Standardisation of Ban the Burqa A Campaign

Promise
1.1.1 The Burqa allows for wrongdoing to go unchecked.
1.1.2 Terrorists wear Burqas.
1.1.3 The Burqa gives motorists the ability to avoid prosecution.
1.1 The Burqa encourages criminal actions.
1 The Burqa is a tool of criminals.
2.1 Equality for women is a core Australian value.
2.2 The Burqa represents the repression of women.
2 The Burqa conflicts with Australian values.
[cc] Although liberals see the Burqa as an acceptable representation of cultural
diversity.
3.1 By participating in traditional customs immigrants hinder integration
into their new culture.
3.2 The burqa is a traditional custom.
3 The Burqa stops cultural integration.
4 We dont allow motorcyclists to wear helmets in banks or service stations.
5 Burqas hide a persons face in the same way that a helmet does.
6 81% of Australians are against the wearing of a Burqa in public.
C. Australia must ban the wearing of a Burqa.

Strengths & Weakness Analysis of the Standardisation

Premise 1: This sub-argument is trying to establish that the Burqa is the cause of
a higher crime rate. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim.
There is no correlation established between Burqa wearing and a higher crime
rate and so no causal inference that could follow. It is reasonable to suppose
that the Burqa can hide ones identity, but the evidence the author offers is
dubious in that the victim of the robbery was not sure it was a Burqa that was
worn, as shown in the police report. This leaves us with the mere fact that the
Burqa is used by some criminals. However, this does not give reason to ban the
Burqa as there are a lot of tools that criminals use that are not banned for that
reason alone. Think of cars, balaclavas, knives, etc., hence premise 1 is not
given adequate support nor is it relevant as a reason for banning the Burqa in
Australia.

Premise 2: Despite the vagueness of the term core Australian value, we can
accept that equality is valued in Australia. However, sub-premise 2.2 is a very
controversial claim and cannot be accepted on face value. For instance, if the
wearing of the Burqa is a free expression of religious devotion, then the Burqa is
compatible with the value Australians place on religious freedom, making this
premise false. So, since premises 2.1 and 2.2 are linked, the inference to
premise 2 does not follow without further evidence. This means that premise 2
cannot be used to support the conclusion.
Premise 3: There is a causal claim in this sub-argument without the support of a
correlation. We have been given no reason to believe that practicing traditional
customs, and in particular wearing a Burqa, is correlated with the prevention of
cultural integration. In fact, no argument has been given as to why traditional
customs cannot be compatible with conventional Australian freedoms and
values. This seems to be a false dilemma, inferring you are either a Muslim or an
Australian, but not both. So premise 3 again provides no support for the
conclusion.
Premise 4 and 5: This is an analogical argument. The Burqa is the subject and
motor cycle helmets the analogue. The similarities are that they both hide ones
identity. There are some negative relevant differences that weaken this
argument, though. First, the helmet is for safety and is not necessary in petrol
stations and banks. The Burqa is a religions custom that is a defining trait. In
addition, the police have the power to ask that a person remove their Burqa for
the purpose of identification already. Most importantly, the conclusion of the
argument is that the Burqa should be banned and since the author is not
suggesting that motor cycle helmets be banned, this analogical argument is
fallacious as it is entirely irrelevant.
Premise 6: This is a misrepresentation of the facts and will be discussed in
connection with the Morgan poll it is based on.

Analysis of the Language & Rhetoric Used In Ban the

Burqa
We see in the opening paragraph the loaded description liberal do-gooders used
to brand anyone against banning the Burqa as well intentioned but naive or
immature. This has the effect of describing liberal arguments as irrational and
putting a negative slant on the Burqa from the beginning without justification.
The next paragraph continues with rhetorical language that is intended to
persuade the audience of the authors position without any justification. Such
rhetoric includes describing the authors view point as being accepted by fair
minded Australians, the Burqa as a backward custom and a menace to
society. Further, that we can demand and force an end to medieval customs in
a modern country. This creates an animosity between us, Australians, and
them, Muslims without any justification, since it depends on a tacit patriotism
that is unwarranted in the circumstances. This patriotism is unjustly appealed to
throughout the argument with the victim of a robbery in Mainbrace described as

serving the community since federation, which is irrelevant to the crime being
described and only illicitly reinforces the animosity the author is illegitimately
using to help in persuading the audience. Also, the real Australian culture is
portrayed as one without the Burqa. However, with Australia being a multicultural nation, this description is not justified. It is only designed to further
isolate the Burqa from Australian society without justification.
Emotive language is used to illegitimately associate the Burqa with criminal
behaviour. Such descriptions include, thug and monster when describing the
Burqa wearing thief. There is also an unjustified appeal to fear when the author
describes the current situation as one in which there is a growing sea of Burqa
wearing Muslims in our community without any evidence. Hence, this
description is intended to reinforce the fear that intolerance generates purely
through a rhetorical description.
Vague descriptions and suggestions of certainty are used when describing the
Burqa as a problem and that there is a clear solution. Since we are not told
precisely what the problem is nor why banning it is a clear solution, these uses of
rhetoric are baseless and so weaken the overall argument. The catch phrase we
must ban the Burqa reappears a number of times at the end of paragraphs to
reinforce the main conclusion, however, this tactic is purely a rhetorical ploy and
should not be found to be rationally persuasive.
Overall the rhetoric contained in the argument is intended to set a context in
which real Australian culture is understood as fair minded and culturally diverse,
but that there is animosity which is caused by the practice of Muslims wearing
the Burqa since they are overwhelming our society in an unjust fashion. None of
these claims, however, are supported with any evidence and all the support they
receive comes from the use of persuasive language and so cannot be taken
seriously.

Report on the Opinion Poll

Sample: The sample of 434 voters from across Australia is small given the
heterogeneous nature of the property an opinion about the wearing of a Burqa.
Furthermore,
Selection method: The problem here is that SMS responses would have a high
degree of self selection and so only attract those with an interest in the issue. It
also restricts the participants to those that have mobile phones, which again
adds more reasons to be dubious of the representativeness of the sample.
Measurement instrument: The issue in this poll is whether women should be
allowed to wear a Burqa in public or in a courtroom when giving evidence. Both
questions look to be straightforward and so there is no great negative impact on
the validity or reliability of the measurement instrument.
Use of the study by Advance Australia: The biggest problem is the use of the
findings by Advance Australia. They have misquoted, misinterpreted or

intentionally manipulated the conclusion to suit their own argument. Based on

the study, Advance Australia concludes that 81% of respondents are against the
wearing of Burqas in public. However, in the Roy Morgan poll quoted, this figure
only applies to the wearing of a Burqa in court when giving evidence. Hence the
claim being made by Advance Australia is completely unsupported. This also
leads to serious doubts over the legitimacy of other unsubstantiated claims that
they make in their press release.

Recommendation
Responding to Advance Australia
In responding to Advance Australia, Ms Resnik should focus on the weaknesses
that accompany each premise of the argument to argue that the position of
Advance Australia is very weak. In particular:

That a causal relationship between the wearing of a Burqa and higher

crime rates is unsubstantiated and that the use of a Burqa by criminals
provides no reason to ban it in Australia.
In the case of the Burqa conflicting with Australian values, Ms Reznik
might highlight the fact that if there are cases of the Burqa being used to
repress women then this behaviour has no place or support in Australia.
But it should be emphasised that where it is the free choice of religious
expression, the wearing of a Burqa would and should be fully supported by
Australian values.
It could be emphasised that rather than restricting cultural integration,
freedom of religious expression only enhances it and indeed, leads to
greater cultural diversity.
The irrelevance of the analogy between motor cycle helmets and the
Burqa is so inconsequential that it is not worth mentioning.
However, the misuse of the Morgan poll and misrepresentation of facts
surrounding the Mainbrace robbery should be highlighted and perhaps
used as the main argument to undermine Advance Australias credibility
and thus, their argument.

Positive Response
The main points that Ms Reznik should focus on in her response are:

The fact that Australia is first and foremost and multi-cultural nation which
has helped us grow into an enviable nation.
The positive impacts and influences that Muslim immigrants have
contributed to this multi-cultural Australian culture.
The fact that Australia fully supports the expression of religious freedom
and sees no shame in standing up for this principle.
That intolerance and bigotry, of which some of Advance Australias claims
could be accused of, have no place in Australian culture and are sincerely
opposed by all sides of government.