Example Of Discrimination: Tolerance Eases Impact Of French Ban On Full-Face Veils Article Review

[Institution Title]
Discrimination is not limited to the people of colored being isolated because of the color of their skin. In fact, amidst society’s assumption that it had been able to triumph against the ill of social injustices. This is in the perception that discrimination is curved by the tolerance of people’s difference in relation to the color of their skin and the race that one belongs to, amongst every other reason to discriminate people. However, it still exist despite our clamor of democracy and amidst our belief of modern social system. In the article entitled In a Ban, a Measure of European Tolerance the concept of discrimination was given a different perspective. This paper will attempt to explain the article by offering an analysis of how the authors presented the issue of discrimination.

The Summary of the Article

Imposing a law is one thing but assuming that laws were created to protect people is another. The author argues that while some defended the establishment of the French law that bans of the full-face veils in public places was in fact designed to protect the women and the society, the approach by which the law if executed is what warrants the discrimination.

Discussion

In the article the author offered to explain why the banning of the full-face veils in public places has sparked many demonstrations, social unrest, riot and social problems. According to the authors, the law attempts to discriminate people according to religion. There was no ground for the ban to be implemented. Wearing of the full-face veils in public places does not create social problem. It is not scandalous. It does not foster threat in the safety and security of people who wears them and those otherwise. Nevertheless, the law was implemented. The worst part was how the law had been executed and implemented. The authors were referring to the manner by which law enforcers abduct violators and have then subjected to inquest while some were detained in prison to form a set a precedent amongst violators.
Critics of the law wanted to establish that curtailing one’s freedom and their right to freedom of expression will simply have no good effect to the general public more so to the government and the reputation of everyone who are involved in the creation, execution and implementation of the law. This form of discrimination creates tension especially when the issue has been associated with one particular sector of the society. In this case it is in reference to the Muslim community following the numerous events in contemporary history which involved the Muslim’s leftist group. These being exclusively associated with terrorism. Nevertheless, offering this kind of argument simply facilitate further rift because the generalization of Muslims harbors doubts and suspicions.
In September 1 2012, the author of the article entitled In a Ban, a Measure of European Tolerance tried to resolve that the best solution to this problem is to foster tolerance . If society can only see each other from the context of individual difference and differing culture, people will be less aversive and more tolerant of these difference. Hence, instead of discriminating society will become more tolerant of the differences and respect each other’s boundaries and limitations. Nevertheless, when people see the differences as something threatening or as something that is a defiance of the norm then that is the time that discrimination will become pervasive .
Society failed to learn from history. It failed to recognize how much society has been limited and punished for discrimination. Discrimination in the contemporary times fosters hate and it exemplifies the concept of hegemony. Society condemns Adolf Hitler for the annihilation of the Jews calling it an outright violation of human rights. Nevertheless, society failed to recognize that discrimination is the same regardless if it involves genocide or otherwise. In the same way that this act of cruelty also still fosters the same implication . When one curtails another person’s right for whatever reason, the justification that the other provides still and always be views as cruelty. Amongst the most protected and celebrated rights of every individual regardless of race is one’s right to religion and the right to the freedom of expression . Everyone has the right to choose their own religion. And this should be respected by everyone. This includes the practices, beliefs and ideologies embraced in the practice of such religious belief. Every religion have their respective ideologies that should be respected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the article emphasized on something that is very important. This is the concept of tolerance. Tolerance should not be seen as manipulation but rather as a sign to respect for the ideologies, beliefs and differences that people have. If society believes that no two individuals are alike, then they should be less critical of the differences that people have in relation to their skin color, their race, and gender and religious beliefs. Tolerance of these differences allow people to see each other from the light that we are our own people and regardless of our differences we are the same. By being tolerant of other’s differences we give them the opportunity to express themselves and we also give ourselves the opportunity to be united. Discrimination harbors hate and this reflects to the kind of society that we are raising. If people continue to discriminate, it will only result to hostility and division which can greatly affect how people relate with one another.

References

Enrlanger, S., & Campus, E. (2012, September 1). In a Ban, a Measure of European Tolerance. Retrieved from The New York Times Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/world/europe/tolerance-eases-impact-of-french-ban-on-full-face-veils.html?src=xps
Kendall, L. (2004). Participants and observers in an online ethnography: Five stories about identity. In M. Johns, S.-L. Chen, & J. Hall, Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, and Ethics (p. 125). New York: Peter Lang.
Swartz, M. (2006). Conscience Clauses or Unconscionable Clauses: Personal Beliefs versus Professional Responsibilities. Yale Journal of Health Policy Law Ethics, 6(2), 269-350.
Waller, B. (2004). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (1st ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.