The hijab and/or niqab should be banned

Good luck! R1: Human Rights and Freedoms Rights are not absolute. They can also be conflicting in their own right. The claim that the ban would infringe on the freedom of religion is true in its most literal form. However, as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms points out in Article 1: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. ” Source: . http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... The same is actually true for the US constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights. All constitutions allow for certain freedoms to be reduced in light of a given situation having bad consequences or in the case of conflicting articles. When one also considers that the UN and its constitution are purely voluntarist, and the UN General Assembly can only make recommendations, my opponents case seems dead on arrival. Source: . http://www.un.org..., . https://en.wikipedia.org...(action) The EU actually justifies Frances ban within their constitution as well actually: . http://www.bbc.com... Allow me to provide you with an example, my fellow DDO'ians. The Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran all justify slavery, yet we in a Western Democratic society do not adhere to slavery anymore. As a result, this freedom to own slaves on the basis of religion has effectively been nullified. Does this infringe on the Freedom of Religion? Absolutely, but it is a justified infringement. Justified on the basis that the slave themselves were working in a nasty industry, consistently be beaten, and although treatment varies from slave owner to slave owner, some slaves actually would sell themselves into slavery due to economic concerns. Sources: . http://www.chabad.org..., . http://rationalwiki.org..., . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... The same can be said of the Niqab specifically. As I pointed out earlier, the permission to wear the niqab starts a race to become most pure: comparing one wearing a hijab and one wearing a niqab forces a coercion to be more “pure” and thus cover up more. Further, what happens if one does not wear it? Some actually have acid thrown in their faces. Source: . http://www.jihadwatch.org... I actually think forcing someone to wear the Niqab or face acid in the face, is a human rights violation, don't you? On this basis, banning the Niqab is justified. Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says: “The ‘right’ to veil is always followed with the right to beat up women who do not. ” R2: Do No Harm Principal I agree with the do no harm principal, however the Niqab is harmful in several ways. When one considers my previous argument on sexualization, then we have a serious issue. It harms all women in society by demeaning them to sexual objectification, the kind of which causing serious issues (see round 1 R1). Furthermore, the essay that Mill writes the harm principal also stated “that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments”. Which means that my sexualization argument is in fact a form of harm within the realm of the harm principal, and justified to legal restraint. Source: . http://www.ucl.ac.uk... Secondly, because in Islam, this is a unique situation. The text itself requires head dress to look “modest” (read sexualization in actual justification) however if the law makes the head dress illegal, Islam does allow for enough flexibility to allow the user to not wear the head-dress and not face eternal damnation as a result. Source: . http://www.onislam.net... . http://www.al-islam.org... And finally, because of social pressure to actually wear the niqab in the first place (Round 2 R1, and Round 1 R4) it does not mean that the user actually always has a choice. This is dangerous enough as is. Clearly, the Niqab is dangerous, and the Do No Harm Principal would actually justify, not nullify, banning the Niqab all together. R3: Discrimination I actually believe I answered this earlier (R1), it is discriminative to Muslims, but the question is if the discrimination is justified or not. On the basis that I have made my case, I believe it is. On the question of France, to fix the unintended consequences, France actually did allow for religious symbols to be permitted, and instead fixed the ban to concealing the face specifically only. So turbans and crosses are allowed, same as wearing a helmet while motorbiking. Only the veil itself is banned. Source: . http://www.bbc.com... I have space to continue, I shall not add any new arguments here, but instead seeing as my opponent is going to rebuttal, I shall ask him some questions from my previous contentions. C1: Sexualization The fact is, the very purpose of the veil is to look modest and cease sexual appetite. The Quran and textual scholars agree on this. This is by definition, reducing women to nothing more than sexual objects of desire. It claims that men want to bang everything, and women are of use to be sexual in the first place. How is the Niqab not sexualizing? C2: Impacts You stated earlier that France banned the veil and there is no evidence that it has had positive impacts. I checked the source, and it is nothing more than an opinion piece. It doesn't actually show any statistical data, or sources to back up its claims. It rests on a bare assertion. Suppose that you are correct though, it has no good impacts (which I contest due to sexualization nullification), public policy isn't always about what impacts come as a result of a policy choice, sometimes it is about extending the values of a society into law. How would not banning the Niqab represent equity, when by virtue of wearing it in the first place women are noted second-class citizens already? In other words, how is wearing it in the first place not discrimination, as men in the religion do not have to wear it? Wouldn't a truly equal society not do that in the first placeC3: Division Among Muslims You also claim it can be a choice. But how is this truly a free choice given the cultural relativism within Islamic societies towards the scarf? How about those coerced into wearing the veil? Worse yet, not all Muslims themselves actually agree with the head dress. And with good reason, no one is allowed to wear it when in Mecca. Doesn't this mean that Islam provides enough justification for one to not wear the veil on the basis of a law? Because that law is nothing more than something beyond the wearers circumstances, why would this be an issue if the wearer is already not allowed to wear it in certain “special” situations? Wouldn't a law in a country banning it be a “special situation” too? Also, Turkey is predominantly Islamic. How come they can ban the niqab entirely, but we cannot? If Turkey says it is okay, then . .. isn't it okay? If all these islamic countries are banning the Niqab, why can't we? (Several others other than Turkey have done the same). C4: Slippery Slopes If the Niqab is not banned, then how do you propose preventing a sort of Islamic cultural imperialism from inadvertently happening? In other words, if not the Niqab, then when does it stop exactly? Doesn't this put inadvertent pressure on women to cover up more for fear of being “less pure” if they're just wearing a hijab? How is this equality exactly? Thank you! Over to my opponent! I await his answers eagerly!