Despite Anne-Katrin Ångnells try to seem keen on muslim girls ' wellbeing permeated her letters to the editor on the DN View, unfortunately, of the ignorance of the extremely multifaceted nature of the group in question. The author of this response to the submitter refers to the attempt to create space for Anne-Katrin Ångnell and many with her to broaden his / her perspective.
Her starting point to many girls under 15 years are forced to wear the veil is incorrect. The text also bears traces of the free, liberal, white woman's mission to liberate the oppressed, unenlightened, dark woman.
To compare the samtyckeslagstiftning for sex with samtyckelagstiftning for the hijab shows the depth of ignorance. To not be forced to have sex is important for fundamentally different reasons than not to be forced to wear a veil, not least because of the very different consequences of the respective means or who it is that is imposes.
with my disgust for both forms of acts of violence. I take measurements from to impose on children the hijab. My intention is not to defend this.
For me, it is equally reprehensible to force a child to dress by themselves as forcing the children to cover themselves if they themselves do not want it. By forcing children to dress themselves – which is the removal of the hijab means for many who carry it – spoken implicitly about what the ideal child should be sought.
It is an ideal in which women should cover themselves and show their hair and their body to be seen and heard, to so-called ”freed”. The naknare, the freer. One such ideal means that women should look like women do in the major media to qualify.
the white woman, the dark woman's cases, without any agreement with her. It is not okay for the white kvinnaa to talk about for my dark parents what they should teach me about my body. It is not okay to Swedish legislation reject my desire to look up to my mother's hijab, try to understand it and seek for me the ideal life as a woman in society.
in Addition, here is a religion that take into account, as long as we respect the prevailing religion. This religion has existed in Sweden for many years and are said to be left in even more.
A first step for someone who advocates the prohibition of the parts of a religious doctrine is to actually take part of its message. Islam is here to stay, just like judaism and christianity, with several. Know Anne-Katrin Ångnell that the hijab is applied among boys and men's also? She wants to ban it also?
and individualistic in this country, except when it comes to muslims individuality or liberalism. The we don't want to even try to understand. It is not a disease, but symptoms of a growing islamophobia. And islamophobia has only roots in the fear lined in ignorance, confirmation bias, and laziness.
My life as a hijab-bearing muslim shall not be limited by having to make the ”most swedes”, as Anne-Katrin Ångnell writing, less provoked by the women in the veil. It is your mission to explore the roots of your provocation.
In this, you have not, unfortunately, discovered that someone who I want to help you understand. I want to understand you and you understand me.
is to be the subject of ignorance. I don't want to be banned to offer my children the hijab if they so wish to have it in their lives. I am grateful that my parents offered me the wealth that my hijab means to me. I am personally interested in to tell you about my hijab journey through life, with the start in the eleven.
Out and speak with girls who wear their hijab and their parents, like many of them, and this with a genuine interest in their views. The only way for people to understand each other is by creating relationships. Not necessarily intimate and persistent ones, but a genuine öppensinnat call can do much probably because of the even perspective.