Final Assessmentks

8/12/2019 Final Assessmentks

1/6

Andrew Fischer 43668720

PHL137: CRITICAL THINKINGFINAL ASSESSMENT

Part I: Standardisation of Ban the Burqa A Campaign Promise

Conclusion: We must ban the burqa.

1. Australia does not tolerate medieval customs that repress women.1.1 The burqa is a medieval custom that represses women.

1.1.1 Harper believes it to be.*1.2 Australia is a modern country with fair-minded people.*

1.2.1 Equality of women is a core Australian value.1.2.2 81% of Australians are against wearing the burqa in public.

[Premises 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 convergent.]

[Premises 1.1 and 1.2 linked.]2. The burqa is the tool of criminals.

2.1 It allows wrongdoing to go unchecked.2.1.1 It guarantees anonymity.

2.2 People commit more crime when their identity is concealed.2.2.1 A burqa was used in a robbery in Mainbrace.2.2.2 Terrorist suicide bombers used burqas.

[Premises 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 convergent.][Premises 2.1 and 2.2 convergent.]

3. We should help police to fight crime.3.1 The burqa conceals ones identity.3.2 Unidentifiable suspects are difficult to catch.*3.3 We currently help police to identify people. *

3.3.1 We dont allow motorcyclists to wear their helmets in banks or at petrolstations.

[Premises 3.1 and 3.2 linked. Premise 3.3 convergent.]4. The burqa contravenes Australian diversity.

4.1 Immigrants should not try to recreate their old world.4.2 Immigrants should not close themselves off from real Australian culture.

[Premises 4.1 and 4.2 convergent.]

[Premises 1 and 4 are convergent. Premises 2 and 3 are linked.]


2/6


Part II: Analysis of Argument and Inferences as Standardised in Ban the Burqa A CampaignPromise

Premise One

The thought process behind premise one is that the burqa is a repressive piece of clothing, and suchpieces of clothing should not be allowed in Australia. If we accept the former statement on facevalue, i.e. that the burqa is repressive, this premise seems reasonable. However, Colin Harper (thePress Officer for Advance Australia) does not prove that the burqa is indeed a repressive item at nopoint does he reflect on the views of the women who indeed wear the burqa or offer any evidence.Relying purely on his own view of the burqa, this does not prove to be convincing. Secondly,Harpers distinguishing of Australia as a modern country with fair -minded people seems credible, buthis belief that the equality of women is a core Australian value relies heavily on the first sub-premisethat the burqa does indeed repress women. Furthermore, Harpers justification that Australia isfilled with fair -minded people is the statistical proof that 81% of Australians are against the burqabeing worn in public. Unfortunately, this proof of popular support comes from a research poll that is

flawed for a number of reasons, the largest being the statistic of 81% actually came from thequestion whether the burqa should be allowed in court .

Arguably, Harper commits two fallacies with this premise. The argument relies on the support of hisbelief that the burqa is a repressive piece of clothing. Without further justification, this directly asksus to appeal to his own expertise on the matter. As Harper does not claim to be a Muslim womannor have any understanding of the Islamic culture, this ungrounded appeal to his authority rendersthe argument weak. Secondly, Harper attempts to appeal to popularity with his use of misleadingstatistical evidence.

Premise Two

Harpers second premise is that the burqa is the tool of criminals, implying that tools of criminalsshould be banned. Firstly, Harper argues that the burqa allows wrongdoing to go unchecked as itguarantees anonymity. Furthermore, he argues that people commit more crime with a concealedidentity. Here, he offers a number of examples, such as the robbery in Mainbrace and terroristsuicide bombers.

There are a number of problems here. Firstly is the relevance of argument as a whole. If the burqa isindeed by and large the tool of criminals purely because it can conceal ones face, does that meanany other material or mask that is face-covering shall also be banned? If the burqa was indeedsomething that was largely the tool of criminals, such as automatic weapons, Harpers argument

may carry weight. However, since this is a religious piece of clothing and there is little evidence toshow it is widely used in crime, this argument is quite weak. Secondly, he also attempts to use theexample of the robbery in Mainbrace as justification, however upon looking at the police report ofthe Mainbrace robbery, the only witness is not sure if the item used was a Muslim face -scarf or anIRA balaclava. Harpers hasty generalisation relies heavily on an appeal to his own authority.

Premise Three

This premise is meant to support the conclusion by adding justification to Premise Two, i.e.explaining that we should help police fight crime by doing away with the tool of criminals. Thispremise has a decent amount of justification, and is arguably the strongest premise of all four. Here,Harper argues that we currently already help police to identify people, and thus we should continue


3/6


to do so by banning the burqa and allowing everyone to be recognisable. Harper does provide anexample of allowing motorcyclists to wear their helmets in banks or at petrol stations.

While Harper does argue that we should ban the burqa using a more sturdy precedent, he doesdraw on a somewhat average argument from analogy. Harper uses motorcyclists wearing helmets in

public places as analogues, people wearing the Burqa as the subject, and the target property ofbeing identifiable by police. The shared property is having a covered face. However, this analogymisses the nature of the face-coverings that is, the significance of the burqa to those who properlywear it (women of the Islamic faith). This difference in the shared property, namely covering onesface temporarily or all of the time for religious purposes, decreases the strength of this argument.Furthermore, relying on the misuse of the burqa by a non-confirmed select few in Mainbrace doesnot give enough justification for banning the proper use in all circumstances. While the analogy useddoes carry some weight if supporting a claim such as whether the burqa should be used in court, it isnot an incredibly strong premise for this conclusion.

Premise Four

This premise is meant to support the main conclusion by proving that Australia is a diverse andaccepting nation, and the burqa contravenes this. Harper argues that immigrants should not try tocreate their old world in Australia, nor should they close themselves off from real Australian culture.

There are a number of problems with this. Most obvious of all is the contradiction inherent in hisargument diversity of cultures is an integral part of Australia, but the burqa as part of the Muslimculture is not diverse and should be banned. Harper provides little to no justification as to why theburqa does not bring another culture into Australia (thus increasing our diversity). Furthermore, hedoes not explain how immigrants completely close themselves off from real Australian culture bywearing the burqa. As this argument relies on contradictory definitions of diversity and a lack of

justification in any form, it is very weak.


4/6


Part III: Analysis of the Language and Rhetoric used in Ban the Burqa A Campaign Promise

Colin Harper argues that we should ban the burqa on the basis that it is a symbol of oppression, thatwe should aid the fight against its use in crime, and that it flies in the face of Australias culturaldiversity. Throughout his argument, Harper uses a range of rhetorical devices, but the repeated

underlying technique he uses is to offer a false dilemma either we ban the burqa in its entirety, orsuffer innumerable consequences.

The first two paragraphs of Harpers argument offer an immediate aversion to two distinct trains ofthought regarding the burqa. Labelling those who think these two trains of thought as liberal do -gooders uses Ad Hominem, painting these opinions in a negative light from the outset. Itestablishes Harpers general message and false dilemma either believe that we should ban theburqa, or you will not only be another liberal do -gooder but you will be condoning crime and theoppression of women . Even Harpers characterisation of the opposing view ( the symbol of femalerepression that we must gently encourage Muslims to abandon ) assumes that it is a well-established fact that the burqa is a repressive piece of clothing, a leading definition that helps his

argument.

This perceived establishment of the burqa as an oppressive item allows him to use emotive languageand vagueness throughout his argument to oppose this oppression. By further identifying the burqaas a medieval custom and as backward cultural practices, Harper pits the reader against theburqa. Furthermore, consistently using the first person plural we encourages a team mentality ofus vs the burqa. This is reinforced with his characterisation of Australia as a great country filledwith fair -minded people, these vague terms encouraging the reader to agree with Harpers point ofview.

Harper relies on an appeal to fear in a number of circumstances. The metaphor of a growing sea of

Burqa wearing Muslims instil s a sense of invasion and uncertainty towards the Islamic faith.Furthermore, his suggestion of certainty in not only is this a direct assault and the characterisationof an allegedly burqa- wearing criminal as a monster instil s a sense of fear and opposition to theburqa.

The use of the fallacy of equivocation is also evident in Harpers argument, largely the use of thephrases diversity and equality for women. In some instances, Harper looks upon diversity as apositive thing part of Australian freedoms and values. However the divers e inclusion of the burqaand Islamic culture in our society is then labelled as (stopping) integration and diversity. Thisdouble meaning present in the argument largely diminishes its strength.

In Harpe rs final paragraph, he makes another appeal to fear in naming the burqa a threat to o ursafety, and calls upon his misleading statistics in an appeal to popularity . This ultimately attempts toconvince the reader of the inherent danger that justifies why we must ban the burqa , but his use ofargument ad nauseam and normative terms detracts from this motive.

Harper puts to use emotionally charged language and rhetorical devices of all forms in his argument,and in some cases appears to commit fallacies. For the most part, this use of language is notnecessary and detracts from the rational core of his argument, a core that is limited in the first place.


5/6


Part IV: Report on Roy Morgan Poll

The analysed poll is the Roy Morgan Poll published in Roy Morgan research on 6 August 2010:

Todays special Morgan Poll finds: 81% of Australian elec tors do not believe women should beallowed to wear a burka when giving evidence in court.

SAMPLE:

Size The sample size of this poll was very small, with only 434 electors taking part in the SMS poll.Furthermore, the second question (which was the real question) was taken from half the electors,leaving an even smaller sample size. Having an opinion on whether burqas should be allowed incourt is a heterogeneous property, and thus the sample size for this poll should have beensignificantly larger. Given the title is phrased as 81% of Australian electors, the sample size is far toosmall to be representative of a nation-wide belief.

Selection The selection of this poll is very unrepresentative. First of all, it was likely to be a sub-

section of society that can use mobile phones and can SMS, which may rule out older generationsand children. Further, as it was self-selected, it was more likely to be those who feel strongly aboutthis issue, who are willing to spend money on an SMS to have their opinion heard. While not totallyunrepresentative, as it is possible that some strongly felt that the burqa should be allowed, asMuslims are a minority in Australia, this is very likely to be unrepresentative of the nation as awhole. While the survey does expla in that Analysis by men and women shows virtually no genderdifference, this does not specify whether there was a representative number of men and womenincluded in the 434 electors. Alongside age, we also do not know location, ethnicity, all of which arefactors which would further influence the accuracy of this poll.

RESEARCH METHOD:

The Measurement Instrument: The report did specify that this was an SMS poll. This is important asit meant that there was no face-to-face questioning, meaning it may have been easier for bigoted orracist opinions to be nonchalantly sent in. Furthermore, it did require the electors to pay for an SMS,which may be representative of those who felt strongly about the issue.

Terms and Questions: The question, Should women be allowed to wear a burqa when givingevidence in court? is not overtly loaded and does not lead the elector for or against in any obviousmanner. However, the question does force an individual to fall on either side of the fence in regardsto Muslims, which is controversial. The main question of this poll was not the initial question onlythose who said yes to the question of Should women be allowed to wear a burqa in public? were

asked the follow up question, which was the actual study. This limits the integrity of the poll.

CONCLUSION:

The headline Todays special Morgan Poll finds: 81% of Australian electors do not believe womenshould be allowed to wear a burka when giving evidence in court , is fairly accurate to the statisticsinside the report, and it is somewhat tempered language compared to what could have beenwritten. As this question of the poll was only a subsection of a previous section, the sample size waseven smaller than is initially stated. Due to this questioning line and sample size, the claim made bythe headline is not sufficiently proven.


6/6

Documents

Final Assessmentks