THW remove the veil

2006-12-18 9:43 p.m.

Before I start this entry, I must remark that this entry is not one of racial ahatred or discrimination or outright xenophobia. Yes , the title is “This house would remove the veil” and yes I know tbat many individuals (not exactly those in the UK) would harbour the thought that it is directed to break any social bonds. It is after all a debate motion and is debatable and while a side may win, it does not mean that that side or any of the debaters or members hold any prejudice towards any race.

Ok that said, yes this is a real debate motion, more specifically a friendly between the University of Birmingham and the University of Warwick. The background of the motion has much to do with the climate after 7/7, the deadly bomb attacks in London and the after thoughts of the general British public. While this may have died down soon, it is still quite a prevailing thought especially since certain employers question the wearing of the black Islamic veil by Muslim women. This has even brought up by Ministers who even argued for such women to remove their veil.

But my attending that debate also sort of stemmed from the fact that Nicholas Foo, one of my friends from NJC was going to be one of the debaters. Ok, the truth is that I first checked Nic’s diary site and then the Birmingham University Debate site to discover what the motion was. So ok, I had two objectives in attending this debate.

It started late which meant that my stomach was growling but my mind was still ready and my hand was itchy to take down notes. As soon as the Warwick side entered, Nicholas came up to me and exchanged greetings. Ya, ok, nothing special, but he was always the amicable one all the while. The style was British Parlimentary with four speakers a side, two from Warwick, and two from Birmingham. Very unusal line up in my view for I’ve never witnessed a four aside debate until I discovered it would be two 1st props and two second props a side. I also immediately wondered whether all teams had actually prepared together or whether they were just combined their ideas on the spot. That is a crucial part of any debate for it can spoil your team’s whole central argument and reflect the “disunity”.

The 1st first prop laid a rather unusual definition, but not as unusual as the other BP debates so far. They limited the wearing of the veil to school girls under the age of sixteen. He mentioned providing three points but only provided two (or so I counted) points, that on segregation and the inability for other children to communicate with these veiled girls. It didn’t exactly seem a strong group of points, but the definition still gave them some ground.

1st first opp immediately impressed me and I rooted for him to be the best speaker (although that went to the 2nd second opp)p. He didn’t lash out at the definition, which was a good and a bad thing. Still, he hit out at the area that the veil causes segregation but turning it around. He stated that by banning the wearing of the veil, it actually segregated the Muslim population by highlighting that they are different. Of course, this is a contestable point but I readily saw his idea and agreed with this. He then brought up the alternative solution of education—a typical point for this kind of argument. A POI came stating that the veil was a symbol of extremism, but he shot that down my questioning it as assymbol and stating that through assimilation, the notions can be dispel. Only a small leaky gap I thought.

The other 1st prop sort of redeemed that side but there seemed to be a jump in the points. His counter argument was based on one of his main points in that the veil was also banned under EU law and that even Turkey did not rule the veil aas part of the Islamic attire. Well, it wasn’t a stand-alone counter argument and the topic was now broaden. But did they ban the veil only for school children in those countries? That was however the strongest of his points as he launched back into the idea that the veil covering the face represented that of extremism while “moderate” Muslims don’t wear that. In some light, that is true; but it would be more accurate to say that conservative Muslim women do cover their face with the veil while the “more moderate” ones do not. His third point was that the removal of the veil would release the social factors pressures—that is the tensions between Muslims and non Muslims. Again, this point is contestable but I don’t believe the opp attacked it.

So yeah you can see where the debate is heading. But at this juncture, I really didn’t see who had the upper hand yet. But the flow from speaker to speaker was definitely more evident with the opposition. The next few speakers or so (which included Nicholas) sort of countered the opposing side only briefly and then headed to their points, which wer an almost replica of pervious arguments. I guesss in the time constraints of five minutes, you cannot really state up a comprehensively written down case. Still, despite this, the divide soon became clear. There was a lesser and lesser emphasis on the definition and it was hitting on the ideas of extremism and social views. The unique definition of only limiting the ban to school girls under age 16 seem less justified.

Onto Nicholas. Hmm, well, I must really admit that the moment he spoke he reminded me of myself about a few months into debate, when I was learning the finer points of persuasion and style. About six weeks in a overseas university debate team without any prior debating experience, Nicholas seemed perfectly natural at it. I didn’t exactly catch his counter argument to the opp, but he focused on the points that the veil is worn by a minority, that there is a good rationale not to remove it, the rights of the society versus that of the individual and the benchmark of 16 years old. For the point of “good rationale”, it was that the veil is not a true tenet of the Muslim faith and that the ban on it did not violate or offend Islam. I felt that sort of made the earlier argument that “moderate versus the extremist” more complete. But the other points really did not hold much ground.

In all, I felt the motion was slanted against the prop, as it for such motions. Their definition could have been the winning factor, even by limiting it to school girls. But the fact is that one that is a difficult idea to substantiate and two, theat wasn’t substantiated at all. In my view, the definition could be left to working Muslim women or in fact all those who wear the veil. There are several more examples of opposition towards that such as Jack Straw asking his patients to remove their veil and the banning in schools would hardly make much of a societal impact as it was emphasszed. However, as I said, the motion is not really in favour of the prop. It would take really convincing points to gain the upper hand. In any case, the judges only identified the best speaker of the competition.

The motion was opened to the floor but unlike WSDC style or the style back home, audience members only could give speeches in favour, in opposition or in abstention of the motion. I guess I could have spoken, but my ideas were a critique of both sides rather than taking sides in the debate. The ideas from the floor sort of carried on from the debate such has the idea of assimilation and the rights of Muslims. All rather interesting but my mind wondered about bP debates. They really seemed British centred which meant that some how the motions of the definitions would reflect the current happenings of British life. Which narrows much of the scope of the topics in my view.

Another set of thoughts rested on the focus of Muslims and how they were viewed by the world or the west in particular. In one general statement, I would say that there was always an antagonism between both parties historically and politically, and September 11 highlighted and sort of widened the divide. Not that the divide was increasing world wide, but actions and reactions and perceived ideas of both leaders and the normal populous would shape much of how the interaction would be. Singapore has always been hailed as the prime benchmark of how different races can actually coexist side by side and funnily that model has not been tried in areas where religious strife has occurred. Even so, I don’t suppose France would try the model out, even after the disastrous riots recently. Different countries have their ways of dealing with different things. Religious, cultural and racial divide are definitely not the easiest areas to iron out. You have to move and change the mindsets of the entire population just to have the “cohesion” you want. But till that could done, I suppose what was sung in the Broadway show “Avenue Q” is um pretty accurate of human lifestyle. This song title is well, “Everyone’s a little but racist”. Shan’t place it here, go google for it yourself. But having said that, I shall repeat again, this entry is not one to cause any racial disunity anywhere or an entry harbouring ideas to demean or ridicule any particular race. Thank You.

previous - next