args

The hijab and/or niqab should be banned

I want to thank TheHitchslap for this debate. It was a pleasure. In this final round, (as per the rules I set forth), I will defend my arguments and crystallize with a conclusion. Rule Violation I don't want the voters to consider Pro's valuation as misconduct. That would be petty from me to ask. My opponent did a good job on this debate and I respect his effort. I just want the voter to ignore Pro's extended arguments in Round 2 as it would put me at a disadvantage and I didn't have the space to rebut them in my rebuttal round. I think that's fair from me to ask. Defense of Contention 1: Infringes on Human Rights and Freedom of Religion Pro argues that "Rights are not absolute". While he agrees that "the ban would infringe on the freedom of religion", but "constitutions allow for certain freedoms to be reduced" in certain situations. Pro's justification of the ban is that the "the Niqab is not in line with Western Democratic values". I want to explain to the reader that what Pro is proposing is extremely dangerous. Pro's explanation undermines the concept of freedoms. Let me explain with real examples. The Indonesian constitution secures the right to religious freedom and expression of opinion [1]. However, there is a law that would imprison someone for up to 5 years if they intended to convince another to leave his or her religion [2]. This clearly infringes on basic human rights, but according to Pro's analogy, Indonesia might be justified! Since these rights are not absolute, Indonesian Government may argue that it doesn't conform to "Indonesian values". When Uganda enacted laws to jail homosexuals with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment [3], did they infringe on human rights? If Pro's analogy is right, and human rights can be infringed on "based on values", then Ugandans might have not been so wrong after all because homosexuality doesn't conform to Ugandans values (or so they claim). So what Pro proposes is outright dangerous. I really hope he reconsiders. Does that mean that "Rights are absolute"? No. There are a few exceptions. The obvious one if the freedom of one would infringe on the freedom of another. It means that no one is allowed to encourage someone to kill another, or to slander someone…etc. However, the niqab clearly doesn't fall in this category. Freedom can also be limited if the freedom would undermine the very function of the government. For example, if one's faith requires the person not the pay taxes, the government may not be able to honor this freedom; or if one's religion is to cross the red light at full speed; or if one's faith is to sacrifice a child to please the gods…etc. But you'll notice that these limitations are proportionately applied to all citizens, and not intended to target a specific group. The official department of Justice in Canada explains that such limitations must be pursued in a proportional manner [4].The niqab however is targeted to a specific group, specifically Muslims. And Pro's justification that it doesn't conform to our "western values" isn't sufficient. I've also mentioned in the previous round, that values are subjective and there's no specific reservoir of values, therefore Pro's justification is inadequate. Pro then states that "EU actually justifies Frances ban within their constitution" [sic]. This argument is irrelevant. To say that EU's decision means that the ban is justified is begging the question. Should I appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Burqa ban as support for my argument [5]? Pro also challenges my reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by stating that they are purely "voluntarist". This is a straw man attack. I've shown that the basic rights to freedom of opinion, religion and expression are universal in almost all the constitutions in the world and provided references to the US, Canadian and EU constitutions. Pro then brings a terrible example about slavery in abrahamic religions. I will not engage in theology, because that's irrelevant to the resolution. But basically, Pro is arguing that if someone's religion allows for slavery, a government ought not to allow it even though it might infringe on their religious freedom. But that's extremely different than the niqab. In slavery, you are infringing on the freedoms of the slaves. Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” But a woman wearing the niqab is not infringing on anyone's rights! Pro continues that wearing the niqab "starts a race to become more pure". Again, why should anyone, not to mention a government, prevent someone's intention to be more pure according to their point of view? Pro bring another example. "If one doesn't wear it, some actually have acid thrown on their faces". How is this related? How does this make the niqab ban necessary? Is it the woman's fault that a criminal attacked her? Should we ban schools because a criminal can attack innocents? Should we stop flying planes because a terrorist might want to blow it? Who are you targeting? The criminals or the victims? Pro amuses me by saying that "I actually think forcing someone to wear the Niqab […] is a human right violation". Of course it's a human right violation. Forcing someone to wear a niqab is a human right violation and should be punishable. Am I pleading for such? Pro's example is as bad as this one: Forcing someone to have sex is a human right violation, therefore we ought to ban sex altogether. That's non sequitur and Pro's argument is invalid. Defense of Contention 2: Harm Principle Pro agrees with the harm principle, but argues that the niqab is harmful. Again, Pro is arguing that the niqab causes sexualization and therefore is harmful. Pro didn't provide any evidence that this is the case and I've explained that this analysis is fallacious. First, the niqab is not the cause for any harms. If one wore the niqab, no one else will be "harmed" as a result of that act. If another took off the niqab, no one really benefited as a result. Pro fails to explain the direct harms of wearing the niqab. Now if a woman was being sexualized and was forced to wear the niqab, then you might have a case against the person who's subjecting the woman to wear it, but you don't have a case against the niqab itself. Regarding sexualization, I've shown that pop videos, movies can promote sexualization. So banning the niqab alone is disproportional and discriminatory. Pro is not happy that Islam requires women to be "modest". Again, I'm not here to defend Islam, and it doesn't matter. Not to mentioned that I don't see the problem with promoting modestly. But that whole part about Islam and "eternal damnation" is irrelevant, so I'll dismiss it. Pro then talks about social pressures to wear the niqab. Again that doesn't warrant banning the niqab. If there are social pressures to have sex in college, would that warrant banning sex? (Good luck with that one) Defense of Contention 3: Discriminates against Muslims and Adverse effects Pro misses my point about discrimination. So I'll extend my argument here: "If the ban is exclusive to the niqab, then why should I be able to express my belief freely, while Muslims can't? Am I more privileged because of my belief? That's the very definition of discrimination." What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that you and I will never accept that anyone infringes on our rights. Based on this understanding, I choose not to be a hypocrite. Why should I have this freedom, but Muslim ones can't? If I allow myself to have special privileges because of my beliefs and opinions, then I would be a discriminating hypocrite. Pro also doesn't provide a proper response to the adverse effects of banning the niqab. I've shown in Round 2 that it has "isolated and stigmatized Muslim women". The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also warned against the adverse effects of women being confined to their homes and excluded from educational institutions and public places [6]. Conclusion Banning the niqab clearly undermines the freedom of those women who wish to wear it. While you may not like the idea of a woman wearing the niqab, it's none of your business or mine to decide what ought to be right. The niqab doesn't harm, therefore it ought to be allowed. I argue that we shouldn't allow subjective values of some people to undermine the freedom of others. The niqab ban would discriminate against Muslims and unfortunately gives some the justification to discriminate against them. I urge the reader to stand against a niqab ban as it undermines liberty, freedom and democracy. It doesn't bother me one bit that a woman is wearing the niqab. But if it bothers you, Noam Chomsky has advice for you: “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky Good Bye? This is officially my last debate in DDO (for now). But I'll be around if you need a vote. My two kids need me more than the laptop. Debating is amazing, but it's definitely addictive. Pro - Don't forget to waive the next round. Vote Con! Sources [1] Constitution of Indonesia, Chapter X [2] http://www.loc.gov... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] http://www.justice.gc.ca... [5] http://jurist.org... [6] http://www.hrw.org...