The Burqa Controversy in Australia Research Assignment - 1100 Words

The Burqa Controversy in Australia Research Assignment (Essay Sample) Content: First and Last NameProfessorClassTIME \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 22, 2017The Burqa Controversy in AustraliaA burqa pertains to the outer-garment used by women from the Islamic community, primarily to cover themselves in public. Muslim women primarily wear these burqas as the Quran prompts them to cover and be modest (Vyver). However, Dr. Raihan Ismail, a Middle East Politics and Islamic Studies professor at the Australian National University, asserts that today, women wear these veils for various reasons ranging from culture, fashion, and the most predominant: religion. In the context of religion, women particularly think that wearing the burqa is an obligation.Recently, the usage of burqas has been controversial and problematic. As a matter of fact, some countries have actually banned the use of burqa. While it is not completely outlawed in the Netherlands, burqa usage in places where it is essential to be seen is banned. This includes public transports and public plac es. In April 2011, France became the first country to officially ban women from leaving their homes with their faces covered. Belgium followed shortly after. In September 2016, Bulgaria banned the burqa in an attempt to strengthen security amidst the emergence of Islamic militant attacks. Egypt, Switzerland, Italy, and Chad later followed the burqa ban (Foster).The current paper takes into consideration the ongoing debate over the possibility of burqa ban in Australia. This contemporary issue must be tackled as it affects so many people, particularly the Islamic community, but also the general citizens of Australia. The proposition for burqa ban started from New South Wales passing of the Identification Legislation Amendment Act of 2011, which requires people to remove face covers when asked by state officials. Threatened by the Moscow theatre hostage situation in 2002, Fred Nile, an Australian politician, suggested the banning of full-body coverings in order to prevent possible car rying of weapons. In 2010, Nile put up a bill to criminalize face coverings, such as the burqa and the niqab, the latter being a veil worn by Islamic women to cover their faces, except their eyes. Senator Cory Bernadi lobbied for the same ban. Four years later, Senator Jacquie Lambie once again brought up the banning of the burqa, and in February 2017, introduced a bill to amend Criminal Code Act 1995. The said bill once again proposed to make burqas illegal when a terrorism threat is ongoing.In this light, it is of interest that recently, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson pulled a stunt by coming to the Parliament wearing a burqa. The Australian senator, known for her strong antagonism against Muslim immigration, came to a parliamentary session wearing the Islamic garment. She later took it off, saying I'm quite happy to remove this because it's not what should belong in this parliament (McKirdy). As a known opponent of migration and multiculturalism, this act seemed like a mockery, and therefore, caused a massive controversy. Senator George Brandis of the Liberal Nation coalition strongly expressed his antagonism by saying Senator Hanson, no, we will not be banning the burqa I'm not going to pretend to ignore the stunt that you have tried to pull today by arriving in the chamber dressed in a burqa, when we all know you are not an adherent of the Islamic faith. Brandis adds that Hanson should be careful the religious sensibilities of other Australians. He adds by saying that To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do (McKirdy).The current paper defies Pauline Hansons act and agrees with George Brandis. Indeed, the wearing of the burqa in the Parliament was inappropriate. Moreover, Australia must not ban the burqa. In order to establish its arguement, the current paper firstly notes why its proponents lobby for banning of the burqa. Firstly, it should be acknowledged that support for such ba n has its foundations on ruthless pragmatism. This highlights the bans practicality, especially in keeping the general public safe and secure. Banning such garment would prevent individuals with impure intentions from using it as some sort of disguise and concealing harmful objects. Alongside other forms of clothing and accessories, such as sunglasses and masks, the form of garment in consideration inhibits security cameras from effectively recognizing facial features. This, therefore, threats the essential identification of individuals involved in committing crimes.Secondly, the support for such ban is being reinforced by the idea of preventing oppression against women. In a sense, requiring an individual to wear a particular type of clothing hinders them from making their own choice and going for their own preferences. In the case of burqas and niqabs, the culture only requires its imposition among women. This leads to the reinforcement of gender inequality. It oppresses women and disallows them from sporting any type of clothing that they would personally prefer.Thirdly, legislators and government officials have emphasized the fact that residents of Australia should belong to a single team, implying that those who wear such form of garment are un-Australian, and are therefore not part of the group. The ban has also received support in the European Court of Human Rights, where it has been found out that banning individuals from wearing such garments does not violate Article 9 in the European Convention on Human Rights.However, this current paper argues that these pro-ban views pale in comparison to the wrong connotations of the ban. Firstly, the ban highlights the intrusion of individual and personal freedoms. In specific, this pertains to an individuals inability to make choices according to their personal and religious preferences. As previously discussed, supporting the wearing of such facial coverings or garments hinders individuals from making their own choices and going for their own preferences. In fact, it is ironic that banning such type of garment only reinforces the notion of disallowing members of the society to practice their freedom. Instead of being able to freely choose whichever type of clothing an individual intends to sport, such ban inhibits them from practicing their freedom of choice, especially in light of religion.Secondly, banning the burqa is a form of discrimination to Islams beliefs. It is every individuals fundamental right to choose whichever practice of faith they intend to follow. In the case of Islam, it is an essential tradition for women to wear such garments in order to practice their faith and be in line with their cultures standards. Banning such garments is a form of disrespect for this particular faith, as it also reinforc...