Rev Fred Nile introduced a Bill into the House this week claiming urgency to debate his Bill to prosecute anyone who wears clothing that conceals the face. Although he said it was not just the burqa that concerned him, he went on to say how people around the world wear a burqa to hide explosives they will use in acts of terrorism. He also said he was not against Islam but then proceeded to speak about Muslim practises and those who insisted women wear the burqa. He has proposed that women wearing a burqa be fined $550 for a first offence, and husbands who insist their wives wear a burqa be fined $1100.

There was a willingness to have the debate, but Rev Fred Nile spoke at length giving his views then indicated the debate be postponed until the end of September before anyone else could speak. This was to allow him to start promoting his Senate and state elections campaigns. Because The Fred Nile Party no longer has the support of any major Christian denomination, he has turned to support from rednecks and racists, and people fearful of any changes brought by immigrants and practitioners of other religions. The major parties allowed Rev Nile to make this election speech provided he did not make it his central issue in the Penrith by-election.

Following the lead of some European countries, Rev Fred Nile is seeking the banning of the burqa. This was first suggested by Senator Cory Bernardi in response to an armed robbery in a Sydney parking lot on May 6 involving a man wearing a burqa. Senator Bernardi argued that the ban could be justified for security and social reasons.

The current government has disagreed with the call for a ban because, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, so far there has not been any advice from security agencies suggesting that the burqa is a threat to national security. Likewise, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said people should have freedom to choose their clothes and practice their religion as they please.

However, most Australians support a burqa ban. A Channel 7 poll announced on “Today Tonight” last week found that 97 percent of 15,000 voters were in support of a ban. But despite public sentiment and the views of some politicians, there are several compelling reasons as to why it is inappropriate to ban the burqa in Australia.

Bernardi argued in his blog that the burqa was “emerging as a disguise of bandits and ne’er-do-wells.’’ But not only would it be ridiculous to ban the burqa based purely on one robbery in Sydney, one must take into account that far more robberies in Australia involve men disguised in suits and balaclavas. Does this mean we should ban such forms of dress? I would ask Rev Nile, that because most bank robbers in the past have covered their head and face with pantyhose, will he now ban women wearing pantyhose? If the robber had chosen to wear a nun’s habit, would Rev Nile suggest banning nuns whom he calls friends, from wearing habits?

This would seem to suggest that calls to ban the burqa go deeper than simple security protocols.

It is not surprising, then, that he also argued that the burqa was un-Australian. We should perhaps look to the Australian Constitution to define what it is to be Australian. Section 116 guarantees the free exercise of religion, as long as it does not incite religious hatred, break the law or violate the rights of others.

As the burqa is a part of religious practice and does not cause harm nor violate the law or the rights of others in Australia, the very idea to ban the burqa contradicts the Constitution and therefore is un-Australian itself.
He also argued that Muslim women must adapt to Australian culture, and that immigrants from the Middle East should not bring their customs here. Yet Rev Fred Nile’s ancestors came to Australia to do just that, bringing their own cultures and customs, and imposing them on Aborigines, who had been living here for at least 40,000 years.
Banning the burqa will marginalize many Muslims and increase antigovernment sentiment within the conservative Muslim community, with the possible result of encouraging radicalism. His ban would also ruin Australia’s campaign, particularly in the neighbouring Muslim-majority Indonesia, to present itself as a democratic, multicultural and Muslim-friendly country. It would reinforce Indonesian Muslims’ perception of Australia as a racist country with double standards.

As Joe Hockey, the shadow treasurer, said last year in his speech titled “In Defense of God,” Australia would do better to condemn the governments that force the wearing of the burqa. For most Muslim women in democratic countries such as Australia and Indonesia, to wear or not to wear the burqa is a matter of personal choice, there is no compulsion about it.

There is very little difference between banning the burqa, that is forcing people not to wear it — and imposing it — that is, forcing people to wear it. If Rev Fred Nile bans the burqa, is he any different from Taliban who force women to wear it?

The general word for these is hijab, which is a Quranic term meaning “barrier” or “screen.” In a famous verse (33:53) it refers to a partition in the home of the prophet Muhammad to separate the women of his family from the eyes of the many people who would come to his home seeking an audience. Its meaning is basically the same as the Hebrew word mechitzah, the barrier that separates the women’s section from the men’s section in traditional Jewish synagogues. The intent of the Quranic verse was to protect the women of Muhammad’s family from the intrusion of strangers and the possible embarrassment that could result. Soon the term was applied to a common form of modesty practiced also among Christian and Jewish women at the time — covering the hair. The purpose was to encourage modest dress.

Burqa is an Arabic term that refers to any face covering with eye openings. The issue of covering has been a point of contention for Muslim religious scholars for many centuries.
While all consider that modest dress is required, some scholars also consider covering the face obligatory. Others consider it highly recommended but not required. Still others actually consider it forbidden, and the issue continues to arouse debate in the Muslim world.
We do not want to follow the example of France that in 2004 passed a law banning the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in government schools. This outlawed not only the Muslim headscarf, but also the Jewish kippot and wearing of the Christian crucifix and Cross. Last July, President Nicolas Sarkozy targeted the burqa as an affront to human and civil rights. “The burqa is not a religious problem,” he told the French Parliament. “It’s a problem of freedom and the dignity of women.”

Those are astonishing words. I don’t understand how banning religious expression is not a religious problem, and I cannot understand how banning a garment indicative of Muslim modesty is not an act of stigmatization. Condemning the burqa is imposing one set of culturally and religiously defined values onto people who may not agree. I would think that, instead of a burqa, the most confronting form of attire would be budgie smugglers.

How do we know that wearing a burqa is a humiliation? How is it shameful? How do you or I know how a woman wearing a full-face veil feels about it? Why not pass a law banning the wearing of miniskirts and low-cut tops? Or black toupees on graying old men? Or Tattoos? We desecrate God’s image whenever we purposefully disfigure our bodies.
France recommended banning the burqa in public buildings to respect the rights of women and, second, as a question of security. Banning someone from wearing a veil is not respecting a woman’s rights. It is exactly the opposite: it is a blatant act of disrespecting her right to choose what to wear.

Security may be another matter, but it seems to me that if I wanted to smuggle body explosives into a public place, I would not wear traditional Arabic dress; that would only invite scrutiny and suspicion. Banning the burqa is not an attempt to protect either the dignity of women or to increase security. It is an attempt to make “ethnic people” conform to a flat and unimaginative sense of what it means to be Australian.

It is enforcement of an outdated and oppressive ideology that does not respect the fundamental freedom to express one’s religious identity in public. What Rev Fred Nile would be better off doing is ‘banning racism and not the burqa’.

One must admit that the burqa looks claustrophobic and formless, but fashion is frequently mystifying – consider the bikini. How can a society that holds up impossible ideals of thinness, to the point of making women anorexic and self-loathing, sit in judgment over another society’s attire? Australian society has its own forms of oppression: decadence, racism, substance abuse, bulimia, porn and paedophilia, and ugly drunken men wrapped up in an Aussie flag. Are these any less oppressive than the burqa? If, by banning the burqa, you are trying to protect Muslim women, then may we suggest other means such as equal opportunity and less racial snobbery? Rather than ban the burqa, why not protect people by banning tobacco, alcohol and unrealistic fashions – each of which has damaged many people?

Rev Fred, it is time you directed your attention to some real issues such as climate change, the proper treatment of asylum seekers, and the future of young Indians who come to this country for education and run into ugly racism. It is time for you to cease encouraging some of the worse elements in Australian society whose desire is to cause social disruption and racist conflict.

Instead, place your trust in the Muslims to decide on the destiny of their cultures for themselves. Enter into dialogue with the Muslim community. And instead of being an alienating force be a Christian seeking reconciliation rather than encouraging rednecks and racists, and allow the people concerned to express their own opinion even if they are different to yours, as that is the meaning of being a Christian Democrat.

We realize this is an election ploy of wedge politics designed to frighten old ladies and energize racists to support your vote. Our nation no longer has Pauline Hanson with her red hair. In her place we now have Rev Fred Nile in Brylcream.

But this is so serious, because the CDP (Fred Nile Group) has candidates for both Federal and state elections, and it is mandatory for all candidates to recite the opinions of the President for Life, Rev Fred Nile. This means candidates such as the Mayor of Shoalhaven, Cr Paul Green have to repeat the mantra of Ban the Burqa. Does this mean the Mayor will be wanting to ban the Burqa in Woolworths in Nowra and in Coles in Ulladulla? The man Rev Nile has indicated as his eventual successor and current Party Vice-President, Baptist College Principal Rev Ross Clifford, who was made a member (AM) in the Australian Honours list for his work in “inter-faith” dialogue, must either disassociate himself from these anti-Muslim statements, or else return the honour he accepted.

It is interesting to note that other religious texts also speak of veiling: The Jewish Old Testament records: “When Rebekah raised her eyes, she caught sight of Isaac and she swung herself down from off the camel. Then she said to the servant, ‘Who is that walking in the field to meet us?’ and the servant said ‘It is my master’. And she proceeded to take a head cloth and to cover herself.’ (Genesis: 24:64-65)

In the Christian New Testament is the comment concerning a local scandal at Corinth: ‘But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head for it is one and the same as if she were a (woman) with a shaved head. For if a woman does not cover herself let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.’ (1 Corinthians: 11:5-6)

The Bible then treats the wearing of a veil as an inherently righteous undertaking. Perhaps President Sarkozy should look more closely at pictures of the Virgin Mary in the Louvre. He will note that she is always depicted in art with her head covered.

Likewise it used to be obligatory upon Catholic women to don a headscarf while attending the church service. Today Christian nuns and in many conservative Protestant denominations, women continue to cover their heads. The extent to which a Muslim woman covers her face may vary according to her situation and practical needs. However, the act of veiling is not considered a disgrace or a hindrance for a woman. Instead it is seen as honouring her and freeing her from the bondage of society and the obstacles that prevent her intellectual, moral, and spiritual advancement. Veiling only becomes a sign of subservience when it is used by men to prevent women from fully participating in daily life. Sadly, some Muslim countries have allowed the perpetuation of this belief through their cruel treatment of women. I call upon Australian Muslim leaders to encourage their fellow Muslims to discontinue the practice. However, it must be noted that there is no law in Islam that punishes a woman for not veiling. It is her choice, not a sanction of her sexuality to be imposed by a man. France’s problems with Europe’s largest group of Muslims are not because of the veil but rather social issues. The unemployment rate for immigrants and their French-born children is higher than the national average. Many children of immigrants complain of discrimination, saying they get passed over for jobs because they have “foreign-sounding” names. This frustration of many North African and black immigrants was evident in France’s three-week wave of riots in 2005. France needs to engage in dialogue with its Muslim communities. But banning the burqa is not the way to do this. Indeed by deciding for these Muslims women that the burqa is a mark of subservience, he, like the Muslim men who force them to wear it, will be guilty of exerting his rights over theirs, hardly an expression of respecting the dignity of women. In following the example of France, Rev Nile is following a bad example, and like France, is doing it for short-term political advantage rather than long-term reconciliation and community harmony which should be the first response of a Christian Democrat.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

Wednesday, 23rd June, 2010, 3:47 pm | Editorials