BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so

Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies. Obliging workers to lose a day’s pay when that may impoverish then and their families is unlikely to enhance their family life, their level of relaxation, their spiritual experience or their access to leisure services.
Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion. Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.
A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation

Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday[i]. In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose[ii]. The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples’ favourite pastimes[iii]. [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research.
Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week

For many marginalised workers the opportunity to work what many would consider antisocial hours is their only chance of employment. Legislating to enforce leisure time removes a valuable opportunity for earning. There are entire micro-economies based around this reality and it is unsurprising that marginalised individuals, families and communities operate within these sectors. As a result their leisure time is also shared. It is worth noting that were members of these groups excluded from the opportunity to earn would considerably diminish their capacity to enjoy any leisure time at all.
People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree

Exactly the same group that Opposition identify are also those least likely to have any leisure time at all. They are also least likely to have leisure at a time when they can share it with their families and communities. Sunday is already the day when most people are likely to be away from work all enshrining it in legislation would achieve is expanding what is already the case for the majority to those who do not currently benefit from a shared day of rest.
The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.

It is wrong to suggest that the EU should not take an action because some countries might use it as an excuse to clamp down on women’s rights. Europe needs to respond to its own problem that in the Status Quo women who get to the European Union are denied asylum even when they have every reason not to wish to return home. The UK asylum system represents an example of a system that regularly denies women asylum even when they have been persecuted. Second of all, it is absurd to believe that countries like Saudi Arabia or Yemen will definitely close their borders for women to leave as to do so would likely bring retaliation from the EU, these countries if proposing such a move clearly don’t think much of the value of their women so why would they wish to lock them in when to do so will result in less trade. Second refugees are for the most part those fleeing persecution – not those leaving under a passport. Many are already travelling without the permission of their state. If their state revokes their right to leave it will simply demonstrate the appropriateness of the EU letting them in. Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, http://www.refugeewomen.com/index.php/what-we-do/research
Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements

Women will chose to remain in their country because they have a family, a husband, friends and most likely a place to live. Not every woman who is a leader will simply think of helping themselves, many will want to stay and help their country overcome its discrimination. And we should not suggest that those who do go to start a new life in the EU will not benefit the cause of women’s rights at home. They can learn from the example of the state they end up in, learn to lead organisations and mobilise people so that they can be more effective at promoting social change at home.
The EU needs to help those suffering from human rights abuses

Everyone is equal. Women who live under legal system that permits discrimination against them are being denied of basic human rights whether this is the right to vote, to a fair trial, or bodily integrity.  Sharia Law, for example, clearly denies them human rights like equality before the law, a basic human need according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." Under Sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s and she gets half the inheritance of her male siblings. Second of all, bodily integrity is affected when women are stoned to death or beaten by their husbands without them even being punished. The importance of self-determination and autonomy are neglected in Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive or go alone in public. Female genital mutilation, which causes bleeding, infections and infertility, and is almost always done without the girl's consent, is a big problem in many African countries. Asylum given by the EU shall be the only way for these women to leave the system that persecutes them and be able to have their human needs respected and therefore creating a healthier, safer and better environment. Kaitlin, ‘Women’s Rights Under Islamic Law’, Inside Islam: Dialogues & Debates, 25 November 2008, http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2008/11/womens-rights-under-islamic-law/ Pizano, Pedro, ‘Where Driving Is a Crime and Speaking About It Leads to Death Threats’, Huffington Post, 6 June 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pedro-pizano/saudi-women-driving_b_1575969.html United Nations, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, un.org, 10 December 2948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ World Health Organisation,’ Female genital mutilation’, WHO Fact sheet, no.241, February 2013, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ Mahmoud, Nahla, ‘Here is why Sharia Law has no place in Britain or elsewhere’, National Secular Society, 6 February 2013, http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/02/here-is-why-sharia-law-has-no-...
The status quo involves sending women back to the threat of persecution

Sometimes, women who are persecuted by their government end up running from their country just to be sent back from the EU when their asylum application is rejected. Under the current legal system, the problems of women from countries that implement Sharia Law and other forms of discrimination are often not considered sufficient grounds for asylum. This is because refugees are only considered to be refugees ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’, so it does not include persecution for gender. The consequences can be of two kinds. The first and the worst is sending them back home where to face harsh punishment for trying to leave. This was the case with two women who applied for asylum in Great Britain in 1997 and were denied this right even though they faced death by stoning upon return. Even if the women are not sent home immediately due to a prolonged appeals process they are left in detention centers, in uncomfortable conditions and unable to get a job or do anything while they wait. Those who are denied entry are left with nothing only a long depressing wait to be returned to the horrible conditions from which they thought they had escaped. Cleaver, Olivia F., ‘Women Who Defy Social Norms: Female Refugees Who Flee Islamic States and Their Fight to Fit into American Immigration Law’, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, http://lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Cleaver.pdf Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, http://www.refugeewomen.com/index.php/what-we-do/research    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’, unhcr.org, 1951, http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html p.14
We would allow discriminated women to reach their full potential

Women who are constantly threatened by their husbands or who are in societies where they are considered to represent less than a man will most certainly lack ambition to achieve their full potential – or even if they do have the ambition will be restrained from fulfilling it. When you live under a system that considers you inferior to the other gender and denies you opportunities on the basis of gender – sometimes including education the individual is clearly never going to have a chance to make their life worthwhile for its own sake. They won’t be able to take up jobs that will have an impact on the world, they won’t control their own economic circumstances as their husband is the only breadwinner, and they will be denied the opportunity to express their ideas and views. By giving them asylum in a place where women and men are treated equally, we give them the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do before. Besides the security that they will gain, they will be able to go to school or get a job more easily than in their native country. There is no reason for which we don’t want these women to be a part of our European cultural identity. It is shameful to give this opportunity only to your citizens when women from countries that discriminate against them might be able to contribute so much more than they are able to under their circumstances in their native country.
The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.

While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home.
Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements

In order to drive social change, these regions need women who are open-minded and want to be part of feminist movements. By giving them the “easy way-out”, social change will be delayed in countries with a legal system that discriminate against women. Females will have two options. First of all, they can leave the country and come in the European Union where the situation is already better. Second, they can choose to remain in their national country and fight for their rights. It is only human to take the easy way out. Movements for women’s rights will therefore lose many of those who want to change something and are willing to take action and as a result a lot of power. Those who migrate will be those who are more independent, more willing to do something to change their situation. Their energies will be directed outwards to leaving their home rather than to improving their situation where they are which would help millions of other women as well as themselves. This is the case with emigration more generally those who leave are those who are more entrepreneurial and are more likely to be leaders – in the United States 18% of small businesses were owned by immigrants, higher than the 13% share of the total population that are immigrants. As such movements for women’s rights will not only be deprived of numbers, but they will lose the leadership of the women who would be most likely to push for change. Editorial, ‘Immigrants and Small Businesses’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012,  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/immigrants-and-small-bu...
Asylum is the only way to protect women

It is not true that the human rights situation for women is deteriorating. The Social Institutions and Gender Index has found between 2009 and 2012 there has generally been improvement for example “The number of countries with speciﬁc legislation to combat domestic violence has more than doubled from 21 in 2009 to 53 in 2012”. Women rights can be improved through the United Nations. This has the legitimacy to convince governments to change their policies and liberalize them. Also, the power of the United Nations comes form the number of countries involved, adding besides the EU, the powerful US, China, Russia, and South Africa etc. More than that, the UN has a lot of experience in dealing with these kind of cases. A perfect example is the economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed on the South African government in order to convince them to leave behind the apartheid regime. Moreover one of the reasons for the United Nations is the promotion of universal human rights, and this applies to women as well as anyone else; there are 187 states that are a party to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. SIGI, '2012 SIGI', OECD, 2012, http://genderindex.org/sites/default/files/2012SIGIsummaryresults.pdf Reddy, Enuga S., ‘The United Nations: Partner in the Struggle against Apartheid’, un.org, http://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/apartheid.shtml United Nations, ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, United Nations Treaty Collection, Status at 9 October 2013, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en
The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights

The image of the European Union, even on human rights, does not result from how they treat the foreign citizens of some distant country but more on how they treat their own citizens. As with any nation or union of countries the EU’s primary responsibility is to fulfill its duties towards its own citizens. More than that, the social balance and economic stability are much more important factors in the European Union’s image abroad than how the union is treating women in faraway countries. So if we decide to talk about image, granting asylum will not improve nor damage the unions. On the other hand, its duty is to protect the European citizens and many things can still be done in this direction. There is no reason in wanting to help people abroad when you can do so much for your own.
The situation in these countries is improving, no need for a new policy.

At a first glance this might be true but let’s take a deeper view upon these societies. The example of Saudi Arabia where women are slowly being given the vote is true but this is not much of a gain in a country where the parliament has almost no power. In a culture where it is normal that they require the approval of their husband or father in order to be able to vote or do anything the result is simply another vote for the man. More than that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, basic rights like the right of movement are denied to women who cannot get a driving license. That there is progress in some areas does not mean that there is no reason for a policy of welcoming women asylum seekers. Far from it, such a policy would increase the pressure on these countries to step up their reforms. We should also remember that progress can go into reverse – thus the trend towards more governments that are less secular in the Middle East should be a worrying reminder of why the EU needs to let these women in. Goss, Crystal, ’10 of the World’s Worst Countries to Live in as a Woman’, Take Part, 20 August 2012, http://www.takepart.com/photos/worst-countries-women/pakistan Shane, Daniel, ‘Saudi in new crackdown on female drivers’, Arabian Business.com, 25 August 2013, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-in-new-crackdown-on-female-drivers-514912.html
Offering asylum for women will be seen as a case of cultural imperialism

No violence or incitement to violence can be justified by changes in legislation. It is not a cultural attack of any kind towards the Islamic religion or a certain culture. We must acknowledge that even the Quran clearly states, “Both men and women should be equal”. Implementing such a measure is simply highlighting that these nations are not living up to their obligations and applying rights that they themselves have accepted are universal by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a reminder that every country has the duty to respect its citizens and offer equal opportunities disregarding sex, religion, skin color etc. The intention of the European Union is simple and clear: you have to respect the international law and common sense. Furthermore with the example of South Park there is a fundamental difference in that portraying Mohammed is a fundamental attack on a religion where encouraging equality for women is simply encouraging change in a country’s legislation. The latter is considerably less inflammatory.
Asylum is the only way to protect women

The European Union is not able to protect women in other countries that are not a part of the union. Countries that have legislation discriminating against women are clearly not listening to European urgings on human rights. They will not respond to these urgings social and cultural traditions are deeply ingrained and only slowly change. Where women are seen as second-tier citizens it is seen as a natural part of the society can barely walk to the corner of the street without the consent of their husband. Moreover, the situation in countries with legislated discrimination against women is not improving, in countries which were previously secular there is increasingly a challenge from Islamism as in Libya and Egypt during the 'Arab Spring'. Moreover the influence of the European Union is declining; it has always been primarily financial, through aid which is declining, and through investment which, at least in the MENA, region has reversed as a result of those same revolutions. By granting asylum we can help them escape a legal system that clearly is against them and replace it with a European Union legal system that grants them those rights they never had. Kausch, Kristina, 'If Europe is to preserve influence in the Middle East and North Africa, it must move on from technocratic policies towards more flexible cooperation.' LSE European politics and Policy, 21 December 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/21/europe-middle-east-north-africa-cooperation/
The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights

There is a moral obligation for such a powerful and diverse group of nations to protect not only their own citizens but also people in desperate need all around the world. All the countries in the EU have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore stand behind its principles. As the world biggest economic power the EU is fully capable of doing so. The Union is wealthy enough that it can take in the extra migrants that would occur as a result of taking in women from countries where they face discriminatory legislation. The European Union’s international image is not based on its military might but upon its economy and on being upstanding in its promotion of a human rights agenda. Granting asylum to women that live under discriminatory legal system reinforces this image of being concerned for human rights. The European Union has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by which signatories “agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women” while the convention is calling for the elimination of discrimination internally it is fully in the spirit of the convention to undertake actions that encourage others to fulfill the Convention. By being willing to grant asylum to women from countries that have not lived up to the standards of the convention – which includes “To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women” – the European Union will put pressure on these regimes, helping to highlight their unequal systems. ‘Article 2’, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women, 1979, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm