You can’t be oppressed when another group is merely gaining rights you exclusively acquired by default decades ago.

I recall a conversation I was having with two senior managers about Corporate Australia’s shift to focus on cultural diversity within its leadership ranks. One of them was a woman of Asian Australian heritage; the other, a colleague of hers, a man of Anglo-Celtic origin.

It was in the context of this discussion, in which the man turns to her and says: “There you go, another leg up for people like you”.

The shocked and hurt look on her face will be permanently etched into my memory. She didn’t say a word but I couldn’t let that go. I responded: “When you extend a hand to someone who for too long has been walking in the gutter, while you’re comfortably strolling the streets, that’s not a leg up or a hand out – it’s simply levelling the playing field”.

And then I did a Wonder Woman pose and walked off. Okay, so the last part didn’t happen.

That man’s remarks, it turns out, whilst fairly brazen, are not uncommon.

According to a new landmark study from the 50/50 Foundation at the University of Canberra, while 88 percent of Australians agree that gender equality is still a problem, 46 percent of the men surveyed believe that the adopted measures do not take men into account or, put another way, they feel like their man-given rights are being eroded.

It’s no surprise of course, because “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” (Quote by unknown).

But you can’t be oppressed when another group is merely gaining rights, you exclusively acquired, by default, decades ago. Perhaps the trepidation some men are feeling is because they fear that they will be treated how women have been treated for centuries?

Needless to say, the report findings fuelled the usual debate across social media.

As one Twitter user put it to me (let’s call him ‘David’ for now) “… how can you expect millennial males to suffer discrimination for the wrongs of history, which they did not commit?”

What you’re really saying is that you want the system to continue to operate in an unjust manner which advantages men over women because it’s not your individual fault that David, Peter and John built a system which advantages other Davids, Peters and Johns. I didn’t select those names randomly – there are fewer women in top jobs than there are actual Davids, Peters and Johns.

What you’re really saying is that you’ve found a large bag of money which doesn’t belong to you, but you’re just going to hang on to it, instead of returning it the authorities.

Balancing the gender equality scales is not a historical issue nor is it about punishing one gender over another. It’s not about attributing fault. It’s not about revenge. It’s about justice – pure and simple.

The injustices and barriers to full equality are still flourishing today and the barriers are amplified for women from minority groups who have to face not only a glass ceiling, but a double glazed one at that. And no, they are not lacking in merit. That argument was blown out of the water long ago.

Countless studies have shown how unconscious institutional bias operates to advantage men, and particularly those of an Anglo-Celtic background. How else do you explain that once “blind” (or a better term, ‘anonymous’) recruitment practices were adopted, the chances of women advancing to key positions were exponentially increased?

Whether it’s musicians in orchestras or executives in boardrooms, remove the bias creating attributes of human beings, like their gender, race, sexuality, etc. and the pendulum seems to swing towards equality.

And is it not ironic that those who claim that their selections are based on merit tend to hire people just like them? Affinity bias is an actual thing, you know.

You can’t argue that you have more merit when all you have are more privileges. If you, whether advertently or inadvertently threw a cover over one side of a newly planted garden bed, which resulted in sunlight and rain water not reaching them, curtailing their growth, you can’t claim that the other side of the garden bed, which produced healthier and taller flowers, are just of a better, more meritorious variety.

Here’s the thing, you can’t address inequality equally. In order to tip the scales of equality back to balance, the side weighing it down must return to a state of equilibrium.

Throughout history, humanity has sought to right historical wrongs. Sometimes you have to give your seat up on the bus and sit further back because it’s the right thing to do.

And at that point, the question is not, ‘why I am not getting the unearned privileges I was previously afforded by virtue of my gender’?

The question is, why does my fellow human being not have access to the same equitable opportunities and privileges that I’ve had access to and continue to benefit from?

Mariam Veiszadeh is a Diversity & Inclusion Consultant and did a TEDx talk on Rethinking Privilege.  

Article originally published at Ten Daily 

MARIO! Mario!” The barista is calling out a coffee order. I’m half asleep so it doesn’t register. “Mario? Skinny flat white”. It dawns on me then – he means me. It’s my coffee order!

OMG. How embarrassing. I walk over; he takes a look at me and then at the coffee and realises their cashier has totally butchered my name. He apologises. I politely say thank you, pick up my coffee, my ego off the ground, and walk off.

“It’s OK,” I think to myself. I’m used to it. Worse still was the time I ordered my coffee using the Hey You app which clearly displays my full name – correct spelling and all – and the considerate barista thought he’d Anglicise my name for me – it had “Mary” written on the cup.

Do you remember that feeling as you’re sitting in roll call at school and your teacher is yelling out a list of each of the students’ names, and then there’s that infamous pause and you just know that they are about to butcher yours?

Are you nodding? Or maybe you’re like, “nope I can’t relate.” That means you probably have a pronounceable name – by Western standards anyway.

My name, you see, is Mariam Veiszadeh. No not, Miriam (I get that A LOT), not Maria, not Mary, definitely not Mario, but MAAARIAM. As for my surname, oh boy – Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer would have no hope in hell trying to utter it, ever.

It’s Veiszadeh. Not Visydeh, Versace, Veh-veh-veh –?

Look, I get it. It’s not easy – not even by ethnic standards. (I can say that because I’m ethnic.)

But having a name like mine does have its perks. You never have to worry about someone else having the same Gmail address or Instagram handle. As a work colleague once pointed out to me, “your name is unusual enough for me to be able to easily find you in the directory”. (PS: Please don’t say that to people, especially ones you’ve just met).

But yeah, being different ain’t always cool. Just ask Emma Alberici, Neel Kolhatkar, Annastacia Palaszczuk, Magda Szubanski or Gladys Berejiklian about how many times well-intentioned people have butchered their names before they finally got it.

These are the brave folks who persevered and didn’t give in to the urge to change their names or Anglicise them – and now, after years of practice, we just know how to say their names.

The thing is not everyone who changes, shortens or Anglicises their names is doing it because their names are unpronounceable. Some are doing to avoid or reduce discrimination.

“Don’t be ridiculous, there’s no such thing as discrimination,” I hear you say! Well, an ANU 2009 study found that someone with a Chinese-sounding name typically must submit 68 per cent more applications than a person with an Anglo-sounding name to get the same amount of call backs and therefore land a job interview.

And if you’re Middle Eastern, not only are you more likely to be randomly selected for a bomb test at the airport, but to get the same number of interviews as a job applicant with an Anglo-Saxon name, you must submit 64 per cent more applications. An Indigenous applicant 35 per cent more, and an Italian applicant 12 per cent more applications.

With odds like that, it is entirely understandable why some feel the need to go from Ming to May or from Mohammed to Michael because you just can’t beat unconscious (or in some cases conscious) bias in the recruitment process.

The fact that people from the above named ethnic groups are less likely to advance to leadership positions once they make it through the recruitment process is a topic that we will have to leave for another day. Needless to say if you don’t see folks with unpronounceable names in the top ranks of society, there’s even less incentive to retain the names given to you at birth.

But what if your parents named you North West – surely you should be able to change that when you’re older, I hear you say? Hey, this is a judgment-free zone.

It’s a sad reality that on the top of the usual anxieties that new parents battle with, some have the added problem of having to worry about their name selections – trying to settle on names that will less likely result in bullying and discrimination in the playground and beyond.

In an era where parents try to be different by naming their child a variant of popular names like Sophia (who knew that Sophia could be spelt at least 10 different ways?) – let’s truly embrace difference and let us encourage others to be proud of their identities.

Most importantly, let us become conscious of the role each of us play in society in ensuring that we don’t merely tolerate difference, be in it in name or otherwise, but rather, we celebrate it.

Originally published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 June 2917 http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/the-beauty-of-unpronounceable-names-is-that-we-all-eventually-learn-them-20170614-gwqzs6.html

Originally published  here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/02/25/4186872.htm

Over the past year, women across the country have been assaulted, spat on, had their prams kicked, have been punched from behind, had abuse hurled at them, had hot coffee thrown in their face, told to leave an entertainment venue, assaulted and thrown off a train, verbally intimidated, had their cars vandalised and have been forced to restrict their public movements out of fear.

Some of these incidents took place in the presence of children. Some victims were heavily pregnant. Some victims complained that passers-by and witnesses failed to intervene. All of the victims were left traumatised – the experiences haunting them, each and every time they hear of yet another incident similar to theirs.

These women all have one thing in common.
“Over the past year, [Muslim] women across the country have been assaulted, spat on, had their prams kicked, have been punched from behind, had abuse hurled at them.”

“Over the past year, [Muslim] women across the country have been assaulted, spat on, had their prams kicked, have been punched from behind, had abuse hurled at them.”

And no, they are not the victims of a domestic violence epidemic.
Advertisement

These women just happen to be Australian Muslims, many of them who have chosen to display their faith publicly by wearing a hijab or on some occasions, a niqab. This is their only ‘crime’.

Despite being part of the world’s second largest faith group, Muslim women in all parts of the Western world are singled out and targeted daily by those who continue to extrapolate the criminal actions of a minority to the entire 1.6+ billion followers of Islam.
A woman holds a placard during an anti-racism protest in Federation Square where Reclaim Australia, a community group, stages an anti-Islam rally at the same time in Melbourne,

A woman holds a placard during an anti-racism protest in Federation Square where Reclaim Australia, a community group, stages an anti-Islam rally at the same time in Melbourne, Photo: Getty Images

The fear, both debilitating and real, has been so great at times that citizens have taken it upon themselves to offer to escort Australian Muslim women in the aftermath of incidents which result in an inevitable backlash against Muslims.

Although groundswell movements like #Illridewithyou have helped cushion the backlash somewhat, the inevitable reality remains that being ‘visibly Muslim’ (or even ‘remotely Muslim’ in the online world) puts you at higher risk of being the victim of an islamophobic incident.

What’s more disturbing is that when I’ve sought to speak out about Islamophobia, in addition to many expressing concern, a rather alarming number of people expressly engage in victim blaming.

Having launched the Islamophobia Register late last year, a platform that collates incidents of Islamophobia across Australia, and having spoken directly to countless victims over the past year, I’ve witnessed first hand the absolutely terrifying impact the experiences have left on victims and their loved ones.

I often find myself playing the role of an investigator, legal advisor, counsellor, advocate and social worker. Having experienced long drawn out episodes of cyber bullying and near constant online hate myself, I find myself re-living my own anguish each time I speak to them.

As an advocate seeking to amplify the voices of victims of Islamophobia, I myself have become the target. I’ve been bestowed with the honour of becoming every Islamophobes’ favourite poster child.

It was these very experiences that I reflected upon, as well as highlighting the inadequacies in the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), in my address to the Australian Human Rights Commission, at its 40 years of the RDA Conference in February this year.

I specifically spoke about the fact that despite the alarming increase in the frequency and severity of incidents of Islamophobia, Australian Muslims were still not afforded adequate protection under Federal laws.

In NSW, which houses the largest percentage of Australian Muslims, legal protections would only apply, as an example, if one was abused as an “effing Lebanese Muslim” as opposed to an “effing Muslim” because clearly bigots pause to reflect on one’s ethnicity before letting loose. This same imposition is not required where Australian Jewish and Sikh communities are concerned.

We know that religion is often used as a pretext for what is, in reality, race discrimination. And the whole ‘I ain’t racist because Islam is not a race’ argument is getting old and is frankly, a cop out!

I’m sick of hearing the absurd argument that unless I condemn repeatedly and ad nauseam the atrocious acts committed by every Mahmoud, Abdul or Ahmed, I cannot speak out about acts committed against Zahra, Sara and Aisha.

What concerns me is the double standards, anomalies and contradictions embedded in anti-discrimination laws, which leads to ridiculously unjust but perfectly legal decisions whereby, for a complaint against similar offences when religion is not a protected attribute, a Jewish person can obtain protection while a Muslim cannot.

The National Consultation Report on the 40th anniversary of the RDA released by the Australian Human Rights Commission last week echos what many in the community, myself included, have been saying for a while – that Australian Muslim, whilst having to endure increased levels of biased motivated vilification and discrimination, have at best, “limited protection” under the RDA as religion is not a protected attribute and Islam is not considered an “ethno-religion” (unlike Judaism).

Legal experts are now calling on the Federal Government to consider how to better protect Australian Muslims.

The cynic in me thinks that it’s tough to imagine that there’s a huge amount of capital to be gained by any of the major political parties to consider legislating on this issue as they’d be effectively sticking their neck out for one of the most ‘disliked’ segments of the broader community – Australian Muslims.

I recognise the rather tricky intersection between race and religion and the complexities associated with legislating on what is perceived as a non-biological trait – religion.

I note however that some academics are mounting the argument that increasing levels of Islamophobia in Australia has sped up a process of “ethnicisation” of the Australian Muslim community.

There have been suggestions that given that there is next to none political appetite to go down the legislative reform route, that perhaps a more realistic approach to secure legal protections would be for an impacted member of the Australian Muslim community to commence litigation to test the relevant provisions of the RDA or its state equivalents before a court (‘a test case’).

This might be a viable option but given sky rocketing legal expenses and the drawn out legal battle that would ensue, not to mention the potential associated trauma that one would have to endure – how realistic is this option? I know this because, given that I’ve been racially and religiously vilified myself, I have considered mounting my own ‘test case’.

In 2012, a proposed a draft bill, which sought to merge and simplify five existing anti-discrimination laws, including the RDA was shelved. More recently, some have floated the idea of a Multicultural Act.

Perhaps its time we commenced a national debate about how best to address these issues which, if left unaddressed can have significant broader and long-term implications.

It’s apparent that there are various options available – most seem to be lacking a vital ingredient however – political willpower.

Originally published here: http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-women-of-the-year/mariam-veiszadeh-we-need-to-call-out-the-double-standards-in-australias-antidiscrimination-laws-20151110-gkvug6.html

The Guardian 3 July 2013

Ed Husic made history this week by being the first Australian Muslim to be appointed as a front bencher in Australian parliament. Husic was appointed as a parliamentary secretary to the prime minister and a parliamentary secretary for broadband.

Whilst many celebrated his appointment as a momentous occasion – none more so than our own governor general Quentin Bryce, who said that “this is a wonderful day for multiculturalism and everything it stands for in our country” – others used it as an opportunity to unleash vitriol on Husic’s Facebook page, focusing particularly on his decision to be sworn into his parliamentary role by making an oath on a hard copy of the Qur’an.

The bigotry extended far beyond Facebook. Some went so far as suggesting that the “governor general should be dismissed for acting unconstitutionally in allowing a parliamentary officer to swear allegiance to racist Arab supremacy – rather than the Australian people and our laws”. Many, in return, expressed shock and outrage at how vile some comments aimed at Husic were. But whilst the bigoted commentary was truly despicable were they shocking? I, for one, was sadly not surprised.

As much as I despise playing the “victim card” and harping on about the ongoing religious and racial vilification faced by Muslims in Australia, there is no doubt in my mind that the real root cause of the vitriol aimed at Husic, is a far deeper social malice – Islamophobia.

Sadly, whether it’s Muslim minarets or the notion of Islamic banking, any concept even remotely connected to Islam and Muslims seems to elicit a completely irrational fear.

Husic’s historical promotion should have served as a reminder that we live in a nation where equal opportunity is afforded to all. It should have served as a reminder that a fundamental strength of our democracy is freedom of religion, and that our parliament is slowly but surely on its way to becoming truly representative of all Australians – although I note that women and ethnic minorities are still underrepresented.

Sadly though, the discourse was hijacked by keyboard warriors who so ignorantly tried to suggest that “Australia is a Christian nation” and that Mr Husic’s actions were “unconstitutional”. They clearly lack a basic understanding of the rights afforded to all of us under Australia’s constitution.

Australian parliamentarians are free to use whichever holy text, or none at all, to be sworn into their positions. In fact, our politicians have been given the option since Federation in 1901. Our previous prime minister, Julia Gillard, made an affirmation of allegiance instead of swearing her oath of office on a holy text. Australian Jewish MPs Josh Frydenberg and Michael Danby were sworn in on the Torah in 2010. I do not recall any such fuss being made then.

So where does this social malice stem from? For over a decade, Australian Muslims have had to live through a climate of mistrust and hostility. Although I’d be the first to admit that there have been significant improvements, we still have a long way to go. Islamophobia has been one of the most challenging impediments to social and community cohesion in Australia.

Australian Muslims who, despite being mostly born, raised and educated in Australia, still feel like their identity is being constantly questioned. If the sentiments on social media are any sort of indication, then I personally feel this on a very regular basis. Whether it’s being called a “rag head”, told to “go back to my own country” or people wishing that “my refugee boat had sank at sea” (I came by plane, by the way), the vitriol is unrelenting and deeply hurtful.

It was only yesterday that I was asked about how many “genuine non-Muslim friends I have or associate with”. And hours before that, I was criticised for supposedly being afforded an education opportunity before “our own” and that it “was the public purse that enabled [my educational] opportunities”. Little do they know that like everyone else, I had to work tirelessly (including studying full time and working full time at one stage), to make my way through my combined law and economics degree.

Is it not “un-Australian” to continuously question other peoples’ levels of “Australianness”? Perhaps I’m stating the obvious, but being a good Australian and a good Muslim are not mutually exclusive concepts. What becomes further apparent in this sad saga is the utter irony of the criticisms often thrown at Australian Muslims; that they don’t assimilate or contribute to our society.

I try to counteract the disproportionate attention afforded to Muslims and the often negative portrayals of Australian Muslims in the media by highlighting the many positive contributions of Australian Muslims. Whether it’s Husic’s ascent and success in federal politics, Australian Post CEO’s Ahmed Fahour’s business achievements or Hazem El Masri’s sporting achievements, as well as countless others, Australian Muslims are very much an integral part of our society. Is it not about time that we all started to play our part in changing the narrative?

Originally published in The Guardian 3 July 2013

In the wake of the latest racist tirade on a Melbourne train and the tragic loss of life when a boat carrying asylum seekers sank off the coast of Indonesia, I copped some unprovoked abuse on Twitter on Friday evening: “Wish your refugee boat had sunk at sea, bitch.”

Once I had recovered somewhat from the shock of receiving the tweet, I checked the @GregJessop1 Twitter profile which, among other things, indicated that he was an Engineer based in Queensland and worked for Rio Tinto (although his profile did bear the standard Twitter disclaimer, “Opinions mine, do not reflect views of Rio Tinto”). Determined not to stoop to his level, my immediate response to him was, “Lucky for you, I came by plane.”

It was perhaps ironic that, only hours earlier, I had tweeted: “If you witness a racist rant on public transport, don’t remain silent. Speak up if it’s safe to do so. Silence condones #racist behaviour.” I was deeply moved by the actions of Mahmood Reza, an Australian Muslim man who stood up to a drunken woman who was racially abusing a packed Melbourne train last week. I found the incident, which was captured on a passenger’s phone and reported to media, deeply disturbing. How many similar incidents occur on public transport throughout Australia, but go unreported?

Not long after receiving the tweet, I (along with many others) tried to contact Rio Tinto by means of Twitter to bring this matter to their attention. Whether the Twitter profile of @GregJessop1 was fictitious or he did in fact work for Rio Tinto was almost irrelevant – surely he couldn’t get away with making such hateful, vile, almost threatening comments and still have references to Rio Tinto in his profile.

There have been countless victims of social media abuse, Charlotte Dawson being a notable example. Dawson’s online tormentors drove her to become suicidal. In many cases, these unidentifiable Twitter trolls are never held to account because they are untraceable. In my case, @GregJessop1 volunteered information about Rio Tinto in his Twitter profile and I used this information as a legitimate means to hold him, and people like him, to account.

@GregJessop1 was clearly rattled by all the attention his offending tweet had generated. He deleted the tweet and then tried to suggest that I photoshoped the screen shot of the offending tweet. But what baffled me most was his response to someone who questioned how Rio Tinto would feel about his hateful tweets: “at work, I’m on work time and $. If they want me to be respectful, so be it. On my time, i’ll do as I please.”

I was also subsequently advised by others on Twitter that I should have the phrase “proud Aussie” in my Twitter profile, rather than “proud Refugee.” I use this phrase in my profile, not because I am an ungrateful Aussie, but because I want to demonstrate that refugees are educated and active participants in our community. Ultimately, I want to help change perceptions. Moreover, if my actions don’t demonstrate my gratitude, how would a label somehow do the trick? And why must I assert my level of Australianness every minute of the day? Excessive pride and racial hate speech should be viewed in the same manner – both are entirely unnecessary, really.

Since Friday, I’ve been overwhelmed by messages of support and compassion, and indeed by offers from strangers to help me. For every instance of abuse, there are many expressions of compassion and solidarity. Perhaps the one that has meant the most to me was from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser: “I am deeply sorry you had to experience that, some people are so insensitive and stupid, try not to let worry you.” Mr Fraser, of course has been especially vocal in recent times and spoken out about the plight of asylum seekers – if only some of our incumbent politicians shared and expressed his same convictions!

Yesterday afternoon, I received a response from Rio Tinto, as well as a call from their media representative, who assured me that they had commenced their investigations on Friday evening. It is comforting to know that an organisation like Rio Tinto would never condone such behaviour.

Irrespective of whether he is a mere Twitter troll or an actual Rio Tinto employee, the attitude of @GregJessop1 is indicative of a deeper malaise in this wonderful country of ours: a high level of low level racism, a form of racism Waleed Aly has described as “subterranean racism.” I used to think that on social media people were more inclined to make irrational and utterly vile comments under the cover of false identities than they would in person, in real situations. But the recent racial rants on public transport which has been reported in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and even Canberra disprove this theory.

But this begs the question: what is the root cause of this type of hateful bigotry? Wherever this bigotry stems from, there is little doubt that the current and thoroughly toxic political debate which wilfully demonises asylum seekers is fuelling it. There have been hundreds of op-eds written by advocates across the political spectrum criticising the character of political debate about asylum seekers, and there is nothing I can recount here that hasn’t been written many times before: that, compared to other refugee-hosting countries, Australia receives a very small number of asylum applications and we are in no danger of being “swamped”; or that we are a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention and are in breach of Article 31 every time we load men, women and children onto a bus at Christmas Island and then transport and “detain” them for an indefinite period of time; or that the countless health-care professionals have advised that indefinite detention leads to irreparable mental damage and ultimately, in some cases, to suicide. But we have all heard that before.

Australia’s refugee policy is symptomatic of a political preparedness to pander to short-term electoral interest over tenable long-term planning, much less humanitarian concern. With a federal election looming and an incumbent government needing to pull a political rabbit out the hat, it is hard to see how things could improve – indeed, the likelihood is that the politicking at the expense of asylum seekers will only get worse.

But our politicians’ nonsensical and frequently inhumane remarks about asylum seeker policy are partly, if not largely, based on what they believe Australians want. If the brutal logic of deterrence, of “stopping the boats,” wasn’t a vote-winner and didn’t represent an advantage in the opinion polls, surely the political discourse would be different. We, my friends, are part of the problem. It’s time to become part of the solution.

Mariam Veiszadeh is a lawyer, writer and Welcome to Australia ambassador.

Originally published on ABC Religion and Ethics Online

There’s nothing un-Australian about taking an oath on the Qur’an

The Guardian

3 July 2013

Inescapable racism: Reflections of a ‘proud refugee’

ABC Religion and Ethics

16 April 2013

Abbott’s pandering betrayal: Why the Racial Discrimination Act is worth defending

ABC Religion and Ethics Online

13 August 2012

A lack of Insight

Sultana’s Dream Online Magazine

August Edition

Cultural diversity now on the menu

The Daily Telegraph

7 July 2012

It’s time to leave Afghanistan

The Daily Life Fairfax

27 March 2012

Legitimising a fear of difference – major impediment to social cohesion

FECCA Mosaic Magazine

29 December 2011

Is Sydney a city of enclaves? The Question

The Sydney Morning Herald

12 November 2011

Ad campaign shows the real Islam

The Sydney Morning Herald

2 November 2011

Hoodlums who happen to be Muslim have no respect for Islam

The Daily Telegraph

15 August 2011

If Breivik was a Muslim he would have been branded a terrorist long ago

The Sydney Morning Herald

29 July 2011

Everyone loses if hatred prevails

The Daily Telegraph

6 May 2011