The dictionary defines a synonym as “a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.” Synonyms are everywhere in life, people will say something that can then be told in various ways, but all have one meaning. For example, a synonym for “the latest proposed bill in France anti-separatism bill” would be “a group of french conservatives failed attempt at masking their islamophobia and trying to find new ways to have the government regulate a woman’s body. Let me further explain. A new bid in the french senate is proposing to ban the hijab for girls under 18. The ban of hijabs in France is a direct violation of their human rights. Article 18 of the UDHR states “freedom of belief (including religious belief” to deny the young girls in France that right is unacceptable as it is in their rights to practice their belief in however they may choose. A young Muslim girl has every right to decide whether they want to wear and not to wear a hijab, no matter their age. It is THEIR choice and not their government’s.

      Firstly, a government should not regulate what a woman does with their body in any way, especially in what they wear. As the movement progresses, The Washington posts write, “Muslim women are reclaiming their freedom over their bodies”  because when you deny someone the right to their own body and further denying them the freedom to practice their religion, you are indeed taking away the freedom over their bodies. It is as simple as that. Moreover, even though “The law does not specifically mention the word Islam,” Aljazeera states, it is very targeted towards Muslim women who are already denied the rights to their own body in other ways; the french parliament is furthering this. The layer of intersectionality should not be overlooked as it just helps to reason why this proposal is so wrong.

       The law was initially proposed in support of France’s “anti-separatism bill,” which in short is a bill meant to celebrate the “unity” and “togetherness” of the french. The idea is that banning the hijab creates a more united community and that France is “upholding secure values.” I am afraid that is not right. Unity does not nor has it ever meant making everyone the same; unity comes from celebrating each other’s differences and accepting one another, including their religion. So by making the young girls of France not have the freedom to roam their country, expressing their belief does just the opposite of what an “anti-separatism bill should do for France.

        Eleanor Beardsley, in their NPR interview, says (referring to the proposal) “they would have to be passed by the lower house of Parliament, which has already said it is against them even if they did pass, the country’s constitutional council would likely strike them down” suggesting that these bids will likely not become laws, but the problem lies elsewhere. The effort to even propose this law in the first place is a demonstration of the lengths that the France government is willing to take away someone’s right to religion. Did you know that the age to consent in France is 15, whereas this proposal would not allow the young girls of France to wear their hijab until 18? This is more than a law against the hijab; it is a law against Muslims in France who are being withheld the right to practice their religion

          In conclusion, the French parliament should not impose the proposal to ban hijabs in France as it is discriminatory as it is islamophobia. It will not provide unity and “anti-separatism” but rather harm and discriminate against Islam. And as a message to the French parliament, your islamophobia is there, and we can all see, so keep your hands off their hijabs.