Germany’s justification for the hijab ban is the most contradictory I have ever seen. It’s not a laicist state, but the hijab ban for teachers and other public officials had been justified under the guise of “state neutrality in religious matters”, claiming that if teachers wear hijab, the state doesn’t appear neutral anymore. The supreme court decided if a federal stare wants to ban the hijab for teachers at school, it has to pass a law first, which North Rhine Westphalia did, with an exception for crosses and kippah. When you ask them what their reasoning for treating crosses, kippah, and hijab differently is,you always get the same answer: Judeo-Christian culture. And I think amazing, weren’t you defending state neutrality so passionately just 5 minutes ago? And what about Bavaria where crosses are hung in classrooms? At least when a teacher wears hijab, the students associate it with her as a person and individual first, you wanna tell me this harms the state neutrality, but a cross hung in a classroom by the school doesn’t? Either you say you live in a Judeo-Christian culture, and your whole reasoning for the hijab ban becomes baseless until you find a new justification, or you say public officials have to appear neutral in religious matters, and you are consistent enough to ban crosses and kippah too, otherwise, you’re a hypocrite trying to hide your Islamophobia. Anyway, I need to write more one day about the Supreme courts recent decision that altered their decision for the hijab ban in 2003 and set up way stricter rules under which schools are allowed to ban the hijab for teachers.