MUSLIM WOMAN KICKED OUT FOR WEARING RELIGIOUS ATTIRE

Article:
Muslim Woman Forced to Remove Her Face Veil In Public, Didn’t End Well
http://bit.ly/1DOdRfM

A Muslim woman was asked to leave a famed Paris opera after the actors refused to perform in her presence. The woman was wearing a “niqab-type veil”. France has had laws in place for years banning Muslims from wearing face covering in public. Usually violations of the ban are fined but this is the first incidence of someone being asked to leave.

The woman was wearing a niqab, which is a veil that covers the entire face with the exception of the eyes. One of the actors spotted her form the stage, and after which a few member of the cast refused to perform until she was removed from the Opera House. The woman was eventually asked to leave the opera house. In a country such as France it comes as no surprise that the woman’s niqab was a source of contest. France is a sociality country that has had laws in pace since 2011 banning Muslims from covering their faces in public. The law banning any veils was also contested in the European Human Rights court by a young French woman who argued that this was a violation of her freedom of religion. Unfortunately the court did not rule in her favour, stating “”was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face”.

Herman Dooyeweered a Dutch Scholar compared shining light through a prism and getting a array of colours to how different individuals experience life. All peoples come from different backgrounds with different views and ideas, it becomes a challenge and a goal for us as human beings to learn to accept one another and the differences that define us. Dooyeweered identified ground motives or a value system of what human interpretations of reality are. According to him these ground motives underlie all religions and determine the world view of their person. In relation to the Ban on veils it is important to consider is France seeing this from a different religious perspective, one perhaps where a females covering of the face is not relevant. And overlooking someone else’s religious view where the veil for the female in public plays a vital role. The law stipulates that the face cannot be veiled in public but that is where some religions/cultures find it most necessary.

As a Canadian raised in a multi-cultural environment/society and taught to accept everyone regardless of religious orientation, I find this ban as an extreme violation of a person’s religious rights. In a world of growing interdependence and globalization it is important that we as human beings become that much more tolerant of one another’s religious beliefs or in this cause religious attire. I don’t think that an individual’s personal choices that do not cause harm to others should be subjugated to governmental authority. If someone’s choice of attire is not causing any harm onto another and is a freely made choice, it should be no concern of anyone besides the individual themselves. By imposing a ban on veils France has taken a step towards creating a national dress code, could this be the first step towards many more wardrobe restrictions?

Similar/relating Article:
http://bbc.in/1rT0G6Y

  • HD #uwreligions #349
Advertisements

4 thoughts on “MUSLIM WOMAN KICKED OUT FOR WEARING RELIGIOUS ATTIRE

  1. When I read this article and blog I couldn’t believe this type of discrimination still exists in developed nations like France. In my opinion France is encouraging and even legalizing discrimination by passing the law that states people cannot cover their faces in public. I completely agree with this blog that this ban is an extreme violation of a person’s religious rights. If an individual’s personal choices do not cause harm to others then the government should not impose laws that restrict individual freedoms.

    Kicking this woman out of the opera doesn’t just affect her, but affects all Muslims living in France. The article points out that there are approximately five million Muslims living in France, therefore that is five million of the French population that have increased animosity towards the government. In addition, other religious groups may view this law as a lack of respect for all religious entities. This could cause fear that the government will not protect their religious rights. After all what is to stop the government from passing laws banning turbans, crosses, and other religious symbols if it is ok to ban Muslim clothing?

    I am not a Muslim myself, but I have particular religious beliefs that I abide by. I have had discriminating acts and comments directed towards me in the past and I know how hurtful discrimination can be. Through my experiences, I have come to believe that it is important to understand everyone’s unique views and to be accepting of them. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with everyone, it simply means trying to understand how different people experience life, as pointed out in this blog.

    MD #349

  2. I find your blog post particularly interesting because I too have heard of such cases where people of different religions have been forced to “fit in or get out”. It reminds me of the case where a Sikh man was a part of the RCMP but could not wear the traditional hat for religious reasons pertaining primarily to him wearing a turban. I remember having mixed emotions when I heard about this case because as a Canadian I am proud of the RCMP and the work that they do to protect our country and the traditional uniform attire is a huge symbol of their service to Canada. However I couldn’t help but feel ashamed as a Canadian that we would let a hat get in the way of this man’s religious freedom. Even though I enjoyed seeing RCMP officers in the traditional attire, was that really worth this man’s freedom to practice his religion? I believe that the answer is very clearly no!
    As for the situation in France, I’m sure that people there have different cultural upbringings that affect the way they see the world. You mentioned Dooyeweered and his idea of light shining through a prism which I think is very helpful in understanding where the people of France may be coming from with regards to these laws. However, I do not see this as an excuse for the laws they have in place, and based on your blog I’m sure that you would agree with me in that. I can relate with you also in the fact that I feel blessed to have been raised in a Canadian home that promoted acceptance and co-existence. I believe that this is one of the most beautiful things about Canada, and it is one of the reasons that I am proudly Canadian.

    Tommy Douglas
    #349

  3. It is my belief, that there must be reasonable limits on any rights we enjoy in society. This reasonable limit clause is also written into the Canadian constitution, as per section one. While at first glance, the idea of limiting rights may seem wrong, upon closer examination, we can see why a reasonable limit on any right is beneficial to society. While I have no issue with religious wear, some times they can understandably cause issues. The issue surrounding this article is not any type of religious discrimination, although it may seem that way at first glance but, rather a perfectly reasonable limit prescribed on a right. It is completely understandable why wearing a full facial covering in a public space could potentially be somewhat problematic. For example, if you go into a store with a mask covering your face, you will be asked to take it off, as it can obviously be used for negative actions. However, to say that some people can fully cover their face and go into a store, while others can not obviously can cause issues. I have no objection to wearing the niqab, but there must be a reasonable limits in doing so. Going into a public area such as any establishment or public area is one such reasonable limit. A person could potentially wear the niqab and virtually disguise their identity, as it is almost impossible to tell who could be underneath it. A man could potentially wear the niqab, commit a crime, and the description given to the authorities would be that of a female. This would obviously cause problems in the investigation. This is why we have a reasonable limit clause, as we know that there will always be people who abuse the system to their own advantage. We can see the same issue with the Sikh religion and the kirpan, which is the ceremonial knife carried by baptized Sikhs. While we allow Sikhs to carry the knife, we obviously have imposed some restrictions on what type of knife and where they are allowed to carry it. This has not caused any issues as people understand that it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to not bring a knife into say a courthouse or a airplane. While it would be great if we could have unrestricted rights, we must be realistic and realize we can not allow unrestricted rights as it would lead to a potentially negative outcome for society.

  4. It is my belief, that there must be reasonable limits on any rights we enjoy in society. This reasonable limit clause is also written into the Canadian constitution, as per section one. While at first glance, the idea of limiting rights may seem wrong, upon closer examination, we can see why a reasonable limit on any right is beneficial to society. While I have no issue with religious wear, some times they can understandably cause issues. The issue surrounding this article is not any type of religious discrimination, although it may seem that way at first glance but, rather a perfectly reasonable limit prescribed on a right. It is completely understandable why wearing a full facial covering in a public space could potentially be somewhat problematic. For example, if you go into a store with a mask covering your face, you will be asked to take it off, as it can obviously be used for negative actions. However, to say that some people can fully cover their face and go into a store, while others can not obviously can cause issues. I have no objection to wearing the niqab, but there must be a reasonable limits in doing so. Going into a public area such as any establishment or public area is one such reasonable limit. A person could potentially wear the niqab and virtually disguise their identity, as it is almost impossible to tell who could be underneath it. A man could potentially wear the niqab, commit a crime, and the description given to the authorities would be that of a female. This would obviously cause problems in the investigation. This is why we have a reasonable limit clause, as we know that there will always be people who abuse the system to their own advantage. We can see the same issue with the Sikh religion and the kirpan, which is the ceremonial knife carried by baptized Sikhs. While we allow Sikhs to carry the knife, we obviously have imposed some restrictions on what type of knife and where they are allowed to carry it. This has not caused any issues as people understand that it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to not bring a knife into say a courthouse or a airplane. While it would be great if we could have unrestricted rights, we must be realistic and realize we can not allow unrestricted rights as it would lead to a potentially negative outcome for society.

    -F #349

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s