COMMENT: Truth, lies & the Jerusalem Prize ...

On the May 7 episode of ABC TV's Q&A show, there was an interesting exchange between author Randa Abdel Fattah and columnist Greg Sheridan.

GREG SHERIDAN: I don't believe criticism of Israel is generally labelled as anti-Semitism. I reject absolutely the proposition of the question. However, I do think anti-Semitism has swept back both into the western world and the Arab world. Many scholars have examined anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Notorious tsarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is meant to show Jewish conspiracy to control the world, figures prominently on Egyptian television, in Saudi Arabia and so forth. You Google the Hamas Charter, you'll see that the Jews control the Rotary Clubs and the Lions Clubs in order to enact their vicious conspiracies and so forth. It's perfectly legitimate to criticise Israel, as it is any other nation, when it does something wrong. But the insane, absolutely over the top emotional hostility towards Israel from people who couldn't care less about 300,000 Darfuries, aren't fussed about the status of women in Saudi Arabia, couldn't give a bugger about the 300,000 people in North Korean gulag, but Israel somehow is their enemy - there is something going on there which is psychological and very nasty.

TONY JONES: Randa?

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH: I totally disagree with that. I know you've said before that being anti-Israel is fundamentally irrational and evidence of psychological and ideological dysfunction...

GREG SHERIDAN: I've never said that. No, I've never said that.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH: When you accepted the Jerusalem Prize for being a supporter of Israel...

GREG SHERIDAN: Yeah. Yeah. I never said that Randa. That's just untrue.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH: Well, I...

GREG SHERIDAN: That's a lie, Randa. That's a lie.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH: I've got it in print. I'll show you after the show.

GREG SHERIDAN: Yeah, well it may be in print, but I never said it, I can tell you that.

Mr Sheridan said that he never said these words. His column on 3 May 2007 must have been a figment of our collective imaginations. Here are some excerpts:

... recently I did get a remarkable piece of mail. It told me that if I would
accept, I would be awarded the Jerusalem Prize.

Sponsored jointly by the Israeli Government and the local Jewish community, it is awarded to people who have supported Israel conspicuously.

Since I believe that Israel is a democracy in good standing I was delighted to accept the award, which has been won by sundry heads of government, foreign ministers, social democrat and conservative European politicians and many others over the years ...

Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are all different, yet they are all intimately related. They draw from diverse sources, yet they are all, in their virulent forms, fundamentally irrational and evidence of psychological and ideological dysfunction rather than genuine analysis.

And so, as I look outside my window and admire the latest fleet of Qaantas pigs taking off, I cannot help but wonder why Randa could tell such clear and obvious lies on national television.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Bolt's brain-dead buddies ...

After following Andrew Bolt's blog commenters for some months, it's clear to me that a prerequisite for commenting on minority ethnic or religious groups is failing an IQ test. There are some seriously stupid people leaving comments on Bolt's blog. Why does he entertain them? Is he hoping to feel more sensible by surrounding himself with stupid people?

Bolt's least favourite minority group is ... well ... it's hard to say. I've never read him say anything nice about Somalis, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and/or Muslims. So in a typical post about nasty Muslims allegedly accusing Christians of being racist, Bolt allows the following beauties to pass his moderation test:

A ‘phobia” is having an irrational fear of something.
When you look around the globe and see that the majority of atrocities involve muslims and someone else, having a fear of muslims is entirely “rational”.

So Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc are NOT Islamophobic!
Even in predominantly muslim countries like Pakistan, there are daily atrocities of muslims killing other muslims. Look at the ethnic cleansing of black african muslims who aren’t on the same scale as other muslims.
Islam IS the PROBLEM.
geoff from the west (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (03:43pm)

Those wretched Muslim suicide bombers controlling the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. And what about the FARC Islamic militia? Islam is the problem. Not violence. Not terror. Not extremism. Believing in one God and praying 5 times a day (something many Muslims don't do) is the problem.

But here's my favourite. Nothing like an injection of some good old-fashioned bestiality.

Koran justified beheadings, suicide explosive murderers and clerical rules for fornication with livestock.....but Who Cares?

You have a PR problem, dhimmi.
TT (Reply) Sun 05 Apr 09 (04:04pm)

Is this TT fellow accusing Muslims of being a bunch of Kiwis? Anyway, as it's the season for economic meltdowns, try this for sensible economic analysis:

Nick Charles replied to winston
Sun 05 Apr 09 (08:52pm)

There are no impoverished Western countries, you dork. That’s because they were all founded on Christian principles. They’re only becoming poor - both spiritually and economically - now they’re post-Christian. But they at least still have strong armies, that’s why they don’t get invaded (except via multicultural immigration).

No, brainstrust, Muslims invade weak impoverished countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia. Recent enough for you? ...

You really need to get out more ...

Yes, we need to get out more. As in outside the Milky Way and onto whichever planet Nick Charles is living in. Christian countries all rich? I could start by asking what on earth is a Christian country, but let's assume Nick refers to countries the majority of whose occupants see themselves as belonging to a Christian denomination.

The last time I checked, Central and South America were not regarded as part of the Third World. Neither were the Philippines, East Timor, Haiti, Iceland, Ethiopia, Armenia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Croatia or Georgia. Israel has a very strong currency, but it isn't exactly a Christian country.

But why are we even talking about this stuff anyway? Who cares about whether following a particular religion brings prosperity or not? What kind of imbecilic forum would host such an imbecilic discussion?

Why, Andrew Bolt's online forum, of course.



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: AAP's Arabic language skills on show ...

AAP reported a story about a Nigerian man who married 86 women and kept them simultaneously as wives. The man was being prosecuted by one of Nigeria's state sharia courts which implement sections of Islamic sacred law. In the case of Muhammadu Bello Masaba, the 84-year-old with 86 wives, the relevant sharia court judge has ordered that his case be referred to a secular magistrates' court.

The AAP also reported (emphasis mine) that ...

The case of Masaba, an Islamic cleric, captured public attention some three months ago when he admitted to having 86 wives.

The revelation attracted sharp criticism and indignation from Islamic clerics with the Jama'atu Nasril Islam (JNI), the Nigerian Muslim umbrella body that slammed a fatwa, or death sentence, on Masaba.

The word fatwa has been translated as "death sentence". I'm not sure where AAP managed to generate or manufacture this translation.

Even someone with the most elementary knowledge of Arabic knows that the term fatwa has little or no relation to death. The Arabic word for death is mawt, and the word for killing is qatl. Neither of these words have an relation to fatwa.

Indeed, the term fatwa refers to an influential but non-binding legal opinion on the application of Islamic sacred law to novel situations. Islamic sacred law's criminal jurisdiction does contain a small number of offences carring capital punishments, known as hudood. Little novelty is involved in these areas of criminal law.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: On the moderation of racist and bigotted comments on blogs Part I

To what extent should bloggers be held responsible (whether legally or morally) for comments left on their blogs? This is an extremely contentious issue, and one I've previously written about in a piece for Crikey which can be found here.

Amateur bloggers (such as yours truly) don't have the time and resoyrces to immediately deal with offensive, defamatory or racist comments. In the case of the Planet Irf blog, the period between offensive comments being posted and removed can be days if not hours. But what about well-resourced blogs?

I now want to explore a few blogs where I've featured from time to time. The first blog I wanted to examine is Tim Blair's blog on the Daily Telegraph website, published by Rupert Murdoch's Nationwide News. The website is owned by News Digital Media Pty Limited.

Paragraph 13 of the website's Terms & Conditions states ...

Contributing Content

13. When you submit content to News in any format, including any text ..., you grant News a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual license to publish that content ...

15. You warrant that you have all of the necessary rights, including copyright, in the content you contribute, that your content is not defamatory and that it does not infringe any law.

16. You indemnify News against any and all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by News as a result of a breach of the above warranty.

These terms don't state that the owner of the site has no liability for comments posted on blogs which are defamatory or infringe anti-discrimination, racial vilification or other laws. Rather, they state that, should a plaintiff commence legal proceedings against News Limited, Nationwide News, the editor, the blogger and/or other entities associated with he website, News Limited can seek indemnity from the person posting the comment.

The publisher's liability in this regard is also affected by the comment publication guidelines which include:

4. News will determine, at its discretion, whether to publish (or remove from a site) any of your content ...

7. News may edit your content in its discretion.

8. You warrant that: ...

(d) your content, your provision of your content to News and the use by News of your content, in each case as contemplated in these terms and conditions, does not breach any law (including laws relating to privacy, intellectual property and defamation) or the rights of any person;

10. On providing your content to News for publication in any media, you indemnify News and its officers, employees and agents against any damage or loss made against or suffered by any of those indemnified arising, in whole or in part, as a result of:
(a) the publication by News or a person permitted by News of your content; or
(b) a breach by you of these terms and conditions.

From all these guidelines, terms and conditions, we can reach the following conclusions:

a. The publishers of the site are legally responsible for comments submitted to and published on blogs.

b. The publishers and any employees responsible for moderating comments, as well as their editor-supervisors, are legally liable for any defamation or other breach of law.

This is the legal liability situation. But what about issues relating to journalism ethics? And balancing freedom of speech with freedom from vilification? What do we make of comments being moderated and allowed onto blogs and stories notwithstanding the fact that they promoting ethnic-based violence?

To be continued ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

CRIKEY: New SBS show mired in muslim stereotypes ...

There’s more to the SBS documentary Embedded With Sheik Hilaly than just the documentary itself. The embedded person was 26 year old Dave Zwolenski from Brisbane. Yet Dave was drafted by SBS almost at the last minute.

The original star of the show was to be Melbourne stand-up comic and youth worker Mohammed el-Leissy, formerly of the Fear Of A Brown Planet fame and now about to launch an on-stage comedic gameshow called Who Is Abdul Smith at this year’s Melbourne Fringe Festival. El-Leissy first heard about the proposed documentary via a social networking site. He applied successfully for a role starring in the show, and was flown upto Sydney some 4 times, including a 2-month stint during which he approached various Muslim sects and their leaders. He also visited Camden to visit local Muslims.

El-Leissy told Crikey he’d developed an extensive list of Sydney Muslim contacts which he handed to the producers. The original idea was for El-Leissy to embed himself with more radical imams such as Sheik Abdussalam Zoud.

El-Leissy was to "hang out with rough guys, go on jihad camps and similar stuff". On one occasion, the producers asked him to attend a male-only barbecue where he’d accuse Zoud’s crowd of being sexist before asking why no women were present. El-Leissy refused, believing such questions just played into stereotypes (heck, why can’t a bunch of Aussie blokes have a bbq without sheilas spoiling the fun?). He explained this to the producers, who said that if he couldn’t ask these questions, they had a non-Muslim guy who would. They then sacked El-Leissy.

As it turned out, their Brisbane chap also didn’t get a chance to even appear with Zoud, let alone ask these tough questions of his young male followers. El-Leissy says that Zoud’s crowd wouldn’t touch the show with a 10-foot barge pole.

Still, when you can’t convince anyone to participate in a caricatured picture of Muslims, you can always rely on human headlines like Sheik Hilaly and his interpreter. Their attempts to justify Hilaly’s catmeat comments were just painful to watch, as were the attitudes expressed by other more conservative Muslims on the show.

Narrator Dave said his goal was "to understand what being a Muslim is really like". In relation to issues like marriage and gender relations, I doubt any but the most conservative of culturally Lebanese Muslims would relate to what Dave discovered.

The Age reviewer wasn’t terribly happy with the show accusing its makers of “entrenching prejudices and ignorance”. The tiny number of Hilaly-lovers congregating on this online forum were much more upbeat about the show.

Words Copyright © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

CRIKEY: No prejudice at the Courier Mail, just bloody Muslims ...

On Saturday, the Editor of the Courier Mail David Fagan addressed a Brisbane journalism conference organised by the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA). My notes from the conference show Fagan declaring that newspaper journalism consists of great pictures with good words attached. As if readers want the kind of stuff Little Golden Books were made of. Fagan also declared that his paper was not in the business of inciting prejudice.

On the same day, buried on Page 22 of the Courier Mail, was a story headed "Muslim game outrage". The headline on the online edition was "Anti-Muslim computer game stirs wave of anger". On the Saturday archive index, the headline is "Computer game riles Muslims".

Yep, no prejudice here. Just another story about those bloody Muslims yet again getting angry (and possibly violent) about being criticised. Heck, why be offended by a computer game where players get to engage in "modern religious genocide"? What's wrong with a game about "killing as many Muslims as possible, ranging from terrorists and civilians to Osama bin Laden, even the prophet Mohammed and Allah"? As if Jews or Christians would be offended by a game about massacring them.

But Mr Fagan will insist that the various headlines to this story weren't written to generate such responses. Try believing that once you've read the 100-plus comments left on the Courier Mail website, the bulk of which refer to Muslims getting unnecessarily sensitive, hating free speech, invading our country, killing us if they had a chance, why don't they get as angry as when one of them blows up a church? etc etc.

The game's developer describes it as intending to

... mock the foreign policy of the United States and the commonly held belief ... that Muslims are a hostile people to be held with suspicion.

In other words, it was all satire, a case of Team America becoming Game America. Just like the Lindsay pamphlet, only worse. At least one computing magazine disagrees.

The game's instructions made reference to the "Muslim race". The developer now says he doesn't believe Muslims have racial or genetic defects. I sure hope no one at the Courier Mail believes this either, even if their ultimate employer seems to.

First published in the Crikey daily alert for Monday 15 September 2008.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Why the Pope cares more about sexual abuse victims than some News Limited editors ...

Certain columnists and editorial writers from The Australian and other News Limited newspapers has been complaining about ABC Lateline's reporting of the mishandling of sexual abuse complaints made by victims and their families to the Catholic church. Apparently in their eyes, reporting on such matters on the eve of World Youth Day represents an attack on all Catholics and an attempt to tarnish a week of religious festivities for Catholic pilgrims who have gathered in Australia from across the world.

You can catch a summary of that criticism at the ABC Media Watch website here. You can also read a rather sad attempt at a critique of Media Watch here.

Some people at The Oz think that criticising Catholic clergy on the eve of World Youth Day represents an assault on WYD pilgrims and Catholics in general. They seem to think that Catholics are so sensitive that they are unable to handle such reporting. They also assume that Catholics, by and large, are quite happy with the way the Church handles sexual abuse by clergy.

I can understand devout Catholics like Angela Shanahan asking why such matters should be covered at this stage. However, for The Oz editorial writers to ask such questions is sheer hypocrisy.

The Oz editorial writers and columnists had no hesitation in pilloring Hilaly when he made comments disparaging of rape victims. The Oz never cared about the fact that the breaking of its story virtually coincided with Muslims celebrating the holiest day of their religious calender - the Feast of Purity (Eid al-Fitr) to commemmorate the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.

Worse still, The Oz sheeted the blame for Hilaly's comments to Muslims themselves. Neither ABC Lateline nor Media Watch suggested that ordinary Catholics should be held responsible for the insensitive remarks of Bishop Fisher about the rape victims and their parents.

Indeed, when I suggested that reporting overkill in The Oz was making it harder for ordinary Muslims to pressure imams and religious leaders to remove Hilaly, The Oz editorial accused me of seeking to cover up "Islamic excesses" and even claimed I condoned the kind of radical speech that led to bombings in London and Madrid and the assassination of Theo Van Gogh.

The Oz editorialists aren't against bashing of believers. Nor are The Oz editorialists concerned about defending rape victims. Rather The Oz editorialists will only defend the sentiments of believers it selects. However, The Oz editorialists are happy to do to Hilaly exactly what they accuse the ABC of doing to the Catjolic church.

I urge The Oz editorialists to grab a copy of the al-Mawrid and look up the meaning of the Arabic word nifaaq.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Is John Howard linked to al-Qaeda?

Sydney readers beware! Osama bin Ladin's minions is on the prowl, seeking recuits for his grand jihad.

The Herald-Sun reports of ...

... a weekend recruitment drive by Muslim extremists espousing the teachings of Osama bin Laden.

The Hun also provides this amazing insight into the workings of anti-terrorist agencies:

Terrorist recruitment tactics have been in the spotlight since eight young professionals were arrested over the latest wave of UK bombings.

So until that thankfully-incompetent chap was found burning and screaming "Allah" at Glasgow, no one in the intelligence community bothered about how terrorist groups and cells recruit members.I can just imagine ASIO chief Paul O'Sullivan telling his researchers and operatives: "OK, fellas. I've just read in the Hun that a bomb's gone off. Let's find out how these people recuit!".

And what sophisticated methods are used by al-Qaeda to recruit in South Western Sydney? The Hun offers this insight:

Flyers for the event, the Islam Mercy to the Worlds Conference, have been dropped in cafes and restaurants around Sydney's southwest.

Mick Keelty had better send some of his blokes down to some of these places to watch these well-trained operatives in action.

With so much exclusive information, why would the Hun need to contact the organisers?

Conference organisers did not return the Herald Sun's calls last night.

I wonder why.

So what links these loud-mouthed and irrelevant imams to al-Qaeda? The Hun says they are ...

... devoted to bin Laden's poisonous brand of Islam, Wahhabism.

Wahhabism also happens to be the official religion of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is also the sect followed and promoted by one of Mr Howard's closest friends in Aussie Muslim circles. The Hun article refers to the young Sydney graduate Kamal Taleb who

... returned to Australia after 15 years in a Saudi Arabian seminary devoted to fundamentalism.

I know Taleb personally. He studied at the Islamic University of Madina in Saudi Arabia. Mr Howard's friend facilitated Taleb's enrolment and even wrote him a reference.

I guess, using the Hun's logic, John Howard is directly linked to al-Qaeda. So am I. And because you are reading this article, so are you!

I'm no fan of Wahhabism. But seriously, to claim all Wahhabis are linked to OBL is as lame as suggesting all Irish Catholics were and are linked to Sinn Fein. Or suggesting all Tamils are linked to the LTTE.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007