In class we have been studying the aspect of cultural traditions affecting a wide range of human rights. There has been extreme controversy that has accompanied attempts to address these human rights issues; however, there has been strong opposition towards these resolutions. A great example of this situation continues to evolve in the European country of Belgium. On April 30, 2010, the lower house of the Belgium parliament voted in favor of a new legislation that bans females from wearing full-face veils in public, which is considered to be an essential religious and social tradition in Islamic cultures. In class we have been discussing the ideas of cultural and religious traditions in the context of human rights, and this current dispute in Belgium has turned into a critical example of how these ideas can either be used by governments to increase their power, or to curb cultural practices that hinder human rights.
According to Edward Cody of The Washington Post, “Belgian lawmakers on Thursday passed a nationwide ban prohibiting women from wearing full-face Islamic veils in public places, the first move of its kind in Western Europe” (Cody). With the extent of a legislation, which “will be imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings ‘meant for public use or to provide services’” (Ollivier), it is crucial to identify why the parliament passed this legislation and also what the veil is believed to mean in Western states, such as Belgium. According to Amnesty International, “Belgian politicians have argued that the law is necessary for public security and to protect women from being forced to wear full-face veils” (AI). It has been recognized by supporters of Western cultures that many Islamic traditions are used to subjugate women and promote a patriarchic society. However, according to Cody, the legislation is a “response to growing irritation in Belgium and other West European countries over the increasing numbers and visibility of Muslims whose customs and attitudes often present a challenge to the continent’s largely Christian heritage” (Cody).
The supporters of this new legislation defense that this law is necessary to preserve public security have come under attack by many different groups across the globe. According to Cody, “The center-right Reform Movement party, which introduced the legislation…called the measure a message to Islamic activists that Belgium will not tolerate challenges to its national values” (Cody). This expression of non-tolerance contradicts those freedoms and rights that Western cultures hold to high regards. According to Yann Ollivier, who quotes Amnesty International’s John Dalhuisen, “A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab” (Ollivier).
This legislation also appears to be unconstitutional according to the Belgium Constitution. It is seen that in Article 10 “Belgians are equal before the law”, in Article 11 “Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized for Belgians should be ensured without discrimination. To this end, laws and decrees guarantee notably the rights and freedoms of ideological and philosophical minorities”, and in Article 19 “Freedom of worship, public practice of the latter, as well as freedom to demonstrate one’s opinions on all matters, are guaranteed, except for the repression of offences committed when using this freedom” (the Constitution).
These are essential aspects of the Belgian culture that the supporters of the legislation are trying to protect, however, these rights should extend to those Belgian citizens who follow the Islamic culture. When it comes to the argument of Articles 10 and 11, Amnesty International states “Though the law is worded in general terms so as to criminalize any covering of the face that would prevent identification, it is clear from the parliamentary debates that the law’s main aim is to prevent Muslim women from wearing full veils as the burqa or the niqab” (AI). This legislation was purposely worded in order to indirectly discriminate against the Muslim culture and beliefs and in turn violates both Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution. In the case of Article 19, which appears to allow the new legislation based on the defense of security, Ollivier states “There is no link at all between crime and wearing the burqa or niqab” (Ollivier).
This legislation comes at a time when cultural intolerance is not in the best interest of the
European countries. According to Souad Barlabi, who was interviewed by Yahoo News, “We feel under attack” (Ollivier). Human Rights Watch commented, “At a time when Muslims in Europe feel more vulnerable than ever, the last thing needed is a ban like this…Treating pious Muslim women like criminals won’t help integrate them” (Ollivier). Many believe by legally discriminating against this Islamic cultural practice, the efforts Belgian and other European countries will not help to create an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance. It is important in the upcoming months that European countries begin to learn from history and other countries such as the United States, when it comes to integrating different cultures into their own.
Sources:
1. Amnesty International USA. “Belgium votes to ban full-face veils”. April 30, 2010. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2010043016615&lang=e
2. Cody, Edward. “Belgian lawmakers vote to ban full-face veils in public”. The Washington Post. April 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904504.html
3. Ollivier, Yann. “Belgium’s Muslims lash out at ban on Islamic veil”. Yahoo! News. April 30, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100501/wl_afp/belgiumpoliticsreligionislam
4. The Constitution. http://www.fed-parl.be/gwuk0005.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment