Article 1 entitled; ‘Let’s draw a veil over Mr. Straw’, by Rajnaara Akhtar the chair of Protect Hijab, clearly argues against the veil ban. In this article she is against what Mr. Straw’s opinion on the veil is, which is that ‘Muslim women who wear the veil are a barrier to good community relations’ and also that when Muslim women talk to him, they must take their veil off.
By reading this article I definitely notice, that Rajnaara is extremely frustrated with the remarks from Jack Straw. This article persuades me that Jack Straw objecting to, at face-to-face meetings with his constituents, who wear the niqab, is truly outrageous and injustice to the women in the Muslim society. I come to this opinion because this article has a fixed viewpoint, and it only tells me the positive reasons why there shouldn’t be a ban on the veil. There have been many techniques used in this article to try and persuade me the writer’s opinion (which is against the veil ban.) First of all, the title ‘Let’s draw a veil over Mr. Straw’, suggests to me that Mr. Straw has done something wrong, which he should be ashamed of, and that’s why he should be covered, so that nobody can see what wrong or unjust act he did. The tone and language of this article especially, contributes to persuading me. One example is that; ‘with one article in a local newspaper, Jack Straw has built up the walls of ignorance and division ever higher.
A Muslim community is now finding itself facing a barrage of criticism’. This tells me that what Jack Straw said, being published in only a local, not even regional newspaper, he has built a kind of wall and religious intolerance to the Muslim community. Also, because of his comments, the Muslim community has come under a negative spotlight, especially in the media. This makes me feel disgusted at what one man can do to trigger negative attacks at a community. In one part of this article, she talks about how some commentators have come up with prejudiced objections to the veil, by saying that commentators say that; “overbearing fathers and brothers force women to wear it.” She writes; ‘Nonsense.’ This shows me, that the commentators are just making it up, and it’s actually untrue. Another technique that Rajnaara Akhtar uses is by asking rhetorical questions, for example, ‘others say that the veil is somehow a rejection of Western society. But isn’t the liberty to choose how to practise a faith based on one’s own understanding of it part and parcel of British life? Isn’t it a basic right in a democracy that as long as something does not damage the public interest, then people should be free to do it? So why should the veil which harms no one be treated differently? ’
So because this article has a single, fixed viewpoint, I would classify it as biased. The reason I feel that this article is biased is because it is written by a Muslim woman, so I only receive her perspective. I believe that she is trying to achieve a kind of “community peace” and also trying to break down barriers between Muslims and other people, by sending the overall message (in this article) that the veil doesn’t harm anyone, and therefore, should not be banned.
On the other hand, article 2, entitled ‘Aishah Azmi: Teaching assistant sacked from school’, is of the opposite opinion and argues for the ban on veils. It’s biased, (but more balanced than the 1st article as it is based on a survey, and also has comments from Muslim women,)
because its message is basically that a third of people would like to support a ban on the Muslim face-covering veil in public places, there should be one. I think that there has been one technique used in this article to try and persuade me, which is the use of factual knowledge.
After considering all the arguments and evidence clearly, I have come to the conclusion that Muslim women who desire to wear the veil, should be allowed to wear it, other wise it would be jeopardising their human right ‘The freedom to practice your religion’. Also, throughout history the veil has been worn, and it’s been happening for generations and handed down, so there should not be a problem now.. But obviously, if security is at stake, such as at an airport, then the veil should be removed. I also think that for legal and moral reasons the veil should be removed in other cases a as well, for example, for a driver’s license, passport photograph, and oyster card. They are human beings following their religion, they are respecting God. Jack Straw is just a man, like all of us, so I don't think he can argue with that. But, everyone has the right to express their opinions; however, nobody has a right over anybody else.
This issue could have a variety of consequences in the future, some negative, for example causing uproar, in Britain, between Muslims and other people. Some racist groups might take this as an advantage, and harass some members of the Muslim community. This could possibly increase the crime rate in Britain. But there could also be some positive consequences, for example, the issue, of veils, could narrow or reduce, the conflictions between Muslims and non-Muslims.
