Law

Al Jazeera. “A ‘law against Islam’: France votes to ban hijab for under-18s.”

Donya Ishaq

Al Jazeera. “A ‘law against Islam’: France votes to ban hijab for under-18s.” 9 April 2021, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/9/a-law-against-islam.

This news article provides an overview of the proposed law in France that would ban the wearing of the hijab for girls under 18 in public. The article explores the controversy surrounding the proposed law, including criticisms from Muslim women’s rights groups who argue that the ban is a form of patriarchal oppression that denies girls and young women the right to choose how they dress and express their religious identity. The article includes quotes from politicians, activists, and Muslim women who have differing opinions on the issue. This article will serve to illustrate the irony of Western perspectives on the hijab, which often view it as a tool for enforcing patriarchal norms, despite the proposed ban on wearing the hijab for young women being seen as imposing yet another form of patriarchal control.

  • “The French Senate’s move comes as part of Paris’s push to introduce a so-called “anti-separatism” bill which it says aims to bolster the country’s secular system, but critics have denounced, arguing it singles out the minority Muslim population.” (Al Jazeera)
  • “Age to consent to sex in France: 15 Age to consent to hijab: 18 Let that sink in. It isn’t a law against the hijab. It’s a law against Islam. #Handsoffmyhijab #FranceHijabBan,” one Twitter user wrote. (Al Jazeera)

Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty? by Andrew Koppelman

Christopher Morabito

Koppelman, Andrew. Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict. Oxford University Press, 2020.

In his new book published by Oxford University Press, Koppelman provides a compromise to the conflict he references in the title. Koppelman provides an overview of the argument on both sides. He then explains that the best way to solve this conflict is to “exempt only those who post warnings about their religious objections, so that no customer would have the experience of being turned away” (Koppelman 11). Koppelman claims that by having businesses that wish to refuse service based on their religious beliefs advertise this fact to customers before they even walk through the door, people will not go through the experience of being discriminated against directly. While Koppelman claims to be in favor of both sides, I intend to use his argument as my counter-thesis because I do not feel like the solution he offers will fix anything, but it is something that many people believe and therefore needs to be addressed.