MEDIA: Tabloid Christmas distortions

Today’s Daily Telegraph takes its readers on an 11-paragraph journey to the Palestinian town of Beyt Lahm, the name meaning literally “house of lamb”. Entitled “Jesus’ birthplace under siege”, the editorial refers to the dwindling Palestinian population, not to mention a severe reduction in tourism.

The article speaks of

... reports of religious persecution, in the form of murders, beatings and land grabs ...

And who caused all this trouble?

The DT points the finger in one direction. Subsequent paragraphs speak of ...

... [t]he sense of a creeping Islamic fundamentalism.

This is evidenced by a ...

... mosque on one side of Manger Square … directly opposite the Greek Orthodox
and Roman Catholic churches.

And for how many centuries has this mosque been standing there?

Then there are references to shops selling Christian souvenirs having

... their shutters painted a sun-bleached green – the colour of Islam.

Try telling that to Shia Muslims in the Indian sub-Continent who regard black as the colour of their faith.

Finally, the editorial refers to

... a baubled Christmas tree in reception and a card showing the direction of Mecca in the rooms.

Hotels across the Middle East and Asia carry such cards. This is no more a sign of creeping fundamentalism than Gideons bibles in hotel rooms across the world (including nominally Muslim countries) is a sign of creeping Christian extremism. Observant Christians read the Bible. Observant Muslims pray to Mecca at various times. So what?

In the simpleton tabloid world of the Tele, can all world conflicts (including ones that don’t quite exist) only be explained as a giant crusade? And how does the Tele explain the fact that Bethlehemites (Christian and Muslim) themselves prefer to point to another entity as the cause of their suffering?

Was it Muslims who have been building a concrete wall separating Rachel’s tomb from the rest of the town, leading to the closure of 70-80 businesses?

Of course, no one can deny that a minority of crazy Muslims were burning churches in response to a recent speech by the Pope. Still, the last time Bethlehem’s mayor met with the Pope, it was to discuss the giant wall.

So who could have come up with such a distorted view of Bethlehem? The answer might be found here.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

The power of the distorted headline …

Same story. Two different headlines. Two different newspapers. Two different attitudes.

AAP Newswire carried a story about a special request to members of the community by the NSW Police’s Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad commander Detective Superintendent Ken McKay.

The request concerned a spate of shootings in Auburn. AAP Newswire made a slight error, referring to Auburn as a “south-western Sydney suburb”. In fact, Auburn is hardly a suburb or two away from Parramatta, and is regarded as being in the geographical heart of Sydney.

The story appeared on the website of the Sydney Morning Herald under the headline of “Mid-East community urged to help police”.

The story also appeared on the Sunday Telegraph’s website. And the headline? “Community urged to give up shooters”.

Nowhere in the story did anyone made any request of any community to give up anyone. The sole request reported in the story was:

We are urging the Middle Eastern community, particularly those families living in the Auburn area, to continue to provide us with valuable information which will help us to put a stop to these incidents.

The request was for information. The request was NOT for a community to give up people it is allegedly hiding. Nor does the request suggest the community knew who was responsible. All the police requested was “valuable information” that that could help them protect Auburn communities.

The Telegraph headline was written in a provocative manner, suggesting that Middle Eastern communities knew who was doing the shooting, and that these communities were hiding the culprits from police. In other words, the newspaper was suggesting that these communities were involved in the crimes.

How else does one explain the headline? Can Tim Blair or any other senior editor at the Tele explain the headline?

The same headline also appeared on the article reproduced on the website of The Australian. How do the editors of The Oz explain this? Is this yet another example of what certain Oz columnists describe as the perennial struggle between “conservative Islam and Western modernity”?

Some may say that this is just one headline of one story. Yet this is just one headline out of a long series of headlines. One needs only to read analyses such as those of Peter Manning to realise how destructive such choice headlines are.

Or maybe the News Limited people follow Hitler’s saying: “The grosser the lie, the more readily people believe it”!

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Dialogue with The Oz's opinion editor

Over the past three days or so, I have been having an interesting dialogue with the opinion page editor of The Australian over his choice of commentators on the Hilaly story. That dialogue has taken place via the daily alerts of the Crikey! portal.

The dialogue is reproduced (with all hyperlinks) in full below.

_______________________

Crikey!, 7 November 2006

Sheik Hilaly has called upon his fellow imams and other community members to find a better imam. On Sunday, I think I met one. The problem is he doesn’t live in Australia .

Sheik Hilaly claims to lead 360,000 Muslims. But the head of the Turkish presidency of Religious Affairs, Dr Ali Bardakoglu, presides over 180,000 imams in Turkey . He has worked as a judge, a lawyer, an academic and an imam. He’s the closest thing Europe has to an Islamic pope.

On Sunday, Dr Bardakoglu officially opened Sydney ’s newest mosque at Bonnyrigg. One of the first things he observed was his appreciation at the large number of Muslim women in the audience, not to mention the fact that the MC at the function was a Muslim woman.

I think it is absolutely necessary that mosques involve women at all levels and in all their activities. And religious leaders must never say things to offend women members of their congregations.

Was this comment a coincidence? A committee member of the Bonnyrigg Mosque told me that Dr Bardakoglu had been fully briefed about the Hilaly situation. Many Turkish Muslims I spoke to after the formalities were concluded (including those visiting from Melbourne and other interstate locations) expressed their disgust at Sheik Hilaly’s comments as well as his contradictory posturing.

Yet there are still a number of Muslims backing him. Waleed Aly writes that even Hilaly critics are upset at the barrage of media attention, not to mention infantile remarks by Sheik Peter bin Costello and Mufti Janet bint Albrechtsen, both of whom have held 360,000 Muslims jointly responsible for the failure of 500 Muslims taking their time responding to the Sheik’s comments.

The Oz’s editorial lynching of Sheik Hilaly is actually diminishing the chances of his removal. Today’s quotes Mick Keelty suggesting: “the value of reporting on the words of Sheik Hilali and others of his ilk is that they prompt moderate, middle-class Muslims to stand up and reject such retrograde views”.

Yet The Oz allows few of such Muslims on their op-ed page or in letters to the editor. Instead, it allows room for Albrechtsen and writers whose sole qualification is having sat in a Melbourne taxi driven by someone claiming to be a ‘moderate Muslim’.

___________________

Crikey!, 8 November 2006

The Australian's anti-Muslim operation is at it again, this time committing a "media lynching" of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali -- or so Crikey and others in the past week would have us believe. We suspect, however, that this tempest will founder on the good sense of the Australian people who deserve to be informed about the outrageous statements of the nation's leading Muslim cleric.

According to our critics, The Australian's decision to publish an English translation of Sheik Hilali's speech -- comparing immodestly dressed women to meat left out for cats, and blaming them for sexual assaults -- was wrong because it reinforced the world's current anxieties and fears.

Never mind that our story goes to the heart of one of the world's most intractable problems: the clash between conservative Islam and Western modernity, and specifically the concept of women's liberation and free relations between the sexes. Surely this is an issue worth reporting and debating in some detail.

Irfan Yusuf, writing in Crikey yesterday, says "The Oz allows few [moderate, middle-class Muslims] on their op-ed page" on this issue. Yet in the immediate aftermath of the publication of our exclusive story, we commissioned and published several "moderate, middle-class Muslims" to write the lead opinion-page articles: Abdullah Saaed, director of the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam at the University of Melbourne; Tanveer Ahmed, who is writing a book about Islam in Australia; Shakira Hussein, who is writing a PhD thesis on the Islamic treatment of women at the Australian National University.

All are moderates from within Australia's Muslim community who have publicly criticised the mufti's comments. (Incidentally, even of our usual critics Peter Manning, author of US and Them: A Journalist's Investigation of Media, Muslims and the Middle East, has defended The Australian's decision to cover the Sheik's comments, arguing that the quicker the Muslim community forgets its ethnic differences and works out a "genuinely indigenous Islam that is Australian", the better.)

Add to this the fact that we have published a variety of moderate Muslim voices over the years about the clash between conservative Islam and Western modernity -- from the Islamic Council of Victoria's Waleed Ali to widely acclaimed international author Irshad Manji -- and it is clear that The Australian has a much better track record on this issue than any other newspaper in the nation. For this, we are accused of "racism and religious bigotry". Go figure.

______________________

Crikey!, 9 November 2006

Yesterday, the opinion editor of The Oz Tom Switzer told us the world is divided along neat ideological lines between two allegedly monolithic entities of “conservative Islam” and “Western modernity”. Hence dangerously sexist attitudes of an irrelevant imam become part of this apocalyptic ideological struggle.

Switzer was present at the CIS Big Ideas Forum when the venerable Owen Harries gently castigated Mark Steyn for claiming a monolithic West existed. Harries correctly noted the intense rivalry and resentment underscoring relations between the EU and the United States .

Harries isn’t the first Western thinker to point out the diversity within Muslim cultures and Islamist political movements. Indeed, many (if not most) scholars of modern Islamist movements argue that the ideological basis of groups like al-Qaida is inherently modernist and heavily influenced by Western political thinking. Further, many neo-classical Muslim theologians state that much Islamist political thinking represents religious heresy.

Switzer’s arguably narrow ideological approach means his ability to recognise emerging Muslim voices is open to question, especially where such voices don’t make a neat fit into his misunderstanding of the enormous variations in both Western and Muslim cultures.

That isn’t to say that Australian contributors (Muslim or otherwise) to The Oz on such issues have been useless. Apart from Irshad Manji (rejected by even the most ‘progressive’ Muslim writers), The Oz’s commissioned contributors listed by Switzer have made important contributions. Arguably this has been in spite of and not because of Switzer’s simplistic assumptions about the West and the rest.

Still, Switzer at least is trying to understanding the issue. That’s more than can be said for FoxNews.

And it isn’t upto Switzer or anyone else at The Oz or any other newspaper to deal with Hilaly. Primary responsibility rests with Muslim leaders themselves.

And given Hilaly’s views on sexual violence are held by so many in mainstream Australia, it’s high time we as a broader Australian community focussed on the need to eliminate violence against women. That means focussing on unfortunate attitudes held by all prominent people. It also means focussing on all perpetrators. Turning this into a sectarian wedge issue by focussing on one set of perpetrators effectively involves ignoring a much larger set of victims.

MEDIA: The Oz manufactures Koranic verses

News Limited papers have recently reported the tragic tale of the Hussain family in Queensland. Originally from Adelaide, they are of Bangladeshi origin. As a result of some domestic dispute, the mother was killed from a stab wound to the chest. The father is in hospital in a critical condition.

The Oz’s report attempted to show the attack was occasioned by the girl’s wish to convert to Christianity. The only evidence for this was from a Southport neighbour of the family. The family had just moved into the area some 2 months ago.

A neighbours and a former employer of the mother in Adelaide also were quoted. The parents were described as strict, insisting their daughter achieve good academic results and enrol in a medical degree.

The Oz’s slant on the story amply illustrates what editors can do to manufacture a context. The girl’s description included that she ...

... spoke with an accent and did not wear hijab.

Bloody Bangladeshi migrants speaking in their bloody Islamic accents! Indeed, very few Bangladeshi women wear the hijab.

The report also claimed it was ...

... curious for devout Muslim parents ...

... to send children to a non-denominational Christian school with sound scholastic record. Yet hundreds of Muslim children are sent my parents to exclusive private schools.

Also mentioned were ...

... Islamic sweets ...

... which the mother allegedly made at the Indian restaurant where she worked. Just last week I visited a Canberra Indian spice shop and purchased Indian sweets. I didn’t bother to ask where the “Islamic sweets” were kept. Why? Because Islamic sweets just don’t exist! Indians of all faiths eat the same sweets.

Most disturbingly, the reporters claimed there was such a thing as ...

... Koran-sanctioned ritual killing to punish the rejection of Islam … One Koran passage quotes Mohammed as saying ‘whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’.

The newspaper then alleged that a Gold Coast imam confirmed the verse existed and shouldn’t be taken literally. In fact, all he said was that any book approached with a “surface reading” would have contradictions.

In fact, no such verse exists. I challenge the authors and editors of The Oz to provide the exact reference. I also challenge them to provide evidence from classical and modern Muslim religious jurists showing Islamic sacred law sanctions killing daughters.

At the time of writing, no charges had been laid against any member of the family. The ABC report states that Qld police ...

... are not prepared to speculate on whether religion was a motive in the attacks.

However, News Limited papers are quite happy to speculate, even if it means manufacturing verses of scripture.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Kerbaj’s Claytons Scoop

Richard Kerbaj has again “broken” a hot story about Muslim leaders. Sadly, it’s little more than extracting the tallest mountain from a microscopic mould hill.

No doubt The Oz’s hysterical front-page packaging of Dr Ali’s relatively benign remarks (not to mention the hysterical responses of caricatured sheiks) will assist in his re-appointment to the PM’s undemocratic handpicked Muslim Community Reference Group. But how revolutionary were Dr Ali’s words?

The gist of his message seems is that the Prophet Muhammad wasn’t perfect. But what kind of perfection is he talking about? Muslims agree that the Prophet was a perfect human (al-insan al-kaamil in Arabic). But the word for human (insan) itself means negligent. Muslims agree that, as a human being, the Prophet was perfect. Yet there are places in the Koran where he has been corrected in his conduct.

So how is this perfection to be worded? This is where the controversy among different Muslim denominations begins, whether in the Indian sub-Continent or the Middle East.

At worst, Dr Ali could be accused of using somewhat inappropriate language to describe the Prophet. He should have used more careful phrasing. Then again, had Sheik Hilaly bothered to learn English during his last 2 decades in Australia, he might have recognised the problem not in Dr Ali’s message but rather in his choice of words.

The rest of Dr Ali’s comments are nothing new, especially those relating to the process of renewing the understanding of Islamic sources. Similar thoughts have been expressed by the likes of prominent Swiss scholar Dr Tariq Ramadan and the American sharia academic lawyer Professor Khaled Abou el-Fadl.

Yet The Oz’s editorial on 5 October continues with manufacturing Mt Everest from a speck of dust, describing Dr Ali’s remarks as evidencing

... great courage ...

... and applauding them for ...

... promoting honest discussion that is in the interests of Islam, its followers and the Australian community.

The editorial took swipes at both Sheik Hilaly and his arch-nemesis, Muslim Community Reference Group member Mustapha Kara-Ali. For once, these two find themselves on the same side of an argument.

The editorial further claims that ...

... Dr Ali's standing cannot be easily dismissed.

How so? He has a doctorate in economics and teaches at a university. An economist claiming expertise on Islam’s most argued esoteric theological controversy. About as nutty as suggesting Sheik Hilaly be appointed to the Reserve Bank Board.

Speaking of Sheik Hilaly, Dick Kerbaj wrote on October 5 about Hilaly’s response to Ali’s remarks. Kerbaj described the Sheik as ...

... the head of Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest.

Had Kerbaj done his research, he would have found out that there is no such a place as “Lakemba Mosque”. The Sydney suburb of Lakemba is home to at least 5 mosques, the largest of which is the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque. Further, the head of that mosque (where Sheik Hilaly is senior imam) is in fact the President of the Lebanese Moslems Association which owns and manages the mosque and the property on which it is built.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Miranda promoting al-Qaida on Pope?

In her most recent column for the Sydney Morning Herald, Miranda Devine falls into the trap of interpreting the Pope’s innocent 7 page speech in the same manner as al-Qaida wackos and other miscellaneous and allegedly-halal riff-raff.

She claims

“the Islamic world [is] still throwing a tantrum over Pope Benedict's speech to a German university last week”.

Which Islamic world? I sure hope she isn’t verballing me.

Some days back, the Daily Telegraph featured an article with accompanying photo of Muslims protesting in Basra, Iraq ’s second largest city. Last time I checked, Basra had a population of over 3 million. And how many showed up to the rally?

Around 150.

She then claims Tony Abbott’s speech to a Lidcombe function organised by the Parramatta Catholic Diocese was part of a trend

“to question whether excessive politeness or political correctness stands in the way of effective dialogue between Islam and the West and may, in fact, hinder efforts to combat potential home-grown Islamic terrorism.”

I was at the function. I took detailed notes. Tony never linked criticism of Islam to security.

Miranda criticises Keysar Trad for wanting Cardinal Clancy to be the next Pope, without telling readers the good Cardinal acknowledged the Church had only recently come to terms with 2,000 years of often violent persecution of European Jews.

Devine then cites “Arabic scholar Paul Stenhouse” printed in Quadrant. Her quotes include the ridiculous claim that

“Osama bin Laden lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri reportedly adopted the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Miranda, the MB was founded in Egypt in 1928 by a chap who was assassinated in 1949. Zawahiri was born 2 years later.

Finally, Miranda adopts al-Qaida’s wacky interpretation of the Pope’s speech. Not even Cardinal Pell made this error. She quotes George Freidman (“founder of the Stratfor newsletter”) who claims the Pope wasn’t addressing students and staff at his old university but rather was sending a “warning to Europe 's Muslims about the limits of tolerance”.

How did Miranda reach these conclusions? Has she actually read the Pope’s speech? Or has she just muddled a few bits together to meet the Herald’s deadline?

Miranda, the Pope has apologised. Personally I don’t think he needed to. But as my Indian Muslim mum keeps telling me: “Saying sorry never harms anyone”. End of story.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Luke McIlveen - Making it up as you go?

There are a number of ways you can engage in sensationalist tabloid journalism. For instance, you can add your own prejudicial context to words otherwise quoted out of context. Then you can just make it up as you go.

What methodology does Daily Telegraph journalist Luke MvIlveen use? Who knows.

In today’s DT, McIlveen manages to find a non-Lebanese Australian mum with 2 seriously disabled children who has been waiting two years for “priority” public housing. The point being?

McIlveen contrasts the situation of this unfortunate woman to what he describes as

Lebanese Australians evacuated from the Middle East came home
to a welfare smorgasbord.

McIlveen repeats his claims in today’s story.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday exclusively revealed details
of a taxpayer-funded seminar at Rockdale, where senior bureaucrats told Lebanese
Australians how to maximise their welfare payments.

In fact, according to a senior member of the Australian Lebanese community who I spoke with, the seminar was NOT for Lebanese Australians in general. Rather, it was a networking program for government departments and welfare workers funded under government grants. It was not an open invitation for Lebanese community members in general.

Further, the three women photographed and described in yesterday’s article as ordinary members of the Lebanese community were in fact THREE WELFARE WORKERS. One was from the Melkite Church welfare agency, the remaining two from Shia Muslim organisations. All are employed pursuant to heavily regulated government grants.

But will McIlveen and his paper tell the truth about what the event was really about? I won’t be holding my breath.

And it isn’t just one rogue reporter in on the game. Today’s DT Editorial continues with the apparent lie. It claims that this networking seminar among workers was in fact something different.

Earlier this week, a NSW Government-sponsored "forum'' spelled out to a
group of around 60 Australians rescued from Lebanon the welfare benefits -
public housing, Centrelink, welfare support services and so on - to which
they might be entitled.

Even intelligent and respectable broadsheets can get things wrong. The DT owes it to its readers to clarify and tell the truth.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

RACISM: McIlveen strikes at Lebanese Aussies again

Daily Telegraph reporter Luke McIlveen continues with his monocultural agenda, this time complaining about an alleged scheme to enable Lebanese Australians rescued from war-torn Lebanon to ...

... get priority access to our welfare scheme.

The wording in the first paragraph is quite clear. The forum was designed to cater for Lebanese Australians to gain access to “our welfare scheme”.

Our scheme. Not their scheme. They are Lebanese Australians. We are real Australians. The message and implication is quite clear. The Telegraph is busy continuing with an agenda of demonising Lebanese Australians evacuated from what was the warzone.

The forum included advice on how to get ...

... to the top of the public housing queue.

Wow. How terrible. The sort of advice you could get by visiting your State MP’s office.

And what was the biggest deal about all this? The 3rd paragraph of the article states:

The extent of the support disproves claims from community leaders including Keysar Trad that Australia's response to the Middle East crisis was "racist".

Of course, had Keysar made the same allegations against McIlveen and the editors at the Telegraph, his allegations would have had some substance.

What the Telegraph doesn’t say is that the forum didn’t tell Lebanese Australians how to rort the system, though this is no doubt the impression McIlveen wishes to leave readers.

And they certainly did get that impression of the published feedback is anything to go by.

Once again, McIlveen has managed to engage in thinly disguised racism toward non-Anglo Australians. This time, his hysteria has also resulted in highly defamatory imputations against the Premier and staff of State and Federal Government Departments and Agencies.

The story includes a photo of 3 women at a table of brochures and pamphlets. As expected, 2 of them are wearing hijabs. The photo caption reads:

Generous support ... members of the Lebanese community check their entitlements last night.

Can someone please tell someone at the DT that most Lebanese Aussies are in fact Christians?

I often wonder whether the Telegraph get legal advice before they published their articles. One day they might find themselves in a spot of bother.

It would be interesting to know what Lebanese Aussie reporters employed by the DT think of this hysteria-mongering. The last time Piers Akerman wrote his nonsensical attack on Lebanese-Australian dual citizens and their pleas for evacuation, Lillian Saleh responded with a thinly-veiled critique of Akerman’s position.

(I say it was thinly veiled because she didn’t mention Akerman by name.)

It will be interesting to see if Saleh or one of her colleagues responds to what appears to be McIlveen’s latest racially-motivated monstrosity.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Akerman, Sultan, Blokes & Potatoes

Before I commence this column I’d like to issue a warning to readers with even rudimentary knowledge of Arabic, Lebanese and/or Islamic cultures. The following few paragraphs could lead your sides to split.

Piers Akerman’s column in the Daily Telegraph on September 3 2006 contained the following reference to Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr Wafa Sultan:

Dr Sultan, a Syrian psychologist now living in the US, earned the wrath of
Islamicists for stating on al-Jazeera that Muslims began the clash of
civilisations.

“The Prophet of Islam said he was ordered to fight the
people until they believed in Allah and His messenger’,’’ he said.

Yes, Mr Akerman believes that Dr Sultan is, in fact, a man.

I searched in vain using a range of search engines. At no place could I find any evidence that Wafa Sultan was a man. I understand that normally “Wafa” is a woman’s name in Arabic. However, there could be situations where the name is used by men, just as names like “Akhter” and “Ferhat” can be used for either sex.

No such luck. Wafa is definitely a girl’s name. And Wafa Sultan is definitely a female.

So there you have it. A senior and experienced columnist and Deputy Editor of a major Sydney newspaper does not even bother to do sufficient research to ensure he has the genders of people who quotes correctly identified.

Piers regularly comments on Lebanese, Arab and/or Muslim cultures and peoples. He has at least 2 journalists working for his paper of Lebanese and/or Arabic-speaking background.

Further, his colleague Dr Janet Albrechtsen wrote about Wafa Sultan in one of her recent columns. Dr Albrechtsen seemed quite confident in her knowledge that Dr Sultan is not a bloke.

Yet he still makes such fundamental and embarrassing mistakes. He quotes from a female writer and then calls her a man.

Now, of course, it might be a simple mistake. Perhaps a typo. Just like the typo Piers made when he suggested Muslims worship potatoes.

Well done, Piers.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Telegraphic blackmail on Muslim free speech?

Daily Telegraph writer Luke McIlveen, in conjunction with his editors, seems to be again manufacturing stories attempting to widen the gap between the PM and whichever minority group it considers is worthy of a hatchet job.

This time McIlveen has generated hysteria in an article concerning the PM’s comments on minority Muslims who refuse to integrate.

McIlveen has deliberately sought to paint the PM as a reactionary racist, turning his somewhat tame comments into a serious attempt to attack all Muslims.

At one point in his article, McIlveen accuses the PM of having an agenda to deliberately marginalise Australia’s 300,000 Australians who just happen to be Muslim.

…Mr Howard … warned those who are unwilling to fit in would be further
marginalised.

Yet nowhere in Mr Howard’s comments could such a warning be found. McIlveen has twisted the PM’s words to generate reactionary intentions no Australian PM could reasonably hold.

McIlveen then accuses the PM of engaging in

… debate on whether Muslims should learn English and treat women as equals
…

It is only later in the article that McIlveen reluctantly concedes that the PM said

… some Muslims were not doing enough to learn English or adhere to
Australian customs of equality for women and a "fair go'' for all. (emphasis
mine)

McIlveen doesn’t stop at twisting and manipulating the words of the PM. He also manufactures a claim of …

Islamic leaders … trying to gag Prime Minister John Howard from speaking out
against Muslims who refuse to integrate, threatening that any criticism of their
culture could lead to another race riot.

And his evidence for this almost unbelievable slur? The following comment by the PM’s own handpicked Muslim Reference Group chair Dr Ameer Ali:

We have already witnessed one incident in Sydney, in Cronulla. I don't want
these scenes to be repeated, because when you antagonise the younger generation they are bound to react.

In what sense do such comments represent an attempt to gag the PM? Has Dr Ali pointed a gun at the PM’s head? Have Reference Group members threatened to strap bombs to their stomachs, storm Kirribilli and hold Janette Howard hostage should the PM not meet their demands.

Or has Dr Ali made a secret deal with Rupert Murdoch to ensure that the PM receives no coverage in News Limited papers from now on?

The story includes a photo of Mr Howard standing next to Dr Ali, an economist from Western Australia. The caption below the photo describes Dr Ali as the person

… who issued the Cronulla warning yesterday.

Other references to Dr Ali include claims that he

… tried to shut down debate on whether Muslims should learn English and
treat women as equals …

… and that Mr Ali made …

… inflammatory remarks …

The entire tone of the article was set by the headline which read

Muslim free speech blackmail

The tone of the article suggested that Muslims were attempting to blackmail the PM, threatening to spread hatred among young Muslims that could lead to more Cronulla-style riots. Certainly for anyone not reading beyond the headline, the photo caption and the first few sentences, this is the conclusion many would reach.

The DT’s editorial continued with its attack on Dr Ali’s “intemperate suggestion” that

... the Prime Minister's commentary could spark a new outbreak of violence
such as that seen at Cronulla last year.

My own personal opinion on the subject is that Dr Ali’s choice of words was very poor. However, the DT’s editorial claims that Dr Ali was in effect rejecting the notion that migrants should learn English and treat women as equals.

It goes further to reinforce stereotypes of Muslim women as oppressed.

Then we get to the issue of equality for women. Again, why single out
Muslims? The question is naive, and deliberately so.

The regrettable reality is that for many women, Islam is misused as a justification
for keeping them in subjugation, for limiting their educational opportunities,
their social contact, their right to work and so on.

The regrettable reality is that women of all ethnic and religious backgrounds keep women in subjugation. Were this not the case in Australia, why would we need State and Federal laws prohibiting and punishing discrimination on the basis of gender and pregnancy?

Australia has a serious problem with domestic violence. In NSW, figures published by the Bureau of Crime Statistics in November last year showed that in the past 7 years reported incidents of domestic violence had increased by over 50%.

That’s just the reported figures. Who knows how many women were too afraid to report?

Female victims of physical and sexual violence are from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, as are the perpetrators of such violence. Singling out Muslim women as being subjugated effectively demeans the experiences of non-Muslim women (including, no doubt, women employed by News Limited) who might have experienced discrimination or harassment, whether inside our outside the workplace.

Still, to be fair, the DT isn’t always so focussed on hysteria. I have little doubt they will also provide space for a reasonable exchange of views on the issues raised in the Prime Minister’s comparatively measured words.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

COMMENT: Richard Kerbaj, Wahhabism & The Taliban

Richard Kerbaj regularly writes for The Oz on issues relating to local Muslim groups. He claims fluency in Arabic and has a Middle Wastern background (I think his family is from Lebanon, but I stand to be corrected).

Unlike some reporters, Kerbaj has made every effort to be accessible to ordinary Muslim community members as well as self-appointed leaders. The last time I did that was in a professional capacity working as a lawyer with two offices (including one in Auburn). It almost drove me nuts!

In the 31 August edition of The Oz, Kerbaj writes about a Muslim leaders’ conference to be held in September. The headline of the article is “Radical clerics to be brought in from the cold.”

Kerbaj is not responsible for the headline. Decisions about headlines are made much higher up in the chain, and tend to reflect the bias or slant of the newspaper. Unfortunately, it is the headline which sets the tone for the entire article in the minds of most readers.

My problem with Kerbaj’s article is with his information on a phenomenon he describes as Wahhabism. Before I start talking about this, I should lay my cards on the table.

I am an implacable opponent of Wahhabi/Salafi theology. I regard it as a fringe theology which rarely complies with mainstream orthodox Sunni or Shia Islam. I regard Wahhabism has being on the very fringes of Islam, and particularly object to:

a. It’s opposition to Islamic spirituality (known to Sunnis as tasawwuf and to Shias as irfan);

b. It’s rejection of the following of 4 schools of law by Sunni Muslims;

c. It’s tendency to regard Shias as non-Muslims.

Of course, these tendencies are characteristic of most Wahhabism that I have been exposed to. Like many Muslims brought up in Australia, my knowledge of Wahhabism is gained from reading books published in Saudi Arabia.

I also understand that there are many Wahhabis who do not agree with the Saudi formulation of Wahhabi doctrine. Just as with Sunni and Shia Muslims, Wahhabis represent a broad spectrum, and cannot be typecast.

Which makes Kerbaj’s formulation of Wahhabism disturbing. The published version of Kerbaj’s article states:

… Wahhabism, a fundamentalist teaching of Islam that is preached by Osama bin Ladin and inspired the fanatical Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

According to Kerbaj’s formulation:

1) Wahhabism is a single kind of teaching.

2) Wahhabism is one of numerous “fundamentalist” teachings.

3) Wahhabism is preached (perhaps exclusively, if not mainly) by Osama bin Ladin.

4) Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime.

I don’t wish to comment at this stage on the first three suggestions. I’d like to speak with Richard and find out what his source is for this information. Which books has he read? Which experts has he consulted? Which websites does he rely upon?

Anyone who believes that Wahhabism is one monolithic teaching should visit the website of the Canadian based wahhabi TROID where one can find numerous attacks by this Wahhabist group on other Wahhabis.

What surprises and amuses me most is the claim that Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime. The most reliable information on the subject suggests that the Taliban were a mish-mash militia funded by Pakistani and Saudi interests. However, the dominant theological strain of the Taliban was not Wahhabi but Deobandi.

The Deobandi school is named after Darul Uloom Deoband, the most prominent Islamic institution in India. Yet one in four Muslims is from the Indian sub-Continent, and Indian Islam has its own unique theological spectrum. Indian Muslims are mainly Sunni. Indian Islam, like Hinduism, is a deeply mystical affair. Sufi spirituality plays a large role in the two main Indian Sunni schools – the Deobandi and Barelwi. The anti-Sufi Ahl-i-Hadis (India’s answer to Saudi-style Wahhabism) has few followers

Not Pakistan. Not Saudi Arabia. Not even Afghanistan. India. A nation where Muslims make up hardly 15% of the population.

The Deobandi school/sect is by no means Wahhabi. Indeed, prominent Deobandi authors and scholars have written detailed refutations of Wahhabi doctrine.

It would take a substantial amount of space to explain what the Deobandi strand of Islam teaches. Suffice it to say that it is a uniquely sub-Continental strand and is often in conflict with a competing Barelwi strand of Indian Islam.

To understand the Deobandi/Barelwi dispute, one must understand something of the unique nature, history and Sufi terrain of North Indian Islam. Perhaps the best Western source on this is Professor Barbara Metcalf.

The conservative Deobandi sect was founded in the north Indian village of Deoband during the late 19th century. Despite its orthodox, Deobandism played a pioneering role in educating Indian Muslim women in theology frequently regarded as the sole domain of men.

Deobandism competes with the Barelwi sect founded during the same period by Indian Sufi Syed Ahmad Raza Khan who hailed from a nearby town called Bareilly (from whose name the sect’s label is derived). is derived the school’s popular label of “Barelwi”.

Khan criticised Deobandi scholars for what their alleged lack of respect for the status of the Prophet Muhammad and their claims that certain cultural practises of Indian Muslims represented unnecessary and deviant innovations in orthodox liturgy. The gulf between the two was further widened due to various political differences.

Differences between Deobandi and Barelwi Muslims represent a sectarian divide unique to Indian communities and virtually non-existent in other Muslim communities, including among our own South East Asian neighbours.

Political differences between the two schools are numerous. During the movement for Indian independence most Deobandis worked with Gandhi and opposed Pakistan’s creation. Barelwis tended to support Pakistan.

I’ve provided an imperfect summary which hopefully provides some understanding of Deobandi Islam. If this is what the Taliban stood for, it is a far cry from the alleged Wahhabism attributed to them by Kerbaj and his sources.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006


Bookmark this on Delicious

Tabloids helping terror?

Once again, the Daily Telegraph has been busy spreading hysteria about “Islamic terrorists”.

Under the blaring headline of “SYDNEY WILL BE ATTACKED” (28 August 2006), Luke McIlveen boasts about how

MOST Australians believe we are losing the war against Islamic terrorists
and an attack on our home soil, most likely Sydney, is inevitable.

So who are this majority of Australians? What have they been asked? And what were their responses?

It turns out that the DT interviewed … wait for it … 572 people. 572, out of 18 million. You don't need a PhD in demography to know that isn't the most statistically significant sample on the planet. The interviews were said to be carried out

… in Sydney, Newcastle, country NSW and the ACT in the past week …

But hang on. The DT said their results were evidence of the beliefs of most Australians?

I don't like to speculate, but apparently quite a few Australians live in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and even ... SHOCK! HORROR!! ... Melbourne.

McIlveen (or, presuming he’s been heavily and unfairly edited, his editor) has blown a legitimate study about security concerns out of all proportion and turned it into a free-for-all on Muslims.

He even goes to the extent of claiming poll result

… raises concerns about the behaviour of Muslims in Australia.

He then quotes from a 62-year-old Newcastle woman who repeats the well-worn mantra of hate

Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

I’d love to see Mr McIlveen put these suggestions to the Turkish consulate in Sydney. They might remind him that the last terrorist attack in Australia was the 1986 attack on the Turkish Consulate. Then there was the 1980 assassination of the Turkish Consul-General. They might also remind McIlveen that Turkey has just suffered a string of terrorist attacks, responsibility for which has been claimed by Kurdish Marxist groups.

Or perhaps McIlveen could stroll down to the Sri Lankan High Commission and ask someone there what religion the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam follow. He might also wish to read his colleague Anita Quigley’s column in the DT discussing the upcoming tour of American terrorism expert Robert Pape.

The only poll questions which suggested anything positive about Islam or Muslims was this one:

“Do you believe Australian Muslims are moderate?”

Er, aren’t there other ways you could describe Muslims? Is the only contribution Muslims can make to national security that they remain “moderate”? And is terrorism only a Muslim or Islamic phenomenon?

The DT answers this question very clearly. The final 3 questions speak of “Islamic terrorists”.

McIlveen’s hysteria took up an entire 17 paragraphs, plus graphics. A somewhat less negative piece by Evelyn Yamine was given a much smaller amount of space.

Muslim organisations, leaders and activists are run off their feet trying to inform people about their faith and culture. They are organising interfaith meetings, liaising with Federal Police and other law enforcement officials, reporting suspicious activities, writing articles, networking, speaking, organising and much much more.

Notwithstanding such efforts, some journalists and papers continue to play on people’s legitimate fears. No doubt, there is a genuine fear in the broader community about security and terrorism. And these fears are worth reporting.

However, in my opinion the DT’s poll as reported on 28 August 2006 is a classical example of “push polling”, asking loaded questions with underlying assumptions playing upon popularly held misconceptions, if not prejudice and bigotry. It seems they are seeking to combine legitimate fear with illegitimate prejudice.

It's arguable the poll spends less time seeking opinions and more time reinforcing hysteria and hatred toward an entire set of communities whose only common factor is their religious heritage.

By furthering the process of marginalising and demonising nominal Muslims, articles like McIlveen's are effectively helping the cause of al-Qaida. Terrorists want Muslims to feel marginalised, to feel like second class citizens in their own country. McIlveen may well be helping terrorists achieve their strategic goals.

The DT has every right to criticise aspects of Muslim cultures and beliefs they find distasteful. Yes, it's true - often Muslims are the ones who need a good kick up the backside. But the DT and other papers should keep in mind that sometimes their critiques will be seen as attempts to manufacture hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want to support al-Qaida, they can keep manufacturing hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want al-Qaida to fail, the DT can report and critique without the hysteria and prejudice.

Still, to be fair to the paper, Roger Coombs (who is one of the most senior editors at the paper) has written an excellent critique of the thick-Sheiks who make Aussies of all faiths look like fools in their response to the Muslim beauty queen aspirants. Anita Quigley gives Professor Robert Pape a fair hearing. She's also written a piece on converts which (in my opinion) is a genuine attempt to understand the troubled communal and cultural terrain they must pass through.

In fact, to be fair to McIlveen, his treatment of Jack Thomas was much fairer than many of his colleagues at The Oz.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Frank Devine, 1.2 billion people and one word

Frank Devine is a senior columnist at The Australian. In a profile of his daughter, Miranda Devine, The Bulletin once described him as a "conservative Catholic". Devine’s views on certain issues are similar to those of his daughter.

In 2004, he praised genocide-denier and ex-Marxist Keith Windschuttle’s book praising what was (and thankfully no longer is) Australia’s racist White Australia Policy.

Devine now attempts to justify using a term championed by Islamophobes to link the acts of homicidal terrorists to Islamic theology. His column in The Australian, entitled Let's not be shy as the Islamo-fascists certainly aren’t, supports George W Bush’s description of “Islamic fascists”, though preferring the even more offensive terminology (“Islamo-fascist”) of far-right fruitcakes like Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes.

Given his conservative Catholic leanings, one might expect Devine to have greater tolerance for a faith which suffers similar demonising in the mainstream press as his. No such luck. Devine’s attitudes toward Islam display near-chronic ignorance.

Thankfully, most Catholics don’t share Devine’s views. Devinde’s lack of sophistication can be illustrated by his lumping together a whole range of disparate interests (from the Deobandi Taliban to the Wahhabist al-Qaida to the Shia Hezbollah) as

... our Islamic foes.

Gee, that really tells us a lot, doesn’t it. The intellectual senility continues with Devine remarking:

Islamo-fascist groups or of their common purpose - to damage and, ideally,
destroy Western society - and their identical murderous tactics.

Yes, of course anyone who supports Hezbollah must be anti-Western. Try telling that to supporters of Michel Aoun with a straight face.

And who is Devine’s magical authority for his claim? First, it is widely used Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Yes, I'm sure most serious scholars of religion go straight to that source when wanting to understand the complex theological and political nuances of a faith followed by 1.2 billion people.

His next source? American historian Paul Berman. Now presuming this is the same Berman I know, I’ll admit that he isn’t exactly on the far-Right. He regularly writes for the American small-‘l’ liberal Slate magazine.

However, I’m not sure if Berman would agree with the lazy manner in which Devine applies part of one sentence from an unnamed book or article or Berman’s to conclude any Middle Eastern movement calling itself “Islamic” is necessarily linked to European fascism.

Of course, Devine is no expert in the field. Daniel Benjamin of the Centre for Strategic & International Studies is such an expert. BBC quotes him as stating:

There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was
developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term. "This is
an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but
it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists,
are a very, very different breed.

It may be hard for Devine to accept, but some phenomena cannot be summed up in a term that is

… catchier: it's only one word, is easier to say and holds promise of
developing the acronym IF (pronounced eye eff).

Devine isn’t concerned with the fact that Islam happens to be the faith of the vast majority of victims of terrorist attacks. He also isn’t concerned that Islam is the surname of a British victim of the July 7 2005 attacks in London. As far as he is concerned, attributing terroristic tendencies to the faith of the majority of its victims is perfectly acceptable.

Without meaning to sound ageist, Devine isn’t exactly growing younger. Then again, who is? I've certainly increased my quota of grey hairs since the photo in the top right hand corner of this page was taken in 2001.

Still, I can confidently say that Devine's views are part of the edifice of yesterday’s Australia, an Australia which took pride in hating anyone deemed different. The White Australia Policy has been relegated to the intellectual dustbin of Australia. It’s only a matter of time before views such as those of Devine are treated in a similar fashion.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Gerard Henderson & Lebs

What on earth does Gerard Henderson have against Lebs?

His most recent piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, an assault on anti-Israel protesters who allegedly hijacked a Sydney Hiroshima protest, contained the usual defence of hawkishly pro-Israel positions that even Israelis themselves are beginning to doubt.

Fair enough. Henderson supports Israel. Many Australians are sympathetic to Israel and hostile to Lebanon and/or Hezbollah in the current conflict. And yes, it is hypocritical for some protesters to mourn for Lebanese but not for Israelis. And I can’t say people like the Mufti Mel Hilaly (or should that be Tajeddine Gibson?) and his interpreter are my favourite Aussie Mossies.

But for Henderson to claim that an entire migrant wave came to Australia on the basis of false pretences is little more than an attempt to sound sophisticated whilst jumping on the same bandwagon Waleed Aly so deftly demolished last Sunday.

Henderson writes: “Many of the Lebanese Muslim Australians … were given refugee status during the civil war in Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact they did not meet the requirements for obtaining refugee status.”

And the relevance of his point to the protest march and the current conflict in the Middle East is? Who knows? Indeed, who cares?

Is Henderson claiming that Lebanese Muslims engaged in migration fraud? Is he suggesting the Australian embassy in Damascus was party to this fraud? Is he suggesting Malcolm Fraser and his immigration minister were subverting due processes to favour Lebanese Sunni and/or Shia Muslims?

I’d love to see Henderson make this pitch to Ahmed Fahour should the Institute need NAB sponsorship.

I’d also love to see Gerard argue this point with Anne Henderson, who seems to have excellent rapport with Lebanese Aussies of all backgrounds.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

RACISM: Murdoch moments

A fortnight ago, Piers Akerman complained about a ...

... new class of dual nationality super-snivellers who believe mere possession of an Australian passport guarantees them security in their “other” homeland.

But by Friday morning, Akerman was shedding what might be described as crocodile tears for Assaf Namer, the young Israeli-Australian dual-citizen who died in Souyth Lebanon whilst serving in the Israeli army.

Akerman’s views on citizenship (indeed on many other) issues aren’t exactly rational and consistent. One wonders whether Akerman’s distaste for dual citizenship would be further tempered should Mr Murdoch find economic incentive to re-apply for Australian citizenship.

Some weeks back, Mr Murdoch told Channel 9:

You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go.

We’ve all heard theories of how Murdoch’s personal views are allegedly parroted by his columnists. I thought I’d test this theory. I wrote to Akerman (who, I understand, is still Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph) in relation to an article I was researching for New Matilda.

Three of my questions are reproduced in bold. Akerman’s answers are in non-bolded italics.

Do you think Mr Murdoch is questioning the loyalties of all Muslim Aussies? I think his remarks are legitimate.

Do you support his sentiments? Yes.

Do you think this expression is indicative of an official News Limited editorial policy when it comes to Muslim issues? No.

So I guess Akerman’s citizenship formula goes something like this …

a) If you’re a Muslim citizen (dual or otherwise), you’re unwelcome.
b) If you’re a Lebanese dual citizen, you’re unwelcome.
c) If you are an Israeli dual citizen who fights in the Israeli army, you are welcome.
d) If you are a dual citizen who doesn’t fit into a), b) or c), watch this space.

Perhaps Akerman should make his suggestions to the Deputy Secretary for DIMA responsible for policy development and implementation in the areas of migration and temporary entry, refugees, settlement, citizenship and multicultural affairs. Then again, in the eyes of Akerman and Murdoch, Mr Rizvi probably has dual loyalties.

Akerman’s Melbourne colleague, Andrew Bolt, remains unrepentant over his comments on dual citizenship. It seems not even the death of an Israeli-Australian is enough to convince Bolt that dual citizens are real Aussies.

********************************

In Sunday night, I visited a friend for our regular Sunday night movie on FoxTel. While waiting for the 10:30pm edition of some movie about a 40 year old virgin, we decided to cross to Fox & Friends (F&F) for some live entertainment.

What we saw was far from entertaining. A Fox News reporter was being filmed live at the scene in the southern Lebanese village of Qana. He was standing near the bombed-out building whose basement entombed some 57 civilian dead, including at least 30 children.

Both the reporter and F&F hosts were speculating how women and children could have ended up in that building given that Israel’s defence forces had very kindly dropped leaflets on the area warning people to leave.

The hosts canvassed a number of theories with the reporter. One theory was that the Hezbollah fighters wouldn’t let them leave. A number of other theories were used, none of which suggested that maybe the women and children were too poor and/or too sick to leave. Nor was it mentioned that Red Cross officials found the burnt-out wrecks containing charred remains of civilians trying to flee the south before being bombed by Israeli jets.

After canvassing all possible theories, both hosts and reporter agreed that the most plausible explanation was that the children were in fact somehow directly linked to Hezbollah terrorism. How such link manifested itself wasn’t explained.

In other words, Rupert Murdoch’s news network was effectively justifying the incineration of children in southern Lebanon.

Later on in the show, a former Israeli Foreign Service chief was interviewed. An F&F hostess prompted the gentleman to suggest that an existing UN Resolution to disarm Hezbollah was futile and Israel should just go on with its bombing campaign.

When the Israeli gentleman tried to suggest that the UN Resolution was fine and just needed to be implemented, the hostess cut him off, saying they needed to go for a commercial break.

So there you have it. Even the most hawkish Israeli political positions aren’t hawkish enough for Fox, a news network that invents theories to justify the massacre of children.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Tabloid Forum Fraud?

The Daily Telegraph reached new lows of divisive and gutter journalism in its Monday July 10 2006 issue.

The offending article appeared on page 7 of the DT and was headed “Extremists weave a suburban web of hate”. It was authored by Luke McIlveen.

The article claims “Muslim extremists in Sydney are using the internet to gather support for making Australia an Islamic state”. It also claims chat rooms reveal “a ground swell of support for notorious terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”.

The article doesn’t actually define what it understands by the term “Islamic state”. Nor does it define “ground swell”.

When examined closely, the ground swell turns out to be little more than a small number of quotes or excerpts from postings made by anonymous contributors. The quotations were made out of context, with McIlveen’s over-active imagination used to prove the relevant sinister context.

McIlveen deliberately misleads his readers by claiming “several threads” were devoted to “turning Australia into an Islamic state.

Yet the only quote he provides is one person posting: “II reckon we stay and try our best to get to high positions in this country so it comes to the fold of Islam”.

“McIlveen doesn’t explain how coming “to the fold of Islam” necessarily means the establishment of a caliphate or some other form of theocratic Islamic state.

Other quotes from postings are provided, though little indication is given of the precise subject matter of the posts or of other opinions expressed on the same thread.

At the article’s end, McIlveen invites readers to report any extremist websites with the question: “Do know of any extremist websites?”.

It seems professional journalism isn’t the only thing McIlveen has trouble with.

I did speak to Mr McIlveen on the afternoon of 11 July 2006. He insisted that the quotes did suggest their authors did envisage establishing an Islamic state. He asked what other possible reading could be given to them. I suggested there could be numerous possible readings, amongst which is that the posters wanted Islam to become the majority religion without changing the political system.

I followed up the telephone conversation with an e-mail to Mr McIlveen. I requested he send me a copy of all threads he had retained in researching the story, especially given that he had envisaged moderators of the forums might edit or remove the threads and then accuse McIlveen of misrepresentation. I'll keep you all informed of any response I receive from Mr McIlveen and/or the DT.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

How Murdoch’s own reporters prove he is wrong …

So where do the loyalties of Australia’s 300,000 Muslims lie? Do Muslims swear allegiance to a foreign religious figure? Or to an international church? Or to an alien legal system based on a system of criminal sanctions based on amputation without anaesthetic?

Our nation’s most influential ex-Australian has made his position clear. News.com.au reported Mr Murdoch’s comments to Channel Nine on 26 June 2006 as follows: “You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go,"

Certainly if Mr Murdoch’s perspective were coloured by some of the material printed in the op-ed pages of his newspapers, he might be forgiven for believing this simplistic view of an Australian community hailing from over 60 different countries.

Two of Australia’s most prominent Muslim-haters find pride of place as regular columnists for Murdoch tabloids in Sydney and Melbourne. The Murdoch broadsheet regularly publishes articles by Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes, both of whom are known for their venomous attitudes toward Muslims.

Writing for the neo-Conservative FrontPageMag.com, Sharon Lapkin cites Steyn’s views as follows: “Everywhere in the world, Muslims are in conflict with their neighbours. And as Mark Steyn recently said, every conflict appears to have originated by someone with the name of Mohammed.”

On one occasion, The Australian even published an article by former National Party Senator John Stone who called for the formation of a Queen Isabella Society to commemorate her expulsion of Muslims from Spain in the 15th century. This would be akin to calling for the formation of a Slobodan Milosevic Society in a Bosnian or Croatian newspaper.

Despite the xenophobia projected by some regular Murdoch columnists, The Australian has also reported on Muslim community affairs on a regular basis. One Melbourne-based reporter, Richard Kerbaj, has focussed on a range of Muslim organisational issues, including ethnic ruptures within Muslim peak bodies.

Kerbaj has reported on the ethnic-based divisions within the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC). He has identified the existence of competing Fiji-Indian and Pakistani factions within AFIC. He has also focussed on the ethnic and tribal divisions within the Lebanese Moslems Association and other Muslim groups.

Kerbaj’s work is perhaps the best evidence against Murdoch’s claims. Kerbaj has exposed the severe ethnic divisions within the Muslim community, not to mention the general generational division between Muslims brought up in Australia and those brought up overseas.

If Rupert Murdoch wishes to see his views contested, he need only look as far as one of his most competent reporters and in one of his most respected newspapers.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

RACISM: AIJAC Writer Claims Muslim Cultures Promote Rape

Were the Cronulla riots a response to gang rapes? According to one post graduate student at the University of Melbourne, the answer is yes.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cronulla riots, Sharon Lapkin authored a piece claiming that Muslim cultures promote sexual assault of women.

The article, published in neo-Conservative Front Page Magazine website, claims that gang rapes formed a necessary context to the Cronulla riots. The article also attacks Australia’s status quo of multiculturalism for promoting ...

... cultural relativism ...

... and claims that ...

... Islamic migration ...

... to western nations has brought with it ...

... Third World value systems regarding the treatment of women ...

... including...

... forced marriages, officially sanctioned rape, and honour killings.

Sharon Lapkin described herself in the article as ...

... a former Australian Army Officer and a postgraduate student at the University of Melbourne.

One wonders whether the Australian Army would like to be mentioned in the context of Lapkin's articles defaming Muslim cultures, especially given the presence of hundreds of Australian troops risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ms Lapkin is also a contributor to the Australia/Israel Review, published by the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council. Her previous articles for the Review have made farcical claims of al-Qaida plots being hatched by mainstream Muslim organisations in universities and off campus. She has sought to claim that groups with some tenuous ideological link to Middle Eastern Muslim movements are recruiting home-grown terrorists.

Lapkin’s Cronulla effort included the startling claim that Pakistani and other Muslim cultures are characterised by the abuse of women. Among the practices she lists are female genital mutilation, a practice virtually unknown in the Indian sub-Continent among any faith-community.

Lapkin cites claims made by defence counsel for a Pakistani man convicted of gang rape of teenage girls. The convicted rapist instructed his Counsel to argue that ...

... his cultural background was responsible for his crimes.

And Lapkin’s response to this claim?

And he is right.

Lapkin goes onto assert that Pakistanis hail from ...

... a society where officially sanctioned sexual violence is commonly employed as a means to enforce the subservience of women.

There is no doubt that abuses of women do occur in Pakistani society. The writer has himself criticised Pakistan's human rights record, including its treatment of victims of mass-rape such as Mukhtar Mai.

Lapkin’s claims play into the hands of those she descriobes as "neo-Nazis" who participated in (if not orchestrated) the Cronulla riots. She is, in effect, providing ideological and rhetorical ammunition to those very groups. It is one thing to allege that such abuses exist in Pakistan. It is another to claim that the cultures of all Pakistanis promote physical and sexual violence toward women.

And so we see at least one regular contributors to AIJAC publications using clearly racist and xenophobic language to virtually justify one of the worst incidents of racial riots in 21st century Australia.

What makes Lapkin’s claims even worse is that prominent Pakistani and Muslim Australians have refuted statements made on behalf of the convicted rapist. Indeed, when one Muslim religious leader claimed women’s dress made them “eligible for rape”, state and national Muslim peak bodies (not to mention the writer) immediately condemned the sentiments.

Lapkin’s article contains statements about other cultures that are deeply offensive and clearly racist. She attributes specific human rights abuses to all Muslims, and her writing echoes the sentiments of those supporting the Cronulla rioters.

Mark Leibler, National Chairman of AIJAC, recently criticised those who claims Aboriginal cultures promoted violence against women. Leibler was right in taking such a stand.

And so when similar claims are made about the cultures of a faith community closer to Judaism than any other faith on earth (and when such claims are made by contributors to AIJAC’s official publication), we can only hope Mr Leibler will show consistency in showing similar disdain to such clearly offensive sentiments.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Limited News Snippets

The May 28 edition of the Sunday Telegraph moaned about the families of terror suspects receiving increased payments from Centrelink and also receiving assistance from the Legal Aid Commission.

The story, authored by Lincoln Wright, carries a headline of “Terror suspects’ $1M welfare gift”. Wright claims his paper carried out an “investigation”, going onto provide details of increasing payments made to families of the accused.

Investigation? What investigation? Did they obtain records under FOI? Did Mr Wright attend his local Centrelink office and ask a few questions? Did Centrelink staff breach Commonwealth privacy legislation and provide otherwise confidential details to the Tele?

What actually seems to have happened is that the paper used publicly-available formulae to calculate how much the terror suspects earned. There was no investigation. Mr Wright and the paper have in fact carried out no investigation.

Even more laughable is the paper’s claim that “Legal Aid services have boosted the total bill for taxpayers to more than $1 million”. Really? Is that an increase specific to these trials? Or is that a general increase in Legal Aid funding arising from the recent Commonwealth Budget? Or is that an estimate from the upcoming NSW and Victorian State Budgets?

Apparently, the paper wants us to believe that anyone guilty of the crime of being married to or parented by a terror suspect should be sentenced to mandatory destitution. But then, if concerned friends of the family decided to fundraise, the same newspaper would make an issue about “Pro-terror Muslim extremists raising money for their own”.

Apparently, the Telegraph also wants us to believe that there is already a fair amount of indignation in the grassroots. Hence quotes from representatives of such prominent organisations as “People Against Lenient Sentencing”.

I thought I would check the Yellow and White Pages to see if I could find this prominent and influential organisation. Just as I expected, there was no listing. I then did a search on the national names index of the Australian Securities & Investments Commisssion (ASIC). Again, no listing.

So who is this organisation? Who is Steve Medcraft? I wonder if Lincoln Wright would be prepared to tell me? I might just ring him on Monday and find out …

**********

Allegedly conservative columnist Piers Ackerman also finds time to moan. His targets are those nasty boongs who are victims of an inner-city Marxist ALP conspiracy called “self determination”.

And we all know how nasty and left-wing that conspiracy is. After all, it is supported by such radical leftists as Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating and Aiden Ridgeway. Reds under Piers’ bed!

Or perhaps Ackerman wants to return the blasted Abbos back to the good old days when they received less money for doing the same job. After all, he finds time to lament “the 1965 equal wage case which saw Aboriginal stockmen granted the same wages as Europeans on stations across Australia's northern pastoral districts.”

Perhaps he reckons the black bastards should be happy getting less, so long as their families were allowed to sleep outside and have a few scraps of last night’s dinner and a couple of aspirin tablets thrown their way. After all, treating the boongs as equals is something only those bloody Afghan Muslim cameleer buggers would do.

Perhaps the best way to treat the blasted Abbos is to make them just like us. Get rid of their customs and cultures by throwing their customary law out the door. Let’s be honest. Which die-hard conservative, which believer in the maintenance of the status quo would allow the 20,000 year cultural landscape of the blasted boongs to compete with the 200 year Pommy/Irish cultural new kids on the block?

With friends like Piers to embarrass them, serious conservatives don’t need too many more journalistic enemies.

**********
Everyone’s favourite Dutchman, Andrew Bolt, spends his 26 May column in the Herald-Sun complaining about how the status quo of multiculturalism is once again destroying our nation. How so?

Always a purist on (mono-)cultural issues, Bolt laments that lots of Aussies attending the soccer game were barracking for Greece.

Yep, the choice of which team the crowd supports in soccer represents a dangerous threat to our nation and its culture. According Bolt, this shows a “clash of loyalties” and is part of the great conspiracy known as the “shame-Australia-shame movement”.

But hang on. Weren't the Greeks one of those wonderful European waves of migrants that John Howard claims always put Australia first? That have adjusted well and become part of mainstream Australia? That don't share the nasty extremist traits of those blasted Muslim arrivals?

Andrew, of course, doesn't find space to address this chink in the neo-Conservative cultural armour. Instead, he engages in some good old-fashioned wog-bashing. Maybe someone put too much chilli in his yeeros. Or was that a kebab? Who gives a toss. They're all the bloody same, those bloody wogs!

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Why sexual hypocrisy is preferable to shock jock xenophobia

Rex Hunt is a respected AFL commentator and fishing guru. His most recent exploits involved a somewhat amusing spat with residents of the NSW alternative lifestyle hub of Byron Bay following an alleged assault by local youths.

In rather colourful fashion, Hunt described Byron (popularly regarded as an idyllic haunt for backpackers, yoga instructors, schoolies and cashed-up gurus) as worse than Baghdad. Locals were furious. The rest of Australia were most amused.

Yet Mr Hunt’s recent public exposure has had far more serious consequences than verbal exchanges with Byron Bay locals. A frequent commentator on moral as well as sporting issues, Mr Hunt has been forced to admit sexual indiscretions on public radio.

Hunt has condemned himself as a “sleaze” and a “hypocrite” for paying women to provide sexual favours (or at least to keep silent about them) whilst lecturing others on sexual morality. His wife has also appeared on radio to comment on his activities.

Yes, we can condemn Mr Hunt in the same terms as he has condemned himself. But it is also an opportunity to give credit where credit is due. In media terms, for a man constantly in the public eye, Rex Hunt is a uniquely brave man.

In the world of talkback radio, it is rare to find a man prepared to admit his own humanity to his listeners. Mr Hunt’s behaviour may have been disgraceful. But compare Mr Hunt’s conduct and his response to the scandal to the responses of other media personalities.

Shock jocks are known for their flagrant disregard of the reputations of others. How often do we hear talkback hosts insult, malign and defame not just individuals but entire communities.

In the lead-up to the Cronulla riots, a number of Sydney talkback hosts openly encouraged frustrated rioters to take the law into their own hands. They used the worst racial and religious stereotypes to generate hatred toward persons presumed by their appearance to belong to a supposedly offending group.

Rex Hunt may be an unfaithful husband, but his words certainly were not an essential ingredient of one of the nastiest race riots this country has seen since the end of the Second World War. Mr Hunt’s indiscretions did not lead to a breakdown of law and order of such proportions that entire beaches had to be closed up and down the New South Wales coast over summer.

One can only imagine how some notoriously racist Sydney shock jocks would react if their own sexuality was made the subject of public scrutiny. One wonders whether their claims to being protectors and defenders of decent conservative values would survive examination should their known past indiscretions be aired.

I wonder if they would even allow scrutiny of their sexual activities to be even mentioned without their reaching for their lawyers and threatening the alleged offenders with expensive legal proceedings.

Some of these same shock jocks have even gone to the extent of claiming that certain cultures and religions encourage their young men to sexually abuse white-skinned women as some kind of right of passage.

But it isn’t just the ayatollahs of talk back radio that show scant regard to the feelings of others. Some years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the first Bali bombing, a former client of mine was charged with possessing possible explosives. One journalist reported that this fellow had Arabic books in his house and had recently started attending religious classes at the local mosque.

The police involved in the investigation had already ruled out the possibility of terrorism. Yet the journalist involved wanted to use the pages of his Sydney newspaper to spread hysteria about the possibility of terrorism by making reference to a recent religious conversion on the road to Damascus (or in my former client’s case, Mecca).

Ironically, the journalist involved had a distinctly Arabic-sounding surname. His own background suggested that a visit to his own home might reveal Arabic books and possible visits to the institutions of religious denominations at the heart of Middle Eastern conflict. I raised these points on an e-mail group, with a view to levelling the playing field and exposing what I felt was the journalist’s hypocrisy.

Some 4 months later, I received a letter from an in-house lawyer of the media organisation for which that journalist worked. That letter corrected some erroneous assumptions I had made concerning the journalist’s ethno-religious background (I got his Middle Eastern denomination wrong in my e-mail).

More importantly, the letter threatened me with defamation proceedings for daring to question the journalist’s integrity on a private subscriber-only e-mail list. Perhaps the journalist should have realised that sometimes threatening a litigation lawyer with legal proceedings is as effective as threatening a surgeon with a penicillin injection.

To make matters worse, the journalist did not even bother to spend his own money to brief their own lawyers, preferring to use the resources of the company’s legal department to fight a personal legal battle.

Those who lecture others about sexual morality while failing to practise it themselves deserve to be derided. But what is worse? Using the microphone to preach morality while failing to practice? Or using it to behave like fanatical mullahs by preaching hatred toward others?

I’ll take an honest sleaze over a bigotted shock jock or racist scribe anyday.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

New Blog

I don’t always have the time to update my many blogs with article-size (700-plus word) analyses. But I still like to keep my brain ticking over with short snippets on what I am reading at the moment.

With this in mind, I’ve started a new blog which (I hope) will be updated with some regularity. You can check it out here.

Hopefully, I will have some stuff to write about on this blog in the near future. Anyway, back to my 6-minute units!

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

When good Police PR compromises better security

It was around 5am in the morning when my mobile phone suddenly rang.

“Hi, this is [producer] from [commercial channel]’s morning show. You must have heard about the terror raids earlier this morning. We can arrange a car to take you to Lakemba Mosque. We’d like to talk to you so we can gauge the Muslim response.”

The high profile November raids on the homes of terror suspects gave newspapers plenty to write about. A number of commentators criticised the timing and publicity surrounding the raids. At the same time, Muslim leaders in Sydney and Melbourne felt the raids proved that then-existing anti-terror laws worked sufficiently well to apprehend and protect the community from terror suspects.

Now, in a keynote speech to the Press Council on 23 March 2006, Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has urged reporters and state police media units to cease filming raids on the homes of terror suspects.

Keelty said that filming the raids had caused unnecessary and justifiable angst amongst Muslim Australians. He further added that the way media reported issues related to terrorism has a “deep and abiding” impact on the recruitment of extremists and potential terrorists from within Muslim communities.

Keelty argued that police warrants should be executed without the intrusion of TV film crews whose presence potentially compromised the integrity of police work.

“The fashion of trying to provide film or footage of the execution of search warrants needs to be rethought because it is an intrusion into someone else's property. It is a precious power that needs to be, I think, surrounded by appropriate decorum.”

In the days following the raids, Keelty made his criticism of state police media units known privately to a number of Muslim leaders in Sydney. The Press Council address is the first time Mr Keelty’s criticisms have been made publicly.

There is no doubt that Keelty’s views were reflected in the responses of many Muslims to the raids. One need only visit the forum pages of websites such as islamicsydney.com to see how many young Australian-born Muslims took a dim view of the media circus surrounding the raids.

Rightly or wrongly, many Muslims felt that coverage of the raids and the first few days of the trials reinforced community perceptions that terrorism was an inherently Muslim phenomenon.

Images of doors being smashed open, of female relatives of the accused dressed in traditional covering and of subsequent selective leaking of police fact sheets with information linking suspects to mainstream Islamic institutions did not assist in this regard.

Selective leaks by NSW police media units effectively allowed good police work to be hijacked by sectarian agendas of some tabloid columnists and radio talkback hosts.

If the greatest risk of terrorism on Australian soil arises from home-grown locally indoctrinated Muslim extremists, law enforcement agencies must have the support and confidence of local Muslims who have at least as much to lose from terrorist attacks as anyone else. At least 10% of victims of the July 7 London attacks were from Muslim backgrounds, including a young English girl whose surname was Islam.

Of course, NSW Police have been tipping off media outlets about anti-terror raids for the past 2 years. The Sydney Morning Herald reported a NSW Police public affairs officer Kylie Keough as suggesting that the practise of tipping off journalists merely highlighted the good work of police officers.

But good public relations isn’t the be-all and end-all of police work. If the price of good police PR is increased risk of Muslim resentment leading to possible recruitment of extremists, it is too high a security price for Australians of all backgrounds to pay.

Whether police spin doctors like it or not, there are media commentators and editors with clear sectarian agendas. Their ability to distort police information and evidence has led to a tide of feeling in parts of the broader community against any group deemed responsible for terrorism. A sample of the explosive results could be seen at Cronulla last December.

Some motives mentioned by participants in the Cronulla riots (as shown on the ABC Four Corners program on 13 March 2006) illustrate the risks of allowing police information to fuel prejudice. One participant named Luke makes the following remark: “I want this government to stop the growing threat. And I want them to stop appeasing Islam. And to stop appeasing people that follow Islam.”

All this may seem unrelated to Mr Keelty’s warnings. Yet misinformation-fed fear of terrorism adds fuel to sectarian fires. The following dialogue sums this up.

LIZ JACKSON: What about reconciling? I mean, a lot of groups have put some effort down here into reconciliation.

LUKE: Sure, sure. But the monster's just going to go somewhere else. It'll rear its head somewhere else. There's always going to be that threat. And I think that paranoia will become part of society forever. Like, as far as I can see. And I don't - I think that's here to stay.

LIZ JACKSON: And what threat? What is the threat you're talking about?

LUKE: Terrorism, you know? It's terrorism.

When paranoia and social division reach such fevered pitch, the terrorists have already won half the battle. Yet given the tendency of even senior government ministers to reinforce existing sectarian prejudice, it is unlikely Keelty’s warnings will be heeded.

The author is a Sydney lawyer and writer.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006