The latest iteration of the so-called “Muslim ban” was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, leading many critics to call the decision a triumph of legal technicalities over principle.
In this third version of the Trump administration's attempt to ban citizens of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., there were some key differences that may have ultimately swung some justices in favor of upholding the executive order. One example was the omission of “honor killings,” which legal analysts pointed to as proof of biased intent in an earlier version of the travel ban.
But the perception of an allegedly inherent misogyny in Islam and its adherents is not unique to the Trump administration.
Read Full Article »