Women wearing burqas segregated in aus parliiament building

I wonder if men stopped wearing them for a reason? If that led to women wearing them more and to more extreme heights. I also even in the 70s men were wearing platforms. Not quite the 6 inch heel. I guess too even now there are things like cuban heels and and I guess goths too both men and women wear them then(although it's a few years since I've been near that scene).

I guess for me what it boils down to is which is better enforced clothing rules or charting the cultural implications of variations of dress. I'd choose the variations of dress personally because I think freedom leds to boundaries being pushed and I hope changed and broken down. the pushing and changing isn't very comfortable for those that are having to do it however.

Buffy high heels in Parliament house is actually a bit of a thing. The great hall in parliament house has beautiful wooden floor, Western Jarrah ebony and blackbutt however because of high heels it has been pock marked by high heels. There was talk about trying to ban them in the great hall but it was felt that it was unreasonable.

But it's also only recently that high heels were a womens only thing. I'm thinking the last 100 or so years. Has that sift come from somewhere other then personal choice?

the thing is cote I've been trying to in in the discussion but you keep telling me I have the ideas I have are wrong and then won't engage with me on anything else.

maybe if you would have a read of some of what I'm saying you'd see I'm trying to to discuss what the act means in terms of women in Australia. How that effects us, what it means to women living in the country were fear of the other is being sanctioned by the law making house.

Whilst this frankly stupid idea of placing women wearing face coverings under additional security isn't going ahead, what the possibility of it being introduced says about the country is hugely relevant. We are a country only 40 years out from the White Australia Policy , we advertise that anyone arriving by boat won't be settled here even if they are found to be a refugee, in the last fortnight police have shot dead a young Australian Muslim man. How do we deal with that cultural context and at the same time try to create a place of safety for women?

Hazchem - As I said to Puffins, I'd rather continue at the level we were going with Buffy. Suffice it to say that there was no disingenuity there at all. Read that post again and you will see.

Also, the discussion moved on considerably from the safety issues of Australian parliament. Feel free to comment on what Buffy and I were talking about.

Puffins - Buffy and I have been having an interesting conversation here and I'd rather not bring down the level to accusations based on half-understood so won't be answering your posts in detail, but to address a few misunderstandings:

"The whole, well you couldn't wear a bikini there, so you shouldn't be able to wear this other thing... I get it, you don't like the full covering"

If those are what you understood from my posts, you need to go back and read them again.

"I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your long years living in a Muslim country only really count for that country."

Obviously, my (very valid) point was that something that is actually a part of Islam would exist in a Muslim country. At least some of its people would practice it. It would appear on the TV, in magazines, and there would be discussions of it.

Burqa just doesn't exist in most Muslim cultures. It is a misguided regional practice that is not part of Islam, like FGM. The fact that some Muslims practice it does not mean that it is a part of Islam.

As I said before, Islam's prophet Mohammad is on record saying that a woman's hands and face must be visible in public. Ergo, it is not part of Islam.

And mine was that it is. I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. Your long years living in a Muslim country only really count for that country. I get it, you don't like the full covering, the only reason it is being suggested that it can't be worn in the Australian Parliament building is that it breaches security protocols, it doesn't, so what we're left with is a party with deeply islamophobic tendencies wanting to ban it purely because they don't like it.

The whole, well you couldn't wear a bikini there, so you shouldn't be able to wear this other thing which bears no similarity to it is a red herring. However, I think you know that.

Cote I think your being disingenious with me. I'm really not sure why. You think it's wrong that I suggest women should be allowed to were a burqa but re quest I test the boundaries by wearing a bikini. Oh what great choice and freedom I have to wear a garment that makes me feel uncomfortable to prove to a point.
I checked the conditions of entry there is no dress code that I can see. It is not the members stand at the SCG
Actually that is a good cross point. Early this year a women was not allowed entry to the SCG because of her dress. Her dress clearly breached the dress code for the members stand. She was up in arms and was sort of calling for feminists to support her right to wear a short skirt as she a women at it was sexist. the thing is men can't wear shorts either. It's a crappy set of rules but equally applied.

I think however in regards to the burqa at parliament house it's about the context it's coming in. Muslim in australia are already worried about leaving the house because of fear of abuse. So our Parliament says well they dangerous and can not be trusted. rather then improving cultural relations etc it's basically saying yeah it;s fair enough these women are out to blow up Parliament house they are dangerous.

How we deal with it in the long term requires Australia to be a place were women feel safe to leave the house what ever religion they practice.

Buffy - I agree. It is a sad and strange paradox.

Sorry to have disappointed you, but I have never lived in London or Jordan.

My point was that the burqa is not a "well known and accepted" part of Islam if I have not once come across it in 28 years of living in a Muslim country.

Where? Not in France. And I can assure you have I did not see a single burqa in the 28 years I spent in a Muslim country. I did not even know that such a thing existed until pictures of Afghan women in burqas invaded Western media following 9/11.

Central London 1970's onwards. Jordan mid 1970's onwards. Saudi, quite surprised you didn't know about this to be fair..

Turkey in early 1920s is an interesting case re imposed change & writing off a generation:

A benevolent dictator called Ataturk (no other way to describe him, really) decided that:

1. Arabic alphabet is too difficult & causes widespread illiteracy. So now we have a new (invented) alphabet based on Latin letters - a completely new system of writing came into effect overnight and everyone had to learn to read & write again. Within a generation, nobody could read old letters, contracts, etc.

1. The language is too difficult, with loads of incomprehensible words & phrases from Arabic and Persian. We will remove these words and find/make new words from Turkish roots - within 20 years, kids could not understand their grandparents. Today's Turks cannot read or understand Ottoman documents or poems.

1. Women & men will both dress as their European counterparts. Long flowing robes & religious garments were outlawed for everyone except professionals like imams - overnight, everyone went from this and this to this.

1. Women now have the right to vote in elections and be elected to office (1930).

So yes, it was a huge change to the society, its norms and practices and it was successful because there was a ruthless state behind it.

I don't see that sort of change happening in the short term in a democratic country. Not with any kind of speed that will make a difference in out lifetimes.

"Can a fence-sitting strategy of harm reduction now and underlying change to social structures for the long term ever be successful?"

Honestly, I don't think so. Underlying change to social structures is an extremely difficult thing to put in place that rarely succeeds. How many examples can you think of in history? I can only think of sudden social changes brought on by dictatorships/totalitarian regimes or the ones that followed much bloodshed.

"It might be that in the long run, it is better for secular states simply to ban religious covering (and other practices that reinforce women's status as lesser). But such action risks writing off those girls and women who would be harmed right now, before the practice becomes unacceptable."

I agree. And yes, there would be a generation of girls & women who would find it hard. Change is never easy and there is always a period of transition that is difficult. Again, de facto and de jure, the state has the duty and the privilege to decide which individual freedoms to limit for common good. I want to take drugs every Saturday night and marry two men but can't, because the state has decided to limit my freedom in these areas for the good of society.

On that subject, there is a better case to be made for polygamy being part of Islam than covering one's face. If and when Muslim men demand the right to marry more than one woman, as is an undisputed part of Islam, should the state allow them to? If not, why not? And what if some Muslim women come forward to say that this is indeed what they want? Would that change the verdict?

As to whether the state should intervene with the wearing of burqa, I worry that this will simply make things worse for those 9 year old girls.

There are a couple of secondary schools near where I live that have banned face coverings. (I have never seen anybody wearing a burqa around here, some women wear veils/niqabs.) These are both schools with a fair number of Muslim pupils and many of them wear head scarves/hijabs.

According to my dd, one girl who was stopped from wearing a veil was always covering up her face with her hands or other bits of her clothes. Another girl just didn't come back to school, from what I understand. These are not our theoretical 9 year olds, but older teenagers maybe 16 or 17 who have decided they want to cover their faces.

Does the policy make things better or worse for these teenagers? I don't know.

Hazchem - re "the conditions of entry to Parliament house and there is no mention of what attire you must wear."

Why don't you try visiting the Parliament in a bikini and let us know how it goes? Serious question - I'm curious. I suspect that you will not be allowed to sit and watch the proceedings in your bikini.

"Question 2. Well to me the line of what is "acceptable" practice religious practice is greyish but I think it needs to address harm. It's a crappy bench mark. But I think it's a start. FGM harms people that's sort of simple. But something like the burqa which could harm someones sense of self is rather difficult."

FGM harms girls physically, so yes, it's indisputable.

The harm caused by the burqa is not physical (except when you consider rampant Vitamin D deficiency in places like Saudi Arabia) but not any less alarming - rendering women invisible, limiting their activities, limiting their interactions with other children & adults and thereby making normal socialisation impossible.

It is a tough call, one of many that governments are forced to make when faced with a subculture of people with a mindset that is so alien to Western norm. One concession easily leads to another and there quickly comes a time when governments feel the need to take action. That is not where Australia is now, but the questions that will need to be considered are ones that other countries have been through. These generally restrict freedoms in some way, but that is arguably what government is meant to do - decide which individual freedoms need to be sacrificed for the common good.

For example: Until recently, elementary school in Turkey was mandatory, secular, and lasted 8 years until the age of 15. No religious garments were permitted in state schools. This was so that girls couldn't be kept from school, and could not be forced to wear hijab, niqab, etc by their families. Yes, this means home education was not an option for anybody and yes, it restricted people's liberty of dressing how they like and observing their religion as they see fit. Imperfect system, but it made sure that girls got an education and counteracted religious pressure, headscarf etc until a time when it might actually be the girl's own choice.

(Note my use of past tense. This is no longer the case and the battle for secular education in Turkey is now lost.)

Buffy - re "made the comparison with prostitution... actually I think the two situations are quite comparable. Individual women 'choose' of 'their own free will' to do both, within a society where women's choices can be very limited indeed."

I agree, the comparison with prostitution is a good one - some women want to do both, out of their 'free' will. And the state is faced with the question of whether to regulate or ban the practice, in order to protect the vulnerable and for the greater good of society.

"I think the solution is more likely to be found somewhere in the region of improving the range of choices within which women can exercise their free will..."

But... In the imaginary scenario of a perfect improvement to women's lives, opportunities, and choices, you might expect no women to choose prostitution. However, some women would always choose to hide under a burqa because they actually want to do it. What then?

Now, is this OK for society at large? To have a chunk of society act with their belief that women should be invisible? Where does that leave liberal, egalitarian Western society?

Also, Muslim obligation of modesty starts on the day of a girl's first period. That would have been age 12 for me. If my parents had stuck me under a burqa, that would certainly not have been my choice, after living free as a bird until that point. These days, many girls have theirs at 9-10. What happens when 9-year-olds appear in school one day covered entirely in a shapeless cloth, staring outside behind a little mesh window? Does the state have the duty to protect them from this practice, under what we consider age of consent?

I know that these are not easy questions, but they are the issues that arise. It is unfortunately not as simple as "let's improve women's choices then" and "it's their interpretation of their religion, so it's fine".

Well I don't see it as a simple security matter. If it was a simple security measure I wouldn't care. For example when they installed concrete bollards rather than open forecourt out to lawn of Old Parliament house creating a physical barrier from the road to door I really didn't mind. It was done because someone drove a 4 WD through the front doors. Fair enough I thought it's not safe for people to ram raid the doors or Parliament house there are people in there.

The two questions you cote ask are interesting.
question 1 is important. I've had a look through the conditions of entry to Parliament house and there is no mention of what attire you must wear. I've certainly been into Parliament house in a T-shirt myself.

Our current Prime Minister finds the Burqa confrontation but makes regular public appearances wearing spedos. So while unlikely i guess it certainly possible that a bikini might, in Australia at least, be welcome in the public areas of Parliament house while the Burqa wouldn't be.

Question 2. Well to me the line of what is "acceptable" practice religious practice is greyish but I think it needs to address harm. It's a crappy bench mark. But I think it's a start. FGM harms people that's sort of simple. But something like the burqa which could harm someones sense of self is rather difficult. But I think that to stop women wearing it or make places of democracy and service unavailable to them while wearing it would make the situation for women worse.

In the long term Australia needs to step much further forward in terms of women's rights, we are closing our women's crisis centers, women are about to bit hit with hugely unfair higher education costs where the majority of women will end up paying significantly more for their degrees then their male counterpart, no single person has ever died from terrorism in Australia yet as of this week 56 women have been killed by their partner or ex partner, women seeking asylum to Australia are forced to ask for individual tampons/pads, and are not receiving midwifery care, Australia is becoming an increasingly hostile place to for women to live. It is from this context that I find the further singling our of a minority group of women so abhorrent.

How do we stop it. Fuck I don't know. I hope by saying no you can't make rules which you pretend are about security when it is really about rousing up fear.

Puffins - re "It might not be a 'set down in the Quran' religious observance, however, it is a well known and accepted one"

Where? Not in France. And I can assure you have I did not see a single burqa in the 28 years I spent in a Muslim country. I did not even know that such a thing existed until pictures of Afghan women in burqas invaded Western media following 9/11.

"spoken to real life actual Muslim women who have chosen of their own free will to wear it or similar, I would not wish to restrict their freedom to choose to wear it"

This is the real issue and a very important one. It is hotly debated in some parts of the Muslim world (where such debate is possible) with no end in sight: Given that many women wear it out of their free will and many others are forced into wearing it, what is the government's responsibility? Ban it? Educate people about how it is not expected or even desirable in Islam? Restrict its use to women above the age of 16, 18, or 20 hoping that by that time they will be making up their own minds about such things?

When all you have is a handful of women wearing burqas who might or might not step into the parliament building, it is easier to say "Let them do what they want". When the numbers increase to thousands, tens of thousands, and include little girls in school among others, you will need to think about the questions above.

"I find someone calling a burqua a 'tent' really quite insensitive."

Well, it is a tent - a large piece of fabric with a mesh window, not cut as a garment, but draped over a person with the sole purpose of hiding her away.

I'm not pointing and laughing, just using a word that actually describes the object in question rather well. Why are you offended by it? Is it because we are not allowed to use anything but deeply reverential tones when referring to anything branded 'religious'?

Not ankle biting at all. Its actually a psycho-analysis.