Women wearing burqas segregated in aus parliiament building

[diggerdigsdogs]

All people wearing a face covering, I.e. women wearing burqas, into australian parliament will be segregated and seated in an elevated, glassed enclosure/area. Apparently it's a similar area to where schools often sit.

This is because wearers cannot be visually identified even though they will still be security searched and checked. The original idea was that burqas would be banned outright from parliament.

Racial tensions are very high in Australia at the moment as back ground. A young man was shot by police after he stabbed two officers. Dawn raids by police on terror suspects. Graffiti, threats, racial abuse - on both sides from what I understand in the papers.

I'm totally on the fence on this one. On the one side I think people should have to show their faces in certain situations, especially where security is a concern, on the other I don't like the idea of excluding women from any sphere, especially a political one. I support women to dress as they please but I worry that he burqa is a tool of oppression for some(many?) women who must wear it regardless of their choice. Finally I think that for all of Australia's sexism and general conservative values it is a very multi cultural nation and I do not think this decision recognises the make up of modern Australia. From where I live in south Sydney it really does feel like a nation of immigrants.

I'd love to hear some more feminist thoughts on all of this :)

guardian aus article here

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.

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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 .

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?

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".

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

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

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'?

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.

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".

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.)

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.

"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?

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.

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..

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.