Cory Bernardi’s sinister plot to ban the burqa
|
Senator Cory Bernardi’s call to ban the burqa is more sinister than many other similar calls around the world. Senator Bernardi, by associating this Islamic head dress with criminality, has gone a step further than those politicians who have called for its ban in countries like France, Belgium and the US. The question is, do Senator Bernardi’s comments amount to religious vilification? Senator Bernardi argued yesterday that the “burqa is no longer simply the symbol of female repression and Islamic culture, it is now emerging as a disguise of bandits and n’er do wells.” Bernardi seized upon an alleged crime in Sydney where police say a man wearing a burqa and sunglasses robbed another man in a Sydney carpark on Wednesday this week. Bernardi also trots out all the usual right of centre arguments for banning the burqa. It’s un-Australian, it’s a symbol of oppression of females and the like. These are common arguments used by French, American and Belgian legislators to enable them to ban burqas in those countries. But to associate persons wearing a burqa with criminal conduct is taking an already extreme argument to a new level, and one that should cause law enforcement agencies and governments around Australia to examine carefully what Senator Bernardi is saying. There are laws in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania which make religious vilification illegal. Senator Bernardi’s comments have been published in each of these jurisdictions and so attract the operation of those laws. A defence to most of these laws is that the person making the statement did so reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes, and in the public interest. It is hard on any measure to see that Senator Bernardi could justify his linking of wearing a Burqa to criminal activity on one of these grounds. But are Senator Bernadi’s statements linking the burqa with criminality offending these laws? Possibly so, and particularly in Victoria. That state’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act introduced in 2000, outlaws religious vilification, and makes serious vilification a criminal offence that attracts a $6000 fine or six months imprisonment. The Victorian law provides that a person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. And the law also makes it a criminal offence to, “on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely to incite serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” Senator Bernardi’s comments could certainly be said to amount to religious vilification and by arguing that a person wearing a burqa might be a criminal it is certainly arguable that he is inciting serious contempt or revulsion of Muslim women. It is one thing to argue for a ban on burqas on societal cohesion grounds, but quite another to do what Senator Bernardi did yesterday. This is why religious vilification laws are important. |
|
|
|
31 Comments
”. It’s un-Australian ” - exactly how do you define Australian, given the variety of races, cultures etc that make Australia what it is.
Personally I find the Burqa a bit off putting, but why should others be condemned because their dress appears strange to the average citizen, God knows there other strange forms of dress that don’t arouse much comment.
The only problem that I see with the burqa is that it keeps the wearer from activities that require visual identification, such as driver’s licenses and presumably passports. Or is there some legal way around this problem?
I see Greg has his lawyer’s hat (or Burqa?) firmly on today. I really don’t like Senator Bernardi. As a South Australian Senator, his comments seem quite out of place given that I live in Adelaide and the only place I’ve ever seen a Burqa is on tv. They just don’t seem to feature here and Bernardi would know this well.
But I disagree that his comments amount to religious vilification. Dog whistling, sure. But dog whistling is not actually vilification. It’s more like thought-crime, which is a difficult thing to legislate and in fact is best not legislated. My basis for this is that it does appear that the crime by the (presumably non-Muslim) Burqa clad crim did occur. Just as wearing a motorcycle helmet into a bank (or even, in fact, while filling up the petrol tank on your motorbike) is likely to cause alarm and a requirement that you remove said helmet, the suggestion that Burqas may assist criminals to do their work appears to be the basis for Bernardi’s claim. He’s not asserting that Muslims are criminals. He’s not asserting that the Sydney incident was carried out by a Muslim. The link to religious vilification is at best tenuous, but hey, that’s what lawyers jump on when they’ve got nothing else to do.
Bernardi can’t help himself. In the Senate he is rude, offensive and more than once has been pulled up for offensive remarks about women Senators. He shoots from the hip, loves the sound of his voice and apart from a crude boisterous attitude, I have heard him contribute little of substance in Senate debates. This latest effort, an attack on Burqa clad individuals, merely draws attention to the shallow person he really is. But he will have a few beers tonight, proclaim what a clever bugger he is for stirring up the media and the Muslim community and carry on to his next big mouthed non event. Sth Australia is welcome to call him their own, doubt anyone else wants him.
It’s nothing about religion it’s about walking about in public in clothing that completely disguises your face, even your sex.
They look like something out of star wars, I don’t care what religion they are you can’t allow people to dress in public in a manner that shields their entire identity, even their sex.
And don’t give me any of that BS about helmets, people don’t wear those in supermarkets or on public transport.
Greg Barnes says “all the usual right of centre arguments for banning the burqa” and “These are common arguments used by French, “
Well, no. The french argument is the strongest and revolves around their constitutional guarantee of egality and human rights. It could be, but I don’t believe it is, cynical. The french do have a strong record on this, even if on other things racial they are not perfect. So the argument is more about the relatively small sub-group of muslims in France which are still strongly paternalistic — a soft description of neo-feudal brutal male oppression of females. (To be fair to Greg Barnes, he also states that fact.) The banning of Islamic headwear in schools is a very justifiable move, in my opinion. The contrary case is usually stated as: why shouldn’t a young woman wear it if she wishes?.
Well, the point is that in those part of Islam that still practice such vile habits (Iran, Saudia Arabia, Taliban), those young girls are forced to wear it, even if they often will claim they are doing so by choice. Since it also goes with suppression of girl’s education it is even less valid to claim “by their own wishes”. I say, let that “right” be restricted at least to when they attain majority (which is post-school age).
If I had my preference all children would be forbidden, in our secular society, to be inducted into any cult (Catholic, Methodist, Scientology, etc) until they attained the age of majority when they had true free choice. Why on earth should parents be given the right to brainwash their children this way? (Wouldn’t it be an act of kindness to rescue Steve Fielding’s children? I rest my case.)
Last week ABC’s Emma Alberici reported on this from France and it was curious that the french burqa-wearing woman they interviewed was ethnically caucasian (and French born) who had converted to Islam after being brutally raped as a child and being unable to cope with men’s intrusive staring (which is possibly even worse among Islamic north-africans in Europe, maybe just the same — it is pretty bad in the Latin world). She was obviously quite disturbed and in no way representative of either young women in general and certainly not Islamic women. Nevertheless her French-caucasian origins is probably why she was the only burqa-wearing woman permitted by her husband to appear on camera; most husbands are the cause of the burqa wearing and forbid media contact. As odd as it was, it still showed a convincing reason why the burqa is pretty evil.
The other interesting thing from the ABC program, and obvious to anyone who has lived in France or visited there much, the vast majority of the 14% of the population who are notionally Islamic (a lot of them drinking in bars around the 19th and 20th arrondissements!) do not embrace those extreme forms of Islam, and they don’t like the burqa either.
The security angle may in some cases be valid but it is a distraction — as is now happening on talk radio in Australia, as all the neanderthals are embracing this as THE reason for banning it.
Burqa’s have nothing to do with Islam. They’re just an interpretation of what Mohammed was on about with the modesty of women. More tribal than anything so why should we tolerate someone who hides their identity in public. Let them wear what they want in the privacy of their homes but certainly not in public.
Think on Iraq and the number of times women have been used to liquidate themselves as well as many other innocent victims of the odd bomb blast using the burqa surprise, surprise.
A woman has every right to wearing a burqa if she chooses - it is an expression of religious freedom. No person or government has the right to tell her otherwise. Those who peddle fear and prejudice of Islam in talk about banning the veil to improve social cohesion are simply ingnorant scaremongers. As for Bernardi, let’s hope he is brought to account for yesterday’s comments. But I won’t be holding my breath.
I bought a burqua in Qatar on a recent trip for use in fancy dress parties etc and I have tried it on (mere research I tell you – not cross dressing!!!) and I have to say it is quite an uncomfortable thing to wear. You are most re-breathing your moist, expired air and you get stiflingly hot, wet and start to feel very light headed and uncomfortable.
That being said I don’t think banning anyone’s cultural dress is a good way to go.
Australian women have made great strides over the past 100 years
1. being able to vote since 1920s
2. being able to work in the public service after marriage since about 1965
3. equal pay for equal work since 1973
4. effective control over their own fertility since 1973
5. single parent pension since 1974
Do Australian women want their hard won equality jeopardised by women who wrap themselves away from male eyes so they do not interact with society.
If you don’t want to fit in, don’t come! If you convert [from Christianity] to Islam don’t expect me to accommodate your embrace of the extremes of practice of your new faith.
@megone 4.42pm
What next? Bondage gear? “Voluntary” female circumcision? Tattoos on their necks reading “I am the property of Dwayne Bogan”.
Read my post. As in some cases of these examples women may do them, but after they have attained majority. I doubt many women raised to age 16 or 17 without male-enforced burqa wearing would adopt the clothing.
Right-wing loonies like Senator Benito, sorry, Bernardi, must be required to be naked in public - for all I know he may have a pistol in his underpants.
Joking aside, has anyone else noticed that this sort of radical authoritarianism always comes from people who claim to value liberty, democracy and freedom from state supervision?
If security is truly the issue, how about a national ID card, to be carried at all times and shown on demand? And random detain-and-search powers for our police? I’m sure Corey would approve of that.
But the plea that it’s all about security is quite transparent - as usual the targets are Moslems, foreigners and women.
I reckon Corey ought to be dragged into the sunlight and exposed as the Islamophobe misogynist eunuch he clearly is.
The human face is a critical part of one’s identity and ability to relate to others in society. In Australia and other western societies it is just plain antisocial to hide one’s face via a burqa or niqab. On these grounds they should be banned from appearing in public. Freedom to wear what you like is obviously not absolute. A woman walking around naked or in revealing underwear would be arrested. Burqa and niqab are the other extreme and are just as objectionable. I have no problem with the hijab.
What’s to stop a wanted criminal wearing a burqa ? or a male pervert or any other undesirable?
I walked past a nun in the city the other day in full habit. Guess what - she had her head covered right down to the face. You could see the eyes, nose and mouth but the rest was covered. So if we ban the burqua, what else are we going to ban? Nuns habits have been used over the years for criminal purposes. No one is suggesting banning them!
It is true the Koran says nothing about the burqa or the hajib. It is custom and practice in some parts of Islamic practice, just as the nun’s habit is only worn by some who are Christians.
I may not like the way women are treated particularly by fundamentalist Islam, but I do think you have to let people live out their beliefs, whatever they are. I would argue with Islamic women that they should not have to wear particularly the burqua, but I would never ban them.
The burqua has no place in egalitarian Australian society. Individuals wearing this costume cannot be readily be identified and there are examples of criminals and terrorists masquerading as women under burquas to avoid detection. Worst of all it is symbolic of the misogynistic suppression of women’s rights to equality.
Why is it that Moslem husbands brothers and sons can walk around in shorts and sandals on a hot day whilst their women must wear this oppressive costume? Would they do so if they were not physically or mentally intimidated?
In the case of nuns one assumes that the dress code is voluntary, and whilst it covers the hair it doesn’t cover the face. The most depressing aspect of the burqua is that it robs the individual of any facial expression and essentially isolates the wearer from any social contact.
The burqua is symptomatic of the misogynistic attitude of some Moslem males treating their women as nothing better than breeding stock or sex objects, and reflects the conviction of ill- educated mediaeval morons who cannot control their sexual urges unless the female form is completely hidden from them.
Are religions not permitted to do as many nutty things as they wish, such as wearing a burqa ? I thought that 116 of the 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, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth”
would make such an action impossible with out a referendum.
Is religious freedom ok for some and not for others?
A goodly part of the world’s troubles are caused by people trying to force their ideas on others. For Christ’s sake live and let live. You might not like it ,but that doesn’t give you the right to impose your views on others.
And if Andersson is correct then a ban would be unconstitutional in any case.
ANDERSSON, you are entirely correct - our religious liberty and other freedoms established in common law and confirmed in statute law are fundamental to our democratic Australian polity. I’m amazed by all these people who are eager to dump the basic rights of individual citizens, just to indulge their dislike and fear of people who dress differently.
I couldn’t give a rat’s arse how people dress, or to quote Johnny Winter - “It ain’t nothing to me”(sic).
GREG, if “The burqua has no place in egalitarian Australian society”, then Australian society isn’t egalitarian. Criminals or terrorists will employ all sorts of disguises. Why don’t we outlaw wigs and false moustaches?
As for your sweeping generalizations about Moslem men and women, this is not my observation of Moslems. They are invariably more reserved, polite and conservative than the generic Anglo-European Aussie.
Even Tony Abbott knows this stuff is hysterical nonsense, but he doesn’t mind giving it a sly wink - well, I guess every vote counts.
Its fair enough for people to agree with Bernadi but my sense is his motivation for the comments is nothing to do with the reasons he stated. No doubt about Bernadi is a nasty piece of work.
Jenny Haines 5.41 pm: Nuns habits have been used over the years for criminal purposes. No one is suggesting banning them!
Err, yes I am. I haven’t ever seen such all-coverage by nuns but if you say so. But one somewhat mitigating factor difference (I hope) is that such women did not adopt such dress until they passed the age of majority. If this is not true and if it is imposed by their church (seems likely) then you are right that it is consistent to ban them too.
As Greg says, the burqa (and any equivalent dress) has no place in egalitarian Australian society. It just seems that many people haven’t really thought through what they consider egality. The French have and they are correct, and no accident that they were one of the first jurisdictions to ban the so-called Church of Scientology. I am a militant atheist but that doesn’t mean I want to ban all religions (well not unless I see Tony Abbot and the evils of the Catholic church throughout the world). But extreme practices, yes. In my book that includes forcible inculcation of children in their parent’s cults. Afterall if you believe God is all powerful, and yours is the one and only true God, then why not wait until children have reached the point they can make up their own rational minds on the issue? Oh, because maybe the whole system of organized religion relies on brainwashing of young and susceptible minds. In the case of the burqa it is particularly oppressive of a whole class of women — another difference with nuns who are a tiny self-selected group of deluded people.
Ron Joggles I suggest you read what I wrote and for convenience I will repeat it below:
“The burqua is symptomatic of the misogynistic attitude of some Moslem males treating their women as nothing better than breeding stock or sex objects, and reflects the conviction of ill- educated mediaeval morons who cannot control their sexual urges unless the female form is completely hidden from them.”
This is in no way a sweeping generalisation of Moslem men and women. It reflects specifically on the small minority of oppressed Moslem women who have no choice because of family intimidation. I have no way of identifying a person’s religious belief other than specific aspects of clothing specifically linked to that religion. It is this outward display of conformity which tends to differentiate these individuals, and accordingly can provide a basis for repression, and unfortunately in some cases discrimination. If wearing these items of clothing is the personal choice of the individual I don’t care, but if these individuals are forced to conform I do care.
Comprehensive list of reasons to ban islamic dress
-
Daniel
Your intelligence matches your contribution
Greg Angelo, your very last sentence (at 9.18pm) suggests that you don’t, yet, have any evidence for the position you are adopting but you will adopt it anyway, just in case. Next time you see a person wearing a burqa, stay calm, adopt an all-Australian, Sixty Minutes-style demeanor and ask them if they “are forced to conform”. Maybe you will find out something that you had never thought of before. Perhaps they know something you (just amazingly!) don’t know.
If they ask you, in return, if you are wearing those tight jocks like Tony Abbott’s budgie smugglers, and you say, yes, they might offer you some advice about what’s good for your mental health, your outlook on life and your happiness quotient. It could be shockingly revealing! Don’t assume you are as omnipotent as the deluded religionists. And please don’t encourage the government to tell us what to wear.
Oh, and people on public transport yapping loudly away on mobile phones - I’d prefer them with a burqa please.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
I have enough sensitivity to the obvious dilemma that burqua wearing women have in this country to not burden them with approaching them in the street by questioning their dress code. I suspect they have little or no choice either through indoctrination or social group pressure.
The problem with the burqua is that it is a visible symbol of forced conformity which is inconsistent with the general principles of freedomof choice in this country. It is well known that in the religiously conservative circles that these women move in that nonconformity could have dire personal consequences.
It would be interesting to find out whether these women have any choice in terms of the way they dress and how much freedom they actually have to make personal decisions. Their forced social isolation makes such information gathering almost impossible.
Furthermore I have complete freedom to choose my underwear in any shape or form that I choose, which in all probability is more than the average burqua wearer. I am not even forced to wear underwear should I choose not to.
Finally you should also need to be reminded that sarcasm is often referenced as the lowest form of wit.
Greeeeg, maaaate. You clearly really, really want to know “… whether these women have any choice in terms of the way they dress and how much freedom they actually have to make personal decisions.” For fuck’s sake man, get up the courage to actually ask one of them instead of speculating like some pimply teenager about whether you are going to “burden” them. They will not bite you, although by the way you carry on you’d think there were aliens out there on the street.
For a practice run, why not ask one of those gold lame bikini clad ‘meter maids’ employed on the Gold Coast exactly the same question. See? It’s easy. They are just ordinary everyday women, doing their thing. Maybe not your thing but…
I don’t think a burqa ban would do any good. If women are being forced to wear the burqa, their husbands could just as easily force them to stay home which would make them far more socially isolated. I don’t know what needs to be done to help women in fundamentalist homes, but this isn’t it. My guess would be that we need to make sure these women know they have a way out if they want it, but leaving behind your family and social circle is a really hard thing to do in any case…
Anyway, this really just reminds me of all the old Californian laws against men with pigtails, carrying buckets on a pole, and wearing conical hats.
Oh, and I have seen some women wearing the veil (niqab?) here in Adelaide. They looked young, and I think they were Uni students like me.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
I have read enough about the oppression of women under aspects misogynistic domination to not go around questioning individuals in the streets or shopping centres as to why they’ll keep dressing in a particular way.
I would feel quite sure that the meter maids on the Gold Coast have a choice as to what they wear and that nobody is telling them how they should dress personally. The uniform that they wear whilst working is a personal choice associated with a particular occupation and is no different from the work-related dress requirements of occupations such as police, fire and ambulance
Try reading some of the articles from the UK where womenthe have been blinded by having acid thrown in their faces because their misogynistic and oppressive fathers/uncles/brothers would rather disfigure their daughters/nieces/sisters than have their honour besmirched by associating with a non-Moslem male. It is this type ofmisogynistic domination that I am concerned with.
The attitude of Broggly above similar to mine. I’m sensitive to the social environment in which these women live as well as wishing to give them the opportunity of a way out if they wish to change their dress code to something more suitable to the Australian climate and lifestyle. However it should be noted that the issue is not one of religion or race, but of personal choice and freedom to make decisions. If the burquas is worm voluntarily I have little concern other than the effect of driver safety. The burqua should not be allowed to be worn whilst driving.
So, both Greg and Broggly are agreed that the reason women wear the burqa is because they are forced to by their husbands. So every woman wearing a burqa is married? Is that a fact or just idle speculation? Oh well, maybe some are not married so they must be forced to do it by their fathers or brothers or uncles…. or something. You haven’t got a clue.
Both of them should stand for parliament. Then they would have to find at least one tiny skerrick of actual evidence, from the streets, towns and paddocks of Australia or from the mouth of a living person, that there is any foundation whatsoever for this mindless bigotry.
Personally I loath the idea of the burqa but even worse would be the construction of a justification and rationale for my position out of the entrails of bigoted ignorance (aka tabloid, shockjock media). It is completely irrelevant that you have read or heard something from France or the US or Middle East.
A side issue Greg. Is a driver of a regular car on the regular streets allowed to wear a full face helmet? There’s no law against it is there? It would reduce the death toll, it would provide anonymity (you know, vulnerable women late at night, dark alleys) and, if V8 Supercars are anything to go by, it would not diminish driver effectiveness in any way. Got a problem with that?
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
To avoid any doubt, my reference the burqua as potentially an element of repression relates primarily to social coercion bymisogynistic and oppressive fathers/uncles/brothers, and I don’t believe I made any particular reference to husbands per se but of course they would fit the bill as well.
References to mindless bigotry would be best referenced by you having a good close lookin a mirror.
In relation to motorcycle helmets a couple of facts should be considered by you in relation to the vision of limiting effect of the burqua. I make these comments as a motorcycle rider with he full face helmet, so I’m speaking from direct experience.
1. A full face helmet has a clear visor which does not restrict vision.
2. When you turn your head, the helmet turns with you unlike of the burqua which I would surmise in all probability would tend to distort and bunch-upfurther restricting vision.
I have no problems with car drivers using for face helmets because I believe it would be illegal to have a non clear visor, and unless the driver is deliberately breaking the law can be readily identified from the registration plate on his vehicle.
In relation to the issue of terrorism, a full face helmet is of limited advantage for use by terrorists as there is a limit to the amount of explosive you can put inside a full face, and include your head in there as well.
Rowers- nice bums, but frequently ugly minds.