- Position1 of 3›
- Burkas should be banned in the UK
Face-veiling is customary, not religious. Both the burqa and other types of face veiling have been verified since pre-Islamic times. Because of this, most Islamic scholars, both past and present, have not regarded the burqa or other face veils as a religious requirement.
The argument
The argument proceeds from a claim about religious obligation rather than about the garment's meaning. If it is not obligatory to wear a burka, then on this view there is nothing wrong with banning the burka, because what a legislature would be restricting is a practice rather than a requirement of faith. Proponents compare it to banning cannabis or riding a motorcycle without a helmet: matters on which the state restricts what people may choose to do, and where the choice being removed is not one anybody is bound by conscience to make. That reclassification is what the argument turns on, because it changes which objection applies. A prohibition on something a religion requires would interfere with the practice of that religion; a prohibition on an optional custom, on this account, would not. Proponents therefore characterise the burka as an optional custom that some people choose to engage in, and one which they argue can have a detrimental effect on integration, gender equality and national security. Those three claimed harms are held to be sufficient grounds for restriction once the religious-obligation defence has been set aside. The practical case rests on the alternatives available. Women who wear the burka can wear a niqab, hijab, chador, shayla, al-Amira or khimar instead, and proponents hold that moving between them would cause minimal disruption to their lives. The range offered is part of the point, since these are existing forms of covering already worn by observant Muslim women, so a woman could continue to dress modestly according to her own understanding of what her faith asks of her. On this account a ban would not hinder their freedom to practice their religion in accordance with their sacred scripture, which is why supporters treat the burka as distinguishable from the religious observance a state is obliged to protect.
Context
The Quran tells women that they must dress modestly. However, this is open to interpretation. There is nothing in the Islamic faith that makes wearing a burka obligatory and many opt not to, instead wearing a niqab (which leaves the eyes visible), a chador or a hijab.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The burden of proof lies on the proponents to demonstrate why the burka should be banned, not why it can be banned. Wearing a crucifix around your neck is not an obligatory part of the Catholic faith but the government is not considering banning crucifixes. The burden of proof is on the ban's proponents to demonstrate 'why', not 'why not'. A burka ban may not directly infringe a Muslim's freedom of religion but it undoubtedly infringes their freedom of expression and their right to wear whatever clothes they want to. Whether the burka is an integral part of the religion or not, it is irrelevant. On a civil level, the ban dictates what a woman can and cannot wear. This is an infringement of civil liberties and promotes the repression of women.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P3] It may not infringe a Muslim's freedom to practice their religion, but it infringes a woman's right to wear the clothes she feels most comfortable in.