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
No comments:
Post a Comment