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