It is clear that what a scarf may represent to one person may differ entirely from what it symbolises to the next. A scarf is a relatively simple garment, but its style, pattern or manner of wear can speak loudly about an individual’s taste, social attitudes and cultural roots.

For example, you may well see a well to do Brighton Lady adorned in the latest, fashionable shade of camel—a soft, mohaired glory. Perhaps the person next to her is an Australian Muslim Woman and she is proudly wearing the traditional Hijab—a scarf that covers her hair and trails elegantly down her back.

Both women may feel glorious. Both may well have chosen to wear their scarves. Sadly, as a result of the recent war-oriented propaganda courtesy of western media there is a common nervousness on behalf of non-Muslim Australia about any representation of Islamic culture. What Hijab means to its wearer tends to differ greatly from what any observer may expect. To be fair, this applies to the Brighton lass as well.

There has been recent publicity about the Taliban’s ghastly treatment of Muslim women. These women were swathed entirely in black with only a slither across the face to breathe through and they were beaten, tortured and subjected to other countless atrocities. We see this extremity and mistake it for the stereotype. In direct contrast, there has been a recent uprise in the Islamic faith within the 67 countries that have a Muslim population. Women are being empowered by their faith and are choosing to wear Hijab to signify their pride. When scouring the net for inspiration, I came across many stories in this vein. One Iranian woman who chose to remain anonymous explains how she felt more comfortable around other Muslim women in her community after she made the decision to wear her Hijab. She compares how she feels in her Hijab to feeling like a pearl inside an oyster shell. The scarf feels protective and supportive rather than repressive. Arguably, the aforementioned Brighton woman wears her little ‘County Road’ number for the similar reasons.

It is a somewhat hypocritical western view that Muslim women are the repressed ones. If we look to history, it seems that it has only been in the twenty-first century that Western women have really staked their claim as equals in a traditionally patriarchal society. If we now back track to the seventh century AD we can see that the rights given by the Holy Qu’ran are relatively equal for both men and women. The Islamic religion has been subject to change due to evolving social and cultural factors. It has been exactly the same for many other world religions.

In certain circumstances, the influence of the West has led to the detriment of Muslim people. For example, in some Western countries with Muslim populations, the wearing of headscarves has been banned in educational institutions and public offices as it is considered a sign of unwanted religious fundamentalism. Unbelievably, even in Turkey there are thousands of women who have been rejected from higher educational institutions on the basis of scarf wearing. In some more extreme cases, such as for a Medical student in Istanbul, they are threatened with a 6-month gaol sentence. In these instances, it is the Western legislation that the Muslim women are boldly standing against, only to be stripped of their educational rights. Islamic law does in fact specify that women have a right to an education. It is the Western legislation at fault here.

It is very easy at the moment to fall victim to current media propaganda. Ms JamillaHussain from the law faculty of UTS explains how ‘every time there’s a story about Muslims, the media rushes out and grabs some lady who is dressed in black, preferably with a face veil, stands her in front of a Mosque, takes a photo and that’s the illustration of Muslim women in Australia.’ This solemn picture painted again and again confirms to us unjustly that Muslim women are the repressed, hidden shadows of their strong wilful husbands. It certainly does not help that the media also seize any opportunity to badmouth certain cultural groups. Ms Hussain makes another poignant example: ‘In New South Wales we have had the Lebanese gang rape crisis, where a number of young men of Lebanese background (although they were all born in Australia) gang raped a number of young Australian women. Of course if these people had Olympic medallists they would have been dubbed Australian in the Media but when they commit a crime, they’re Lebanese Muslims.’ The media manipulate the information to suit the newsworthy themes of the moment, in this case the anti-Muslim sentiment is in keeping with the anti-terrorist war propaganda.

How we choose to respond to this visual differentiation is inevitably up to the individual. It is hard to remain objective when the mass media view is clearly not. There are different ways to interpret ethnic differentiation through the adoption of cultural dress. It can be defined as an exclusion mechanism. It is the definition of a group and therefore defining everyone else as outsiders. Alternatively, wearing a Hijab can be seen as a material bond between people who have a common cultural upbringing.

Scarf wearing and fashion in general are inexplicably diverse—no matter how strong the views of the latest fashionatas are. They may say that coffee-coloured suede slouch boots are mandatory but this is simply not a reality. Even Cosmopolitan magazine concedes pluralism as 28 versions are published in twelve different languages on a monthly basis just to satisfy the cultural diversity.  So basically we can choose to respect the symbolic virtue of the scarf and interpret a scarf worn as a positive distinguishment rather than a mark of alienation. I personally enjoy the freedom of wearing a red and white woolly without judgement and I wish the same for any proud woman in the Australian Muslim community.