Critical Analysis Of Arguments System

The initial premise of the argument says that the fundamental Management concept of the Liberal humanitarians about Burqa is not acceptable as they only views the presence of Burqa to be a symbol of female repression and an example of the cultural diversity in Australia. According to the argument, the aforementioned perceptions should not be considered with high amount of priority though have not given any firm explanation about why the views should not be considered. Further, the assertion presented by the first premise regarding the greatness of the nation is rather vague, as it does not stand for any particular meaning. However, the most significant and considerable fact presented by the premise is that there is a growing awareness among the fair-minded Australians who believe that Burqa is a threat for the society.    

The second premise asserts with evidence that Burqa has now become a successful veil for committing crimes. The case of robbing in Mainbrace provides enough proof of the fact that through wearing Burqa people are now deceiving themselves and attempting criminal acts. However, the evidence is not as stronger as required to establish the fact that Burqa has become a tool for crime because the readers require more such evidences. Therefore, the generalization is not proved potential to contemplate that Burqa has become a threat though it is a fact worth admitting that the attempt to make disguise with the apparel has made it difficult for the Police to catch the criminals. Moreover, the claim that police department is now in need of political power needs more explanation and evidences from other cases.

The third premise presents relatively stronger approach as it talks about the negativity brought by Burqa and its purpose and its potentiality to impose harm on the core Australian value. However, it is to argue also that while talking about core values of Australia, there should have been mentions of some of the fundamental socio-cultural values of Australia. The argument has only mentioned that the equality of women is one of the core values of Australia. The particular statement requires more evidences and constitutional supporting statements. However, the argument has asserted a very fundamental fact that says immigrants should not recreate their own values and embrace the culture of the foreign nation. However, the argument that burqa has become a predicament for the integration is not completely acceptable, as no supportive statement has given about the fact that the Muslim inhabitants of Australia are opposing other Australian constitutions.

The final premise interprets a poll result though in a brief manner, which is not expected. However, the interpretation is relevant as per the reason that the result that indicates that 81% of the Australians are against Burqa, therefore it should be banned.  

Analysis of the language and rhetoric used in “Ban the Burqa”

The argument presented under the name “Ban the Burqa” asserts that there is an immediate need to ban the apparel called – Burqa as it suppress women empowerment and has become a convenient veil for committing criminal acts. There has been found several chosen language and rhetoric while presenting the argument. Moreover, fallacious language games have been also there in the argument. In the initial paragraphs, there are some annoying words like “Liberal do-gooders”, which directly attacks the Management philanthropists and their humanitarian concepts. The categorization of the word falls under the “argumentum ad hominem” fallacy and it has helped the argument to oppose the mindset of those who have a somewhat optimistic opinion about Burqa. On the other hand, by putting words like “fair-minded Asutralians”, which falls under the argumentam ad populam fallacy, the argument is indicative of the fact that those who think Burqa is  not a piece of threat are not fair minded.

Most significantly, the third paragraph suffers from the particular fallacy of oversimplification. It is because the paragraph has generalized the fact that he Burqa is an aspect of repression though the argument should have considered the fact that not all Muslim women are forced to wear the apparel. The oversimplification has been misused, as there is the need to consider the fact that there are several women who wear the apparel by their own consent. Moreover, there can be seen use of varied vague, equivocal as well as emotional words like “wishy-washy”, “great nation” and “old world”. At the same time, there are found two more fallacies, which are “circular reasoning” and “begging the question”, through which, the argument has asserted that the multicultural society of Australia is great without the potential contribution made within the nation. The language that is full of vague and unnecessary emotional words have been supported by lack of evidences has made the argument biased and less relevant.

A report on Roy Morgan Study

The present segment will pursue a brief report on the study of Roy Morgan and the poll result brought by it and the use of the result by Advance Australia. The survey result have been issued in the Roy Morgan website on 6 August 2010.

The survey has been conducted upon only 434 people or 0.002% population of Australia. The sample size is not only disappointing but also there has been no mention of the fact that the sample size is homogenous or not.

The survey information only indicated that the survey has been conducted through messages and there has been no mention about the particular way of selecting the sample size and the reason behind it. Most significantly, there is no mention either about the fact that whether any differentiation has been made between the urban and rural respondents of Australia or not.

In terms of measurement instrument, the survey has used two questions – “Should women be allowed to wear a burqa in the public places?” and “Should women be allowed to wear a burqa when giving evidence in court”. The questions do not match properly with each other as per the purpose. Both the questions serve a same purpose and the differentiation between public place and court is not acceptable. 

There has been made no clarification of the fact that whether the all the respondents have been “Australian citizens” or not. Moreover, Burqa has been generalized and any proper form of the apparel has not been mentioned. Therefore, consequently the poll has acquired a fallacious generalization, which is not expected.

As the sample size is not acceptable to determine that Burqa is a social issue, the Advance Australia should not have used the result. Because of the flawed generalization made in the survey, the argument of Advance Australia has also reached to a vague and hasty result.

A recommendation briefing on the argument of “Advance Australia”

The rising tension regarding the Muslim and Middle Eastern migrants has not in the Management Mainbrace area has been the primary reason for the political group – “Advance Australia” to run a campaign against Burqa. The following section is attempting to provide recommendations considering the fallacies present in the argument. 

• The claims made by the argument have not been supported with numerous potential evidences and is full with equivocal and vague language and fallacious words.
• There is the need for having a better understanding about the word Burqa and the concepts related to it (Gray 2014)
• The report has been made considering the survey made by the Roy Morgan’s study, which itself has a very week ground as the survey has been pursued only on 0.002% respondents. Therefore, determination of the fact that Burqa should be officially banned, based on the poll result is not acceptable completely.

There is a need to have a justifiable liberal perspective on the apparels of Burqa and the culture related to it. Therefore, it would be best; if there will be an expression that will say that Burqa banning would not force the criminals in discarding their appearance (Barker 2016). Moreover, in order to establish the aforementioned expression, a proper survey should be done. If there has been done no such proper, survey yet instead of the study of Roy Morgan, then the emphasis should center on more relevant information related to the issues brought by Burqa (Baehr and Gordon 2013).

References

Baehr, P. and Gordon, D., 2013. From the headscarf to the burqa: the role of social theorists in shaping laws against the veil. Economy and Society, 42(2), pp.249-280.

Barker, R., 2016. Rebutting the Ban the Burqa Rhetoric: A Critical Analysis of the Management Arguments for a Ban on the Islamic Face Veil in Australia. Adel. L. Rev., 37, p.191.

Gray, A., 2014. The Manifestation of Religious Belief Through Dress. European Journal of Law Reform, 16, p.2.

Aph.gov.au. 2017. Muslim Australians – Parliament of Australia. [online] Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/MuslimAustralians [Accessed 15 May 2017].

Baehr, P. and Gordon, D., 2013. From the headscarf to the burqa: the role of social theorists in shaping laws against the veil. Economy and Society, 42(2), pp.249-280.

Barker, R., 2016. Rebutting the Ban the Burqa Rhetoric: A Critical Analysis of the Arguments for a Ban on the Islamic Face Veil in Australia. Adel. L. Rev., 37, p.191.

En.wikipedia.org. 2017. Types of hijab. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_hijab [Accessed 15 May 2017].

Gray, A., 2014. The Manifestation of Religious Belief Through Dress. European Journal of Law Reform, 16, p.2.

Levey, G.B., 2015. Secularism as proto-multiculturalism: the case of Australia.

Williams, R.R., 2015. WHY STUDY RELIGION VISUALLY?. Seeing Religion: Toward a Visual Sociology of Religion, 146, p.192.