Burkas should be banned because safety concerns should be prioritised

The argument

Proponents of a ban argue that the burka conceals a citizen's identity in public, allowing criminals and terrorists to avoid detection. The concern is not with the garment's religious meaning but with a practical consequence of full facial covering: the means by which a person is ordinarily identified in public all depend on the face being visible, and none of them function when it is not. Two precedents are offered as evidence that this is more than theoretical. In Morocco, a ban came into force after several high-profile crimes were committed using a burka to hide the criminals' identities. In the United States, criminals in Philadelphia used a burka to conceal their faces while committing kidnapping and robbery offences. In both cases the garment was used by offenders for exactly the purpose the argument identifies, which is taken to show that the vulnerability is real and has already been exploited. The structural point is that nothing currently prevents this. There is no measure stopping terrorists or criminals from wearing a burka to avoid detection while carrying out or preparing a criminal act, and no way to distinguish such a person from a lawful wearer at the moment it matters, since the concealment is identical in both cases. A security risk of this kind exists in any country where the garment may be worn freely in public, and it persists regardless of the intentions of the overwhelming majority of those who wear it. The conclusion drawn is a matter of priority between competing goods. If the UK wants to protect itself from criminals and terrorists hiding their identity while carrying out crimes, proponents argue it should consider implementing its own burka ban for the sake of national security.

Context

Even in Muslim-majority countries like Morocco, they have burka bans. The Moroccan government banned the sale and manufacture of burkas several years ago. The reason being that the burka presents a significant security risk.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is no statistical evidence to suggest that burka's hamper efforts to identify citizens any more than wearing a large hoodie, hat or scarf might, but nobody is discussing outlawing those items. Regarding the claim that anyone could wear a burka to carry out terrorist acts, there have been no cases in the UK of anyone wearing a burka purely to carry out a terror attack undetected. In fact, globally there has only been one anecdotal case of a male wearing a burka to commit a terror attack. That was in Yemen. Cases where criminals use burkas to hide their faces are also rare. There is also no reason why the criminals couldn't use another disguise instead. A former Anti Terrorist officer for Scotland Yard went on record and stated that he didn't believe a burka was a security threat. The argument for banning the burka on security grounds also falls apart when it is not extended to include other face coverings and hoods. It reveals the anti-Islamic agenda held by many proponents of the burka ban.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Other items inhibit that ability just as much but are not the subject of bans. [Rejecting P3] The burka does not present a threat to public security.