Should Britain and other Western countries follow the Belgian and French examples and ban the burqa and the niqab? In other words, should the West prohibit any and all clothing that conceals one's identity? According to some surveys, most Europeans seem to expect the ban of burqa and niqab ("Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe"). However, a significant part of society, particularly in the United States and quite a few feminists have considered such a ban as religiously intolerant, anti-Western and primarily anti-woman. They maintain that the state has no right to decide what a woman can and cannot wear—it is her body, not public property; that given the worldwide exploitation of women as pornographic sex objects, wearing loose, comfortable, modest clothing, or actually covering up, might be both convenient and more dignified; that because of the West's tolerance toward religions, the state cannot come between a woman and her conscience because it would be a betrayal of Western values; and that women are freely choosing to wear the burqa. Some Western intellectuals, such as Leon Wieseltier, …show more content…
Obviously, from the security point of view, the wearing of burqa should be banned as we need to be able to identify people walking the streets, and that the garment mutes body language which could give us valuable warnings. The ban of burqa could evidently reduce the risk of terrorist attacks, because the personal identification would be much easier. As for the health issues, wearing burqas itself causes health risks which was clearly confirmed by many medical professionals. Undoubtedly, women's field of vision is limited and they are unable to see their path clearly. In addition, burqas are linked to hearing loss, asthma, skin problems, cardiac disorder, and also can contribute to mental health
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
The story is about a sixteen-year-old named Amal Mohammed Nasrullah Abdel-Hakim. Amal is an Australian-Palestinian-Muslim girl who lives in Melbourne with her father and mother. During the second semester at McCleans Preparatory School, Amal can’t decide if she should or shouldn’t wear the hijab as a full timer. While she is stuck on the decision she asks for advice from her best friends Yasmeen and Leila from her Islamic junior high school. When she told her parents her idea of wearing the hijab, they ask her if she was sure that she wanted to deal with such a big change in her life. As a test-run, Amal goes shopping with her mom while wearing the hijab. After three hijab-wearing women say “Assalamu-Alaikum” to Amal, she gets a sense that wearing a hijab binds Muslim women together and she feels much more prepared to continue full-time.
Martha Nussbaum main argument tries to convince her audience on The Stone, a philosophical blog that includes mostly educated and philosophical people like herself, by presenting evidence that introduces topics about religion and the first amendment. Nussbaum opposition says that by being covered there is a risk that people might see it as threat. Nussbaum disapproves this by talking about how “...many beloved and trusted professionals cover their faces all year round: surgeon, football players, dentists,skiers, and skaters…”(Nussbaum). Nussbaum uses this to make people understand that others discover their face and don’t face the same discrimination as other people do just because they are Muslim. Nussbaum also tries to defend the burqa from the criticism that it is oppressive, harmful, and used to try to put down women. Nussbaum explains in her article “...society is suffused with symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects. Sex magazines, nude photos, tight jeans- all of these products arguably, treat women as objects…”(Nussbaum). Nussbaum explores the hypocrisy of the argument made against her by showing that women are still oppressed with or without the
...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.
Muslims, Sikhs, and many other religious affiliations have often been targeted for hate crimes, racial slurs, and misfortunate events. We are all different in our own ways some are good and some are bad yet one event changes everything for everyone affiliated with the group. The book The Politics of the Veil by Joan Scott a renowned pioneer in gender studies gives a detailed and analytical book of about the French views towards the Muslim females in France during 2004. The author talks about why the French governments official embargo of wearing conspicuous signs is mainly towards the headscarves for Muslim girls under the age of eighteen in public schools. The main themes of book are gender inequality, sexism, and cultural inequality historical schools used in the book are history of below, woman’s history, cultural history, and political history. In this essay, I will talk about why Joan Scotts argument on why the French government’s ban on wearing conspicuous signs was
Advance Australia’s second premise is partially acceptable. This is because the burqa can enable these people to hide their identities and therefore allowing one to be encouraged in committing criminal activities because of being kept anonymous. In this
The Burqa is the tool of criminals. We know that the ability to hide your identity encourages criminal actions. The cases in Mainbrace show us this, terrorist suicide bombers using the Burqa show us this, Muslim motorists hiding from prosecution when they speed shows us this. We don't allow motorcyclists to wear their helmets and hide their faces in banks or at petrol stations, why should we allow muslims? Recent polls tell is that 81% of Australians are against wearing the Burqa in public. They know the solution to this threat to our safety — we must ban the
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.’”
The Burqa Ban is a highly controversial topic, and the views vary to the extremes. Some people definitely argue that women are in fact being degraded through full body coverings which reduce the entity of a woman into something invisible or indistinguishable as a human. Also, they argue that most women are forced to wear coverings like the Burqa and niqab because of the Islamic Shariah law, which seems to be an oppressive and totalitarian tool of submission. But I can attest that some women will agree with me that the coverings do the exact opposite. They raise the value of a woman who cannot be judged by her body and her appearance, but rather has to be evaluated by her pers...
One out of three people support a ban on Muslim wearing a full veil in public. And a whopping more than six out of ten people agreed that veils should also be prohibited in passport control and airports for several reasons and one being the comfort and safety of others. Only 20 percent of people objected to the Muslim veils being worn out in public
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.
Hijab is a choice that some women or girls make for their own security, for more privacy, or because it makes them feel comfortable and confident about themselves. It should be a choice though, and as it is not proven to us that it is obligatory, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan should remove their laws that insist every girl puts the veil on. Freedom of choice should be given in these countries. It is not required in Islam so it shouldn’t be forced on anyone anywhere. In addition to this, Islam’s beauty is it’s freedom, the choice it provides you with, let it not be ruined.
Democratic people with their beliefs, as they stick to freedom of religion, definitely, should not support this action. The banning of headscarves is directly targeting a section of women and forcing them to expose part of their bodies, which is against their will. Security issues are really important to any country, but there are other ways that should be done instead of just banning the headscarves. For example, a government can use security doors in public institutions that can detect any metal. There are already a lot of these doors used in many places like airports and some malls for security reasons. Also a government can use a lady police to check the identity of women wearing burqas. It is a shameful act in modern countries and modern civilization, and should be condemned by all democrats and human rights organizations.
It should never be taken lightly, and consideration should be given to any and all consequences that might occur once a judgment is made. In the end this argument is not about restriction of religious freedom. People should be afforded the right to exercise their faith. Faith is personal and precious, and cannot be regulated. This argument is directed at a style of clothing, which if it were not considered religious, conceals too much of a persons identity. Allowing someone to remain hidden in the public eye is unacceptable. There is too much risk involved with that kind of anonymity. Niqabs and burqas have been used with malicious intent all across the globe, from suicide bombings to armed robbery, along with kidnapping and evading arrest. Elizabeth Smart could have gotten half a year of her life back if the officer in the library would have looked under her veil. (Smart, Stewart 2272-2326) A man serving a prison sentence in Denmark, would not have been able to walk out of that prison undetected if stronger security measures had been in place. (Astrid Holm 1) If burqas were not so effectively used as camouflage, twenty Islamic state fighters would not have been caught dressed in drag trying to escape the clutches of the Iraqi Army. (Michelle Grossman 1) Burqa's and niqabs are not the only option available to be used as an expression of faith. There are other options such as the