To ban or not to ban? The burqa question

This week, France followed Belgium in voting to ban the burqa, the full veil worn by women from some Islamic traditions to hide their faces.

The new law, which bans the garment from being worn in public, will see anyone wearing the burqa receive a fine (approx $AUD222) or be forced to take a lesson in citizenship.

Those people caught forcing their wives or children to cover up face much stiffer penalties of up to $AUD42,000 and a one year jail term.

Already, the French debate has caused ripples in Australia, with Liberal Senator Cory Bernadi calling for a ban on the garment, with similar calls being made in Britain (where around 67% of the population are believed to support a ban) and Spain.

Whilst cultural, rather than religious, the burqa within western civilisation has become linked directly to Islam and its followers - somewhat intimidating for much of the Muslim-fearing west.

The ban in effect in Belgium, which has an estimated one million Muslim women, is estimated to affect around 30 people.

France has Europe's largest Muslim population of around 5 million, of which fewer than 2000 are expected to be affected by the new laws.

Senator Bernadi told the Herald Sun the burqa was "the most public symbol of fundamentalist Islam".

"This is a system where women are considered as second class citizens and homosexuals can be hanged."

What the Senator doesn't seem to recognise is that while in areas where the burqa is a cultural requirement, homosexuals may be hanged and women are considered as second class citizens, in Australia they are not.

When here, the wearer of a burqa still must abide by Australian laws - laws governed by equity, fairness and freedom.

In Australia, a country where we so often laud our ability to be culturally sensitive and all-inclusive, it is imperative that we do not allow the bigots and xenophobes among us to rule.

While many Australians find see the burqa a symbol of discrimination, oppression and degradation, the biggest issue in this country is a lack of understanding, acceptance and the general underlying racism that haunts the nation.

Education is surely the answer, both for those against the burqa, and those who wear it.

Yes, many Australians find Islam - and therefore (probably mistakenly) the burqa - very intimidating, especially in the post-September 11 climate.

However to link the wearer of a burqa fundamentalist Islam is simply wrong.

Prior to Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the number of women wearing of the chadri (similar to the burqa) was declining rapidly. In fact, the number of women wearing any form of full veil is diminishing at a rapid rate.

This, whilst Islam as a religion remains strong, and fundamentalist Islam continues to gain more attention.

Of course, the wearing of a burqa in Australia, and any other Christian-based nation, is going to cause discomfort for some people - we are not overly adept at accepting new things we don't properly understand.

And the wearers of the burqa must understand this.

We also need to educate the burqa-wearer.

Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, says he supports putting steps in place trying to discourage women from wearing full veils, but a law would send the wrong message.

"Rather than enacting a law barring women from expressing their malaise, we should think about what prompted them to want to cover themselves," Moussaoui said.

Not only would the banning of the burqa be a violation on the right to freedom and expression of religion, but it would simply be what so many refer to as 'unAustralian' - even if so many have argued the opposite. Anti-freedom, anti-fairness.

While, importantly, no woman in Australia should ever be forced to wear a burqa - as is unfortunately sometimes the case within some cultures - every woman should have the right to wear what she chooses, whether it is a reflection of their religion, culture or otherwise.

The burqa is not unAustralian.

But banning it would be.

Fair play or duty of care?

St Kilda footballer Steven Baker will not appeal the mammoth nine match suspension handed down to him by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night.

Baker chose to contest two of the charges laid against him - initially tallying a twelve week suspension - but tribunal threw out the case, leaving him absent until the first week of the finals.

Three of the charges which were accepted were for striking - no one would argue that this is something the AFL does not want as part of the game.

However, one of the more contentious charges was that of misconduct, for intentionally making contact with the hand of Steven Johnson of Geelong, which had been injured earlier in the game.

Baker's representative, Tony Nolan argued it was unclear whether Johnson had been injured prior to, or after contact.

This, however, it a moot point.

When an AFL player takes to the field, it is assumed he is fully fit and able to take part in what is a heavy contact, physical sport.

When a player consciously remains on - or returns to - the field of play, it is again, assumed he can fully take part in the game.

The assumption that Steven Baker has some sort of duty of care to an injured player is ludicrous. As long as Baker plays within the rules, there should be no issue.

No rule states you can't intentionally tap another players hand.

The duty of care rests with the injured player himself, and the medical staff from his club.

If Johnson was injured during the game, it is his responsibility to either get it dealt with by removing himself from the field, or else face the consequences of remaining there.

The situation arising from the weekend has striking similarities to the circumstances surrounding another Saints player in Round 1 of 2005.

The then-recently anointed St Kilda captain Nick Reiwoldt, leading his premiership-favoured club for the first time, injured his shoulder in a marking contest during the tightly contested third quarter at the 'Gabba.

Reiwoldt initially received treatment from medical staff, however consciously elected to remain on the field of play.

Two Brisbane players, in Brad Scott and Mal Michael, having seen Reiwoldt returning to his position, chose to target the injured shoulder with two off-the-ball bumps.

See the footage HERE.

Reiwoldt was forced from the field and endured a lengthy spell from the game.

The media was in an uproar.

How could two opposition players deliberately target an player's injury - potentially causing far more harm than had already occurred?

The reason is simple.

Reiwoldt had made a conscious, deliberate decision to remain on the field.

Obviously, if Scott or Michael had done something reportable, such as strike Reiwoldt, then yes, punishment would have, and should have been handed out.

And, of course, if Reiwoldt had been in the hands of trainers, or making his way from the field, he would have been off limits.

But, as it was, Reiwoldt chose to stay on the park, and the Brisbane players laid simple, solid bumps to the shoulder - something that happens, unnoticed, hundred of times in each AFL game.

And the same goes for the most recent situation.

Yes, Steven Baker needed to be suspended for striking Johnson - this would have occurred any week, to any player.

But when have we ever seen anyone suspended for making 'unnecessary contact' to a hand?

The misconduct charge is farcical and is removing the blame - whether deliberately or not - from the people most responsible for keeping Johnson on the park.

The question coming from the AFL should be this: who did have a duty of care?

That's not a line - that's a solid brick wall

Something is very seriously wrong with the media laws in Australia.

To allow footage to be shown - without reprimand - of an individual doing something that is not illegal, nor in the public interest, that has the potential to completely rip apart their life, is repulsive.

This week, married NSW MP David Campbell has quit his portfolio after he had the indignity of Channel 7 showing secretly filmed footage of him leaving a gay sex club.

Channel 7 crossed a serious line.

Was Mr. Campbell doing something illegal by attending the sex club?

No.

Was knowledge of Mr. Campbell attending the sex club in the public interest?

No.

Yes, Mr. Campbell was a married man and what he was doing was perhaps morally wrong.

But that does not give the media the right to splash his private life all over the screens.

Of course, we get this daily - even hourly - with celebrity news and the like, but that doesn't make it right.

Channel 7 tried to use the fact that Campbell drove a taxpayer funded vehicle to the sex club.

That doesn't wash either.

The vehicles are permitted to be used for personal use.

Something needs to be done to the weak laws that regulate Australia's media.

Perhaps if Mr. Campbell had a strong stand against homosexuality, then his activities may have been in the public interest.

In 2004, Ed Schrock, a married Republican congressman who constantly opposed gay rights was taped soliciting for gay sex.

In 2005, the Republican mayor of Spokane, Washington, Jim West, - who had previously supported a bill barring homosexuals from working in schools and child-care centres amongst other agencies, was caught having an affair with an 18 year old boy.

In these situations, yes, the politicians private life - where it conflicts particularly with their stance on an issue - is in the public interest.

This situation with David Campbell, is not.

In a week where potential public reaction to homosexuality has been a controversial topic - with an column published in theHerald Sun by Jason Akermanis about homosexual footballers, the voters in Mr. Campbell's seat of Kiera have roundly defended their former MP.

Former High Court Judge Michael Kirby, who once had allegations of sex with underage boys thrown at him, has accused Channel 7 of being 'serial homophobes.'

The network was forced to settle with former president of the Law Society of New South Wales the late John Marsden after it accused Marsden of having sex with minors.

Crikey has accused the reporter who broke the story, Adam Walters, to have been taking a revenge shot at Campbell.

Walters, a former NSW Labor staffed, was sacked after his unit was disbanded after Morris Iemma was forced out of the NSW Leadership.

Campbell was part of the group that had moved against Iemma.

If this is the case - and revenge is the reason for the story being broadcast - then it is even more repugnant.

After 11 years, Mr. Campbell has been forced out of his job because the media were looking for a cheap, scandalous story.

Channel 7 found one.

And it is in Australia's best interests to use this example as the impetus for new, stronger regulations that will hopefully prevent our media from falling further into the hole its digging itself.

Don't shoot the messenger

Jason Akermanis is right to suggest if a homosexual AFL player were to come out of the closet, it would make other players uncomfortable.

In his regular column for Melbourne's Herald Sun, the outspoken Western Bulldogs forward said the AFL community was 'not ready' for a player to 'out' themselves.

And Akermanis makes valid points.

The nudity in the change rooms.

The supposed bravado and masculinity associated with being an AFL player.

In this sort of environment, having a gay teammate would undoubtedly make some other players on the team very uncomfortable. Daniel Kerr of the West Coast has agreed, saying having a gay teammate would be 'weird'.

Senthorun Raj, policy and development coordinator for the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby told news.com.au the idea that gay players are “somehow undisciplined, anti-masculine and unsportsmanlike” promoted sexual shame and invisibility.

“People’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be considered a meaningful indicator of someone’s ability to play sport,” he said.

This is absolutely true, but it doesn't change the facts - and regardless of the protestations of many in the AFL community - they are facts.

Of course, this doesn't mean a player should stay 'in the closet' - to ensure his fellow teammates remain 'comfortable'. And this is where Akermanis has erred

Former Olympian Daniel Kowalski - who recently himself came out as a homosexual - has slammed Akermanis's column, saying it would tarnish the good work done by the AFL Players Association.

"I'm disappointed, I'm mad, I'm angry, I'm sad," Kowalski told Triple M radio.

"A lot of work has been done by Pippa Grange and the AFL Players' Association and there is support and it's continuing to gather.

"I didn't have the balls to do it. I worried what people would think," he said.

"You're brought up in this culture that it's wrong to be gay, especially in sport."

While Daniel was attempting to oppose Akermanis's views, all he really did was prove his point.

Kowalski was never willing to come out during his swimming career because of the potential abuse and vitriol he would receive.

Nothing has changed.

Olympic gold medalist Matthew Mitcham was the only openly gay Olympian at the 2010 games.

But diving and swimming are one thing.

All male team sports are a different - and surely more daunting - matter.

When NRL player Ian Roberts became the first NRL player to come out, he was abused and received death threats.

This would be mirrored, almost undoubtedly, in the AFL.

While, Kowalski's points that the AFLPA have been working hard to try to quash these types of perceptions are correct, Akermanis's article, and Daniel Kerr's comments are simply evidence that more needs to be done.

But again, we come to the point where Akermanis was not correct.

Perhaps having a player come out would help to educate the AFL community.

Perhaps.

There have been rumours about for the past few weeks that an AFL player was on the brink of 'outing' himself within the media - and some media organisations have been throwing up large dollar figures to try to lure them in for the exclusive.

It will happen. A player will be willing to face the media, or someone will slip up in public and be 'outed'.

There ARE gay sports people.

There ARE gay AFL players.

Things will change. Perceptions will change.

But right now, the media attention would be extreme. The reaction from fans would be - to a degree - predictably neanderthal-like. People forget how many bigoted, uneducated, and disgusting humans are around.

And, as Daniel Kerr says, for the players, it would just be weird.

Deveny gets lesson in decency

Catherine Deveny has today been sacked by Fairfax Media as a result of "Tweets" she published during Sunday night's Logies ceremony.

Deveny - who is a former writer for the Logies ceremony and a well-known serial tweeter - made profanity-ridden remarks about the Logies themselves, as well as guests.

A vile woman in all intents of the word, Deveny(before today) had a regular column in Melbourne's The Age, within which she ripped into anything and everything which she felt is beneath here - this blog mentioned her comments on Melbourne's new radio station MTR last week.

"I do so hope Bindi Irwin gets laid," she wrote.

Now, don't for a second think this blog is suggesting Bindi Irwin is exempt from media criticism. Bindi Irwin is a scary, scary little child.

What this blog is suggesting is that, as an 11 year old, Bindi Irwin should not be the subject of sexually-based garbage - even in the name of so-called comedy.

It is disgusting.

"Rove and Tasma look so cute!" She wrote. "I hope she doesn't die too."

Seriously?

What a repulsive, unfunny, offensive thing to comment.

Regardless of what you think of Rove, Tasma Walton, or even Belinda Emmett - its just not appropriate.

Wil Anderson has copped some criticism for his tweets - but they are simply tame when compared to Deveny's.

"Matt Preston won logie," Anderson wrote. "Deep fried it in batter and ate it."

The Herald Sun called that a 'toxic tweet'.

No, Matt Preston is a host on a cooking show who recently admitted he was overweight.

No offense there.

The closest Anderson came to offensive on the night was when he suggested Molly Meldrum was on drugs.

"Molly says he has only been drinking water. Pills must be strong".

Offensive to Molly? Perhaps.

But suggesting 11 year old's should get laid, and paying out on a dead woman it ain't.

Catherine Deveny claims her comments on Twitter were taken 'out of context'.

The whole point of Twitter, Catherine, is that in 140 characters, you CAN'T be taken out of context.

The context is the short statement.

And her comment on Rove?

She stands by it.

"I meant every single word," Deveny told her former paper today.

"I love Rove. I worked for Rove for five years. I've publicly said and printed I would take a bullet for him. He endorsed my first book on the front cover.

"They looked really sweet. I do hope that Tasma doesn't die and I hope that Rove doesn't die ... I absolutely meant it."

Deveny needs to find a better way of professing her appreciation for people.

And you can absolutely guarantee Rove McManus isn't going to be endorsing any more of Deveny's books.

McManus' manager, Kevin Whyte, told the Herald Sun Rove had decided not to dignify Deveny's comments with a response.

Rather classy.

That's a word Deveny knows little about.

The Herald Sun today quoted this writer in its article about the issue.

So happily, I'll leave this blog with a quote from.... me.

"[Catherine Deveny] is vulgar, bitter and essentially, unsuccessful."

And more so now, it seems.

Fitzroy's fight to claw back history

The Fitzroy Football Club today won a ruling that will see it face its biggest battle since effectively leaving the AFL in 1996.

Fitzroy, who now play in the VAFA competition, will take on its merged-partner Brisbane in a fight over the club's recently changed logo, which today gained passage to mediation on May 19, and potentially the Supreme Court.

Fans of the original Lions of the AFL are fuming after the betrayal of its effective "parent" club, who have changed the traditional "lion, paw on football" logo of Fitzroy to a moniker that has been labeled the "Paddlepop" Lion.

The Roy boys argument is that, in the contract struck before the merger in 1996, the Brisbane Bears (as they were known) agreed to use the Fitzroy Lion "in perpetuity".

Brisbane Lion's lawyers claim the club is not obliged to use the Fitzroy Lion forever, and that the costs associated with a change back would be astronomical.

They have accused the Fitzroy Football Club of trying to stymie the financial success of Brisbane - the cost of wasted merchandise if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Fitzroy would rise into the millions.

What an absurd decision by Brisbane.

What did they suspect to gain by changing the logo? Why would the club almost deliberately and knowingly try to put Victorian supporters of the Brisbane Lion offside?

Reportedly, around 7000 members of the Brisbane Football Club's 28,000 are based in Melbourne - a small, but dedicated (and vital) part of the former-Fitzroy-now-Brisbane fabric.

First, these Roys supporters saw their club ripped from their state after a much more palatable merger with North Melbourne was shelved after pressure from other Victorian clubs, nervous of a potential super club.

Then they watch as Brisbane slowly but surely shifted away from the Roy boys traditions of old, playing fewer games in Victoria, and ditching the traditional Fitzroy jumper which used to be donned in Victorian fixtures.

And now, the final straw. The ditching of the Fitzroy Lion altogether.
Brisbane officials will argue that historically, the Lion means little.

Prior to 1957 of course, Fitzroy were known as the Gorillas.

Fitzroy, many will argue, having been now out of the AFL for 14 years is a dead club. Why are Fitzroy supporters so determined to hold on to something that, for all intents and purposes, died in 1996. And for those who stuck with the Lions after the merger - surely a triple premiership was reward enough?

But from a Fitzroy supporters perspective - it is a battle worth fighting, and they intend to - even if it risks the club's long term survival if it ultimately loses.

This is the history of a once-great football club. The Fitzroy Football Club won 8 VFL premierships - that's more than South Melbourne/Sydney, North Melbourne, St Kilda, the Western Bulldogs/Footscray (in fact - more than the last three put together).

Yes, in an AFL sense, the Fitzroy Football Club no longer exists.

The Brisbane Lions Football Club does.

The Brisbane Lions, created and based around the heritage, support and players of Fitzroy.

This amalgamated club has nothing to gain by spitting on the history of a great club of this great game.

Show some respect Brisbane.

Give Fitzroy back its Lion.

NRL stand on Storm proves AFL is soft

The Melbourne Storm were today stripped of their 2007 and 2009 NRL Premierships in what is Australia's biggest ever sporting penalty.

After being proved of $1.7 million worth of salary cap breaches over five years through an effective dual-contract system, the Storm have been stripped of minor premierships, prize money and every premiership point won in the 2010 season.

The Storm were caught cheating.

The NRL have remonstrated in the only way possible.

Andrew Demetriou, the CEO of the AFL, has come out in praise of the NRL's decision, however sadly, the stance of the NRL simply shows just how weak the Demetriou's code has been in dealing with the multiple salary cap breaches which have occurred over the last 20 years.

The Essendon Football Club were caught having breached the salary cap by over half a million dollar between 1991 and 1996.

In 1993, the Bombers won the flag.

That's right - during the season which the Essendon Football Club won the Premiership, they were cheating.

And they were caught.

They were fined $388,500, and banned for a large portion of the three drafts leading into the following year.

Essendon won a Premiership cheating - and were allowed to keep it.

Almost every club in the AFL has been punished for salary cap breaches - with Carlton and Melbourne being the hardest hit in terms of fines and draft-related punishments.

However, while neither of those clubs won a Premiership during the time they were breaching the cap, and were penalised only financially - even though the likelihood is, the players which were made available to the club through the cheating resulted in victories - which the club (even retrospectively) were allowed to keep. .

The NRL have laid down the law - if you win a Premiership cheating, and you are caught, you will be forced to hand back those medals.

Sadly, its not the club that have owned the medals - they belong to the players.

Not only do they have to hand back their own Premiership medals - which for many would be their highest achievement - they are forced to play the 2010 knowing that, regardless of the score on the board, they can't win.

It is a sorry state of affairs for Rugby League in Melbourne. A city where the NRL has been attempting for years to create a stronghold in competition with the AFL.

It will be a massive effort for the code to recover after this.