Extract from The Guardian
Contradictory messages have left the Muslim community feeling more marginalised and the guardians of national security defiant
For all the shouting over the Abbott government’s plan to amend
section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, it is now clear that it
was not necessary to change any law.
In the debate over Muslim dress this week, we have seen our fair share of “offend, insult and humiliate” – the three provisions which were to have got the chop before the government decided it needed to get the Muslim community on side for the sake of the national security laws.
All the things we were not supposed to be able to do under 18C – according to its critics – were successfully done in public debate this week, leaving some of us feeling deeply disturbed.
There are two clear but contrary messages coming from the government and they are encapsulated in one quote from the prime minister in answer to a question about the burqa.
“I have said before that I find it a fairly confronting form of attire,” Tony Abbott said on Wednesday. “Frankly, I wish it was not worn but we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of government to tell people what they should and shouldn’t wear.”
One the one hand, we are told Australians should be free to wear what they like. On the other hand, anyone who wears the burqa makes our prime minister feel confronted. Further, he would prefer it if women did not wear it.
Both those messages were designed to hit targets representing two very different voting groups.
People who felt equally confronted by visibly identifiable Muslims cheered with Abbott, no matter what their level of knowledge on the various forms of Muslim religious dress.
People who believe that women should be able to dress as they please, had received their message: clothing is a personal choice in a free country, a free society and not the business of government.
But it soon became clear that first message was taking root. Within 24 hours of the prime minister’s comments, the presiding officers had issued an interim ruling that people wearing burkas and niqabs would not be allowed to sit in the open galleries but would sit behind enclosed glass for security reasons.
They were cheered on by the Liberal senator Cory Bernardi and the National MP George Christensen, who considered covered women a threat even though they – as everyone else – would be screened for dangerous items as they entered the building.
It was a decision that came as a routine circular from the Department of Parliamentary Services, revealed just after question time on Thursday. Abbott said he got a note on it after question time but he did not read it and so only found out about it later in the evening.
The idea of segregation attracted such widespread condemnation that by about 9pm that evening, Fairfax was reporting that Abbott would overturn the ban. Never mind that the day before he had said it was a matter for the presiding officers.
And yet the Speaker’s office told me on Friday at the time Abbott was saying otherwise that no such request asking for a review of the interim ruling had been received.
Parliamentary staff who were involved were flummoxed. There was a feeling of being “hung out to dry” – that the message, designed to show that Abbott was culturally sensitive and listening – had left the presiding officers in the lurch.
As a result, the only thing that has been achieved is that both sides felt betrayed. The Muslim community were left feeling more marginalised, even though only a tiny percentage wear the niqab. The self-appointed guardians of national security felt defiant. Christense tweeted: “For lovers of women’s faces being covered, don’t get ur hopes up on a backdown. Presiding Officers’ rulings aren’t subject to any PM veto.”
So what was the political play?
Asio and the Australian federal police are expected to give their full advice to the presiding officers in the near future, and parliament does not sit until 20 October. Abbott himself said on Friday that, having asked the Speaker to rethink, he expects the issue to be fully resolved by the time parliament returns.
Perhaps we can all go away feeling we have had our opinion assuaged, whether you belong to the freedom camp or the fear camp. But it’s no way to walk the delicate balance on race in the middle of a war.
In the debate over Muslim dress this week, we have seen our fair share of “offend, insult and humiliate” – the three provisions which were to have got the chop before the government decided it needed to get the Muslim community on side for the sake of the national security laws.
All the things we were not supposed to be able to do under 18C – according to its critics – were successfully done in public debate this week, leaving some of us feeling deeply disturbed.
There are two clear but contrary messages coming from the government and they are encapsulated in one quote from the prime minister in answer to a question about the burqa.
“I have said before that I find it a fairly confronting form of attire,” Tony Abbott said on Wednesday. “Frankly, I wish it was not worn but we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of government to tell people what they should and shouldn’t wear.”
One the one hand, we are told Australians should be free to wear what they like. On the other hand, anyone who wears the burqa makes our prime minister feel confronted. Further, he would prefer it if women did not wear it.
Both those messages were designed to hit targets representing two very different voting groups.
People who felt equally confronted by visibly identifiable Muslims cheered with Abbott, no matter what their level of knowledge on the various forms of Muslim religious dress.
People who believe that women should be able to dress as they please, had received their message: clothing is a personal choice in a free country, a free society and not the business of government.
But it soon became clear that first message was taking root. Within 24 hours of the prime minister’s comments, the presiding officers had issued an interim ruling that people wearing burkas and niqabs would not be allowed to sit in the open galleries but would sit behind enclosed glass for security reasons.
They were cheered on by the Liberal senator Cory Bernardi and the National MP George Christensen, who considered covered women a threat even though they – as everyone else – would be screened for dangerous items as they entered the building.
It was a decision that came as a routine circular from the Department of Parliamentary Services, revealed just after question time on Thursday. Abbott said he got a note on it after question time but he did not read it and so only found out about it later in the evening.
The idea of segregation attracted such widespread condemnation that by about 9pm that evening, Fairfax was reporting that Abbott would overturn the ban. Never mind that the day before he had said it was a matter for the presiding officers.
And yet the Speaker’s office told me on Friday at the time Abbott was saying otherwise that no such request asking for a review of the interim ruling had been received.
Parliamentary staff who were involved were flummoxed. There was a feeling of being “hung out to dry” – that the message, designed to show that Abbott was culturally sensitive and listening – had left the presiding officers in the lurch.
As a result, the only thing that has been achieved is that both sides felt betrayed. The Muslim community were left feeling more marginalised, even though only a tiny percentage wear the niqab. The self-appointed guardians of national security felt defiant. Christense tweeted: “For lovers of women’s faces being covered, don’t get ur hopes up on a backdown. Presiding Officers’ rulings aren’t subject to any PM veto.”
So what was the political play?
Asio and the Australian federal police are expected to give their full advice to the presiding officers in the near future, and parliament does not sit until 20 October. Abbott himself said on Friday that, having asked the Speaker to rethink, he expects the issue to be fully resolved by the time parliament returns.
Perhaps we can all go away feeling we have had our opinion assuaged, whether you belong to the freedom camp or the fear camp. But it’s no way to walk the delicate balance on race in the middle of a war.
No comments:
Post a Comment