MEDIA RELEASE: New CIS research: No moral or legal reason to ban burqa

The burqa has been a garment of contention in Australia, with calls to ban it from being worn in public — most notably a suggestion of banning it in the Canberra Parliament.

A new research report published by the Centre for Independent Studies examines two of the key arguments about the burqa and investigates how best to strike the balance between individual rights and state responsibilities.

In No Ordinary Garment? The Burqa and the Pursuit of Tolerance,  CIS Research Fellow Peter Kurti outlines that there must be very sound reasons – both moral and legal – for refusing a person the freedom to manifest their religious belief as and how they wish.

“For the law to require a Muslim woman to appear in public without the covering she believes is required by her religious faith would be a traumatic development,” he writes.

“Women who choose to wear the burqa are simply enjoying the right enjoyed by every Australian to wear whatever clothing they wish.  At this time, there is no good enough reason why they shouldn’t continue to do so.

Access the research summary snapshot                                Access the full report

“Certainly, Islam is asserting itself in new ways in Australia. Some Australian Muslims are demanding recognition of sharia law, and are also calling for greater acceptance of Islamic practices in economic and social life — including wearing the burqa.

“However, the burqa is at odds with an open and liberal society in which seeing another’s face is an important element in interpersonal exchange. The issue of the burqa arises today because of a concern that those who wear it appear reluctant to adopt Australia’s civic culture. This unsettles the social compact.

“The limits to Australians’ ready tolerance of different religions can soon be reached if the social compact is unsettled.  It’s already under strain: a recent poll found that 55.5% or respondents opposed the wearing of the burqa in public. This is due to concerns about the political, often anti-Western, values associated with Islam.

“This report examines two of the key arguments:

The Amenity of Public Space Argument: the burqa fails to observe the norms and conventions of public space and so should have no place in it. But this argument draws the limits of religious liberty too narrowly, and ought to fail.

The Equality Under the Law Argument: the religious symbolism of the burqa should grant it the equivalent status of any other religious symbol, such as a crucifix. But this argument reduces the principle of religious liberty to the point where anything of any meaning to anyone is worthy of protection, and ought to fail.

The exercise of tolerance becomes most pressing, and even difficult when the minority point of view is unpopular with the majority, or even distasteful to it.  Tolerance doesn’t entail being neutral about what is tolerated.  Tolerance and dissent are compatible.  A free society will always be debating the limits of tolerance under the law — and balancing those limits against the exercise of a fundamental human right.

Peter Kurti is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. He is available for comment.

Media inquiries: Karla Pincott  kpincott@www.cis.org.au  0411 759 934