Nothing ‘neutral’ about the hijab ban
Last week, the European Court of Justice ruled that workplaces in Europe could ban workers from wearing "any political, philosophical or religious sign" if a company has a policy requiring "neutral" dress, a judgement that is interpreted as pertaining mainly to Muslim women and which was prompted by legal action by two Muslim women, one of whom lives in Belgium and had been fired from her job as a receptionist by the British-based security company G4S. This does not actually ban the hijab in workplaces across Europe, but simply clarifies that it is not against EU law to do so; existing discrimination laws in individual countries that protect the right to wear hijab are not affected. Still, it demonstrates that the EU is not really on the side of Muslim women who seek an education or employment while dressing as their religion demands and persists in using the spurious language of "symbolism", i.e. that the hijab is a religious 'symbol', which in fact it is not.
The assumption of something being a 'symbol' is a common claim in non-Muslim writing about the hijab. The truth is that Islam does not have symbols; it is represented by the word, not the image. The flag of Islam used the Shahada or profession of faith (the battle flag, currently used by Saudi Arabia, has a drawing of a sword on it in addition). Many flags of Muslim countries use the crescent and star to represent Islam, but this is actually an architectural feature found on mosques in Levantine countries that were previously Christian churches; the symbols were also used by Crusaders, hence their appearance on the insignia of the City of Portsmouth and its football club. It's useful as it can be displayed on things that might be treated in a way Muslims would want anything with the shahada on it treated (e.g. on a football which will be kicked around), but it is actually an innovation to associate it with Islam. There is no tradition of wearing crescent and/or star pendants equivalent to the crucifixes or crosses and chains worn by Christians. The stated purpose of hijab in Islam is that women will be seen as respectable and treated accordingly; it has come to be seen as a 'symbol' of Islam only because, in most societies (not all), headcoverings of that type are only worn by Muslim women.
So, a woman wearing a headscarf to work is not displaying a huge identity badge; it's not a defining garment of a Muslim. To wear hijab is not to preach; it is to live according to one's religion. There is no set way of "wearing hijab"; it is simply a matter of wearing clothes loose enough to conceal the figure and cover one's hair. You can get purpose-made headscarves for hijab (the "al-Amira" brand is very popular) but you can wear any cloth you like as long as it's not sheer (and it's clean, of course).
Banning the normal dress of a locally well-represented religious group does not usually make for a "religiously neutral" atmosphere. To achieve that, one meeds only to have a rule saying that nobody is allowed to, say, preach or criticise anyone else for how they behave on the basis of religion. What it makes for is an exclusive one: there is no reason why people should not be expected to tolerate one of them at work, or seeing one of them as a representative of a company they do business with, if they are part of the local community. If one sees Muslim women everywhere in town but are never served by them, the space is not neutral, but rather those women are conspicuous by their absence. Much as it's often observed that "gender neutral" clothing and so on often looks a lot like masculinity, so "religious neutrality" just means everyone follows White, Christian norms. It is not a "neutral" act for a Muslim woman to discard her hijab.
