Claire Berlinskis Polemic Ban the Burqa - Book Report/Review Example

Section/# Rhetorical Analysis of Claire Berlinski’s Polemic “Ban the Burqa” As with most well argued, the particular article in question, Claire Berlinski’s “Ban the Burqa”, first states the arguments to the contrary point of view while appearing to lend a degree of credence to these alternatives. Moreover, the way in which the legality and morality, as well as spirituality, are all intimately related to the subject matter is presented to the reader in the earliest stages of the piece. As a function of this, the reader is well versed in the opposing opinion with regards to the wearing of the burqa and/or head covering in what the author describes as a “civilized society”. However, as one might expect, these alternative views do not appropriately reflect the views of the author herself. Rather, notwithstanding the well-articulated counter arguments and the issue of freedom and legality that they necessarily entail, the author constructs an argument for the complete prohibition at worst and discouragement at best of the burqa within society. As a means of quickly seeking to jar the reader’s attention from the rhetorical strength of those individuals who have come out against legislation banning the veil, Berlinski shifts to the isolated cases of sexual violence that take place in the lawless suburbs of Paris. As a means of distraction this is an effective tactic due to the fact that it instantly congeals the reader’s impression of Islam as naturally given to sexual violence, rape specifically, and depicts the male adherents as little more than sexually deviant thugs who are more than willing to cast aside all decency that a host culture, such as France, may have gifted them as a means of punishing those who dare to show a bit of self expression and freedom of strict Islamic tradition. As a function of shifting the debate from the broad to the specific, the author is able to convince the reader that her specific point of view is the most rational. This rhetorical approach is not unique; however Berlinski applies it masterfully. Right after eviscerating Islamic European culture for being broken, immoral, and unrestrained, Berlinski states, “Yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized” (Berlinski 2). The argument deviates further from the subject matter when Berlinski brings in the topic of gynecological examinations of girls within many of the recent immigrant communities within Europe. Although it is not the function of this author to make a moral judgment with regards to whether or not such a fascination with sexual chastity is right or wrong, it should also not be something that the author herself relies on with regards to making her point with respect to the legitimacy and/or legality of wearing traditional Islamic head coverings in public places. Such a distraction is both unwarranted and unnecessary as it merely draws attention away from the key point which was sought to be relayed to the reader. Though this represents a separate issue that arguably retains a level of moral judgment and religious and societal tie ins, it nonetheless has no bearing to the conversation at hand and is used to further a rhetorically inept analysis of the issue at hand. Finally, the author likens the existence of the burqa to the very smallest in the continuum of Islamic radicalism and its outgrowth, terrorism, which she believes to not only be sweeping Europe and the Middle East but the rest of the world. This serves as clarion call to action on the part of the reader but as has been noted from the prior rhetorical deficiencies that the piece exhibits, it can be inferred that this call to action, however well intentioned it may be, is not grounded in proof or solid analytics. As a way of furthering the reader’s pathos just a bit more on the topic, the author reveals that she believs the head covering is “cancerous” and ultimately an outgrowth o fa disease of radical Islam that is spreading across the glove. Even a cursory analysis of such a proposition is laughable due ot the fact that head covering within the Islamic tradition long predates any exhibition of terrorism or suicide bombing for that matter. Ultimately, what the author has done is set up the burqa and/or the head covering as something of a straw man argument. Within such a construct, the reader can begin to notice the core shortcomings of yet another argument that Berlinski presents. Without the ability to point to rational understanding and verifiable fact, the author is prompted to reach for an untenable position. However, to the author’s credit, there was one particular point of the piece that raised this author’s ire. The author relates how certain individuals among the Islamic leadership around the world view the rape and sexual assault of women who have seemingly “invited” such an occurrence due to the fact that they have no covered themselves appropriately. Said one Islamic cleric, “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred” (Berlinski 3). Although this can only tangentially be related to the issue of banning the head scarve and/or burqa, the mere fact alone that such ignorance and sheer stupidity exists within the radicalized portions of the Islamic world is alarming to say the very least and should be fought at each and every turn. The right of women in an era that should show the first reasonable hope of feminism that this world has yet seen to conduct themselves as they wish, dress as they wish, and all other manners of freedoms should not be questioned whatsoever. The logic of the approach is further called into question by the polemic approach that Berlinski makes. Instead of approaching the topic from a reasoned standpoint, panic, fear, and elements of xenophobia are used to motivate the reader to engage with the topic in the way that the author approaches it. This understanding is something that calls the reader to reconsider the other points that Berlinski puts forward. Although many of these points are relevant and worthy of inclusion; seeking to encourage the audience to engage with the topic based on pathos is never a solid foundation for an argument to be predicated on. Nevertheless, the polemic does include elements of both ethos and logos; however, these are somewhat diminished by the over abundance of pathos and the seeming desire of the author to force the reader to adopt her own point of view for fear of what failure to do so might effect. Through Berlinski’s use of logic and evidence, the reader is made aware of the fact that the derivation of understanding that Berlinski provides is not grounded in a broad or pervasive truth nor an appreciation for liberty and the exhibition thereof; rather, it is grounded in a disdain for the Islamic head coverings due to the fact that she views the actions of a small percentage of Islamic practitioners disdainful. Granted, the gang rapes that are being exhibited in the Islamic conclaves of Paris are disgusting and disheartening to say the least, it is nonetheless not a sufficient logical argument to seek to emplace a morally motivated head scarves/covering/burqa ban on the many hundreds of thousands of honest, law-abiding citizens that make up the remainder of Muslim individuals living in parts of Europe or the United States. Work Cited Berlinski, Claire. "Ban the Burqa - Claire Berlinski." National Review Online. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 June. 2014. . Read More