- United Kingdom
This paper critically assesses the implications of the French veil ban and its impact upon veiled Muslim women in the West and Middle East where the face veil is an obligation rather than a choice for liberation. Using legislation to... more
This paper critically assesses the implications of the French veil ban and its impact upon veiled Muslim women in the West and Middle East where the face veil is an obligation rather than a choice for liberation.
Using legislation to ban the veil has serious human rights implications, particularly for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. In relation to the latter, this paper shall attempt to distinguish how far the veil is a religious concept or a cultural one on pages 5-9.
The main purpose of this paper is to analyse the reasons that were used as justifications for the French ban: communication, security, equality and the principle of living together. This paper will argue that three out of four of these justifications are without any “juridical basis”[ Stated by the State Council, yet the government acted despite a consultative ruling by the SC. ] This shall be considered on pages 9-19.
This paper is premised on three lines of argument. Firstly, that the ban cannot be justified on security grounds. Secondly, that restricting those who freely choose to wear the veil has serious human rights implications, namely freedom of expression and religion. Thirdly, that the French have gone against their own principle of “vivre ensemble”, by leaving women with no choice but to depart from society.
I acknowledge that there are women right here in our very country as well as across the globe that are faced with oppression and forced to wear the veil and this paper consider this also. However, I conclude that the underlying reason for banning the veil is to do with xenophobia rather than protecting fundamental values and freedoms.
Using legislation to ban the veil has serious human rights implications, particularly for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. In relation to the latter, this paper shall attempt to distinguish how far the veil is a religious concept or a cultural one on pages 5-9.
The main purpose of this paper is to analyse the reasons that were used as justifications for the French ban: communication, security, equality and the principle of living together. This paper will argue that three out of four of these justifications are without any “juridical basis”[ Stated by the State Council, yet the government acted despite a consultative ruling by the SC. ] This shall be considered on pages 9-19.
This paper is premised on three lines of argument. Firstly, that the ban cannot be justified on security grounds. Secondly, that restricting those who freely choose to wear the veil has serious human rights implications, namely freedom of expression and religion. Thirdly, that the French have gone against their own principle of “vivre ensemble”, by leaving women with no choice but to depart from society.
I acknowledge that there are women right here in our very country as well as across the globe that are faced with oppression and forced to wear the veil and this paper consider this also. However, I conclude that the underlying reason for banning the veil is to do with xenophobia rather than protecting fundamental values and freedoms.
Research Interests:
The nature of conversations on Twitter makes it more probable for rumours and falsehood. This paper will consist of the following considerations; First this article will look at who consists of a public figure. Whether a tweet is... more
The nature of conversations on Twitter makes it more probable for rumours and falsehood. This paper will consist of the following considerations; First this article will look at who consists of a public figure. Whether a tweet is considered publishing and how Twitter has changed the passive publication process of traditional media by introducing a new class of publishers. The principles to republication (RTs). The focal question being; is Twitter really just “the electronic version of a coffee shop”, “short burst of inconsequential information” and “chirps from birds”, or something much more dangerous which should be governed by rules and protections.
Does Twitter fall within the definition of a “publisher” if so, who may be liable; Twitter or the tweeter? Finally, this paper shall refer to how the existing legal framework of defamation law is less effective in the Twitter environment with close reference to the case McAlpine v Bercow [2013].
Does Twitter fall within the definition of a “publisher” if so, who may be liable; Twitter or the tweeter? Finally, this paper shall refer to how the existing legal framework of defamation law is less effective in the Twitter environment with close reference to the case McAlpine v Bercow [2013].
Research Interests: Cyberlaw, Social Media, Twitter, Defamation Law, New Media, Social Network Analysis, e-research, Link analysis, Social Network Sites, Twitter, Facebook, Political Communication, and 6 moreTwitter as a News Source, Twitter as Medium and Message, Libel, Publication, Law and Internet, Internet Defamation, and Cyber defamation
During this unprecedented time, there is a lot of uncertainty amongst parents who are separated and have CAO in place. I quickly put together this piece with a general overview, in hope that it will assist whoever needs it.
