Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation

The Compromis states that “the mountainous terrain and close tribal loyalties of the inhabitants of the five [Zetian] provinces straddling the two countries have made it very difficult to pursue the individuals responsible for the increasingly deadly attacks taking place in Rigalia.”[23] Considering these facts Rigalia and Morgania decided to use Predator Drones. It was an adequate response to the increasing assaults and direct threat of new attacks. According to Enzo Cannizzaro’s research “a proportionate response is one which is necessary and appropriate to repel the attack and which entails acceptable side-effects on other interests and values affected by the response.”[24] In conclusion, proportionate actions of Rigalia and Morgania had an aim to remove the threat of terrorists’ attacks and to re-establish peace in Rigalia.

III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law

The Respondent considers this enactment to be in compliance with international law as non-violating the human rights and maintaining security. In the Northern Provinces of Rigalia, governed by the tribal councils, in accordance with religious tenets, Zetian women and girls over the age of 14 are obliged to wear a "Mavazi", a traditional head covering made from the animal hide.[25] Moreover the punishment is imposed on the woman, who refused to wear the garment.[26] Besides, the Mavazi covers the entire head, including the face, making identification of the wearer difficult. So it threatens the security as criminals and terrorists could hide under it carrying guns and etc. Consequently the “Mavazi ban” was enacted by Rigalian Parliament prohibiting all Rigalians from wearing a Mavazi in public or from receiving public services while wearing a Mavazi. Therefore according to the article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and preamble of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women the Rigalian legislation satisfies the international law.

A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Mavazi is traditional religious attire and should therefore be protected as a religious right. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”[27] However this right can be limited in accordance with this Covenant. It declares that “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”[28] Consequently the enactment of “Mavazi ban” is legitimate as non-violating the human rights.

“Mavazi ban” is a legitimate public safety measure imposed to protect the rights of Zetian women and girls and protect Rigalian citizens from terrorism. This traditional religious attire should be banned because it poses criminal and terrorist danger. It presents a security risk by making the identification of a person difficult because such clothing covers the entire head including the face. It is important to note that the suicide bombings at a government school in 2009 occurred for the reason that one of the suicide bombers was a man wearing a Mavazi.[29] He approached the school without being questioned because of the garment he was wearing.[30] Actually anyone can lurk under these shrouds. That seriously undermines the security measures. It is necessary to note that the Report made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning islamophobia noted that “(l)egal restrictions to the freedom of religion may be justified where necessary in a democratic society, in particular for security purposes or where public or professional functions of individuals require their religious neutrality or that their face can be seen.”[31]

B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Rigalia adhered to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention establishes that “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”[32], although the “[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” [33] So as Mavazi could represent the danger to the public safety and could affect the rights of girls and women the child right to manifest its religion beliefs is not abused. For this reason the Respondent acted in compliance with this Convention and did not violate the international law.

C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights

The "Mavazi ban" was enacted not only due to security-related reasons but also in order to respect women’s rights and rights of the child. Tribal councils force women and girls over the age of 14 to wear a "Mavazi” in accordance with Zetian religion.[34] It is not a free choice but some kind of forced obligation. Therefore such situation is unacceptable regarding the provisions of international law which are aimed to equalize the rights of men and women and forbid the discrimination against women.[35]

1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality

One of the purposes of the “Mavazi ban” enactment was to end the discrimination of Zetian women and therefore equalize women and men rights. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women prohibits any discrimination against women defined as:

[a]ny distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.[36]

The discrimination against women also “[v]iolates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity.”[37] Consequently women could not be obliged to wear a Mavazi and could not be punished for their refusal to do so.

So Mavazi is a cultural tradition, or customthat is not compatible with human dignity. And in accordance to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women member-states should “[t]ake all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.”[38] Additionally, States all appropriate measures should be taken “[t]o modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.”[39] These mean that the “Mavazi ban” is under the international law.

A related issue concerning the wearing of burqa (a Mavazi type dress) in European countries was discussed in a PACE report. It states that “[t]he veiling of women, especially full veiling through the burqa or the niqab, is often perceived as a symbol of the subjugation of women to men, restricting the role of women within the society, limiting their professional life and impeding their social and economic activities.”[40] This tradition is probably “[a] threat to women’s dignity and freedom. No women should be coerced into wearing religious clothing by their community or their family and there is a need to protect them against being excluded from public life.”[41]

This issue is relevant to the situation of Zetian women and girls. If Zetian women in Northern Provinces refuses to wear this full-veil garment they are urgently required to leave the Zetian Provinces, or, if they do not leave and stay and are caught, are punished severely, either by being confined to their homes for long periods of time, or, in the most severe cases, by receiving as many as 40 lashes in a public flogging ceremony. This violates the Human rights because under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”[42] Consequently the enactment of “Mavazi ban” was a necessary and justified act.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 660