Bishop John

French president Sarkozy has called for the ban on burqas, the full body cover worn by a small minority of Muslim women in France.

Mr Sarkozy said that while freedom of religion was paramount in France, the burqa represented a symbol of the debasement and servitude of women: “The burqa is not welcome on the French Republic’s territory. It is not what the French Republic wants for the dignity of women … we cannot accept in our country that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from society and all identity.”

In Australia artist Gay Hawkes and I ran a seminar on Muslim head dress and religious tolerance and freedom. We heard various concerns of the non-Muslim audience. The views encompassed those of Leslie Cannold arguing for the ban on the hijab (head scarf) in Australian public schools,

But arguably what matters most in assessing the need for an Australian ban is the way Australian Muslims and non-Muslims understand the hijab. My impression is that, rightly or wrongly, many Australians see the scarf as a symbol of the gender-based oppression women suffer in many non-Western countries, and thus a challenge to the credo of gender equity preached and largely practised in Australian public schools.

Because equality of people and of opportunity is a critical value that Australian schools must – and must be seen to – uphold, the wearing of the hijab in public schools must be banned. At the same time, as per the original advice the French Government received on banning conspicuous religious symbols in schools, Jewish and Muslim holy days should join Christmas and Easter as official school holidays.

An interesting view from Irfan Yusuf, Sydney based author of Once Were Radicals: My Years as a Teenage Islamo-Fascist, published by Allen & Unwin 2009, who writes the marvellously titled ‘The fuss over the burqa is out of kilter’,

By focusing on a tiny minority of Muslim women, Sarkozy risks alienating the majority of French Muslims, including those who agree with his basic proposition that the burqa is offensive and degrading to women.

At our seminar we also heard pro-hijab views. One such positive Australian perspective ‘Islam On Parade’ was seem on ABC TV, Compass, given by a young married Muslim couple who are striving to change the face of Islam in mainstream Australia by breaking down barriers and building bridges between Islam and the wider Australian society, but the challenges they face are great. Muslim woman, Sallee,

Why do I wear the hijab? First and foremost it’s an act of faith. Because I believe that God has asked me or instructed me to dress in this manner. Just as Mother Mary wore it, I continue on with that same faith and I wear it in the same fashion.

In this diverse and different Australia,

1. Will our Australian freedoms allow freedom?
2. Will our tolerance not only tolerate, as in ‘put up with’, but positively embrace difference?
3. What values give us the will and way to embrace difference?

In turning against free speech, Western nations turn against their citizens by Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University.

History has shown that once governments begin to police speech, they find ever more of it to combat. Not only does this trend threaten free speech, freedom of association and a free press, it undermines free exercise of religion. Countries such as Saudi Arabia don’t prosecute blasphemers to protect the exercise of all religions but to protect one religion.

Western ideals are based on the premise that free speech contains its own protection: good speech ultimately prevails over bad. There’s no blasphemy among free nations, only orthodoxy and those who seek to challenge it.

I could not agree more. I wrote to the Attorney General of Tasmania in 2003 to express my disapproval of the current Blasphemy law in this state. Sadly, it still stands under the criminal code. My letter in part,

Clearly I urge people not to blaspheme. But along with Voltaire I would prefer to endure disrespect to my beliefs, including irreverence towards the God of my religious beliefs, than curtail the right of a person to express those beliefs: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ The fact that blasphemy is a crime under our Tasmanian legislation is potentially dangerous to free and honest conversation about deeply held religious beliefs. Religious discourse and debate is vital in a multi-religious democratic society.

In conclusion, I believe the crime of blasphemy should be removed from the criminal code and we should work towards social harmony through our own offices. A high priority must be given to the education of Tasmanians in different religious beliefs and practices. Such education should not be shy of religious difference but lead to understanding and acceptance and the capacity to hold religious difference in life and conversation with integrity and dignity.

I recently attended a charity function featuring a panel of football enthusiasts. Two ‘heavies’ of AFL football made totally disparaging remarks: one of paying ‘hush money’ to women allegedly victims of sexual assault by players and one of telling a disparaging race ‘joke’. One of the comments has been picked up by the media, Outrage at Elliott’s claims of hush cash, the other comment has not. Thank you Catharine Lumby and to all those working for cultures of health.

As a child or adult is received into the Christian Church they are given a Christian name, usually a biblical name. In an increasingly multi-faith Australia the names we give and bear are becoming increasingly significant as personal identifiers and in witness. Hence my interest in names. In Australia,

Today’s parents are avoiding gender neutral names … yet there is a creativity in their conservatism with the traditional names sharing the top 10.

Boys: Jack, William, Lachlan, Joshua, Riley, Thomas, Cooper, Oliver, James and Ethan.

Girls: Mia, Chloe, Isabella, Charlotte, Emily, Ella, Olivia, Sienna, Ava and Sophie.

(Source: McCrindle Research Baby Names Australia 2008) See article.

PS Humour me for a moment: I note that the name ‘John’ occupied first place in 1950 and is now 80^th. Does ‘Jack’ count as ‘John’?

Peter Coleman writes an engaging piece on Frank Devine who died July 3.

(Frank Devine) was the laughing cavalier of Australian journalism. His laughter, often noisy, was always infectious. . . . (John Hartigan said) Frank had a great love of his family, a passion for cricket, an unerring faith, a fearsome intellect and a rapier-like wit.