The niqab is an islamic symbol of faith worn by some muslim women around the world. A women who immigrated to Canada in 2008 and passed her citizenship test in 2013 was to be taking her oath and become an official Canadian citizen. She was denied citizenship because she was wearing the niqab, which is a veil that covers the face. She was asked to remove the niqab in order to obtain her citizenship. She was forced to into choosing either her faith or Canada. The niqab should not be banned in Canada for the purpose of citizenship oath or any other reasons. The banning of the niqab infringes the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, section two, fundamental rights which includes freedom of religion. In Ontario it is legal for women to go …show more content…
All muslims were treated with disrespect and hate because of one group which portrayed a false extremist view of the religion. Being born and raised in Canada, while being muslim, I too have experienced this hate. In elementary school I was told I blow up airplanes because I am a muslim. At the time I was only 11 years old and did not understand at all what this meant, and did not know enough to stand up for myself. After this experience anything that was said about my religion by anyone I knew to stand up for myself and my beliefs and never had this problem again, but that elementary school experience taught me as a child that i am looked at as being “different” because of my religion and the colour of my skin. I no longer considered myself a true Canadian even though Canada is the only country i have ever lived in. This was a very confusing and discriminatory experience for me.This being said I believe that if muslim women in Canada are bullied even by the Prime Minister, then this type of behaviour will be deemed appropriate and a bad influence to Canadians. This is a problem because i would not want my children or any other muslim or non caucasian Canadian to be treated this way in Canada. Banning the niqab, an islamic symbol, could be the start of many other discriminatory laws directed towards muslim Canadians which could lead to this type of behaviour towards muslims in
Professor Leila Ahmed, active Islamic feminist, in her article “Reinventing the veil” published in the Financial Times assumes that there is a connection between “advancement” and veiling, which means that unveiled women are advanced and vice versa. In addition, she supports that it led to increasing rate of violence. She questions why women wear veil, that is considered as “symbol of patriarchy and women’s oppression”. However, research changed her position towards wearing veil. Firstly, she states that wearing veil was essential for women, because it could be beneficial and influence to how people treat women, in terms of job, marriage and free movement in public. Secondly, her assumption was explained while interviewing women, who stated
If the Charter claims that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and expressions, then why is the discussion of prohibiting public employees from wearing clothing with religious symbolism even brought up? Why are the majority – 60 percent – of Quebecers in favour of the Charter's ban on religious symbols? Perhaps it is difficult to understand the importance of such religious symbols when someone is not practicing any religion and are not required to wear anything to show their faith. However, imagine having something that you find greatly important and highly value being taken away from you. It does not have to be a cross or a hijab, maybe it is a favourite piece literature, or a piece of jewelry passed down from an important family member, whatever it may be, it holds high sentimental value. Taking away an object of high value would offend and upset anyone, no matter what that object may be. When it comes to taking away someone's right to wear whatever they wish, and on top of that halting their right to properly practice their religion is a definite infringement of the Rights and Freedoms possessed by any person living in Canada, which is just
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...
Imagine being discriminated anyplace you went, with glares from many and you haven’t done anything to receive those judgments. Muslim Americans in the U.S. have to deal with that discrimination every day post the events that happened on 9/11. Some take drastic measures such as changing their birth name, in hopes that they can avoid being judged by others. Muslim teenager Alisha, told her story that while visiting Six Flags with her family, an American man yelled at her father with the racial comment, “F**k you Osama!” She would also get asked offensive questions, like if she hated Jews too. People who engage in relationships with someone from the Muslim population are harassed for having a romantic affiliation with someone who they would call a “terrorist”. Along with getting called horrific names, many have become objects of suspicion.
The way Muslims have been treated after the 9/11 incident is very different than before. Before 9/11 there was certainly some discrimination towards Muslim Americans, but after the attacks happened, between the years 2000 and 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a 1,700 percent increase of hate crimes against Muslim Americans (Khan & Ecklund, 2012). “While trying to adapt to the outcome of 9/11, Muslim Americans dealt with an increase in negative stereotypes spoken by the common culture, and Muslim immigrants faced more negative attitudes than any other immigrant group” (Khan & Ecklund, 2012). Since the 9/11 attacks, people who dress with a substantial resemblance to Muslims worry about the upcoming hatred and unfriendliness from people of other ethnicities (Khan & Ecklund, 2012). While listening to the media, one can hear reports of negative stereotypes towards people who resemble the Muslim religion, which may be assumed that these people are violent. Negative attitudes that Muslim Americans experience may have detrimental effects on their success in America and their success of achieving the American Dream.
Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving by Lila Abu-Lughod describes Western feminist beliefs on Muslim women and their burqa/veil and how focusing on these misconceptions are doing far more harm than good. This causes Western feminists reduce the culture and beliefs of Muslim women down to a single piece of clothing. The burqa is a type of veil worn by Muslim women for a number of reasons such as proprietary and signaling their relationship with God. The burqa is often seen a symbol of suppression amongst the Western world and it was expected for women to throw it off in a show of independence once liberated from the Taliban. The saving of Muslim women is often used to justify the “War on Terrorism” as exemplified in Laura Bush 's 2001 speech. The belief that Muslim women needed saving existed before the “War on Terrorism” as seen when Marnia Lazreg wrote about a skit where two Afghan girls talked about the beauty of the free Christian France.
Discrimination, prejudice, and racism are all terms far too similar and encountered by multiple cultures. A vast amount of individuals have experienced these different terms, unfortunately some individuals belonging to certain minority cultures experience them more often than others. After the attacks on 9/11, the Muslim culture became a major target for actions such as discrimination. The media, especially in regards to women and their attire, fueled warped views about this culture. There are beliefs that women in this culture are oppressed and forced to wear a veil, or hijab, however their views and opinions are not taken into account regarding these statements that are being portrayed through the media and its watchers who are not aware of the cultural beliefs and traditions.
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
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada's constitution; the highest law in Canada. Therefore, it`s only proper we treat it the Charter to its utmost priority. That being the case, prohibiting others to practice or promoting their religion goes against one of our Fundamental Freedoms; freedom of religion. Section 2 of the Charter states, that you can practice your religion and declare them without fear of hatred and/or bullying. In addition, you cannot force another individual to follow the same religion a you; as that is assimilation. However, a tiny village in Quebec; Hérouxville was doing the opposite of this. For instance, Hérouxville was having a heated debate on trying to ban religious headgear like hijabs,taqiyya, and turbans. In either case, this is obviously unacceptable because it goes against the Charter. Furthermore, Hérouxville also adopted a peculiar code of conduct that forbade women from being stoned alive or burned with acid, along with other measures intended for newcomers. Forcing immigrants with other measures and basically assimilating them infringes section 15 of the Charter; being equality rights. Equality rights state, every individual in Canada is under and before the law. This means that they guaranteed equal protection, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental/physical disability. In summary, practising and promoting religion is protected under the Charter therefore, it's only right that it should be
Islam is a growing religion, however there are still closed minded people in the world, and in Canada. The Quebec government wants to pass a law that states government employees will not be allowed to wear religious symbols to work. This seems to set Canada back years as a country that is supposed to accepting of all people and all faiths.
“Perhaps the most commonly heard opposition to the niqab is that women cover up at the command of domineering men, that the veil is a sign of Muslim women’s oppression, as well as a general indicator of the “backwardness” of Islamic culture” (Natasha Bakht, p.10). These stereotypes of Muslim men dominating women confuse Islam with cultural practices and fail to recognize that Islam has empowered women throughout its history. Former Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper stated that such a garment is “rooted in a culture that is anti-women,” but never once took initiative to ask the niqab-wearing women if that is in fact the
While people in the west think that women in Islam are oppressed, they do not know that Islam liberated women from oppression. There are many people who have opinions about the religion of Islam, but mostly about the women who follow it. Westerners have this idea that women in Islam are disrespected, mistreated and oppressed. In actuality, these allegations are incorrect. Women in Islam have rights and are not oppressed. The veil is widely misunderstood and many do not know what it represents. In many ways, men and women are equal as much as they are not; and this is in every religion.
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
Wearing the burqa and veil by Muslim women in France has become a controversial topic. The burqa and veil are recognized in France as a conflicti...
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.