The Logical Fallacy of the Turban Ban in Schools

While interning for United Sikhs, I wrote this article for their Global Report 2013-14, enjoy.

The Logical Fallacy of the Turban Ban in Schools

The French 2004 amendment to the French Code of Education which left the Sikh community in turmoil, distress and anguish has been followed by the territories of Belgium. From September 2013, a new rule will make it a violation for Sikh boys to wear a turban within the Flemish G0! school network, affecting more than 9,000 domestic Sikhs.

The scale of the problem is not something to be dismissed lightly. An analogy can be drawn to The Holocaust; Hitler targeted those that did not fit in with the Aryan Race e.g. Jews, disabled persons and many more groups. Similarly, this ban targets turbans, kippas and headscarves i.e. those who do not conform to the so-called standard secular image. The rationale behind the rule can be explained through two distinct arguments; neutrality and security.

G0! CEO Raymonda Verdyck stated; “We facilitate pluralism and openness in our schools. That is why we have introduced the ban”2. Herein lies the first argument for the ban, the need to secularize and neutralize public spaces in order to promote equality, openness and interaction between different sects of society. This is a largely theoretical argument based upon the assumption that by removing religious artifacts, individuals will perceive themselves differently, mingling more with others and thus creating an integrated society. This leads us to the second argument. The 9/11 bombings left countries frightened and keen to increase security. At the discovery of the religious involvement in the attack, religion and religious symbology became a target. So by requiring turbans not to be worn in public places; (a) countries can be more secure by ensuring no bomb is hidden within the turban and (b) discourage religious belief which could potentially lead to similar events.

However, both these arguments are incoherent. With regards to the first argument, as mentioned before, it is theoretical. Therefore, the first weakness lies in the assumption that removal of religious clothing would bring oneness among society. Even if we accept this assumption, there are further difficulties.

Law is often misunderstood in the Western world as something which is distinct from moral and social factors. When in reality it is not simply a religious, cultural or international construct, but rather a combination. Therefore, a better way to deal with the segregations between society would be to allow individuals to uphold their personal and cultural laws e.g by allowing religious artifacts to be worn. This way, the state can still regulate the religious sphere while still treating the different ethnic minorities equally. By accepting cultural differences on a state level, people will be more likely to accept and respect other cultures. If the state sends out a message that individuals with a religious identity are a threat, then it seems unlikely that natives would be encouraged to mingle.

The second argument regarding security is also one which can be refuted. In the words of the Australian parliamentarian Victor Perton “We are at war with terror not young girls wearing scarves or (people wearing) crucifixes or skull caps” 3 . The 9/11 attacks were not caused or even motivated by the inclusion of of religious artifacts at schools, in fact not a single hijacker was an American or European national. This is of utmost importance because it shows that the 9/11 attacks cannot in anyway be used to justify unfairness towards ethnic minorities.

Furthermore, Sikh religious belief has never endorsed attacks of terror. Hence, it is illogical, irrational and uninformed to attack the turban, a sacred piece of religious attire, on the grounds of security. In addition, schools are places of education, a prime opportunity to be educating children on tolerance and other religions. Education is more likely to lead to openness, oneness and tolerance within society more so than such a ban.This becomes evident when you compare the UK to the USA. In the UK, Sikhism is part of the national curriculum and is taught every year till the child leaves school. As a result, individuals in the UK have a better understanding and tolerance of the turban than in the USA.

There is also the ubiquitous argument that Sikhs are immigrants within the Western world, they originated in Punjab and thus have no right to infringe the rules of the place. This argument is largely ignorant for several reasons. For example, wearing a religious artifacts is not imposing a foreign law as it is in no way suggesting that non-sikh persons should do so. Neither has it thus far infringed any existing law, bar the 2004 French amendment and now the 2013 G0! rule.

Another matter of concern is the level of public controversy in the Belgium issue is less than that of France. This could be because the rule in Belgium affects a smaller area than France or simply that we are becoming comfortable with such “neutrality” and so called “equality- enhancing” rules. This is worrying, as it seems the problem is spreading e.g. the recent fiasco involving a Sikh bus driver Gill Sukdarsharan Singh who has been banned from wearing a turban to work in Finland. And it is at this time, we need public support the most.

In conclusion, the need for a restriction grew out of an irrational and uninformed response to the devastating 9/11 attacks. This is clearly seen in the poor justifications put forward for the ban. Thus, these new policy need to be reassessed and rectified.



1 Anon “Belgium Bans Turbans in Schools.” The Sikh Times, September 5 2005. http:// www.sikhtimes.com/ news_090505a.html

2 Anon “Kippas, headscarves and turbans banned” Flanders News, February 2 2013. http:// www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/1.1539315

3 Murphy, M. “PM rejects headscarves ban” The Age, August 30 2005. http:// www.theage.com.au/news/ national/pm-rejects-headscarves-ban/ 2005/08/29/1125302511538.html