 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
It now appears that the immediate impetus for the decision to have those wearing facial coverings segregated in one of the glass-walled upper viewing galleries of federal Parliament was the belief that a group of burka-clad protestors was about to descend on the Parliament during question time.
The measure appears to have been put in place to avoid the embarrassment of heckling from the public gallery from those opposed to banning women in burkas from the Australian Parliament. The segregation measure seems to have been a public-relations-inspired containment exercise. This would help to explain the repeated assurance that it is an 'interim' measure, only in place until a more comprehensive policy has been developed.
Judged on these terms, it has been a disaster. The protestors, with or without burkas, have yet to arrive, but the issue has now assumed centre stage via the decision of the speaker of the lower house and the president of the Senate to institute this policy.
It clearly fails as a security measure both because it does not allow for genuine security against a terrorist attack and because there are other far more effective ways to ensure that anyone carrying weapons or explosive devices does not even enter the Parliament.
As a public relations exercise it has created only anger and distress. It clearly does not go far enough to satisfy those who would actually like to see all women wearing burkas or niqabs barred from the Parliament; while for those who consider that an inappropriate, if not offensive, idea, it has simply fuelled the perception that the Australian Parliament has many within it who are bigots and Islmophobes.
Nor is the issue likely to go away any time soon. It has been reported that the Prime Minister has requested that the Speaker and the President of the Senate reconsider their decision to have those wearing facial coverings seated in an upper gallery behind a glass barrier. A day after this report appeared; however, the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, indicated that no such request had been made of her. The difficulty would appear to be that the Prime Minister does not want to be seen undermining the independence of the two chief parliamentary officers, nor would they wish to be seen merely to be following orders. So it seems that if the decision is in fact made to rescind the direction regarding segregation, it will be presented as though it were the independent action of the Speaker and Senate President. All that is likely to be achieved is further confusion for no public relations gain. In the meantime, two separate broader reviews into who can be issued passes and whether the burka should be banned outright in the building are still taking place.
What is particularly regrettable is that the whole matter has descended into farce when it has real-world consequences. Islamic women on Australian streets, wearing nothing more 'confronting' than the hijab have been and are being verbally abused. Offence has been given to many within the Australian Muslim community by the differential treatment they are receiving in their nation's Parliament. Those who are prejudiced against Muslims have had their prejudices apparently vindicated by that Parliament and any serious security issue clothing or facial covering might represent has not been addressed.