Burqa, burka, berko...

What with every politician and pundit in the land talking about it, I feel I have to have an opinion on this burqa/burka business.  It's all driving me a bit berko...

First of all, why has the ABC gone completely with the spelling as "burka" instead of "burqa" which I reckon most other media outlets are sticking with?  Odd.

Secondly, this morning, Waleed Aly complains that people are actually going on about the niqab, not the burqa/burka.  Yet a certain Senator to be mentioned in the next paragraph did post a picture of the burka in her bit of misleading, Islam baiting, PR about it.  In fact, I'm getting a bit peeved by people like Waleed who seem to claim you'll virtually never see a burka in Australia, when I'm certain I have, and I do not live in any particularly "muslim" part of town.

Thirdly, surely there is one - and probably only one - thing we can all agree on:   bogans attacking Muslim women in the street or on public transport for wearing a mere hair covering that leaves the face open (the hijab, for example) are offensive, dumb nuts.    OK, bogans attacking or yelling at women in the street for wearing a burka/niqab are offensive too, but the absolute height of stupidity and offensiveness is for those who are deeply upset by mere hair covering.  I mean, I would like to be able to yell at men or women on the street with horrendous tattoos every day, but in the interests of civil society, I keep my opinions to a blog, so that they can abuse me in return without causing a scene...

But once we get past that point, I have a bit of a problem:  even if one did generally support the idea of a ban on the burka/berka/niqab, how could one admit to it when the main proponents are the Senator from Bogan Central Casting (Lambie) and  Tea Party (anti abortion wing) wannabe Cory Bernardi?

But on the other hand, can I live with the embarrassment of finding myself in agreement with selfie superstar and classic liberal values bore Tim Wilson?  [I mean, if the European Court of Human Rights can uphold a wide ranging ban on Muslim face covering in France, surely to God that proves there is no conclusive "rights" argument one way or the other on this.]

And what's up with Andrew Bolt?  After running a full blown Muslim Panic Station campaign on his blog for a month or so, he can't bring himself to agreeing to a segregation of the burka clad in Parliament? 

Despite this confusion and worry about who I might be accidentally agreeing with, here are a few points I want to make:

1.    for those women who feel compelled by males to wear it, the feminist argument against this form of dress is obvious.  Even if the women don't feel compelled as such, as a symbol of male dominated religion's control and possession of women (as in Saudi Arabia, where the religions police once preferred to hinder girls escaping a fire rather than let them be seen on the street without the required gear) it is still, obviously, objectionable;

2.   I'm more interested in the quasi feminist justification for wearing it that we see being run a lot lately (the women who say they feel empowered by wearing it, as it means they don't have to meet anyone's standard for fashion, as well as protecting them from the gaze of strange men on the street).  I count this as a nice try, but it doesn't wash for two reasons:

a.   there is no credible need to cover the face to make a statement about freedom from societal standards of fashion - heaps of women go to the shops without makeup, and plenty of Western women - even rich ones - set a sterling example of being carefree from the tyranny of fashion.

b.  if the argument is out of genuine concern about the face being exposed makes a woman the potential object of lustful attention of men - this is sexist in the extreme (towards men) - and to be honest, it's close enough to the nuttiness of Andrea Dworkin (of "all heterosexual sex is rape" fame) to deserve derision.

3.   What of women who don't overthink it, but just feel it is a religious obligation or a matter of cultural solidarity, or whatever?   Well look, I think we're talking an extreme here - the example of (old style) Catholic nuns, or Buddhist monks, is not a valid comparison in the face covering stakes.   What's more, even in societies with  a religion that takes nudity seriously as a sign of religious asceticism (see the nude Hindu holy men in India, or Jainism), there is surely still a time and place for where their choice of religiously motivated (un)dress is acceptable.    And as much as it pains me, I have to come to a quasi defence of Tony Abbott here - talk of how his wearing speedos offends people is snide and silly.  He is not trying to address Parliament in one, and unless you want to start buying into Islamic arguments about how women should wear head to foot coverings on the beach,  you need to leave the question of modesty on the beach well alone.

No, my final decision is this:    Parliament, courts and other government bodies are part of a basically secular set of institutions (and please, let's replace the Lord's Prayer at the start of Parliament with something else to make that clearer) that should reflect the type of society that the nation aspires to be - one where the extremes of religious or social views do not interfere with some really fundamental things, such as the respect that men should have towards women to not control them in terms of appearance, and for women not to treat men as if they can't see a female face without thinking of sex.  Faces allow for proper and good communication - and to be open to good communication with all other people regardless of gender is a sign of respect for them.

People on the street can dress, modestly, as they like; and I would not see the need for the full extent of a French ban here.

But if coming to Parliament, or court, it is not security concerns that should motivate a "ban", but a question of respect for the society they are in.  Just as I expect no Westerner to kick up a stink about having to remove shoes if visiting a temple that requires it in a foreign land.

I would support a rule that all faces - male and female (remembering that a man who wants to wear a motorcycle helmet, or a nutty V for Vendetta face mask as a political statement, is not going to be allowed to do that either) - should be open in Parliament or within similar institutions.

But is it worth having that argument now?  Probably not, even though it is hard to say when it is the right time to do so.   

I think this means that I can declare - Everyone Else is Wrong.