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.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
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
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
Friday, October 21, 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”.)
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”.)
Thursday, October 13, 2005
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
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
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
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.
___________________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
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
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
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
Tuesday, October 04, 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
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
Sunday, October 02, 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
