Well hello there blog. It’s been sometime. You look…different. I would like to say that my absence has been due to Earning Lots Of Money While Doing Something Fabulous, but alas! that would be both a fib and a fanciful delusion.
The truth lies sadly in a wasteland so far from that reality that one would need to trek for hundreds of pages in order to find it. The person who undertook that quest would be required to battle thousands of orcs while looking dashingly handsome and masculine, and their bravery and tenacity for undertaking such a perilous but above all boring task would be rewarded with a royal crown, a hot Elven babe and the largescale manufacturing of cheap plastic ‘goblets’ to be gifted with purchase at all participating Burger King establishments.
On Tuesday, I lined up once more at Centrelink and signed on to the demoralization train. I’d forgotten how ridiculously cheap payments to the great unwashed are. As reward for being constantly rejected for jobs I’m perfectly capable of doing, I can have the pleasure of receiving the vast sum of $538 per fortnight.
As other dirty dolebludgers well know, $538 is barely enough to cover rent and foods that carry a nutritional quotient let alone the requisite cigarettes and cheap medicinal liquor that one must take in order to stave off the crushing sense of self loathing that comes from being a societal reject. I shall therefore spend the next indeterminate period of time foraging for nuts and berries in the urban undergrowth as it were, ie making my friends buy me coffee and tinned soup.
I have to say though, I’m somewhat sad that the Torrensville Centrelink seems to house less illiterate wastrels than the Free Money Place I used to patronize on Currie St. How will I keep up to date with the tumultuous goings on of Tequi’na-ia and Deryk’s relationship now, last seen debating the linguistic merits of ‘fat cunt’ as both a noun and adjective? Where will I go to appreciate the rich tapestry that comprises Australia’s births registry, and the unique minds that see superfluous apostrophes and literal phonetics as less of a literary tool and more as a lifestyle? All Torrensville offers me are old Greek gentlemen in urgent need of ear trumpets and the occasional Westside hipster. To be fair, these are two demographics not without humourous merit but sure to prove largely more annoying in the long run. Hipsters are called James and Matilda and never Donna, unless ironically. One never need guess at how a hipster’s name is spelled. Where’s the fun in that?
Speaking of Matildas, I enjoyed this quote from Tilda Swinton when asked about the possibility of becoming a Dame one day:
A dame? I'd so much rather be a knight… It would, of course, be a great honor to be asked whether one would. I don't know. But I think Sir Tilda sounds so much better.
Indeed it does. And thus, as if the world were my Marcie, I shall insist on being referred to as Sir Clementine from now on. Unfortunately, there is yet to be an option for Sirs or Ladys on official documents, but I shall probably just create my own little box and tick it.
Anyhoo, let’s talk about this article which appeared in the NT News with the byline “Nigel Adlam”:
A MUSLIM woman has complained after allegedly [2] being told to remove her face veil during a job interview at a Territory hospital.
Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission officers have launched an investigation.
Acting commissioner Lisa Coffey has refused to discuss the case - or even confirm that a complaint had been lodged.
But the Northern Territory News understands the young woman went for an administration job at Royal Darwin. A doctor asked her to remove her veil during the interview. She refused - and filed an official complaint.
The case comes at a time when several western countries are following France's lead in banning the wearing of the hijab in public. [3]
The doctor is believed to have engaged a lawyer to represent him. Discriminating against someone because of their religion is illegal. But whether insisting a Muslim woman remove her hijab is discriminatory has not been tested in the Territory. [4]
NT Islamic Society president Adil Jamil said less than 2 per cent of Territory Muslim women wore a veil. He said it was considered "offensive" to ask a woman to take off her hijab.
"It's against their religious beliefs," he said. "It can seriously hurt their inner self.
"Under traditional Islamic view, a woman cannot show her face to any man except her husband and male relatives." [5]
Mr Jamil said there were about 2000 Muslims in the NT from 23 countries. Three-quarters of them are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indonesian heritage.
Mr Jamil said a few Territory-born Muslim women wore a veil.
"They see it as reinforcing their religious beliefs and inner satisfaction," he said. [6]
1. VEILED THREAT? LOLZ! It’s funny, because those Muslims wear VEILS and are a bit THREATENING but also when something has the potential to be dangerous without our REALISING it, we might refer to it as a ‘VEILED THREAT’!! Double entendre, folks. The NT Newsroom is overflowing with mad skillz.
2. Allegedly. I mean, we can’t even be sure it happened. Even though the NT News are definitely not certain it happened, because the Acting Commissioner refused to confirm it, we will definitely go ahead and assert that one of those troublesome Muslim women who are both simultaneously oppressed and meddlesome had the temerity to complain about something that mayn’t even have happened.
There is no 362 in this hotel! Sometimes, the complaints will be false.
3. Memo to Nigel Adlam – research usually goes a long way in producing accurate journalism. France did not ban the hijab in public. It banned the wearing of the hijab in public schools. It has so far failed to extend that ban to universities, let alone the general public. And as far as “several countries” following France’s lead, Tunisia and Turkey have had a ban on the hijab in place for several years. Uzbekistan recently imposed a similar ban to France on the wearing of hijab in public schools. Belgium, as we know, passed legislation earlier this year banning the wearing of full burqa or niqab, but not the hijab and the Netherlands are considering following suit. I would hardly describe this as ‘several’.
Additionally, Adlam doesn’t even seem clear on what piece of Muslim dress he’s referring to. Is it the hijab, a modest head covering which does not veil the wearer’s face? If so, why would it be reasonable to request that the woman remove it? If it was in fact a face covering, then Adlam might at the very least have the decency to get his terminology right.
4. Discriminating against someone because of their religion IS illegal. But apparently the NT News doesn’t consider it even vaguely unethical to print a beat up story encouraging xenophobia, misinformation and racism on the front page of their newspaper – and the Herald Sun definitely doesn’t consider it irresponsible to take that story and further encourage small minded Australian bigotry by reprinting it with this teaser on their website:
5. And then there’s you Adil Jamil. Traditional Islamic law is, like most religious law, open to wide and varied interpretation. Citing ‘tradition’ in religion to excuse patriarchal oppression is unacceptable. There are plenty of Muslim women who choose not to wear a veil or head covering of any kind. Are you suggesting that their interpretation of Islam is somehow false?
6. Do Muslim women see it that way – as ‘reinforcing their religious beliefs and inner satisfaction”? I would certainly hope so, if they’re actually choosing to wear the veil, or the burqa, or the niqab, or a burlap sack.
But I guess I’ll never really know for sure – because the superior journalistic wisdom of Nigel Adlam dictated that there was no need to actually ask any of them. After all, what could veiled Muslim women be expected to bring to the discussion? They’re just the poor oppressed victims of a dogmatic, patriarchal religion and even if Nigel Adlam were allowed to speak to them he probably wouldn’t because, you know, it’s just so weird and shit to actually have to interact with a woman who makes it impossible to objectify her.
I strongly advise against reading any of the comments, lest you feel the need to make haste for greener and less ignorant pastures. But just so we all remember the kind of stupid, bigoted, moronic population that makes up Australia, here’s a sample, starting with the Hun:
mick Posted at 10:51 AM Today
And still the boats come !!
Comment 6 of 21
Yes, all Muslims are illegal immigrants, none of them have been born here etc etc.
paul Posted at 10:58 AM Today
ban the bloody stupid thing and make these Muslims conform to out way of life.....now! Or go back to Muslim-land.....
Comment 13 of 21
Does Qantas have a direct route, or must you layover in Singapore?
Nothing to do with religion of Victoria Posted at 11:00 AM Today
What a load of garbage. It sickens me to think that there are people living here who want to do nothing but abuse and exploit Australia. If she wants to wear a ridiculous repressive disguise and not show her face she shouldn't be here........Who would want to employ THAT?
Comment 15 of 21
Ewww. I know. Especially when she could be wearing make-up and earrings and maybe even get breast implants to empower her instead of wasting her time exploiting and abusing Australia. Poor Australia.
Mary of ringwood Posted at 11:01 AM Today
I do not care what the NT Islamic Society President has to say... Most Australians feel that the Hijab is offensive the Hijab is a personal thing and nothing to do with the religion... so we have to ban it in Public arears like many Countries including two Muslim Countries have done. Inner satisfaction is not a reason to come to interviews for jobs...wearing a complete covering of a face. If the Hijab wearing womenresent that, they could go to a Country that allows it.
Comment 16 of 21
Was there a poll taken? Because I certainly didn’t answer. I *would* probably argue though that most Australians don’t have a fucking clue what a hijab actually is.
And from the Darwin News:
Maybe she was a fugly and was doing everyone a favour
Posted by: Frank of Darwin 8:29pm Tuesday Comment 107 of 112
LOLZ! See what he did there?!
Dave of Millner an example of the Great Australian Cultural Cringe, But we don't know that Dave is an Australian (maybe pom) for he displays no affinity what ever for the preservation of AUSTRALIAN cultural heritage or customs. He is in fact a typical apologist, the sort that runs around apologising for things he's not done, and generally undermining Aussie values and customs. He's the sort that turns the other cheek, and he'll spread them as well, and have vaseline for the comfort of others.
Posted by: The Stump of Alice Springs 10:05pm Monday Comment 81 of 112
Dave and his unwillingness to take up a pitchfork against the Islamic Mafia... What a fag!
If she was to be my nurse i would ask for someone else i dont want some damn covered up thing that i cant see there face
Posted by: GRRR 1:32pm Monday Comment 17 of 112
Apparently doctors and nurses have stopped employing the use of surgical facemasks. Huh.
Will the madness never end? After all, you know there’s something fishy in the state of Denmark when even Miranda Devine gets it but the rest of the population remains oblivious.
But then, perhaps I’m being too sensitive? Perhaps I’m seeing oppression and bigotry where it doesn’t exist? After all:
it's not discrimation. if a non muslim had that tea towel thing on their head when they go to a job interview they too would be asked to take it off. so it's not discriminating muslims since anybody would be asked to take the towel off when they go interviews.
Posted by: james of darwin 12:25pm Monday Comment 4 of 112
*headdesk*
