Reference no: EM131160622

Study case

The debate on full veils - burqas and niqabs - in British courts and British schools was always bound to happen. Yet, I believe, this country will not eventually generate a law similar to the French one in force since 2011. Unlike the French, Britain has taken a fluid approach to difference and the multicultural character of its society, and in the current circumstances, it is unclear - perhaps impossible - to establish where the limit for "difference" lies.

Ultimately the difficult question for everybody nowadays is how to balance the rights of the citizens as a group and the rights of the individual. Although France and Britain share their beliefs in human rights and the principle of religious freedom and their respect for the rule of law, their political cultures and legal systems are quite diverse.

Judge Murphy's decision on how to deal with the niqab case in his London court has proven that, in Britain, pragmatism prevails in relation to the contested issue of whether full veils should be banned in public spaces. Some have accused the judge of having compromised too much in this. Instead his ruling is firm and cleverly spelt-out. While avoiding the route of a broad ban, his request for the woman to unveil only while giving evidence does set a precedent, even if technically it has been reiterated that this solution was ad hoc and that similar situations in the future will be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

In taking a nuanced approach that allows the woman to sit with the veil during the trial but to identify herself to public officers when she enters and to unveil while giving evidence, the judge has in fact highlighted the two roles and two sets of priorities in rights for the defendant, as well as the institutional position of a judge and of a law court. As an individual simply sitting in court, the woman's individual right to freedom of religion has been prioritised, but when she takes on the "official" role of defendant then the interests of the state (which "requires" her to go to court) and its rules for identification, transparency and communication during a trial take over.

For these reasons an overarching ban would be more dangerous than beneficial for public interest and for the cohesion of society. It would needlessly stir up feelings in all corners of society, may exacerbate real or perceived divides among communities and may cause anxiety Among Muslims. It may also give encouragement to individuals and groups already engaged in or leaning towards offences towards racial or religious groups. Do you agree that burqas and niqabs should not be broadly banned in Britain?

List the primary stakeholders:
1) _______________ 2) _______________ 3) _______________
4) _______________ 5) _______________ 6) _______________

Name the primary decision maker/s _____________________

DEFINE THE PROBLEM/S - What is the main problem in this case? ( 200 words)

ETHICAL REVIEW - Name the most significant ethical issue ( 300 words)

CONSIDER OPTIONS - List the options you have to resolve the problem. (300 words)

INVESTIGATE OUTCOMES - List the likely outcomes, costs and benefits, of each option listed above (200 words)

DECIDE ON ACTION - What practical objectives do you intend to achieve? 120 words

EVALUATE RESULTS - What criteria will you use to judge your success in achieving your objectives? 200 words

The assignment must include
- Include 8 references at least 3 peer reviewed articles.
- Referencing style APA.
- Word count between 1200- 1400 maximum.
- In -text references is not part of the word count but must be in the assignment.

Do you agree that burqas and niqabs should not be broadly banned in Britain?