Human Rights: Multiculturalism in European Countries - Coursework Example

Human Rights Multiculturalism in European countries has given rise to a new debate regarding the human rights issue of religious freedom and expression. The notable issue is the ban on wearing the niqab, the religious headscarf worn by Muslim women, in certain sections of the society. It has raised various concerns regarding freedom of religious practice and expression. However, debate goes far beyond the religious spectrum, leaving the society in a dilemma on whether to recognize Niqab as a religious symbol, or as a freedom of practice, or merely a traditional symbol, or as a feminist issue, defending women’s rights. Recently, the ban on wearing the headscarf by the Birmingham Metropolitan College has given rise to the above questions on the behalf of the human rights and feminist supporters. We shall analyze this issue and the legality of this ban in the light of domestic case laws along with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. With Islam being a notable religion in the European countries, majority of its population are increasingly visible in the public places, exhibiting a unique religious identity through their dressing style. The recent controversies related to this religious identity in the public places have paved way for the bans and similar prohibitions, which are seen as a violation of individual freedom and expression. In addition, this ban on wearing hijab or niqab, as a religious identity, has created public claims, asserting that it infringes a number of human rights, particularly religious and women’s rights, and is considered to be a violation of the laws regarding religious and individual freedom. It is essential to emphasize this issue from multiple perspectives in line with domestic case laws as well as other international laws. The ban of headscarf in colleges came to effect in the late 2013, when the Birmingham Metropolitan University ordered its staffs, students and visitors from wearing any face covering as a religious identity, claiming that it was intended for the community safety and social cohesion. From the college’s perspective, the ban was viewed as a means of actualizing equality, to strengthen diversity and as an inclusion policy in the learning environment. Department of Education points out that “if a pupil’s face is obscured for any reason, the teacher may not be able to judge their engagement with learning, and to secure their participation in discussions and practical activities”. (Mendick 2013). However, the ban was viewed in a totally different perspective, by the students and the human rights supporters, accusing the college of indulging in discrimination, racism and individual rights’ violation. "Whilst it is important to ensure safety on campuses, it should not mean that students lose the right to express their religious beliefs and practices.” (Sherriff 2013). It was regarded that the freedom of the students were breached and they were stripped of their religious and personal rights. This issue created local as well as widespread protests, with issues of religious freedom, expression as well as human rights being debated. United Kingdom being a multicultural society does not have any legislative prohibitions on wearing headscarf, and so all people including the Muslim population are free to wear it. However, this has not stopped institutions from banning it, and so discussions are being done in various circles regarding this issue. In most of the cases, discussions were done based on the rulings of the European Court, and other policy statements uttered in the domestic political and legal circles. According to the European Convention of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” (Ahmad 2011, p.167). This freedom of religious “practice” and importantly “observance” like in the form of wearing headscarf is viewed as a democratic right or freedom, which is applicable to every citizen. Thus, wearing headscarf appears to be a individual’s rights, which cannot be infringed. This right was further validated by the European Court of Human Rights, which has stated that the right of freedom of religion is “one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life.” (Ahmad 2011, p.167). Considering the above perspectives, the ban created greater concern for the Muslims as they were not able to practice their faith and wear the hijab, which was their religious observance and custom. Thus, it was stated that the college must take decisions that would should demonstrate and encourage respect for religious beliefs. In addition, it is being stated that with the college being a public place, which is frequented by people from all sections of the society, it is not correct to implement such a ban. This perspective was further supported by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which in a recent case ruled “that restrictions on religious dress in public areas violated the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” (Human Rights Watch 2010). Moreover, when viewed from social perspective, the full-face covering veil was considered to be demeaning to women, so human rights activists, feminists and even general public claim the ban to be legal. Thus, the fear among these sections is that bans “gives rise to discrimination based on gender, religion and ethnic origin, to the detriment of women ". (BBC 2013). However, when one views this ban from another perspective, it provides differing views. That is, although, European institutions have provided freedom to express as well as practice religions, there are certain limitations. That is, this freedom to manifest one’s religion is subjected to limitations by law in the interests of public safety, protection of law and order, as well as health and moral concerns. In many instances, particularly in the Leyla Sahin vs. Turkey Case in 2004 about the Turkish medical student challenging the Turkish government ban on wearing head scarf in educational institutions, the European Court has referred the need to “preserve public order and to secure civil peace and true religious pluralism, which is vital to the survival of a democratic society”, even if it involves not stressing on religious expression. (Article 19 2010, p.18). Supporters of the ban claim that it is lawful to restrict the individual’s freedom of religious expression on the grounds of protection of rights and others’ safety. They also add that religious freedom does not mean that they can practice their belief, in any place, at any time, in any manner. “Freedom to manifest ones religion is subject some limitations – but only to those regarded as necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” (Rozenburg 2011). This was highlighted with the ban in the college based on the argument that the veils were restricted on grounds of safety, security and learning. Although, the prohibition of veils violated the religious freedom, it was viewed as a threat, because such a masked wear can deliberately cause safety threats to others. When one views this perspective in line with the terrorist actions and the related anti-terrorism legislations, it may sound valid. At the same time, the European Court of Human rights in the case of Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey in 2010, have stated that convicting individuals under anti-terrorism law, for wearing religious clothing, is a breach of human rights. (Rozenburg 2011). When it comes ot various political and social opinions surrounding it, Former Prime minister, Tony Blair claimed niqab as a ‘mark of separation’ as it was viewed as a hindrance to communication within the society. (Mendick 2013). Moreover, the fact that the Islam never insists the wearing of niqab by Muslim women adds support to the ban, stating that it was solely a traditional custom followed in the long-run to oppress women. Then, when one looks at cases and rulings regarding ban on headscarf, with specific focus on educational institutions, it is clear that the onus is placed on the educational institutions themselves. Similarly, in the R (Begum) vs. Denbigh High School case in 2006, House of Lords emphasized that wearing religious dress in public places is different from wearing it in schools or institutions, as there is a need to insist on religious neutrality at schools and colleges. “The Law Lords found the school’s refusal to allow Shabina Begum to wear a jilbab at school justified for a number of reasons, such as the school’s right to adopt a policy on school uniforms for reasons such as ‘‘smoothing over ethnic, religious and social divisions’’” (Ssenyonjo 2007). Importantly, when one looks at the policies of the educational department, it supports educational institutions to do a balancing act. “Guidance from the Department for Education states that it should be possible for various religious beliefs to be accommodated within individual institutions’ policies.” (Prynne 2013). To sum up, although the wearing of veils might be attributed to freedom of religious expression, wearing it in public places could give rise key sensitive issues. From the above analysis, it can be assumed that both European as well as domestic institutions appears to be divided when it comes to banning the headscarf. That is, both have favored as well as restricted the ban in various domestic cases, owing to its necessity and public sensitivity. The legality of the ban is still controversial, as it is viewed a religious identity and observance from one end, whilst the other views it as a discrimination and violation of rights. Banning religious practices can be a reflection of secular fundamentalism and denial of liberal democracy. However, limitations and ban are acceptable in certain cases where institutional uniformity and social security is considered as a necessity. References: Ahmed, NM., 2011. The Islamic and International Human Rights Law Perspectives of Headscarf: the Case of Europe. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 16. Article 19. Ban On Full Face Veil And Human Rights. Available from http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/bans-on-the-full-face-veil-and-human-rights.pdf (Accessed on April 21, 2014) Human Rights Watch., 2010. Belgium: Muslim Veil Ban Would Violate Rights. Available from http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/21/belgium-muslim-veil-ban-would-violate-rights(Accessed on April 21, 2014) BBC., 2013. French veil law: Muslim womans challenge in Strasbourg. Available from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25118160(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Mendick, R., 2013. Will judge lift Muslim’s veil of secrecy? Available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10309775/Will-judge-lift-Muslims-veil-of-secrecy.html(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Prynne, M., 2013. Most Britons want full face veils banned in all public places. Available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10402995/Most-Britons-want-full-face-veils-banned-in-all-public-places.html(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Rozenberg, J., 2011. Would the Burqa Ban stand up at the European court?Available from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/13/law-burqa-ban-european- court(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Sherriff, L., 2013. Muslim Students Banned From Wearing Veils, Niqabs, For Safety At Birmingham Metropolitan College. Available from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/birmingham-metropolitan-college-bans-muslim-students-wearing-veils_n_3898013.html(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Ssenyonjo, M., 2007. The Islamic Veil and Freedom of Religion, the Rights to Education and Work: a Survey of Recent International and National Cases. Available from http://politics-of-religious-freedom.berkeley.edu/files/2011/06/Ssenyonjo _International_veil_court_decisions.pdf.,152(Accessed on April 21, 2014) Read More