wearing face veil is forbidden in some parts of europe
Please give me some advice on this essay submitting to a moot club. Thank you all
The hijab, a veil worn by Muslim women, is a religious and cultural element of Islam. However, some Europe countries have banned on wearing face veil, including hijab, in public places. This has caused a controversy about violation of human right or freedom of religion in particular. What is your opinion about this issue
The infringement of religious freedom has provoked acid controversies among nations. Hijab considered as the specific-partition clothing of Muslim women has been banned strictly in Europe countries. To my mind, this decree actually trespasses the human right of religion to a remarkable degree.
In the theoretical view, this banning does not conform to religious freedom law, which is commonly known as one of the most fundamental human rights. Deeply, it relates directly to individual actions that government's permission even with nations having state religion to treat equally with all type of belief depending on personal religion wishes. In practice, some countries have enforced policies to the foreign belief including punitive taxation and limits in practicing belief outwardly in a public manner. On the one hand, it is true that different religions will display in varied forms and we must control their influences on citizens by law. But more importantly, these signs need classifying whether they are detrimental or inoffensive. On the other hand, the hijab is a type of women's clothing so it superficially harmless other than its manifested function of Muslim women's seclusion from men in the public sphere. Hijab is the symbolic expression of the modest-style fashion and social status rather than a fuse to terrorism.
France, the first Europe country banning the full-face veil in public spaces has shown the contrary. It passed a law banning symbols or clothes through which students conspicuously display their religious affiliation in schools, which harshly smashes both student's freedom of religion and perception. Due to one student's developed phase, he must know about religious symbols beside his national belief and aware of his liberal rights of religion as well as handicap decree-law.
In the victims' viewpoint, there are two objects affected adversely. The majority is women who are delicate and have frail-suffering abilities. This banning has put unofficial pressure on those wearing hijab including physical attacks. Consequently, some women stop wearing it out of fear or out of religious conviction for self-protection. Moreover, their legal rights have been infringed as women's belief displays are considered as an open society. Futhermore, Europe's banning decree will constrain their citizens' culture-exchanging opportunities and religious freedom, which can easily trigger more domestic demonstrations.
In conclusion, a religion-protecting strategy should be applied as opposed to an anti-diverse culture policy to reduce ethnic conflicts among nations. This method with educated orientation will reduce assimilation in a better way without raising more controversial problems.
