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" practices1.2. 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 people3.1. The burqa allows for immigrants to recreate their own world and disregard real Australian culture3.2. The burqa is a repression of freedom*

3.2.1. The Burqa represents the repression domination of women3.3. 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 offences4.1. 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 faces4.1.2. A shop-owner was recently held at gunpoint and robbed by someone wearing aburqa

[Premises 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are convergent]4.2. A burqa covers one's face and thus allows for anonymity4.3. 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]

Analysis of Arguments and Inferences as Standardised

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 medievalpractice 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 acceptanceamongst 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 isa 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 sameset of traditions, such diversity is no longer present. There is also the presences for an appeal to fearas 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 Harper’s 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 anyopinion 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 morelikely 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 thedecent 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 burqa-wearing “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 Australia-wide, the sample size needs to be much larger in order to make the results more reliable. Also, whenlooking at the margin of error for a sample size close to 500, there is a 4.5% error for the results thatwere 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 livein 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 participatedue to their political views and need to see the burqa banned, which isn’t 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 isn’t 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, asface-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 “publicplaces” 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 is81% 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 don’t 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 Harper’s 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 discriminateagainst 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.