The hijab and/or niqab should be banned

As agreed with Pro, the focus of this debate will be on the niqab. Contention 1: Infringes on Human Rights and Freedom of Religion In a democracy, everyone is considered equal in front of the law regardless of their ethnicity, race, belief or opinion. The constitutions of all developed nations are very clear about this [1][2][3]. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. " Banning the niqab is clearly an infringement on the human rights of those who willingly choose and want to wear the niqab. In Canada, the government banned the niqab during oath at citizenship ceremonies. Ishaq, who was banned from wearing the niqab, decided not to take the oath and sued the government over it [4]. She explains "I came to the conclusion that the niqab is mandatory to my faith. " While many Muslims disagree with her, it's irrelevant whether she's right or wrong. This is what she believes, and she's entitled to that belief regardless if you like it or not. And this incident clearly shows that she wants to wear the niqab to the point that she's willing to fight the government for it. Therefore, the ban on the niqab is unconstitutional, infringes on human rights and limits freedom of religion and expression. . Contention 2: Harm principle The Harm principle is a "very simple" principle [5] where: “[T] he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others […] The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. […] Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. ” In the case of wearing the niqab, there is clearly no harm to others, and therefore it ought not to be banned. Also, the rationale for banning the niqab would be based on the moral values of some citizens, who believe that these actions are harmful to those who are wearing them. But that subjective opinion is merely subjective. Those who wear the niqab hold a different opinion and claim that it makes them feel liberated [6]. A democratic government ought to respect the opinions of all of its citizens and must work tirelessly to ensure that their liberties and freedoms are secured. Contention 3: Discriminates against Muslims and Adverse effects This ban clearly discriminates against Muslims. Human Rights Watch states that "bans of this nature – whether formulated in neutral terms or explicitly targeting the Muslim veil – have a disproportionate impact on Muslim women, and thereby violate the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion and gender" [7]. For example, France's ban on headscarves had more adverse effects than benefits. The ban has "isolated and stigmatized Muslim women" [8]. There's also no evidence that the French ban (since 2004) had any positive outcomes. To avoid being labeled discriminatory, France banned all religious symbols altogether. This impacted others such as Sikhs who were banned from wearing the turban, and Christians who were banned from wearing crosses [9]. I personally wear two crosses, how is that harmful to anyone? How can the government dare tell me what I ought to wear or not to wear? If the ban is exclusive to the niqab, then why should I be able to express my belief freely, while Muslims can't? Am I more privileged because of my belief? That's the very definition of discrimination. I demonstrated that banning the niqab is unconstitutional, infringes on human rights, limits freedom of religion and expression, discriminates against Muslim and stigmatizes them. Therefore I urge the reader to stand against such a ban. [1] US constitution, Article 1 [2] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Article 2 [3] European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 [4] . http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [5] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, pp. 68-69 [6] . http://www.theguardian.com... [7] . http://www.hrw.org... [8] . http://www.nytimes.com... [9] . http://www.theguardian.com...