Burkas should be banned because wearing the burka normalises the oppression of women

The argument

Proponents of a ban argue that the reasoning offered for the garment is itself the problem. Viewing women in this way — as a piece of meat that must be covered or risks instant molestation by male predators — is on their account highly sexist, because it assigns the work of preventing assault to the person who might be assaulted. Instead of making it a man's responsibility not to sexually assault a woman, they argue, some in the Islamic community would prefer to have women covered. The premise beneath that preference is that male conduct is fixed and female visibility is the variable to be adjusted, and proponents hold that this insults both parties at once: it casts men as incapable of restraint and women as answerable for what is done to them. From there the argument moves from the justification to the garment itself. If the reason given for covering rests on that view of women, then on this reading the burka is nothing but a tool men use to repress women — a symbol of patriarchal Islam's desire to control women, stifle female sexuality and silence their voices, rather than a form of dress that merely happens to coexist with those attitudes. Worn in public, it does not only affect the wearer: it makes that account of women visible and unremarkable, which is what normalising an idea consists of. The final step is one of consistency in public policy. The UK government opposes sexism in all forms and stands against measures deliberately designed to silence and repress women. Proponents contend that a government holding that position cannot consistently treat the burka as a neutral matter of personal dress while acting against sexism in other settings, and that it should therefore ban the burka in the UK.

Context

Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali, a senior Islamic cleric once said the following as an argument for women covering themselves with a burka: "“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... without cover, and the cats come to eat it... whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

Premises

Counter-arguments

The Burka is a Rejection of Female Objectification The burka is not a tool of the patriarchy. It empowers women and is a clear rejection of the objectification of women as sex objects. In many Western societies, women are under intense social pressure to look a certain way. They are scrutinised for their appearance, makeup and clothes in the street, in the office, and on social media. It is hypocritical for the same women who wear high heels, skimpy skirts and striking lipstick simply because the patriarchy wants them to look a certain way, to call a burka sexist and a tool of the patriarchy. These women are doing exactly what the patriarchy expects of them; turning themselves into a sexual object. Bans Replace one Form of Repression With Another Even if we accept that the burka is inherently repressive and is little more than a symbol of the masculine desire to exert dominance over a women, banning the burka simply replaces one repressive mechanism with another. Muslim women may feel more housebound by the ban. They may not want to leave their home without a burka but face a fine if they wear one. This would have a far greater repressive effect on females than the clothing piece itself. True gender equality would allow women to wear what they want. If they want to wear a burka because it empowers them, they should be permitted to do so. Banning a female from wearing a burka is just as repressive as forcing a woman to wear a burka.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The burka empowers women. It doesn't repress them. [Rejecting P2] Banning the burka is in itself a repression of women. It is telling them exactly what they can and cannot wear. True freedom would be telling women they are free to wear what they want.