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

Sobering Thoughts On An allegedly American Newspaper

Last Saturday night I had an interesting conversation in Canberra with a group of people who had gotten together to support that progressive bunch known as the Canberra Islamic Centre. Amongst them was a gentleman who had something to do with media.

I made a flippant throwaway reference to an American newspaper that likes to call itself The Australian. I was expressing my frustration at one section of The Oz which provides voice to some of the ugliest views I have ever read since I arrived in Australia as a wee toddler.

Going to school as virtually the only non-Anglo kid at Ryde East Public, I heard lots of nonsense in the playground from other kids. But the taunts I received then were nothing compared to some of the things I read in the columns of Janet Albrechtsen and others claiming to represent conservative thinking.

The fellow I spoke to claimed not to recall the good Doctor making any extreme reference to Muslim cultures. I reminded the chap of Dr Albrechtsen’s claim that Victoria looked like it was on the verge of becoming an Islamic state because of its religious vilification legislation. I also reminded him of the comments she made in relation to the gang rapes that took place in south western Sydney.

I got the feeling my converstaion partner may have had some link with The Oz and appeared to be offended by my suggestion that a newspaper he associated with was printing views which, if said about Jews and Judaism, would be deemed anti-Semitic.

I hope he goes back and reads some of the offending columns and considers the impressions that the promotion of such lunatic-fringe ideas has on even the most conservative people for whom Islam forms perhaps a minor part of their identity.

The gentleman certainly had far more enlightened views about non-Christian religions (if he didn’t, why on earth would he be attending a fundraising dinner for an Islamic centre?). To his credit, the gentleman did provide me with some food for thought which I felt should be shared with readers.

He explained that each section of the paper has its own editors who have separate briefs and engage their own regular contributors. These contributors are given a certain amount of latitude and are deliberately chosen because they represent a certain element of the public conversation.

There is a significant monoculturalist element of the public conversation which wants to read criticisms of matters associated with Muslim cultures. Writers like Kevin Donnelly and Janet Albrechtsen cater for these people.

At the same time there are elements of the public conversation that want to read relatively less conservative and/or multiculturalist views. Writers like Phillip Adams and others cater for these.

He also pointed out that ugly views about certain non-Christian faiths and cultures are also printed in the Fairfax press. I agreed with him in the case of Paul Sheehan and Miranda Devine (and occasionally Gerard Henderson, though he is far more sophisticated in his analysis of sectarian issues).

He also suggested that much of the problem is not that of the paper but rather of those claiming to speak for Australia’s incredibly diverse Muslim communities. On this point, I doubt there can be any disagreement except from those representing the private interests of those benefiting from their continual domination of Muslim institutions.

I guess this is where government-sponsored multiculturalism has its limits. If, by multiculturalism, we mean governments spending money on organisations which then divert funds into private ventures then it is understandable for taxpayers of any denomination to find such activity inherently offensive.

In this regard The Oz has investigated and exposed both the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. But it has also exposed the Hillsong Church. If Islam or Pentecostal Christianity has reputation problems, this cannot be solely attributed to a few op-eds in a newspaper.

Perhaps the most important point the gentleman made is that what gets printed in different sections of a newspaper may or may not represent the entire newspaper. He said that no mainstream newspaper from any camp (Fairfax or News Limited) has a single ideological agenda. Rather, the newspapers try to reflect the national conversation and break news stories that readers want to read.

Further, often a newspaper’s op-ed section will enable the views of certain writers to be projected further so as to counter-balance the perceived biases of a competing newspaper and so as to differentiate itself from its competitors.

In the current environment, with anything remotely related to Islam being painted as violent and ugly, it is sometimes easier for those of us who don’t feel the urge to hate the faith and all its followers to presume every attack is part of some agenda. Conspiracies often make excellent self-fulfilling prophecies.

But we have to learn to be careful not to demonise media outlets just because they give space to those who demonise us. Because chances are the same outlet gives space to the demonising of just about everyone else.

(A version of this was first published on The Webdiary.)

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

The Daily Telegraph's Disgraceful Front Page Headline

In April 2005, I had something published in a Sydney newspaper about a Sydney sheik who said women who dressed a certain way are eligible to be raped.

I promised myself I would never write anything related to “Muslimy” issues again. The last thing I wanted was to be known as the media’s “village Muslim”. Heck, there are so many other things to write about.

Then the London bombing came along. People claiming to represent me and 300,000 other people who, amongst other things, happen to have Islam as their religion were saying all sorts of crazy things.

Australians were naturally scared, especially with those responsible for the bombing thought to be kids born and bred in the UK. With the exception of leaders in Victoria and ACT, those claiming to represent Muslims were not saying or doing much to alleviate people’s fears. Their inaction forced my hand and my pen.

With John Howard and Peter Costello harping on about Muslim extremists more than Muslims “harp on” (to use Mr Howard’s phrase) about jihad, I now find myself in the same situation.

But this time, my concern isn’t so much about the words of greying politicians in dark suits. I’m angry about a headline.

A young Australian girl of Turkish background falls in love with a young guy and has been in a relationship with him for 4 years. Her terminally-ill mother disapproves of the relationship, and the young girl succumbs to a psychiatric condition which leads her to make a number of calls to Carlingford Court. The calls were in fact bomb threats.

The girl pleads guilty and her solicitor calls evidence from a psychiatrist. I am not sure if Dr Russell White was the girl’s treating psychiatrist, but I’m not sure if it really matters. He is qualified to give his report, and his evidence is accepted by the magistrate and not opposed by the prosecutor.

According to Dr White, this girl’s psychiatric condition has two causes. First, there is her mother’s terminal illness. Second, there is the parental pressure relating to the relationship.

Yet for reasons unknown, this psychiatric condition is reported on the front page of this newspaper with the headline as “Muslim Legal Excuse”. The article suggests that submissions made by her solicitor were incredulous. Hardly one sentence from solicitor Jonathan Anton’s submissions have been quoted with a view to showing that the act of making bomb-threats and the subsequent allegedly poor excuses were allegedly “Muslim” behaviour.

The newspaper has defamed the girl. It has also defamed her boyfriend, her parents, her psychiatrist and her lawyer.

Further, the newspaper has engaged in breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974. It has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in trade and commerce by falsely attributing certain criminal conduct to Muslim culture.

It is one thing to speak of a clash of cultures. It is another to describe criminal conduct and its explanation as a “Muslim legal excuse”.

The headline represents an insult to all persons who happen to be of Muslim background.

Perhaps my colleague, Mr Anton, might consider advising the young lady to pursue action against the newspaper.

The editor and sub-editor of the paper have behaved irresponsibly in relation to both the headline and the editing of the story. If the girl happened to be Jewish, I doubt they would place as a headline “Jewish Legal Excuse”.

I believe that, should the paper be found to have defamed the girl, damages would be quite substantial. She is already suffering stress as a result of the circumstances outlined in her psychiatrist’s report. Now to have her name and reputation tarnished purely because of her family’s religious background will be a cause of even greater stress.

The Daily Telegraph, its editors and its publishers should be held accountable for their gross misconduct and complete lack of professionalism. It saddens me to say this given that the newspaper has allowed a small number of nominally Muslim voices (including my own) to be printed on its pages. But in the current environment, with Australian Muslims feeling the heat from all sides, the media must learn to behave responsibly.

And if they will not learn voluntarily, they may have to learn through the prospect of court action.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006