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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.