Banning the burka would prevent cultural dialogue

The argument

The objection is not that a ban would fail on its own terms but that it would destroy the conditions under which the underlying disagreement could ever be worked through. A burka ban would instantly fuel resentment from Muslim communities towards the government and towards those calling for the ban, and resentment of that kind does not stay contained. It changes what the argument is about. Before a ban, the question on the table is the burka itself: what it means, who chooses it, and what it does to the women who wear it. After a ban, the question becomes the ban, and the state's willingness to use the law against a visible religious practice. From there public debate shuts down from both directions at once. Muslims accuse the government of Islamophobia, which, given that such a law would single out a garment worn by Muslim women, is not a charge that can simply be waved away. Supporters of the ban accuse British Muslims of harbouring sexist and patriarchal beliefs. Each side now holds an accusation about the other's motives, and an exchange conducted through accusations about motive is no longer an argument about the thing itself. The sharpest form of the point is addressed to those who genuinely are concerned about the sexist and patriarchal symbolism they see in the burka. For them a blanket ban would be a travesty rather than a victory: highly insensitive of another culture, and the surest way to all but shut down the public communication through which their concern might be heard and answered. What their position actually requires is the opposite — seeking ways to foster public discourse, promote healthy debate, and engage in dialogue about universal values and rights — and all of that depends on the people they are addressing being willing to talk. A ban guarantees they will not be.

Context

If elements of society are concerned about the repressive and patriarchal effect of the burka, they should promote measures to foster constructive public communication and debate on the issue instead of applying legislative action to ban burkas.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Not everything needs to lead to a public debate. Some things that are inherently oppressive or dangerous must be banned without debate. Some elements of society may complain, but it is in the best interests of society as a whole. For example, many libertarians propose that all drugs should be legal. This does not mean that the government should not legislate until the public debate is concluded and one vein of thinking emerges victorious. It should ban dangerous drugs in the interest of public safety until public pressure to do otherwise becomes too loud to ignore. The same applies to the burka. If we accept that the burka promotes gender inequality, the government should take action and ban it in society's best interests. If the public sentiment changes at a later date and the burka is viewed differently, the ban can be lifted. However, in the meantime, it is in the public's interest to ban it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] It would not be counterproductive to gender inequality.