Throughout history religion-state issues have always occurred. In France religion does influence law making and politics. This is evident in the banning of the burqa, which is contradictory as France claims to be a secular state. The French government believes the ban reinforces their stance of secularism, and that banning the full face veil will remove a perceived social barrier between the Muslims and general society. The Muslims believe it is actually removing them from the social sphere and an attack on their rights as French citizens. From analysing both sides of the argument a solution can be hypothesised and applied to the situation.
On September the 14th 2010, the French government passed a piece of legislation, with surprisingly little opposition, that banned the wearing of full face veils, the nijab and burqa, in public places or institutions. President at time Nicolas Sarkozy, lobbied for it himself, saying that imprisonment ‘behind a mesh... is not the French republic’s idea of women’s dignity’. Critics accused the president of siding with the far-right with his anti-burqa comments, but polls indicate more then 80% of voters supported the ban [Isobel Coleman, 2010]. Another reason for the ban’s implementation is its role as a security measure. People must now remove their scarfs, veils and turbans for security checks [News.com, 2014]. The need for these security checks has risen since the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, where 130 people were killed, and was claimed by Islamic State. In addition, many Muslim leaders in France, who oppose the ban as it targets Muslim women, support the ban as they do not encourage the wearing of the veils and generally encourage women to not wear it. They see it as a bulwark against ...
... middle of paper ...
...issue in France, because of the amount support for secularism and the burqa ban by the French population. The only two solutions would be to remove ban entirely or to keep the ban in place. But it is highly unlikely that the ban in place, as 80% of voters support it. Considering there are only around 2000 Muslims who wear the veil it would appear that this would result in least amount of backlash. Therefore, by keeping the burqa ban in place is the least controversial solution to this situation.
The burqa ban is a perfect example of a contemporary religion-state issue. In France religion does directly influence law making and politics as it is a secular state. This is evident in France with, the banning of the burqa which is supports the hedgemonic belief of keeping religion out of public life and in a private sphere, but discriminates basic female and human rights.
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...
The author of this essay thinks it is ridiculous that women cannot wear their hijab in certain places around the world. Many people think the hijab is not necessary. However, it is part of what Muslim women believe. She explains in her essay, "So next time you hear about a hijab ban think about your best pair of jeans or your faded t-shirt with the logo of your favorite band" (Fakhraie 461). A hijab is just like every other piece of clothing that covers up the body. It can be part of their religion, or they can wear a hijab just because they like how it
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
...spects, as manifest destiny attitudes could spur conflict. Similar to the conflicts of instating leaders into other countries, adoption of American and Western culture has become a mandate for any country seeking further economic progress. France has recently had issues with the banning of wearing a full face veil, religious headwear for women in Islam, while on in public (Erlanger 1). While in the West there are outcries of sexism and discrimination, for the women wearing the hijab, it is an essential part of their religion and taking it away from them diminishes their chances of an afterlife. While the institution of Islam may be sexist, that should be left to the followers. With the tools to make the decision for themselves, removing the hijab can be a possibility, as long as the Western World does not try to make them “see” when so blind to the culture of Islam.
The documentary “Young, Muslim, and French” brings attention to the islamophobia that is going on in France. In September 2004, the French government passed a law banning religious paraphernalia in schools, especially targeting head scarfs. The government claims this was a way to “end extremism”. The school system believes that there is no place for religion in school, and around the young in their formative years. The veil is an expression of their devotion to Islam, not a symbol of terrorism. Not wearing it contradicts their religion and even jeopardizes their place in heaven, and puts a great amount of stress on Muslim students. Which results in the French education failing to properly teach and support these students. Muslim students are thrown off the education path and often study to become electricians and other technical careers. Girls are forced to choose between practicing their faith and receiving an education.
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
The legislation aspires to prohibit public-sector employees from wearing “objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other religious affiliation”. These objects include items such as kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and large crucifixes. This ban would be intended to apply to all civil servants, including individuals such as teachers, doctors, nurses and police offiercers (Jake Flanagin, The Atlantic). At a hearing for Bill 60, Michelle Blanc, who is a transgender woman, spoke in support of the Bill, appealing to Quebecers' pro-LGBT feelings. “When I see a veil, the mental image I have is all of the gays who were hung high and low in the public square... in certain Arab countries”, Blanc had stated. Although same-sex relationships and the importance of being accepting of all religions have been two of the most controversial and highly debated topics, it is definitely not the right step to attack the Muslim religion and specific Arab countries in an attempt to defend Bill 60. Much like it is innapropriate to accuse the LGBT community of being anti-religion, it is equally innapropriate to accuse an entire religion for the horrible act of the hanging of gays in certain Arab countries. Not all gays are
The social injustice of religious persecution seen in France during the 19th Century was much more visible than that of the 21st Century. In the case of official state legislation, the Anti-Sacrilege Act passed by King Charles X in 1825 significantly defined the French policy of religious intolerance d...
The burqa affects women negatively and positively, in both emotional and physical aspects, and is seen as a universal symbol of oppression which can arguably be taken to the extreme for the benefit of other countries. The physical effects of Muslim dress can be positive, but mostly negative; Journalists contend that burqas can lessen the hassle when dealing with one’s physical appearance, but can negatively affect health and be very uncomfortable. According to Doucleff, “‘wearing the hijab eliminates many of the hassles women have to go through — such as dyeing their hair,’ she says. ‘For example, you're getting old, and gray hairs, when you wear the hijab, you might not think about dyeing your hair because nobody sees it anyway.’”
There are many different views towards Muslim choice of clothing especially wearing the veil. “I wear it believing it is necessary, but someone else can be wearing it believing that she is doing something extra” said Hamna Ahmed. One of the many reasons a Muslim can be wearing the veil are their own personal decisions too. Hamna has been wearing it for seven years now, despite her mother and three of her four sisters staying uncovered. Socially this causes an issue with the meaning of the veil and conflict with other groups. With many different consumptions of religion, what it means, what is considered to be practicing and what is not can lead to negative misunderstandings. Ultimately the decisions are up to the individuals although; there is likely to be misinterpretation between the meaningfulness of religion to family and society. On an even bigger scale of things this could also impact society and it...
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
To sum up, the burkini ban is communal reprimand and bigotry impersonating as rational secularism. In addition, even if you appraise the statement on its own conditions, it goes on foolishly and inexcusable. The "burkini," has been prohibited in three French beaches, which includes Cannes. Cops says the attire is against France’s secular beliefs, and focusses on religious partitions in a state that is experienced dreadful act of violence by Islamist extremists. Nonetheless criticizers say it is Islamophobia.
“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.