Anne Applebaum’s "Veiled Insult" first appeared in the Washington Post in 2006. In this essay, Applebaum aims to convince her readers that it is disrespectful for Muslim women to wear their headscarves or niqabs (full bodied cloak) in our western society, just as it is disrespectful for our women to go to their society uncloaked. In delivering her message she also brings to attention the political issue of whether or not it is religious discrimination to allow, or not allow muslim women to wear their cloaks, and in the end she gives us her opinion, “it isn’t religious discrimination or anti-Muslim bias to tell her that she must be polite to the natives, respect the local customs, try to speak some of the local patois -- and uncover her face.” Applebaum uses her personal experiences combined with her American worldview to convince her readers (the American public) that for Muslim women to wear their cloaks in American culture is disrespectful and insensitive. Although those techniques may have worked, her strongest argument is perhaps playing on the emotions of the still sensitive and emotionally scarred, post 9/11…
The Dreyfus case demonstrated the anti-Semitism permeating France’s military and, because many praised the ruling, in France in general. Interest in the case lapsed until 1896, when evidence was disclosed that implicated French Major Ferdinand Esterhazy as the guilty party. The army attempted to suppress this information, but a national uproar ensued, and the military had no choice but to put Esterhazy on trial. A court-martial was held in January 1898, and Esterhazy was acquitted within an hour.…
Regarded as essential attire for Jewish men, they adorn it to express pride. Basically Suede Kippahs represent the cultural significance and when it comes to the Jewish law, men are required to recite their blessing by covering their heads with the kippahs.…
The topic of this essay concerns the current proposed law in Quebec regarding the ban on people wearing and displaying religious symbols in government, publicly funded institutions and places of work by the people employed at said places. The Provence of Quebec, governed at this time by the Parti Quebecois, has put forth Bill 60, named the Quebec Charter of Values. Essentially Bill 60 will restrict the wearing or displaying of all religious symbols by people who are attending school or working in the public sector. For example, if a Muslim nurse wearing a hijab was employed at a hospital in the province, she would be required to take off her hijab and any other visible religious symbols before she entered the hospital to start her shift. The bill would apply to judges, police, prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, school employees, hospital workers and municipal personnel. The government of Quebec states that; “The purpose of this bill is to establish a Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for…
You should be able to wear what you want, and what you feel most comfortable in. Dorsa was removed from an important national team just because she didn’t want to wear a piece of clothing meant to reflect one's personal devotion to god. Other girls who posted a YouTube video of themselves singing and dancing without hijabs were arrested and sentenced to a year in prison. It's not right that people will get kicked off teams and arrested for such little things like not wearing a piece of clothing on your head. Why can't she choose…
Contrary to popular belief, not all Muslim women are being oppressed into fully covering their bodies. Instead, a majority of Muslim women around the world have made the decision themselves to wear a head covering or veil. The belief concerning the oppression of Muslim women has resulted from the negative connotation of head coverings associated with Islam. Many people are convinced that Islamic head coverings represent fundamentalist Islam and oppression of Muslim women. This belief is highly misinformed and untrue. Muslim women who choose to veil do so to represent their dedication to their religion. In the past there were many Middle Eastern and African countries that banned different types of headscarves for security reasons or to protect their women.…
Although a small part of traditional Jewish attire, the Yarmulke has played a large role in Jewish History. Although there were initially not as popular, Kippahs have grown to be a requirement of traditional male Jewish dress in Orthodox denominations. Kippah have also been used as objects in protest against anti-Semitism and restrictive religious policies. In addition, Kippah have been used to promote egalitarian religious practice and have been adopted by women in modern Judaism. Despite all these advances, these days Kippahs have fallen out daily use and are used continuously by ultra-Orthodox congregations.…
Ultimately, the debate struck in 2004 when the secularist country of France forbade students in state-run schools to display any form of religious symbols. The bans of religious affiliated garments, such as the veil, escalated from schools to now being in public settings. The law was finalized in April 2011, “prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places” (Grand Chamber). Although the law was passed nationally for France and Belgium, other countries in Europe such as Italy are following the same route in banning the covering of faces in public. Many people still choose to wear it because they believe it is their human right to do so.…
Some people believe that SJAM should not have school uniforms because the students should be able to express yourself through the clothing they choose to wear.…
In the late 1980s, for example, a sharp public controversy erupted in France about whether Magrbin girls could attend school wearing the traditional Muslim headscarves regarded as proper attire for postpubescent young…
I personally think that the kirpan should not be brought into school because it is a knife and knifes are not allowed in school. If they want to respect their…
This will likely become an extremely controversial situation between the people of Quebec City and their governing party, the reason being that before this charter, the people were free to openly practice and somewhat display their beliefs, and now, are being regulated on what they are and aren’t allowed to wear. Though the drafters of the bill feel that this charter is required to achieve religious neutrality, it is not likely that the people of Quebec City will stand for such religious oppression. Some may be tolerable of the charter, like those who can just tuck in their necklaces or put away their rings, but what about those who wear garments such as headdresses and celebrative wear to express their strength and belief, or even a monk who is only to wear his robe. To set any regulation on religious “display” is to oppress religion itself. It is impossible to ban the "visual expression" of religion without inadvertantly discriminating against certain religious perspectives…
Students should have the right to be able to wear what they want with some restrictions of course.Some students might argue that school uniforms decrease bullying rate dramatically. This is proven false by many studies. if there are no clothes to bully people over bullies will just find something else like your hair, money, or even less stupid things such as a lie they make up about you (“Pros and cons of school uniforms).…
Having lived my whole life by the teachings of the Islamic faith, I understand the appreciations and values associated with the Hijab. However, also living in Canada, a pro-western society, I also see how some might see it as an oppression set upon Muslim women; objectively isolating them from the rest of society. I believe that the Hijab means much more than just a piece of cloth covering a woman’s hair. It represents their identity and their pride. It is considered to be the flag of their way of life, their religion. Unfortunately, people of other cultures see it as a horrific tradition of the past that degrades a woman’s rights and freedoms.…
I am in agreement with you as it felt like something more personal than anything else. My ruling was the same and the thing that stood out to me the most is the fact that most women wear earrings and if safety was the real issue then I would think "no earrings" would already be listed in either the police handbook or the union…