Development of Technology, Social Life, and Aspects of Human Life - IT Assignment Help

Assignment Task



Introduction
In recent years with the development of technology, social life, and different aspects of human life, there has been an increase in several countries in western Europe and other parts of the world for editing restrictions on wearing religious attires that particularly include headscarves a full-face veil at social places gatherings on public space for instance in school in the market or work. Most females from the Muslim community wearing headscarves and veils have been affected by such issues and restrictions. This report aims to analyze the issue of burning hijab as a human rights violation. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Rights has issued a new report on how these restrictions have impacted the human rights of women and girls in Western Europe who wear them. The United Nations Office for Human Rights, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Essex Clinical University, conducted a study on this topic to examine the laws, policies, and case law governing religious dress in several Western European countries, as well as the impact on women's human rights. Girls were wearing veils. He also conducted interviews with women and girls, as well as experts who worked with them, to learn about the discrimination and violence that women face behind the Veil (ABDELGADIR & FOUKA, 2020). This paper will also analyze legislation policies and cash flows surrounding religious attire in different countries of Western Europe and around the world. In addition to addressing and evaluating compatibility issues, this paper will emphasize the religious liberty of Muslim women, how this right is despoiled, and the suggestion that this basic right is most often violated by this new illegal law. The article also argues that a full ban on face coverings, especially in France, is not justified (Barker, 2016).

In 2017, the Austrian Parliament approved a law outlawing the use of face coverings. Since 2015, Belgium has specifically banned the use of clothing that covers the face, such as niqabs and veils. The European Court of Human Rights sustained the Belgian ban on veils and veil wearing. Tuesday, July 11, 2017, France is a secular country. Freedom of religion is one of the key ideologies of the 1905 French law on the parting of church and state. At the same period, the law banned civil servants from wearisome of spiritual symbols in the workplace. In 1994, the French Ministry of Education recommended that teachers and school principals ban the wearing of Islamic veils (hijabs, niqabs, and veils) in educational organizations. According to a 2019 survey by the IZA Institute for Labour Economics, the proportion of Muslim girls born after 1980 is high, and the graduation rate is close to that of the non-Islamic female cohort. The 2011 Identification Act Amendment Act was passed in September 2011 by Australia's most populous state, New South Wales, requiring the removal of face coverings when requested by state authorities. The law is considered in response to a 2011 proceeding in which a Sydney woman was condemned for incorrectly alleging that a traffic officer attempted to take away her niqab. In Australia, there is a debate about when and where face covers can be legally restricted. In the July 2010 case in Western Australia, a woman wore a niqab and tried to testify in court (Costello & Ahmed, 2022). The motion was dismissed because the jury had to look at the witness's face. Shiv Sena member Sanjay Raut called for a ban on the burqa in April 2019. In February 2020, Uttar Pradesh's Minister of Labour, Swampert Singh, claimed that terrorists had used a burqa to revoke authorities and called for a total ban on women wearing a burqa. Some students in Karnataka demanded a special right to wear the burqa in January 2022, even though educational institutions have pre-established rules for wearing uniforms. Authorities have emphasized wearing uniforms, but the case has been brought to the High Court as a group of Muslim students are seeking permission to wear the burqa. The Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an executive order on December 12, 2011, prohibiting women from wearing niqabs or other face coverings when taking the oath of citizenship. The scarf is not damaged. The Court of Appeal later overturned the ruling on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. In November 2013, the Quebec Party submitted a bill to the Quebec National Assembly, called the Quebec Charter of Values, which bans the use of national religious symbols in Quebec's public services. This category includes public or publicly funded universities, hospitals, schools, and kindergartens (Khan, 2021).

Individual rights are protected by international human rights law through various international and regional documents. These rights include freedom of expression, freedom to practice any religion, and other vital rights. Examples of such credentials are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Procedures of Discrimination Against Women, and the European Court of Human Rights. To recognize the law and its applicability, we first need to understand what religious rights and freedom of expression entail and how international law sees it. Article 18 of the ICCPR states that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, this article does not extend to traditional religions and should be broadly interpreted. Our beliefs and views with institutional characteristics are limited.The extent to which an individual partakes or would have the right to spiritual liberty and the right to exercise that freedom by wearing certain clothing is highly controversial. Some countries have banned the wearing of certain clothing believed to have a religious significance, at least in certain circumstances. Courts of different jurisdictions have been asked to resolve these issues involving different values ??and conflicts of interest. The Australian High Court and the courts of other countries have become more willing to consider the legal developments of other countries when advancing Australian law. For example, in Roach v Electoral Commissioner the majority of the High Court (the unequivocal majority) made explicit reference to Canadian and European international law on voting rights to substantiate their conclusions. Betfair Pty Ltd v. In Western Australia, the High Court found that "no such provision shall be construed as the subject of any result alleged to derive from international law" in Article 92 of the Australian Constitution".

To consecrate themselves to the gods, nuns can cover themselves from head to toe. But once a Muslim female does that, she is burdened. It can be argued that wearing the Veil only profits a few and does more harm than good to humanity. The real question is who got hurt. This should be the reason for the ban on this garment, not the weak argument or fear that women have no choice. But ultimately, women have the right to do what they want, and the moment we start passing laws against women, we cross the border between individual liberty and domination (Krasimirov, 2016). As a multicultural country, it would be extremely hypocritical to consider legislation restricting the freedoms of Muslim women. We want them to be assimilated, but their hostility towards clothing has made assimilation almost impossible. The burqa ban would also undermine women's rights campaigns in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia by strengthening the government's right to regulate women's clothing. If Western women wear ethnically suitable clothing if they live or visit countries where such cultures are practiced, such as Afghanistan or Iran, then why is it inappropriate in Australia for people to follow our culture of respecting and openly respecting others? Should I see your face? Along with the fact that the presence of a face isn't always a core Australian value, it's also clear that respect is a two-way street. We must show appreciation by protecting their decision-making rights and encouraging assimilation.

Those who argue for a public ban on the "veil" provide a long list of justifications for their position. These include the claim that face coverings are not a portion of Islam, gender equality, the achievement of a French ban at the European Court of Human Rights, entitlements that face coverings are not Australian, and security apprehensions. Many of these points of contention are not unique to the Australian debate. They practiced a lot in the “veil” debates in North America and Europe. Though, these arguments have not been scrutinized in Australia, North America, or Europe. While there may be some explanation for limiting the use of face coverings in certain situations, a blanket ban is excessive. As the matter is very critical and challenging, we took many initiatives to recognize the grounds for banning the Veil or targeting the dressings of a particular community in a manner to examine if it is violating the fundamental rights of those females (Rumaney & Sriram, 2021). A common argument for banning the Islamic headscarf is that the headscarf is not a requirement of Islam. Muslims debate whether the Veil is required, encouraged, permitted, or discouraged by Islam. Five Quranic verses support the requirement for some form of Veil. Over time and in all Muslim communities, these verses have been interpreted in different ways. In addition, many women take inspiration from the Prophet's wives when it comes to the night's watch. The question of whether wearing a face veil is part of the legitimacy of Islam is undisputed. Proponents of the ban are trying to avoid the issue of religious freedom by claiming that the Veil of the face is not part of Islam. People have the right to religious freedom under international and domestic law. For example, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of In Australia, Article 116 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting legislation that mutually prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Proponents of the ban are trying to circumvent regulations on spiritual freedom by claiming that face coverings are not part of Islam. However, if wearing the Veil is not a religious practice, it is not protected by article 18 or article 116. In a secular society, the role of the courts or Parliament is not as important. The wealth of religious orthodoxy. Even if the wearisome of the Veil is not obligatory by Islam, this does not justify their prohibition. The subjective thoughtfulness of individual believers about their sacred responsibilities and obligations, slightly than the opinions of religious establishments, is significant in determining whether repetition is appropriate. Religious or not, as the European Court of Human Rights noted. Another popular justification for the Muslim veil ban is that it oppresses women. The Nile has said this every time he has attempted to impose a ban in New South Wales. France has also filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. Women who wear the niqab and burqa vehemently deny that they are forced to wear the Veil or that it is oppressive. The woman at the heart of the European Court of Human Rights case emphatically denies being forced to wear the Muslim Veil. Australia's national security and girl oppression have nothing to do with Islamic girls and their attire. It's time to change the story about the identity of Islamic girls and not completely define them through their outfits. Many non-Muslims view the Veil as evidence of non-secular militancy and viable political militancy. What is not well known is that many Muslims are wary of girls covering her face. Most Muslims recognize that hiding their hair is an unrealistic obligation, but many have particular geography where the Veil of the face is layered on Islam and fused with its teachings. I believe that it is the culture of the region.

The hijab argument is not always new. Whether veiled or unveiled, a similarly controversial issue between Muslims and non-Islams is currently being debated around the world. Due to the enthusiasm for the debate in France, equivalent legal guidelines and measures in various European countries were considered. The analysis should also consider the desire to exercise autonomy and the right to participate in intellectual freedom and/or cultural rights. Wearing spiritual symbols and clothes with the help of European Islamic women has sparked a debate about the meaning of the Veil, and it can be carried with the help of miles carried by coercion and desire. Whether. Even in the feminist movement, there is no solution to this difficulty. Some do not forget that the Veil, especially the Veil that covers the face, is a symbol of oppression. While others strongly oppose women who wear veils, they are well aware that wearing a veil can be an expression of individuality and can be a personal choice. Recent interpretations suggest that restrictions on religious dress perpetuate gender inequality by eliminating the organization of Muslim women. Non-discrimination and equality are important concepts in human rights regulation. Any discrimination based primarily solely on race, ethnicity, sex, or faith, for example, is illegal under international human rights law. Direct discrimination occurs when men or women are treated much less favorably than others in similar circumstances, and indirect discrimination occurs when regulations appear to be fair but have a disproportionate effect on individuals and groups. States must also strive for important equality ("de facto") in addition to formal equality ("legal"). It takes into account previous structural and historical patterns of discrimination and unequal relationships between men and women. It can actually perpetuate despite previous disadvantages or discrimination. Cultural prejudice is also taken into account in understanding what perpetuates the stereotypes of gender. The framework of faith for rights further consists of an effort for indiscriminate and gender equality, consisting of a re-examination of spiritual understanding and interpretation that seems to perpetuate gender inequality dangerous stereotype. None of the good arguments for a total ban on Islamic face veils are scrutinized. There is an agreement that bans are important to alleviate the oppression of Muslim women and increase Australia's security, but such bans may not be effective. When these women are oppressed, bans can exacerbate their plight. Bans enhance security by acting as a cry for extremist rallies instead of enhancing security. Proposals that bans are important because the Veil of the face is not Australian, or necessarily part of Islam, undermines Australia's efforts to be an inclusive, multicultural and multi-religious society. The claim that the Veil is not part of Islam shows a lack of understanding of the rich diversity of Islam. In addition, legislation based on this premise requires states to interfere with issues of religious legitimacy that secular states do not have the right to do. Equally problematic is the claim that Veil is not Australian. It portrays the veil wearer as a member of the wrong team and creates a distorted picture of what it means to be Australian.

This IT Assignment has been solved by our IT Experts at Exam Question Bank. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
    

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment Experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.