The concept of the burkini has been a controversial topic only as of August 2016, yet it has been worn by women all around the world – whether it be for religious purposes or simply for the sole reason of wanting to remain modest – since 2004, when Aheda Zanetti came up with the idea of designing a hybrid of the burka and the bikini. However, the banning of the burkini has only recently become a controversial issue in the eyes of the French government due to the terrorist attacks which occurred in Nice approximately one month prior (Roger Cohen, 2016, International New York Times). This may not be the only reason as to why there has been such a controversial ban on the burkini. Throughout this paper, three of the arguments used in justifying
…show more content…
Since 1905, “France has aspired to an ideal of secular democracy completely free from the influence of any church or creed” (James McAuley, 2016, pg. A02), whereby every citizen has the right to live freely without the influence of religion in public. However, what is so ironic about such an issue is that by taking away the liberty to dress as one pleases, they are thereby stripped of their right to live freely, which thereby contradicts the very essence of France’s motto: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (2016, pg. A02). In other words, one cannot acquire freedom by banning an essential part of what makes us unique. Katha Pollitt seems to agree that banning their dress code on the sole belief that they only dress as such for religious purposes will not allow women to live freely. The only viable reason for banning their dress code on the grounds of limited freedom is “if wearing them were enforced by Muslim communities regardless of women’s own preferences” (Katha Pollitt, 2016, The Nation). Regardless of the reasons used to justify their reasoning, it is clear to see that the only reason this entire debacle ever occurred was due to the terrorist attacks. Perhaps the government was trying to find a way to preserve their own French culture – an obvious ethnocentric belief – all while demurely attacking the Muslim community for what the few extremists have
Since 1905, “France has aspired to an ideal of secular democracy completely free from the influence of any church or creed” (James McAuley, 2016, pg. A02), whereby every citizen has the right to live freely without the influence of religion in public. However, what is so ironic about such an issue is that by taking away the liberty to dress as one pleases, they are thereby stripped of their right to live freely, which thereby contradicts the very essence of France’s motto: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (2016, pg. A02). In other words, one cannot acquire freedom by banning an essential part of what makes us unique. Katha Pollitt seems to agree that banning their dress code on the sole belief that they only dress as such for religious purposes will not allow women to live freely. The only viable reason for banning their dress code on the grounds of limited freedom is “if wearing them were enforced by Muslim communities regardless of women’s own preferences” (Katha Pollitt, 2016, The Nation). Regardless of the reasons used to justify their reasoning, it is clear to see that the only reason this entire debacle ever occurred was due to the terrorist attacks. Perhaps the government was trying to find a way to preserve their own French culture – an obvious ethnocentric belief – all while demurely attacking the Muslim community for what the few extremists have