speech

Running head: THE BURQA BAN 1

THE BURQA BAN 2

Topic: Banning Burkha or other religious gears against human rights

General Purpose: To prove that the European Court showed contempt for Islam women.

Specific purpose: To advocate for respect of Muslim women and their right of freedom of expression.

Central idea statement/ Thesis: Proving that the burqa and naqib ban showed contempt for the Islam religion although the court argue that it was intended to keep religion out of public life to promote security

Attention getter: Away with bans that demean Islamic freedom of expression.

Justification: Religious expressions should be allowed (Willsher, 2014). Formulated policies should respect individual relation with their God and give them freedom to express themselves in the ways they find fit.

Speaker credibility: I am a Muslim living in a non muslim country. I agree that head covering prevent the accurate identification of individuals but the bans should be done in a way that does not show contempt for a particular group of people.

Preview: I intend to discuss several issues.

a. Why the burqa and niqab are incompatible with the rule of law.

b. Why banning burqa will not solve the issue of insecurity.

Body

Background information

I. Secularism undermines the freedom of expression

i. The burqa and niqab have a meaning to the Muslim women since their Quran require them to conceal their beauty and ornaments (Willsher, 2014). However, they have nothing to do with the rule of law.

ii. According to Willsher, “France adheres strictly to laicite, which is specifically designed to prevent integrating religion with public life. This is why secularism prevails, showing contempt for religion.”

Transition: Since we have seen how secularism affects freedom of expression, we shall look at how this leads to violation of human rights.

II. Secularism has violated the right to religion hence violated human rights

i. The law violated the rights to respect of family and private life and breached Islam women right to freedom of thought, religion or conscience (Willsher, 2014). Besides, there was a breach of the prohibition of discrimination.

ii. Head coverings do not prevent how individuals interact with others since they cover the head and leave the face.

iii. According to Brumley, “the French law is aimed at helping people integrate. The European judges are trying to preserve the idea of living together. The covering of heads has nothing to do with social cohesion. Besides, the ban appears to have a greater religious than a legitimate aim.”

Transition: Now that burqa has been banned, is security a guarantee to the citizens?

III. Social Cohesion through Burqa ban

i. Aside from the question on equality and security, it is about social communication between citizens, which is not hindered by covering one’s face with a veil.

ii. According Langley “the French law is aimed at helping people integrate. The European judges are trying to preserve the idea of living together. The covering of heads has nothing to do with social cohesion. Besides, the ban appears to have a greater religious than a legitimate aim.”

Transition: If the burqa law does not uphold the Islam freedom of expression, then it oppresses them.

IV. The burqa law is intended to oppress Islam women

i. The ban has been generalized and it has extended from the public to even the private sector.

ii. The Muslim women in the country feel oppressed since they may perceive this step as contempt for their religion.

iii. Langley argues that many Muslims believe that their rights are being violated but France has some of the most restrictive laws about expression of faith in public in the European continent.

V. Burqa ban has caused tension among Muslims

i. With the precedent set by the European Court, chances are that in future, France will enforce these bans rather than loosen them.

ii. According to the McPartland the law has also resulted in tension amongst the French Muslim community. Some of the Muslim women affected by this ban since they have had to curtail their social and professional lives avoiding to go out in public as much as they can.

Closing Statement

The French secular traditions prohibited the expression of religion in public for Islam alone. Islamic religious traditions have in no way threatened the security of citizens. The veil ban is in no way enhancing the interests of social cohesion or promoting security. I feel that the European court has missed the opportunity to reaffirm the necessity of equal treatment for all and the basic right to religious belief and expression. Instead, it demeans the wellbeing of Muslim women.

References

Brumley, C. (2015). Does France's 'burqa ban' protect — or persecute?. Public Radio International. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-30/does-frances-burqa-ban-protect-or-persecute

Langley, W. (2014). France's burka ban is a victory for tolerance. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8444177/BurkaFranceNational-FrontMarine-Le-PenMuslimFadela-AmaraAndre-Gerinhijab.html

McPartland, B. (2015). Burqa ban five years on - 'We created a monster'.Thelocal.fr. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france-burqa-ban-five-years-on-we-create-a-monster

Willsher, K. (2014). France's burqa ban upheld by human rights court. The Guardian. Retrieved 9 March 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court