- Position‹3 of 3
- Burkas should not be banned in the UK
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discriminatory laws on religious grounds.
The argument
In deliberately discriminating against the nation's Muslim population, any burka ban would surmount to discrimination.
Context
The enaction of a burka ban would be a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article prohibits "discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin."
Premises
Counter-arguments
It is Not Discriminatory Most burka bans are not discriminatory because they do not only pertain to burkas but any facial coverings in public. Not Banning the Veil is Discriminatory It is actually those that permit the wearing of the burka that are in violation of Article 14. By condoning the oppressive and sexist practice of wearing the burka, governments are behaving in a discriminatory way against women and condoning discrimination based on the grounds of gender.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] That a ban would "deliberately target" Muslims is asserted rather than shown. The bans enacted elsewhere are drafted to cover face coverings generally, and the premise offers nothing to establish intent beyond the fact that the practice is concentrated in one community. That is a claim about disparate effect, which is a different claim and needs its own argument. [Rejecting P2] Treating any measure that falls unequally as discrimination skips the step the case actually turns on. Both UK equality law and the European Convention permit differential treatment that pursues a legitimate aim proportionately, so the premise has to show that identification, security or the state's asserted interest in open social interaction cannot justify the burden, and that a blanket ban is disproportionate to it. Neither is attempted. [Rejecting C] Even a successful discrimination claim would supply one reason against a ban rather than settling the question. The same framework weighs the religious-freedom and expression interests of the women concerned against the argument, advanced on the other side, that a ban protects them — a conflict the premises never reach.