Have you ever wondered about the possibility that the law can be used to take away your rights and liberties? If so, wouldn’t it be just a matter of time until someone uses it to enforce their insular opinion? Muslims in European countries are baffled by the recent bans to wear the burqa or the “face veil” (i.e. France). The veil’s significance to the Muslim women community became a trigger for social discussions for terrorism, women’s rights and multiculturalism. President Sarkozy of France argued that the veil is not a religious symbol, instead, it’s another form of “enslavement” which France shouldn’t tolerate (Janmohamed). Arguments about market exploitation, misogyny, discrimination, and even secularism, all come to play in the clash between …show more content…
In France’s “burqa ban” alone, even before the ban, women who wear the veil is extremely rare. In a Muslim population of 1.7 million, roughly 2000 women wear the veil, most of which are converts who voluntarily adopted the use of the veil (Taylor). The French government argued that the veil bans are necessary to ensure the concept of “living together”(Janmohamed). This justification alone is focused to those who are persecuting marginalization, instead of those who are suffering its effects. Why? French borders are suffering from terror attacks during the past decade and this may just be a knee-jerk reaction from the previous attacks, but such actions shouldn’t be justifiable because there are many alternative to go about this problem. It is not so far-fetched that people are now becoming anxious of terror attacks, but we must remember that the muslim community are victims too. It’s like an insult to injury because instead of curing the effects of the prejudicial Islamophobia, we are making it look like it is not okay for women to have the choice the full veil for reasons linked to their beliefs which is protected by the law (European). Taking that right away from them will only light a fire to a whole new range of ways that law will be used against a minority. Think about it, if we started banning the use of veils, what’s next? Are we also gonna ban the use of scarves and hoodies? Both have similar purposes and can be used to veil an individual, but since it’s widely accepted, it will cause more public concern, doesn’t
In the article, Chesler uses several persuasive appeals in an attempt to convince readers to support France’s ban on head coverings. While some may argue that banning religious clothing infringes on Islamic law, Chesler points out that “many eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious… women insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces… Leading Islamic scholars agree with them.” In an appeal to logos, Chesler uses facts, gathered from educated Muslim women and Islamic scholars, to show that this argument is illogical because the burqa is not required. Chesler continues logos appeals by citing the Sheikh of al-Azhat University as saying “The niqab is tradition. It has no connection to religion.” This passage demonstrates ethos as well, but carries on the idea that burqas and niqabs are not required by Islamic law, making the ban perfectly logical. The idea is that, since these garments are not mandatory in the Koran’s broad requisite of “modest dress,” the ban does not infringe on religious rights, making the ban a logical choice. Chesler takes the argument one step further by insisting that the burqa is not only optional, it is detrimental to wearers. The argument that “it is a human rights violation and constitutes both a health hazard and is a form of torture” to women who wear burqa exhibits both logos and pathos. By pointing out that burqas are a possible “health hazard,” Chesler uses unappealing syntax to make readers believe that burqas are unhealthy and i...
For some women wearing a veil is not something that is forced on them but rather a choice of their own. Martha Nussbaum and Maysan Haydar are both authors that try to explain their reasoning that veiling isn't an oppressive tool used against women. Martha Nussbaum's article “Veiled Threats”, is a political and philosophical take on why banning the burqa is a violation of human rights. On the other hand Maysan Haydar’s article “Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”, is a more humorous and personal take on why veiling shouldn't be as judged or stereotyped. Though Nussbaum and Haydar have equal goals this essay is being used to understand the main argument, claims and whether or not each article has any weaknesses.
Ever pass by Muslim woman in a hijab at the mall or park and think how oppressive and restraining her culture must be? Maysan Haydar, a New York social worker who practices the Muslim tradition of veiling, believes otherwise. In her article, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering,” Haydar highlights on her experiences as a Muslim living in an American culture, where showing more skin is the “norm.” Haydar speaks specifically to a crowd who unconsciously makes assumptions about certain Muslim practices, in hopes of sharing the truth behind them. Haydar suggests that, contrary to popular belief, not all Muslim women cover themselves strictly as an “oppressive” religious practice, but that some women, like herself, find
During his life, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote many stories that delved into the psychology and the reality of what it is to be a human being. Although considered a most private person, which even Hawthorne himself once said that he wanted to keep, "the inmost Me behind its veil" (Norton 369), his writings are so vivid in both characterization and details that there is no doubt that he was a very perceptive and smart man. Examples of his insight-fullness appear within stories such as The Scarlet Letter, Young Goodman Brown, The Haunted Mind, and The Minister's Black Veil. One of his short stories, The Minister's Black Veil, uses symbolism and people's actions to reveal human nature.
The author talks about how this was not something that happen overnight, but has been discussed about from a very long time such a 1989. The views of people that the author chooses to look at are Ernest Cheniere, who raised the statement of banning headscarves in public schools in 1994 and Francois Bayrou minister of education in 1994 who saw muslim headscarves as a way of proselytizing. Then Joan Scotts talks about why the timing played into affect, how racism such as colonial legacies were effected, secularism, individualism of the veil, Muslims being looked as threats, how uncivilized Muslim people were, and sexuality. Joan Scotts goes into detail in all the sub topics and shows how does this affect a common Muslim girl that wears a hijab and how does the French government view
Lies litter the halls of everyone’s mind. Deception scatters itself among the truth, blending in like a chameleon in the desert. Trickery is swept under the carpet, pushed from the forefront of the beholder’s thoughts. Tales of fiction escape the deceiver’s mouth with an intent to present himself or herself in a certain fashion. Dishonesty works like a sprinkler, drenching relationships in a thick cloud of pure deceit when the speaker wishes to. Some acts of deception affect the audience in different manners. A small falsehood goes unnoticed, causing no harm, just another chip in the liar’s conscious. Other purposeful inaccuracies rip and tear relationships apart. The final unveiling of the truth, however small or simplistic the mendacity is, is explosive; this finale could terminate a connection. Blanche Dubois from A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams learns this treacherous lesson in her attempt to conquer her insecurities. Blanche was caught in a web of lies she and her family told; she was beyond the point of no return and received a backlash most would not wish upon their greatest enemy. These lies, although present in the written play, are emphasized in the film adaptation of the play. In the film adaptation of A Streetcar Named Desire, deception is enhanced through the film crew’s choice of lighting, sound, and the portrayal of characters in the film.
In 1789, the French people began to stand up to their current monarchical government in order to obtain rights and laws that they felt they deserved. The Reign of Terror followed after the Revolution and seemed to stand for the complete opposite of what the people had previously stood up for. The Reign of Terror began in 1793 and ended in 1794 due to the decapitation of Maximilien Robespierre. The Reign of Terror can be explained as a time period in France when many counter revolutionaries were killed because of their traditional beliefs. Counter revolutionaries believed in preserving the ways of the monarchy, but since the majority of people thought otherwise, these opposing beliefs led to death. The French government did not have good reason to conduct such drastic measures against those who challenged the Revolution.
Liberty, equality, and freedom are all essential parts to avoiding anarchy and maintaining tranquility even through the most treacherous of times. The Reign of Terror is well known as the eighteen month long French Revolution (1793-1794). In this period of time, a chief executive Maximilien Robespierre and a new French government executed gigantic numbers of people they thought to be enemies of the revolution; inside and outside of the country. The question is; were these acts of the new French government justified? Not only are the acts that occurred in the Reign of Terror not justified, they were barbaric and inhumane.
The 354 women caught for wearing the burka under the initial year of the French ban, all said it was their individual choice to do so and had nothing to do with men, on whom the accusations were made against. These women speak about “louts” in the street, who allegedly shout racist abuse and occasionally use physical violence, “that ultimately creates nothing but hatred and violence”. However, although this information is disturbing, many have criticized it for being irrelevant to the argument. How can a Muslim woman justify the “burka induced torment” as an argument as to why it should remain?
Some objectors claim that by banning the burqa and niqab you are going against the most basic human right about woman having control over their bodies. Banning the burqa and niqab is also forcing all Muslim woman to abandon their cultural traditions. Some of the woman who wear a burqa and niqab have made it their choice to do so because they have noticed that when they wear it they receive far less male attention, this prevents the unwanted flirting and harassment and it stops men from looking at them inappropriately. Another argument from objectors is that if the burqa and niqab was to be a
The Minister’s Black Veil, written by Nathaniel Hawthorne in 1836, is a parable about a minister, Mr. Hooper, who constantly wears a mysterious black veil over his face. The people in the town of Milford, are perplexed by the minister’s veil and cannot figure out why he insists on wearing it all of the time. The veil tends to create a dark atmosphere where ever the minister goes, and the minister cannot even stand to look at his own reflection. In Nathaniel Hawthorne 's literary work, The Minister 's Black Veil, the ambiance of the veil, separation from happiness that it creates, and the permanency of the black veil symbolize sin in people’s lives.
International human rights standards protect the rights of persons to be able to choose what they wish to wear, and in particular to be able to manifest their religious belief. Thus, Human Rights Watch in their report, focusing on the hijab ban for state officials in Germany, said that: “Restrictions should only be implemented where fully justified by the state, and be the least restrictive necessary”.1 Proclamation of wearing the hijab in public institutions as illegal is undermining the autonomy of individuals, their right to choose, their right to privacy and intimacy, and their self-determination. In addition to this, several European countries such as Germany and France directly prevent women wearing hijab to work or attend school in the public state institutions, which further intensified already negative attitude of Western public towards wearing hijab.
299). The study consisted of having in-depth personal interviews to share their experiences of being a Muslim American woman (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 300). Veiling to these women was a way of freedom while also having a Muslim identity (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). It was also a source of behavior control, to not be sexually objectified, a way of commanding respect from others and even a source of checking their own behavior (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 301). One of the women interviewed said, veiling to her was a way to feel connected to other Muslim woman who veil (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 302). Veiling can be a way to feel connected to your religion and God as well as being connected to those who practice the same faith, it can be considered an act of membership. Many of the women interviewed noted they have been removed from planes, been treated unfairly, and have had strangers shout at them all for just being Muslim and being more visibly recognized from veiling (Anderson Droogsma, 2007, p. 303). This is an example of how media can affect the general population. When the media only shows radicals and compares all Muslims to being terrorist or dangerous they are actually putting Muslim people at risk of being assaulted in public. Muslim woman in particular are more at risk for being assaulted as they are more identifiable. So while veiling can be a source of empowerment and freedom for women it is a double-edged sword because it also puts them at further risk of being
The hijab is a very important and powerful Muslim symbol that is worn by billions of Muslim women all over the world. Many wear the hijab as a symbol of faith, while others wear it to protect themselves from society’s expectations of women. Some people think that banning the use of the hijab in public is a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. However, others think the banning of the hijab is a necessary precaution. The wearing of the Muslim hijab should be banned in public because it is impractical, Muslims use it to separate themselves from society, and it is a security risk.
“French Parliament to Consider Burka Ban.” CNN. June 24 2009. Online. Available http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/23/france.burkas/index.html?iref=all search. Jan 5 2010.