In 2010, France passed the bill that bans face coverings such as masks, balaclavas, helmets, niqab, and burqa and it came in effective by 2011. It imposes a fine of 150 euros on an individual wearing a face cover and 15,000 euros on anyone who forces others to wear one. It didn’t come with no backfire, as expected. The public including supporters of human rights such as Amnesty International condemned the bill, saying it is the violation of freedom of expression of women who wear the face covers.
What we say and what we mean does not share the same path anymore. What we understand, let alone does not anchor the word we say. The article ‘Trump, the University of Chicago, and the collapse of public language’ written by Nathan Heller for New Yorker after a period of puzzling impressions over multiple events, led me to a judgment how unbearably light our – public – messages have become. The article explores down to the point how public language has lost its weight of authenticity and visualisation. One group with certain ideals and demands fights against the group on the other side who also has the same ideals and demands. It wasn’t a power game. Neither was it about fulfilling conflict resolution exercise hours required by any course regulations. Lack of communication? Maybe. Two parties stand against each other for the same ideals.