australian values
So does anyone else think that it is illogical that that migrants wishing to become Australian citizens should have to be able to speak English and answer questions on Australian values, history, culture etc while those of us that are born here become Australian citizens without applying, comprehending or even forming a wish to do so, at a time when we cannot speak any language and have no knowledge of Australian values, history and culture?
Talk about inconsistent!! It is just inviting people to devalue citizenship by foisting it on them unawares at the moment of their first breath, when frankly, they have more important things on their minds than the date that the First Fleet arrived.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Well of course - if we wear clothes that are named after hard work then we must be hard workers…well I’d better not stand next to an attractive girl during the winter months - cuase if I’m wearing a jumper…
September 26th, 2006 at 11:29 am
I’m on sick leave at the moment - that’s a great Aussie value - love teh sickie! I had kidney stones over the weekend - didn’t love that I can tell you - felt like a little person running around my insides with a samurai sword held up in the air slicing me !
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Bec - thank you for that response. I appreciate your views. I can accept what you are saying in the context of the hajib…but not the burqua.
Yes, being an Australian is certainly conditional and it is entirely appropriate and right that we make that statement - and firmly. Not everything acceptable or normal in other countries is acceptable here, let us be clear. When you come to Australia, do not bring your ethnic disputes, nor your cultural practices that are illegal here (female circumcision, multiple wives), nor your attitudes that are inconsistent with Australian law.
I do not choose to accept that a burqua as an Australian value. I am drawing a line on what I consider Australian. In countries where a burqua is required, it is not acceptable for women to wear the bikini - or for that matter what may be considered ordinary western summer dress. For this women are beaten in the street and worse. Do we do that here? No, because we are Australian and that behaviour is unacceptable.
Australians are tolerant of difference - this is an Australian value. But we are not tolerant of all things and nor should we be - the conversation is about where we draw the line - hence having this discussion on the national agenda. And your comments are a valid part of that. It’s how we build rigour in our positions - sharing them, turning them over with each other, trying to understand each other’s position, perhaps.
I have certainly heard the argument supporting a burqua, walk in their sandals, that they feel free of being sexual objects and so forth and I regard it as apologetic crap - it may be an accepted argument in some circles but in an Aussie context, in my view, it’s not credible.
September 27th, 2006 at 7:07 am
brissiegirl,
the difference between women not being able to wear a bikini in some Muslim countries, and a woman not being allowed to wear burqa here, is vast.
Unlike the Muslim countries you refer to, Australia claims to be a liberal country, a country where you are free to do as you please, provided you don’t infringe upon the rights of others. We run our economy on this basis, our law is largely structured around this, and our current government is rooted in liberalism - supposedly.
This value which we claim to hold so dear is not one that can be applied selectively as we please. If we are a liberal country, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to argue that a woman should not be entitled to wear burqa.
Why do you regard the arguments supporting burqa as “apologetic crap”? In my view, the arguments in support of allowing people to wear burqa have EVEN MORE credibility in the Australian context, where women are legally and generally socially free to dress as they please!
September 27th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Sorry…I meant to add:
Brissiegirl - can you please explain your position on burqa? Why do you think it should not be allowed in Australia? If it’s merely because you find it offensive, I’d suggest that there’s plenty of things that might cause offense to you or I, but that’s not enough to justify prohibiting them. That’s what living in a liberal democracy is all about!!!
Also, have you ever discussed this position with a Muslim woman who wears at least hijab? If you don’t know any Muslim women, I’d suggest you have a bit of a trawl around the web (in fact, you can even google ‘hijab’ and you’ll get hits for peoples blogs where they’re discussing this).
September 27th, 2006 at 8:13 am
we should make those muslim beards illegal, those people really make me nervous
http://musictours.com.au/beard.jpg
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
LOL. Very funny Rev.
Brissiegirl - sorry for more posts, but I keep thinking about this.
I really can’t see how it’s sufficient to ban something just because it’s “offensive”. What is “offensive” to one person is not to the next - we can’t ban something just because we “don’t like it”.
As I said in my first response - I originally found the burqa highly confronting and disturbing. But to be honest, I can’t tell you why. I had a whole lot of assumptions about what it meant which simply aren’t always true. To me, it symbolises the oppression of women - but that’s a westerners’ perspective and not an assumption that’s supported by my conversations with Muslim women.
I strongly object to prostitution too - I see it as demeaning of women, demeaning of men, objectifying etc etc. I feel similarly about stripping. I also feel the same about modelling. Where does one draw the line? Should it be banned just because I find it offensive? Are my perceptions borne out by reality? Again, I have to say no - my sister lived next door to a brothel for a couple of years, and we’d chat to the women that worked there. I have to say that those conversations were confusing, and forced us to question our preconceived ideas and assumptions. Does this mean I now think that prostitution is ok? No. But it does mean that I now acknowledge that it’s a hugely complex issue and that people’s motivations for participating in the industry (whether as client or ’service provider’) are varied and complicated.
Law is very, very rarely an appropriate tool for social engineering. If you don’t like burqa, it’s more appropriate to (i) educate yourself, and (ii) educate otherrs. A piece of clothing is only offensive to us for what it symbolises - and we might find that if we learn more about it, its symbolism to us changes. If it does in fact symbolise the things we originally assumed it to (ie the oppression of women), then law is an ineffective tool for countering this, too (ie we need to find ways to empower women - and you can’t do that by banning a mode of dress).
I have no problem with there being a debate about values. My problem is that it’s a very “thin” and completely unsophisticated debate. The debate occurring at the moment mirrors that which has occurred in Christian circles for some time. We need to decide whether we value liberal democracy or not. If we do, then we can’t apply it selectively. Christians can’t, on the one hand, oppose racial and religious vilification laws, and on the other, lobby to prevent gay marriage. Those two things are completely inconsistent from a liberal democratic framework, and should be exposed as such. That inconsistency also exposes the complete hypocrisy of many Christians, who, on the one hand employ liberal democratic arguments, and then on the other employ the “Christian values” arguments.
Christians need to decide whether they value liberal democracy, or whether they want a theocracy. It’s hypocritical and dangerous to simply talk about “values”.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Yes - you raise some very good points.
I agree - the law is a rough axe for social engineering and has questionable results. I haven’t suggested a law banning the burqua, by the way! There are other ways to achieve outcomes - dialogue is good!
You are right - Australia is a liberal country and you have a very good point when you say that Australian women are socially free to dress as they please. I agree. Part of that is that we are considered equal in rank and status, in our capacity to determine our future, our wardrobe (!) and to be independent. Do Australian women in a burqua have this? Technically, under the law - yes. However…
I have had respectful discussions with Islamic women who wear the hajib (not many actually do wear a burqua here…) in a discussion regarding policy development - who (in a university context) explain that in a hajib they feel free from being a sexual object. I respect this as their explanation - i don’t wear one and i’m not feeling a sexual object - but you know, I wouldn’t wear a bikini either - what does it matter!! A hajib does not offend me - as you say - it’s their choice. Although they admit that sometimes it is not their choice, it is a requirement in their family, under their father’s rule. (We also discussed the fact that female Australian teachers find it very difficult to teach boys from certain islamic families because the boys will not respect them - because they are women - this is not acceptable.)
I have not spoken to a real woman actually wearing a burqua - and I would certainly like to! (not on the internet, though!) These girls are not often free to associate with whom they please and any that I have seen at multicultural functions or in the street have been in the close company of a man. Does a burqua go with other social/cultural constraints…?
What offends me about a burqua is, as you say, what it symbolises. An imposition on freedom. Inequality. No independence. No choice. Can you show me this is untrue, because I’m listening to you. Some others have raised issues regarding security concerns (what can you hide under there) and maybe that has some merit - but it isn’t what offends me.
Maybe the question is actually - can these women choose to not wear a burqua, without consequence? If they really can, my sense of offence is gone.
Finally, we can be a liberal democracy and still take a stand on what we do and don’t find - culturally or otherwise - acceptable as Australian. Liberal democracy does not mean Anything Goes & Everything is Acceptable!! It means the will of the majority can be exercised over the will of the minority. A liberal democratic framework sets the boundaries in this context and establishes protections for due process, privacy, property and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion - as agreed by the majority!
So ‘christian values’ (what are they again?)…are only (legally) relevant when the majority endorses them.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Brissiegirl,
I wouldn’t be so sure that Australian women are as ‘free’ as you make out. Yes, we are free and independent in comparison with many other women throughout the world, but…I’ve been conscious of the eyes following me on occasion, I’ve felt ‘mentally undressed’ (and believe me, I’m anything but 6 foot tall, leggy, and blonde!). I know of many men senior to me that think that women should wear skirts in the workplace. I - and many other lawyers, unfortunately - can attest to the fact that certain firms seem to employ a certain type of woman, and that if you look a certain way, you’re more likely to experience success in graduate recruitment. Some of this stuff applies to men, too, but not to the same extent.
So we could rephrase your question a number of ways: ie can women lawyers choose not to wear skirts, without consequence? can women wear skirts and boots and not have assumptions about whether she’s an ‘easy lay’ be made?
I’m not some unreconstructed, first-wave feminist…women have come along way in this country!! However I think it’s become really, really easy for Westerners to look at Muslim men and women, and say “oh, look, what an evil religion, look how oppressed women are”, and not see what’s going on right underneath their noses. When my fiance moved to Canberra, the first question I got was “so, when are you moving?”. When we got engaged, the question immediately after the congratulations was “so, when are you moving?”!! I know plenty of strong, feisty Muslim women (some converts) who choose to wear hijab and have amongst the most egalitarian relationships with their partners of any women I’ve ever met. I don’t know anyone who wears hijab, but I live in an area where I have frequent occasions to have chats in passing.
Re: the boys…I don’t believe this has much to do with Islam the religion, and everything to do with culture. I don’t want to write about it on a public place, but I struggle some days when I’m catching public transport - in fact, yesterday was one of them. I had the pleasure of sitting next to two young men engaging in one of THE most horrible conversations I’ve ever heard. Based on where they were from, they were probably Muslim - but I got to work and ranted and raved (and nearly cried) on my (male) Muslim colleague. Given the current climate in Australia, we really must not confuse religion with culture. We wouldn’t want to be painted with the same brush as the KKK!
September 28th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Come on Bec, you are hot!!! Admit it, you are a saucy little minx.
rev
September 28th, 2006 at 9:28 am
ROFLMAO…Rev, not quite sure how to take that, but regardless, it’s very funny!!
brissiegirl - i meant, “I don’t know anyone who wears the burqa” - my female Muslim friends wear various forms of hijab - and most of them donned it as adults (some are converts, some just come from families where their mothers didn’t wear it etc - I think wearing of hijab might increase as Muslims in Australia try to work out their sense of identity etc)
September 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Greg, welcome to the world of kidney stones. Very sorry for you mate, I have had over twenty, let me tell you they only get worse. Drink lots of water, and eat lots of dark green veggies. Cut back on coffee and alcohol.
Or just do like me and use them as a way to get sympathy
rev
September 28th, 2006 at 9:57 am
I concur with the Rev.
They are the pits.
Smoke more cubans!!!
September 28th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Roger (AKA tbokar)
The inappropriateness of wearing a Burqua is a western culture is, more about grace than about rights. I too find Burqua’s an unwelcome intrusion in Australia, not because of it’s symbolism of oppressive Islamic religion for women, but because of what Islamic dress has now become synonymous with.
Just as swastikas as worn by Nazi Germany; white hoods by Klu Klux Klan; Balaclavas by the IRA and Palestinian terrorists, have become symbols of fear and murder, so too has the Burqua gained a conscious link to the evil murder of innocents across the world. It’s a great garb with which to hide an explosive belt. I am therefore not surprised that people find themselves uneasy when in the presence of a “person in a burqua” in a crowded place.
Why, you may scream, “that is so wrong, because of course burqua wearers are not terrorists”. Absolutely! However, I’m not a racist, but it would be insensitive of me to wear a white hood amongst some of my black friends. I would also be committing gross offence by wearing a swastika to a synagogue, or a balaclava in an Irish Protestant church.
Therefore, I think that true, peace loving Muslims living in Western countries have a responsibility to show grace to their fellow countrymen by not wearing a black disguise. That would be showing grace, while making a small humble concession to apologise for those who choose to instil terror in the name of Islam. It would be a small bridge to build and one that many would be willing to cross.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Roger,
there are manifold and vast differences between wearing the hood of the KKK and the burqa.
Firstly, the KKK hood was designed to disguise it’s wearer and enable the commission of illegal acts. The burqa is worn due to what it’s wearer’s believe is a religious mandate.
Secondly, true, it may to some people have become a symbol, however we as responsible, intelligent people should challenge that co-option of the symbol. Church buildings represent oppression to many people who live on the streets - I know this because I’ve copped the brunt of their anger. I’ve also copped the brunt of the anger of people who are gay, merely because they saw me walking into a church. The fact that church buildings and the crucifix have come to symbolise the oppression and manipulation of innocent, vulnerable people - including the murder of many gay people - is not a reason for dismantling church buildings or banning the wearing of a crucifix.
Finally - sure, burqa might be a great guard for hiding an explosive belt. But so’s a nuns gown. And if I really wanted to be a suicide bomber, I could hide it under the suit I wear to work.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
I tried to smoke a cuban…but te bugger kept running out fo the smoking hut screaming about freedom and wanting a drink of water.
Anyway it’s a been a great couple of days - had the computer in for a service, we also got wireless braoad band at home now (very very cool) and I’ve started reading The Shaping of Things to Come. How many from signposts have read it?
20 kidney stones rev? That sucks
September 29th, 2006 at 9:33 am
(AKA tbokar) Bec, If there were churches being used as bases for the storing of arms, or the propogation of violence; if nuns were walking into crowded restaurants and blowing themselves up; or if crosses had become symbols of violence, then these symbols would have to be abandonded, as an act of grace to non-Christians. However, they are none of these, so your argument holds no water.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:51 am
I come to this conversation very late, and (dangerously) haven’t read the background… but I’ve also just returned from Northern Ireland, whose history is just as you’re depicting, Roger.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Greg, did you get Castroitis?
September 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Hell no…I might want kids agin one day!!!
seriously though what on earth is Castroitis? It doesn’t sound good
September 29th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“I’ve also copped the brunt of the anger of people who are gay, merely because they saw me walking into a church.”
That is sure a turn of events ion our world. I thought it was the Christians who were supposed to be the Bigots
September 29th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
previous is a response to Bec
September 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Ahhh…Castro…itis - castroitis- now I get it…that bugged mne for hours Homer…I’m not as clever as I look, which is quite worrying!
September 29th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
oh greg, no on ever said you look clever
rev
September 29th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
(AKA tbokar) Cheryl, I too have experienced that first hand, so know the depths of hatred that existed. Think of the inflammatory reaction that the colour orange would provoke if worn in the wrong place.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Thik of the inflammatory reaction of a piece of calcoum passing it’s way through the wrong place in a persons body - now that provokes some sort of feeling deep down that I ahve experienced first hand Roger.
and in case your wondering - yes I will milk as much as I can out of this …”episode”…
September 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
is that such a wise idea?
Milk has yet more calcium ..
and yes, I do sympathise, really .. one of the horror stories of my childhood was my grandmother’s account of her kidney stones ..
September 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
hmmm… yes - the only thing worse than a kidney stone is hearing nan talk about hers…. and it’s passing…
September 29th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Hello Bec! Have been away, hence silent.
Hmm - i think we’ve done the burqua conversation. I have very much appreciated you challenging my perspectives and it has absolutely helped me to clarify my thinking on this. Thank you.
Aussie values??? Men will be men, mate, regardless of culture!! They’ve been blaming women for their sexual hangups and lack of sexual control for a few millenium now - eg Old Testament! It’s always the women’s fault. Women were to blame for sexual harassment until the last decade or so because of …let’s pick….what they wore! That’ll do. Actually they did a survey asking men what women wore to work that they considered ‘asking for atention or ’sexy’…..lace (yes!!!), satin (yes!), silk (yes!), linen(yes), wool (yes), cotton (yes), synthetics (yes), hessian(yes!) black plastic rubbish bags (yes!!!)…..?? :>)
Actually, I think my Aussie girlfriends like their men a bit blokey…gotta love and accept them as they ARE….(what do you think Lance?) :>)
September 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
your joking aren’t you brissie girl…how last year are your attitudes? You’re doing exactly what you claim men ahve been doing - blaming the opposite gender - and yet you claim that that’s what you and your girlfriends like about the aussie male - well pardon me but your version of the aussie male went out with polyester shirts and purple pants with wide white belts!
As for your generalisations about men, sexual hangups and the old testament you have apparently not included Esther or Ruth or Rahab in your thinking. What of Lot’s two daughters? Potiphars wife? Delilah and her seduction of Samson.
Of course there are plentiful references to male subjugation of women in the Jewish Scriptures; I am not saying that what you refer to is not true, however to generalise and continue propogating stereotypes in gender politics is neither helpful or neccesarily accurate.