Pseudo-conservative monoculturalists lose the plot over Sydney beach riots

Having spent 10 years in the conservative wing of the Liberal Party, I believe I can speak with some authority about conservative philosophy. Here are a few pointers ...

Conservatives believe in the maintenance of certain established symbols and values. Conservatives believe in evolutionary and not revolutionary change. Finally, conservatives prefer a working status quo to untested radical reform.

But in recent times, some conservatives have decided to abandon all these core philosophical premises in order to claim that certain sectors of the Australian community need to be marginalised in order to preserve “our culture”.

Often, this has involved marginalising a broad range of ethnic and linguistic communities whose sole common offending feature is their association with the religion of Islam.

Of course, anyone familiar with Islam's religious values and ethics must wonder how such conservatives could find objection with followers of an essentially conservative religious tradition. However, for some conservatives, the facts should not be allowed to get in the way of a good wedge.

Just over 18 months ago, the Bankstown Young Liberals (of which I was a member for some 8 years and executive member for 6 years) held a re-formation meeting at the Croatian Club in Punchbowl. Numerous reports suggest that former conservative Party colleagues of mine used anti-Muslim rhetoric to recruit members.

It seems that wedge politics has become the order of the day in conservative circles. This trend can be found not just in the recruitment practices of allegedly conservative political activists.

The analysis of recent events made by some allegedly conservative commentators and politicians is grounded in the assumption that those with an association with Islam can play no meaningful role in mainstream Australia. The rhetoric bears striking similarity to the allegedly conservative rhetoric used in Europe during the 1920’s and ‘30’s, when persons of Jewish background were blamed for a host of social and economic ills and when being Jewish meant being constantly subject to suspicion.

Of course, one cannot deny that some persons of Muslim background have committed acts of terror abroad and may even pose a threat to Australia. Further, a number of violent sexual crimes have been committed by persons of Muslim background, sometimes with racial overtones.

However, to use these incidents to then claim that migrants of a particular faith cannot integrate and do not make a neat cultural fit in Australia could hardly be described as inherently conservative. And when the claim is made about a faith group comprising of people from over 60 different countries from every part of the world, it can only be inspired by ignorance at best and hatred at worst.

Sadly, such sentiments have found their way into the pages of some respected and widely read newspapers. The Australian newspaper has published three pieces by former National Party Senator John Stone which have suggested that the cultures of Muslim migrants simply do not integrate.

In one piece, Stone even called for the formation of a Queen Isabella Society, in honour of the medieval Spanish Monarch who forcibly converted Jews and Muslims to Catholicism before embarking on a program of terror and mass expulsions we know of as the Inquisition.

And what is Stone’s allegedly conservative solution? Overturn decades of consensus on a non-discriminatory immigration program by ending the migration of all Muslims. For this conservative, even the most radical and revolutionary changes in policy are permissible if it involves furthering one’s pet prejudices.

Now, controversial historian Keith Windshuttle also entered the fray. In a piece published in The Australian on December 16, Winshuttle labelled the Cronulla incidents as “multicultural riots”. His analysis of the Cronulla riots attempted to paint a mixed picture of Lebanese migrants, with the dividing line being religion.

He claimed that Lebanese Christians were more Australian and Muslims because the Christians had produced a NSW Governor and a Wallabies captain. He then asks: “How Australian can you get?” before virtually denying Australianness to the Muslim proportion of Lebanese Australians.

One wonders which Australia Windshuttle is living in. Had he followed ARL football, he may have heard of Hazem al-Masri. Had he read the October edition of the Australian Financial Review Magazine, he would have seen Ahmed Fahour’s name amongst 4 others considered as the most powerful figures in financial services.

Mr Windshuttle described the drunken rioting as merely “mass retaliation” to the “Lebanese assaults on the Cronulla lifesavers”. He then went into an explanation about the causes for one former headmaster from Punchbowl Boys High School bringing what appeared to be a Workers Compensation Claim for stress against the NSW Department of Education.

Mr Windshuttle conveniently fails to mention other “ghetto” schools such as Granville Boys High School, a school with almost equal if not greater proportion of Lebanese Muslim students. This school has produced at least 2 partners of major Sydney commercial law firms and 1 partner of a major insolvency firm, not to mention other people prominent in business and professions.

Somehow Mr Windshuttle is able to extract from this mass of confused information some kind of coherent theory on why our multicultural status quo is to blame for the Cronulla riots. Despite trying to push as many facts as possible into his diatribe, Mr Windshuttle neglects one important point – exactly how does one define multiculturalism? And perhaps more importantly, exactly what is Australian culture?

To presume that Muslim cultures are a monolith and always different from the cultures practised by other Australians involves generating a mythology whose creation requires a rush of blood to the head. Some writers appear to have generated this blood flow by plonking their heads into the sands of Cronulla beach.

Cultural factors were involved in the recent rioting. But to blame the multiplicity of a still-developing and maturing Aussie culture for the lawlessness of young people from a range of backgrounds centralises the trivial and trivialises the central. Those who play the cultural blame-game have missed the point. And in the case of Messrs Stone and Windshuttle, they appear to have lost the plot.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and was Liberal Candidate for the seat of Reid in the 2001 Federal Election. iyusuf@sydneylawyers.com.au

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

Deconstructing the media's terror pin-up boys

If you thought Usama bin Ladin (or should that be Usama bin Reagan?) was the media pinup boy of international terrorism, think again.

Recently, the real pinup boy of international terrorism arrived in Australia. Dr Rohan Gunaratna is perhaps the most frequently quoted “expert” on fighting terrorism to appear in newspapers and on TV.

Dr Gunaratna made some newsworthy claims at a recent conference on terrorism held at Sydney’s Macquarie University. Dr Gunaratna claimed that there were literally hundreds of Muslim Australians ready to stage a terrorist attack of similar magnitude to Madrid in the next 2 years of so.

It was truly terrifying stuff. But then, Dr Gunaratna has made a living out of terrifying statements. His 2002 book Inside al-Qaeda – Global Network of Terror became a best seller. Its release coincided with elite Australian SAS troops moving into Afghanistan on the eve of the full-scale invasion.

But just how expert is this terror expert in his field? How does one become an expert on terror? And why does Dr Gunaratna have such an aversion to the maintenance of civil liberties in the international struggle against politically and religiously motivated violence?

Much emphasis of terror experts has been on the phenomenon of politicised Islam, referred to by Daniel Pipes (another terror expert of questionable credentials) as Islamism.

Pipes makes much of his knowledge of Arabic and his PhD from Harvard University. But which Arabic? Classical (what scholars of English might call Shakespearean) Arabic of the classical sources of Islamic theology? Or the various modern dialects spoken in countries from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east?

And what is Pipes really an expert in? His PhD thesis was on medieval European history. Pipes may know plenty about why feudalism may have ended or how the Ottomans may have conquered Belgrade. But of what relevance is this to understanding international terrorism and its Islamist variety?

Dr Gunaratna is unable to claim even a working knowledge of the Arabic language. But the fact is that so much Islamist literature is not even written in Arabic. The Islamist works that inspired the Iranian revolution were largely written in Farsi (Persian), a language spoken in Iran and large parts of Afghanistan.

Iranian Islamist literature is largely focussed on Shia theology. Saudi and other Arab Islamists associated with al-Qaeda regard Shiism as heresy. These Islamists tend to follow various forms of Wahhabi theology, the official theology sponsored by the Saudi government.

Further, many Islamists from the Arab world were inspired by writers beyond the borders of Arab League states. One such writer was Syed Qutb, an Egyptian writer who was sentenced to death during the 1960’s by then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Qutb frequently acknowledges and cites the works of Pakistani Islamist Syed Maududi, most of whose work was written in Urdu.

In other words, to understand the ideology of political Islam, one needs to have a mastery of at least Arabic (classical and modern), Farsi and Urdu. Most quoted experts do not have this knowledge.

Neither do I. But then, I am honest enough not to address the media as some kind of terrorism expert. Nor do I claim expertise on the subject of political Islam beyond what I have read of English translations of Islamist works.

On at least one occasion, Gunaratna has claimed that al-Qaeda and the Lebanese Shia Muslim group Hezbollah have formed an alliance to support terror in Iraq. Most Lebanese would scoff at such a claim. They know that forces inspired by al Qaeda would never work with a group representing a religious community vying with them for control over Iraq’s future governance.

So how seriously do intelligence people take these terror experts? Melbourne Age journalist Gary Hughes reported on the work of Dr Gunaratna in a piece published on July 20 2003. Hughes reported that most ASIO analysts dismiss many of Gunaratna’s fanciful claims, especially his claim that JI operative Hambali regularly visits Australia.

Veteran Australian journalist Brian Toohey, who rights regularly on intelligence and terrorism issues for the Australian Financial Review, has described Dr Gunaratna’s claims as “plain silly”.

One such fanciful claim was Gunaratna’s suggestion in the November 2001 edition of Review (published by the pro-Likud Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council) that terrorist groups may seek to influence Australian politicians by rallying "10,000 or 20,000 votes" in their electorates.

So how does Gunaratna dance between alleged al-Qaeda informants, marginal seats campaigning and compromising civil rights? One must remember that from 1984 to 1994, Gunaratna worked as an adviser to the Sri Lankan Government during the height of its war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE). The Sri Lankan government like many third world governments, had little hesitance in compromising civil rights of its Tamil citizens - at least what little rights they may have had.

During that period, Dr Gunaratna made the laughable suggestion that Australians of Tamil background were shipping weapons and even helicopters and light aircraft to the Tigers.

Gunaratna’s recent claims of some 300 locally-born Muslim extremists ready to wage a terrorist war on their country have been used to support the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill currently before the Parliament. Given the fanciful nature of his previous claims and the scepticism of intelligence experts toward his work, supporters of the Bill would be well-advised not to use his claims unless these supporters wish to compromise the integrity of their cause.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney-based lawyer and occasional lecturer in the School of Politics at Macquarie University.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

Why the Telegraph beats The Australian on terror

The News Limited terror circus continues in earnest – November 9 2005

I have just been told that today Australian Federal Police officials briefed select Muslim leaders in Sydney. The message they gave was quite clear. They had nothing to do with tipping off media about the raids.

AFP officials told the leaders that operations of such magnitude and sensitivity are generally conducted with the utmost secrecy and that AFP has specific protocols which must be followed in relation to media coverage.

Which raises the question – who told Channel 9 and the other crews? How did they know about the raids? How did the helicopters and infra-red equipment get involved?

The media circus raises the prospect that the accused persons may not get as fair a trial as they might otherwise expect.

In a strange twist, it seems that Sydney’s tabloid Daily Telegraph has been more sensible in its coverage today than its broadsheet brother The Australian. The DT’s editorial did not make a single reference to religion or ethnicity. Indeed, it went out of its way to stated:

“Even should it play out in court that the majority, even all, of the suspects are Islamic, that should not be misinterpreted. Fanaticism is not the sole preserve of Islam, as the evidence of terrorism attests.”

Piers Akerman, often accused of lashing out at anything resembling Islam, was restrained. The bulk of his venom was saved for the “fundamental naivety” of “the ABC and SBS and the Fairfax publications.”

Some of the DT’s stories on the issue were a little over-the-top and with added spice. As usual, they provided a phone number and website for witnesses of raids or acquaintances of the accused to contact the paper. And the linking of suspect Omar Baladjam to the Green Valley Mosque was also a little suspicious.

Yes, it may be true that Mr Baladjam was apprehended on Wilson Road. Yes, the Mosque is on Wilson Road. But then, so is the police station, the McDonalds, the shopping centre and the community centre used for many Hindu festivals. All within close proximity and all on Wilson Road.

I guess the reporters at the DT don’t know the area all that well. Still, on this occasion, notwithstanding the error, they did their job quite admirably.

Some of you may disagree. You might regard their front page headline of “Holy War On Australia” as being provocative. It wasn’t. It reflected the reality that there are people in this country who think it is OK to kill one’s self and others for the sake of some mythical jihad. Trust me. They exist.

It only takes a few of them to create havoc. The sort of havoc we saw in London. These raids were necessary. Now we let the courts decide. The prosecution will present their case. The accused will all have proper legal representation. Independent judges will ultimately decide.

In their relatively honest coverage, the DT have actually done an enormous favour to those who oppose the Government’s proposed Anti-Terror Bill. The DT, their reporters and columnists have praised the actions of police and investigators. They have vindicated the process. In doing so, they have vindicated the current law and shown it to be effective.

The Australian, on the other hand, are forced to tinker with the facts and present a distorted view of reality. They are forced into using the sort of headlines fit for the Daily Truth.

“Osama’s Aussie offspring”. “Cleric’s spiritual spiral”. Even mention of “Mother of Satan” (you have to read beyond the headline to realise this is the name of an explosive).

On page 2 is an article entitled: “Moderate Muslims welcome arrests”. The paper then went onto cite the words of the secretary of “a leading Muslim group”. And what was this group?

The Australian Arabic Council.

In case anyone didn’t know, the AAC is a non-sectarian organisation that seeks to represent Australians of Arab background. Generally that means Australians whose ethnic origins are from an Arab League nation.

In Australia, the majority of Arabs are not, in fact, Muslims. Further, Arab Muslims make up less than 20% of the world’s Muslim population.

The next group cited is the Islamic Charitable Projects Association which belongs to the al-Ahbash sect. This group is known to have close links to the Syrian Government. Some of the group’s leaders in Lebanon were named in the independent UN Investigative Report (the Mehlis Report) as being directly involved in the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

The editorials were a fairly lame affair compared to previous days when opponents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill were described as “idiotic”. Paul Kelly, as always, was balanced and thinking outside the usual simplistic square and beyond the security –v- liberty spectrum. Even Janet Albrechtsen had a fairly reasonable (actually, I thought it was sensational) article on why feminists need to stand up for non-European women’s rights also.

Yes, the circus continues in earnest. But the animals seem to be calming down.

PS: Waleed Aly's op-ed piece in The Australian on 10 November 2005 was just sensational. Yep, The Australian can get it right sometimes. The message needs to get out there loud and clear. Thick-Sheiks don't represent the broader Aussie Mossie community. And media outlets should stop giving them so much attention.

More Terror Trash from The American?

Sometimes I cannot help wondering whether to continue referring to the national broadsheet as The Australian. Why?

Because after tracking its editorial and op-ed slant, it seems to me that the paper just isn’t. It spends so much of its editorial time defending the policies of George W Bush and his allies in the Coalition of the Killing. And that includes defending even the most crazy policies of the Howard Government.

Now, in speaking about The Australian, I am not in any way commenting on many of its fine journalists and columnists. I am talking about its editorial and its pet columnists. And its refusal to allow alternate voices on certain issues to be aired.

I have already shown in three pieces on this blog how The Australian uses all sorts of intellectually dishonest means to push its pet prejudices down the throats of its readers. But the editorial of November 7 2005 on why Aussie Mossies should support the proposed Anti-Terror Bill is a real classic.

I won’t waste my time or that of readers by going through the entire editorial. After all, I have a real job and a real life. I wish I could say the same for some of these responsible for editorials at The Australian.

“… since the Howard Government announced its tough new terror legislation, some of these leaders have drifted badly off message, claiming the laws will victimise Muslims.”

Er, no. The leaders didn’t say it. The President of the Police Federation of Australia said it. And thus far, he hasn’t been proven wrong.

“In fact, the laws do not mention any ethnic or religious minority. If they did target any minority, they would be anathema to Australians -- whose reservoir of tolerance, and commitment to civil liberties, runs deep.”

The laws don’t need to mention any ethno-religious minority. Because every single proscribed organisation listed in the laws is relate to Islam and Muslims. Every single one. Compare that to the US law in which over one-third of proscribed terrorist groups has no relation to Islam (apart from perhaps having Muslim victims, such as the Kahane Chai and the Tamil Tigers).

Yes, it is true that any targeting of minorities is an anathema to Australians. Which explains why I refuse to call that newspaper by its claimed name. And which also explains why that newspaper rarely seems to make much of a profit.

“Let's be clear, the threat to Islam in Australia comes from one direction, and one only: the fundamentalists who wish to hijack this great and dignified religion for their own lunatic ends.”

No, the threat to Islam in Australia also comes from the crazy pseudo-conservative lunatic fringe whose columns get published in The Oz. Fringe writers like Janet Albrechtsen who claims Muslim migrant cultures teach their sons to rape white women. Lunatics like John Stone who is allowed to publish not one but two columns calling for all migration of Muslims to cease. Lunatics like Messrs Steyn and Pipes who write stuff that deliberately incites hatred and venom toward Muslims.

And yes, I will say it. Lunatics that allow such hatred and venom to be printed on a broadsheet that insults the word “Australian”.

“By playing to unwarranted concerns within their community about the new laws, Muslim leaders risk bolstering the prestige of these radicals, whom they should be isolating. Their responsibility is to issue constant and unambiguous denunciations of those who foment sectarian hatred in Australia, or justify terrorist acts overseas.”

How on earth does exercising one’s democratic right in any way bolster the prestige of terrorists? Has the editorial writer gone completely mad? Muslim leaders (many of them lawyers) are repeating the same criticisms raised by prominent lawyers, judges and even former conservative Prime Ministers.

Further, who is really fomenting sectarian hatred in Australia? Which Muslim leader is suggesting their culture encourages boys to rape white women? Which mainstream Muslim newspaper spurts out anti-Christian and anti-Jewish in the same manner as some columnists for The Oz spurts out anti-Muslim hatred?

In a way, I hope the new laws do come into place. At least the ones on inciting sectarian hatred. Perhaps The Oz will have to re-consider before it allows its editorial space to be polluted by some of the trash we often read.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

MEDIA: The Oz goes nuts against its Muslim alter-egos

I am no fan of the salafi thick-Sheiks of Sydney and Melbourne.

My first foray into journalism was to lambast Sheik Feiz Mohammad for his idiotic comments about sexual assault. I followed this up in the pages of the Daily Telegraph with an attack on Feiz and Omran in an article headlined “The loud minority grabs the Muslim limelight”.

But if the thick Sheiks and Mecca News had any equivalent in the mainstream Australian press, the closest thing would have to be The Australian.

Here is a paper that unashamedly prints the vilest and most feral attacks on Muslim Australians. It published not one but two pieces by former National Party Senator John Stone arguing that immigration of Muslims needed to be stopped as Muslim culture did not allow Muslim migrants to adapt to Australian values.

And who can forget the infantile performance of Janet Albrechtsen as she made the claim that Muslim migrants teach their sons to gang-rape White-skinned women. If anything could be worse than this, it was the pathetic defence of the paper’s editor of Albrechtsen’s racist slur.

Just this week, the Op-Ed pages were filled with the hate-filled words of Mark Steyn. Anyone familiar with Steyn’s work would agree with me when I say that, were he to replace “Islam” with “Judaism” and “Muslim” with “Jew”, his articles would read like some of the worst examples of anti-Semitic literature. Steyn just cannot find a nice word to say about Muslims.

Of course, there are some good things one can say about The Australian’s editorial slant. Phillip Adams tries his best to slant things a little the other way. Paul Kelly provides some semblance of balance. Greg Sheridan is OK on Turkey, though not much else.

So when I read The Australian report on “Clerics still preaching hatred of the West” on November 3 2005, I wondered what all the fuss was about. Reading the quotes from the thick-Sheiks reminded me of the sort of stuff Janet Albrechtsen or Mark Steyn might pen on a bad day.

Let’s make a few comparisons. The reporter, Richard Kerbaj, provided single sentence quotes from sermons that probably took a good 40 minutes to deliver. And that time length is a conservative estimate. Given that a fair proportion of people in their congregation don’t work, and given their love of hearing themselves scream until the speakers and ear drums nearly burst, it isn’t unusual to find these guys taking at least a good hour.

The reports had us believe that the thick-Sheiks were attacking the West. Really? Let’s have a selection.

In the sixth paragraph of the article, Harun Abu Talha was quoted as speaking of ...

... the criminal government of Israel that has been hurting our brothers and sisters in Palestine for so many years.

I have not checked my atlas for a while. But I do recall that Israel is not exactly located anywhere near London or Madrid. And I doubt the Jewish state will be entering the European Union in a hurry.

Of course, one admission the reporter was honest enough to make was hidden in the story.

The message the fundamentalist clerics are delivering to their supporters - mostly in Arabic - is in dramatic contrast to their public statements.

In other words, the quotes were not only out of context but were in fact translations from sermons delivered in Arabic. Further, The Australian has not bothered to inform us as to whether the sermons were recorded and who provided the translations.

At one place in the article, Sheik Zoud is quoted as saying:

No victory (for Islam's brothers and sisters) can be stopped by George Bush or Tony Blair or John Howard.

Now I am no Arabic scholar, but I think it would be highly unlikely for a speech in Arabic to have stuff appearing in brackets. I could be wrong, of course. But unless the sermon went with subtitles, the brackets and their contents perhaps may not have been present.

Many of the phrases and prayers quoted by The Australian are phrases that even the most moderate sheiks declare. Take this quote from Sheik Zoud:

God grant victory to the mujaheddin in Kashmir and Chechnya, and Palestine and Afghanistan.

The term “mujaheddin” is a generic term that refers to any person engaged in an armed conflict as part of a just war. Who knows which mujaheddin these Sheiks are referring to.

Then again, I have to admit that these thick-Sheiks do bring such attention upon themselves. And I myself have been witness to some of the most frightening prayers being recited by these fringe-dwellers.

But in what way is their speech different to the Steyns and Pipes that feature so frequently on the Opinion pages of The Australian? True, the words are not so blatant. But the messages don’t exactly encourage readers to embrace their Muslim neighbours.

…given the radicalisation of the Arab world, and the Arabification of the Islamic world, and the Islamification of much of the rest of the world, in the end you have to fix the problem at source. (The Australian, October 18 2005)

There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact. … That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll
keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies in ruins. (The Australian, October 4, 2005)

OK, one thought just occurred to me. Perhaps the paper is only referring to just some imams. Perhaps the paper acknowledges that not all imams preach hatred of the West or anyone else for that matter.

But I might as well dispel that thought. Why? Read the opening sentence of the story.

MUSLIM clerics in Sydney and Melbourne - led by radicals Sheik Mohammed Omran
and Sheik Abdul Salam Mohammed Zoud - are still preaching hatred against the West …

So Muslim “clerics” are led by Omran and Zoud. A bit like saying Adolf Hitler was the leading figure in modern European politics.

Once again, a very uninformed Australian.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

The National Observer - Another Example of Aussie Conservatives Doing Uncle Usama's Work

According to the editorial in the Autumn 2005 edition of the National Observer, “Moslem” Australians have not integrated into Australian society. The evidence?

You would think that such a broad-brush claim would provide some evidence from demographic studies. Evidence would be shown that “Moslem” communities live in one area, send their children to different schools and refuse to participate in Australian institutions.

You would think that evidence was shown of how “Moslem” culture is at loggerheads with Australian culture and values. That evidence would be furnished from the sources of “Moslem” culture and theology proving that “Moslems” are not allowed to behave like the rest of Australia.

Finally, you would think that the editor would make up their mind on how the word “Moslem” is to be spelt. In the 6th paragraph, we find the term “Moslem” spelt as “Muslim”.

If you are still holding your breath waiting for evidence on any of these points, please give up now in case you explode. This article is but a typical example of what happens when the attitudes and pet prejudices of some elements of the Lunar-Right are imposed on the rest of the conservative movement.

Immigration Issues

The Editorial praises the mandatory detention policy of the Howard government, and presents it as a largely anti-“Moslem” policy. Really?

My parents first arrived in Australia in 1965. My father was a young PhD student who had won a scholarship to study at the Australian National University. Canberra had a small Indian community, most of whom congregated around the prominent academic and historian known affectionately as “Professor Sahib”.

Associate Professor Rizvi taught Asian history at ANU. He authored numerous books on Indian and Islamic history. Professor Rizvi had a daughter and a number of sons. One of his young sons, Mr Adul Rizvi, entered the public service and rose up the ranks of the Department of Immigration.

Abul Rizvi comes from an Indian Shia-Muslim family. He is currently Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).

Had the author of the Autumn editorial done his research, he would have discovered that this allegedly anti-“Moslem” policy of mandatory detention is actually being effectively managed and enforced by the son of a now-deceased Muslim academic.

And chances are that, should the desired policy of banning “Moslem” immigration become government policy, the person implementing that policy would be Mr Rizvi.

“Moslem” Schools and Australian Values

The editorial makes the startling claim that “Moslem” schools teach their students to be separate from non-“Moslem” schools. Although I am not an educational administrator and have no experience working in the education sector (apart from the occasional lecture at the School of Politics at Macquarie University), I feel I am qualified to comment on this issue.

During my decade or so as a litigation lawyer based in Sydney, I have acted for at least two “Moslem” schools and one “Moslem” headmaster of a school in industrial relations and other matters. At the same time, I spent my entire High School life at Sydney’s St Andrews Cathedral School.

Like all independent schools, those of the “Moslem” variety are forced to ensure that their curriculum complies with the standards set by the Education Department of the State or Territory they operate within. Indeed, many so-called “Moslem” schools operate in much the same way as Jewish and Christian schools.

If anything, the “Moslem” schools are often criticised by more conservative Muslim parents as teaching too little religion. When I compare the one extra hour a week on Arabic language and Islamic studies to the weekly Chapel service and divinity classes at St Andrews, I would have to say my old school could learn a thing or two from Sule College about going easy on religion.

The Autumn 2005 editorial claims that the establishment of “a network of Islamic schools, where Moslem children will be brought up separately” is further evidence that “Moslem groups” wish to remain separate from the Australian community. Yet when one compares the alleged growth of “Moslem” schools to the burgeoning presence of low-fee “Christian Community” and Anglican schools in outer metropolitan and regional areas, one wonders what all the fuss is about.

The Howard government has always been committed to providing parents with choice about their children’s education. Whether they be Muslim or Jewish or Callithumpian, parents have the right to affordable independent education of their choice. Whilst the Autumn editorial decries the “left-liberal” groups, it shares its abhorrence for parental choice with the most extreme left-fringes of the movement against funding independent schools.

Of course, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of “Moslem” parents do not send their children to “Moslem” schools. The vast majority make use of the State School system, with a fair number also sending their children to Anglican and Catholic schools.

And in what way are graduates of Muslim schools not prepared to integrate? One of my colleagues, Randa Abdel Fattah, is a Sydney lawyer and writer. She works as a commercial litigator in one of Sydney’s largest legal practices, and has just signed a book deal for her novel in the UK. Randa graduates from King Khaled Islamic College in Melbourne.

One would have thought the debate over the alleged refusal of “Moslem” schools to abide by Australian values would have died the same death as the donkey of that famous illegal immigrant Simpson.

“Moslems” and Integration

It is in this area that the Autmn editorial really makes some wild and unusual claims. In doing so, it is clear that the Editor has failed to do any proper research.

In 2004, Professor Abdullah Saeed of the University of Melbourne conducted research into the trends of the Muslim community. The result was a resource manual widely used by Australian governments in understanding the various ethnic and linguistic groups that make up the Muslim communities.

The manual, entitled “Muslim Australians – Their Beliefs, Practices and Institutions”, provides a snapshot of Muslim Australia from the 2001 Census. The following facts were mentioned:

1. The largest ethnic community among Muslims in terms of place of birth are Muslims born in Australia.

2. The ratio of Muslims born in Australia to those born in Lebanon is more than 3:1.

3. Between 1996 and 2000, only 9% of migrants to Australia were of Muslim background.

4. Some 79% of Muslim migrants have taken up Australian citizenship, a much higher proportion than any other migrant faith-community.

If one were to look at various sectors of mainstream Australia, one would find Muslims having a strong presence. The Dean of at least one Sydney Law School is of Muslim background, and Muslims are heavily represented in large commercial law firms at all levels (including as partners).

Some of the most powerful and prominent names in business are of Muslim background. “Crazy” John Ilhan sponsors two football codes and numerous clubs in Sydney and Melbourne. Ahmed Fahour is one of the most powerful figures in the banking sector.

Commentator and Islamic Council of Victoria spekesman, Waleed Aly, writes regularly in mainstream papers on Muslim community and national security issues. Yet his favourite subject of writing is AFL Football.

Muslims have been at the heart of mainstream Australia for over 150 years. The former Mayor of Woomera, a regular critic of the presence of illegal Afghan immigrants in her town, was herself of Afghan descent.

Muslims are also active in politics. I myself ran as a Liberal candidate in the November 2001 elections and scored a 5.1% swing on a two-party preferred basis in a safe ALP seat in Western Sydney. My name and suggested ethno-religious background had little bearing on voters.

The ethnic community that has built the largest number of mosques is the Turkish community. Turks have lived in Australia since the 1950’s. The largest Turkish mosque in Sydney is named the “Gallipoli Mosque”.

“Moslems” and National Security

If it is true that the biggest terrorist threat arises from Islamist extremists, it is also true that Australian Muslims represent perhaps our biggest weapon on fighting terror and its ideological basis.

The Prime Minister recognises the importance of engaging Muslim communities in national security issues. Whilst I disagree with his choice of leaders (most of whom represent first generation migrant issues and have ties to fringe sectarian elements in the Middle East), in principle the setting up of a Muslim Community reference Group is not a bad idea.

Marginalising Muslim Australians is not officially part of the government’s national security agenda. The Government realises that attempts to marginalise Muslims will effectively hand victory to the likes of Usama bin Laden.

The propaganda of groups like al-Qaeda is that Western governments are against all Muslims. Bin Laden and other extremists want Muslims living in countries like Australia to feel marginalised. But when Islamophobes masquerading as conservatives seek to marginalise Muslims, it frees up the time and resources of extremists and enables them to plan further attacks.

The claims made about Muslims in 2005 are similar to those made about Jews in Germany and other parts of Europe during the years leading upto the Second World War. Except that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are being replaced by the Protocols of the Learned Mullahs of Tehran or Kabul or Lakemba.

Conclusion

The Autumn editorial of the National Observer is short on facts but very tall on sweeping generalisations. It is but another example of why so many conservatives are frustrated with the lack of intellectual rigour being displayed on the Right.

Conservative values include respect for the family, free enterprise and maintaining solid working institutions. There is little in Muslim culture which contradicts any of these values. Citing isolated examples here and there will not change this fact.

Finally, I enjoy eating wedges as a main meal or snack. But when wedges become the basis of our public policy and national security, they tend to lack any good taste.

Piers Takes On 72 Virgins for the AFP

I like Piers Akerman. He was always a useful warrior for me and my friends in the conservative faction of the NSW Liberal Party. Piers was ever ready to go all guns blazing against Ron Phillips and other members of the “Group”. His exposes on membership rorts were the stuff solid big-“C” conservative citizens are made of.

But following September 11, another side to Piers came to the fore. Piers revealed a pathological hatred for Muslims that would make even the most hardened Pittwater Liberal Party pre-selector feel uncomfortable.

His most recent column throws invective at journalists and civil rights campaigners whom Akerman accuses of disrupting the necessary work of the Australian Federal Police.

What essential work is this? Part of his most recent column was devoted to stupid Aussie kids who get caught smuggling drugs in places like Bali. Yet he links this issue to that of “idiot kids who have been led to think there really are 72 virgins waiting, hot to trot, in Paradise, do get conned by lying old mullahs and imams hoping to establish a totalitarian Islamist state.”

And what is the link between the two? Which “publicity-seeking, self-proclaimed moralists” and “namby-pamby coalition of hand-wringers” is Akerman referring to?

Akerman describes opponents to the anti-terror laws as seeking to embarrass the AFP. He provides not a single incident of any critic to the proposed laws seeking to embarrass the Feds. Further, he does not address a single provision of the proposed Bill, apart from some vague reference to shoot-to-kill powers (which already exist in state laws anyway).

Perhaps Akerman’s most amusing statement is his re-hashing of this theological fantasy that people who blow themselves up will end up with 72 virgins in heaven.

I want Akerman to show me one source of “militant Islamism” who makes this suggestion. Better still, I want Akerman to show me one verse in the Qur’an which makes mention of 72 virgins for martyrs.

Further, I want Akerman to tell me how he would cope if a control order under the proposed laws were placed on him. What would he tell Uncle Rupert bin Murdoch about why he can’t make it to work for the next fortnight? What excuse would he give David Penberthy for not being able to attend news meetings and write hysterical columns?

It is obvious Piers hasn’t even read the Bill. He isn’t interested in civil liberties and rights of Australians. He is more concerned with continuing his rally-cry about stopping the 72 heavenly virgins from reaching terrorists.

I think I’ll stop here. Had the article been written by Dr Janet Albrechtsen, I may have had enough material to comment for another 500 or so words on. But then again, Dr Albrechtsen tends to write stuff worth commenting on.

As for poor Piers, he just cannot stop fantasising about his 72 virgins.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

The Australian ducks the issue

The Australian newspaper has declared war on the civil liberties of its readers. It has allowed its opinion pages and editorial to become the mouthpiece of laws which could enable its own readers to be subject to control orders, to be detained, to have limited recourse to lawyers and courts, and to even be killed.

The most recent editorial, entitled “Critics duck debate”, seeks to re-focus debate away from specific police powers and onto the bogeyman of terrorism.

And yes, terrorism is a bogeyman. Terrorists hate our liberal democracy, our freedom and our prosperity. Terrorists would do anything to rid us of these freedoms, even if it means attacking civilians. Terrorists (or at least those of the al-Qaida variety) are interested in imposing a legal system which will rid us of the civil liberties we take for granted.

In short, laws which circumscribe civil liberties are exactly what terrorists want. Yes, terrorism is the issue. The police powers, the “shoot to kill” and the lack of access to legal representation and courts is exactly what terrorists would like to see imposed in Iraq, Southern Philippines, Indonesia and everywhere else their bombs and guns kill and maim.

The Australian also seems to want this. The Australian appears to be effectively in league with terrorists. Why? Because of its support for proposed laws which are a win for terrorists.

But that doesn’t stop this (often) most feral of broadsheets from printing misleading and misguided nonsense in the name of supporting an allegedly conservative government.

One wonders whether the editor has bothered to read the draft Bill so bravely and boldly released by the ACT Chief Minister. But who needs knowledge when jingoistic partisan rhetoric is available? After all, it takes up brain cells to read draft Bills. It means having to read other legislation which the Bill seeks to vary. It means having to compare proposals with existing law.

The editorial writer of the Australian is clearly not interested in the use of brain cells. Instead, they make vague references to “Howard haters”, all the while displaying a pathological hatred for the national broadcaster which we are so accustomed to from this American newspaper.

The editorial addresses a few small issues, largely limiting itself to the controversial “shoot to kill” proposal. In doing so, the paper claims that police already have these powers in dealing with serious criminals, and that “it is hard to see what the fuss is about.”

Yes, it is hard when you are sitting in your pseudo-conservative ivory towers in Strawberry Hills and have rarely stepped out into the real world. It is easy when you need not think about the issues but are happy to parrot whatever the official line is that you receive from outside Australia.

The editorial describes the objections to the “shoot to kill” policy as “idiotic”. Perhaps the editorial’s author should actually read the Bill before passing blank-cheque fatwas against a host of legal academics, eminent barristers and at least one former conservative Prime Minister, all of whom have expressed concerns about the proposed changes.

For a start, the new Bill enables police to exercise this power against someone who has a control order made out against them. On what basis is the control order made? And how is this comparable to any other existing situation in criminal law?

In normal criminal procedure, when a person is detained and charged, they are provided with a charge sheet. They are also provided with a summary of the police evidence. Eventually, they or their lawyer may be provided with a full police brief containing statements and exhibits. They can be granted bail with or without conditions. There are no limitations on who can act as their lawyer, and they are almost always offered legal aid.

But under the new legislation, this is not the case. Under the new law, essential liberties are sacrificed for the sake of secret evidence which the defendant may never see. Indeed, the person subject to a control order may not even be a defendant or a suspect. Further, their access to lawyers and courts is restricted.

This essential difference can only be appreciated when the Bill is actually read. You can be subject to a control order if a judge believes on the balance of probabilities that your detention could “assist” in preventing a terrorist act.

And what must be the degree of separation between you and a possible terrorist act? How long is a piece of string?

And what is a terrorist act anyway? According to the Australian Muslim Civil Rights & Advocacy Network (AMCRAN), the vague criteria for obtaining and enforcing control orders makes racial and ethno-religious profiling so much easier.

AMCRAN are obviously basing their assessment not only on reading the act with a fine tooth comb. They are also relying on the thus-far unrefuted (and we suggest irrefutable) contention made by the President of the Police Federation of Australia that the new proposals can only be enforced using racial profiling.

The author of the Australian’s editorial must agree. After all, they state that “[i]n reality, Australia faces the risk that terrorists, who believe Australia is an enemy of Islam, will kill as many of us as they can.”

In other words, to be a terrorist, you have to be a Muslim. After all, I doubt many Buddhists or Callithumpians would be concerned about defending Islam from Australia (whatever that means).

Yet again, for the sake of partisan politics, we see an American-owned newspaper behaving like a very uninformed Australian.

(The author is a Sydney lawyer and occasional lecturer at the School of Politics & International Relations at Macquarie University. He was the Liberal candidate for Reid in the 2001 election, and could hardly be described as a “Howard hater”.)

Janet gets personal

I’d hate to be working for the ABC. I mean, how embarrassing to be working for someone like Janet Albrechtsen?

Now of course, the above sentence is totally uncalled-for. It is a vicious personal attack and a gross generalisation about the ABC. To suggest that the entire organisation is somehow compromised because of one person sitting on its board of directors is hardly fair.

In short, I am playing the man (or in Janet’s case, the woman), not the issue.

Yet on matters as important as national security, this is exactly what Janet Albrechtsen has done. She has judged virtually the entire legal profession on the basis of her political profiling of a few civil libertarians.

And like her sad attempts at racial profiling, Janet’s political profiling is equally off-the-mark.

Some readers will remember when Janet made the extraordinary claim that Muslim migrant cultures teach teenage boys to gang-rape women with white skin. Apparently, according to Janet, this is some kind of “right of passage”.

It turned out, of course, that Janet was making the whole thing up. She did produce some evidence from European sociologists. It was all about as believable as John Howard arguing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or Janet Albrechtsen for that matter.

(Don’t worry. She did.)

Janet’s extire argument may be paraphrased in two simple claims:

1. Lawyers opposing the anti-terror laws are all left-wing lunatics.
2. Muslim terrorists hate us because we are Australian.

Thankfully, Dr Albrechtsen is not working as a policy adviser in the Ministerial Office of the Attorney General. And thankfully, she makes no claims to being an expert on criminal law.

Dr Albrechtsen is a lawyer. Her PhD thesis had something to do with the exceptionally enjoyable topic of ASX Listing Rules. In essence, she is a commercial lawyer and has worked for at least one major commercial law firm.

So how does that qualify her to write on why white women seem to be the only ones getting gang-raped? Or why the war on Iraq can be justified under international law? Or why only left-wing lawyers oppose anti-terror laws?

Who knows? Who cares? The Murdochs clearly don’t. They continue to pay her to write her ideologically charged pieces.

Dr Albrechtsen is the Khalid Yasin of op-ed journalism. She makes all sorts of outlandish claims, playing fast-and-loose with facts. But then, that is what op-ed writers are paid to do. They express an opinion. It may be dumb. It may suck severely. But it’s an opinion.

And in the case of her most recent piece of anti-terror laws, Dr Albrechtsen is wrong.

Both her points are absolutely wrong. Let’s go through them, one-by-one.

In relation to her first claim that only left-leaning lawyers are opposed to the anti-terror laws, I know of at least two non-left (indeed, quite right-wing) lawyers who are opposed to the laws. And who are they?

Myself. And former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.

Now as a former member of the NSW-Right of the Liberal Party, I have not exactly been known for my left-wing views. In the past, I have written in support of voluntary student unionism and funding for independent schools. I also am not aware at anytime being a member of any left-wing political organisation (I believe Laurie Ferguson can confirm this). And many local Muslim leaders will tell you that I am not exactly fond of the local Muslim establishment.

As for Malcolm Fraser, the last time I checked he was not on the payroll of any trade union.

Yet both of us find the proposed laws absolutely abhorrent. And we certainly don’t believe that targeting Muslims is in any way helpful to achieving the goals of national security.

But of course, we all know (or at least Janet wants to tell us) that this war against terror is really a war between Islam and Christianity. Why? Because she swallows the words of two terrorists hook line and sinker.

It seems that decent policy arguments are unnecessary for Dr Albrechtsen to support the biggest compromise in civil liberties since Federation. All you need are some nasty quotes from those beady-eyed terrorist types.

And who better to quote from than Imam Samudra and Abu Bakar Bashir. Surely these two persons speak for all 1.2 billion Muslims (or at least for 350,000 Aussie Mossies) more eloquently than anyone.

In Dr Albrechtsen's world, in this holy month of Ramadan, Muslims across the world are renewing their pledge to hate Christians. Indonesian Muslims in particular are declaring their hatred for all things Australian. All those thousands of Indonesian overseas students studying in Aussie campuses are ready and waiting for the order from Bashir.

(Which one? The JI leader? Or the NSW Governor? Who cares. They’re all the bloody same!)

To use her own language, Dr Albrechtsen is influenced too much by “hysterical and absurd mantras". She claims that anti-terror laws are needed so that we can show we are not appeasing terrorists. Yet in reality, Dr Albrechtsen’s prescription is exactly what terrorists want.

Terrorists want Muslim Australians to feel like second class citizens in their own country. Terrorists want Aussie Mossies to be marginalised, for young Aussie Muslims to be profiled and arrested and detained without notice. Dr Albrechtsen wants to implement laws which can only be enforced by profiling Muslims on the basis of their names, their appearance or their declared religion.

Dr Albrechtsen supports these laws precisely because of what they achieve. Her views are in line with those of the terrorists in that she wants Muslims to be marginalised and therefore pushed in the direction of more radical Muslim groups.

© Irfan Yusuf

Christian Laws - A classic letter to the editor …

This beauty is from the Daily Telegraph of Thursday 8 September 2005. Whoever wrote it must have been heavily influenced by Saudi propaganda as they regard “Shiite” law as being separate from “Islamic” law.

They also don’t know much about Christian theology. I was always taught at St Andrews Cathedral School that the law has been nailed to the cross and you needn’t follow a legal code to be saved. Christianity (at least in its low Church Anglican variety) has no law, though it does have strong views on ethics.

And it seems to me that Christian ethics seem to have been lost on some “Christian” Australians. Then again, true conservatism has also been lost on many allegedly conservative Australian politicians. And if you don’t believe me, just give the office of the Member for Mackellar a call.

Finally, I don’t recall ever learning about Christian laws in our common law or our statutes or even in our constitution at law school. And I should know given that I have studied at at least 2 law schools in Australia.

Read and enjoy.

___________________

In regards to the article “Islamic law for Australia” (Daily Telegraph, September 6). Australia already has its own laws and we do not need any Islamic laws or Hindu laws or Shiite laws. We have our own Christian laws and that’s because we are a Christian nation predominantly.
Terry Maim, Blacktown

Not Always an Informed Australian

It never ceases to amaze me how feral some writers for The Australian can be. What makes me even more surprised is how the editors of the paper actually defend their regular columnists for being so irregular with the facts.

To this day, I will never understand how the editors of the paper could defend Janet Albrechtsen’s xenophobic claim that Muslim migrant cultures teach young men and boys to rape white women. And when Dr Albrechtsen was exposed on Media Watch, the paper continued on its vendetta against the program and the ABC in general.

Of course, it is impossible to make generalisations about an entire newspaper based upon some of its more rabid writers. After all, the paper does provide space for left-leaning Phillip Adams.

Yet some of its editorial decisions make one wonder whether the paper really is an open forum or whether it in fact has a deliberate agenda.

And if the articles of John Stone, Mark Steyn and Greg Sheridan are anything to go by, when it comes to anything relating to Muslims, the paper’s agenda seems quite clear.

John Stone wrote a set of offensive articles in support of his claim that our immigration policies should openly discriminate on the basis of presumed religious affiliation. His articles claimed that Muslim Australians cannot adapt to Australian culture, and that Islam is incompatible with our democratic values.

In response to that piece, the author submitted a brief opinion piece which was refused for publication on the basis that the paper rarely allowed an op-ed to be published which directly contradicted the argument of another opinion writer.

Of course, this excuse does not survive scrutiny. Recently, the rabidly Islamophobic Mark Steyn wrote a piece which directly referred to and contradicted an op-ed written by respected Australian terrorism expert Clive Williams.

The most recent piece by Greg Sheridan entitled “Struggle for the soul of Islam at critical stage” makes the extraordinary claim that an undefined entity known as “conservative Islam” is actually allowing suicide bombing to become “mainstream” in Muslim countries such as Indonesia.

It is interesting that nowhere in his piece does Sheridan actually define what “conservative Islam” actually is. Is he referring to the syncretic “Santri” Islam of the Nahdatul Ulama? Or is he referring to the reformist Muhammadiyya? Or the Barelwi scholarly movement of the Indian sub-continent? Or the imams of the Diyanet Vekfi of Turkey?

And what is his evidence for the suggestion that “conservative Islam” is somehow entering into a de facto marriage with extremism? Sheridan’s only evidence is a “fatwa” passed by one scholarly board in Indonesia against “liberal Muslims”.

And what is a “liberal Muslim”? Is it someone who belongs to the Liberal Party? Is it someone who grows a beard in the same style as the current Iranian President and Greg Sheridan?

Are “liberal Muslims” akin to the now-disbanded “Progressive Muslim Union of North America” (PMUNA) which now consists of a membership of around 3? Or do they consist of followers of a disgruntled Canadian lesbian dying for a fatwa so she can generate some decent book sales?

And if you think the op-eds are offensive, you should read some of the letters that pass through the editorial sieve. Here is a beauty from 5 October 2005 …

THIS latest bombing outrage by Muslim terrorists just reaffirms my belief that the war on terrorism by Western governments is nothing short of a war between western Christian civilisation and eastern Islamic barbarism. This is a war that will last decades, perhaps even centuries. Australia and other Western Christian countries are ruing the day we allowed large-scale immigration of Muslims into our liberal, secular societies. Australian Muslim leaders plead: "Don't blame Islam." Try telling that to the families of the thousands of innocent Westerners killed in cowardly Muslim terrorist bombings the world over.

This is the sort of stuff that makes Catch The Fire Ministries pastors look like masters of theosophy. How it gets onto the pages of an allegedly respectable broadsheet is anyone’s guess.

Still, I guess one cannot make generalisations about a newspaper. Though it does seem that everytime there is an election or a terrorist attack, The Australian goes into feral overdrive.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

Shedding Blood in the Holy Season

For millions of Indonesian and Australian Hindus and Muslims, this is a holy season. Ramadan is commencing, a time for fasting, charity and meditation for Muslims.

For Hindus, this is the sacred season leading upto Deepavali, a celebration of the victory of good over evil.

But in Bali, Indonesian Muslims and Hindus will be mourning the loss of loved ones during this sacred season. It seems the terrorists have won again.

Or have they? The New York Times website carried a series of photographs showing Muslims and Hindus marching side-by-side against terrorists. Terrorists want Muslim and Hindu to fight and kill each other. In Bali, the attacks have had the opposite effect.

Islam in Indonesia is largely a peaceful affair. And no, I am not engaging in empty apologetics. This is real.

In 2002, the conservative Centre for Independent Studies invited a senior official from the largest Islamic organisation in the world, the Nahdatul Ulama (meaning literally “Council of Religious Scholars”).

Muhammad Fajrul Falaakh studied in London, the United States and in a traditional Indonesian religious school. He spoke in the Great Hall of the New Zealand Parliament on 11 December 2002 on the topic of “Islam In Pluralist Indonesia”.

It is timely at this time to remind ourselves of Falaakh’s message on that occasion. He outlined 5 basic principles of Sharia law as understood by mainstream Indonesian Muslims. Some readers will be surprised by the list.

The 5 principles all seek to protect basic individual and social rights including: religious freedom, the sanctity of life, freedom of conscience and thought, property, and protection of the family unit.

I challenge any reader to find anything in these 5 basic principles which in any way conflicts with liberal democratic values or the so-called “Judeo-Christian” ethics. Nowhere does Falaakh make mention of stoning adulterers or chopping the hands of thieves.

Nor is there mention of killing innocent civilians or encouraging young people to translate frustration and depression into suicide attacks. The ideology which underpins terrorism is alien to Indonesian Islam.

No soldiers or swords were involved in the spread of Islam in this part of the world. Some 7 centuries ago, Yemeni traders settled in Malaya, Aceh and Sumatra and found each area dominated by tribes fighting each other over trade disputes.

The Yemenis introduced a common system of numeracy and accounting which resolved many commercial disputes in this mercantile ethnically-Malay society. Yemenis also introduced Sharia, an Arabic word which literally means “the way to the watering place”.

Yet for the Yemenis, Sharia was about resolving commercial disputes through mediation and arbitration. And all understanding of Sharia was in the context of the orthodox sufi traditions which the Yemenis espoused.

The most influential tribe of Yemenis to settle in the region were the “Bani Alawi” who were direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his great grandson Ali bin Husayn (known as “Zainal Abidin” or “Prince of the Worshippers”). Today, the Bani Alawi dominate Malaysian and Indonesian politics, judiciary and legal profession. A former Indonesian President, Abdurrahman Wahid, was from the Bani Alawi.

Bani Alawi Islam is the most orthodox form of Islam practised in the region. It is grounded in the traditions of sufi spirituality. Sufis emphasise spiritual purification through service to the community. They encourage Muslims to work with people of all faiths and no faith in particular to achieve justice and a better life for all people.

The sufi message spread across the region. Today, Muslim Indonesians continue to practice many of their old Hindu customs. These include celebration of Deepavali, involving a shadow puppet re-enactment of the famous Hindu Ramayana epic.

Pseudo-conservative hate-filled commentators such as Mark Steyn claim that this very Islam is the cause of the terror. He sees the world as being divided into 2 camps:

Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

Steyn clearly hasn’t a clue about the various interpretations of a faith that claims over 1.2 billion souls across the planet. As such, each terrorist incident gives hate-mongers like Steyn an opportunity to beat the drums of civilisational war.

Thankfully, Steyn, Pipes and others are in a minority (even if they frequently pollute the op-ed pages of major Australian newspapers). Serious scholars of Indonesian culture and politics know that terrorists are hated and loathed across the country.

SBY was not elected President purely on the basis of his singing voice. Rather, it was his commitment to getting tough on terrorism that got him over the line. Indonesian voters understand that terrorism means long term economic and political instability, not to mention short term death and destruction.

And by striking on Bali during sacred Hindu and Muslim seasons, the terrorists have shown complete disdain for Indonesian culture and religion. Yet they claim to carry out their attacks in the name of Islam. It’s enough to make the Bani Alawi tribesmen turn in their graves.

The author is a Sydney industrial lawyer and occasional lecturer at the School of Politics & International Relations at Macquarie University. He is also a columnist for the Adelaide-based Australian Islamic Review.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

The Greying, the Ambitious and the Downright Weird!

So you have reached a brick wall in your life. You have little to do when you come home from work or uni (if indeed you are working or studying). The happy pills aren’t quite working. Your therapist is boring the shit out of you. You need something to fill in the time.

How about joining a political party?

You might think I am being a bit cynical. But seriously, political parties are crying out for people on the social fringe. Because mainstream Aussies and Kiwis, especially young people, are keeping well away from political parties.

Aubrey Belford made these observations in a recent op-ed piece published in the Australian Financial Review on 23 September 2005. Belford was described as a Sydney Uni student, a writer and former ALP member. He may be from the wrong side of politics (whatever that means), but his observations are certainly worth considering.

Belford’s subject is “disengagement from politics”. Actually, it is more about apathy toward political parties. Belford acknowledges that young people do have strong views about the world, politics, life and other contingencies.

Ah, life and other contingencies! The last time I heard that phrase was when I was considering transferred from law to actuarial studies at Macquarie University. Thank God my grade-point average was too low!

Yes, young people are worried about global warming, the melting of the polar ice caps, bird flu, tsunamis and unfair dismissal. The problem is that they cannot find an outlet for their frustration inside the hallowed halls of mainstream political parties.

Now I have been involved in some awesome political parties over the years. In May, I was lucky enough to be at a huge political party at the office of Joe Hockey, a young Liberal MP from North Sydney (via Armenia and Palestine). There was plenty of piss, cornchips and nice young lasses from various campuses. It was probably the best fun I ever had in a political party.

The problem is that the Liberal Party branches aren’t exactly a huge party. If you don’t believe me, go and find out.

The NSW Young Liberals are supposed to be the youth wing of the party. Yet their policies are more racist, more homophobic and more old-fashioned than Janette Howard’s tea-set purchased from the Eastwood op-shop.

The national president of the Young Liberals works for probably the most conservative Liberal MP in Australia. David Clarke is a man who makes Tony Abbott look like the Argentine dentist from that movie “The Motorcycle Diaries” (what was his name? Che Geriatric?).

These days, recruitment in the Young Liberals consists of sniffing around some fringe ethno-religious wacko group, delivering a speech in the upper house praising their hatred of Islam and then organising an inaugural meeting to get their dumb and dumbest into the new branch.

Some 8 years back, I presided over the Bankstown Young Liberals. The branch was eventually shut down for technical constitutional reasons. Then in April 2004, the then NSW Young Liberal President Alex Hawke and his gang tried to revive the branch using pro-Ustazi youth. It seems anti-Muslim rhetoric of Hawke and his boss was insufficient to get enough numbers, and his internal small “l” liberal opponents managed to out-stack him. The resulting punch-up was captured on someone’s phone camera, to the eternal embarrassment of senior liberals.

I saw Hawke the following night at a Young Liberal Council meeting at the Ryde Eastwood Leagues Club. He did not have much to report on the previous night’s proceedings.

Then again, the ALP aren’t much better. I was on the verge of joining the ALP in 1993. That was until I received a phone call from someone introducing himself as Joseph.

“Mate, we need you to come on down to the Mekong Club. I’ll send you a cab if you like. The membership is all taken care of. How quickly can you get here? You’re Lebanese, aren’t you?”

It seems that if you have a slightly wog-of-Aussie background, the only real role you can play is that of branch stacker (or as Bronwyn Bishop calls it, “bomb thrower”). And if you try and do anything more, watch out! They might just send ASIO around to detain you in your house. Or if the ALP win the federal next election, Bomber Beazley might cordon off your suburb from the rest of the planet!

Political parties are not places for mainstream political cows to graze. They are more suited to people whom Aubrey Belford describes as “the greying, the ambitious and the downright weird”.

So what should you do if you want to involve yourself in politics without falling asleep? Perhaps you can start by enrolling in one of Dr Stephen Mutch’s courses at Macquarie University. Or you can read the Fin Review when you can afford it.

Or you can do what I do. Go watch that stupid Motorcycle Diaries movie with a bunch of basket weavers at the Valhalla in Byron Bay (or was that Glebe? Dunno, was too full of gunja to tell the difference!). When they get to the bit where Che is helping to heal the lepers, scream out: “He was a f#cking dentist, you stupid morons!”.

Irfan Yusuf solicits, comments and writes from time to time. He was Liberal candidate for Reid in 2001 and has since allowed his Liberal Party membership to lapse. When not working, he likes to sleep.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

On mail order brides & suicides – why Liberal Party culture and not the media are to blame for the Brogden downfall

This week, all talk was on John Brogden’s resignation from the position of Leader of the Parliamentary Wing of the NSW Liberal Party, followed by his suicide attempt. Much has been said about the role of the media, particularly Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy.

On Radio National’s Breakfast Program with Fran Kelly (Friday 2 September 2005), former Sydney Morning Herald journalist Margot Kingston described Penberthy as young and irresponsible. She even suggested he be investigated by the NSW police for some kind of offence. It all sounded a little over-the-top, the sort of thing I would say at 3am after becoming intoxicated by fumes.

So who really is responsible? Why did John try to take his life? Who is responsible? Can anyone other than John’s exceptionally low mood be responsible?


The Story

People don’t commit suicide in an emotional and psychological vacuum. John wasn’t the most religious person on earth, but he did have strong Catholic values. John also had a zest for life, and his performance in the polls gave him everything to live for.

Yet eventually news broke out of his comments regarding Mrs Helena Carr as well of his approaches to some female journalists. Then later, other incidents were reported.

So where did Daily Telegraph journalists get this stuff from? Did they make it up? Did they pull it out of the air? Who told them and why?


My Disclosure

Before I address these questions, I may as well reveal my biases and disclose my interests. I am a former Liberal candidate for Reid. I was a Liberal Party member from 1993 to 2003 when I allowed my membership to lapse.

In 2001, I was the sole legitimate pre-selection candidate and should have been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for Auburn in the by-election. I was defamed in a column by Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman, who described me as the “local Moslem” and could not even spell my name correctly.

In 2003, I was threatened with defamation by a journalist for the Daily Telegraph. I received a letter from a News Limited lawyer which I still have.

Apart from being a former young liberal, I am also a columnist for an online US-based progressive Muslim magazine and for a local Muslim newspaper. I take the reputation of my faith community very seriously, even if I do not practise my faith as much as I should.

The Telegraph has been at the forefront of offending Muslim sentiments. In Muslim circles, the Telegraph is often seen as the enemy. A certain DT columnist referred to above is often lampooned as “Piersed Akumen” on discussion forums.

So with that in mind, it is obvious what my view is on the whole incident with John Brogden.


Not So Obvious View

My view is that David Penberthy, editor of the DT, was simply allowing to go to print what his reporters had heard from Liberal Party sources.

Should Penberthy have printed this stuff after Brogden resigned? I don’t know. But what I d know is that Penberthy is not responsible for Brogden’s suicide attempt.


Better Man

As I write these lines, Mr Brogden is recovering and receiving therapy in a private psychiatric clinic. Hopefully, he will learn about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and other psychological self-help mechanisms for dealing with depression and other mood disorders.

I hope that John will come out of all this a better man. I hope this will be his “Rumi syndrome”, a chance for him to regain his soul and get on with a better life. I hope he comes out of this a bigger and better person than he was before this experience.

I can sympathise with Brogden. I have been a carer for people with psychiatric illnesses, and I myself have suffered in the past from a physical illness with long-term damage which I am still learning to deal with. But I can also say from experience that these things make you a better person.


Blaming the Messenger, Not the Message-Monger

The Liberal Party should stop blaming the media for all this. At the end of the day, the real people at fault are the Young Liberal “Taliban” who peddle these stories to anyone who will listen.

Alex Hawke has spread rumours about me personally. He and his colleagues once put out a shitsheet about me describing me as a “fat smelly Pakistani”. He has told people that I am linked to Islamist extremists. He even suggested that my decision to appoint a manager to my legal practise after falling ill was in fact caused by my being “struck off” for dipping my hands illegally into the trust account.

(Of course, the sheer falsehood of this allegation became apparent when I was offered a contract by the NSW Attorney-General’s Department. I was to be a Senior Legal Officer with the Office of the Protective Commissioner, looking after the estates of some of the most vulnerable people in NSW. The AGD is the Department that empowers and overseas the operations of the Law Society of NSW. Had I in fact been struck off, why would the AGD place me in such a responsible role?)


Liberals Leaving in Droves

Hawke and others drove out the mild centre-right forces of the non-Group out of the Party. I will never forget seeing Hawke publicly humiliate a long-time party member Fran Quinn at a meeting in 2003. I have seen him stab his own young liberal branch president in the back on the eve of her retiring and handing him the presidency. I have seen him stacking out non-Group Young Liberal branches ad driving his opponents out of the party through rumours, innuendo and even threats of physical violence.

Between November 2001 and the present, at least 7 former non-Group Young Liberal branch presidents have resigned from the Party or allowed their membership to lapse. They include former prominent Liberal student activists, lawyers, public servants, community workers, teachers, ordinary decent Australians from all walks of life. They include 3 former Federal Liberal candidates and former staffers to State and Federal Parliamentarians and Ministers.

Then there are former members of the Senior Party from the non-Group faction who have resigned or driven out of the party thanks to Hawke and his employer. These people have had rumours and innuendo spread about their partners, their families, their health etc. Sometimes their employers have been contacted deliberately. At other times, they are threatened with being outed on sexual and other private issues.


Name Them!

The real people to blame for the suffering of John Brogden and his family are … well … yes I will name them. The real people to blame are Alex Hawke, his employer and other members of the extreme-right faction. The Liberal Party must hold an inquiry into these people and their activities. I would be happy to give evidence at such an inquiry.


More Personal Disclosures

It is true that I was once a factional warrior for the non-Group forces of the Young Liberals and the Party in NSW. I published a newsletter entitled “Westerly Winds” and followed it up with a magazine entitled “pro-Action”. I used the pages of these magazines to lambast the Group and the Taliban-right.

But factionalism must have its limits. I have learnt with experience and the wisdom of age that this sort of behaviour should be left on campuses. The Group lost power in the NSW Liberal Party because they took this personal approach. Now they are licking their wounds. The neo-Con hard-right are now doing the same. They could suffer the same fate.

Conclusion

The Liberal Party needs to change its culture. It needs to rid itself of those wishing to defame and destroy reputation unreasonably. Politics is a dirty game. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But why make the kitchen so hot that even the chefs are leaving and the pots are melting?

The Liberal Party should ensure that factionalism should not turn nasty. It should also limit the extent to which persons can talk to the media. The power to talk to the media should be removed from the Young Liberal President. We have seen this power abused by Young Liberal presidents from all sides.

Finally, the Party should move to expel Alex Hawke. Mr Hawke has made the job of the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party all that much harder. Hawke’s employer should be told in no uncertain terms that Hawke must be dismissed for misconduct. If David Clarke refuses to sack Hawke, Clarke should himself face an internal Party inquiry.

Will the Party take these much-needed measures? Let’s wait and see.

(The author has authored op-ed pieces published in the Daily Telegraph, Canberra Times, New Zealand Herald, Australian Financial Review and Sydney Morning Herald. He is a columnist for OnlineOpinion.com.au and altmuslim.com. He was endorsed Liberal Candidate for Reid in the 2001 Federal Elections, achieving a swing of 5.1% on a budget of $6,000. He currently practises industrial and human rights law.)

© Irfan Yusuf

Bali Burqa Hysteria

It is not uncommon to see an accused person being led out of court or out of a paddy wagon with their face covered. It could be a rolled up t-shirt or a cardigan loosely draped over one’s face.

Regardless of whether an accused is eventually found innocent, a photograph in a newspaper or a glimpse on a TV screen can condemn an accused to life imprisonment by the court of public opinion.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Australian model Michelle Leslie chose to cover her face when appearing in public. Yet rumours concerning her motivation reveal a disturbing undercurrent of ignorance and prejudice of the type that recently led 2 Liberal backbenchers to call for a reversal of 30 years of legislative human rights consensus.

Has Michelle Leslie converted to Islam? Is her adoption of a “burqa” a reflection of a conversion on the road to Denpasar? Is she trying to get out of life imprisonment? Or is she perhaps attempting to escape the firing squad?

A few points need to be remembered. Indonesia may be the largest Muslim country in the world. But Bali is a Hindu-majority island.

Indonesian Muslims and Hindus traditionally cover their hair with a tudung. This is a piece of cloth also commonly worn in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. It has only incidental relevance to religious faith.

Many Indonesian Muslim women do not cover their hair. And hardly any would wear a black “burqa” as worn more commonly in Saudi Arabia. Indonesian Islam tends to be far more liberal when it comes to relations between the sexes. It is not uncommon to see unmarried Indonesian couples openly dating and holding hands in public.

Of course, there is a minority interpretation of Islam which encourages women to cover their face. If indeed Ms Leslie has adopted Islam, she may be following this interpretation on the issue of covering her hair.

But is religious conversion such a big deal? After all, Schapelle Corby is known to have adopted Christianity during her detention. It has been reported that she regularly attends church services in prison. Her conversion raised few eyebrows in Australia or Indonesia.

Indeed, the chief judge who sentenced Ms Corby (and who will more than likely hear the Leslie trial) is a Christian who said he could sleep soundly at night after delivering the harsh sentence.

The media frenzy surrounding Leslie’s dress must prove unhelpful to her lawyers. Religion is a sensitive issue in Indonesia at the best of times. Yet some newspapers are making a huge issue of Leslie’s “burqa”, perhaps for the same base reasons that Mrs Bishop described supporters of hijabs as akin to Nazis.

Following the Corby trial, many Australians were dismayed when a parcel containing suspicious white powder was delivered to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. The incident, perhaps a direct result of irresponsible media storm, proved exceedingly embarrassing to the Australian government. Even more embarrassing were calls made by some Australians for the government to seek a refund of tsunami-related aid.

The frenzy did Ms Corby’s cause no good. The current frenzy over Ms Leslie’s head dress does her cause no good either. Some Australian media outlets should decide whether they wish to compromise the life of an Australian citizen simply because of her alleged conversion to an undesirable religion.

But worse still, the reactions and comments regarding Ms Leslie’s alleged conversion and dress must be exceptionally distressing to her family. It is hard enough knowing that your daughter or sister could face the firing squad. To then see her dress and presumed choice of religion being lampooned only serves to multiply the trauma.

Australian media outlets should display a far greater degree of sensitivity in how they report such matters. They should remember that selling newspapers and generating advertising revenue are not as important as ensuring the life and liberty of a citizen. In the long run, throwing cheap shots at an accused person’s dress does little to improve our image amongst our neighbours.

Just as we would not like Indonesians to stereotype our culture, we should not stereotype what we presume to be their religion.

iyusuf@sydneylawyers.com.au

© Irfan Yusuf 2005