| 15 July, 2009 | ||
| 12:30 pm |
Following on from Virginia Hausegger’s shrill demands that all women be forced to conform to her ideas on what is and isn’t “Australian” the ANU is holding a debate on Wednesday and Virginia is going to expand on her ideas.
From the blurb:
- SHOULD WE BAN THE BURKA?
Virginia Haussegger, journalist, author, media commentator and TV news presenter
Julie Posetti, journalist and journalism academic, University of Canberra
Dr Shakira Hussein, writer and researcher at The Australian National University
Wednesday 15 July, 12:30-2pm
HC Coombs Lecture Theatre
Building 8a, Fellows Rd, ANU
This lecture is free and open to the public. Please register attendance with ANU Events.
Enquiries:
E: Events@anu.edu.au
T: 02 6125 4144
So, is it a lecture or a debate?
ANU says lecture, JB says debate, you choose I guess!
Julie Posetti says its a debate.
http://twitter.com/julie_posetti/status/2431659497
Is it “burka” or “burqa”?
It is important I that I know this.
Ban it!
I fully endorse banning the banning of things…….
barking toad said :
There is no consensus on the form of transliteration from the Arabic. Burka, burkha, burqa and burqua are all considered correct.
Wonder if ppl will turn up clad in green and gold face paint draped in aussie flag yelling not on my island – will prob be more civil then that lol
Thank you Jimmy. I’ll now collect my thoughts and comment later with the clear knowledge that I won’t offend anyone with a mis-spelling. I’ll adopt the “burka” version.
I should have perhaps added that Virginia is one of the most annoying cloth-eared ABC bints imaginable but, for once, I agree with her.
You can only show up in a burqa only if its made from an Australian flag.
Skidbladnir said :
GOLD lol!
Virginia’s point is about Equality of women isn’t it? Not about being Australian and fitting in.
sepi said :
From Virginia’s original text:
The burka is an arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life.
sepi said :
Yes, I think that is her point – but shouldn’t true equality mean “the freedom to choose”. I think a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa. They feel it is empowering to wear their religion on their sleeve (pardon the pun!). I honestly don’t think anyone could say wearing the burqa in Australian society is “easy”. I think it would take a lot of courage to walk outside and have everyone stare and point (which we all know happens).
But then again, the idea that a woman is forced to wear the burqa is abhorrent….. so that is where the issue lies, we want women to be able to choose to wear what they want… and how can we tell the difference between the two??
We can’t.
Virginia’s particular brand of childless-professional-journalist feminism is what she keeps contrasting the horrors Afghani women suffer in their third-world war-torn country, and she keeps referring to ‘The French Experience’, where its clearly more about Sarkozy’s debate on French national identity than women’s lib.
But as long as its running in a similar direction to her hobby horse, she’ll keep doing it.
I mean, who cares if you’re alienating a minority from society for nationalist politics, so long as you win some support for a feminist point?
And by referring to it as “un-Australian” she’s
1) using a word that only ever has a history of exclusion; and
2) drawing parallels (unintentional or not, just by using the word) in modern memory with Howard’s decade-of-rhetoric and Alan Jones’ buildup to December 11, 2005.
She might not be saying it herself, but she’s draped in her Australian flag thanks to her own cultural bias.
PS: She hasn’t referred to any kind of countervailing opinion in her own ‘coverage’, and as she was out-purdah to the people she was studying, any women she met in Afghanistan, even in their own home, while wearing her “journalist hat” were probably wearing a burqa.
IE: She couldn’t appreciate or form an accurate judgement of the forest because her massive feminist blind-spot (and probably a cameraman) was impeding her view of the trees.
No, we shouldn’t ban the burka completely, despite what Virginia says. People should be free to do as they wish in their own homes (well, to a certain extent).
We have a society where freedom of choice and freedom of speech is paramount.
But the wearing of the tent just highlights the opposite of that freedom. In most cases, demanded by male dominated adherence to a 7th century blood cult with a curious book to back it up. In some cases worn as a badge of honour to that cult. Wear it at home if it makes you feel better.
However, if those of different cultures wish to join and enjoy the benefits of our western culture they can’t have it both ways. Assimilate and join the society from which you benefit or return to the economically deprived and repressed society from which you ‘escaped’.
If you work in the public service, tents should be banned. If you work in private enterprise, the boss determines the rules despite what opportunities you may see to milk the mayor’s ‘human rights’ scam.
Staff in banks etc should have the same rules apply as to bike helmets. ‘No Tents Allowed’.
And these rules should also apply to hippies who wear sunglasses indoors and those gay people who stick them on the top of their bald heads like that ponce on Australian Top Model (which I didn’t watch!)
johnboy said :
shouldn’t she also be saying that a sarong, kilt, any form of traditional clothing, also be shown to be an arrogant display of disrespect to australia and the australian way of life? and this from someone named haussegger? what is the respectful clothing of an australian? whatever they damn well want to wear.
if you don’t like what another person is wearing, don’t wear one yourself. If women are to be “empowered” by the banning of a piece of clothing, how do they have the choice to wear what they want? who is empowered? many muslim women don’t wear the burqua, whilst some do, but it is their choice. (at least here in australia)
Two burqa-clad cannibals capture, kill and cook stand-up comedienne, Virginia Haussegger, and as they begin eating her, one cannibal asks the other: “Does this taste funny to you?”
i love that the banner ad beside this thread is for ‘muslima’, a muslim matrimonial site, featuring a burqa-clad lass… : )
There seems to be a clash of views in this debate, between those who see calls against the burqa as some kind of racism, and others who see the wearing of the burqa as a symbol of a world where women have no rights, and are affronted when that world is brought into our world.
There was a recent article in the SMH about women’s issues in the countries that espouse sharia law that should be read in the context of this debate:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-feminism-life-and-death-20090705-d93t.html?page=-1
and here’s a snippet from it: “She is also banned from flying. To get to Australia she had to leave home under the all-enveloping burqa – a garment she describes as “disgusting” – travel by van to the Pakistan border, then by another van to a city in Pakistan, then fly to Bangkok, then to Sydney. The journey took almost three days. As the most outspoken woman in Afghanistan, she lives with the constant risk of murder.”
I don’t see the burqa as some quaint ethnic folk-costume. I see it as an instrument whereby women are controlled, limited and subjegated. It’s not something they do by “choice”, and the reasons behind it are not benign.
I am not calling for it to be banned in Australia, but I do want to be able to freely criticise it without being called “racist”. I want anyone who objects to it to be able to criticise it without being attacked as racist.
ant said :
I agree entirely, and I think pretty much everyone who objects to the proposed banning of the burqa will agree with you.
bellaa said: “I think a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa”
LMFAO. 3 words that don’t go in the same sentence.
1. Muslim
2. Women
3. Choose
ant, to say that something is an “arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life”, is making an assumption that all people in australia agree with the same things that virginia does. I do not. I also don’t agree with people burning the australian flag in protest. I don’t agree with people who immigrate to australia and don’t speak the language. But, these are my beliefs. and to say that I agree with someone who is speaking about empowerment, yet would refuse a woman’s rights to dress as they feel – i mean, really! who would be enforcing the dress code? who will tell someone that what they wear is against the law? virginia? a lot of empowerment for her, not much for anyone else.
So, because Muslim women don’t choose to wear the burqa, we should force them not to wear it. And this liberates them how precisely?
Good point. I actually think this is a storm in a teacup.
I see it more as telling Muslem men that they can’t force their wives into hiding under a burka. But I don’t really know what the answer is to this one.
I want anyone who objects to it to be able to criticise it without being attacked as racist.
Criticise it, but be really wary of banning something that seems entirely foreign to you just because you don’t understand it or are only working off what you have been told by other people, who are outside the system it has emerged from _as a signal of modesty_ and _symbolic femininity in observance of religion_ .
Being male, clearly I have disadvantages in this debate, but I am not the one claiming, that despite the West having vastly different cultural traditions, religous philosophy, historic gender roles, and economic foundations, what Muslim women all the world over want is
a) ’sameness’ with Western women, or
b) ’sameness in freedoms’ as their Muslim male counterparts, or
c) that the ethnocentric twentieth-century feminism (as experienced mostly by upper and middle-class Anglo-Saxon women) or Women’s Liberation (as exported by the United States throughought the 1960s) is the kind of cultural revolution the West should be forcing onto the Muslim world when we’re already considered cultural imperialists and fighting lopsided wars with eachother, or
d) expression of a nationalist political identity through adherence to a proscribed but largely symbolic dresscode (which is then legally enforced) is a good thing.
Virginia is generalising her specific experience of women in the cultural environment of Afghanistan to all Muslim women wearing burqas, and also seems to think the blunt instrument of law is the best way to go, so long as it goes in her favour.
Personally, I thinklasting cultural change should be slow and organic, preferably coming from within, not being foisted upon an already isolated and misunderstood minority in the name of altruism.
You know, there is actually a word which accurately describes a method of depriving individuals of personal freedom and personal responsibility, while only nominally serving their interests, and in fact pursuing another agenda; and when the pursued agenda is directly in conflict with the independent interests of the individuals…
Paternalistic adjective.
The quality of being paternal, as characterized by behaving in benevolent and yet intrusive manner towards underlings.
Attention feminists, that horrible feeling you have right now is called “situational irony”.
PS: I am all for encouraging burqa-veiling societies and individuals to place an emphasis on rationality and gender-equality (without forcing a bland gender-uniformity on anyone), and give individuals the right to interpret and pursue their own faith notions of cultural modesty and dress within the particular social norms of their environments.
astrojax said :
Assuming you are seeing the same advert as me, it’s a hijab not a burka, a rather important distinction in the context of this debate.
You’ll probably find that there will be more people at this ‘debate’ than there are actually Muslim women wearing the burka in Australia.
Given that Muslims constitute a tiny proportion of our overall population (maybe 1.7%), and that burka wearing women would be a tiny, tiny proportion of that population, there probably wouldn’t be very many at all.
I’m all for gender equality, but it strikes me that this debate isn’t about that. It seems to me that this is more about Virginia picking a soft target to raise her public profile.
I am interested to know… will she also be addressing the issue of nun’s habits (which clearly place and define women in an inferior gender role in the heirachy in the catholic church), or the headwear which women from many other faiths (such as Orthodox christians or Sikh) wear every day? I see far more people of other faiths in religious headgear than I do Muslim women.
Instead of rabbiting on about this non-issue in Australia, I would suggest that Virginia devote her time to helping women who are perhaps poor, or uneducated, or spending her time proactively helping those in need rather than instead trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I’m all for Virginia helping women, but this is really a non-issue in Australia. It smacks of her riding on the back of a few cheap comments from Sarkozy which have absolutely no relevance to the Australian context.
Overall, this gets four yawns on a five yawn scale.
NoAddedMSG said :
For those of you who seem to be advocating legally interfering with people’s ability to dress without knowing what specific item you’re talking about, have a field guide.
http://jadmadi.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hijab1.jpg
Just to blur things slightly, the word burqa sometimes also refers to the here referenced niqab (some kind of regional variation), and niqab sometimes may refer to showing cheekbones (or not, again subject to regional variation).
Not being realy well versed in Modern Islam or Modern Arabic, I will have to leave the definitions up to others.
But your laws had better be able to differentiate between them.
Will you ban the burqa, the niqab, or just ban all forms of islamic modesty dress so then you can judge them on the size of their bum\breasts too?
I agree that Virginia is just beating a minority-exclusion drum so people pay attention to her. She is a media personality, afterall. If we stop paying attention, she loses her power, and just fades into the vacuuous nothingness she really is.
(Just don’t look, just don’t look…)
Nuns haven’t had to wear the full habit since Vatican 10 – in the sixties. And even then they had their faces on view.
oops, mea culpa noaddedmsg. you’re entirely correct, as ever.
still, a muslim marriage ad on a thread more or less discussing oppression of women by their husbands…
Hugh Lews said :
How ignorant.
Let me guess… you have never met a muslim woman.
sepi said :
Was just about to say the same thing Sepi
I reiterate the point about burka wearing women being few in number.
The point about the habit wasn’t just about the garment, it was about the oppression of women in the church along gender lines.
While women in the vatican don’t have to wear the habit any more, they’re still limited in their role by gender. How many female popes, priests cardinals have the Catholic Church had? I’d point the finger at other religious institutions as well.
I’m merely trying to point out an underlying hypocrisy at work here. I don’t really care about this non-issue anyway, but while everyone is pointing the finger, let’s ensure that it’s pointed at all people who oppress women on religious grounds, rather than just picking a soft and easy target. The garment is secondary to the oppression in my view.
Sepi, judging the multi-sect and branches Islam by the standards of central-authoritarian mainstream Roman Catholic doctrine and referencing a single event that is still a source of schism amongst some believers (Sedevacantism for example) is totally inaccurate way of comparing cultures.
PS: Vatican II was in the Sixties.
The Tenth Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church was back in the 12th Century and among other things, prevented priests from dressing too strangely, affirmed the Papacy of Latverian against an antipope, prevented low-level churchmen from accepting bribes, and passed a regulation about use of arms(crossbows) on believers.
comparisons with rome are irrelevant anyway.
‘nuns can’t be pope so muslem men can oppress their wives’ makes no sense to me.
Virginia Hausegger makes a deperate grab for relevenace. I’ve met dog turds with more insight than this washed up hack.
She’d be relevant if she was also demanding that other offensive displays of faith were also banned like the wearing of yamulka’s or crucifix jewelery.
Back in your box dog.
yeah because clearly respect for women is high on everyone’s agenda. Non-issue. Back to sleep everyone.
I’ve just gotten in the door to a barrage from my teenage daughter about this issue. I have been directed to say that whilst Virginia is entitled to her opinion as we live in a free democracy; isn’t it hipocrisy to tell people they aren’t allowed to wear something? She wants to know why Virginia isn’t more interested in banning the Swastika?
To clarify for those in the audience, my daughter attends a school with several muslim girls who all wear a burka and CHOOSE to wear one. Their families don’t force them.
My daughter also wants to know where Virginia gets off speaking for the women of Australia? (her words exactly!!!)She thinks Virginia should get back in her box and stop looking for attention.
And if any of you are wondering why she isn’t posting this herself? She isn’t allowed to …yet.
Ms Hausegger is entitled to her opinion which, without doubt, is based upon her own experiences.
Whether she is right or wrong is not the issue her. The issue is that she can say what she believes, and others can disagree. Thankfully we live in a society that allows this.
Personally I think she is wrong as i believe governments already have way to much control over our lives.
Tonka said :
I don’t care if there’s 10, or thousands. It’s confronting and affronting. It’s not dress, it covers the dress and the wearer. It’s not clothing, it’s mobile purdah.
And yes, Hausegger, and me, and everyone else should be able to express their opinions about this costume. But people have been calling for her to be sacked from the ABC (for writing a newspaper article), and screaming “racist” at people who object to the wearing of the burqa in Australia.
I don’t want the wearing of this repellant thing banned under law, but for those who object to be slapped with insults like “racist” is an interesting development in our “free” society.
Why can’t we state our reasons for objecting to it, or just object, without being attacked and called nasty names? If you call someone a “racist”, does that mean open season for a kick and insults fest?
I support a ban on smoking by lesbian ducks wearing burqas, unless both ducks are hot.
ant said :
Who? Where?
Is this on the ABC website or something?
PARIS, France (CNN) — The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was “not welcome” in France.
A woman wears traditionnal Muslim dress n Venissieux, near Lyon.
A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution. They are due to report back with their recommendations in six months.
Last week 57 lawmakers — led by communist legislator Andre Gerin — signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.
On Monday Sarkozy declared in a keynote parliamentary address that the burka, which covers women from head to toe, is “not welcome” in France. Watch why burkas are such a controversial issue in France »
“The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France,” Sarkozy told lawmakers.
And you know what? There were a few Muslim in France who came out and supported the ban for the reasons said above, criticising the push by other clerics preaching that you are not Muslim if you don’t wear one. Does anyone see the irony in this?
Now there are reports of Muslims beating Muslims in France for speaking out upon the wearing of the burqa.
So tell me under this sort of intimidation, tell me where is the freedom of choice that the bleeding hearts like to defend?
When Saudi Arabia allows women to wear what they want, drive motor cars and become wage earners rather than baby factories, then maybe your arguments will hold on freedom of choice. Until that happens, I think the men who defend their “rights” have something another agenda.
delete “something” in th elast line.
Ant:
I’m not calling anyone racist, I’m calling you, Sepi, and Virginia ethnocentric militant-agenda feminists who fail to spot their own biases when dealing with foreign minorities.
Try to keep up.
unfamiliar minorities, even.
Skid, you defening a 10th century religion in the 21st century?