Illustration: Robin Cowcher

Secular authorities need to ensure they win fights with zealots over the rights of women.

LAST week in Israel, a news story shocked the nation. It concerned Naama Margolis, an Orthodox Jewish girl, who was shown crying and quaking at the prospect of taking the 800-metre walk from her home to school. The reason for her distress? The harassment and intimidation she has been subjected to by a roving band of ultra-Orthodox men who felt that her long-sleeved shirt and below-knee-length skirt were insufficiently “modest”.

The men called Naama a slut. They spat on her and made her fear for her safety. Naama Margolis is eight years old.

The story has gone global. But so far few of the male “experts” who have been asked to comment appear to have a clue what is truly at stake, not just for women or Israel, but for all pluralist secular democracies.

Behind this clash is a far older and more fundamental one. Namely, who will decide how women will live – the church or the state?

Whatever god or gods they believe in, adherents of orthodox religious sects share the view that they – or their undemocratically appointed male leaders – have exclusive access to the wishes of the one true God.

This absolutist and arrogant view makes them wholly intolerant of fellow citizens of no faith, other faiths and even – as was the case with Naama – those of their own faith whose beliefs or practices differ from their own.

To ultra-orthodox adherents of every religious tradition – Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish – the rest of us are not fellow humans whose beliefs are entitled to the same respect and licence they demand for their own. At best, we are ignorant dolts worthy of pity. At worst, we are sinners deserving damnation or death.

Muslim author Salman Rushdie, well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens and former US president Jimmy Carter have been among those who have noted the persistent relationship between religious extremism and the often violent oppression of women. Of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, Hitchens wrote: “Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped  ¢â‚¬ ¦ if even a rumour of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk.”

Carter, who left the Southern Baptist Church several years ago over its treatment of women, said the ”view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or tradition  ¢â‚¬ ¦ The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women  ¢â‚¬ ¦” He added: ”They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.”

It would be nice to see the men who run the world’s religions do an about-face on the gender issue. But forgive me if I don’t hold my breath. More disappointing is the refusal of leading liberal men – opinion makers, legislators and adjudicators – to prosecute gender justice with anywhere near the enthusiasm they dedicate to attacking racial inequality.

In Israel, it would be unthinkable for black Jews (known as “Falasha”) to be forced to the back of public buses to appease the sincerely held views of ultra-Orthodox men that this is where they belong. Yet, this is precisely what is happening to women. In fact, Israeli legislators have had to pass a special law to overrule Israel’s standing requirements for gender equality to ensure the demands of ultra-Orthodox men for segregated buses could be accommodated.

The Americans are no different. In 1983, a US court vindicated the tax office’s refusal to give exempt status to Bob Jones University because the Christian college’s admission policy was – on what the college deemed the advice of God – racially discriminatory. In contrast, American courts continue to stand by while scripture is cited as justification for the church’s refusal to hire women for senior pastoral roles or pay them the same rates as men.

Australian lawmakers are just as supine, something that might surprise those who remember the claim by then treasurer Peter Costello that gender equality was what distinguished Australia from societies governed by sharia law. But Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act offers extensive exemptions to religious bodies that wish to discriminate against women for no other reason than that they are women – the very definition of unjust bias.

Whether it is in the training, educating and appointing of senior ministers or “any other act or practice,” male church leaders can do as they please when it comes to women, if that’s what they claim God demands. Sexism is unjust and unfair. It is as debilitating to the life chances and self-esteem of women – and to the societies that sacrifice the talents of its citizens on the altar of bigotry – as racism.

Secular authorities have been tussling with religious rulers over who makes the rules for a long, long time. To prevail, democratically elected rulers must understand and enforce the limits of a tolerant society. Indeed, in my view, Australia needs a far more militant democracy – one linked to core values such as secularity and equality and buttressed by pre-emptive constitutional protections against such foundational values, or democracy itself, risks being overridden or given away.

These values should apply to all democracies, Israel included. Naama, like all females, whether they be little girls or women, deserves to live in a society that defends her freedom and her opportunities, and insists she be judged on the content of her character.

To achieve this she is going to need political leaders who don’t just talk about gender equality to score political points, but in the face of religious bigotry and intimidation, have the balls to defend it.

Dr Leslie Cannold is an ethicist and the author of  The Book of Rachael  (Text).

THE images of women turning out for their biggest protest in Egypt’s history suggest a profound cultural change has begun since the ousting of Hosni Mubarak. In almost every repressive society, women are a soft target for misogyny, violence and sexual abuse. The culture of repression permeates a society. When men dominate the security apparatus, it often falls to women to say enough is enough. Their vulnerability becomes a moral shield.

The images of soldiers stripping, beating and kicking female demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square spread far and wide, triggering the protest. ”Where is the field marshal?” the women demanded in a challenge to the ruling military council’s head. ”The girls of Egypt are here.” The images of the hijab-wearing women confirm it is not Islam that oppresses them, but a leadership culture that twists religion and scorns human decency.

Libyan women are also caught between hope and fear after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. They, too, see a bigger role in society and politics as their best defence. A teacher told  The New York Times: ”We want to have more rights, but we want them based on what our religion is teaching us  ¢â‚¬ ¦ What we don’t want is a regime like the Taliban in Tripoli.” The liberation of women that was promised with the invasion of Afghanistan seems a distant hope. Hamid Karzai’s government recently pardoned a woman who had been jailed for adultery after being raped, but expected her to marry her rapist. Such practices are prevalent in Islamic countries, but misogyny and sexual abuse flourish in most repressive societies.

Northern Ireland’s Troubles seem a world away, but two women, Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams, won the Nobel prize in 1976 for inspiring hundreds of thousands to stand up and publicly demand an end to the Catholic-Protestant divide. For the first time, the terrorists were daunted. It took decades to achieve peace, but the process began with women saying ”enough is enough”.

That is now the rallying cry of Papua New Guinea’s ”peacewoman” activists. Having tackled local tribal conflict, they now demand an end to the ”Big Man” politics that has brought PNG to its knees. Of 109 MPs, only one is a woman. Amid the stand-off between rival prime ministers, the passing of a law to reserve 22 seats for women offered hope of change.

African women are already quietly transforming their continent’s prospects. The key has been their education, which boosts overall health and productivity. Africa boasts six of the past decade’s 10 fastest-growing economies. The democratisation of more than 30 African nations in 20 years is an obvious factor, but women’s emancipation is central to this.

The World Economic Forum’s  Global Gender Gap Report 2011finds 85 per cent of nations improved gender equity in the past six years. Everyone benefits. ”Smaller gender gaps are directly correlated with increased economic competitiveness,” says co-author Saadia Zahidi. ”Gender equality is the key to unlocking potential and stimulating economies.”

In political and economic activity, huge gaps remain. Women hold fewer than one in five decision-making national positions. Few have broken into the men’s club at the highest level. Mostly, it is ordinary but extraordinarily brave women who are leading the push for a greater say in their societies. They may well be the best hope for a freer, fairer and happier world.

A failed experiment

IT WAS always a contentious idea, and now there is evidence to show the folly of believing that withholding welfare payments from extremely disadvantaged people would be an incentive to ensure their children attend school. An evaluation of the program the federal government plans to expand has shown that since its inception in January 2009 until August this year, 380 people had welfare payments, such as the Newstart allowance or the disability pension, suspended for an average of 21 days either for failing to enrol their children or to ensure regular attendance, and one had payments cancelled. Yet there was no evidence of sustained improvement in the rate of attendance.

The failure appears to be due, in part at least, to Centrelink’s inability to provide appropriate support to parents affected by the policy. As Arrernte/Gudanji woman Pat Turner pointed out in an opinion piece in  The Age  last month, the idea of expanding the program to a further 16 communities is morally objectionable – nor will it work. As a former senior public servant and deputy chief executive of Centrelink, Ms Turner is better placed than most to assess its effectiveness. She argues that a more effective plan would spend the millions of dollars allocated to the program on fully staffing remote schools with experienced teachers who have already worked with Aboriginal people.

This newspaper supported the intervention, with qualification, in its early stages, but after more than four years, there are too few success stories. The latest findings confirm that the withdrawal of welfare benefits is an inappropriate way of encouraging compliance from people who already face greater hardships than most Australians. To have any chance of improving conditions in Aboriginal communities there must be greater investment in housing, schools, health and police services – services taken for granted in urban areas. While this will be difficult and expensive, the government must accept the responsibilities that came with its apology to the stolen generations almost four years ago.