Absolutism Should Be Banned

The biggest issue with this ban is that it does not impact all religions equally. A person in Buddhism can still live their lives without much of a change, but a person following Islam will have a harder time adapting to these changes, reason being is that Islam has more visible symbols than most other religions. Some examples of of symbols in Islam include Hijabs, Burqas, Chadors and the crescent moon and star. Whereas, in Buddhism for example, you have the Dharma wheel, Buddha, or orange robes if you happen to be a monk. As you can see Islam has more visible symbols since most symbols are clothing or headwear. The clothing that the women in Islam wear are symbols of modesty, you can’t simply wear a smaller Hijab or a smaller Burka. Whereas in Christianity you can wear a cross in a non visible way, in Buddhism you can wear a small Dharma wheel necklace if you

A whole lot of controversy and debate has been experienced in Quebec after the presentation of the bill. This recent debate is important because the consequences and implications of such laws should be evaluated thoroughly before being imposed to a population. It is also a subject that has a particular importance to me, considering that I want to be a lawyer later on and therefore I will face such difficult debate. Moreover, religious cases interest me a lot. It is important to know that veils are worn by certain women all over the world because of their religious interpretation of the hijab verses of the Quran in which God asks women to “dress modestly” (Stacey). The wearing of the veil has been made mandatory in some countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. However, many women in America and Europe decide freely to wear the veil as a religious and cultural symbol (Stacey). Considering that the face-covering veils, like other Muslim veils, are part of some Muslim women’s religion, should the government have the right to demand its removal while one is receiving or giving public services?

With so many religions, it may be difficult for some to understand what it means for Muslim women to veil. The purpose of veiling is a duty they are called upon and that is to obey their God. Many people believe in something, be it aliens, ghosts, the higher spirit, or their own God, one’s faith should not be judged. In addition, Canada clearly defined that it is unlawful to be a racist to one’s Religious beliefs in order to become a Citizen of Canada. It has been said, Gods and people can look through from one side to the other (Ellwood, Robert S., and Barbara A. McGraw. 5 print). Which could possibly lead for one to show respect to one’s faith and to understand their faith without

However, through briefly analyzing both cases, it becomes clear that this justification is propelled by anti-Islamic sentiments rather than the will to protect democracy from rampant oppressive patriarchy or an imminent threat of public safety. This is obvious because Islamic headscarves are being targeted rather than other examples of religious headscarves which can be found in Christianity or Judaism. Thus, through not applying this ruling to all religious headscarves it becomes clear that there is no real interest in protect Muslim women, but a vested interest in restricting expressions of the Islamic faith due to xenophobic rhetoric. In addition to this, Marshall correctly points out that there is no direct correlation between the wearing of a headscarf by a Muslim woman and gender inequality. As long as it is the choice of women to wear the headscarf, I see no issue with Muslim women wearing them in

Religious freedom: the right to choose a religion or no religion without interference by the government. Unfortunately, the rule doesn’t apply to society and some other countries - lately, more Muslims, Jews, and people in certain seperate religious groups have been victims faced with individuals who choose to insult and harm these innocent people. The dilemma is becoming so violent that the Jewish have been faced with a difficult decision: whether to wear kippas or not. Kippas, or yarmulkes, are caps traditionally worn by Jewish men, and the head of the Israelite Consistory of Marseille, had decided to ask Jews to not wear the kippas because of a recent attack on a Jewish teacher. Should Jews really stop wearing their skullcaps?

On Monday, April 11th 2011, France became the first country to put into force a law that bans Muslim women wearing the Burqa in any public setting. Not only did this ban create a global debate, a domino effect on other countries to put forth the same law, but also creating tension among French Muslims and their citizens (Ulusoy). The Quran asks believing women to cover although Muslim women interpret covering their bodies in different ways. The Burqa covers the entire face and body and has netting surrounding the eyes. The Niqab only varies from the burqa in that it has an opening in the eye area. Lastly, the most common cover is hijab, which covers the body yet leaves the face and hands visible

As a result of past governments led by fundamentalist Muslims, Western feminists have taken the issue of the headscarf into their own hands. The feminist movement regarding Islamic head coverings began in response to their belief that Muslim women are being oppressed. Although many people have been convinced that all women are continually being forced to cover their bodies and faces, this belief is far from the truth. Throughout the worldwide Muslim population, a majority of Muslim women who wear any kind of head coverings do so out of their own will. There have been select governments that have enforced headscarves, but today women have the choice left to themselves. Even though many Muslim women have spoken out to Western feminists to ensure

I do not think that Jews, Catholics, or Muslims should have to change their ways just to accommodate the beliefs of someone else. People should be able to dress how ever they please, and if they want to wear a kippa, a cross, or a headscarf, then they should have the freedom to do so. It is not their fault that others do not “like” their religions; people like ISIS extremists should be the ones punished not those whom they are punishing.

A nun can be covered from head to toe in order to devote herself to god. But when a Muslim woman does the same she is being oppressed. It may be argued that wearing a burqa benefits only a few and brings more harm than good to society. The real question is who does it harm? That should be the basis for banning this piece of clothing, not one based on fear or an arguably feeble argument that the women do not have a choice. To say that a ban on a specific item like this is undemocratic is an understatement. Following the French senate’s unanimous vote in favour of banning the burqa in late 2010, many European and western countries including Belgium and Spain have made the decision to take the

Here in the United States, some individuals think that by wearing a hijab you are you enforcing the belief that Muslim women are being forced to wear one despite the reason that some of these women wear it’s a sign of freedom. Therefore, it appears that to some women, the veil is unjust; while other women feel it is not unjust but a decision they made on their own in dedication to their religion. Still, for many women especially the ones in Western countries, they have no choice and for that reason alone, they are being made to wear a

When I was first introduced to the topic of France’s ban on the veil, I disagreed with the law. I took a position based on my customs as an American citizen which differs completely to those of France. International critics began to argue that France is violating what people call “Freedom of Religion”, which I agreed with at first. As a foreigner from America, I am accustomed to the American governments definition of freedom of religion. Protected by the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Religious Freedom). You can express your religion in public, during church, mass, or religious meetings. So the presence of religious items such as the

As far as the case law is concerned, another frequent argument raised in favor of the ban is that if some women are allowed to wear the headscarf it would eventually impose a burden on the women who choose not to wear it and, thus, they will be forced to wear it as well. In Karaduman , the European Commission on Human Rights considered that the manifestations of a particular religion without restrictions ‘may constitute pressure on students who do not practice that religion or those who adhere to another religion’. In this case, a female Muslim applicant was refused a qualification certificate (after successfully completing her course) because she refused to provide an identity photograph without her headscarf. Weil writes that ‘in schools where some girls are wearing the headscarf, the Muslim girls who do not wear it are subject to strong pressure to do so’ . He also reports that, in the increasing number of schools where girls wear the hijab, ‘a strong majority of Muslim girls who do not wear the headscarf called for the protection of the law and asked the commission to ban all religious exterior signs’ . According to Weil, this pressure usually comes from parents, extremist/fundamentalist groups and religious leaders. However, it is important to keep in mind here that Weil himself admits

As of 2010, France banned any article of clothing made to cover the face in public places such as shops, museums, and parks. The burqa should be permitted in France. The women who wear the burqa are following their traditions and religion. Wearing the burqa is their right, a right to live life like everyone else, as they choose individually on whether to wear it or not. This is a staple of Islamic culture. The banning of the burqa is violating women’s rights to expression and freedom of religion. People have challenged the ban however, there has been no change in the stance taken by the French government. There are both positive and negative effects regarding the banning of the burqa.

In recent years, a small piece of cloth has managed to cause quite a stir. The scarf, or hijab, that Muslim women wear on their heads is making headlines around the world. Hijab is banned in French public schools and other European countries have adopted or are thinking about a similar legislation. In Australia, a radio presenter triggered both debate and outrage when he called for the face veil (niqab) to be banned from banks and post offices. In Canada on the other hand, it is allowed to be worn freely unless in places such as airports for security reasons. Even some Muslim countries such as Turkey and Tunisia ban the hijab in certain government buildings. When a small piece of fabric causes such controversy and conflict, wouldn’t it

When does the search for equality justify human rights abuses? As France has a large and quickly expanding Muslim immigrate population (Mamou, 2017) it provides an important case study regarding the intersection of two different perspectives, that of secularism and religion. In 2004 Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 (National Assembly, 2004) was adopted by the French National Assembly and Senate which forbade the wearing of overtly religious clothing which would identify individuals religious affiliation in public schools, colleges and lycees. In 2010 Law No. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010, was passed which banned the wearing of any outfit, in a public space, designed to cover the face (National Assembly, 2010). Although neither the 2004 nor 2010 laws appear to be directly targeting Muslims they have gained recognition because as both have a direct impact on Muslim women. Both of these laws have been criticised since they appear to constitute human rights abuses. However, rather than looking at the laws in isolation one must understand their context in French society, specifically the broader human rights issues which they reflect such as gender equality, assimilation of immigrants, and the perceived threat of religious fundamentalism. All of these issues are related and they cannot be written about in isolation of the rest. As France fights to protect its culture of laïcité (secularism), care must be taken to not abuse human rights in the name of equality.