AUSTRALIAN ELECTION 2010

Lacklustre, dull and boring!
Dangerous times ahead!

“As a feminist, you must be voting for the first woman PM.” I was told by my traditional Labor voting friends.
I said that, “ yes, as a feminist I am always happy to vote for a woman entering Parliament as my local member” because as a feminist, I want to see many more women in Parliament for most Parties to give them plenty of choice to select a woman as PM, in exactly the same way as a male is selected.- i.e. the best person for the job.

However, as a voter I never vote for the leader, only for the best person to represent me in Parliament.
After all, one never knows for how long and who will still be the leader at the end of their term, but at least our local members should last out their term in office.
In addition, as a ‘swinging voter’, I will choose the candidates from either major Party who take the trouble to make themselves known to the electorate, to the community and to the individual electors.

As for my Party or Parties of choice, for me it is only those with a history of experience in managing our country’s ‘big picture’ agendas,- not fly-by-nighters and one-issue groups forming themselves into political Parties for the purpose of seeking power in shaping the nation’s future according to their own narrow philosophies.

The danger from disaffected, ignorant voters in our democratic system, is when we have a most boring and colourless election as this one has been, that they may end up giving them the power to do just that.

Lest we forget: the Nazis came democratically to power in exactly the same way, i.e.in a vacuum caused by lacklustre Parties used to being in power!All it would have taken these days of constant media exposure,is someone with charisma ("chen"in Yiddish)from the Greens to get into an even more powerful position,but luckily,- (or sadly for all Parties)- in short supply this time!
MM.

WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS (WJC) meeting in Jerusalem. Press Release.

Press Advisory
19 August 2010

World Jewish Congress: Wiesel, Aznar, Join Diaspora Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem to Counter Intensifying Assault on Israel
Ronald S. Lauder: “Defending Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is top priority”

NEW YORK / JERUSALEM –

Heads of Jewish communities from around the world will gather in Jerusalem for a meeting of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) Governing Board on 31 August and 1 September 2010. The gathering will focus on ways to fight the growing threats against Israel. It will be addressed by senior statesmen from Israel and abroad.
Writer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor Elie Wiesel will be presented with the first WJC „Guardian of Jerusalem‟ award in recognition of his lifetime accomplishments on behalf of the Jewish people. Members of the Israeli Haiti emergency rescue operation will receive a special award for their heroic humanitarian efforts in the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, and opposition leader and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer and Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau also confirmed their participation.
Former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar will give a keynote address to delegates about the recently launched Friends of Israel Initiative (www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org).
Ahead of the Governing Board, World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder said:
“Everywhere, we are witnessing concerted efforts to attack the legitimacy of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Boycott, sanctions and divestment campaigns are becoming prevalent; Israeli academics, authors, artists and sportspeople are being banned from participating in events; the media often presents a one-sided view of developments, and Israel is almost always being singled out for blame. We will be developing proactive initiatives to address these issues, and we will underline the need for Diaspora Jewry‟s continued unwavering solidarity with Israel in a global environment that is increasingly hostile to those positions.”
The WJC meeting will be attended by around 150 leaders representing all major Jewish communities in the world and will adopt the future priorities and action plans of the organization. It will also discuss the difficult situation faced by certain Jewish communities, e.g. in Sweden and Venezuela.
Proceedings at the Governing Board will be open to the media, and interviews with WJC representatives can be arranged; please contact one of the contact persons below. Details regarding press accreditation, the precise agenda and the location will be released closer to the event.

The World Jewish Congress (www.worldjewishcongress.org) is the international organization representing Jewish communities in 92 countries around the world. The WJC serves as the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people to governments, parliaments and international organizations.
Media contacts:
Michael Thaidigsmann Jeremy Wimpfheimer Natalie Kachan-Behar (Media outside Israel) (English & Israel-based media) (Israeli media) World Jewish Congress, Brussels Lone Star Communications Eden Communications, Israel Tel: +32 485 86 95 84 Tel: +972 54 659 77 95 Tel: +972 52 377 3265 Email: press@worldjewishcongress.org Email: jeremy@lonestar.co.il Email: Natalie@edenpr.co.il

BOYCOTTS? WHAT. WHY, WHO BOYCOTTS?

Boycott? What boycott?

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from around the world that the anti-Israeli ‘boycott campaigns’ have exactly the opposite effect on the public at large.

Even among the Palestinians we read that numbers of Palestinians have abandoned their West Bank Palestinian shops after missing several items and go to stores in Israeli areas instead, like the supermarket in the Etzion and Ram area, which is packed with Palestinian customers, as if nothing has happened. A ‘Boycott Israel’ campaign coordinator in Bethlehem is quoted on a Palestinian website as lamenting this failure, giving the reason for it “that people need to have the will to fast from Israeli products”.

[ Barghouti’s boast that BDS has been widely successful is not matched
by reality. No American university, for instance, which hosts the
largest number of visiting Israeli academics globally, has adopted any
measure of the campaign. And attempts to gain a foothold in the
British academy have likewise been met with resistance. The global BDS
movement hasn’t even made that much headway on the Internet: A Google
search for ‘BDS’ places it below the website for the British Deer
Society. See VIEWPOINT: True colours of the BDS movement
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement ]

I am not surprised that the National Council of Churches in Australia passed their resolution of boycotting Israeli goods from the Territories. I do not like it, but I can understand why the hierarchy may have felt compelled to do so.They have Christian minorities under siege in many Islamic countries, including in the Palestinian territories, so they try to appease the anti-Israelis for their sake. After all,- nothing will happen to the Christian community in Israel, will it?

But as Ruth Allison writes (AJN 11/8), our Christian friends will continue to do as they please regardless of any ACC resolutions, our enemies don’t count, while we should double our support for Israeli products.


Thank goodness that there are many prominenet non-Jewish supporters of Israel who understand the complexities of Israel’s existence.
This is their well measured statement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704862404575351430715581608.html

Israel: A Normal Country

Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries.
• The following statement has been signed by Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo:

Mr. Aznar is a former prime minister of Spain. Mr. Trimble is a former first minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Toledo is a former president of Peru. Mr. Pera is a former president of the Italian Senate. Mr. Roberts is a British historian. Ms. Nirenstein is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Agostinelli is managing director of the Rhône Group. Mr. Bustelo is a former minister of industry in Spain.

Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country. Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception. In fact, Israel is the only Western democracy whose existence has been questioned by force, and whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions.
The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean provided yet another occasion for Israel's detractors to renew their frenzied campaign. It was so even before the facts of that tragic incident had come to light. Eyes were blind to the reasons why Israel had to respond to the Gaza flotilla's clear provocation.
Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative. Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. We are an eclectic group, coming from different countries and holding different opinions on a range of issues. It goes without saying that we do not speak for the State of Israel and we do not defend every course of action that it decides upon. We are united, however, by the following beliefs, principles and aims:
First, Israel is a normal, Western democracy and should be treated as such. Its parliamentary system, legal traditions, education and scientific research facilities, and cultural achievements are as fundamental to it as to any other Western society. Indeed, in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader.
Second, attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values. The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. It also arose out of an unbroken Jewish connection to the land that stretches back thousands of years. Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust. Instead, it derives legitimacy from international law and from the same right to self-determination claimed by all nations.
Third, as a fully legitimate member of the international community, Israel's basic right to self-defense should not be questioned. Nor should it be forgotten that Israel faces unique security threats—from terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and from an Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone Report on the recent war in Gaza, for example, ignore the security challenges that Israel faces. All democracies should oppose such campaigns, which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the U.N. itself.
Fourth, we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle against Islamism and terror. Israel stands on the front line of that fight as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous. Appeasement failed in the 1930s and it will fail today.
Fifth, attempts by people of good faith to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians are always to be supported. But outsiders should beware of attempting to impose their own solutions. Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them.
Sixth, we must be alive to the dangers that the campaign against Israel poses in reawakening anti-Semitism. Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem.
The Friends of Israel Initiative has come together to encourage men and women of goodwill to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state, and to relocate those attitudes inside the best of Western traditions rather than the worst. We urge them to recognize that it is in our own best interests that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and many of the world's other liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all.

On the other hand, the Jewish Left in Melbourne, as represented by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS), thinks differently.
From their website we see that they passed a Resolution based on talking to a Palestinian activist pro-boycotts, while calling Israel an ‘apartheid state’ and only looking at their OWN narrative.

The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity. However, the AJDS does support selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders. Such limited and focused BDS support might include boycotts of settlement products and divestment from military Research and Development (R&D) and boycott of industrial/military activities unrelated to Israel's defence and security. It might also include selected sanctions or boycotts against specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.
The AJDS will make any decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis, and exercise its judgment as to the political/social cost-benefits of any such actions before granting specific endorsement or approval.

So who cares what their resolution states? Most Jews and others will buy whatever products they need, like and want to buy. Palestinians will buy from Israelis whatever they can and want,- to the detriment of their own Palestinian businesses!
See:
http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/355
PALESTINIANS BOYCOTTING ISRAEL ONLY BOYCOTTS PALESTINIANS
By Walid Shoebat
The Walid Shoebat Foundation Blog
Former PLO Terrorist Now Speaks Out For USA and Israel

Let us hope that our importers, distributors and retailers will assess their products on their saleability not on the political interests of the enemies of the State of Israel and their supporters or their “Jewish useful idiots’!MM

From RubinReports: Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

I am pleased to copy Barry Rubin's explanation re what is happening in our Jewish communities, including here in Australia. We are fortunate to have a strong and committed community in a free and democratic country whose political leadership values our contribution to this country as well as understanding the problems faced by Israel and our commitment to its safety and security. But there are many so called 'liberals' in our community who are more concerned with appeasing those on the pro-Islamic Left who are a danger to democracy everywhere, than supporting their fellow Jews in Israel.These are more prevalent in UK & Europe where they feel more insecure.No wonder,-Europe is now more appropriately named Eurabia!MM

RubinReports: Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

By Barry Rubin

The key to understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in Europe and North America is the history of Jewish assimilation strategy. I tell the story more fully in my book, Assimilation and Its Discontents, but here is a short version, adapted for what’s happening right now.

This strategy was developed in Western Europe in the mid-1800s. There was no single theorist, influential book, or coherent doctrine. Rather, it was a pragmatic approach to the issue of how Jews could adapt to the pressures and opportunities of democratic societies. The assimilationist strategy continues to this day though people aren’t aware of it.

There were many—religious traditionalists, Zionists, and leftist revolutionaries—who pursued alternative routes but I’m not going to talk about them here. I am also fully aware of exceptions, such as the Jewish Bund and the post-World War One political situation in Poland, but cannot deal with them in this limited space. Please understand that the following points need to be generalizations but they are accurate ones.

The mainstream assimilationist approach has been as follows:

--Since the Jews were so weak and the surrounding majority so hostile, they would have to beg for equality and prove themselves worthy rather than to agitate or demand. Moreover, since Jews were attacked for allegedly having too much power, even when they had little or none, the emphasis was on being eager to make concessions, not to gain victories through threat or pressure. This was a strategy developed long before the days of majority guilt, multiculturalism, and Political Correctness. The Jewish approach thus contrasts with contemporary movements of minority groups which are more confident, aggressive, united, and demanding.

--How would this strategy try to succeed? By proving Jews were good citizens, by showing they were unselfish and sought nothing for themselves, by demonstrating their willingness to dissolve the bonds and customs of their own community, by becoming exemplars in spreading the values and culture of the country where they lived, and by showing that being nice to them would benefit everyone or almost everyone. In other words, altruism was a central element in the strategy. This, too, contrasts with contemporary practice in which rights are taken for granted and society is expected to adapt to the demands of minorities.

--A key element of the assimilationist doctrine has been to prove that Jews were assimilating as individuals, to deny there was a collective communal interest, and to avoid making collective demands. This, too, is in contrast to the situation of other minorities today, which hold onto their intellectuals and elite members while keeping them in line largely through shame or even forms of intimidation. This approach is totally absent in the Jewish community. On the contrary, large parts of the Jewish elite are proud to stand aloof from their own people and deem it virtuous to abandon it and reject any notion of communal interests (including Israel and religion). Indeed, they think they can best prove their credentials by championing the causes of other groups even--sometimes especially--those in conflict with Jewish interests.

--The elite Jew's emphasis is often to escape identification with the community, proving he is a cosmopolitan with a universalist identity, being the first to demand the dissolution of any community loyalty and viewing the embodiment of Jewish peoplehood—Israel—as an impediment to those goals. While antisemites charge that all or almost all Jews in positions of power pursue a distinctively Jewish interest, the exact opposite is the truth. This explains how left-wing Jews extol multi-culturalism and self-determination for other peoples even as they hold the exact opposite attitude toward their own people, whom they are determined to show are not their own people.

The concept of “self-hating Jew” is totally useless in today’s environment, when the radicals simply have an alternative definition of self, albeit one as destructive as that held by their Bolshevik predecessors who mostly ended up being shot or imprisoned by Stalin. At best, the Jew is assigned the role--in the phrase of the pro-Stalinist Isaac Deutscher, the "non-Jewish Jew"--of being part of a revolutionary vanguard one of whose tasks is to dissolve the Jews as a people and a religion.

--For a variety of the reasons listed above, many Jews, particularly in elite positions, are eager to prove their credentials by criticizing their own people or Israel. (Can you imagine any other group constantly being pressed to do this?) They will fete their enemies and jump at showing sympathy with their grievances. The very concept of "bending over backwards" is a typically Jewish one that simply cannot be applied to any other community.

--Zionism is a threat to the dissolving of Jews as a people as well as a problem for those who oppose the idea of nations. It undermines the interest of the leftist Jew or elite Jew in a dozen different ways. This explains why the opposition to Jewish nationalism is so strong among them and has been for well over a century.

--A number of the above-mentioned weaknesses are balanced out by a high degree of activism and energy, education and articulateness, shown by many Jews, particularly among those not in the intellectual elite or of leftist ideology. History has taught Jews that engaging in politics and intellectual dispute is a matter of survival. Issues involving Jews or Israel are so controversial precisely because many Jews do fight back. It isn't that only Jews (or Israel) are being criticized, it is that other groups and causes let themselves be run over with far less complaint. Having said this, though, one must quickly add that this applies largely to more recent historical times and even then mainly to North America and Australia, far less to Europe where Jewish communities are far more passive and often paralyzed with fear and deference.

--From the mid-nineteenth century through 1945 the main enemy of Jews was on the political right, not only fascists but also traditionalists, nativists, Christian reactionaries, and conservatives generally. As a whole, Jews are unable to make the intellectual or political transition to understanding that the main enemy in the West is from the left. Nor do they understand that Christians, even traditionalists, are not a serious threat while Islamic extremists are. Those on the right are seen as Cossacks, missionaries, and potential Nazis, a theme that the extreme left knows very well how to exploit.

--In addition, Jews succeeded largely by being the bearers of modernism in every respect from science and technology, to marketing techniques, to cultural innovation. Conservatism or traditionalism is thus seen as a threat to this pattern. Of course, the association of Jews with modernism (or leftism) has been a prime cause of antisemitism in modern times. For example, the passionate embrace of German culture, liberal or left politics, and economic life--giving it their own interpretations--was a prime factor in building a mass base for Nazi antisemitism.

--As noted above, Jews want to prove they are good citizens but that has come to be interpreted—once cultural assimilation has been achieved—as those who make society better, who help the poor and downtrodden, who are also seen as potential allies against the suspect elites. This concept remains unchanged even when Jews become key parts of the elite.

Imagination continuing to supply a fantasy, which had a basis in reality during past times, that there is a wealthy reactionary antisemitic blend of aristocrats and capitalists ready to pounce. Or, simultaneously, that the ignorant masses, manipulated by demagogues, will stage a pogrom, presumably nowadays starting with a Tea Party rally. It is easy to make fun of such ideas but they are very deeply embedded in the psyche of many Jews in the West.

--Given these premises, what do most Jews implicitly believe will work for them in the present? To show they are tolerant in order to gain the tolerance of others. It is simply not imaginable for such people that rabbis can demonstrate in favor of the establishment of a (radical) mosque near the World Trade Center attack site then have a mosque established that systematically teaches hatred for Israel and anti-Jewish doctrines. Having succeeded in persuading Western societies that they are nice people worthy of fair treatment, they assume equal success can be achieved with Arabs, Muslims, or various other groups.

-- Not surprisingly, then, a weak spot for Jews has been dealing with situations where hatred for them and an effort to destroy them as a community has been coupled with seemingly humanitarian, progressive rhetoric. Communism, of course, has been the ultimate example up until recently, a cause which attracted many Jews though it killed them or betrayed them. Since the history of this experience is simply not taught anywhere, most have not been learned from it. This story must be told in large part because it bears such relevance to contemporary parallels.

--There is thus an overwhelming, if irrational or outdated, hysterical fear on the part of most Jews (most obviously in the United States) at seeming to behave or as being perceived as reactionary. There is no group against which cries of "racist!" or "right-wing!" or "fascist!" is more effective. Yet there is no equivalent fear of being seen as too "progressive," an implicit admission (which does not penetrate the conscious mind) that the bogey-man of right-wing antisemitism is no longer taken seriously.

Yet to be placed in the position of seeming to be reactionary is not only seen as joining the hated enemy (and thus treasonous) but also as inviting the vengeance of the "masses." To put it bluntly, when a Jew is called a "racist"--and such can be the penalty in the community even for the sin of not voting for Barack Obama--that not only signifies uniting with the historic enemies of Jews but also to tremble (secretly and subconsciously, of course) at a supposed attack of African-Americans against Jews.

The explanation for much of this psychological complex is a community that is objectively powerful and well-off is also subjectively fearful and insecure. Believe it or not, this is true. By overcoming these diaspora complexes (and creating "tough Jews") Israel for these people is somehow betraying what they understand as Jewishness. On some psychological level, a Western Jewish left-leaning intellectual wants other Jews to be victims so that no matter how wealthy or privileged he is it is possible to claim credentials for being a noble sufferer among the non-Western or non-white or non-wealthy people.
As a result of these factors, Jews in the West generally are not going to be won over to conservative views no matter what arguments are used or logic is invoked. The counter-forces of history and self-image are simply too strong. You can argue on this point but those Jews who do so know in their hearts that it is true.

What is possible, however, is to show persuasively and honestly how the contemporary far left and reactionary, radical Islamism are anti-liberal and anti-democratic in nature. They destroy the tolerance of society through which Jews have benefitted and embody dictatorial tendencies. They seek to destroy religion and demonize the embodiment of Jewish peoplehood, Israel. They have made large parts of those institutions responsible for protecting real liberal values--the university and media--into ideological machines for indoctrination into anti-democratic values and slanderers against Jewish interests. They are bad for the countries to which Jews have given their allegiance and to the Enlightenment values which Jews, more than almost any other group in the world, have embraced.

In other words, Jews will not cease to be largely liberal but survival now requires understanding two things.

First, the threat to real liberal institutions and values come from both extremes of the political spectrum.

Second, radicals and anti-democratic revolutionaries can pretend to be liberals, just as Communists once did when it suited them, but nobody should be fooled by this impersonation.

What might be the most adaptable people in world history must continue to adapt to new threats and changing conditions.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Does one need to wear a BURQA anywhere? PRO AND CON

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/19/2987539.htm


Judge orders woman to remove face veil
(The Australian: Ross Swanborough)

A Perth judge has ruled a Muslim woman must remove her face veil when
giving evidence in a fraud trial.

The 36-year-old woman wanted to wear her niqab at the trial of the
head of an Islamic School, who is accused of inflating student numbers to obtain government grants.

However, the defence raised concerns that the jury members would not
be able to assess the woman's evidence properly.

In her decision, District Court Judge Shauna Deane said she did not
consider it appropriate for the woman to wear a niqab.

However, she stressed her judgment applied only to this case.
(Updated 20/8/10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I must wear burqa in court.

AMANDA BANKS LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR,
The West Australian
August 5, 2010, 2:45 am
•http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7710287/why-i-must-wear-burqa-in-court/

The Perth mother who has found herself embroiled in an Australian test case on the right of Muslim women to wear a burqa when giving evidence in court has spoken about her fears of exposing her face in public.

As national debate raged yesterday over the extent of the rights of Muslim women to choose to dress according to their faith, Tasneem said she did not want to be portrayed as a woman who was obstinately trying to "make a point".

Tasneem, who does not want her surname published, said while she would comply with any order imposed by the court, she would feel stressed, uncomfortable and awkward if forced to remove her niqab while testifying in a fraud trial in the Perth District Court.

A niqab is a form of clothing commonly called a burqa.

"For so many years now it is just a part of me," she said yesterday. "I felt that I am just a witness, I didn't commit a crime and if I did, I would have to face the consequences. But I just felt, why must I be exposed in front of all these men when I am just a witness? If I didn't need to be called that would be better for me."

Tasneem is scheduled to be called as a witness in a fraud case against the director of an Islamic college where she had taught. Prosecutors have told the court that Tasneem is reluctant to appear without wearing her niqab.

But defence counsel Mark Trowell has raised concerns that jurors would not be able to make a proper assessment of Tasneem's evidence if they could not see her face.

District Court Judge Shauna Deane will consider the issue today.

Tasneem said that for nearly 20 years she had chosen not to show her face to any men other than her husband and her closest male relatives. She made it clear that her decision to conceal her face was not a compulsory obligation of her faith, which only required that she wear a hijab covering her hair.

Tasneem also spoke of a common misconception that Muslim women were oppressed by their husbands. She said concealing her face with a niqab was not a "restriction" imposed by her husband, rather a personal choice she had made at age 17.

If the court ordered her to appear without her niqab, she would prefer to do so via a video link-up in a closed room with another woman.

Born in South Africa and moving to Australia seven years ago, Tasneem said she had been told yesterday that if she appeared in an Islamic court she would be required to remove her niqab. But she said this did not alleviate her fears of exposure and discomfort.

Tasneem has been forced to remove her niqab for immigration officials when travelling overseas, and she said she recognised this was necessary. But she said these intrusions on her privacy were performed quickly and with respect.

Tasneem said there were rare occasions when she was targeted in public because of her dress, usually with misinformed remarks.
"If I was having a major problem, I would have maybe considered taking it off but it's not like that," she said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RESPONSE WITH WHICH I AGREE.(MM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A PLEA FOR CLEAR THINKING ABOUT THE BURQA

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/05/2974143.htm

By Abdullah Saeed

ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS | 5 AUG 2010


AS A SOCIETY WE ALLOW BOTH MEN AND WOMEN TO WEAR VERY LITTLE IN PUBLIC. PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO WEAR MORE IF THEY WANT.
CREDIT: TAUSEEF MUSTAFA (AFP).

SEE ALSO
• Related Story: Burka bandits justify a burka ban, ABC Unleashed, 06/05/2010
• Related Story: Banking without interest, ABC Religion and Ethics, 20/07/2010

The legal status of the Muslim "face veil" is back in the headlines as a Perth judge determines whether a devout Muslim woman is permitted to wear a burqa when testifying before a jury in a fraud trial.

This, of course, is a very mild version of a legal debate that has been very prominent in Europe.

Belgium is the first European country to make it illegal to wear a face-covering veil in public. France is moving in the same direction, and it will likely pass a law banning the "face veil" in public, with penalties ranging from fines to possible imprisonment.

Other European countries are likely to follow Belgium's lead.

There are also some voices in Australian politics - such as Fred Nile and Cory Bernardi - that recently have argued for banning the face veil.

This is a matter that requires careful, clear thinking. But before getting to what I deem to be the heart of the matter, it is necessary to clarify terms in order to avoid unnecessary confusion

There are two types of "veil" that some observant Muslim women commonly wear in public: a full-body covering that includes the face (the burqa), and a partial covering that conceals the entire body except for the face and hands (usually known as the hijab).

Very few Muslim women wear the face veil, while a good number of observant women wear the hijab. In any case, most Muslim women in the West and elsewhere do not wear either the face veil or hijab, but rather choose to wear other forms of modest dress.

Arguments for banning the face veil are often based on a particular understanding of the "full" veil.

In the West, the face veil is often seen as a relic of the middle ages, a sign of women's oppression by Muslim men and a requirement that keeps women completely cut off from the rest of the society.

It is also seen as a major barrier to women's participation in social, political and economic life, and one of the most obvious signs of the growing influence of "extremists" in the public square.

Banning the face veil is thus regarded as a way of upholding Muslim women's human rights, of freeing them from oppression and helping them to integrate into Western society.

Of course, these arguments are not just confined to non-Muslims in the West. There are plenty of Muslims who would see the face veil in exactly these terms.

The reality is that for the vast majority of Muslims in the West and elsewhere, the face veil is not considered an Islamic obligation. Even very observant, practising Muslim women would argue that a women's face need not be covered.

While it is hard to find any accurate data on Muslim views on the face veil, in practice the number of women who wear this covering is very small.

In a country like Australia, only a few hundred women at most would wear the face veil - likewise in several European countries. It is reported that in France roughly 1900 women wear the face veil. Out of the 57 or so Muslim majority countries around the world, the face veil would only have a significant presence in a handful.

For many Muslims, it is simply a cultural practice from the past, justified by some Muslims using a rather restrictive reading of a few Islamic texts But for most mainstream Muslims, there is no explicit obligation in the Qur'an for Muslim women to wear the face veil.

The vast majority of Muslim scholars, past and present, argue that a woman may leave her face and hands uncovered in public, because they are necessary for women to undertake work or to participate in social activities.

Some scholars even see the face veil as a religious "innovation" or introduced practice after the Prophet Muhammad's death, something that should be rejected.

Even during the most important and sacred religious event of the year - the annual pilgrimage to Mecca - Muslim women are specifically commanded not to cover their face.

In the daily prayers - one of the five central pillars of Islam - most Muslim scholars say that a woman is not required to cover her face. Hence, most observant Muslim women either wear the hijab or simply opt for another form of "modest" dress that does not involve even covering the hair.

It is true, however, that during the late twentieth century an ultra conservative expression of Islam has been making its mark on the world, and a component of this movement is a strong emphasis on veiling. The taking up of the face veil has increased among some women largely because of this influence, even in societies that have historically had no attachment to either form of the veil.

Given that most Muslims do not see that face covering veil is an Islamic requirement and thus do not practice it, perhaps one could argue that it should be banned.

While it may be necessary to discourage such forms of veiling in public, my sense is that a ban on the public wearing of the face veil is likely to be counterproductive.

If the motivation for this restriction is to free Muslim women from segregation, seclusion or patriarchal control, a ban is very likely to have the opposite effect.

Any ban could easily be taken by some Muslims as a "war" on their religion, and they would then use the face veil as an "Islamic" symbol to be defended, a kind of rallying point.

In this context, less conservative Muslims would also likely be attracted to the face veil as a symbol of protest, which would only serve to increase its popularity. This appears to be what has happened in France when the hijab was banned in public schools; - its uptake among young women in particular actually went up.

Quite apart from the rhetoric about the face veil and women's oppression, there are some Muslim women - though very few - who sincerely believe that wearing a face veil is their religious duty and they wear it based on their own personal conviction.

For those who hold this view, as a society that respects freedom of religion, Australia should allow people to wear what they want in the name of their religion, as long as it does not affect public safety and morality.

As a society we allow both men and women to wear very little in public. Perhaps we should allow people to wear more if they want.

If there are public safety or security issues related to wearing the face veil in certain environments, then the state can and should take this into account. But this, I would argue, has nothing to do with religion. It would be more analogous to the restrictions that govern the use of appropriate clothing in particular environments (such as the compulsory wearing of helmets in construction zones, and so on).

Equally, there are workplaces where showing a person's face is necessary for carrying out that role competently. In professions such as teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like, there is an expectation that employees should show who they are. The state representing the community may oblige those who are in these professions to show their face.

Similarly, at airports and when entering other sensitive places like certain premises and banks, people are required to show their identity.

Those who wear the face veil perhaps should have the right to wear it in public and private. But they probably do not have the right to insist that they should be allowed to wear it in all workplaces or environments.

If those who wear the face veil argue that it is their right to work in these professions and wear the face veil at the same time, then the community has the right to say no to them.

Even Islamic legal norms dictate that the community has the right to declare certain things unacceptable or acceptable as part of public interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Saeed is the Director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.