Home » Articles » The Headscarf as Threat: A Comparison of German and U.S. Legal Discourses

The Headscarf as Threat: A Comparison of German and U.S. Legal Discourses

PDF · Robert A. Kahn · Aug-16-2012 · 40 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 417 (2007)

This Article compares how U.S. and German judges conceptualize the harm the headscarf poses to society. The examples are the 2003 Ludin case, in which the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the civil service, in the absence of state regulation, could not reject a woman from a civil service teaching position solely because she would not remove her headscarf while teaching, and State v. Freeman, in which a Florida court held that a woman could not pose for a driver’s license photograph wearing a garment (the niqab) that covered all of her face except her eyes. While judges and legal critics in both countries tended to see the headscarf as threatening, German society was more likely to see it as a symbol of political Islam, while U.S. society viewed it as a tool used by potential terrorists.




Leave a Reply

ExpressO Top 10 Law Review

ANNOUNCEMENTS

We are pleased to announce the 2013-2014 VJTL New Members

Coming up:

The Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law hosted a symposium called “The Role of Non-State Actors in International Law” at Vanderbilt University Law School in February 2013.

The October issue of the Journal will showcase articles by distinguished symposium guests including:

  • Mr. Ian Smillie, “Blood Diamonds and Non-State Actors”
  • Professor Jean d’Aspremont, “Cognitive Conflicts and the Making of International Law from Empirical Concord to Conceptual Discord in Legal Scholarship”
  • Professor Peter J. Spiro, “Constraining Global Corporate Power: A Very Short Introduction”
  • Professor Suzanne Katzenstein
  • Professor Peter Margulies
  • Professor Harlan G. Cohen

 

Explore Other Vanderbilt Law Resources