(Photo of Rabiah Hutchinson shopping in Sydney. By Vanessa Hunter)Ban unAustralian Burka
By Virginia Haussegger
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times, 27 June 2009
I 've seen it elsewhere around the world, but I didn't expect to see it here. Certainly not on a hot summer's afternoon at the Canberra Centre. But there it was. A ghostly figure walking towards me, clad from head to toe in a heavy black niqab, black gloves and dark shoes. She was trailing along behind her husband and four little children.
The sight of this hideously shrouded figure in an Australian shopping mall is confronting and offensive. And it makes me angry, very angry.
I wanted to stop and ask why she had such disrespect for herself and our culture that she would hide her face and body under all that black cloth, designed to render her shapeless and inhuman. But her husband shot me a glance, and I was silenced. Dumbfounded.
I abhor the burka, and the niqab. I hate what it does to women. I am appalled that women are separated from the world in this way. And I am furious that some women will continue to choose to wear it. But then, throughout history, feeble women who are afraid of modernity have always been complicit in their own oppression.
The burka, with its tiny window of mesh over the eyes, and the niqab, with its letter-slit opening, are tools of patriarchy used to subjugate women. This shroud of cloth thrown over women defies freedom. It is a symbol of control. Wearing it signifies an acceptance of segregation of the sexes. The cultures which demand such segregation are societies in which men are considered the natural superiors to women.
The fact that Western, democratic governments allow this garb to be worn in secular societies is evidence that "gender equality" and the "liberation of women" are still just vague aspirations, mouthed with weak intent. Unless of course you're French.
In an historic address on Monday the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, called for an outright ban on this hideous instrument of control. "The burka is not a sign of religion," he said, "it is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience." His rally cry has been brewing for years, as the French parliament has watched with alarm the growing number of burkas and niqabs appearing in French cities.
The Urban Affairs Minister, Fadela Amara, who is also a passionate advocate for Muslim women's rights, says the ugly shroud is akin to putting a woman in a "tomb". She's called on
The 2004 ban on wearing hijabs at school, or in public offices, was met with furious protests around the country. A ban on the burka has the potential to ignite riots. Sarkozy knows that. And yet he is still determined to push ahead. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd must do the same.
The burka is not yet common here, but it's only a matter of time.
Wearing the burka - or niqab - in
Covering women like this, and rendering them sexless and shapeless, is apparently to stop men looking at them. It is to ensure the sexual urges of men are not stirred or tempted. It is also a fierce display of proving a man's power over his woman, and his ownership of her. The Koran calls on both men and women to display modesty. Why then don't men wear burkas? Women too are sexual beings, who may also have their urges stirred and tempted by the sight of a man. But of course that doesn't register in societies that view females only as sexual objects and temptresses.
By covering herself in a burka, a woman is relinquishing the right to express herself as a female. She is agreeing to suppress her own sexuality.
For a woman to argue she feels more comfortable hidden beneath her burka, away from the gaze of men, is unacceptable in modern society. Such a claim represents total submission to sexual subordination. That sort of thing might have been understandable - perhaps even forgivable - when women were uneducated and utterly dependent on men for food, shelter and protection. But women must no longer agree to such secondary status. And most certainly, not when they are in
There is no place here for the burka. Australians must rally to have the burka banned.
130 comments:
Although I think you're right in your interpretation of the burka and its symbolism, I find it unfathomable that equality and freedom could be protected or advanced by the banning of a type of garment.
I also question the notion that a woman wearing the burka indicates a lack of respect for the country she lives in. If our values include freedom, surely this means we must tolerate others choosing to wear, think, say, espouse, or do things that we don't like.
I think the Howard/Bush years demonstrated to us again how the thin end of the fascism wedge works its way into a society; and banning a burka is a thin end of such a wedge. I don't think we should allow any government or government agency any say in what we can or can't wear at any time.
And yet, while I would protest a ban as vehemently as you would rally for one, it would be good for people in our society to understand the significance of the burka better. There is much more value in the process of making a decision not to wear the burka in Australia than there is in complying with a fascist law passed simply to assuage our offence at the burka.
Thanks Trevar for your thoughtful comments. And yes, I have to agree that there is great value to be gained by engaging in "the process of making a decision not to wear the burka". I welcome public discussion to help us go through that necessary process, but I think it has to start with an eye on our end point - which is a ban on the burka.
And while you are at it.. ban bikinis, and watches. And wearing a cross around your neck.
I don't like it.. so it should be banned.
Willem - sorry disagree with you. This has got nothing to do with bikinis, crosses and things we "don't like". The burka remains a powerful symbol of repression and gender segregation. It is a tool used against women.
You are an idiot. I am disappointed that you have such a closed mind and empty brain.
Ms Haussegger, I write this comment after listening to you on talkback radio today on 666 am.
I am compelled to write as I find your views on this issue supercilious and condescending to the women wearing the burka. Moreover, your views are so filled with contradiction that they scream of elitist intolerance and superiority.
You admonish the heavy black niqab wearing woman at the Canberra Centre for disrespecting our culture and herself.
Do you have the same self-righteous anger for the woman wearing high heels? Do you reserve the same emotion for the woman who spends three quarters of her wage on clothes, cosmetics and hair appointments?
Disrespect our culture? Are you kidding? What about the import of American gang wear and hip-hop culture? What about low rider jeans and visible g-strings?
But most incredibly, the values I presume are at the core of your premise—freedom and equality—are diminished by your proposition to ‘ban’.
Who decides on what ‘our’ culture is and accepts and approves of? Because I sure as hell don’t approve of the importation of American gang culture’s. However, I accept that culture moves and shifts. It takes forms that are sometimes confronting but in hindsight were no threat at all.
You say ‘There is no place here for the burka’. If you really cared about the women beneath the black cloth you would allow them to decide for themselves. What next Ms Haussegger, would you like to ban the oppressive chore of women having to bear children?
Virginia Haussegger has joined the authoritarian right with her call to ban the burqa.
Haussegger says she wants to yell at women who wear this piece of clothing. This is outrageous and has nothing to do with women's liberation.
She is supporting the very processes that deem women incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Certainly her article may well embolden the racists to shout at or attack Muslim women and force them to stay inside.
Haussegger believes liberation comes from on high, from the very class which benefits from women's oppression.
I believe true liberation comes out of the struggles of ordinary women and men against their oppression and exploitation.
But her support for liberation from above in Afghanistan (often in the form of drone missiles) shows she has little understanding of what liberation is about.
Haussegger has joined Sarkozy in his racist and Islamophobic attempts to divert attention away from the Great Recession as some sections of the French working class show through general strikes their real opposition to the President's anti-worker and anti-women policies.
To talk, as Haussegger does, about being unAustralian - whatever that is other than a set of ruling class concoctions - is to adopt the language of racism, exclusion and cultural imperialism.
What next? A House Committee for unAustralian Activities?
And who makes a judgment as to what disempowers women? If burqas, why not bikinis?
I might for example think that beautified female TV news presenters are a more subtle and nuanced form of women's oppression than burqas under capitalism. Should they too be banned?
I don't have space to address this more deeply but an article Ban Sarkozy, not the burqa, on the blog En Passant, gives a fuller explanation.
See http://enpassant.com.au
John Passant
Thanks Andrew for your comments. As for banning the "oppressive chore of women having to bear children"... well now there's a novel idea! I'm sorry to continue to disagree with you, but the burka and what it represents is nothing like high heels and a woman's choice of shoes. Such things are simply not comparable. It's quite simple really: there is no place in our world - or any world for that matter - for a custom that requires women to throw a heavy shroud over herself such that she can't walk, see or hear properly, or participate in public life in the same way as men.
Thanks too to John Passant for your efforts. Like you I too hate drone missiles. And I strongly dislike people who yell - at anyone. As for those "beautified female TV news presenters" ... may I ever remain old, haggard and ugly!
Strong words & challenging thoughts in your article.
Is it just the dramatic & full cover of the burqa you'd like to see banned or the more simple veiling of the hijab (allows face to be seen)also?
I spent the late 90s living in Oman where the burqa was rarely seen. However, across the border in the UAE, burqas were often seen on the street. I felt the Omani women had much more freedom than the Emirati women.
My initial inclination is to say the wearing of burqa or veil should be the personal decision of each and every Muslim woman. However, as a western woman, I did also see and experience the stereotypification of my race & gender (western, white whore etc) whilst living in an Islamic nation. And so I do wonder about women's true freedom in those countries.
I do love your first two sentence of the last major paragraph.
Thanks Desertgirl for your comments. Living in Oman must have been a fascinating experience. In answer - no I see the hijab as a different issue. I understand that women choose to wear the hijab out of a feeling of devotion and piety - while others may feel compelled to wear it because of family or cultural pressure - I nevertheless believe it is perhaps best left to personal choice. But the burka is different. I do not believe that any woman should be covered, hidden and segregated in this way.
Although I am agnostic & view all religions as repressive & backward, I could not support a 'ban' on the burka, as I would see it as impinging on an individuals right to choose and a contravention to section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..."
However, something that is often overlooked when discussing clothing for muslim women is that they become much more susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency and Osteomalacia by depriving their skin of sunlight.
A good discussion on this can be found here - http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/06/muslim-women-vitamin-d-and-osteomalacia.html
I think an education campaign that highlights the dangers of Oteomalacia as well as the benefits of individual freedom of expression that we enjoy in Australia would be much more beneficial than an all out 'ban' on burqas.
Thanks Lukas - a great contribution. I'm glad you pointed out the Aust Constitution section 116 about religious observance. This is an important point that I need to make clear: I do not view the issue of the burka as a "religious" issue. I view this as a very serious gender issue. Of course there are millions of Muslim women who do not wear a burka or a niqab. The decision, or coercion, to wear such a thing is primarily cultural and tribal.
Courageously said, Virginia. And of course, why don't men wear the burka? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Just as an aside it's good to catch up with you after 20 odd years.
As for all those "beautified female news presenters" in my experience you were one of the better journos covering state rounds back in those days with a very incisive mind that is obviously no less formidable today.
Forget that "old, haggard and ugly" comment. And note that your critics here are all men.
Philip Maguire ... I think I love you.
One suspects a certain amount of irony in the end goal of 'banning the burka' - crusades to ban things inevitably tend to lead to backlashes.
Considering the trash that postures as fashion in the shops and the banal seasonal need to keep up to date to compete with one's peers at race course and coffee shop, one might save a lot of money by opting out from an ovine colonialist culture which enslaves women to the whims of fashion gurus, by opting into a burka. Adopting the burka when past a 'certain age', when one becomes valueless and essentially invisible to those who worship 'sexiness', might be quite advantageous. Burqadom would save on botox and cosmetic surgery as well, freeing up our overtaxed hospitals to treat people with real ailments.
One doesn't eradicate things by banning them - it just makes them more seductive.
Sorry Hints... I will never see the Burka as "advantageous" - despite my lack of botox. And I don't think banning the burka will make it "more seductive". What on earth could be seductive about throwing a dark sheet over a woman and prohibiting her from participating in the real world? I don't find that "seductive". I think it's sick.
I can't disagree with your sentiment Virginia. When I see one of these I think of a dog collar and leash. It frightens me to think that in this day and age this sort of medieval fashion statement is on the increase in this country, not on the decrease. We have too many religious nutters in this country, their anti-social, anti-Australian and exclusionist practices protected by Australian law and custom. One day our easy going nature will catch up with us and we won't recognise the country we are in.
Women from cultures that require they wear the burka and niqab would certainly never have the chance to express their opinions as freely as Virginia.
Agree or disagree with Virginia's comments, she has the right to express them - women living inside burkas and niqabs certainly don't.
I hope to God those 'values' never proliferate in Australia.
This is complete garbage. You have absolutely no idea WHY women wear the niqab, it's not a sign of oppression you loser, its a religious symbol, meant to draw the males eyes away from women, so women wouldn't become what they are today, tools of sex to men, nothing more than toys of desire. Is that freedom to you? Is that freeing youreself from this "oppression"? When you completely understand the muslim relgion, then maybe you may be able to comment, but from this article its is plainly obvious you have no idea what is going on. If you did you would know that there are similar restrictions on what men can wear, for example. from the waist down,as well as how they must treat women.What happened to freedom of choice? Shouldnt women be allowed to do as they wish, and wear as they please. You are a horrible person and a racist. LOSER
Mozzy ... I know this will come as a big surprise to hear me say this, but ya know what - I'm not a horrible person. Just ask my cat.
I have to say all this ban the burqa stuff really does make me want to put it right back on again.
Greetings,
I'd like to point out that more than one type of Muslim woman wears what is being referred to colloquially as "burqa". I am a Muslim feminist--I believe that gender should not be a cause of differentiating value in an individual, either publicly or privately--but I have veiled my face from time to time. I enjoy the privacy of subverting the panopticon of the male gaze, and I would do it more often but for the fact that it carries such stigma in Australia.
Essentially this reflects two issues. The first is the question about the settlement and integration of indigenous Muslim populations in Europe and the English-speaking world. The face-veil is a very dramatic signal that now there are Western Muslims, and religious ones at that, who are here to stay. Here in Australia, we are better placed than the Old World to accept and dare I say even embrace this fact, due to our common migrant heritage (except for Indigenous Aboriginals, it's a matter of a few generations and we're all children of migrants) and also our official policy of multiculturalism.
In France, Britain and Germany etc. we are seeing a real struggle with the realisation that no longer is it a racial or ethnic identity to be French, British, or German, because there is a growing percentage of the population that is French of North African ancestry (for example). The French are really struggling with this.
As Olivier Roy also says, it's also a reflection of the struggle between aggressive secularism and the resurgence of religiosity. And not all religiosity is fundamentalism. The religious veil signals that religiosity is not privatised and excluded from the public realm. France is going to have to come to grips that its privileging of Christianity over any other religion (including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism etc.) is not the same as asserting secularism.
Finally, it is about the wrong type of patriarchy. Sarkozy doesn't mind his wife having appeared in nude photographs, because this is part of the approved patriarchy of France, one in which women are objectified and their sexual attractiveness equates to worth and value. Hence, a woman can 'choose' to make the right choice of exposing her body in varying degrees to the public male gaze. However, God forbid that another man's patriarchy might assert itself in France, where a woman makes the 'wrong' choice to cover her body and hide herself from the male gaze. How can *either* forcing the veil (a la Saudi Arabia) or forcing unveiling be empowering and emancipating to women?
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a veiled Australian Muslim woman who *didn't* view it as a religious practice. It may have a cultural manifestation that varies from place to place, but veiling is most certainly a religious practice, which is why you get Muslim women who explain the reason why they wear it is because they believe it is what Allah is asking them to do. Any reason you didn't post my previous post?
If you're interested in a more nuanced discussion about veiling, Muslim women and the debate over sources of authority in discussing Muslim women's veiling, I've uploaded a draft of a recent paper here: http://web.me.com/ummyasmin/filechute/draft090416.pdf
Umm Yasmin - many thanks. You've made some great points. The ANU here in Canberra has set up a public forum on this issue on Wed 15th July - Finkel Lecture Theatre at the John Curtin School of Medical Research - 12.30pm. It'd be great to have you come along if at all possible (not sure where you're based). Interesting that you insist that "veiling" is a religious practice... and yet so many Muslim don't do it. And many don't accept it. I don't agree with you that Sarkozy's wife's nude photos are at all comparable in this discussion. I just cannot accept the shrouding and severe restriction of women - such that they can't participate in public life in the same way as a man - as a "choice". That said - I look forward to reading your paper. Thanks for the contribution.
Hi Virginia,
"Interesting that you insist that "veiling" is a religious practice... and yet so many Muslim don't do it. "
That's because there is not one 'right' interpretation of Islam, in the same way that there is not one 'right' interpretation of Christianity. Some Christians believe that contraception is prohibited (namely Catholics), others think it is permissible (most Protestant groups). Some Jews believe that Jewish women should cover their heads with hats or wigs when married (Orthodox, Conservative) other Jewish women do not (Reform). Likewise, there are Muslim women who do not veil their faces because they do not interpret the religion as requiring it of them, others do :)
As someone who has veiled, I did not find it excluded me from public life. I do not wear it full-time because I believe it is not religiously obligatory for someone in my situation, and it carries a stigma here in Australia.
I did not wear the Afghan burqa, but I did wear what we call 'niqab' which is the face veil that leaves a slit for the eyes. Sometimes I wore coloured niqabs, other times a black one that had a transperent black overveil that could hide my eyes but allow me to see out. I very much enjoyed the privacy of it, and would most likely choose to wear it more often if I could.
Unfortunately I'm in Melbourne and wouldn't be able to come to the forum. I hope it goes well.
Kind regards
UY
I agree. It is a symbol of dominance, not piety. It is a uniform of a militant cult, trying to show superiority. They don't know what "religion" I am, I don't want to know theirs. Their religion is in my face and offensive.Also it is unnataral for people to walk around wearing masks
Virginia - did you bother to talk with any burqa-wearing women before writing this piece? Did you put your conclusions to them? What did you say?
In answer to you "anonymouslefty", in short yes. I have recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, where I spoke with many women who wore a burka every time they left their house. I also experienced wearing a blue burka myself.
"But her husband shot me a glance, and I was silenced. Dumbfounded."
Why, Virginia? Were you afraid he may attack you? It is your right to view what you could easily determine as a threat or a peculiarity.
I have looked upon a women dressed in a burqa and wondered why. I have also caught that same look from the husband, but being a male it made me stare back at him more intently. As if I was awaiting his challenge because I looked at the shape of what I assumed to be his wife.
As an Australian with humanitarian values, I see the wearing of the burqa in public places as a threat to my psyche as well as unnecessary in public.
What underneath the cloth is so unidentifiable that it has to be hidden from me. I belong to a culture and society where we understand that the threat comes from the unknown. (Thank you Jihadists and suicide bombers.)
Freedom of choice is available to us all; I understand that, but I can not understand why a person in our society has to hide them self away in such a sinister fashion. And I do not want to be confronted by it in public.
I agree with your sentiments towards the garb and I also agree with Sarkozy.
Although I find your commentary rather interesting Virginia, I do think it’s misguided and essentially very flawed.
I myself am a muslim female and while I question the validity of Muslim women in Australia (or anywhere, for that matter) wearing a burqa/niqab, "imposing a ban" seems just as primitive to me as imposing its wear.
The premise of your proposition, that burqas/niqabs should be banned, means that the argument is no longer about “gender equality” but shifts to an argument around freedom of choice (or the alarming lack thereof, in this case!). Stripped down to its core, with all subjectivities aside, your position on the matter is no more enlightened than that held in the very patriarchal societies you are condemning.
Ironically, both approaches lead to the same end point – women subjugated to the will of others, regardless of wether the end result is a silhouette of a woman clad in a heavy black burqa, or the silhouette of a woman stripped of her right to choose.
Easy one. It's a free country. No bans on burqas. And no bans on refusing to serve / sell to / accommodate in any way people who wear burqas; or bans on signs in the shop window: "We want to see your money AND your face."
The khufar doesn't have to interact with someone she doesn't like the look of, and the burqee can decide for herself whether impersonating a Guinness bottle is worth the attendant hassle of having to travel 15 miles to find somebody who'll sell her groceries,
No state-enforced bans at all, and everything works.
“I abhor…”, ”I hate…”, “I am appalled”, “I am furious…”.
What self righteous arrogance.
Happily, you and your fellow right-wing bloggies that support you here are just a tiny minority in Australian public opinion. Fortunately, most Australians have broken free from the 'White Australia' mentality and your Islamophobic racism and moved on to embrace multiculturalism despite your best efforts prevent it.
Freedom of choice is a vital part of our society and democracy, and certainly the burqa and niqab cannot be justified as acceptable to require women to wear in our modern society. I'd also add that security is also a serious factor to consider (the terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been known to masquerade as women in burqas to try to carry out attacks).
But I cannot agree with a requirement to ban the burqa or niqab outright (but perhaps for situations like that in France and Turkey, banning in government buildings - keeping the state secular) is justifiable to actually protect liberties. It goes against my liberal democratic values to agree that society can impose its values, but it can certainly assert its freedoms. The state should make clear that it protects those women who refuse to wear the burqa - rather than the police being forced to consider the cultural sensitivities of honour killings, wife beatings and burqas, they should be prosecuting the perpetrators with the utmost force of the law. Our cultures and practices are not morally relative - our values are superior - and while we may decide not to force other countries to adhere to our values, we must enforce them here. The importation of backward misogynist practices must be reversed, and I believe that is better done by defence of freedom.
Virginia,
Thank you for enunciating in such an eloquent manner the utter disgust and revulsion I feel when confronted with this loathsome medieval symbol of sexist bigotry and oppression.
It’s also interesting that most of the commentators here are taking you to task for expressing this view.
My sister is a feminist and she loathes the death cult responsible for this monstrosity with a passion. That so called ‘progressives’ defend the ‘right’ of men to oppress women is beyond belief and yet more evidence of how low ‘progressives’ have sunk.
Utter hypocrites, the lot of them. Ignore them and feel free to express your views the way you do. Otherwise, we all run the risk of being forcibly prevented by ‘progressives’ (through kangaroo courts such as those in canuckistan), from causing ‘offence’ to evil, misogynist, racist bigots.
It takes real courage to confront and denounce these bigots. Thanks again and well done.
The answer to this debate is simple. Pass a law banning face coverings in public. No masks, veils, hijabs, burkas, etc.
When we interact as humans, seeing someone's face is an important part of the conversation. Facial expressions often convey much more than the words we use. Thus when a woman chooses to wear a burqua, she is saying, I don't want to converse with you, or if I do, I want an advantage where I can see your reactions to my words, but you will not see mine.
Quite frankly, I would not want to converse with someone on that basis. It is showing arrogance and contempt. It is also loudly saying that I do not regard you as an equal.
In our culture when someone covers their face, it is because they are trying to hide their identity while they perform some anti-social act (like robbing a bank.)
Women choosing to wear a burqua will never be welcome in our society and ultimately will find they are stigmatised and face predjudice as a result of their choice in rejecting us.
For those who believe this is some kind of thought crime, you can't make someone like you by passing a law. Australians have the right to reject people who reject them. I regard the burqua as an assault on our values.
Banning the burqua would probably be difficult to enforce, but we should make it clear, that it is a choice which restricts options, for which there will be no compensation under our anti-discrimmination codes. (You can not walk into a bank wearing even a bike helmut, so why would you be allowed to walk in wearing a burqua?)
If however, wearing a burqua is not the free choice of the woman, other questions need to be answered.
Well said Virginia, although a total ban would be an issue for the religious freedom of true islamic fundamentalist females. What many comment posters fail to understand is that many women do not wear them by choice. I catch flights out of Dubai, and there is a rush of women to go to the toilets to change from their burqas to normal clothes as soon as the plane takes off.
Mozzy, you sound like a pathetic man, terrified at the thought of living in a society where women might not consider you their natural superior, and might even laugh at you. I pity you.
Virginia, you are right in everything you say. However, I hate bans; state intervention should occur only when absolutely necessary.
I would prefer that people like you continue to draw attention to the real meaning of a burqa in contemporary society. That would, I think, be more effective in the long run, and would have the added benefit of tormenting "men" like Mozzy into exposing the real reason why they need their women to conceal themselves: fear.
Years ago when my father, a devout Catholic was in the grip of acute dementia, he would accost mobile mailboxes in Roselands shopping centre with the disarming opener, "Hello, Sister, how are you?"
Does the freedom to choose require us to respect the choice some may make not to be free?
But then, it's debateable they have that choice to begin with.
The garb is becoming more common in Brisbane too.. and always walking a few paces behind hubby. It's upsetting to see in summer, especially when the husband is invariably attired for the heat in nice cool shorts and shirt.
I've never liked the word 'ban'. Yet for some of the people here just to come out and attack Victoria is missing the point.
Korea gave us the hanbok. Japan gave us the kimono. Perhaps a western equivalent is a Victorian era gown. All beautiful pieces of clothing.
But these burkas and niqabs certainly aren't beautiful or inspiring. The look of them, and especially what they represent are most at odds with western societies.
Not sure how, but perhaps more could be done to let these women know they live in a vastly different society now and the opportunities are there to help them break from the obvious subservience they are still bound to, despite actually living in a free country these days.
Well written Virginia, and I miss your dulcet tones now I am posted here to Darwin. Your point is an excellent one. While deployed to the Middle East I saw thousands of women wearing these sacks, and it symbolises well how women are treated there: as child-bearers and slaves who do all the manual work. Ban such ridiculous symbols Mr Rudd.
Aussie warrior
Virginia, welcome to the world of dissent. :)
Regarding the burkha and the niqab, I'm sure we all remember Hilaly's comments about women being covered up or else they deserve everything they get. It's the same thing.
Women should be covered, as it's part of the islamic religion. Women are supposed to be modest and ensure that they don't expose men to temptation.
While I have no objection to people thinking like this, I have a huge objection to people acting upon it.
Clive's observation on the women in Brisbane wearing sacks and the men dressing for the climate is spot on.
I'll add to that a woman pushing a laden shopping trolley while trying to control a group of children while the man of the family strolls alongside of her.
And thonbrocket, I find you're addressing of our hostess as "the khufar" as very offensive indeed, and you should perhaps try to use your manners a bit more.
Maelinar supports you.
You know who I am.
> Does the freedom to choose require us to respect the choice some may make not to be free? But then, it's debateable they have that choice to begin with.
Precisely. It's like a woman "choosing" to stay with an abusive husband, knowing that he'll come after her and kill her if she chooses to leave. It's not really a "choice".
I am right with you, Virginia - these coverings are only to put down women.
Every time I see a woman in one of those outfits, I cast a disgusted glance at the husband.
If the muslim men were to wear them too, perhaps that would be more socially acceptable and show some equality.
The women who were interviewed on Stateline ACT did not seem to know much about history.
If a man is aroused by seeing a woman, that's his problem, not the woman's problem.
To maintain a stable, peaceful and prosperous community, Australians of all backgrounds are expected to uphold the shared principles and values that underpin Australian society.
These values provide the basis for Australia’s free and democratic society. They include:
respect for the equal worth, dignity and freedom of the individual•
freedom of speech •
freedom of religion and secular government •
freedom of association•
support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law•
equality under the law•
equality of men and women •
equality of opportunity•
peacefulness•
a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces tolerance, mutual respect and compassion for those in need. •
I can't see a wide-spread ban as being enforcable. We live in a nation we're one can get around in a chicken costume if they wish, or darth vader... are you going to ban every concealing garment? Ultimately in a nation such as ours the individual decides and if they choose burqua then burqua it is. What's appalling is the cultural mindset that gives rise to this physical manifestation, and where it is found we should rightly be suggesting that Australia may not be the appropriate place to call home. You can't turn a Republican into a Liberal by sticking a Che T-shirt on him...
It depends on the nature of choice for the wearer. Islamic themed clothing like this has been embraced by 20 something women rediscovering their faith, in the same manner a Pentacostal might adopt a WWJD lanyard for a security pass. For them it's a symbol of power. For others the clothing is a cultural part of their make up - they've grown up with it. This post seems to imply that men had a big meeting and decided to subjugate women. It's much more complicated than that.
And for those in cultures where it's a must wear, already they undermine it with wearing of figure hugging clothes beneath it, make up and the like.
Banning clothing because we find it offensive says far more about us than the people that choose to wear it.
Virginia Haussegger “(abhors) the burka, and the niqab” and is "angry, very angry" at the “sight of … a ghostly … hideously shrouded figure” which is “confronting and offensive” and which “defies our cherished values of equality and freedom”. She claims to care for “the cultural mores and social traditions of this country”.
I would like to ask her as to what exactly Australian culture, religion and moral and social values are? As far as I know, Australia is a land of whites, browns, blacks, yellows, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, moderates, extremists, priests, homo-sexual etc. etc. It is a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Its beauty lies in diversity, not uniformity. It strength lies in mutual respect, not intolerance for “others”.
Equality means rule of law and social justice. Freedom, in this discussion, means that we may leave it to women themselves to decide as to what they would like to wear. As pointed our by some mates above, banning “burka’’ would be as good or bad as prescribing bikinis.
Hauseggar appears to be fighting against women’s oppression and, in the same breath, dictating what they should or should not do/wear. Why not to leave it to individual choice and, in the process, ensure that they are not forced either way? Why not to enable them to wear what they like rather than telling them what to wear?
There is nothing denying that even today woman is suffering even in the West – it has nothing to do with religion or geography; it is a hang-over from history. What we really need to do is to give her all the incentives in the world to educate herself, in addition to providing her with legal protection against male chauvinism, regardless of her origin.
Khizar Niazi
For those commenters suggesting that Muslim women who wear face-veils don't belong in Australia, I'd like to respectfully remind you that Muslim contact with this continent pre-dates European settlement. Islam and Muslims are settled in Australia and I here to stay. I'm sixth-generation Australian on both parents lines, and I defy anyone to tell me I don't belong in Australia.
I also find it laughable that a whole bunch of commenters are suggesting that Muslim women are oppressed and then want to deny me - a Muslim woman - the right to wear what I choose. I guess they just want to impose their own particular version of patriarchy on me :)
Fortunately, in Australia we still have freedom of religion, and if those commenters don't like *that* value, may I suggest kindly they move somewhere else.
Mozzy, you believe women need to be covered to keep them from being "tools of sex for men"? You are reinforcing the belief that women are, and should be, submissive. That our only protection from rampant male desire is to hide our femininity, our bodies. Wearing a burka is not a representation of freedom, it is symbol of oppression. We do not need protection in the form of a shroud thank you very much, we can rather arm ourselves with education, savvy and the knowledge that we are equal. Religion is one thing, "geneder apartheid" another altogether(thank you Virginia, that term is one I will use again).
Dear Virgina,
Your argument is biased, emotive, as well as being downright irrational.
Let's dissect your argument.
Firstly, you use very little proof for the statements you make. One such assumption you make is that all the women who wear said clothing are being subjugated, suppressed, and have their humanity taken away by such a terrible, terrible type of clothing. Now, if you conducted a survey showing statistical proof that all the women, or at least most women, under the niquab are being forced to do so, or are unhappy, then your argument would be at least partially supported. Instead, you use your ethnocentric point of view to judge that they are enslaved, and forced to do so, because no woman in her right mind would choose to wear such an ugly thing. Did it ever occur to you that in Australia, we accept diversity in clothing? from the scantily clad woman in a bikini, to a woman in a niquab, we accept them. Both extremes are allowed in our society.
Secondly, what about the niquab ires you so much? You cited as being a tool of suppression, not in line with your "Australian" values. However, I would like to challenge your values as being un-Australian to their core. Many refugees come over to Australia wearing their "restrictive" national dress; escaping persecution for their beliefs. Now if we impose a dress code for all refugees, we have just imposed another form of oppression. (And in case you're against having refugees come to Australia anyway, I'd like to point out that Albert Einstein was a refugee. Without him, World War II would have lasted much longer.) Just because the Niquab does not fit in with your schema of being Australian, does not make it right to suppress it.
Thirdly, you used the same exact excuse that Bush made when invading Iraq: "They hate us for our freedom!" Now, not only is this a hypocritical view you take, it is a weak, unsupported statement, based on your own ethnocentric values. You are proposing an intervention by the government to clamp down on suppressive clothing. Hence, you are limiting dress choices, and thus, you are clamping down on - you guessed it - your so called values of quality and freedom!
Lastly, I find it strange that Virginia has the courage to quote the Koran, without reading more about the context or other circumstances surrounding it.
Here's the direct quote:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for Greater purity for them: And God is Well-acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women That they should lower their gaze And guard their modesty: and they should not display beauty and ornaments expect what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that They must draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, or their women, or their slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex." Thus covering up IS a religious issue, not just "a gender issue."
My best advice to everyone in this blog is to read, and talk to muslims around you. (there's a billion of them, it won't be that hard to find one)
And to goingferal(ish): Are you implying that people who wear the niqab are not "armed with education, savvy, and the knowledge that they are equal"??? Such a generalization surely cannot be true.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_status_gen_ques.htm
Edward thanks for your comments. All interesting. But I must pick you up on one point. I am certainly not "against having refugees come to Australia". Quite the opposite, as anyone who regularly reads my columns in the Canberra Times would be well aware. At the end of next month I will have a website online (www.virginiahaussegger.com.au) and you can read all my columns there.
It's particularly interesting that you quote from the Koran a paragraph that emphasizes "the shame of sex". Is that the issue here?
Me again - just a quickie to point out the Qur'an is not an English document. The actual Arabic phrase that Edward posted, and Virginia picked up on, is `awrati an-nisa'i.
This actually refers to female nudity, and in this context, young children who have no awareness of the implications of female nudity (think young toddlers who burst into the toilet whilst mama's on the loo and don't understand their mum wants privacy).
Thanks for clearing that up Umm Yasmin. A most valuable contribution, which clarifies what would otherwise seem a very raw and blunt statement (not to mention a rather worrying one.)
Your comment also raises the important issue of the difficulty posed by translation.
The nuance of any sacred script is inevitably somewhat changed or modified as it is translated, and indeed adapted for a modern audience. Is it possible therefore that those verses in the Koran (Qur'an)that compel women to cover themselves fully, and denies them a face or position in public space and civil society, has perhaps been over simplified? Maybe misinterpreted?
Obviously not all Muslim women choose to abide by the call to fully cover. Perhaps it depends on the motives, or whim, of the the ruling clerics in a particular place at a particular time?
Once again Umm Yasmin thanks for prodding us all to ponder this a bit more deeply.
God is the winner, and everyone who agrees with God will be winners, and those who do not, will be losers. That being said, there should not be any compelling a bloke or chick to be a winner. Rather, being a winner or loser is your own choice, and God knows best.
A post on Lenin's Tomb http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/07/consequences.html about a German court case along with some interesting commenters make the alternative point pretty well: the debate about Muslim headdress is not so much about women's liberation as it is about Western racism, militarism, colonialism and imperialism towards the resource rich Middle Eastern Islamic world.
A great post Virginia. I don't know whether you saw Pat Condells comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48&feature=channel_page
Particlularly pertinent and very challenging are his comments to feminist apologists for islamic discrimination. Why are they so silent? It is of course a rhetorical question, because they are just fairweather, lazy, cowardly, useful idiot feminists who only deal with soft western targets.
To ebs1112005 thanks for your comments. However I must take issue with your attack on so called "feminist apologists" who "only deal with soft western targets".
As a feminist I am disappointed that more feminist commentators do not speak out against the burka. However feminism is a broad church. There is no single line of agreement in these vexed areas where cultural traditions (born of supreme patriarchy) clash badly with a woman's liberty.
Some feminists would prefer take a cultural relativists line on this. I don't. I say they are wrong. But, naturally, I accept their right to argue that line. Just as I would hope they would accept my right to argue mine.
For sure, how the sacred text is interpreted (and translation is an interpretation) certainly reflects the particular biases of the fallible human being doing the interpreting.
Not only that, but this is a problem for interpretation of religious law generally--however, it is a problem only when coupled with a fundamentalist perspective (i.e. that there is only one truth, one right answer, that can be objectively known and thus possessed and imposed).
Amira Sonbol makes an excellent argument in her 2003 paper "Women in Shari'ah Courts: A Historical and Methodological Discussion" published in the Fordham International Law Journal. She points out how the pre-modern flexibility of the shari'a system was frozen and mutilated when it was codified as part of the modern nation-state system in Muslim-majority countries.
Definitely worth a read for those interested in the problem of tackling patriarchy in Muslim contexts.
Kind regards
Umm Yasmin
Thanks Umm Yasmin - another valuable addition. I'll chase up Amira Sonbol's piece.
On translation of the Koran (Qur'an).. recently when in Kabul I saw former journalist Ahmad Ghous Zalman on television pleading for leniency. In 2008 he was sentenced to 20 years jail over the publication of his translation of the Koran into Dari. Some clerics had claimed there were errors in the translation, particularly in relation to homosexuality and adultery. Be they 'errors' or indeed just a fresh, modern day interpretation, the punishment of 20 years jail is beyond belief.
I agree with your interpretation of the burqa's symbolism, Virginia, but I don't think banning it is the answer. Thank you for raising this issue and setting up this public debate. The way to encourage women living in Australia to abandon the burqa is through dialogue – talking to and engaging with women who wear the burqa. I hope some of these women come along to the public debate and argue their case. And that we listen to what they have to say, but also voice our own view of these oppressive garments. However, will they have the freedom to engage in such a debate? Probably not. Hiding away from the male gaze and all opportunity to stand up for oneself must weaken one. Being out in the world, freely engaging with men and other women, is strengthening. I know for a lot of Afghani women it was frightening being without their burqas once the law was changed. And many of them went back to wearing them – it was easier than facing the taunts and abuse of men.
Last year, an Egyptian study of sexual harassment of women, both veiled and unveiled, found that unveiled women had a higher rate of sexual harassment than unveiled women. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7514567.stm) The point is, men have to change. Rather than banning the burqa the focus needs to be more on encouraging these men to respect women as equals rather than insisting their women cover up. Having said that, there is a long history of legislative change predating attitudinal change (e.g. race relations and anti discimination laws.) Sometimes the government has to say ‘this is wrong’. However, I’m not sure that this is not one of those cases. Let the debate continue.
Some interesting links: http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/24/Why_I_as_a_British_Muslim_woman_want_the_burkha_banned_from_/
http://kaalimaat.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/yemen-sexual-harassment-women/
Thanks Mollymalone - some great constructive stuff there. I hope you can join us at ANU this Wednesday for further discussion.
dear virginia
i must say that i read your argument in a bemused fashion and am curious as to why you presume to understand what it means to fully participate in society, and why this cannot be acheived with or without a cloth? why do you presume to encompass the ability 'save' these women from themselves and the appartheid they live in? why do you control the discourse on women's hijab,burquas and niqabs when you dont wear one? can a woman have the intelligence to choose if veiling herself completly excludes her from her right and ability to participate fully in life? does it mean being educated? having children? working? being seen? being seen without clothes? being seen with clothes? green clothes? black clothes? any clothes/.....being accepted by you?
maybe this woman clad in black cloth that you saw in the canberra centre was having a bad burqa day and couldnt find the pink sequened number she oridnarly dons on because the four kids she was tottering behind spilled their cornflakes on it and now it is in the wash with the whites? oh no,she is going to get that horrible pink stain through her white garments...she thinks as she follows submissively her husband who shot you the stern glance...
or maybe, just maybe she lags behind, because her bikini which she is hiding underneath her burqa is giving her a wedgie and she is desperately trying to conceive ways she can politely pick it out without anyone thinking she has her cache of weapons concelled/belly bomb strap that she will detonate the next time you look at her husband!
being an australian, i love the debate, the passion, the comments, but oh how i wish i didnt have to read yet again *yawn* the often rehashed sameold same old...come on Ginny, lets talk about something else? Tea anyone?
To Anonymous (I do wish people would include their name - but of course criticism is easier when one remains faceless and hidden ... which by the way, is why I include my real name and photo on this blog).
Anonymous I too am "bemused" - particularly by your suggestion that I "control" this debate. I would think it is very clear by the comments posted here that I do not control anything. I'm sure it would be nice to think I did, but I don't. Like you, I am simply adding a voice.
As an Australian born (brought up Anglican) woman coming out of a marriage to a Muslim man, I see this subject as complicated. There are many cases where the husband insists on his wife wearing the burka or niqab, in which case I would agree that the woman is oppressed. On the other hand (exampled in a recent documentary Islam and dress codes in Egypt on the ABC), as a reaction to Western imperialism and as a statement of identity of their faith.
I also remember an episode of 'Insight' where Bronwyn Bishop was making similar calls and Al Hilali referring to uncovered women as raw meat... In that discussion an Islamic academic from ANU (apologies for not remembering her name), expressed her frustration by stating that when she hears Bishop 'she wants to put it (hibab) on and when she hears hilali she wants to take it off'.
At the end of the day the choice should be that of the individual woman - not of the husband nor the state. In Australia we respect individual choice and freedom, let's keep it that way.
Thanks Tracey. The woman you were thinking of on the Insight SBS program was Dr Shakira Hussein from ANU. She is very learned and interesting on this subject and makes great sense. She'll be joining me for a public discussion on the Burka at ANU on 15th July 09. I'll post an account of the debate on the 18th.
Was wondering if you know if the debate will be taped/transcript avaialbe? I'm in Melbourne can't can't make it to ANU but would love to read/hear/see the debate.
Thanks
Hi Farah ... I don't know any of the details I'm sorry. You would have to check with the ANU Media Office – (02) 6125 5575. The press release says it will podcast - they should be able to advise where and when. Thanks for your interest.
I don't wish to sound like some kind of pious know-it-all, but I have spent most of the past 9 years living and reporting from Muslim countries I think you have over-simplified the issue based on your visceral response.
Wearing the burqa or niqab is an incredibly complex issue that many don't understand, and often view with loaded Western values. I do not like the burqa but I totally understand (but not agree) with the desire and agreeing to wear it and the refuge many women find in it in their countries and societies. Asking them, out of the context of their society (as in Australia or France) to shed the burqa will not work, for obvious reasons.
Banning it is not an answer and cannot be supported in any way. Banning (censorship) anything is just the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.
To Virginia Moncrieff... Not a pious know-it-all at all. It's a valid view from someone living and working in the thick of it. But I differ. A ban is a big - and uncomfortable - call, I know. But the time has come. I believe there is simply no place for a custom that negates a woman's existence and identity in the public realm in Australia - which of course makes me sound like the "know-it-all". But I don't think piety comes into it.
In fact 'piety' is a trigger in this debate. As Malalai Joya has pointed out numerous times, the oppression of women in her part of the world is often done in the name of religion - when in fact the issue is less about piety, and more about power and control.
This article has angered me immensely. The burkha is indeed a complicated issue and I am as yet undecided where exactly my opinions lie on the matter... yes, they can be seen as oppressive, but at the same time a woman should have the right to choose to wear one. But the author's dismissal of bikinis, g-strings, raunch-culture and other emblems of Western hyper-sexuality as not the same issue is completely false. The only thing that sets them apart is their position at the other end of the spectrum. Before slamming a part of 'someone-else's' culture so forcefully, we should be taking a good hard look at what 'we', 'our' media and 'our' society have been doing to women and the image of women with the portrayals that we see on TV everyday.
Thanks Elen. With respect, I disagree that fashion items like bikinis or g-strings etc are "the same" as a burka. You may not particularly like any of those fashion items, but none of them require a woman to cover her face and remain separate from the world around her. And yes, there are many reasons to be angry about the way pop culture and media portray women. But the issue at hand is about the burka - and the niqab - and what might be an appropriate response to it's use here in Australia.
I suspect what would happen is that because the majority of Australian women wearing face-veils do so for religious reasons, that a ban would simply force them to remain secluded and reliant on male members and children. Quite the opposite of what you would wish if your goal is to emancipate said women. I know that as someone who understands the religiosity of face-veiling if it were banned here, I would immediately put it on and suffer the consequences as a form of political protest against the stripping of my religious freedom.
Having said that, I am curious, would you ban swine-flu face masks as well? Because a face-veiling woman could easily achieve the required covering by wearing a normal hijab and a swine-flu face mask.
Ummyasmin, your characterisation of veiling as an expression of religious freedom ignores the close interrelation between religion and its cultural context. I don't support a ban on the burqa, but I think it is getting close to delusional to assert that in a substantial proportion of cases wearing the burqa is not a manifestation of subtle or not-so-subtle manifestation of culturally-based sexual repression.
Are you George Bush in disguise? Always wondered what happened to good old (bad old) Dubya. A ban on the burqa is a ban on a person's freedom of choice. No matter what the hell you have experienced in Afghanistan or wherever, if someone wants to cover themselves for their own sake, that is none of your bleedin business. Someone forcing you to wear the blue mesh thing for a few days in Afghanistan does not give you the right to force someone who wants to wear it, not to. Two wrongs do not make a right. Furthermore, your few short blue-mesh days do not give you the qualifications to understand what it is all about. Your short-sighted and narrow-minded estimation of what a burqa is, is typical Dubya speak - You're either with us, or against us. Unbelievable that despite all the flood of common sense that has been pouring in as comments to your post, you still maintain a completely racist - yes racist - atitiude to this affair. I know Islam is not a race, but this is analogous to the closest degree. This smacks of go-back-to-yer-own-country. I thought you had more sense than that.
This view-point is soo full of ignorance, bullshit and an islamphobic attuide. As a fifth generation Australian practicing Muslim, you dont know your subject matter on all. First and foremost, in our multi cultural country, there is less than 1% of the population is muslim.Out of that say half are muslim woman. Out of that, how many of them are wearing the face-cover? Not even 10% of that less than half of a percentage have it on. So your targeting such a tiny amount and your words are an infingment on there rigths, and injustice for free expression. I wore the nijab a day after Bail bombing to conceal myself from the ever inceasing stagimation that people like U make people like me, want to run away from!!!!I wore for four years and it was the most female, uplifting, courages, self-respecting thing I had ever done in my life!! Your sooo islamphobic, I bet you have NEVER walked up to a muslim woman at peace with herself, happy to CHOOSE who sees her face and body!! and talked to her in a open-minded matter.As an Australain and a muslim woman, I HAVE A CHOOSE to wear a face cover or not and that is the beauty of my religion and my country...hand in hand, so what are YOU soo scared off????Let live.Also when you see my fourth generation single Muslim mother, converted to islam 30 odd years ago, doing her shopping in a niqab,in good old cold Canberra, just remerber she has inner contentment and free willand more respect for her body and face than any woman I know!!!
Ok Miss Virginia... just what exactly are "Australian values" ?? if its to get tanked, sit in front of the box all day, hang around the pub, or sleep with ya best mates spouse, then how is a piece of garment going to be offensive to the person who has no care in the world but to drown themselves in intoxicants (or the other reasons aforementioned for that matter)? How exactly would that garment be offensive to those ideals? Please explain (no pun intended, lolz).
Virginia your article resonated powerfully with me. I have had the exact thoughts and experienced the same rage silently for years. No more silence. This grab is about the freedom of men to own, abuse and silence women and bears no relationship to Islam or other forms of dress (patriarchally influenced or not). Keep on truth telling please. Karen M Canberra
Agree with freedom, but don't agree with you on banning the Burka to bring freedom for people. You as an Australian should know how to respect different cultures. I remember being a child and seeing that Australian people know Very very little about any other country either than their own... I have come back and seen the big change. Australia was by far separated from the rest of the world... and the people did not have any view of different cultures. I think having different people in Australia with different cultures and clothes helps in understanding and knowledge of the people. It is no threat to freedom or anything. Please try going to a big airport like the one in Dubai, isn't it nice to see all these different people in the same place?! Australia is a beautiful country, one of the reasons is because of it being multi-cultural, and accepting people with different backgrounds... Please think again. Thankyou
Virginia,
The reason why bikinis and mini-skirts have been brought up so often here is because they have long been recognised as items employed in the West to subjugate women as part of the patriarchy. It is hypocritical of you to suggest a ban on the burqa while simultaneously not addressing the real problems for women that are actually prevalent and permeate our own society.
In addition, your suggestion smacks greatly of Orientalism and paternalism. Ie. those poor savages aren't capable of liberating themselves so let's force it upon them. Your suggestion to ban an item of clothing is ridiculous and your labelling of it as "unAustralian" is even moreso. If an Australian citizen chooses to wear a burqa then that is their choice & their right, who are you to take the right away from them and tell them that you are the "real" Australian?
Your tirade against burqas is plainly ridiculous and to veil it behind a struggle against 'power and control' is hypocrisy of the highest order. Your call to take away the right to wear burqa is representative of an Orientalist and Paternalistic white woman attempting to exercise power and control over the scary "Other" of the sub-altern.
Get a grip. You don't like burqas, don't wear it. You think it's oppressive, talk to burqa-wearing women and get them to re-evaluate their choice to wear it. But stop trying to eliminate people's rights, and if you are a real feminist as you claim to be, fight the oppressive and pervasive patriarchy of female sexualisation and objectification instead.
If it is the male gaze which is so problematic, perhaps instead of covering the oh-so seductive flesh, face and forms of women and girls, religiously devout men should wear a blindfold when outside the home. In this way, we can all keep our faith, our rights and our dignity.
Actually Sara, the verse preceding the one in the Qur'an that talks about Muslim women wearing headcovers, instructs Muslim men not to gaze lustfully at women and to observe modesty and chastity.
Asad's translation renders the relevant verse as: "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – [and,] verily, God is aware of all that they do." (Q24:30)
So, it takes actions on behalf of both men and women to de-sexualise public society.
Virginia H.
I dont think you are feminist but an oppressor!!! You are trying to take our rights to wear the niqab.
Virginia, I agree with you wholeheartedly.. Also for many Moslem women the wearing of the burka and the niqab is a new thing.. In the 1970's I worked for General Ahmed Jawad Alamdar, he was a Syrian born Saudi Arabian and his brother was the keeper of Mecca.. a very important position in the Moslem world.
None of the female members of these families EVER wore anything covering their heads let alone their entire bodies... All this is VERY NEW and part of the ethos that surrounds the Jihadists of recent times.. I was so happy to hear Sarkozy say what he did!!
Virginia,
I have to disagree with your thoughts about the burka. Firstly I would like to mention that people should not comment on what other people wear or how they look like. As a student attending primary school we are told that we should mind our own business. If there is something really wrong(like a crime) then we should act. But if the problem is just what some people are wearing something different than usual people walking around, then I guess its not up to us to judge on other peoples rights and thoughts. Do we say anything to people who are wearing traditional costumes or unusual clothes??? NO we don't.
Secondly, I have a lot of friends that come from a lot different cultures and backgrounds. Some of those friends include Muslims. I have a lot of respect for those friends because of their respect to the world and Australia. And mind you, most of the Muslim friends I have wear burkas or their mothers wear burkas. I think that disrespect comes from those who comment on other people, not those who chose to do something which will not harm the community.
I hope you change your mind about the burka and start respecting people who wear the burka because if you don't you will find that you will become UNPOPULAR.
What's so frustrating about most of the blathring about Muslims is the level of basic ignorance of the beliefs of Muslims and the vast history of Muslim societies.
Janetta: if you went back a couple of generations of further you would have found that his grandmothers and grandgrandmothers most certainly would have veiled (unless they were from the lowest classes).
There was an unveiling movement in the twentieth century and then a re-veiling movement at the end of the twentieth century.
It is true that not all Muslim societies developed identifical forms of veiling practices, but even if it was a completely new phenomenon, why would that be inauthentic?
Damned if they do and damned if they don't - it seems to me. One set of voices say that Muslim veiling is inauthentic because it's 'trapped in the past' and another set of voices say Muslim veiling is inauthentic because it's novel. Make your mind up guys.
Dear Virginia,
I am sorry I could not attend the Ban the Burka Forum (I was not allowed in as the Hall was full when I arrived).
I don’t know what happened at the Forum, but it must have gone well. All those untruths shamelessly uttered under the guise of religion, and the lame excuses of the namby-pamby, politically correct set, are no match for a courageous woman brandishing the truth as her weapon.
Ostensibly, the aim of the burka is the protection of female modesty. In reality, it deprives women of one of the most precious gifts we have. Our common humanity. We humans recognise other humans by looking at their faces. This is a fact and it is hard-wired into our genes. We react to gestures, smiles, etc. When we cover somebody’s face we are isolating, imprisoning, objectifying that person in the worst possible way: we are making them non human.
The burka, that symbol of female subservience, is undeniably based on a philosophy of mistrust. There is nothing more negative in a society.
No, unfortunately, we cannot defend the poor women of Afghanistan in their own country at this stage. We cannot defend them against the backward culture developed by their own menfolk; against something that poses as religion when it is only the perverse result of centuries of unrestricted male domination. But we can defend the women of Australia, regardless of their origin.
Please ignore the personal insults of those who want to hurt your cause. Don Quixote used to say: “The dogs bark, Sancho, that means we are riding ahead”.
I salute the brave and steadfast woman in you.
Rafael
Racist. Nothing but racist. Yes Islam is not a race as a previous blogger noted, but this is the same thing here.
The second speaker in the ANU debate got it 100% right, this kind of atitude (yours, Virginia) breeds racism.
It was interesting to note that in the debate it was "vexing" for you to call for a ban on anything. Let me quote your closing comment:
"There is no place here for the burka. Australians must rally to have the burka banned."
Vexing? I don't think so.
I hope at some stage you accept that you are simply wrong, swallow your pride (which I know is a very hard thing to do for anyone, and especially difficult for someone in the public domain such as yourself) and be woman enough to admit it.
Virginia
Good on you and keep it up.
There is still much to be said about the burqa; like you I find it offensive . It has no place in this country.
One thing that strikes me is that it is almost as much an insult to men as it is to women. Do we really believe that all men are animals, driven to uncontrollable lust at the sight of female flesh or hair? Ridiculous!
There is nothing in either the Quran or the Hadith (sayings and practice of the Prophet) to justify it.
Oh by the way, just to go back to another column of yours - we dumped the egregious Gordon Ramsay after watching 2 programs - 2 too many!
Judith
Hi Suzie. Please understand that I do not disrespect any woman wearing a burka (burqa) or niqab. My disrespect is for the system that imposes such a thing on her. I cannot have any respect for a system or set of rules that demand a woman have no face or identity in public. Call me odd - but I'm firmly of the view that women are entitled to participate fully in the world. Frankly - the world is a better place when they do.
As for being at risk of becoming "unpopular" - well I think I've already done my dash! Well and truly. (But thanks for your concern!)
Umm Yasmin. I hear your frustration. You might be interested in columnist Mona Eltahawy's take on 'Ban the Burqa'. The link to her website is http://www.monaeltahawy.com/blog/?p=143
Elthawy wrote this after our debate here about the ban was well underway. It was published in both The International Herald Tribune,2 July, the The New York Times. She mounts a strong argument.
Are you for real? :
"Call me odd - but I'm firmly of the view that women are entitled to participate fully in the world."
Oh you saviour!!!
What a play on words. Sorry Virginia, you do not belong to that "odd" group. Rather, this is your group:
"Call me odd - but I'm firmly of the view that women are entitled to participate fully in the world - except in the case where they want to exercise their right and free choice to wear the burka."
Now that's odd.
"They hate our freedom!!!!"
When the men are wearing them too *then* we can start a discussion on whether it was freely chosen by the women.
Umm Yasmin.. Western women also wore very modest clothing until after the first world war.. Victorian dress was very modest, no legs shown at all. When I was young, travelling in Arab countries, my friends and I always observed local dress codes and would not have thought of entering any sacred place without heads and arms covered.. we left our mini skirts at home...'When in Rome...'
Simple courtesy; but that's not what this is about, this is a deliberate red rag to all of us who have progressed our civilizations.. After all Australian women have had the vote since 1902 .. working side by side all Australians have built this country and it is strong and tolerant.
I think it's important to note that this is not about banning Islam, or asking people to denounce their faith, or even justify it. It is a debate that asks 'why are these women covered from head to toe - who asks them to do this, and why?'
Australians from all backgrounds (and we are from all backgrounds) have a legitimate right to discuss this and ask whether it is something we can stay quiet about. Thank you Virginia, it is thanks to your courage and your concern for all women that we can talk about this amongst each other. There is no need for people to be afraid of talking about this...after all a free and democratic society is what we want Australia to remain for all it's inhabitants.
Umm Yasmin...we should all gaze upon each other with nothing but respect and clothing should not be a symbol or an indication of our values or our worth.
Luke your argument is a fallacy. Umm Yasmin and / or other women around the world are perfectly capable of deciding for themself regardless of whether hubby or daddy wears it or not.
Sara,
No one is calling into question our legitimate right to discuss things. What's being called into question is banning an item of clothing. All this discussion here about whether or not women are forced to wear burka is ridiculous, it is impossible to prove whether the majority of women in Australia who do wear burka are being forced to or are wearing it of their own volition. However if there is one single woman here who chooses to wear burka (and I believe there have already been several who've commented on this thread), and it is not up to any of you to judge her reasons for doing so, then her right to do so is what's at stake. If Australia wants to be a society that protects individual rights, then her rights are to be protected.
At the heart this debate is tension between traditionalism and modernism. In traditionalism, theist-conferred patriarchy and conservatism take prominence and change is disliked. (Traditionalism is the governance and social security of agarian/small mercantile societies.) Hence holy scriptures, time worn customs and male opinions influence society. So we have unquestioning belief, rule by scripture or custom, primacy of men, dependency of women, rigid sacred practices, often summary and cruel punishments, intolerance of apostasy and libertarian views, and a general wary view of the outsiders. This is true of most traditional societies to a more or lesser degree and Europe was like this about five centuries ago.
It is suggested that there needs to be more understanding on both sides of the nature of traditionalism versus modernism.
History shows as traditional systems mix with modernism the former tends to become more like the latter (not withstanding considerable tension and conflict).
The West is right to criticise the burqa, etc from moderm values, but not ban it due to its inherent tolerant and liberal values, but bear in mind that eventually such garb will disappear as modernism influences traditional values.
Interesting comments Anonymous (perhaps a nick name would help if you are shy about using your name). I agree that a tension between "traditionalism and modernism", as you put it, is central to this debate. However I can't agree that the burka or niqab with simply "disappear as modernism influences traditional values". This has not been the case to date, and indeed in places like Afghanistan and Egypt the burka and full veil covering have returned with a vengence. Back in the 60's and 70's women in those places dressed freely in the popular style of the day - miniskirts and jeans etc.
Thank you to everyone who has posted thoughtful, interesting, provocative and even dissenting points of view. It's all valuable food for thought.
Please feel free to continue... or you may wish to pick up the thread on my latest column posted Sat 18 July 09 - which discusses why we are having such trouble talking about the Burka (burqa) in Australia. You'll find it at the top of my blog ... under the title "Cloak of silence over us"... www.virginiahaussegger.blogspot.com
We were told many times in Jordan, Syria and Egypt that as recently as 30 years ago women in cities virtually never wore burkas or headscarves but they were sometimes worn in remote villages. Even in Afghanistan women were not required to wear these coverings. Women in these countries feel pressured to cover up. It has very little to do with religion and has everything to do with the influence of political Islam which is being used as a response to perceived (mostly justified) Western injustices towards Islamic countries in the Middle East. Your comments are spot on Virginia.
Virginia and other readers
There is an article on my blog by Rachel Morgain (ex-Canberra and now in the US) called Banning the burqa: when 'anti-sexism' is Islamophobia. (http://enpassant.com.au/?p=4205).
I explains, again, why I am opposed to your call.
As somebody working within a service industry, I find it unacceptable that I be forced to serve someone whose face is obscured, whether it be by a motorcycle helmet, balaclava or a burqa.
Apart from the obvious issues of identification and safety within a retail setting, there is a lack of respect for the person on the other side of the counter whose job it is to engage with the customer, which is impossible to do when a face is completley covered. I would categorise it as rudeness, in the same vein as ignoring somebody who is trying to serve you, turning your back on them or talking on the mobile phone while they take your order.
I believe that people should be allowed to wear whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes, but in public spaces and places of business, there are certain codes of conduct that we must all adhere to. Most motorcycle riders would instinctively remove their helmet indoors when addressing another person. I would view their failure to do so while speaking to me as rude and arrogant.
Get over yourself Virginia Haussegger. Is there anything in this world that you do like? You go on about women's rights but in reality you are not taking this womans' rights into consideration at all, I'm sure that she would find your view offensive and irrational.
I was playing games online however for reading this post more interesting thanks for the share please
do keep it going great job....Loveing this.
Cheers,
___________________
Julie
Best place for your complete Internet
marketing
For all those “pro-ban” Im sorry that a piece of cloth makes you feel intimidated and insecure, but please do elaborate as to why its any of her business that a niqaabi should have to put up with YOUR hang up, because in all honesty im failing to understand it. And whilst you’re at it, please explain why someone should dictate who gets to look at her face. Tsk tsk tsk time to get out of women’s wardrobes don’t ya’ll think? Naughty, naughty.
Why do all insist that her face be shown off? how narrow minded that you think she covers becuase she is oppressed. Why is it that you only emphasis that she wear it in her home?
What is to you what her face look like? Tbh, that kind of attitude creeps me out big time and makes me even more passionate about the niqaab because the only thing that attitude seems to revel to me is nothing but an invasion of privacy.
and to all males who are “pro-ban,” bugger off already. Your attitude is noting but a testimony of your sexism. You are a male, and no matter how civilized you make out you are, deep down you are a man, and there is no denying you would love to see a world full of girls bearing all. And your trying t convince me that Muslim men are possessive and controlling. Wow, how rich coming from blokes who “lobby” for a ban!
And lest i get my head bitten off and have rubbish such as “Muslim women covers up because men dictate it as they can’t control themselves” thrown at me, please do yourselves a much needed favour and look at the facts before jumping to your pathetic and baseless conclusions: "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them (quran 24: 30)"
If men were to dictate what women wore or if men were hideous beings oppressing women why is the order for men to lower their gaze mentioned BEFORE women to cover up? Wouldn’t common sense dictate that if it really was as you were stating it, then im sure the men who supposedly dictate the law, wouldn’t put themselves FIRST to lower their gazes, better yet they would have not mentioned it to begin with.
In conclusion: yes a Muslim woman must cover up, but that does NOT exempt men from lowering their gazes. BOTH parties are responsible for their own actions.
And also, Not to sound stuck up and self-righteous here, but please tell me what self respecting woman-knowing the desires and lusts of men –would want to show her self off anyway because im sure we can all agree that we all know what men want from skin bearing women, can’t we?
Hi Niqaabi&
Thanks for your comments. Obviously I take a different view, but I'm interested to read yours. However, I think in this discussion it's worth considering why anyone would insist a woman should cover herself and her identity in public at all. And no, I don't have a great need to see or identify a woman's face, but I certainly don't condone any ruling or law that tells her she must hide when in public.
Private actions are a totally different thing, and one of course is free to do as she wishes in private. But a ruling that insists a woman must be hidden in a shroud in public is very problematic.
why do you insist she is covering herself to cover her identity? if a Muslim woman was truly stripped of her identity, then she would have to take the surname of her husband when she marries him. However this is actually forbidden for her. non-Muslim women take the surname of their husbands!explain?
when a person-male or female- wears any type of attire, generally its not to cover their identity, is it? when clowns put on their make up, they don't do it to cover their identity. so why cant the same concept be applied here?
covering up implies a lot more than hiding your identity.
"private matters are a totally different thing...."
exactly my point, you've hit the nail on the head! in private a muslim woman is allowed to show her hair, face etc to her brothers, dad uncles etc, its just to non-related males she isnt. so this gets to my point that the reason she is covered is to avoid the lustful glanes of men at her (as her brothers, etc wont see her as lusftul). i hope you undestand where im coming from.
Thank you, Virginia. You are a brave voice of reason and justice amongst those who would use political 'double-speak' and bigoted nonsense arguments to suggest wearing the burqa 'empoowers' women. We are a secular state, after all. Why shouldn't we ban a religious practice that oppresses women, obliterating their public identity and thus grossly restricting their functionality? Not so long ago, brave women of Australia fought against injust laws that prevented them from voting. At the time, many other women protested against having this right, (as some women now, prefer to stay shrouded). But I don't see subsequent generations of women clamouring to hop back into the political closet since those pioneering feminists won us the right to vote. Let the burqa be banned so that subsequent generations of religious muslim females don't have to struggle.
By the way, your Saturday column is always the first thing I read in the CT on a Saturday. No one else writes such interesting and informative columns on women's issues. Why not? We're over 50% of the world's population and we want to hear ourselves.
Thanks Shona for those very encouraging words about my Canb Times column. It makes the effort all the more worthwhile!
Ban it. I can't stand seeing women wearing these things. If a man walked around in a balaklava we would assume he was going to rob a bank. I feel the same way of these women in their burkas. Total distrust and a real sense that they cannot and will not integrate into our society. The face is a human beings window to the world.
In a place of business I am not allowed to wear a motorbike helmet or a full face balaclava. The same rules should apply for the Burka.
You are ignorant and evil!
How would you like it if I told you how to dress. You and your Nazi fascists friends should go live in nazi Germany - oh wait Nazi Germany doesnt exist any more because the world realised how NAZI fascists like you are EVIL AND DANGEROUS and they got rid of the evil Nazi fascists
If someone wants to worship God and obey him by dressing in a certain way who are you to say they cant.
You should fear God and repent before it is too late, and stop trying to impose your evil way of life on others.
I am reporting your comments to the ABC.
What's next? Anti-Semitic comments? Or do you only target muslims?
Wearing burka does not illustrate the practice of choice.. Women that wear burka are victims of strong religious inculcations and ideology.
I am afraid that I have reasons to believe that wearing burka is an enforcement or dictated choice by the superiors (men) often the Husbands, then fathers and brothers.
I am a true believer in Equality of Gender, thus one gender having to cover herself and the other indulging him self, isn’t equality.
Burka attracts unnecessary attention and unless you enjoy such attention you shouldn’t wear it. Subjecting your self to burka indicates weakness in intellect and social awareness and not a religious strength. Burka belongs in Islamic countries unfortunately, and we shouldn’t condone it in else where, rather than encouraging the national norms of this country, after all, it is the burka wearer's choice to migrate here, isn’t it.
Well said Virginia, I'm just shocked by how many "Burka apologists" have responded to your article. While they talk about the freedom we enjoy here, no one seems to articulate that if we tried to behave in our typical Aussie (European cultural origin) fashion in a Muslim society, we would probably cause concern on a greater scale that the wearing of the Burka does here and may well find ourselves in trouble. In short, this country, for all its multi-culturalism, is predominantly of a European cultural origin. If you come here to participate and get the benefit of this culture, you should endeavour to engage with us in a full and positive way and not hide behind medieval practices with the excuse that this is religious when we see it as allowing yourself to be subjugated. I wonder what one of the Burka wearers husbands would say if she suddenly decided to abandon it, this would be an interesting acid test. I’d be keen to hear if any one has done this.
Perhaps it is time that moderate Muslims were more forthright with how they feel about this practice and also about how the relatively small number of islamists in general are giving peace loving and observant Muslims around the world such bad press. With all the concern in the media about islamist-originated terrorism, it is extremely rare to hear any sort of rebuttal of this deadly behavior in the media by tolerant moderate Muslims. As the author Paul E Marek says "History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun" (see the full article at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996). Again, very well put Virginia, you definitely speak for me.
Virginia,
I've read your article and learned that you are a sick person.
virginia,
i added a post previously, but you controlled the debate by excluding my voice and didnt add it to your blog... you responded by personally attacking the anonymous nature of my comments, but you didnt exactly address my statments..for example what do you mean by particpating in life? what does participating fully in life mean? and is it proportional to the size of clothing worn on the outer body?
dear Ginny
i am wearing a cyber burqua....hidden from all...
but yet fully participating in the debate...you didnt answer my above mentioned points though.
Thank you Umm Yasmin. it was a mistranslation which acidentally ommited some words....
I would also like to express my feelings of disappointment in you, Virginia. The world gave you a podium, training to speak the truth, and you had the potential of making the world a better place through it. Instead, you duck to the standard of yellow journalism, muck raking and instilling hatred in your audience of the perceived "others". Sure, this sells, but at a heavy cost: intellectual arguement takes a back seat to propaganda.
Have you ever considered trying an empathy exercise for just one week, just to see how hard it is for a woman to mantain her devotion to a religon, in the atmosphere that you help foster? Can you imagine what it's like being a nun in a hostile enviroment?
I rest my case.
Nilk:
"And thonbrocket, I find your addressing our hostess as "the khufar" very offensive indeed, and you should perhaps try to use your manners a bit more."
How so? Offensive to whom? Explain.
I don't go out of my way to give offence, but then I don't much give a fiddler's fart if I happen to hit some chip-on-the-shoulder coat-dragger's tender spot either. Nobody has the right not to be offended.
Maelinar supports you.
You know who I am.
Why should a garment be banned just because some bint at the ABC doesn't like it?
Don't like it? Don't wear it.
What a ridiculous blurb, and an illustration of your level of intelligence this is.
I am an active atheist and a strong and very pro-sex feminist. Personally, I love wearing clothes that emphasise my sexuality.
But if the burqa were banned in Australia, I'd start wearing one, every damn day, in protest.
Of course no woman should be forced to wear a burqa, and undoubtedly some are. Just as surely, there are intelligent, educated women who chose to wear it. And, valuing freedom, I believe in (and will defend) their right to this choice. I echo Umm Yasmin's suggestion that Virginia meet and talk at length with some Australian women who wear the burqa, with a view to at least understanding and considering their positions.
Post a Comment