Women’s rights overlooked in the name of racial “tolerance”

If there’s a hierarchy in the hallowed halls of our nation’s tertiary institutions whenever a potential clash of ideology arises, it goes something like this: Muslims and then women. In that order.

If shouting the word “fire” is the most effective way to silence a room, then uttering the word “bigot” is the most effective way to silence a university lecture hall.

Here, in an environment in which progressive ideas are fostered and an innate belief in equality is (rightfully) encouraged, the thought of being labelled “racist” is particularly horrifying.

So while in many aspects of campus life the goals of feminism are proudly championed, even the faintest risk of being accused of cultural insensitivity is all but guaranteed to see any commitment to gender equality suddenly discarded.

If there’s a hierarchy in the hallowed halls of our nation’s tertiary institutions whenever a potential clash of ideology arises, it goes something like this: Muslims and then women. In that order.

This is an environment in which even the most passionate of women’s advocates can be rendered mute by a suggestion they are engaging in anti-Islam rhetoric.

An environment in which the very same people who will argue at length about how female pop stars are coerced into wearing skimpy clothing due to the patriarchy will shy away from a frank discussion about the pressures brought to bear on other women to wear a burqa, niqab or hijab.

Analysing the archaic double-standards and obstacles faced by women across the world is all well and good until you risk offending the sensibilities of Muslim men. And let’s face it, it is only ever the men.

When was the last time you heard a Muslim woman seriously claim to be offended that anyone would dare to suggest she should sit where she wants? Or wear what she chooses? Somehow it’s always a man who steps forward to defend a woman’s “right” to be treated as a second-class citizen.

Which is pretty much how events unfolded at the University of Western Sydney last Thursday night when men and women were asked to sit apart at an event organised by the Muslim Students’ Association.

“Brothers to the front” and “sisters” to the back of the room was the instruction politely issued to The Daily Telegraph’s male reporter when he initially sat among the women.

Despite featuring keynote speakers from Hizb ut-Tahrir, the university has subsequently denied the event was organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir, adding “UWS is a university located within the multicultural heart of Sydney. Our university is inclusive and reflects the diversity of our community.”

The city’s multicultural heart is something in which all Sydneysiders should take immense pride. But how does a commitment to being “inclusive” justify the exclusion of women from sitting in the front of the room?

Presumably the event’s organisers are all in favour of “diversity” – so long as that diversity doesn’t include women. Certainly not any so audacious enough as to publicly question their being segregated from their superiors. Oops, I mean men.

Having issued a statement clarifying its position as “a proud supporter of gender equality”, UWS has promised to “discuss the matter of gender segregation with the relevant parties.”

But this is only the latest in a long line of documented instances in which women have been confined to the back of the room at similar events.

Last October freelance journalist Alison Bevege wrote an opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph in which she detailed how she was not permitted to sit in the front of the room at a public meeting in Sydney organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

“Like Mississippi blacks in the 1950s sent to the back of the bus for the colour of their skin, I was segregated due to my gender,” she observed.

It’s hard to imagine too many people at UWS, with their good intentions and staunchly held principles, endorsing or facilitating any form of racial segregation to appease their hosts.

Why should it be any different for gender segregation? Why are the rights of women only all too readily overlooked in the quest for “social cohesion”?

Ironically, the fear of being dubbed a bigot for standing up to religious or cultural intolerance only compounds even more bigotry: the subjugation of women.

How terribly enlightened.