In the aftermath of the Sheikh Taj brouhaha there have been two forums held on national TV in which a group of Muslim and non-Muslim commentators, ‘experts’ and laypeople were brought together to discuss the issues. The first was held on SBS, Australia’s multicultural broadcaster, and was broadcast on the Insight program. They have a transcript available here but also provide video streaming of the episode here.
The second forum was held on channel Nine’s Sunday program and was entitled, Good Muslim/Bad Aussie. They also provide video streaming but, unfortunately or maybe fortunately, no transcript.
There isn’t much to say about either performance except that both were, in my opinion, woeful and demonstrate that, from a Muslim’s perspective, there is little to be gained from these sorts of ‘open discussions’. The Sunday discussion was particularly embarrassing with Muslims making takfir on one another, lots of yelling and silly comments. The problem, of course, is that any Muslim invited to appear faces a variation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. If more reasonable people don’t attend, there is the fear that the less reasonable people will attend and thus monopolise the discussion.
Federal MP Bronwyn Bishop was in fine form on both occasions, wheeling out her ‘let’s ban hijab in public schools‘ schtick; although, of course, despite having had the opportunity to perfect this rant over the countless times she has delivered it, she hasn’t yet worked out that it is hijab and not hajib as she keeps pronouncing it. The Sunday forum is worth watching if only to hear her say it.
BRONWYN BISHOP: Get it right. I said that young girls in secular state schools should wear the school uniform and not the hijab. I said that is because that makes them equal … that is exactly what I have said and I stand by that. If people want to wear it in their private life or if they want to go to Islamic schools…
Let’s say Bronwyn has her way and girls are banned from wearing hijab in state schools. She apparently believes that this will result in girls removing their hijab in order to continue attending school. However, if girls are choosing to wearing hijab in an environment where the majority of other girls are not wearing it and where she could, if she wished, happily remove it, then it is reasonable to assume she is not wearing it as a mere affectation but that she actually believes it is required by her faith.
Therefore, if hijab was banned, these girls would not simply remove it but would either discontinue their education or look for venues where they could continue their education whilst continuing to practice their religion. This would have two effects: an increase in demand for places in Islamic schools; and an increase in home schooling. Given that the better Islamic schools already have long waiting lists and demand exceeds supply of places, the increased demand resulting from a hijab ban would see both the expansion of existing Islamic schools to meet this demand and the creation of new institutions.
Ms Bishop should be very careful what she wishes for: banning hijab (or even her haijb) in public schools may have a very different effect to the one that she presumably imagines.
10 comments ↓
I assume there will be some girls who are wearing hijab because of parental or peer pressure, and who will remain at the school if it is banned, so from that perspective the ban isn’t totally ineffective.
I think the real reason for the ban is to reduce social pressure for wearing hijab in state schools with large numbers of Muslim girls. It’s not about the girls who are wearing it now, it’s a preemptive policy.
Joe: You are right that some girls will wear it because of parental or other pressures but if parents really care about their daughters wearing hijab then it probably is a guaranteed they will move their daughters to an Islamic school as mentioned in the original post.
On the Insight program, when Bronwyn Bishop was questioned about whether other religious symbols should also be banned, she admitted the reason she wants the hijab / hajib banned is because apparently “we” are the only ones that want to overrun the government and install shari`a law.
Thus, she wants to punish the weakest members of the Muslim community (young girls) because of her xeno- and migrantophobia. I do not for a minute think she has these girls’ interests in her mind, wa Allahu-alim.
Good point, Umm Yasmin.
She explained the reasons for her campaign against the hijab in this interview from last year.
I have no idea what the relationship is between schoolgirls in hijab and some undefined and never referenced plot to overthrow Australian law. And, I suspect, neither does Bronwyn.
Gosh, what a blast from the past Bronnie is?
Here is another classic Bronwyn moment.
Wow, a shame the other posting on a similar issue got spammed by comments, I would have been interested in the discussion.
I find it interesting that the media seems to churn out these types of MP’s – after Cronulla it was Peter Debenham talking his xenophobic nonsense about “Middle Eastern” looking people (whoever they are – green eyed, blonde haired people as well?), and now it is her turn. I wonder why they even get air time when what they say seems to be so far off the scale that it does not do anything except further show how prejudiced they can be.
I missed this show on Sunday, so will have a look at the transcript i’A – maybe they have a video posted somewhere as well? I find it a shame that those who go to these things to speak for us all can’t literally laugh off the rantings of such crazy people, and instead have to argue back and resort to intra-community issues in order to prove who is the “best”.
Top points on the hijab issue Umm Yasmin and Amir!
One thing that I think these types of incidents show, is that we need to be able to deal with the issues within our own community ourselves first. Sometimes I wish for the utopiac vision of “I am just Muslim” like you would not believe.
I also read an interesting (but long!) article here which highlights some of the key issues that I think are at play here, on a wider perspective. These mainly relate to the mutual incomprehension between the Muslim community and the wider non-Muslim community. This article highlights issues relating to the right to political/emotional expression, and how it relates to terrorism or potential terrorism. Also how the framed discourse can work on multiple levels depending on who is listening, and their background in the subject. It is worth a read.
I feel that this may be a real issue, and this inability to distinguish between the two is what often causes the Ulema who get media attention to be represented in a bad way (who are from specific political/social environments, so of course have their own issues and prejudices). Of course, part of the problem is how they present themselves, but there is more to it than simply this. I am not sure though, but I do know that I would like to see a study on this type of thing.
The other issue is simply this: why are we allowing the entertainment industry to frame the discourse about our religion in the first place? “The forum will address topics such as the Muslim attitude towards women, law and order, terrorism and religious tolerance.” Great… but I don’t think these issues even really need to be discussed at all – maybe apart from the women. We obey the laws here, and get punished for breaking them. Simple. Even the old ‘ammo’s and jiddo’s know and believe this. No problem. The terrorism issue is scary because it is also us who are threatened by this, and are in danger of lots of reprisals and bad things if anything does ever happen.
Yet we allow the media to frame the discourse instead of framing our own discourse, and approaching from our own points of reference. Instead we bicker about sects and pronounce takfir on each other, even though we all have a stake in this, regardless of background.
It makes me want to tear my hair out (if I had any)!
In order for us to set the terms for our own discourse, we need to have an element of power in our discussions with the media; one obvious source of that power being a degree of unity. The problem, as I alluded to in the post, is that the community is highly sectarian and each sect or group will participate in even the most wrong-headed of discussions because they fear that if they don’t, the opposing sect or point of view will attend and only their view will be presented.
Yup, I fully agree with your analysis. It truly is a sickness that we have to come to terms with and cure. I am just not sure how it can be done, and this is where the problem lies.
MMmm – think how powerful a united boycott of gutter journalism would be. If there were no Muslims to put on air as a spectacle, perhaps they’d get sick of us and go concentrate on weight-loss programs and shonky car-dealers.
Leave a Comment