Critical Thinking- Philosophy

Analysis of standardization

This is a critical review based on actual matters about social issues in Australia; Ban the Burqa.  In the exploration, critical thinking skills are applies where the legal and expression myth of the media release given by the imaginary situation criticized. The people in Australia have the following regiments following the issue on Banning the Burqa. 

Premise 1: Burqa has no position in our community

1. 1. They argue that Burqa is an ancient practice and a diffident intellectual application. 
2. 2. The country has turned to be a great and innovated state that does not need Burqa.
3. 3. Burqa represents the oppression and control of women.

Premise 2: Burqa helps to stop assimilation and miscellany in our societies.

1. 1. They argue that settlers should not move into the state and restore their ancient world and connect themselves away from the Australian culture. 
2. 2. Settlers who move to Australia should engage and participate to the liberties and values that have constructed the Australian nation (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010).

Premise 3: Burqa is a real threat to the Australian society.

1. 1. Burqa is the device that thieves, criminals and terrorists are currently using. 
2. 2. The premise shows how a person wearing Burqa robbed a shop owner.  
3. Some of the thieves were wearing Burqa while one of them had an inflection of Middle East. 
4. 4. Police are unable to protect the civilized Australians from threats of Burqa. 

Premise 4: Thieves have Burqa and the accent of Middle East.

1. 1.  Burqa promotes the safety of mystery and permits the unlawful actions to be unchecked.
2. 2. Terrorists who practice bomb assassination use Burqa. 

The standardization of these premises shows that those Australians who think positively are against wearing Burqa. The recent research stresses that a large percentage of Australians are against wearing of Burqa in public. Australian community takes the ban of Burqa as the major solution to their society’s threat (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010). 

Analysis of strengths and weaknesses as standardized. 

Premise 1: Strengths and weaknesses

            The first premise concludes that the whole of the Australian community have tried to unsuitably appeal to innovation. The public did this by claiming that Burqa is an old-fashioned tradition and an ancient cultural practice. They say that the Australian community needs a great and innovative country such as Australia. This claim is inappropriate since a practice established earlier has no allegation on its function for the current culture. Burqa demonstrates the oppression control of women without any proof. This shows that the premise suffers flow-misleading notion, as it does not show any proof of that all Muslim women believe that wearing Burqa shows the oppression power.   However, many of the Muslim women wear Burqa on their own wish (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010). 

Premise 2:

            This premise has no proof of their claim. Sarcastically, the premise states that Burqa lessens assimilation and miscellany, while prohibition of Burqa will promote the decline in literary miscellany. The idea supposes that the country is a great state despite the offerings that its citizens with diverse traditions formulate. The principle accepts the fact that there is an actual Australian civilization that new settlers and diverse cultures has to engage in. Therefore, the weakness of the premise is that it suffers on the question about myth and wrong petition to the influence (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010).   

Premise 3:

            There is no proof from the police report that shows that the head cover that the thieves were wearing was Burqa. There is sarcasm in the premise about the Advance Australia approach on the report by the law that the robbers were two persons, while Muslim males do not dress in Burqa. The premise use correspondence in its argument but their reasoning is not strong. Based on a single robbery conducted by thieves with Middle Eastern inflection who had their faces covered, Burqa or Muslims are not actual threats to the country or the main support safety.  Police having less hopes in getting thieves and Burqa promoting the protection of secrecy, makes criminals to go unpunished.  The sub-premise here supposes that these claims are powerful and clear. This means that the analogies used in the premise do not have powerful similarities or negative disparity (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010).  

Premise 4:

            This premise shows a clear abuse and misapprehension of the research outcome. The survey result shows that 81% of the respondents concur on prohibition of wearing Burqa in courts.  However, despite the strength and approach of the survey outcomes, Advance Australia used these results and indiscriminate it unreliably to the claim that many positive thinking Australians are in opposition to putting on Burqa (Rane, Ewart & Abdalla, 2010).                

Investigation of speech and expression used in the “Ban the Burqa”

            Australia in their operation has tried to stress that Burqa need prohibition in their society.  In giving their ideas, they have utilized many expressions and idiom apparatus as well as misleading speech sports.  In the initial two sections of the journalists debate, they used some expressions such as ‘Liberal do-gooders’ that can be classified in the debatable myth whereby they tried to harass the identity and the attitude of those that tried to have a diverse approach on Burqa. They have also pleaded with people by claiming that the fair minded Australian are now realizing that those who do not support their argument are disinterested citizens. In this approach, this argues that this destroys the positive myth (Behloul, Leuenberger & Tunger, 2013). 

            Based on the other section, the description starts with many terms as highlighted in the actual viewpoint of multi- educational Australia.  Some terms and expressions such as referring thieves as monsters and pressuring that they probably has the Middle Eastern inflection, also puts comparable myths and speech playoffs. By abusing the latest theft where the subjects covered their heads and faces, they unreliably claimed that Burqa is currently the device thieves and terrorists use.  Here, they were in trail of inducing readers’ feelings by showing that the thieves robbed a shop owner whose family had existed in the community since the alliance (Behloul, Leuenberger & Tunger, 2013). The description used in the third paragraph shows the myth of generalization.  They proposed that all Muslims who wear Burqa are forced, thus, wearing Burqa in class is a mode of oppression.

Report on Roy Morgan study

The section on the Morgan survey appears through the research on whether a huge percentage of the Australian polls do not propose that women should put on Burqa when witnessing in the courtyard. The size of the survey indicates that the poll accomplished only a few people while the country had more than 22 million people in 2010. This shows that the survey conducted on less than 0.002% of the Australian population. It does not show whether the 434 citizens were from all regions in Australia in pro statistics to the whole populace of the region that the selected citizens live (Behloul, Leuenberger & Tunger, 2013).  

The election happened through short message confirmation. The report does not give actual details of the way that the poll performed. The survey method raised some focus. It bounds the subjects to anyone with a cell phone and vigorously utilizes it. It is not confirmed how the chosen subjects were chosen in if they helped or accidentally chosen. They study does not distinguish among the subjects used in city regions where many Muslim inhabit and the other people in the countryside areas (Behloul, Leuenberger & Tunger, 2013). 

            The explore process used in the election information used examination inquiries and analogous response. People questioned responded on whether females could dress in Burqa in open areas; many about 52% said no while 48 of the respondents said yes. The percentage that had a yes answer answered on whether women could wear Burqa when witnessing in court.  Out of the 48%, 29 said no while the other 19% said yes. The report does not reveal whether the subjects asked if they were aware Burqa and its influences. It seems that the two questions contradict each other.  Having the knowledge that the Australian court is a public area, those who gave a no answer should answer whether women allowed to wear Burqa could witness in courts. This means that the issues are jointly elite and overlies the possible given answers. Therefore, those who gave a no answer to the first question should not merge with those who gave a no answer in the second question (Behloul, Leuenberger & Tunger, 2013). 

Recommendation Briefing

            While replying to the country’s supposition, she recommends the description of the state’s analysis and conclusions showing that the issue on Ban the Burqa is not sustained by actual evidences. She continues to state that the following results shows that Australia has no apprehension of Burqa and Muslim’s custom and society. As a result, they have misinterpreted the allegations of Burqa for Muslim females with what robbers use to conceal their personality. She recommends the Member of Parliament to research on the robbery cases as inappropriate. The MP should focus on the radical anti-settling and the non-Muslim suggestions as something contradictory with the cultural assortment with the Australian organization (Puddington, et.al, 2011).

            She gives a positive recommendation on the MP to perform military exercises in order to have moderate and other non-drastic approach on Burqa and Muslim custom and ethnicity. This is because there seems to have a great concern about wearing Burqa as a thief’s device and terrorists that is a major threat to the community society. Banning of Burqa will not force the terrorists to stop covering their heads once they are conducting their operations (Puddington, et.al, 201. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Behloul, S.-M., Leuenberger, S., & Tunger-Zanetti, A. (2013). Debating Islam: Negotiating religion, Europe, and the self.

Puddington, A., Piano, A., Young, E., Roylance, T., & Freedom House (U.S.). (2011). Freedom in the world 2011: The annual survey of political rights & civil liberties. New York: Freedom House.           

Rane, H., Ewart, J., & Abdalla, M. (2010). Islam and the Australian news media.