Religious Freedom and Women's Rights - Essay Example

Religious Freedom and Women's Rights The fundamental human rights’ laws demand religious freedom for each and every individual, irrespective of his/her class, colour, creed, or gender. Therefore, the right to adopt a certain dress code by anyone is considered to be his/her legal birth right. Not surprisingly, women have been subjugated by the religious fundamentalists and other forces in power alike by being dictated about their dress codes. Religious extremism and discrimination on the basis of religion hinder the progress of societies and nations. Both authorities are antithesis of each other- yet they serve the same purpose of hindering the personal and professional growth of women in particular. State-ordained and state-prohibited dress-codes regarding Islamic head scarves in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and France and Turkey, respectively, are an assault on women’s rights. A woman has the legal right to choose to wear whatever she wants to. It is a matter of her personal choice to retain or not her identity as a headscarf-wearing Muslim woman. ‘Young Muslims are more confident in expressing their religious identities and of being accepted as women, Muslims, and ethnic minorities.’ (Joseph & Najmabadi, 2005, p. 697) Imposing a ban on wearing head scarves is similar to forcing women to wear it by the Taliban regime. In this contrast, one should be able to see the detrimental impact of such policies on the parts of governments on their citizens. The concept of religious freedom is misunderstood by individuals and states alike. Not having the freedom to choose the way one lives or dresses up gives rise to controversy, hostility and antagonistic behaviour towards minorities or women in particular. Such religious activities, customs, or dress codes that do not hinder personal or professional responsibilities should be in no way made a basis for imposing a ban. Wearing head scarves is a personal/collective choice by many Muslim women as a way of distinguishing their identity. Having religious freedom is just part of personal freedom or personal autonomy in the broader sense. In multiculturalism, this phenomenon is the corner stone of developing respect for cultural or religious differences. If citizens are allowed the freedom to express their minds freely, they would enrich their societies with their positive and progressive attitudes. On the other hand, if women or other minority groups are discriminated on the basis of their religion or religious practices, they would be isolated from mainstream life. It might be justifiable for the governments to misuse Human Rights’ Laws to restrict women to make a choice for whatever they wish to wear; and to impose bans based on assumptions. Nonetheless, they are violating the basic women’s rights to express their identities; to belong to a certain group with a peculiar identity; to get education in state-institutions; and to make a choice in their personal interests. One such assumption is: Islamic headscarves stand for inequality between men and women in Islam, as enunciated in Koran. It represents a patriarchal society where women are forced to wear head scarves to retain their identity. Islamic headscarf represents oppressive male society of Muslims; and a woman wearing it is nothing but an example of an oppressed individual. Therefore, according to human rights’ laws, such women should be emancipated from Islamic headscarves by the state. Another assumption is that head scarves offend others in some way or the other, as other people do not see it as just a square piece of cloth but something radical and perceive it as a threat to the ideals of the republic or its citizens. Laws founded on the above grounds are as shaky as their foundation. Wearing of Islamic headscarves is a matter of personal choice by many women- and even if it is worn under pressure, the state cannot intervene in the personal or family lives of individuals, according to Article 8 of ECHR: Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (1950, p. 6) The ban on wearing Islamic headscarves in schools across Europe is justified by Article 9 of ECHR, which states: Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (1950, p. 6) Ban by the French government on Wearing Head Scarves in Schools: This ban was proposed in Dec 2003, as a result of the growing Islam-phobia across Europe. It was passed by the parliament in March 2004, and came into effect with the beginning of the new school year on 2nd September 2004. Though it restricts pupils to wear all sorts of religious symbols, like Muslim headscarves Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crucifixes; yet the target is the young women of the Muslim community that are estimated to be around 12 million in France.1 The government has justified its women’s rights’ violation in the name of religious freedom. Pro-ban individuals profess their belief in the ban, as reported by the Time Magazine: ‘Our republic has to speak for itself in all its strength, and suggest a common frame of respect for the principles and spiritual values on which it rests.’ (Graff, 2004, Sunday Feb 01) The demographic statistics of France suggest that Muslims are a predominant majority among all ethnic-minority groups. 2 Therefore, by imposing a ban on young school girls of the Muslim community is simply denying them their basic right to education. This is the first step of marginalizing Muslim women from the mainstream education and consequently, depriving them of enhancing their socio-economic conditions. If the ban is meant to emancipate Muslim women from their oppressive customs, it has yielded just the opposite results. Even under the assumed oppressive society, Muslim girls could at least attend schools and had opportunities for living better lives. In a radical response to the ban, the Muslim population is outraged and many girls have stopped attending school in protest. So, the basis on which the ban was imposed lost its meaning. The government is planning to impose this ban on a wider scale. In fact, one such policy has already been presented in the parliament, according to a report by BBS News. The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship. The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils... Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations. ‘It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism'3. There are strong political reasons for imposing such controversial ban on the Muslim community but this has been done by targeting Muslim women. This shows that even in the modern world with all its liberalization theories, women are the most vulnerable and victimized group. It is also difficult to understand why could such a small population threaten the goals and ideals of the Republic of France? How could this square piece of cloth stand in the way of equality between men and women? Why could there be no other way to liberate women from the shackles of an oppressive male dominated culture? All such questions cannot be answered even by Human Rights’ Laws or the policy makers that proposed and imposed this ban in France. The Muslim girls are given the message of intolerance if they abide by their religious/cultural dress codes. What sort of religious freedom is this? A country that claims equality in every sense of the word cannot jeopardize personal autonomy of its citizens. The choice of wearing or not wearing Islamic head scarves should be analyzed in a different context. ‘... Western Muslims have generally not argued not for the compulsory wearing of the hijab, but instead have argued for the right to do so under the Western conceptions of religious freedom.’ (Farmer, 2011, p. 95) The problem in this case is that women’s rights are at stake and vulnerable to future decisions by France and other countries. This issue has also polarized the views of feminists- a majority of the feminists actually hail this ban because they also see it as a sign of oppression; and not something chosen by the women who wear it. This issue should be dealt in the light of Human rights’ laws that give the freedom of choice to everyone- including women. Similar restrictions have been observed in other parts of Europe and the victims have filed cases against such discriminatory policies in schools and universities in the European Court of Human Rights.4 The court has ruled out the applicants’ pleas that they are discriminated either on the basis of religion or gender. The court analyzes such cases under Article 9 and Article 14, in which personal autonomy is superseded by the rights of others. ...in the Islamic headscarf cases, the Court tells people how to behave. It seems to be saying that individuals need social conditions, in particular law, to enable them to be free as they desire. Indeed, the Court itself has stated that protecting a person’s private life “extends beyond the private family circle and includes a social dimension.” (Marshall, 2008, p. 642) Introduction of a Similar Ban in the UK: The United Kingdom has an overwhelming majority of Muslims, belonging to different ethnicities. The face veil has come under fire by legislators, and feminists every now and then- but they are not so antagonistic towards the head scarf. Historically, the experience of women from Asia, Africa and the Arab world in the UK has been one of deliberate marginalization from Grunwick onwards. Policies that demand unveiling are not about equality: they can be seen as... violence against women. (Banakar, 2010, p. 135) Though some lawmakers are in the favour of imposing the same ban in the UK, but the majority of them are aware of the detrimental impact it shall have on its society. In the British context, addressing religious diversity in schools has recently become the opening to talk about culture and multiculturalism... In the UK, the jibab became an issue after the highly publicized case of S. Begum... the multicultural and multi-faith based school had the right to limit her rights in protection of others’ rights.5 (Amghar, Boubekeur & Emerson, 2006, pp. 130-131) The UK is home to people belonging to numerous ethnicities and cultures. By restricting headscarves to be worn in public areas or educational institutions, it would find itself in a never-ending whirl of imposing bans and restricting personal autonomy in an effort to assimilate all cultures- as this is simply not possible. Respecting the opinions and freedom of others is what makes a tolerant society. Post-2001, and post-2005 (London bombings), the Muslims had generally come under the line of fire but it was mere religious discrimination. A similar ban in the UK should not be imposed because it is going to rupture the intricate and delicate framework of its society. The British ideals stand on religious tolerance and respect for human rights. Even if some people are prejudiced against Muslim women that wear head scarves, they do not represent the strong majority. The Muslim community itself is so diverse and spread in all corners of the UK that imposing such a ban will convey negative connotations to them. The second and third generation British Muslim women would feel betrayed by such a move. Britain is their home country- and they make up a sizeable part of its population. They are actively contributing to the socio-economic arenas. Not all of them wear headscarves; and even those who do so, proudly call themselves British Muslims. Muslim women from all over the world choose to study or work in the institutions of UK. It is the freedom to live according to their free will that drives them to study or to take up their careers in the UK. They are certain that they would not be discriminated on the basis of their gender or religion or for what they wear. It is their belief in the system and the culture of the UK that enables them to choose to live there. Such a ban would not only cause disillusion of the social justice system of the UK but would also hurt the sentiments of even those women who do not wear head scarves. With these issues in mind, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), in association with The Times and Emel magazine, has published the first annual Muslim Women Power List, a celebration of those who are on the way to, or have already reached, the top of their chosen field... What the list also shows is that the idea of a one-size-fits-all “Muslim community”, or a commonality of experience, is a myth. Some women have supportive families who encouraged their aspirations; others have parents who felt strongly that they should leave school at 16 and get married. Some choose to wear a headscarf, some don’t; some attend mosque, others consider their Muslim identity to be more about the way they conduct themselves.6 (Rose, 2009, March 21) The debate whether headscarves should be banned in the UK is promoting awareness among the Muslim women in the UK and Europe regarding their identity. It is high time that Muslim women learn to understand the importance of their identity and realize that they have the right to choose whether or not they want to confirm to the standards of the Western societies they are living in or those of their respective ethnic backgrounds. It should be not dictated by the state or those in power. Their dress code should be respected and not viewed as a sign of prejudice or oppression- because it is none of these. Conclusion: ‘The headscarf is controversial and it has become simultaneously a symbol of women’s oppression, their resistance to oppression, and their right to cultural autonomy and religious freedom.’ (Lister, 2007, p. 94) Women’s rights are violated in the name of honour in the East and in the name of religious freedom in the West. It might be claimed that the purpose of banning head scarves in state-run schools in France is meant to promote gender equality and establish the ideals of secularism. However, this move has only perturbed the women of the Muslim community who can see clearly that they would be denied access to their basic rights like education or participation in the mainstream life, as long as they do not shed their identity. Imposing a similar ban in the UK would force Muslim women to think over their identity issues. The long-standing dilemma of their identity as British Muslims would be further complicated and a conflict is bound to arise among the various groups for or against the ban. This conflict might intensify the need of Muslim women to adhere to their dress codes strictly, as a way to challenge the decision of the government. This resistance would widen the gap not only between the different groups within the Muslim community of the UK, but can also take the form of another kind of racism against all Muslims. Therefore, the basic rights of women to choose their identities or to have the freedom to choose their identity should not be curbed- no matter for what reason they opt to wear that particular square piece of cloth. References: Amghar, S., Boubekeur, A., Emerson, M. (2006). European Islam: Challenges for public policy and society. Brussels, Netherlands: CEPS. Banakar, Reza (ed.) (2010). Rights in context: Law and justice in late modern society. UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. ECHR. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Retrieved from: http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf Farmer, B. R. (2011). Radical Islam in the West: Ideology and challenge. North Carolina, USA: McFarland & Company, Inc. Graff, J. (2004, Sunday Feb 01). Should France ban head scarves? The Time Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,586181-2,00.html#ixzz1Hn4Ij7fm Joseph, S. & Najmabadi, A. (2005). Encyclopaedia of women & Islamic cultures: Family, law, and politics. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. Lister, R., Williams, F., Antonnen, A., Bussemaker, J., Gerhard, U., Heinen, J.,... Anna Gavanas. (2007). Gendering citizenship in Western Europe: New challenges for citizenship research in a cross national context. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Marshall, J. (2008). Conditions for freedom? European human rights law and the Islamic headscarf debate. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(3), 631-654. USA: The John Hopkins University Press. Read More