Standardization of "Ban the Burqa" The wearing of burqas should be prohibited in Australia.

The liberal perspective on burqas is invalid.

The liberal perspective on burqas is that they merely represent a cultural difference or represent a repression of women that Australians should "gently" discourage.

Australia is a good country because of its freedom, which should be exercised to terminate the freedom of muslims from wearing burqas.

Burqas are synonymous with criminality.

Burqas conceal identities to allow criminality.

One shop owner was robbed by a burqa-wearing criminal whom it is impossible to catch because of his clothes, so the clothes are insidious.

Burqas represent female oppression.

There is equality for women in Australia, so burqas must be prohibited to maintain that equality.

The argument that wearing burqas is simply an aspect of cultural diversity is wrong.

Australian immigrants should embrace Australia's culture.

Wearing burqas (and engaging in native cultural practices) prevents immigrants from participating in Australia's culture.

II. Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Argument

Premise One

The rationale behind premise one is a paradox on the conception of freedom or liberality. The author states that liberals do not prohibit wearing burqas because they represent a cultural difference or an opportunity to gently admonish the repression of women. However, the author then polarizes liberals and conservatives by discounting the argument of the former due to the fact that conservatives in Australia have the "freedom" to disagree with them. It is posited that this freedom is what makes Australia great, and that the ultimate exercise of this freedom is to take away the freedom of dress of others (meaning the muslims). Therefore, the paradox of this argument is that liberals are wrong because conservatives are free to take away the freedom of others -- which is certainly a contradiction.

Premise Two

In the second premise, the author of this document postulates that burqas are synonymous with criminality. The reasoning behind this premise is that burqas conceal an individual's identity by covering up everything except one's eyes. To the author's credit, burqas are ideal for criminals in the sense that it is difficult to get a description of a criminal's physical features if he or she was wearing one. However, the author makes a number of illogical points in trying to demonstrate that burqas are synonymous with criminality. He provides an example of one person in a burqa who robbed one 'native' Australian as representative of the fact that all people wearing burqas can, will, or have done similar criminal acts. He also conveniently forgets that burqas are primarily worn by women, who certainly are not the perpetrators of the type of fearful criminal acts for which he desires these clothes to be banned.

Premise Three

The author, Colin Harper, states that burqas are representative of female repression and are therefore incorrigible. Moreover, he states the fact that Australia offers equality between the sexes, and that burqas should be disallowed to maintain this status quo. There are certainly sediments of truths in both of these lines of reasoning. However, allowing women to wear burqas is not reinforcing female repression -- forcing them to wear burqas is. Women should have the freedom to wear burqas if they so choose. Australia would only reinforce the repression of women if it forced them to wear burqas -- which it is not.

Premise Four

The fourth premise is a counterargument, and contends with the notion that wearing burqas is simply a part of accepting cultural diversity. Harper believes that immigrants should embrace Australia's culture and dress as Australians do. There is nothing innately wrong with this belief, except the author's allusion to the fact that if foreigners dress differently from Australians that they are not accepting the cultural of Australians. Such thinking is illogical -- foreigners can dress how they please and still readily interact with Australian culture. His belief that burqas somehow prevent cultural diversity and an integration between Australian and muslim culture is unjustified and incorrect.

III. Analysis of Language and Rhetoric

There is an element of paradox that accompanies the majority of the language in which Harper's "Ban the Burqa" is written. Although the author and the group he has written this press release for represent the conservative element of Australians, they do so from an extreme perspective. This extremism typifies a lot of the language within this article, particularly the author's diction, and a fair amount of the rhetoric found within...

One of the primary examples of this fact is the extreme degree of polarization which accompanies the views and references to the liberals and those pertaining to the views and references of the conservatives. This is a rhetorical device known as the all or nothing perspective. This perspective is manifest in the press release by the fact that the author characterizes the liberals as wrong, hopelessly (and unrealistically) idealists, whereas the stance of the conservatives embodies everything positive about Australia such as freedom and its greatness. Thus, the liberals are referred to as "do-gooders" (on more than one occasion), and their tenets that they represent in this document (such as the element of cultural diversity that burqas represent) are referred to as "wishy-washy." This sort of characterization of liberals and their stances demonstrates an extreme perspective in which there is no middle ground.
Conversely, those ideals and positions advocated by the conservatives are described in terms as celebratory as those of the liberals are described as negative. The country is described as "already great" without the influence or appearance of muslims and their burqas; those who agree with this sentiment are referred to as "fair-minded" "decent" and "hard-working" -- words with connotations that are direct antipodes of those pertaining to liberals and their viewpoints.

Additionally, the concept of freedom is conveniently twisted by the author so that it becomes a danger when utilized by liberals and by muslims wearing burqas, and a proud staunch right of conservatives who are attempting to circumscribe the same freedom from their opponents. This fact is poignantly indicated in the subsequent sentence in which Harper states that Advance Australia is "free to demand and force an end to such medieval customs in a modern country like Australia." This freedom that the group asserts is built on limiting the freedom of others -- a definite contradiction. How can there be freedom in Australia when others cannot exercise that same freedom? The answer to this question is that the freedom that Harper propounds to take away the freedom from others is a form of oppression if not a variation of tyranny. He is simply attempting to galvanize his partisans by suggesting they have a right -- in the name of freedom -- to take away the freedom from others. This is a rhetorical strategy that may work on others less attentive to the language and tactics of the author. The author utilizes a similar tactic when asserting that the burqas are actually contradictory to integration and diversity, for the simple fact that they do not represent traditional Australian culture. This is another paradoxical statement that does not make sense once analyzed.

IV. Analysis of the Roy Morgan Study and Advance Australia's Use of it

The way that Advance Australia utilized the results from the Roy Morgan study would almost be laughable were this situation not so vital to Australia and the future of freedom of this country. Harper announces that "81% of Australians are against wearing the Burqa in public." Such a statement is a falsehood, or perhaps another extremely convenient manipulation of the truth. The reality of the research performed by the SMS Morgan in the form of a poll is that 81% of Australian electors believe that burqas should not be worn -- when individuals are giving evidence in court. Thus, there is a specific, finite segment of the population that this percentage applies to, as well as a specific, finite situation in which they believe that burqas are inappropriate. There were only 434 electors surveyed. Additionally, it is noteworthy to realize that 52% of the electors answered an initial question, should burqas be permitted in public, with a no answer. The 81% then refers to the subsequent 48 percentage of the people who said yes to the initial question.

Therefore, the manipulation of Advance Australia becomes readily manifest. The truth is that of the electors surveyed, Australians are split on the issue of whether or not burqas should be permitted in public. The 81% of those who feel that they should not wear burqas in court when giving evidence is really less significant than the fact that electors are virtually split on this issue.

V. Recommendation Briefing

Claire Reznik should emphasize the fact that the "Ban the Burqa" paper is far from objective, and written from a limited, one-sided perspective of conservative extremists. She should propound the notion that there is a stark polarization of muslims/liberals and conservatives, and that everything written about the former is starkly negative (they are alternatively referred to as "wishy washy" and "monsters"), while everything written from the conservative perspective (and those that agree with them) is lauded as great and indicative of freedom. She…