscarf have been attempted in Germany based on employment law and in Canada on health and safety grounds. In other European countries concerns have centred on immigration issues or public security. State policy tends to be driven by various factors including the particular state’s historical makeup, immigration and demography, public opinion and political pressure, as well as the theoretical issues which underlie and inform the debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".