I don’t care whether Muslim schoolgirls wear headscarves or not. Nor do I care if they want to look different from the majority and stand out like sore thumbs. Mrs. Bishop is not trying to marginalize them; they are already marginalizing themselves.

And, despite what Arabs and Malays call headscarves in their own language, here they are headscarves in OUR language

As usual Ms Bishop is attempting to keep herself in the news - as usual not for a worthy cause.

This makes her very much a typical politician. She is trying to harness a cause to boost her own ego.

As she used to have so much potential - what 25 years ago - her Lady Astor like protestations continue to be sad. She can seize the trivial from the jaws of need.

While other countries have had female politicians who can stand on their own two feet eg Thatcher and currently Helen Clark, we've had a pretty sad run - sadly Ms Vanstone appears to be the best at the moment...

So Irfan, your prose provide hope and don't let some very ordinary politicians distract you.

Regulating what people can wear is just silly. I remember once getting all indignant about arab women "opressing themselves by wearing chadors", when someone pointed out to me that really, if thats what you're used to, thats what you wear. They said "how would you like it if someone said you could not wear jeans?"

Also, why is the talk of "muslim headscarves"? many people wear scarves around their head, necks, etc. It seems particuarly fashionable amoung older women from Greek and Italian backgrounds. My young cousin of Anglo-Aussie background wears thin scarves as brightly coloured head-bands to keep her hair back and accessorise her outfit! Despite my Anglo-Aussie background I've wrapped a scarf around my head and neck, "muslim style" when it was windy and cold... what is the big deal? Is a scarf only offensive if you happen to have darker skin and worship god in a temple with a cresent on a minaret?

Irfan is correct on this one. Bronwyn and Sophie might have backed the wrong horse on this issue hoping it would be a rallying point. So for as an issue it is hopefully witheirng on the vine and will continue to do so.
What did alarm me however was John Howards qualified defence of those who elect to wear the hijab - he only decried a ban becuase it was not practical to implement; you got to figure if he could over come those practical barriers he'd be all for it based on his form to date.

And as for what we call that which muslim women wear on their heads Leigh seems concerned the sanctity of OUR language is under some sort of threat. What would he suggest we call a croissant, or a foccacia or a baguette or a volkswagon or a kindergarten - all these are words with roots in foriegn languages that we've adopted quite happily

Sneekeepete,

croissant - roll or bun
focaccia (note spelling) - bread according to ingredients
baguette - bread or loaf
VolkswagEn (note spelling)- brand name, not a common noun, same world-wide.

There is another aspect to this issue which does not seem to get any airing. I'm interested in opinions on this one and playing devils advocate a bit.

- Why should people get an exemption to rules which apply to others based on a religious belief (as opposed to other beliefs)?

Most kids at school are required to conform to certain dress/grooming standards. They wear a particular uniform, can't wear certain items, have limits on what they can do with their hair etc. I can see both sides of the arguments for and against this.

Is there a valid reason why a child should not be able to wear a mohawk haircut to school (assuming that is culturally significant in their family) and another can wear a headcovering because it has religious significance to the childs family?

In the adult world why should one employee be expected to dress to a cultural norm (long pants, long sleeve business shirt, tie etc and another wear clothing quite out of keeping with that standard)?

Why should a religious activity get exemptions from taxes, rates etc and other activities not get exemptions?

R0bert

Leigh - uh yeah but they're not quite the same are they. If I go into a bakery and ask for a 'bread or loaf', they'll give me a bread or loaf, not a baguette.

Nitpicky I know, but you know. The point is there's tonnes of words we use that have 'foreign' origins. I don't know why its a problem to use them.

Interesting side note: I just read 'Jihad' actually translates to struggling or striving. Learn something every day...

One of the schools I used to know had a high proportion of Muslim kids. The simply made a plain white headscarf an optional part of the uniform, like choosing a long sleeve or short sleeve shirt. Seemed to fix the issue quite neatly.

R0bert:

First, there is a higher degree of emotional attachment to a religion than a culture and secondly, more tenuously, the potential for divine retribution. Reasonable measures should be taken to accommodate any emotional issue, ie. a rule that you don't put bacon in the office microwave, but pork products aren't banned from the premises.

Employment and standards has more to do with professional expectations, wearing a baseball cap/mohawk is less professional than a hijab. That said, laws aren't phrased towards unnecessary business discrimination, which would require a very high standard or else would be a very difficult solution and quite anti-liberty.

"Why should a religious activity get exemptions from taxes, rates etc and other activities not get exemptions?"
They shouldn't, most importantly the promotion of religion should not be considered a charitable purpose. That would ensure that money donated for charity actually went to those in need and anything going towards maintaining religious groups would have to be taxed. There is some benefit to giving all non-profit organisations some tax benefits, but the amount of exemption should also be related to the purposes of the group

I am in total agreement with Mr Irfan Yusuf, the writer of this article.

In a nation that calls itself free and champions diversity then to be having this discussion at all shows that Australia is definitely not tolerant of all diversities. In fact what we have here is complete intolerance of diversity. A demonstration that those who allege to champion diversity do not - hypocrites.

What those opposed to head scarves are indicating is that they believe in politically correct diversity but not politically incorrect diversity. The wonderful liberals demonstrate their ugly bigotry and closed minds, because they hate religious people of any persuasion.

I for one champion the right of anyone to wear a head scarf anywhere, anytime they want. Even me, if I felt like it, but I don't. But if I did, that's none of anyone else's damn business.

Go Irfan!

Banning the head scarf based on its rebellious connotations is just wrong. Rebellion is what teenagers do best - its why they smoke, get weird hair cuts, get ears, noses and other body parts pierced and go out with the guy with a motorbike and tattoos. Banning them just makes people do it more or find some other way to thumb their (pierced) nose at authority.

Why not simply have a scarf available in school colours which is acceptable for any one to wear. You could even have the school logo on it.

It may even catch on with non-Muslim students. I'm sure it keeps the head warm in winter and keeps the sun off in summer. and they look a damn sight better than those stupid flap hats my mum used to make me wear.

No real need for alarm.

t.u.s.

There are probably many reasons why these girls wear the hijabs. Examples:

1. They're used to it..as laurie mentioned. they feel comfortable with them than without
2. Their mothers wear it/ parental pressure
3. They feel a sense of belonging to their community/ peers of same religion
4. They feel proud of their religion and wish to advertise it.
5. They feel closer to their religion

I don't think the modesty bit is a big part of it for as we all know, you don't need to go that far in Australia to look modest, but in the eyes of their community it probably makes them look more modest/religious/respected and therefore more accepted.

There's a book available written by a melbourne ozzie mozzie titled "Does my head look big in this". The girl in this story decided to wear it because it made her feel like she belonged to a special club, that she felt closer to god. When she was out in public and saw other girls in hijabs, she felt like she belonged to something special.

I personally am not too fussed about the hijab, and I do think it's important that the girls get to mix with other non muslims at school, rather than be isoloted in Islamic only schools. If hijabs are banned, then thats where some girls will be forced to go.

Nevertheless I am interested to read the arguments for and against. I have 2 questions:

1. What should a principal do if a bunch of christian girls turned up to school in nuns outfits?

2. Would hijabs be an issue at all if it werent for terrorism?

A sensible head scalf should not be a major problem, but a burkah definitely.

Irfan, interesting to read on your blog about the inner workings of the Muslims and the Right wing liberals of Sydney.
I have the occasional email dialogue with Afroz from Al Ghazzali centre and he sent me his quite impressive resume, I am curious about your comment in either the article of the blog about them 'hiding' or evading re qualifications ? care to enlighten ?

You actually underline many of the exact problems which we know exist anyway, but to have a 'deep throat' in you is a bonus :)

I'm sensing that you yourself are not in the mainstream of Quranic Islam, but (based on something I read about you) more on a Sufi thing, which explains a lot about what you do and say in the public arena. You just need to be less sensitive about things which cause you to say 'You hate us'...because we are acting no differently to people anywhere who are concerned about the impact of outside influences on their culture.

Did you read the article about the forced closure of Churches in Indonesia in response to pressure from radical groups ? Apparently they are worried about Muslims converting to Christ.

They could close every church in Indonesia, but God would reveal Himself to some high official just as He did in the case of Rome, and is currently doing in Saudi Arabia and in Communist China. As Jesus said "If they (the people) didn't cry out, even the stones would praise" (as he entered Jerusalem)

The real problems are not the Head Scalves, it's the mob you identified who use extended family and nepotism etc. tapping into the multi-cultural funding like parasites.

Why does Bronwyn Bishop have an issue with headscarves in the first place? Defiant? Her whole head screams defiance on a bad hair day 24/7. I'd wear a burqa sweetie, or sue my hairdresser. And kill that makeup artist who keeps making your mouth out to be a cat's arse with every TV appearance. Though we can't help what we're dealt with sweetie? I grew up where pierced earrings and mascara on a school day were seen as "defiance and sluttish". Crew cuts, mohawks? Ponchos? The Mexicans are coming! The days of defining yourself re headwear are the realm of the people, not the pollies. Remember Bob Carr's backlash from Young Labour in the 90s about wearing your baseball cap backwards, that defined you (allegedly) as a thug? I'm wearing bludstones on a farm. Go forth and define me!

Take a bex, a kerosene bath and a good lie down Bronnie, and chuck a burqa over your whole bad hair day. Though a plastic bag might suffice.

Hmm, feel much better now!

Mr Yusuf, you say that no one tells us what to wear and when to wear it. Have you ever been to one of those PUBLIC swimming pools and noted that muslim women only may swim?

Mr Yusuf, may I turn up at the next Auburn mosque open day and look over that magnificent structure with my wife, who will be wearing a bikini?

Mr Yusuf, you are a hypocrite.

What's wrong with Bishop saying that she thinks head scarves represent oppression? That she has had experiences where muslim men refuse to shake her hand? I know this to be true also, on many occasions in my growings out in South-West Sydney I heard stories or seen directly, cases where muslim men refused to acknowledge a female presence, and in some cases would become furious if eye contact was made.
Where does this attitude come from if not from a culture that makes their women wear the "hankee", or a culture that expressly states in their religion that "women are equal to half that of a man",
and that "women shall let the man be her boss", and that "a man can beat his wife [or in the muslim case several wives]if she disobeys". What do we expect but the Taliban and Saudi Arabia?
And so what if many muslims don't follow these laws! Should we not explode at the bigots and racists who do? Do we not explode at white racists or KKK when we find them, lest we annoy or perhaps insult the whole white race?
It is this very attitude that is the problem. There is not enough people from any ethnic group besides Europeans, that are willing to stand on the side of righteousness and call a spade a spade, despite the colour or ethnicity.
This attitude that non-covered(no hijab) women are by default, "sluts", or atleast not modest (as we constantly hear the hijab wearing referred to as "modesty")came out once again recently with the young Sheik Feiz from the Liverpool Youth muslim centre, who called all non-covered women sluts who deserved to be raped. I have not heard any proper condemnation or sacking of this man from the wider muslim community at all. Not a dot of it. Why? Because this is the average consensus. Western women are by default "sluts" or atleast not modest. This is the attitude of a caged up lion, or muslim women.
For me a "hankee" is for sneezing into, I wouldn't dare put it back on my head!

Good piece Irfan and well done on insight(SBS) the other week. It's interesting that the people backing up Ms Bishop seem to be quite ignorant about the reason for wearing the Hijab.

B_D revealing yourself in public is an offence.

Great piece Irfan (again).

Was going to request a total ban on overlacquered beehives, but Di's diatribe kinda took the wind outa my huff.

As a person who is very big on freedom of expression (only 9 years ago shaved off my purple mohawke) I feel ole BB is pathetically trying to gain a little publicity for herself and failing miserably. Somehow not going to lose any sleep over her and Sophie's attempt at divisiveness. As minuet noted hijabs have only become an issue since 9/11.

Anyway, have stated on other forums that I have friends who CHOOSE to wear hijab. Have visited their homes and was not expected to cover up, but was plied with lots of yummy food instead - maybe the thinking was that if I got fat enough I would want to cover up unsightly flab - hmm conspiracy theory coming on.

May just be my muslim friends are trying to win me over by being unfailingly hospitable - how suspicious - should I report them for unaustralian behaviour such as tolerance, friendship and open mindedness?

Should we allow schoolgirls to go to school wearing swastika armbands? If the answer is an emphatic “No!”, then why do we not make the same connection with Muslim headscarves?

Islam is not just a religion, it is a complete legal, social, dietary and religious system. The female hijab is the uniform of militant Islam and for this reason, it has serious restrictions upon it’s display in Turkey, which is arguably the most advanced and secular Muslim society.

The hijab is a yoke of female oppression inflicted upon Muslim women by Muslim men. It’s purpose is to disempower women by making women’s beauty the property of the male members of her family. As a symbol of women’s oppression, one wonders where all of our strident female Liberationists are? They might burn their bras in protest at what they see as a Western male symbol of oppression. They may call beauty pageants “cattle shows” and sneer at makeup, but when it comes to Muslim male oppression of females, they are oddly silent.

It takes somebody with the mettle of Bronwyn Bishop to do the Sisters work for them. Miss Bishop has rightly pointed out that this garb should be banned from Australian schools. Women may exist in only three states in Islamic societies (virgins, mothers and whores) but this is a value which must not be pushed upon Australian children.

Xena, again you are making the most sense and not because you understood my most vitriolic post against the BB bad hair plus policital life. It's not just a bra boys, and it's not, from my research, a thingy that muslim men MAKE women wear, it's a modesty, female thing that a muslim women makes the decision to wear. Which is why I will always support it. As much as I would support a big breasted 40DD woman not choosing to wear a bra, no matter how unaesthetic we all might think it is. Whilst I understand the burqa is not a (good or bad) fashion statement, it's a bit more than a teen queen, (got that tatoo and don't care what people think). It's a religious statement, a woman statement and should be respected as such. If not, let's just rip the beards/goatees off the orthodox
jews face instead. 60 years ago, that was the justification. Don't tie this one up in that Muslim men are making Muslim women do it. And at the end of the day, why is what Muslim women choosing to wear on their head even worthy of anything newsworthy considering what's going on in the bigger planet. Unless it's Muslim beating. I'd be putting my fashion/cam on George Dubya instead. Ie: what is he wearing to New Orleans? Sackcloth and ashes? And has little JH got a matching shirt?

Wrong Di. Women (not just Muslim women) who do not wear the hijab in Pakistan or Jordan, or who dare to dress in Western clothes, have acid thrown in their faces. This revolting practice is now occuring in Iraq.

Healthy, shiny hair has always been an asset to womens beauty. That womens beauty has indeed got great power can be discerned by the way in which very attractive women are described, which is often in terms of complete physical dysfunction. Supermodels and very pretty gals are often described as "stunners" or "drop dead gorgeous."

But Muslim societies are patriarchal societies where women are not so much individuals with Rights, but commodities to be bought and sold like a car or a camel. The utter disgust at the freedom and independence of western women by Muslim men can be clearly discerned by the very high incidence of rape by Muslim men in Western countries which have been stupid enough to allow Muslims to immigrate in their (formerly) peaceful communities.

One Northern Irish official once stated on TV that the civil war in Free Ireland might well have been avoided had the government forcibly integrated Catholic and Protestant schools and banned the wearing of colours that indicated tribal loyalties. The French and the Singapore governments have now gone down this road and banned the Hijab, and it is time we did the same.

It will not prevent this country from experiencing serious civil strife, Muslim rebellion, Separatism or civil war, but it will at least delay it long enough for me to live my life peacefully before our society comes apart like every other culturally divided society.

Yes Redneck get your point about other countries but Bad Hair Bronnie was making the "defiant" issue about Australian Muslim schoolgirls, here in playgrounds and classrooms in this country, not any other muslim women.

XENA
here is a little exercise I hope you will have the sincerity to follow through on.

Please ask your muslim friends.. (male ones) if they believe the Quran is the 'eternal abiding unchanging word of Allah for all time"

Then, if u can do this without losing those friends, ask them "So surah 4.24 means man can beat women if they feel the woman are going astray ?

I can predict the responses

1/ OH.. Muslims don't do that, we love our women
2/ That's not the right translation..its 'beat them lightly'
3/ That was for 'then' not for now.

If the response is anything other than one of these, (or if it is one of them,) I'm seriously interested from a research point of view..in an anecdotal way)

So, lets give them the benefit of the doubt, and see what they come up with.

You said if I am sincere, why don't I post some stuff about Christian atrocities..and I did that.. can you now have a go at some sincerity at ur end ?

It only struck me this morning...that the Sura about 'women' does not even address them, it addresses 'men'. It proscribes how women relate and fit into 'men'. It appears not to actually address them directly.
There is nothing about what a woman can do if a 'MAN' is fooling around, only what a man can do if a woman is.

blessings :)

BD

>>"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn (bald): but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven (bald), let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1st Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 5

"Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians Chapter 14 verse 34

"Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." 1 Timothy Chapter 2 verse 11<<

You're a sad man BD

XENA....

now that was a pretty good attempt at avoiding the issue.

I'll take it on the chin before I re-issue the challenge to honesty on your part.
Firstly, even IF all that you quoted (mostly it was accurate) were 100% true, and applied in full today, nothing in any of those texts is suggestive of INSTITUTIONALIZED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE as it is in the Quran. At worst, a scalf (dare I say Hijab :) and a quiet manner during worship wow.. what a terrrrrrible cruel and harsh and miserable and painful existence that is eh....

We may struggle (as I do) with some aspects of those biblical passages, -call them wierd, stupid, patriarchal whatever
it still does not change that fact that there is nothing allowing a man to BEAT his wife.

And this is the crucial point.

On uncovered heads. There were very clear connections between worship of Dionysus the god of wine and debauchery and head covering.
Here is a link describing the worship:

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/euripides/euripides.htm

scroll down until u come to a long discourse by 'MESSENGER' which begins with "The grazing cattle..." read it right through.
Paul instituted customs which would distinguish Christians from the mystery religions.

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/hair/greek_god.html
you may wish to peruse this one also.

You can regard the 'women' issue as a peculiarity of our faith.. thats cool, but it is not about 'physical violence or beating'.

So, back to sincerity and honesty. I'll talk to some (very liberated) girls/ladies in our fellowship about their feelings on the passages u quoted, and you talk to ur Muslim friends about the Quran and beating

Then we can compare notes. I'll give you honest feedback, can you do this ?

BD - you are such an easy target. BTW don't you have any WOMEN in your fellowship? No such thing as liberated girls or LAAADIES.

;-)

I hope my memory is not that bad, but I seem to recall being educated in my youth by women who not only wore full veils bit an all over highly starched uniform to hide all parts of their bodies except their faces. These women were called nuns, and while I am glad to see most nuns have moved on from wearing such restrictive clothing, it was hardly a threat to national security. Interesting enough when nuns stopped wearing the veil, conservatives, many of whom are in Ms Bishop's political party, complained bitterly.

Part 1
It's about time people with a high profile (and some backbone) criticized (albeit naively) Islamic dress codes. Bronnie and Soph probably haven't studied the Qur'an, hadith, and sira, but then, neither have a lot of the posters to this forum, judging by their naive grasp of Islam.
First, let's look at female head/body covering in general:
Mohammed said women are 'awra' (pudendum in Arabic - imagine they outcry, in Australia, if any non-Muslim publicly stated that women were basically c#@ts). People cover their genitals, but not the rest of their body. Muslim women who cover all their body are saying that they're vagina from head to toe. It's too embarrassing to let men see their hair that's reminiscent of pubic hair.
Women for Mohammed were nothing but sex objects and servants that give men orgasms and children.
...Women who violate Iran’s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor’s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday. In the city of Shahin-Shahr, the prosecutor’s office posted huge notices on billboards and shop windows warning women that dress code violators will appear before an Islamic judge immediately after arrest to receive a sentence, usually 100 lashes in public..... This behavior must be condemned, not encouraged!
Maybe some Iranian women want to be individuals!
Recently in France: Headscarf ban is judged success as hostility fades:
Fathima, who is 16, agrees. “In the end I really don’t think it was a bad law at all. I wear my voile until I get to the school gates and then I take it off. School is not a place for religion. It is a place where we are all French and we are all equal. After lessons, I put the scarf back on again. There’s no difficulty.” CONTINUED.

Part 2
The claim that the HIJAB is an essential part of the Muslim faith is totally false.
The hijab has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Qur'an or the hadith.
It was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah, a leader of the Lebanese Shi'ite community. In an interview in 1975, Sadr said that the hijab was inspired by the headgear of Catholic nuns..... Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi'ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment and rape, by Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who controlled southern Lebanon. This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism, the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism - as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Red China.
Multiculturalism is working against women in religious minorities with misogynist practices. It shows how many of those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing become loquacious when it comes to Bush-bashing, but lose their voice when women's rights are threatened by religious obscurantism.
From (in some cases) the age of 6, these poor girls have to wear, what amounts to a sack, on their heads
A ban on hijabs would perhaps convince many Muslim girls to renounce Islam and start to think for themselves, marry or co-habit with whoever they liked, listen to music, read books, without some zealot telling them not to, become astronauts, Atheists, stand-up comediennes, tennis legends, lead guitarists......
Where are the feminists that once advocated the burning of bras, as a means of thwarting 'male dominance', but are now strangely silent on this issue?

Good-on-yer Irfan Yusuf!
I applaud in essence your article - for the mealy mouthed wannabee's who have skirted the 'real' issue, and totally LOST the plot with their snipping-and-bickering, they have themselves to blame !
All this kefuffle over Islamic school children wearing their religion on their proverbial bodies, is just so much fickle hyperbole.
Who really cares, except enigmatic Bronwyn Bishop ? Demoted Minister of the Crown,exmember of John Winston Howard's " inner cabinet",pseudo-sophisticate, drag-queen and Dorothy Dixer she has ignited a swarm of criticism Oz wide.This churlish attitude is atypical of the media-tart, she is - except, in her sub-conscious she is in reality, a shiela from the sticks.A variable 'country-bumbkin'.
My Pater,bless his soul, a WWII veteran - used to make our lives miserable by railing against BB when she was Veteran Affair's Minister. For Days, we would hide in the chookpen, while Dad droned on about how incompetent, ineffectual and heartless she was ! C'est la vie.
BTW, Dad sported a Vandyke, wore a McDonald's tartan kilt,sans sporran and kirk, while Mum wore a chignon, maxi dress and Bali sandals. Does all this trivia sound like a fashion statement ? It is, except that I simply luv my ' Doc Martens' !!
Whether, Islamic school girls prefer the chador,hijab,burqa, abaya et al.. why take exception in a Democracy, we call 'home' ? Since when do Clannish traditions over-ride the 'old-school-tie' ?
Apart from the Islamic traditions, and cultural differences that go much further than ' three-score-and-twenty ', and Capt Cook, it's customery to respect other peoples domain, at the very least.

Sensation-seeking,, to discredit a bunch of pre-pubescent school girl's from Lakemba, Marrickville or whereever, does her NO credit. Her Christain up-bringing unseats her.

In the meantime,those who throw 'sticks-an-stones..' should take good stock of their own short-comings. We live in an imperfect World, and particularly in Oz, show sympathy, charity and understanding. This trivial persuit in 'new-australian-bashing', went out in the 50's. It's a mindless,hedonistic, and bird-witted endeavour that demeans us.
As they say in Kiwi, " KI-ORA ". j'y suis,j'y reste.

Dalma, verbally bashing 'new australians' would fade just like the peckings of a new chook in the pen :) but then, thats because that new chook is not gonna take over. Various other groups DO want to re-shape/takeover, but its not explicit or even at the forefront of their thinking when they cannot 'see' it as a serious possibility.

But once they realize that controlling just ONE seat can give incredible deal making power, viola.. we have an Islamic political party....
We don't have an Italian,Greek,Irish,Polish,Maltese or German one hmmmmmm (perhaps they are comfortable with a Judao Christian flavor in this country ?)

XENA I did my bit :) now its ur turn. I approached 3 generations of females (and one male elder, a secondary teacher) in our fellowship on the gist of your 'verses' (1 Cor 11) and found interesting results. The older woman, found it kind of a non issue, more of 'what's the fuss about', didn't get much from her. Then a 30 something middle class type married lady, who was quite agreeable that the male has the family headship, and that symbolic things which show this relationship were fine .. her comment "after all we are all under God" was very spot on, and she had no trouble seeing that a man fulfilling his side, will never be a problem for a woman doing her bit.

Finally a teenager.. but I only had a moment with her, "How would u feel if you were told you can't play that, ur a girl" (soccer with the guys) .. hehe.. she suddenly got all 'Xena like' and said "I'll play what I WANT.. grrr". So, I told her have a read of 1 cor 11 and we can discuss it further. Of course, there is nothing unbiblical about girls playing soccer with guys, its just plain dangerous. (beats chest..thump thump)

and hey.. what is this 'Your an easy target' stuff ? *curious look*
Believe it or not, I come here to try to make a difference... so if that makes me a target.. no matter.. *smiles*

Oh for crying out loud, must everything be as D & M and cop a bible passage a mile long to justify each poster's corner? Everything I've read (from Australian Muslim women) is that THEY choose to wear the veil, to liken it to a women must cover their head as men see the covering up of their hair as a vaginal extension is putting a lot of Sigmund Freud into where he don't belong. Many a devout Catholic girlie wore a crucifix around her neck as a symbol of their devoutness to their religion and were horrified that no one outside their religion understood. Jews have also been vilified over (and over) the way they insist on wearing their headgear (real or removable) in the past. Who does want to throw the first stone at anyone's headgear beside's Bronnie's? What is sitting on top of her head is just as awful as what comes out of her mouth. Are we so paranoid that we think they've got bombs swaddled under their burqas? Or are we just suffering from a bad case of xenaphobia (excuse me Xena, but you know what I mean!).

To the poster re Nuns - spot on!

Di - love your post. All we are hearing is the xenophobic rants of fearful aging white men. I only made the bible quotes 'cos of everyone carping on about how muslim women are forced to cover their heads by the koran - when it wasn't so long ago that christian women were ordered to cover-up. My muslim friends are of Turkish background BTW and some wear a hijab and some don't. As has been stated - it is their CHOICE. Just as I choose to wear body piercings and tatts - these bring me closer to my inner goddess ;-)

No-one was having a problem with these CHOICES until Bad-hair Bronny jumped in with her measly two cents worth.

BD -don't care wot your christian girlies and laaadies have to say - you don't seem to understand that chirstianity has been just as repressive of women in the past as a lot of Islam has been. It appears that many muslim posters are trying to move into the 21st century - why don't you give a go as well?

And furthermore, while I am not all that interested in what BD's girlies and laaadies have to say I am open to opinions from christian women, just as I am interested in opinions from muslim women - wish there were more of both - fed up with the biblical nagging from certain male christians.

Sorry Xena, am only a woman not a Christian woman.
I don't like the hijab personally either, and I would furiously object to any person of any religion refusing to shake my hand or make eye contact. That is insulting, in anyone's language. The burqa literally makes me feel dizzy with claustrophobia.

However, I would not ban any of them, particularly not in schools. If feminism is about anything it is about women having the right to decide their own destinies, no matter how much we might disagree with them, or even see them as colluding in their own oppression. I fully support arguing with the wearer and challenging her logic, but insisting she remove it is just another form of bullying.

If we believe women and girls have the right to control their own bodies and what they dress them in, we must be consistent about it. We can't say, yeah, sure wear what you like as long as its what we approve of. If we do that, then we are simply mirroring the very things in Islam we say we disagree with.

I think that Bronwyn Bishop is just running with the pack for publicity's sake. I think that she should do something more constructive like encouraging school-age youngsters to wear hats and grow their hair.

The issue here (wearing the hijabs) is more about cultural supremacism. The Muslim women supposedly (more like the jealous,controlling men of Muslim) believe that to hide their face is a better than sharing their lovely smiles and pretty faces.

In Australian culture we have an old belief that stems from the great depression of the 30's. It is an expression of our ideals of equality, openness, mateship and fairness. Put simply, we nod and smile at people as a greeting. No matter how broke or rolled-over you are most older Australians believe that you can always -- spare a smile, shed a tear and lend a hand. No matter how well off you are you can always spare a smile etc.

I think this culture is far superior to hiding away beauty and expression as if it is goods and chattel. With respect, and even considering the religious significance of covering ones face ( I am an infidel), I think that there is something very snobbish about wearing the hijab (and something very stupid about not wearing a hat).

Having said this, I think that it is wrong of Ms Bishop and all the other anti-other-than-my-religion provokers to think that they have the right to impose their cultural mores onto another culture.