Paris is good for the soul…and for a gal’s confidence.

I’m flying home to Oz after attending a friend’s wedding soiree in Paris. More on the entertaining nuptials in a later post, but top billing goes to the City of Love itself.

Coincidentally, I arrived in ‘Gay Paree’ on Valentine’s Day. The symbolism of the timing wasn’t lost on this hopeless romantic, but I was a little concerned the greeting card schlock that infects February 14th would be tackily overwhelming in such a setting. And, while a moody early morning walk along the misty Seine was evocative and inspiring, there was plenty of kitsch on offer. I began the day, culinarily speaking, with a heart-shaped baguette and then downed a sin-sationalheart-shaped tarte au chocolat for lunch which was topped with rose petals and just melted on my tongue. Meanwhile, the streets around the Eiffel tower were teaming with florists doing a booming trade in sweet smelling blooms of all varieties and lovers canoodled and giggled as they walked along the river bank.

Strangely, none of this seemed contrived. The inherent romance of this city is actually enhanced by a near spiritual celebration of passion. If you allow yourself to soak up its beauty with your eyes and ears; walk its monument-laden boulevards, cobble-stoned rues and riverside quais; and linger in Museums and galleries displaying extraordinary talent and genius, you can’t help but fall in love…

Later that afternoon I visited the famous old bookshop, Shakespeare and Co. which sits alongside the Seine opposite Notre Dame. It was a memorable haunt of Anais Nin, Alan Ginsburg and other lauded authors who wrote in its rooms and at nearby bistros. A quote from Nin now hangs above one of the overstuffed bookshelves: "And there by the Seine was a bookshop...An utrillo house, not too steady on its foundations, small windows wrinkled shutters. And there was George Whitman, undernourished, bearded, a saint amongst his books, lending them, housing penniless friends upstairs, not eager to sell in the back of the store, in a small overcrowded room, with a desk, a small stove" (Anais Nin, Diary, Vol 5) I poked and prodded the eclectic collection - which includes some Nin-vintage volumes - until I found something that satisfied: a book of love letters from contemporary authors including Margaret Atwood. What a fabulous Valentine's Day find!

Paris has it all: the language; the salons, bistros and brasseries; high culture; lunchtime discussions about politics and philosophy as heated as a ménage a trois; and then there’s French men… . Notoriously chauvinistic, they also have a seductive way with flattery…and that accent! I speak from (very limited) experience here. My confidence received a welcome boost during my walks between the Latin Quarter and the Right Bank. On one evening saunter along the Seine I actually lost count of the number of men who made passes at me.

I laughed at the first one…he leapt across my path and his hand swooped to the ground to collect a gold ring which lay at my feet. Locking his eyes on mine, he smiled and said “Bon chance, madame” (we’ll ignore the fact I’m apparently no longer mistaken for a mademoiselle!) and winked before watching me walk away. A total cliché, and I’m pretty sure sleight of hand was involved. But my new green hat (“Ooh it matches your eyes and sets off your red ‘air booty-fully”, cooed the very attentive gay designer…I bought three of his ‘ats!) may have had something to do with the performance.

On the next block a stylishly-clad and stubbled motorcyclist drove up onto the pavement in front of me, stopped, got off his bike, turned to me, made penetrative eye contact and said “Ooh, la, la!” No, I hadn’t been drinking on the evening in question – but I obviously had something going on! If it wasn’t the hat, maybe it was the super-stylish vintage coat I was wrapped in (newly purchased from the Montmartre flea markets, it was certainly irresistibly alluring to my wallet!)? Or perhaps I’d managed, after careful study, to cultivate that disdainful, haughty, sexy expression Parisian women seem to wear so effortlessly?

The compliments and bad French pick-up lines continued: one guy, who spun on the spot after walking past me, said something that sounded like “Phwaah, la, la”. Then there was the group of school boys led by a cocky blonde-haired wannabe-seducer who made his friends look at “la belle madame”. Mrs Robinson, look out! ;) At that point, I developed a theory about my strange appeal on the streets of Paris that evening – I’m a lass who’s fond of colour and whose red locks and ample curves make her stand out from the parade of monochromatically stylish, classically beautiful and uber thin Parisian women. (Where do they store all that cheese, bread and wine?) Perhaps, for once, the features I tend to complain about became assets? Either that or the men of Paris had been bewitched that evening…could have been the full moon.

Whatever the reason, I have to admit I enjoyed the attention. (I promise I’m not normally this gullible or narcissistic – it usually takes a lot more than flattery to make me swoon!). I blame it on Paris – seductive; moody; strikingly beautiful… it messes with your receptors.

Quick, pass me those hand-made chocolates! I have 8 hours of flight time left before I can find a cold shower and land back in reality. Forgive me if I’d rather stay airborne with my head in the clouds.

This is moi in that green hat!    [read more]

"For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry."

This is the heart of the Stolen Generations apology Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, will deliver to Indigenous Australians during his historic ‘Sorry Day’ address to the Parliament today. Three times sorry…it apparently isn’t the hardest word to say after all. But it’s been a very long time coming.

An official national apology was one of the key recommendations of the ‘Bringing Them Home’ report handed down by the late High Court Judge, Sir Ronald Wilson, in 1997 following exhaustive national hearings in the Stolen Generations Inquiry. The inquiry, established by the Keating Government, investigated the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their families between 1910-1970 under various assimilationist policies literally designed to ‘whiten’ the population. Under these policies ‘half-caste’ children deemed whiter than black were essentially kidnapped by government officials, moved to institutions and white homes far removed from their families and lied to about their heritage.

As the inquiry traversed the country, thousands of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders gave evidence about the hardship they endured as members of the Stolen Generations. The stories they told were heartbreaking and shame-inducing, prompting a national outpouring of grief amidst public soul-searching.

The inquiry found that between 1-10 and 1-3 Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their communities during the six decades in which these racist policies were in operation. It also established that 1-10 of those institutionalised and 1-5 placed in the care of white families reported being sexually abused. It was also revealed that many of these children were later sent to work for low or no wages – in effect they were used as slave labour. The policies that enabled this travesty continued to operate until 1970 but they were considered genocidal under international law from 1947 and racially discriminatory after 1950.

Governments of the day justified these policies on familiar grounds – it was in the children’s best interests…they were victims of abuse…they needed better educational opportunities. These excuses were being retreaded up until just last week by Howard’s lingering henchmen to justify continuing opposition to a national apology and the controversial Northern Territory ‘Intervention’ which essentially revives the policies being apologised for today.

Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister Tony Abbott finally fell in line with the change of heart expressed by Opposition leader Brendan Nelson and agreed to endorse the wording of the apology last night. But the agreement still stuck in his throat and his stony expression looked likely to crack when Tony Jones probed for details of his personal journey towards accepting the apology on Lateline . He continued to suggest the wording was inappropriate (the Opposition wanted the word ‘stolen’ changed to the euphemistic ‘separated’) but begrudgingly promised the Coalition would not oppose the apology.

And notably absent from today’s historic parliamentary occasion will be the former Prime Minister, John Howard, who fought tooth and nail against issuing a national apology and infamously thumped the lectern angrily during a Reconciliation address in 1997 when Indigenous members of the audience stood and turned their backs on him as he attempted to justify his opposition to an apology.

Fast forward 11 years to yesterday’s opening ceremony of the first parliament of the Rudd Government and the scene couldn’t have been bigger contrast to the division and anger that characterised Howard’s handling of Indigenous affairs. For the first time, Aboriginal and Torres Islander Australians were invited to participate in the proceedings. Ngannawal elder, Matilda House, led the ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony which acknowledged the Aborginal history of the land on which the parliament sits and celebrated Kevin Rudd’s election.

Amidst lively traditional dance and music featuring didgeridoos and clapsticks, Ms House’s grandchildren presented the PM with a message stick which she explained was a means of communication “used by our peoples for thousands of years to tell the stories of coming together”. Dressed in a possum fur cloak, she praised the new government for the planned apology and for involving Indigenous people in the opening of the historic session of parliament. “It’s a good, honest, decent, human act…to reach out…to make sure everyone has a place and is welcome”, she told the packed Members Hall.

In response, Kevin Rudd said a ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony would mark the opening of every parliament in future.

When Old Parliament House was officially opened in 1927, the only Aborigine reported present was asked to move on by the police. ‘King Billy’ Jimmy Clements was barefoot and in the company of dogs. But as, Tony Wright points out in The Age, in a show of public unity that reflected a more tolerant spirit, the gathered white crowd insisted he stand his ground and showered him with coins. The next day he featured in the official ceremony and was greeted by royalty. The court of public opinion triumphed on that day as it did on November 24th last year with the election of the Rudd government which campaigned for a national apology to the Stolen Generations.

Clearly the apology will carry very powerful symbolism and renew the spirit of reconciliation but the government must now tackle, with tangible, practical gestures of reconciliation, the 20 year gap in black-white mortality, endemic disease, homelessness, alcoholism, violence and myriad other complex problems that plague Indigenous communities. And, despite publicly rejecting the Stolen Generations report's recommendations for reparations, the Government must know it has to consider compensating the victims if the apology is to carry weight.

Kevin Rudd acknowledged the apology is just the beginning. As he will say later this morning “We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians. A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.”

Matilda House is optimistic about the future: “With this comes renewed hope…our pride and strength are refreshed…like our ancestors we can reach new heights soaring on the wings of the eagles.” I, too, have hope and I'm praying sorry is the magic word.



Anticipation: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have converged on Canberra for the formal apology. (AAP: Alan Porritt)


Update: view Kevin Rudd's "Sorry" speech here.    [read more]

The ABC’s documentary on Australian-born Muslim converts this week was a perfect case study for everything that’s wrong with the media’s portrayal of Muslim women.

Muslim women are both highly visible members of one of the most marginalised groups in Western society and the most vulnerable to vilification and media stereotyping. Ubiquitously portrayed as veiled, they are concurrently represented as oppressed and radical non-conformists; as threatened and threatening; as passive sex-slaves and exotic, erotic beings.

The problems associated with media coverage of Muslim women were on stark display on the ABC on Tuesday night during screening of the much-hyped and highly controversial documentary, “Jihad Sheilas”. If the title alone didn’t suggest sensationalist coverage of Muslim women, the inflammatory promo the ABC ran to attract an audience to the documentary certainly did.

Billed as ‘unmissable’, the advertisement implied the two women featured, Raisah bint Alan Douglas and Rabiah Hutchinson, were directly involved in terrorism. But while they were clearly adherents to a fundamentalist brand of Islam and have been closely associated with terror suspects, the inference that they were themselves terrorists failed to stack up against the evidence presented. On high rotation, the promo evoked reactions of fear and loathing through careful editing and use of a dramatic sound-track and voice-over which made the women appear both threatening and alien. It also employed patriotic discourses as a tool for reinforcing the theme that these ‘Aussie Sheilas’ had rejected Australian culture and values in favour of extremism.

The documentary itself provides perfect case study material for analysis of the media’s coverage of Muslim women – a culturally and linguistically diverse group united by a rich faith but symbolised generically by the distinctive religious clothing some choose to wear. And while this clothing makes them a clearly identifiable group, they are almost invisible and voiceless in news coverage. When they do appear, they’re almost exclusively cast as the outsider – alien to Australian culture and social experience. As the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria argues:

… the absence of Muslim women in the coverage of Islam and Muslims is as striking as it is unjust. The capacity and role of Muslim women exceeds comments on the hijab or issues of gender oppression. It is crucial that women’s expertise be recognised in all matters relating to Islam and their contribution should be sought beyond the “women’s perspective” approach. Until the role of women is acknowledged, it will not be possible to understand Muslims or Islam.

“Jihad Sheilas” displayed evidence of high quality production values employed for dramatic effect to reinforce the themes of danger and difference. It also raised serious ethical questions about the way in which the women’s participation was negotiated by the program makers. They claim they were tricked into appearing in the documentary, insisting they were told by the ABC producers that they would feature on the highly regarded “Australian Story” (claims the ABC denies) which is renowned for empathetic, narrator-less coverage of sensitive issues.

But while the women’s behaviour on camera indicated considerable time had been invested in establishing rapport between the interviewers and the subjects – consistent with an offer of sympathetic portrayal - “Jihad Sheilas” was as far removed from an “Australian Story” as documentary making gets.

The opener set the scene for a set-up. With narration delivered in dramatic tones, the documentary’s subjects were introduced as “two Australian converts to Islam” and we heard one of the women say “we’re Aussies at the end of the day…she’s from Wagga and I’m from Mudgee”. This introduction was intercut with images of the September 11 attacks, vision of Osama Bin Laden and George Bush’s divisive call to arms - “you’re either with us or you’re against us”.

A selection of heavily-edited, de-contextualised quotes from the women was then presented against threatening music intended to induce fear: “I would defend Islam with my life…so that makes me a filthy dirty terrorist”; “It’s not a bad thing for Islam what Osama Bin Laden has said”; “You have just asked me a question that could very well have me put away for a long time” they’re heard saying before the narrator opines: “They believe they are innocent victims of the War on Terror”. The sequence concluded with a staged image of a beautiful, pale skinned woman with enormous blue eyes – peering out from a full hijab. The words “Jihad Sheilas” were stamped over her face.

Importantly, when the truncated quotes from the women featuring in the opener were shown in context much later in the program, it was clear they’d been manipulated for dramatic effect. When the interviewer asked Rabiah Hutchinson “Would you die for your faith?” this is what she said: “Of course. The same as if you ask me would I die to defend my children. Does that mean I’m going to go and lob grenades out of a bus in Lakemba, no it doesn’t. But you have just asked me a question that could have me put away for a long time.” Her point was clearly intended to illustrate the way in which her words could be taken out of context and that’s precisely what the program did by the focusing on last part of this quote in the opener, implying that she may be guilty of criminal activity.

Again in the opener, Hutchinson was heard saying “I would defend Islam with my life so that makes me a filthy, dirty, subhuman terrorist.” But in context she said “I would defend Islam with my life so that makes me a filthy, dirty, subhuman terrorist that deserves anything and everything that anybody and everybody wants to do to them…but at the end of the day it doesn’t deter me from my faith and it only makes me stronger”. Her point was that society was judging her unfairly because of her adherence to a hardline version of Islam and that treatment was further encouraged by the ABC’s mis-representation of her comments at the beginning of the program.

The script also repeatedly highlighted the women’s multiple marriages and many children. They were portrayed as promiscuous and rampantly fertile, feeding time-worn stereotypes surrounding the reportage of Muslim women. But these women suffered a double whammy effect – they were also portrayed as traitors to their culture, the religion they were born into and their country of birth.

While exaggeration and the application of melodrama to TV current affairs are not exclusive to the coverage of Muslim women, the ABC’s uncharacteristic resort to tabloid story-telling techniques in this program highlights their particular vulnerability to negative, stereotypical representation.

This is a theme familiar to international researchers considering the portrayal of Muslims in the post-September 11 environment. European and North American researchers have noted the same trend identified in Australia, pointing to ideological roots in ‘Orientalism’ – Edward Said’s theory that the Muslim world and its inhabitants are considered backward, barbaric and outsiders, or ‘others’ to Western society.

In 2005, the journal Anthropology Today commented that ‘…images of Islamic dress are increasingly used in the media as visual shorthand for dangerous extremism, and … Muslims all over Europe are suffering from the consequences of such associations’. And Canadian academics Bullock and Jafri have observed that “Muslim women are often presented in mainstream Canadian media as outsiders and members of a religion that does not promote Canadian values… such as indiscriminate violence and gender oppression.”

Reactionary and disempowering media representations of Muslim women have significant implications for both the women themselves and the sustainability of Multiculturalism. They also imply a need for a re-examination of journalistic practices, standards and ethics surrounding the coverage (or lack thereof) of Muslim women.

A version of this article originally appeared on New Matilda    [read more]