Standardisation of Ban the Burqa

C: We should ban the Burqa

1. Australia is a modern country with advanced values*
1.1. Australia does not tolerate "backward" practices
1.2. The Australian people are free to demand an end to medieval practices
[Premises 1.1 and 1.2 are convergent]
2. The Burqa is an old fashioned notion*
3. The burqa prevents integration and diversity amongst the Australian people
3.1. The burqa allows for immigrants to recreate their own world and disregard real
Australian culture
3.2. The burqa is a repression of freedom*
3.2.1. The Burqa represents the repression domination of women
3.3. Freedom and individual values are central to the Australian people
[Premise 3.1 is convergent. Premises 3.2 and 3.3 are linked]
4. The burqa can aid criminals in carrying out offences
4.1. There have been several recent cases of robberies and other acts where an offender
used a burqa to mask their identity
4.1.1. Terrorists use burqas to hide their faces
4.1.2. A shop-owner was recently held at gunpoint and robbed by someone wearing a
burqa
[Premises 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are convergent]
4.2. A burqa covers one's face and thus allows for anonymity
4.3. Police are incapable of catching offenders if they cannot identify their face
[Premise 4.1 is convergent. Premises 4.2 and 4.3 are linked]
[Premises 1 and 2 are linked. Premises 3 and 4 are convergent]
AnalysisofArgumentsandInferencesasStandardised

Premise 1:
Premise one is based on the idea that modern countries have values that are in line with
contemporary and advanced social thoughts, as well as the notion that Australia is such a country.
This in theory is a strong argument, as individual rights, such as not being subjected to the medieval
practice of wearing a burqa, are protected and enforced. However this argument is considerably
weakened when we consider the fact that freedom of expression is also a fundamental human right
granted to people in modern countries, and this may include wearing whatever clothes (including a
burqa) that one wishes to wear.
There are two major fallacies committed here and the first is ad poplum. The conclusion that
Australia has advanced values is only supported by the belief that freedom is a "modern value".
However, this isn't strictly true as this value has been held for centuries, and is evidenced through
the laws of medieval societies. Also, there isn't strictly any right to freedom to "demand an end to
medieval practices", it is only assumed. Secondly, this premise also begs the question as the notion
of Australia not tolerating backward practices already implies that Australia has advanced values;
but doesn't actually provide any reasoning for why this is so. They are both the same phrase, only
worded slightly differently, which brings us in a circular argument, thus it begs the question.

Premise 2:
Premise two is based on the idea that the burqa has remained unchanged for centuries; women wear
it today in the same fashion that they did for hundred of years so it must obviously be outdated and
old fashioned. While this is true, it isn't really a strong argument for the conclusion as it isn't
entirely relevant. Even when taken alongside the first premise, there is nothing to suggest that old
fashioned means irrelevant or cannot still be advanced. There should exist some form of support as
to why old fashioned also equals outdated.
This lack of relevance can be explained through highlighting the main fallacy that this premise
commits. The "old fashioned burqa" notion is an example of ad poplum as it is a general acceptance
amongst most Australians that due to the fact that the burqa has not changed for so long, it must be
old fashioned. However this premise disregards the fact that the burqa is a religious symbol and it is
a part of an entire religious tradition that may be old, but is still relevant to millions of people and
thus cannot be defined as "old fashioned". But more importantly this premise also commits the
straw person fallacy, as it deliberately suggests that old fashioned means outdated, but this isn't true
and without any supporting evidence, it cannot provide adequate support for the conclusion.
Premise 3:
The third premise is mainly in regards to the level of acceptance by migrants about Australian
tradition that is needed for them to properly integrate and "fit in" to Australian society. It brings
forth the suggestion that the burqa abandons the values that Australians hold in high regard, such as
the freedom of individuals. There is also a suggestion here that by people practicing and upholding
their own traditions, they are disregarding Australian tradition. However this in itself is a
contradiction as diversity cannot exist without differences in culture, but by conforming to the same
set of traditions, such diversity is no longer present. There is also the presences for an appeal to fear
as the argument forces the importance of freedom and values.
Premise 4:
The last premise is perhaps the strongest one; it is in regards to the use of burqas by criminals to
help them carry out their crimes. The premise provides examples (4.1.1 and 4.1.2) of crimes
committed using the help of a burqa. The premise is based on the fact that the burqa covers a
person's entire face and thus makes it impossible for police to identify criminals.
However there is a critical fallacy here as well. First of all, we are presented with a false dilemma,
as there is an implication that the only options available are either crimes will continue to rise and
police won't be able to stop them, or the burqa is banned and crime rates cease. However it ignores
the possibilities of other options, such as instigating stricter laws or instigating security checks to
ensure that burqas are being worn for traditional reasons only (i.e. Metal detector checks being
more frequent).
Analysis of language and rhetoric used in "Ban the Burqa" report
Colin Harper argues that the burqa is a major threat to Australian society and must be banned
immediately. His argument brings forth the claim that the burqa is not only old fashioned, but a
symbol of repression and dominion over women. He goes on to argue that the burqa is a popular
tool used to carry out crimes. In his argument, Harper makes use of a variety of rhetorical devices,
though his main goal is to instil fear of the burqa in readers by presenting it in an entirely negative
light. His language is often very persuasive and does have some effect on how his argument is
received.

The first paragraph of Harpers argument seeks to establish an immediate negative view of the ,
burqa. He does this through his use of the term liberal do-gooders, which immediately denotes any
opinion that they may have as unreasonable. By doing this, Harper can promote his argument as an
alternative to this and in doing so strengthen his argument as readers are presented with the choice
of either accepting his view or that of the do-gooders; and is is fairly obvious that readers are more
likely to accept his view.
Furthermore, Harper highlights the words cultural and multi-cultural, which presents the idea
that these are merely labels which society uses to excuse the burqa. This persuasive language
appeals to pity as he suggests that the burqa disallows multiculturalism, and only if the burqa is
banned can that be restored. He wants readers to feel bad that their society is being denied
multiculturalism.
In his point about the use of burqas in criminal activity, Harper uses phrases such as: assault on the
decent hard-working people.. and slap in the face of our police who have little to no hope.
This use of emotive language enables Harper to create a contrast between society and burqawearing criminals. He presents members of society as decent and innocent and can thus represent
burqa-wearers as evil and menaces.
Furthermore, he spins the argument through negusing by assuming that his view, that the Burqa
is a problem, is the same view that all readers share, but he has no grounds to make this claim.
Above all else, Harper uses the catch-phrase we must ban the burqa at the end of each of his key
points, in order to keep that notion at the forefront of his readers minds. In doing so, he is able to
persuade them into believing that the solution for each of the issues he brings up can be fixed by
following his advice and banning the burqa, as he leaves them no room to consider any alternatives.
Report on Opinion Poll
SAMPLE
Size: 434 individual electors is not a very large sample size, especially when considering that there
are over 15 million enrolled electors in Australia. Even more so, since the topic is a matter of
personal opinion, this is a heterogeneous property, so despite the poll being conducted Australiawide, the sample size needs to be much larger in order to make the results more reliable. Also, when
looking at the margin of error for a sample size close to 500, there is a 4.5% error for the results that
were obtained, which, when factored in, could change the overall outcome of the poll.
RESEARCH METHOD
Selection: The biggest concern about the selection is that we do not know anything about the
selected electors, how they were chosen or their geographical locations. Even though the
poll claimed the be Australia-wide, there is no indication of whether it was stratified. For
example, the poll could have targeted Australians over the age of 65, and most of whom live
in rural areas around Australia. Though this can still be called Australia-wide, we can see
an immediate problem as such electors may be inclined to want the burqa banned based on
minimal interaction with Islamic women or even substantial knowledge of the culture.
Furthermore, there is no indication of whether the participants were randomly selected or
self-selected, which is another issue as self selected individuals are more likely to participate
due to their political views and need to see the burqa banned, which isnt a representation of
the views of the rest of the population.

Measurement Instrument: The poll was done via sms, which is a problem, because most people do
not pay much attention to such polls, and can dismiss them as spam, or, provide a random
answer that isnt a view of the beliefs but hastiness, especially if there was a gift offered
for those who participated. However it does allow for some anonymity of the interviewer, as
face-to-face interviews may influence participants based on the appearance of the
interviewer (e.g. if the interviewer was conducted by someone with a Middle-Eastern
appearance, participants would be less inclined to say that the burqa must be banned out of
guilt or fear).
Terms and Questions: The first question seems relatively straightforward, however the term public
places is a little ambiguous, as there is no definition of what qualifies as public. Is it
restricted to open places and areas that have over a specific number of people (e.g. 1000
people within a specific sized area), or does it also extend to suburban areas, in the front
yards of their own house, parties, etc. However the second question is a lot more clear and
the term court is specific and unambiguous.
Conclusion: The heading uses the figure of 81%, which seems to exaggerate the views given.
While it is technically true, it fails to acknowledge that almost half, 48%, of Australians do
not have an issue with women wearing burqas in public places. Also, the suggestion that it is
81% of Australians is a little misconceived, due to the reasons above about sample size
and distribution. While the fact that the poll is a member of the Gallup International
Assocation appeals to the authority of this (this is only strengthened by the fact that other
public opinion polls dont have the same qualification), this means little to the average
Australian. Upon researching it, we find that the GIA is simply another polling organization
in Switzerland and has no impact on the validity of the results, but it implies authority, and
readers who are unaware would mistake it for affirmation of the information given as being
almost entirely accurate.
Responding to the Ban The Burqa press release

The above reports show that Harper uses a highly measured form of rhetoric and language
within his press release, and though it may seem persuasive, should be ignored as the style
has no bearing on his overall argument
Harper brings up the point that the burqa prevents integration, however this can be
perceived as straw man as:
o The burqa is only one form of the hijab; there are other veils used by Muslims from
other regions, so banning the burqa would not bring about this integration
o Australian society is built on multiculturalism, so to deny one group their cultural
symbols would be a form of discrimination, not inegration
The opinion poll that was conducted about the Australian view of banning the burqa doesn't
really support Harpers notion that most Australians find burqas threatening. In fact, there
was a very minor difference between those who thought the burqa should be banned and
those who didn't think so. It should be noted that red herring was used through the further
question of whether the burqa should be banned while witnesses give evidence in court, as
this is separate from the overall argument. It is recommended that Reznik focuses on this as
a misleading argument which only serves to present distracting statistics.

Positive Response

While making a report on the issue of the burqa ban in order to clarify the argument for
Federal Government, I recommend a focus on these points:
o There is a major concern about the misuse of burqas by criminals in order to carry
out crimes and acts of terror, but it must be noted that a burqa ban would not deter

criminals from finding other avenues to mask their identity, but it would discriminate
against Islamic women who no longer can access their cultural identity
o There is also a growing concern that the Burqa is a symbol of the repression of
women due to it being an old tradition, however it must be noted that the burqa is a
form of the hijab that is part of a religious tradition in the same way that
circumcision is part of the Jewish culture and wearing white at Baptisms is part of
Christianity; it is also usually a personal choice by women to wear the burqa.
o Another concern that this argument raises is that the burqa disallows Islamic
migrants from adapting to the Australian culture, but we note that the Australian
culture is one of diversity and acceptance of differences, and as found in the opinion
poll, there is no outstanding consensus amongst Australians that the burqa is a threat
to their society or culture.