The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

I shall be addressing his main points of argumentation from the last round. Throughout this debate, Pro has been persistent in mentioning what the face veil has represented in history and that this is why it is offensive to western society - this seems to be the major weight of his arguments. While I don't doubt whether the veil may or may not have been applied properly for the right reasons within the times of history, I don't agree it is a fair argument to prove that it is a barrier. Throughout history we can see people have taken good things and misapplied them for their own benefit. We have seen it happen to Islam and Christianity etc. There is no doubt that extremists have taken in the name of Islam and hijacked it, but we don't ignore Islam. What we do is tackle the issue of extremism while still recognising the goodness of Islam. Also with the face veil, it is more ideal for a multicultural society to tackle the issue and reassure people of what it truly stands for in Islam, because for it to be a symbol of seclusion and tyranny is a misconception and false. By doing so, it shows we are being multicultural by the true essence if the meaning, we are seeing its values in Islam and understanding it, and we are attempting to drive away the misconceptions of it that have built up through history. It is clearly wrong from Islamic rulings for anyone to use the veil for the purpose of oppressing. We can see in the Qur'an as it says "there is no compulsion in religion"[1], which comprehensively means we cannot force any aspect of Islam on anybody, be it Islam in general or the veil etc. What Pro is referring to as oppression is the false misuse of the veil, which even Islam is against. In round two, I wrote: ‘Also the majority of Muslim scholars do not advocate the face veil as compulsory but an optional. Some argue that the face veil is not even part of the minimum female hijab dress code. So those that wear the veil, the majority of them wear it even though they see it as optional, this it indicates free choice. Even if some Muslim women see it as compulsory, still it indicates free choice, because Islam does not see it fit to force anything upon anyone, be it compulsory acts or optional'. To which Pro's reply was "First, this does not indicate that those who wear it wear it by "free choice". Again Pro has carried on to make one sentenced arguments with no demonstration of examples to prove his points convincing. I ask Pro to explain; why doesn't it indicate free choice? What Pro mentions, "We are not debating whether Western culture is superior to other cultures, only whether Western culture is compatible with the Islamic face veil". This I believe is not how we discuss about integration. People who speak for this particular motion, like Pro, tend to talk more of assimilation rather than integration. Assimilation is a totally different concept and surely not one to be accepted in what is now a democratic, multicultural society, the west. As Professor Tariq Modood from (University of Bristol) explains[2],"Assimilationis where the processes affecting the relationship between social groups are seen as one-way, and where the desired outcome for society as a whole is seen as involving least change in the ways of doing things of the majority of the country and its institutional policies". Pro's question of compatibility between the face veil and western culture is more along the lines of assimilation. So what is the process of integration? It is a "two-way process: it requires adaptation on the part of the newcomer but also by the host society"[3]. This means all groups of the society have the burden to understand and recognising each others values and ethics, and so the question of ‘compatibility' would not be valid. What integration does not mean; is a person should be able to fit in every nook and cranny of public life. There are many women in the west today who do not want to become a Politian, who do not want become a doctor, regardless of whether they veil or not, but they are still integrated. So far, the only argument Pro has made particularly apparent for the face veil to be a barrier to integration, is what it historically symbolized. And I believe I have dealt with that point sufficiently. I have shown that using the veil for the purposes of oppressing is not by the least supported by Islam. I hope I have understood all of Pro's arguments properly, if I have fallen short of understanding any I trust he will correct me. I look forward to Pro's next reply, and I look to build on a positive case to why the veil is not a barrier to integration by the coming rounds. Thank you. [1] 2:256[2] . http://www.opendemocracy.net... [3] Castles S, Korac M, Vasta E, Vertovec S. Integration: Mapping the field. Report of a Project carried out by the University of Oxford. 2002. Home Office online report 28/03. -. http://bit.ly......