One time leadership aspirant and singularly unimpressive Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, has jumped on the Costello/Nelson/Panopolous values bandwagon, calling for head scarves to be banned at school:
Ms Bishop backed the view of outspoken Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos, who last week said she was concerned about Muslim women not showing their faces when they posed for photographic identification.
Ms Bishop today said the issue had been forced upon Australia, which was experiencing a clash of cultures.
“In an ideal society you don’t ban anything,” she told the Seven Network.
“But this has really been forced on us because what we’re really seeing in our country is a clash of cultures and indeed, the headscarf is being used as a sort of iconic item of defiance,” she told Channel Seven.
“I’m talking about in state schools. If people are in Islamic schools and that’s their uniform, that’s fine. In private life, that’s fine.”
These remarks seem telling:
Ms Krayem Abdo said she found it difficult to comprehend the government’s stated support for the freedom of Iraq, yet Ms Bishop’s proposition was to prevent Australian Muslims from exercising freedom of religious rights.
It’ll be interesting to see how the right-wing op/edders react. The Devine Miss M has previously argued that a backdown by the NSW Education Department on banning a student from wearing a mantoo was “common sense” and often praises Islam:
Conservative Christians have much in common with moderate Muslims. Both are under attack by the zealots of secularism. They share a desire to stem the tide of the I Am Charlotte Simmons world created by intolerant anti-religious fundamentalist secularism. It is a world of empty materialism, patois and degrading hooking-up sex, which Tom Wolfe brings to life in his latest novel about university existence.
Does this make Bronwyn Bishop an aggressive secularist?
An alternative hypothesis, bolstered by her recent call for 14 year olds to join the navy, might be that Bishop is a politician on the scrap heap trying to wring the very last bit of media attention out of over the top comments.
Elsewhere: Kate has more commentary.
Would the delightful Mdm Bishop say the same for Jewish scull caps? Perhaps the catholic cross necklace is next? I think not. If a muslim girl wishes to cover her head out of religious tradition what is the harm? In fact in this day and age she is a brave woman as there are some who target those adorned in this manner. As mainstream Aussie culture does not have a parallel tradition we are able to point out such as part of the “problem”. Silly old bat, no wonder she languishes in Aged Care…
Indeed, Clare.
It just isn’t our place to criticise Islamic customs like wearing headscarves, mutilating female genitals and stoning rape victims to death.
Who the hell do we think we are?
Claire’s got a good point, though, about wearing yarmulkas. And Hasidic Jews are quite distinctive in their manner of dressing. So are Sikhs. And the Amish. I’ve got no more problems with any of those than with Muslim girls wearing headscarves, or the full burqa, come to that.
Although you’d have to say also BB has a point about wearing something that concealed your face in a passport photo.
That was Sophie’s point, Rob.
While I agree Bronnie is a dill, it is about balance. The old catchcry of ‘well you have to ban yarmulkas too’, then, is a strawman. It is about adapting to the requirements of a secular democracy sufficiently well to be an unexceptional part of it.
In that context, the wearing of certain items of apparel might become a valid issue if they are being used to prevent people from becoming an unexceptional aprt of our secular democracy. Bronnie would have to prove this case; ie, that certain fundamentalist persons or entities were using traditional Arab garb to cut their females off from (say) education, in order for them to remain effectively as chattels. I do not think anyone would regard an example such as that as being appropriate in Australia.
MarkL
Canberra
Yeah, OK, wearing a headscarf equates to supporting stoning. Like if I go to church on Sunday I must be against eating shellfish. Heh. You seen those sizzlers in the outer suburns, EP?!
What about these old Catholic guys that wear dresses? I reckon that’s- how did you put it Bronwyn? - an iconic item of defiance! They should be made to stop it.
And I love Tom Wolfe as much as the next person, but really, how long has it been since he attended a university for godsakes? He seems to be channelling Kingsley Amis these days.
Yeah, OK, wearing a headscarf equates to supporting stoning.
Both are traditional Islamic customs.
Why is one acceptable in Australia, and the other not?
It seems that some forms of discrimination against religios practices are acceptable, but others are not. Some people draw the line at genital mutilation, others draw the line at compulsory facemasks.
Heh. You seen those sizzlers in the outer suburns, EP?!
Helen, can you tell me what you are saying here.
Although anyone with an ounce of insight should be able to see the difference between the examples of “customs” that EP gives and wearing a headscarf, I’d point out that female genital mutilation has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and is practiced by groups of varying religions and none in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Has anyone told Mme Bishop that the French are primarily keen on this idea because they are political republicans, rather than liberals, like “we Anglos”?
Id go into more depth, but you know….. cricket.
I should point out that wearing a headscarf has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and was invented by Lebanese radicals in the 1970s.
The point is that both customs were adopted by Muslims and are designed to suppress female sexuality and subordinate women. Both have been imported into Australia along with immigrants from the affected areas.
Yet one oppressive custom is considered acceptable, while the other is not. It seems to me that this is an arbitrary distinction.
EP the feminist - wonders will never cease.
On the stoning issue, I suppose it’s too much to ask you to accept that this practice is not mentioned in the Qur’an, was invented by the second Caliph, and is opposed by many Islamic legal scholars. Many countries which have Islamic majorities also have secular law codes.
One could also point out that the US uses various inhumane methods of capital punishment.
What’s your evidence for your assertion about Lebanese radicals, EP?
It’s also worth noting that many Muslim women - and indeed many Muslim feminists - defend the wearing of headscarves:
And this from an Islamic feminist:
If EP and C.L. want to go on some sort of crusade (and I use the term advisedly) to save Islamic women from oppression, then I’d advise them to note the first paragraph I’ve cited carefully.
But I’d be surprised if EP actually either had any basis for fact in any of his assertions, or was prepared to modify them in light of facts.
I have no problem with women wearing the headscarf — providing it is a choice, which it seems it often is. No woman should be forced to wear the headscarf. Alternatively, no young woman should be forced not to wear one. That would be like forcing a young woman to wear a shorter skirt than she was comfortable with.
FGM is practised on small children who have absolutely no options. FGM is a permanent, disabling and extremely disfiguring operation performed by a number of religious and ethnic groups.
The headscarf is a clothing option which can be donned and removed at will. Conflating the two is specious.
Bronnie Bishop wants a return to Rum Sodomy and the Lash by all accounts. Maybe we should invest millions of dollars into scientific research to build a time machine so that this latest rash of bloody amateur Duke of Wellington types can be packed into and transported back to 1815. It’s a win-win situation!
“The point is that both customs were adopted by Muslims and are designed to suppress female sexuality and subordinate women. Both have been imported into Australia along with immigrants from the affected areas.
Yet one oppressive custom is considered acceptable, while the other is not. It seems to me that this is an arbitrary distinction. ”
Uh, yes, EP there is no difference between having your genitals mutilated and choosing to wear an item of clothing.
EP seems to be working on the default rule that anything someone wears is forced on them by someone else. Applying EP’s rule consistently, people should be forced to go around nude in public unless they submit a form to the closest government department proving that each item of clothing they have on is the result of a free choice on their part.
I’ve always said our Sophie was a Bronnie clone. I mean, even the lipstick. The painted ladies.
I don’t have a problem with hijab and don’t equate it with supporting stoning, FGM (which is not a “Muslim practice”) etc. I know many Muslim women chose to wear it as a political statement, rather than a religious one.
The trouble I have is that in most Muslim communities, once you chose to take it on (and in some communities, there is no choice; the decision is made for you) you can’t take it off.
Our parents and grandparents had the problem licked with school uniforms, until the woolly headed, secular, liberal progressives confused things. Welcome to your new secularism guys.
Puzzling comment observa - can you be clearer about what you mean?
saint, I’m aware of a number of Islamic women who decided to stop wearing the Hijab.
I said “most” Muslim communities, not all.
If some Muslim women are free to stop wearing it, all the better - because then it shouldn’t impact on their girls should they have to take it off for school.
But then we get to the matter other freedoms: like freedom to convert or apostasize which is probably out of scope for discussions on school uniforms.
I think we’re at cross purposes, saint - I meant women who have decided not to wear Hijab again.
I take it from your comment that you would support a ban at schools?
No I have no problem with hijabs at schools - most school uniform policies can accommodate that. A piece of cloth on someone’s head is less of an issue that some of the other demands that you hear about (eg special washing facilities in ablution blocks). I am not aware of any issues in my local schools.
These politicians need to visit a post office. All post offices that act as passport agencies have a clearly displayed poster with samples of appropriate photographs for passports on it. The photo for women wearing headcoverings shows all the woman’s face, but not her hair. Photos where part of the face are covered are not acceptable, which is made quite clear. No one is going to get a passport with their face obscured. Should we be demanding all men shave their beards because they might obscure their faces in their passport photos?
Somehow, EP I must have missed the last stoning in Lakemba. I would have thought something like that in the Muslim population in Australia would have made the news.
I really don’t see the big issue of wearing a headscarf at school. I think it’s mindless political bullying for the sake of it.
Nah, since City Rail has put on drug-sniffing dogs people just smoke it at home.
Banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in public schools would send a signal to all devout Muslim women that they were being marginalised. Marginalise the daughters and you marginalise the fathers and the brothers.
I was under the impression that John Howard wanted to work with Muslim moderates and foster strong community relationips, whilst marginalising the extremist factions.
Bronwyn Bishops idea works against her own leader’s initiative.
What ever happened to education being compulsory, secular and free? If I recall correctly, didn’t progressives once believe that too. I guess multiculturalism trumps all.
Education is still secular. Wearing a cross, headscarf, turban or whatever doesn’t change that.
whatever happened to RWDB hatred of France and preference for the Anglosophere? I guess hatred of Islam trumps all
Many cultures in Australia have strong views about how women should dress and behave. But hopefully we will only pick on Muslims. We need to inflame the political atmosphere by openeing up every little difference to ethical judgement from a gut feel mainstream perspective. It’s the only way we can possibly get to the point where we will have fulfilled the desire of separatists and indeed terrorists on all sides.
EP and CL chip away at this project - others here seem to be less willing to contribute.
Together with Mark hating Christianity and Anthony hating Judaism, between us this blog has the major religions covered.
Lordy, EP, I’m a Catholic who actually goes to Mass.
Nevertheless, Mark, you take part in Christian-bashing through panic-mongering about a “theocracy” in the US and, if I recall correctly, bashing Tony Abbott and the like for daring to have Christian views on abortion.
EP, I’m being consistent in supporting the separation of church and state, is all.
It’s supposed to be “separation of church and state”, not “elimination of all religious beliefs held by elected officials, except when such beliefs conform to one’s own policies”. There is a difference.
But that’s an argument for another day. The point is that plenty of religions get a bucketing at LP, not just Islam.
Indeed it is, EP. And you and CL and observa are the only people around here regularly bucketing Islam as a religion. When I comment on fundamentalist Christianity, I don’t question people’s rights to hold those beliefs, but rather the desirability of such beliefs influencing the public realm. Which is a long way from CL and observa’s trashing of Islam as a religion.
Nonsense. Nobody is opposed to Muslims believing whatever they like in the privacy of their homes.
We simply question the desirability of Islamic beliefs influencing the public realm — either through terrorist acts or through other means of restricting the liberty of Australians.
If you attend a government run school that has a uniform, then no religious dress should be worn at the same time. That includes all faiths and includes jewellery.
What they do out of uniform is up to them - but in uniform there should be no religious element.
Well, I don’t want to go there on this thread, EP, but CL and observa have made themselves pretty clear. You’ll note I didn’t include you in my comment.
Razor, what’s your reasoning?
I’ll let CL and observa speak for themselves.
As for Razor’s reasoning, I thought it was pretty clear — he wants to enforce separation between church and state by not allowing religious symbols to be worn in government schools.
That’s an extremist French view of what’s required by secularism, EP.
It’s a pretty piss-poor religion that demands a following only in domesticity, and for that matter, a pretty unambitious God who only wants worship and devotion outside of work and study hours.
EP, most of the world’s major religions demand adherence to religious law outside of designated hours of worship. Diet, prayer at set times, habits of dress, they come in all varieties. That’s a fact that secular electoral democracies have to deal with, and in a better way than simply insisting on assimilation to the habits of the majority.
Of course, Liam.
Throughout this thread I’ve been pointing out that our society does in fact prohibit certain religious practices in line with the habits of the majority.
Polygamy is another Muslim custom that is forbidden in Australia. Yet I don’t see the people who support hijab-wearing arguing in support of the right of Muslim men to have four wives.
There is no difference in principle here. It’s just an argument over the exact position at which the line is to be drawn.
Well, I wouldn’t support polygamy. I also think arranged marriages are a pretty piss-poor idea.
But you don’t hear me going about asking for the deportation of Mormons, now do you?
I don’t hear about Mormons glorifying terrorists as “martyrs” and blowing up their fellow citizens in the name of Joseph Smith, either.
Before we join EP on his essentialist “Muslim customs” crusade, let’s not forget that arranged marriages were very common in good old Anglo-Saxon England until very recently in some social classes. Ever read Austen, Eliot, Thackeray or Trollope, EP? All approved by the Canon‚Ñ¢ - really quite a feature of customs in “our” civilisation if the truth be known.
Is it “essentialist” to read the words in a comment before responding to it?
Both Mark and Liam are talking about arranged marriages. I was talking about polygamy, which as far as I know is illegal in Australia for both Muslims and Mormons, and is not the same thing as arranged marriage.
Why are the supporters of tolerance and religious freedom not demanding the legalisation of polygamy along with the freedom to wear religious dress in schools?
Fair call, EP, and I apologise. I’m sorry.
I suspect you’re right when you say it’s a matter of degrees, in what constitutes adherence to religious law within secularism. I don’t particularly care what a student wears on her head as long as she’s got the same opportunity for academic or vocational advancement as any of her classmates.
That’s the point of secular education, not enforcement of behaviour. Uniform, after all, has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with classroom discipline.
Maybe students need to be banned from wearing back-packs to school since this seems to be the current favoured mode of carrying bombs rather than in headscarves!
If the issue is about religious statements, this logic getting off-line to think we should consider banning a ’statement’ from public schools. Most t-shirts carry some slogan or other.
Is there, or should there be, a law against making a religious statement in Australia? Do 16 year-old rastafarians need to cut off their dreadlocks? Surely these are decisions for the school’s hierarchy to make not the government.
EP, yes apologies for misreading.
I can’t find the link now but the US authorities have gone very easy on the continuing polygamists in various splinter Mormon churches - despite constant evidence of rape and abuse of power against women and girls.
Again, though, it’s worth pointing out that polygamy is more a social custom of some peoples rather than anything mandated by Islam. There are laws against it, and appropriately so.
It’s correct to say that there are limits to religious expression - as I’ve been arguing, which ought to apply to Christians just as much. I think the point here though is that Bishop and Panopolous are not noted for serious thinking about secularism (in fact Bishop was prominent in complaining that Parliament House’s Christmas tree had been taken down last year) and that their motives are different.
I think you’ll find that polygamy is mandated by Islam, being exemplified by the Prophet himself.
And why is it “rightly so” that polygamy should be illegal? I thought it was accepted amongst the liberal left that consenting adults should be able to marry in whatever manner they wish.
Facelift - you are correct. Political statements should also be banned. But, if any old T-Shirt is allowed to be worn, then obviously the unoform dress code is pretty lax if at all existant.
Mark - my reasoning is that by wearing a uniform it is meant to be uniform. The reasons ar emany for wearing uniform are many and one of the most important is to minimise differences between the students. Wearing religious and political symbols causes differentiation.
I do support the seperation of state and church line of reasoning but see that much leeser an issue for school children that the differentiaition issue. Why bother having a uniform code if you aren’t going to enforce it?
You’ll find, Razor, that most schools which enforce uniform also require religious headgear to be in school colours or as close to it as possible. Fair’s fair.
So were the rules at my high school, anyway.
cop the typos in that one!!
What a shocking translation of the Qur’an you’ve linked to, EP. Again, it wouldn’t take you too much time to do some research (even via your favoured googling method) on this, but hey - never let a generalisation get in the way of nuance.
Polygamy oppresses women. Therefore, EP, we should oppose it. Hang on, that’s a feminist statement. So you should support polygamy? See how silly these essentialising labels can be?
Are you practicing to be tim blair, Razor? We all make typos some times. So what?
Most NT high schools have no uniform, so the dress code is basically down to the student, which means everyone is making a statement of some kind, usually indicating musical preference rather than religious or political affiliations. It is possible to over-politicise the attitudes of school students.
Mark, are you claiming that there are no references to Mohammed’s polygamy in an authoritative version of the Koran? Are you willing to put money on that?
You say polygamy is wrong because it oppresses women. I say forcing women to hide their hair and/or faces is wrong because it oppresses women.
See how little difference there is in these views? You’re trying to defend minor, relative differences as if they were moral absolutes.
No, EP, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there are now different views within Islam as to whether that was something cultural or something that is allowable.
On the oppression of women, see my long comment above.
Juat because some Muslim women like wearing headscarves, that does not make the practice of forcing other women to wear them any less oppressive.
When the fundamentalists in the Middle East throw acid in the faces of women who aren’t covered head-to-toe, it’s not an example of feminist liberation.
No, it’s not, EP, but we’re talking about Australia, I thought.
I do think there’s a certain irony in your championing of women against oppression. Do I take it you no longer believe feminism is an evil conspiracy against men/you?
EP, the secret codes for your honorary membership in the Naked Femo-World Domination Knitting Circle can be emailed to you, should your application indicate a willingess to actually be concerned with the oppression of women and retract all your previous comments on evil feminist conspiracies. Otherwise, I’ll assume it’s just a Cheap Trick. Good band by the way!
In most (perhaps all) state primary schools here, kids are not to go out at recess or lunch time without head coverings - as protection from the sun. Just thought I’d throw that in just because.
saint, having moved back to Oz from the Northern Hemisphere, head (and sleeve) coverings are essential to protect against skin cancer. Just saying…
Ah but just to really stir the pot, some Muslim women here in Oz who wear full coverings have vitamin D deficiencies etc from lack of any sun. Because here we don’t have homes with say open walled courtyards where families tend to gather or women tend to cook without the external garb.
Personally if a hijab ban will mean some girls get pulled from school (as has happenned in France) I would be certainly worried about imposing such a ban. For their sakes.