Australian PM quashes debate on headscarf ban

[The Morrigan]

Thankfully this idea seems to have died the death in its early stages, but I was frankly a little shocked that it was suggested at all and particularly in a way that so obviously targetted Muslim women. I can think of few things more likely to alienate Australia's Muslim community at a time when we are trying to encourage them to engage with mainstream Australian society. "Oh sure, we want to promote a diverse, multi-cultural society. But could you stop being so, you know... different".

Is it just me with my touchy-feely, libertarian sensibilities who finds this so shocking?

PM quashes debate on headscarves

From: AAP By Sandra O'Malley
August 29, 2005

PRIME Minister John Howard has canned debate by government backbenchers who want Muslim girls banned from wearing headscarves to school, describing the idea as difficult and impractical.

Mr Howard has ruled out a ban on the headdress at public schools, suggested by Victorian Liberal Sophie Panopoulos and taken up enthusiastically by New South Wales backbencher Bronwyn Bishop.
Islamic groups dubbed the proposal dangerous and divisive, coming as it did less than a week after Mr Howard had convened a roundtable of moderate Muslims to work out ways the community could work together to counter the threat posed by extremist clerics.

After staying quiet on the issue in recent days, Mr Howard today sought to quell the growing debate.

"I don't think it's practical to bring in such a prohibition," Mr Howard said.

"If you ban a headscarf you might, for consistency's sake, have to ban a ... turban.


Advertisement:
"It does become rather difficult and rather impractical."
Mr Howard said while he did not believe more extreme forms of dress, including full coverage of the face, was desirable, the headscarf was a practice of many Islamic women, and he did not support a ban.

Multicultural Affairs Minister John Cobb meanwhile described the suggestion of a ban as ignorant.

"Whether a Muslim woman chooses to wear the headscarf in public or not does not diminish her identity as an Australian," he said.

Mr Howard's opposition contrasts with his reluctance to buy into the debate almost three years ago, when conservative NSW MP Fred Nile was pushing for a similar ban.

However, the Australian Greens called Mr Howard's comments against a ban half-hearted, saying they failed to fully endorse religious freedom.

"The right to wear a headscarf is you are a Muslim schoolgirl is surely a matter of cultural and religious freedom, which the Prime Minister appears not to understand," Greens senator Kerry Nettle said.

"Freedom of religion is an Australian value – that is the message John Howard should be sending – not that banning headscarves is simply impractical."

Public schools view the proposal as a non-issue.

Australian Secondary Principals Association president Ted Brierley said schools were responsible for their uniform policies, and the headscarves issue was not a problem for them.

"I'm not aware of any schools that are making this an issue," he said.

Australian Council of State School Organisations chief executive Terry Aulich questioned why such a ban would be introduced.

A French parliament decision to outlaw the wearing of Islamic headscarves in state schools last year had merely forced Muslim communities to look within, Mr Aulich said.

"I think the French did the most stupid thing when they banned headscarves because their public schools had been very, very inclusive," he said.

"Now people are going off into little enclaves, setting up their own little religious schools or ethnic schools.

"We're very much in favour of having a public school system which welcomes everybody rather than driving them into those enclaves."

>>LINK<<

[Robert Walper]

I for one would like to ask a serious question. What is wrong with immigrants following our customs and ways of life for a change? For fuck's sake they moved here...if you're leaving your country, don't expect us to bend over backwards so you can simply bring it with you. There's nothing wrong with diversity and accepting differences of all people, but that doesn't mean we should feel compelled to yield to every custom or "belief" anyone brings along.

"Oh sure, we want to promote a diverse, multi-cultural society. But could you stop being so, you know... different".

Did the fact such headwear hides the identity of person cross anyone's mind? Anyone care to make educated guesses as to the potential problems and abuses this can cause?

[Destructionator XV]

I agree with Robert here saying that immigrants should adjust to our country if they want live here. However, I also feel they should be able to do what they want.

In this case, a ban was uncalled for. But since this ban wasn't needed, that should mean it someone like me wants to wear one, I should also be allowed to do so. If not, then the double standard is grotesque.

[Stofsk]

"Oh sure, we want to promote a diverse, multi-cultural society. But could you stop being so, you know... different".

I don't want to promote a diverse, multi-cultural, fractured and unstable society. I want to promote an Australian society. It just so happens that Australia is inclusive to everyone, and we do make allowances for immigrants. But if people come here and don't integrate, then fuck 'em. I won't bend over backwards just to get brownie points with a bunch of people who fled their homeland only to take it with them.

And my parents weren't born here, so my perspective is coloured based on that experience. My mum considers herself Australian first, Hungarian second. And that's what should be promoted.

Is it just me with my touchy-feely, libertarian sensibilities who finds this so shocking?

I don't find it shocking, and I completely agree with the PM. If you're gonna ban headscarves then for consistency's sake you have to ban turbans, the Jewish kippa, the Christian crucifix and so on. Which is what the French did.

However, the Australian Greens called Mr Howard's comments against a ban half-hearted, saying they failed to fully endorse religious freedom.

"The right to wear a headscarf is you are a Muslim schoolgirl is surely a matter of cultural and religious freedom, which the Prime Minister appears not to understand," Greens senator Kerry Nettle said.

"Freedom of religion is an Australian value – that is the message John Howard should be sending – not that banning headscarves is simply impractical."

Kerry Nettle once again proves why she's a fucking moron.

Being in a public school is paid for by the state and the taxpayers. On those grounds it's legitimate to ban all outward displays of religious inclination, based on state-church separation. The constitution protects my right to worship, but it doesn't say that the government will go out of its way to say that I must.

Why does a Muslim schoolgirl have a 'right' to wear whatever she wants (and I hear it all the time that Islam doesn't actually state women MUST wear this fucking thing, so it IS a matter of choice), then why do I as a citizen NOT have the right to wear whatever I want? I'm sure someone like Alyrium will agree with me here, that if you promote 'freedom of expression' you can't have double-standards. If I go to school in this country I have to wear a uniform, whether I go to State school or Private. My freedom of expression is not recognised, yet a Muslim schoolgirl's choice of headwear is?

Fuck you Kerry. You just proved to me why I will never vote for the Greens.

Public schools view the proposal as a non-issue.

Australian Secondary Principals Association president Ted Brierley said schools were responsible for their uniform policies, and the headscarves issue was not a problem for them.

"I'm not aware of any schools that are making this an issue," he said.

And here we come with the 'if it ain't broke, don't ... er, break it?' mentality.

He's effectively right, if this is a change that must be introduced into public-funded schools it ought to be something those schools find valuable and necessary.

Australian Council of State School Organisations chief executive Terry Aulich questioned why such a ban would be introduced.

A French parliament decision to outlaw the wearing of Islamic headscarves in state schools last year had merely forced Muslim communities to look within, Mr Aulich said.

"I think the French did the most stupid thing when they banned headscarves because their public schools had been very, very inclusive," he said.

"Now people are going off into little enclaves, setting up their own little religious schools or ethnic schools.

Good for them, for fuck's sake. Holy shit, Muslim people entering private-funded schools, what a shock.

As for calling the French stupid, the French banned ALL displays of religious inclination, much like how Howard said: "If you're gonna ban one thing, you have to ban all the rest." You can't call the French hypocritical or practicing double-standards when Jews can't wear the kippa or Christians can't wear a cross. It's not their fault the Muslims have a more controversial religious fashion statement.

And as for people going off into their little enclaves, they were doing that before the ban. The French became quite rightly sick of it.

"We're very much in favour of having a public school system which welcomes everybody rather than driving them into those enclaves."

I went to school with a Jewish kid, who was my friend (we've since parted ways because as it turns out, he's grown into a racist, but he has a legitimate complaint that certain jobs are going overseas where cheap labour is, so I don't entirely disagree with him, I just don't like how he blames them and not the companies here that do it. And yes, I again have experience in this: my mum was made redundant recently because her boss would rather pay a Chinese girl half as much to do her job, if not less, while ignoring the fact my mother is incredibly loyal and hardworking, and has lost her husband in the last year). He never once wore a kippa to school. Granted we went to an Anglican school, but who gives a fuck? His brother went to a prestigious State school and he didn't wear a fucking kippa either. In fact, the only time I see Jews wear the skullcap is when they're on their way to temple. I even had to wear one when I went with them and I'm not Jewish, and I did it because I didn't want to embarass my friends.

So if the Jews can practice some fucking restraint on their religion - IE, not wear it on their sleeve and only practice it in private - then I hold Christians and Muslims to that same standard. Find me the passage in the Qu'ran that says women MUST wear the headscarf. See if I give a shit.

[Stofsk]

Did the fact such headwear hides the identity of person cross anyone's mind? Anyone care to make educated guesses as to the potential problems and abuses this can cause?

It's isn't a major security problem. The headscarf doesn't hide the identity of the person, unless you go with the bee-keeper costume some of those women wear.

And that costume isn't allowed to be worn by students, because it would cover the school's uniform (yes, if you go to school in this country, public or private, you wear a uniform). The headscarf only covers the hair. Apparently beautiful long hair proves you're a slut in Islam's eyes.

And this only applies to State schools, this isn't a ban across the nation's public. If you think terrorist schoolgirls are a threat in this country, you would be... amusingly wrong.

[The Morrigan]

I for one would like to ask a serious question. What is wrong with immigrants following our customs and ways of life for a change? For fuck's sake they moved here...if you're leaving your country, don't expect us to bend over backwards so you can simply bring it with you. There's nothing wrong with diversity and accepting differences of all people, but that doesn't mean we should feel compelled to yield to every custom or "belief" anyone brings along.

See the thing is, I believe that "our cusoms and way of life" is about freedom of expression including freedom of religion. You can engage in mainstream society without having to give up your individual beliefs and identity.

Sure, it's a two way street. Immigrants have to give a little and so do we.

Also, while many imigrants may already live in 'enclaves', I don't see how this is going to make things any better. The idea of banning headscaves (which I understand students at public schools are currently permitted to wear) simply reinforces the idea that one can choose to be Muslim or Australian.

And I can not see how allowing people to express their religious beliefs is inconsistent with the separation of church and state. If I remember correctly, the relevant passages in the Australian Constitution relate to the idea that the state cannot impose a religion on the people, not that it must prevent the people from expressing their own religious beliefs.

I might also note that I went to a private, multi-denominational 'international' school where students were encouraged to learn about and respect eachother's cultures and uniform rules allowed some flexibility and students could apply for uniform exemptions on religious grounds. I can't recall this ever creating any problems.

[frigidmagi]

I say one fucking set of rules for everyone and if you don't like it, leave. I don't support special treatment for anyone, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or Pagan or other.

Being inclusive does not bending over for anyone who says they're different, it's giving everyone equal treatment before the law. A ban on headscraves would violate this, because you are treating a gorup with greater resriction than others. However giving the same group more lax treatment is a violation of this has well. It goes both ways.

[Stofsk]

And I can not see how allowing people to express their religious beliefs is inconsistent with the separation of church and state. If I remember correctly, the relevant passages in the Australian Constitution relate to the idea that the state cannot impose a religion on the people, not that it must prevent the people from expressing their own religious beliefs.

I think the problem here is the idea, in Australia, that religion is a private matter between you and your god. That's the whole basis of a state-church separation. It's not something codefied into the constitution but more a convention of liberal society, that there has to be a division between the state and the church, or the public and the private.

And whether you like it or not, people who go to State schools are subject to the government and not a privately funded institution. If Muslim schoolgirls can wear the headscarf, Jewish schoolboys should wear the kippa. The thing is, this IS the case. Frigidmagi is correct that this is discriminatory against Muslims because they're the ones being singled out here. If you want to create a true division between state and church, you have to ban it all.

[The Morrigan]

I think the problem here is the idea, in Australia, that religion is a private matter between you and your god. That's the whole basis of a state-church separation. It's not something codefied into the constitution but more a convention of liberal society, that there has to be a division between the state and the church, or the public and the private.

And whether you like it or not, people who go to State schools are subject to the government and not a privately funded institution. If Muslim schoolgirls can wear the headscarf, Jewish schoolboys should wear the kippa. The thing is, this IS the case. Frigidmagi is correct that this is discriminatory against Muslims because they're the ones being singled out here. If you want to create a true division between state and church, you have to ban it all.

That's not creating a division between church and state. That borders establishing atheism the State religion. And why shouldn't Jewish boys be allowed to wear a kippa, and sikhs be allowed to wear long hair and a turban etc? In fact, aside from giving school-kids some insight into the manner of dress that will be expected from them when they grow up and presumably get jobs and giving them one less thing to worry about in the mornings, what is the point of school-uniforms anyway? And given that children under a certain age are required by law to attend school, the fact that the State is running a school is all the more reason to impose fewer restricions on how students dress. School students are recieving a service from the state, not representing it.

And if you ban people from wearing religious symbols in schools, wouldn't you have to ban them in state-run universities, hospitals etc? On roads, because they are state-funded? In Housing Commission homes?

[Stofsk]

That's not creating a division between church and state. That borders establishing atheism the State religion.

A bit hard to do that, since atheism isn't a religion. And what's wrong exactly with having a secular society which doesn't play favourites with religion? Howard was right to shoot this down because it does discriminate against Muslims, but if this was a call to ban ALL religious displays in state schools then big deal.

*snip*, what is the point of school-uniforms anyway?

I don't know, but since it harms nobody, I don't care. I suppose it's a simple convenience for parents and students alike. A uniform cuts clothing costs to parents, which is enough of a benefit as far as I'm concerned.

And given that children under a certain age are required by law to attend school, the fact that the State is running a school is all the more reason to impose fewerrestricions on how students dress.

Non sequitor. Just because children are required to attend school by law doesn't mean there ought to be fewer restrictions on what they wear.

School students are recieving a service from the state, not representing it.

A service they have no choice to receive? You said it: they're required by LAW to attend school, whether they like it or not.

Do you think students who attend private school are customers because they're paying for it?

And if you ban people from wearing religious symbols in schools, wouldn't you have to ban them in state-run universities, hospitals etc? On roads, because they are state-funded? In Housing Commission homes?

No, and you're missing the point. Or you're missing MY point.

Namely, if Muslims are allowed the freedom of expression to wear a headscarf then why is my freedom of expression - if you can pretend that I'm a student - not respected? Perhaps because I don't wear my fucking religion on my sleeve.

And just because it's state-run doesn't mean these people's fashion statements are banned or whatever, which is complete bullshit. This issue relates to public schooling, not public roads and emergency services. That's a slippery slope.

[The Morrigan]

A bit hard to do that, since atheism isn't a religion.

That all depends upon your definiton of 'religion'.

And what's wrong exactly with having a secular society which doesn't play favourites with religion? Howard was right to shoot this down because it does discriminate against Muslims, but if this was a call to ban ALL religious displays in state schools then big deal.

Who's talking about playing favourites? So long as your beliefs don't result in actions that harm or interfere with the rights of others, I see nothing wrong with expressing them. Just because somebody is permitted to express a religious belief, it doesn't mean that the government if favouring that religion, so long as it doesn't repress other religions.

School students are recieving a service from the state, not representing it.

A service they have no choice to receive? You said it: they're required by LAW to attend school, whether they like it or not.

Do you think students who attend private school are customers because they're paying for it?

It's a point of view. Or 'clients' if you prefer. Or perhaps their parents are, seeing as in most cases they are the ones paying the fees (although it's not completely unheard of for a minor to cough up the fees to attend a school of their choice). The whole thing gets a bit murky because there are minors involved. In any case, seeing as money is changing hands in return for a service, there is something in the nature of a customer/vendor relationship. Of course there are some additional fiduciary duties attached, but the same can be said for many other professions, such as solicitors and accountants.

And the fact that students are required to attend school does not alter the fact that they are not agents of the state. If they were agents of the state, I might see some logic in restricting their rights to express their religious beliefs while acting in their capacity as an agent of the state. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that logic, but I could at least see the connection.

And if you ban people from wearing religious symbols in schools, wouldn't you have to ban them in state-run universities, hospitals etc? On roads, because they are state-funded? In Housing Commission homes?

No, and you're missing the point. Or you're missing MY point.

Namely, if Muslims are allowed the freedom of expression to wear a headscarf then why is my freedom of expression - if you can pretend that I'm a student - not respected? Perhaps because I don't wear my fucking religion on my sleeve.

And just because it's state-run doesn't mean these people's fashion statements are banned or whatever, which is complete bullshit. This issue relates to public schooling, not public roads and emergency services. That's a slippery slope.

Just because you don't want to wear your religion on your sleeve, it doesn't mean that other people should be denied the right to. I don't want to join a convent, but it doesn't mean that I think people who do should be denied that right. By the same token, I don't think that anybody should be allowed to impose their religion on others.

And you were the one who said that in order for there to be true separation of church and state, all religions symbols must be banned in schools. I was just questioning why this principle should be restricted to schools.

And by the way, the last time I checked, you were a student. Or did you quit uni since yesterday?

[Stofsk]

That all depends upon your definiton of 'religion'.

No it doesn't, but Rob explained it before I could.

Who's talking about playing favourites?

The Liberal backbenchers who suggested the ban on headscarves were playing favourites. Like I said, already, banning headscarves is discriminatory because it singles out one particular religion.

Just because you don't want to wear your religion on your sleeve, it doesn't mean that other people should be denied the right to. I don't want to join a convent, but it doesn't mean that I think people who do should be denied that right.

False dilemma. It's quite a leap to go from "banning headscarves in state schools" to "restricting one's freedom of religion."

Banning a headscarf is NOT THE SAME as banning Islam. It's taking what is, essentially, a fucking fashion statement, and saying "Don't wear your religion on your sleeve."

And you were the one who said that in order for there to be true separation of church and state, all religions symbols must be banned in schools. I was just questioning why this principle should be restricted to schools.

Because schools are a learning environment, and is not a place to preach or convert others. Teaching children is an awesome responsibility that's often mishandled.

It's also a place where your 'rights' don't exist. No right to free speech; if a teacher tells you to shut up, you better shut up. No right to free expression; everyone has to wear a uniform that's the same. You can't come and go whenever you like. You can't full around or be distruptive. There are more things you can't do than things you can in schools.

And by the way, the last time I checked, you were a student. Or did you quit uni since yesterday?

I meant primary or secondary student. I'm still in uni.

[Comrade Tortoise]

See, I think that no special treatment should be given to any one group. Now, I dont know the australian law(which does not exist BTW *chuckles*) but in the US, under our bill of rights, I would go so far as saying that forced school uniforms in public schools are unconstitutional. By extension, if we apply the US constitution to generally state the principles of basic human rights...Any ban on rteligious expression, or political expression such as a DNC or RNC pin, or a crucifix is unconstitutional.

Here is why

Clothing is a form of expression which is protected under a modification of the first amendment, allowed for under the ninth amendment. The state does not have a right to restrict it. At all. The only caveat being in the interests of public safety or to preserve instruction. It has nothing to do with what may or may not be desirable. That is not the place of government to decide. So the government does not have the right to ban clothing based on ideas of "integration".


Some people may argue that because they are on state time that the state may make certain rules. But the state cannot. because legally speaking it is the very government who proposes the restrictions that is limited by the constitution. It would make no sense then for them to be able to restrict expression on public property.

I could go on like this for hours and hours and hours