John Menadue. The burqa and hijab – public space must be neutral and secular.-a repost

The burqa and the hijab are stale news in France.

There has been an important debate and discussion on Muslim head and body covering in France for many years. The simple head dress or hijab, turbans and kippas have been banned in French schools since 2004. The burqa has been banned in public spaces since 2010. The French approach has a wide consensus across the political spectrum.  

Under the French policy of ‘laicite’ the state is neutral in relation to religious practices and institutions. Within that laicite framework religious codes and conduct must not infringe in the public area.

France has a population of about 7% Muslim or 4 million people. I suspect that, as in Australia, many would be ‘cultural’ Muslims as there are ‘cultural’ Christians. Fundamentalists are on the fringe of all religions.

The largest group of French Muslims has come from former French colonies, Algeria and Morocco.

As part of the general consensus around the policy of laicite, President Chirac proposed in 2003 that the wearing of  ‘conspicuous’ signs of religious expression, whatever the religion was incompatible with the French system of laicite; that it breached the separation of church and state and would increase tension in France’s multicultural society.

Later that year, the French Parliament decided that the law should prohibit the wearing of religious signs in schools according to laicite requirements. It came into effect in 2004. The legislation prohibited Muslim hijabs, Jewish yamulkas and large Christian crosses. Religious adherents were still permitted to wear discrete symbols of faith, such as small crosses, the Star of David or Fatimah’s hands.

In 2010 France banned the wearing of the burqa in public spaces, a full-body covering, except under specified circumstances (e.g. motor-bike riders’ helmets and helmets worn by safety worker). The ban includes balaclavas, masks and hijabs.

French government policy in these areas was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights this year (2014).

The French are very tough minded and resolute on these issues. We should also be resolute and as part of a defence of multiculturalism and diversity. This is a subject on which conservatives have been quite ambivalent, but Prime Minister Abbott in his speech to the United Nations Security Council this week was quite explicit ‘The Australian government will be utterly unflinching towards anything that threatens our future as a free, fair and multicultural society; a beacon of hope and exemplar of unity in diversity’.

Multiculturalism however is not just an aspiration or principle. It must be grounded in firm policies and programs such as the French approach to dress.

Our multiculturalism should be expressed in very clear ways.

  • It must be underpinned by a substructure of important values, e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.
  • It must be underpinned also by our institutions – our parliamentary system, the common law, English language and citizenship.
  • It must ensure that all Australians including newcomers have equal opportunities to promote economic and social mobility.
  • It requires strong leadership by both governments and community leaders.
  • It acknowledges and welcomes diversity which is for the common good.

Australia has one of the most successful records in the world in immigration and multiculturalism, and until recently, refugee resettlement.

Whilst we welcome diversity as part of a multicultural society, there is a rub. Diversity which contributes to the common good and is broadly accepted in mainstream Australia is welcome, but diversity for its own sake has a downside. Some diversity that is expounded or practised is not acceptable, e.g. female genital mutilation, polygamy and child marriage. We must be resolute in opposing this type of diversity .

In a multicultural society the glue that holds us together is critical.

In that regard we should consider closely what the French have done with their policy of laicite – that the public space must be neutral and secular. The French are not mealy mouthed about it and neither should we be. Some on the political Left, feminists and cultural relativists should look at the French experience.

I can also understand why Muslims are often offended by the very explicit way that the female form is so often portrayed in advertising.

The Australian Government should seriously consider French policies of laicite and not just burqas.

There will be constitutional problems but there is no reason why the Australian Government could not introduce appropriate policies in all Commonwealth public buildings. The states could then follow.

The issue of wearing religious symbols in public is serious, but unfortunately some find it an opportunity to promote division. We need to discuss it soberly, inclusively and quietly.

The home, the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the temple and the shrine are private and should be respected as such. So also we should respect public space that should be both neutral and secular.

Multiculturalism is always work in progress.

This entry was posted in Human Rights, Politics, Refugees, Immigration and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to John Menadue. The burqa and hijab – public space must be neutral and secular.-a repost

  1. I personally do not agree though I can see why others might. Imagine it from the point of view of somebody who wears a burqa or hijab for religious reasons. Imagine being raised your whole life knowing one thing, only for the government to tell you otherwise. Or maybe imagine if a new country was discovered and everybody there was nudists. You move to this place and are no longer allowed to wear clothing without being ridiculed, imagine how that would feel to be told that something so normal to you is wrong. To us, wearing shorts and a T-shirt is ordinary and not sexual in the slightest but to them, it is the same as being stripped down before the world. It is not always easy to show yourself to another person for us non-Muslims, never mind the world. If forced to go nude we would feel belittled and embarrassed. So why shouldn’t we be more understanding that it is just as demeaning for them to wear as little clothing as we do?
    Why should everybody need to be the same for society to function properly? That says more about the way society runs itself than peoples differences, religious or otherwise. Isn’t the whole point of multi culturalism that we celebrate our differences rather than outlaw them.
    Yes, I agree that in third world countries a lot of women are forced to wear the burqa or hijab by men in order to meet societies standards. But wouldn’t making the burqa illegal in Australia do the exact same thing? Women being forced to wear specific clothing to meet society’s standards yet again. Muslim women can express their religion without being anti gender equality, just look at Malala. Australians who consider religious freedom for Muslims to be intrusive are wrong, are they being forced to support a religion they don’t believe in? No, they are only asked to respect it as they do us, but unfortunately, this seems to be too much of a challenge for many Australians. Louisa Menadue Gunning is a student aged 15.

  2. Julian says:

    Having long had an interest in legal matters in this country, it struck me as inevitable that sooner or later there would be conflict between our Legal and/or Court system and persons of the Islamic faith.

    I concluded thus given:
    (1) a long settled Muslim population in Australia,
    (2) younger persons from that population being ‘radicalized’ and causing ‘problems’.
    (3) what appears to be increasing Muslim immigration into Australia,
    (4) our active involvement in overseas Muslim dominated countries, and
    (5) potential involvement in the Philippines and likely further involvement in Afghanistan.

    Even so, I found it interesting that it was not until late last year that one could find reference to a burqa wearing Muslim female appearing before a Court as a plaintiff (or claimant). I speculated that this may have had something to do with those factors mentioned above.

    In that NSW case the plaintiff, her husband and their two teenage sons were suing the Commonwealth over the counter-terrorism raids that took place at their home in 2014 – the family claiming they were assaulted when police raided their home.

    The plaintiff, “…one of the two wives of terrorist recruiter Hamdi Alqudsi, caused a stir in the courtroom after she refused to stand for the presiding District Court Judge Audrey Balla,…” and then subsequently refused to uncover her face. [1]


    “Notwithstanding the fact that the Grand Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Fehmi el-Imam, had ruled it permissible for Muslim woman to remove veils to give evidence, [the plaintiff] said it was against her ‘religion’ to do so. She also refused the judges reasonable accommodation of her request which proposed for the court to be closed while she gave evidence, or that [the plaintiff] could go to another room and appear via video link.” [2]


    In the wider context of Muslim interaction with Australian Courts, earlier incidents (from 2013) involving Muslim persons and alleged disrespect for Australian Courts and procedure including not standing for Judges, can be found in both references [1] and [2].

    In this particular context, the most recent incident occurred this month.

    “Family of men accused of alleged Christmas Day terror plot won’t stand in court.
    The group broke protocol by remaining seated when the magistrate entered.
    Magistrate Peter Mealy did not address the issue in the Melbourne court.
    Four men are charged with planning to use improvised explosive devices.
    Police arrested men on December 22 over an alleged Christmas Day 2016 plot.” [3]


    In light of these matters (and others likely to come) I think our learned leaders have some serious questions to ask themselves and also the rest of us.

  3. Margaret Stewart says:

    ABC Radio – perhaps RN – ran a good program recently looking at the difference between the French approach and British to cultural difference. The speaker discussed it’s long history. The British accept difference by agreeing to, simply accepting if you like, obvious difference in clothing, religion etc in public spheres of life. The French model is as described, and yes there are many departures from the model in practice in each country. Perhaps that British heritage in Australia is why I am rather proud that we do not ban the more overt differences. I don’t disagree with the French, but I think Australia would lose the strength of its multicultural achievements if we went Continental suddenly.

  4. pamela says:

    Rabbiting on about clothing is a distraction from more serious matters. Can we just leave clothing alone and look at real issues. The politicians had a field day with Banning the Burqa in Parliament House but yet not one could actually say that they had seen even one Burqa clad woman in the building ever.
    This is the level of public debate in this country personified- no evidence no reason just rampant hot air opinion fanned into a fire by shock jock media.
    Could the last intelligent person walk away from this rubbish and discuss the shredding of our Fair Go multicultural society and the ramifications for our future, for instance.

  5. Andrew McRae says:

    I agree with the thrust of this sober and sensible article. Perhaps it’s not the right moment to bring the debate into the public sphere, though, while Abbott and friends deliberately stir up antipathy to Muslims in general. Australia is a pretty successful immigrant nation, and this is the way I much prefer to describe Australia while others insist, perhaps unthinkingly, on ‘multicultural’. Multiculturalism is an ideology as well as a fantasy, not even a pleasant one, and is being invoked mindlessly to support the wearing of the niqab and burqa. It’s reasonable to expect immigrants to jettison this archaic part of Muslim culture (but not of Islam) in the public space. But I believe your own invoking of it, Peter, is actually at cross purposes with the point of this article.

  6. David Timbs says:

    Some years ago a very secular Turkish government banned women form wearing simple head coverings like scarves and I think that men and women representatives of any religious tradition are forbidden to appear in public in the, lengthy frock coats, soutanes, habits etc appropriate to their faiths in other countries.

  7. Kieran Tapsell says:

    I’m not sure about banning burkas. I found them confronting when I first saw women wearing them. I can understand that they should not be allowed into banks or shops and there is the issue about the general use of CCT cameras – if everyone else’s identity has to be exposed why should anyone be exempt. But when it gets down to other kinds of religious dress, like soutanes, religious habits etc, I don’t think we have to go that far. It tends to give a city or region a bit of colour. After all, nuns were allowed to wear their almost burka like gear for decades around the streets, and the Protestants got used to it.

Comments are closed.