Hijab Should Not Be Banned In Canada Essay

To tell the truth, firstly, I think Canada has too many laws because of the lack of universality reflected by its laws.Nowadays, the society and also the quality of people are both developing rapidly day by day.However, from a deeper point of view, we could easily seek out the truth under the “peaceful” and “harmonious” surface of the modern

Cassidy Herrington, a journalism student at the University of Kentucky, wore a hijab for a whole month and wrote about her experience in a column published in The Kentucky Kernel on Oct. 31, 2010.

There has been debates about whether the Islamic face veil should be banned in countries. The arguments that governments of countries that have banned the Muslim face veil (France, Syria, Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium) argue that the full-face veil is oppressive, degrading towards women, and goes against values of each country. However, many Muslim women believe otherwise and strongly disagree with the banning of the veil. I strongly believe that the Islamic face veil should not be banned because it is a complete violation of religious and expressive freedom and forces them to conform to an alternative culture.

Canada’s identity comes in many shapes and forms. Multiculturalism has been adopted and is at the forefront of Canadian identity. Following the Second World War, Canada’s multiculturalism policies became more acceptable and even successful in, not only accepting, but inviting multiple ethnic cultures in. In contrast to other countries, multiculturalism adaptation works for the Canadian culture. Canadian policies on multiculturalism have shifted over the past few decades; policies are now implemented for integration, not discrimination.

Laura Barnett (2011, July) claims that freedom of religion on this charter is figuratively indicating that government of Canada plays a neutral role in the case of religious freedom and its major concern is to accredit the supremacy of none of religions over each other while it preserves the relationship between church and state. This means that all of religions are respected the same by the government and people have freedom of religions in all kind. For instance, activists of all religions like Islam, Jew, Buddha and others have lots of religious activities

Canada adopted multiculturalism as an official policy, which allows the value and dignity of all Canadians, regardless of their racial origins, language or religious affiliations. Plus the status of two official languages, French and English. Canada promotes multiculturalism by encouraging Canadians to participate in all aspects of life. Regardless of their background, anyone can participate in social, cultural, economic, and political affairs. Everyone is equal to one another. Everyone has the right to be heard. These rights are provided to us through our Canadian constitution and our charter of rights and freedoms. Some people come to Canada and have a history of hate towards an ethnic group. Promoting hatred is not permitted in Canada. You have the right to have your own ethnicity in Canada but you must also respect others right to do the same. Canada has experienced racial and ethnic tensions. But the majority of Canadians are fair minded. We will accept and respect them that will accept and respect us. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of religious expression. For those who are new comers to Canada, you may contribute to this country’s diversity. But you need to be prepared to live in a

This week and posts from other classmates brought the realization to myself that as a country we must have limits to multiculturalism and the allowing of cultural practices. Family equality and safety are the utmost priority within this sphere; although religion is a personal right one must remember our laws and legislation and abide by such. “To allow Sharia law to be practiced in Canada, especially in the legal system, would be a regression in human rights” (Ottenbreit, August 13, 2014, Sociology

Islam is expanding. It is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and with the refugee crisis in Europe and North America, the Islamification of the West is inevitable if we do not oppose it; and it seems like our government does not oppose it. In today’s society, people are taught to tolerate a religion that poses a great threat to Western values, and when people demonstrate their fear of losing these values, they are branded as bigots and something with the suffix “phobe” attached to it. Recently, a motion has been passed in Canadian parliament (M-103) which seeks to criminalize any speech against Islam, essentially handing power and authority over to an ideology that poses a great threat to our democratic values. The motion states its purpose to be eliminating Canada from “Islamophobia”, but it does not define what Islamophobia is; it is basically an attack on free speech from the left, as it takes away our right to criticise the radical aspects of Islam, even with reasonable, mature, and highly intellectualized arguments. The liberals are always pushing an agenda that enforces tolerance towards all peoples and ideologies, even when said ideologies are not tolerant of them. They brand people as intolerable bigots for objecting to ideologies and beliefs that do not coincide with the culture and environment they are raised in, and those that conflict with modern day Western values (women’s rights, gay rights, etc.). So, what if Islamophobia is justified? What if our rejection of Islam is not because of racism, but rather a result of our fear of losing the world that gives us freedom and democracy? What is not realized by most people in the west, specifically those who support open borders and acceptance of Islam and Sharia law, is the fact that Islam is the complete opposite of the ideal Western society. It does not take long for one to realize, given extensive research of the Quran, statistics, and current events, that Islam, within its fundamental state serves its purpose as a conquering entity that seeks to expand as far as it can by any

The banning of the burqa has become an issue in many places, including France. The French Parliament has decided it is time to ban the burqa in public. They believe is a sign of the subjugation and submission of women to males. Some believe it is used to cover up abuse and they also believe it is unfair to the public that citizens cannot see the women’s faces. However it is unfair for these women to be banned from wearing what they choose as just everyone else does.The banning of the burqa should not be allowed because it is discriminatory towards Muslim women and violates their freedom of religion and their freedom to express themselves.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is guaranteed certain rights. One that stands out and is essential to our society is the fundamental freedom of expression. Anyone can speak their opinion in public. However, the government can in some instances limit these freedoms. The question that causes a lot of debate is in what instances can the government genuinely limit people’s rights while being justified in doing so. I believe the restrictions on speech in Canada are appropriate. I believe that the government was correct in not intervening with the debate between Mark Steyn and the Muslim petitioners because his article did not warrant enough to risk the safety of Muslims, and by coercing Maclean’s to post an opposing viewpoint would be a violation of their fundamental freedom of expression.

As we know from section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, and among those rights is the freedom of conscience and religion. Secularism comes as a shock to Canadians because of how many people immigrate to Canada because of its positive attitudes towards multiculturalism. After presenting opposing arguments with concern to the promotion of a secular state through a device such as the Québec Charter, I will that the Charter because it violates basic human rights and forces secularism onto the Quebecois.

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

A country built on immigration, Canada has long had a reputation of being culturally and ethnically diverse. While multiculturalism is meant to be built on equality and appreciation of different cultures, its concept has gained both support and opposition. On one hand, it allows for more assortment and the voices of minorities have a higher chance to be heard. On the other hand, loss of unity and conflicts may occur due to contrasting worldviews of the citizens. All in all, multiculturalism is a controversial policy that has both advantages and disadvantages, but has proven to be a successful strategy in Canada.

Students struggle throughout high school and go through a great deal of stress. Whether it be making friends, or working hard to pass a difficult class. To make things more pressuring, they are not allowed to wear what they want. The administration made the decision that it is best to suspend a student for their choice in clothing. If they go against the rule of dress code, there will be serious consequences. What students wear should not affect their class work. If a student gets sent home for their outfit, it is affecting their grades and attendance. Punishment disrupts the students education more than what they are wearing. High school students should feel free to embrace their individuality without being pressured by dress codes; therefore, it should be eliminated from all schools indefinitely.

When I was 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 from 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 government’s 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.” (Religious Freedom). You can express your religion in public, during church, mass, or religious meetings. So the presence of religious items such as the burqa's and veil do not disturb the people or government.