Women wearing burqas segregated in aus parliiament building

Zazzles - I don't answer personal attacks and ankle-biting.

Naturally, you see this as a simple issue of wearing what one likes as long as security concerns can otherwise be addressed.

As someone who lived most of her life surrounded by these debates, endless power struggles between the liberal, egalitarian, secular and traditional, religious, fundamentalist mindsets, I see it as something more serious. Something that warrants debate and analysis on the fundamental issues.

There are two questions here:

1. Can people wear whatever they want in official government spaces?

1. Can people do whatever they want as long as they claim it is part of their religion?

Answering 1 - No. You can't visit the parliament in your bikini, or naked, for example.

Answering 2 - 'Yes' seems to be the expected answer in today's atmosphere of religious tolerance, although of course the answer is 'No'. There are quite a lot of people who claim FGM is part of Islam (it is not) but we don't allow it.

I feel strongly about this as a lifelong atheist and someone who has seen first-hand the personal and social problems that a controlling, misogynist religion causes. It is not just about "That's how they want to dress - what's the harm?". There is a bigger picture here and a long term strategy needs to be formulated on the basis of considerations other than "women should be allowed to do what they want".

It might not be a 'set down in the Quran' religious observance, however, it is a well known and accepted one. So yes, it does deserve the respect due to other religious observance.

Just a small thing.... I personally have reservations about the full face covering. It's not for me. However, having 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. A couple of these women have chosen to wear it despite the rest of their family not being so strictly observant, so it's not from paternal pressure, it's their religious observance. I would also see no problem with someone saying that wearing a balaclava is part of their religious observance, as long as they followed the prescribed security protocol.

I find someone calling a burqua a 'tent' really quite insensitive. Were you going for that, or were you more looking at being offensive?

Cote you seem more invested in proving someone wrong rather than having a discussion about the topic. Why is that? Do you have an overwhelming need to be right? Why are you picking on one poster in particular? What is your problem? Do you do this "I am right, you are wrong" thing with your family/friends/workmates? I can't imagine that you would be nice company in real life if you do.

In short, what's in it for you, to be playing this whole "I am right you are wrong" game? What is your payoff in all of this? What are you getting out of it. Because I can tell you, those of us who have posted in this thread and the lurkers are not getting all much from your posts. Have a think about the questions I have posed. If you keep on posting in this vein, you will be just showing yourself off in a poor light .

As the post that follows said it's poor phrasing on my part. It's an interpretation of the modesty code. I get that my first wording isn't clear but have tried now on multiple times to make it clearer.

No I don't think the security staff should go and consult clerics to ensure that religions are observed properly. It is not the Government's place to do that. It is a requirement of entry to parliament house that facial identification is made. The balaclava or the burqua needs to be removed for that. You pass through scanners, bags are searched etc, then you are allowed enter rather like say getting on a plane. Once inside parliament house you must if asked also show your face for facial identification to security.

Strange that your post very much sounded like you thought it was a requirement, as part of Islam's modesty code:

03/10/2014 10:16 Hazchem
That's the thing cote it's part of the modesty code of Islam.

I would think that the society in general and government in particular would be more lenient on such matters if they were a requirement of someone's religion. If not a requirement, it is clearly personal preference.

If some people show up in balaclavas at the parliament and say it is part of their religion, would you not check that religion and say "Actually, no, it's not part of your religion. This is your personal preference and as such will not get the deferential respect we are obliged to show religious practices"?

Just to be clear. I was from the beginning of the discussion aware that the burqa is not a requirement of Islam it is however how some people choose to interpret their faith. If their interpretation is right or wrong really is of no consequences to me. It really doesn't change that I think separating women the public gallery is wrong.
Basically it's not up to me or the government to dictate how someone chooses to interpret their faith and how they choose to display their interpretation of their faith. Yes we need security protocols for entrance to Parliament house but these do not need to include separating women, who have their faced covered, when visiting public galleries.

Hazchem - I've been correcting the errors and misunderstanding in your posts, notably your conviction that covering the face is a religious requirement. Would you rather I didn't?

Now that you know the burqa or veil is not a religious requirement, does that affect your view of how accommodating government buildings have to be towards people who choose to wear them?

Err, Hazchem I think that poster just wants to be 'right' about a certain thing, when you are more interested in discussing how the Islamophobia affects women in Australian society. That is my take on his/her interactions with you. Feel free to ignore, I say.

No I'm not a Mulism. I've not read the Quran. I've read a little interpretation include some feminist discussion on it. I've discussed part of it at length with my partner (who is Muslim) so I might better understand his faith.

The hijab bit the curtain etc is from what I have read, maybe the book was called the seven veils of Islam ?, and that the modern interpretation of the hijab is head covering. I do honestly understand the burqua isn't a requirement.

my points in regards to this dictate from the head of Parliament is 1) it just feels a bit mean to place women who are choosing to be covered and hidden on show, 2) it's not a security issue but rather a dog whistle to members of our society that islamiphobic or misogynist or both.

I'm not sure why you are choosing only to engage with me about the use of the word modesty etc. I'm not sure if I've been grossly offensive in suggesting I don't think it's OK we segregate visitors based on their interpretation of religious dress requirements.

In regards to the one glass if women to unveil in. If that had come from Muslim women who wanted greater access to Parliament it would be worth while considering but as it stand the ruling (now over turned) isn't about that it's putting women under extra observation.

"men should only take advice from women when they are behind a curtain. I think this is in regards to Mohummed's daughter who used to give advice."

Sorry but you don't really know this stuff, do you?

I assume you are referring to the instance in the Quran where Mohammad has people over in his home, and Allah tells them they should leave once their meal is finished, and if they need to ask anything of his wives, to do so from behind a barrier/screen ("hijab"). And when he dies, not to marry his wives.

The screen in question is one that men are to pull over their eyes (metaphorically) before they speak to his wives, and is the men's responsibility, not the wives'.

And obviously, this verse concerns Mohammad's wives only for whom there was a different set of rules (other women could remarry, for example).

As I said before, Mohammad is on record saying that women's face and hands should be visible and uncovered.

It's really kinda scary how out the racism has become. I'd been away for 8 years and came back just before abbott was elected. And it's like this explosion of hate and fear based on nothing.

reaffirming "our" white Australia identity

Absolutely. Australia may have dismantled all the White Australia policies by 1966, but that mentality remains and is embedded in the culture. The large regional city I referred to above has a major university, and apparently these rednecks have been putting up posters saying that "Africans have AIDS" and are spreading it to the community, physical attacks on Africans in the city etc etc. The university has responded by making sure that posters are taking down post haste. It has exposed a really ugly side of Australia that seems to have been lurking for a while, and has been given a voice by Abbott and the current Liberal fucknuts.

Hazchem - it's nothing but scaremongering. Makes me embaressed to be Australian sometimes when I hear the drivel coming from the PM (and Cory Bernadi etc).

Oh fuck it really long post disappeared.

No I didn't claim under a tent. My undestanding and it's a whiel since I read about it is that men should only take advice from women when they are behind a curtain. I think this is in regards to Mohummed's daughter who used to give advice.

In terms of one way glass I just can't see how it address the supposed security threat.
The Parliament is open, this openness is both actual but alliterates to a transparency of practice. Our direct access to politicians is one of the good things about our particular democracy. to wall up parts, or to put blanket security restrictions in place is nonsenses. Women were facial coverings already have to remove them for checks and then at any time a security officer or AFP while they are in Parliament.

The announcement is cloaked in security terms but really it's reaffirming "our" white Australia identity especially seeing as there is no evidence that any women wereing face covering has ever tried to sit in the public galleries.

I think it's dog whistle distraction to try and hide from the public that no Australian has even been killed on Australian soil by terrorism so we can go and once again back the United States in war.

As I said before, one way to address the visibility issue would be to make the glass one-way. They would not be "on display" (which seems to be your main issue) and they can freely take off their tents and relax among other women.

The advice that you claim men get from women hidden under a tent.

That's good to hear Zazzles Not the attacks but the fact it's being reported.

Cote do you think women wearing the burqua are a risk to the Australian Parliament and should there for be treated different to any other person visit the Parliament?

The way the public galleries are the glassed of section is currently the press gallery it is very very visible from the chamber and also the other public viewing sections. To create additional glassed section would mean they are also very on display.

Both the house of reps and Senate were designed to be open view chambers.

I'm not sure what advice your not sure about Cote

What "advice", Hazchem? I'd like to understand what you are talking about.

"women are covering up because they want to be hidden"

And what better way to help them in this endeavor than put them in a separate, higher chamber where they will not risk flashing an inch of skin or hair that may, Allah forbid, send men to a state of uncontrollable lust?

They should go a step further and make that glass one-way so that these women can take off their tents in privacy and breathe for a while. Serious suggestion. I have no doubt that they would appreciate this.

Do you think they'll be kicked out at the end of the term?

Don't know Hazchem, its really hard to say at this point. I haven't seen a political poll done in some time, and its really only the ones done just before an election that have any real weight (I believe). I am hoping that Australian society is coming to terms how bad their voting choice really was when they voted in the Liberal party here. A really sinister aspect of society has reared its ugly, ugly head with Abbott as Prime Minister. I was speaking with someone who lives in a large regional city with really redneck types, who said that the recent rise of racist attacks on overseas students has been so alarming that the local newspaper has been reporting on it.

True. They have got much stricter on security since a 4 wheel drive drove through the front door!

But they fact they already check everyone just makes the thought they would even consider segregation so terrible. I just keep thinking of school trips where one or two lone teenage girls are made to sit in the special you are potential terrorists box.

I do wonder if it's a bit of political stunt. I mean as Abbotts come out against it he can now be like "no I'm not a racist misogynist I said the burqua was OK in the public galleries"